Good or evil: what are you?

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 4:32 am

Originally posted by fable
I've never held with the simplistic D&D system set up years ago.

Ahh, Im not alone then, what a relief

In answer to the question i must admitt that in most CRPGs (Arcanum not included) I end up doing the "Best" thing, ie what gives most xp and best loot. And untill they start makeing CRPGs where it is possible to role-play i will probably continue to do so.

I loved the "Hub" area in fallout 1 where you ended up double-crossing just about everyone in the city

Stilgar · Post by **Stilgar** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 5:05 am

Originally posted by Sargoon
Far as i can see BG2 doesn't really support playing in an evil way.
The quests are almost all based on you being the goody goody hero and offer little freedom - usually the few evil solutions you have are way inferior to the good solutions (fewer xp, worse loot).

You could say that you do a quest like the Umar Hills
Good: To help the people in need.
Evil: To get a good reward!
But it is weird that you're going to help people in another village when you're main goal is to get imoen out!

Sargoon · Post by **Sargoon** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 6:17 am

Hehe, maybe stilgar - still it would have been better if it was possible to side with the shadow lord to conquer umar hills

limorkil · Post by **limorkil** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 12:51 pm

I agree that BG (1 and 2) really favors playing good. What annoys me most of all is that, generally, the best and most interesting NPCs are evil: Korgan, Viconia and Edwin - the best fighter, cleric and mage respectively. I think this is to make up for a good party having the advantage that 20 reputation gets you. It really annoys me that an 'evil' party has two choices:
- Roleplay an evil party and miss out on a lot of quests, xp and items - plus having really high merchant prices
- Roleplay a 'good' protagonist who just happens to have some evil companions, and then listen to them moan each time your reputation increases, plus having to manage reputation to keep it at 18 or less.

I've only being playing SOA for a couple of weeks. On my first attempt I had a mixed alignment party. It was a lot fun to hear them argue, but it didn't seem to make sense for my protagonist to have such a disfunctional party so I started again before I got very far. Now I have a good/neutral party: Keldorn, Anomen, Jaheira, Nalia, Jan and I have done most of the quests in the city, although I am still in chapter 2. The problem is that my party is SO boring. Keldorn and Anomen argue occasionally, and Jan sometimes joins in, but on the whole there isn't anywhere near as much in-party dialogue. I am also missing Viconia because her romance seemed interesting whereas Jaheira basically gets on my nerves (romance or otherwise). I don't think I can go back and add in Viconia because I think Keldorn or Anomen will probably kill her (both advised me not to let her join). I also sort of want Edwin because he was really funny when I met him, but Keldorn doesn't seem to like him either.

My point is that the evil NPCs seem a lot more interesting than the good ones, but I don't think the game really lets you play 'evil' properly. Plus you can't be an evil ranger or paladin, which is annoying.

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that they couldn't play evil because they'd probably kill too many innocent people and have zero reputation. My advice is to play lawful evil, because lawful evil people can have rules that moderate their behavior, such as a belief in not killing innocents (directly at least).

Personally, I think Lawful Good is the hardest alignment to play because there are so many times in the game where you have to break the law, such as fighting the slavers and helping the shadow thieves. Chaotic Good is probably the easiest, which is true for PNP D&D as well. I do agree that the whole alignment thing is very dated, although I noticed that the 3rd-edition D&D rules haven't changed it much.

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 1:01 am

It is an old sistem, but it's not that bad, as your alignment should be only a guideline, and then you're free to have your interpretation.
I doubt that a more complex sistem would add much, it would be only harder to play (in PnP at least).
My opinion!

Yet my patented Neutral-SuperGood alignment is really missing..

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 3:06 am

Originally posted by Littiz
It is an old sistem, but it's not that bad, as your alignment should be only a guideline, and then you're free to have your interpretation.
I doubt that a more complex sistem would add much, it would be only harder to play (in PnP at least).

I can assure you that it is quiet possible to benefit from a more complex system in PnP. Atleast the experiments I've had with such things have improved roleplay a great deal.

However, the systems siplicity is not my concern, but rather is very inacurrate representation of how the world and its population interact.

Gothmog · Post by **Gothmog** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 3:15 am

I've never held with the simplistic D&D system set up years ago.

Now waitaminute......

The alignment system set up by AD&D is only as simplistic as your DM. I think it's an excellant mirror for reality as you have two things to consider:

Morality (Good vs Evil)
and
Ethics (Law vs Chaos)

For a gaming system, how could you get any more usably elegant than that??

limorkil · Post by **limorkil** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 2:13 pm

I admit the AD&D alignment system is a simple and elegant way of expressing character differences. It's ideal for a computer game. If I was playing PNP I would want something with more depth, such as individual traits like honesty, honor, cruelty etc.

I started SOA/TOB again with a chaotic neutral F/T and I got the following party together ASAP: Korgan, Jaheira, Viconia, Edwin, Jan. I have to say they are a lot more fun than the good/neutral party I had before. The only thing I miss is someone that uses a bow, because right now only Viconia and Jan use missile weapons. Nalia's ability to use a shortbow made her very versatile, but then she could only summon 2 fire elementals whereas Edwin can summon FIVE.

Quitch · Post by **Quitch** » Fri Feb 15, 2002 5:46 pm

The flaw in AD&D is that you have to choose an alignment at the start of the game. That's wrong, that's restrictive and not good for role-playing. People don't choose what they want to be, they are defined by their actions.

AD&D turns this on its head, and suffers because of it.

Gothmog · Post by **Gothmog** » Fri Feb 15, 2002 5:57 pm

The flaw in AD&D is that you have to choose an alignment at the start of the game. That's wrong, that's restrictive and not good for role-playing. People don't choose what they want to be, they are defined by their actions.

And again, I say that is a flaw not in the gaming system, but with your DM. In my world, new characters don't have an alignment. New (1st level) characters have tendencies only. These are based on how and where the character grew up. Alignment is assigned (by me) around 4th level, based on how the character acts in the game. Alignment is also not something that is chosen or declard by the players, I keep a graph for each PC and their actions dictate their alignment, not vice-versa.

The thing you have to remember about AD&D is it's only a loose framework. The game must be "fleshed out" by the DM. If a lot of folks are playing a D&D game that is shallow in the role playing end, that's the fault of their DMs, not the game designers.

Phantom Lord · Post by **Phantom Lord** » Sat Feb 16, 2002 4:14 am

Originally posted by Quitch
The flaw in AD&D is that you have to choose an alignment at the start of the game. That's wrong, that's restrictive and not good for role-playing. People don't choose what they want to be, they are defined by their actions.

I agree completely. It's not the best solution to give a character an alignment at the start of the game and then try to behave within the ideals of that alignment no matter how the story goes.

Some GMs I know did actually consider alignment change according to a character's actions and if the players know this, it's an interesting solution. And those who've played Planescape Torment probably remember it's alignment engine, you start neutral and your alignment changes in the course of the game, depending which path you choose. BG2 does this only at one point - the test in hell - and the mechanism is a little too simple for my taste.

Quitch · Post by **Quitch** » Sat Feb 16, 2002 5:38 am

Originally posted by Gothmog

And again, I say that is a flaw not in the gaming system, but with your DM. In my world, new characters don't have an alignment. New (1st level) characters have tendencies only. These are based on how and where the character grew up. Alignment is assigned (by me) around 4th level, based on how the character acts in the game. Alignment is also not something that is chosen or declard by the players, I keep a graph for each PC and their actions dictate their alignment, not vice-versa.

The thing you have to remember about AD&D is it's only a loose framework. The game must be "fleshed out" by the DM. If a lot of folks are playing a D&D game that is shallow in the role playing end, that's the fault of their DMs, not the game designers.

Uh, no. That's a flaw in AD&D fixed by the DM. It's still a flaw, in AD&D. Is every flaw in AD&D rules then a flaw in the DM because they enforce them? So by your logic, AD&D is never wrong, the DM is?

Thats... interesting.

Gothmog · Post by **Gothmog** » Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:11 am

Is every flaw in AD&D rules then a flaw in the DM because they enforce them?

In a sense, yes. (and sorry for my longwindedness, but...)

You have to understand, I started playing this game in the mid 70's. It was called "Chainmail" then. I watched it evolve into D&D, and then AD&D, and the first edition AD&D set are the last "rulebooks" I purchased. I'm not sure if this is true in 2nd or 3rd edition DMGs, but in mine the book stresses over and over that NO rule is to be considered "carved in stone". The DM is actively encouraged to make whatever changes he or she feels adds to gameplay. The rules (ALL of them) are put down in their simplest and most basic form so the time it takes to learn how to play is short. As the campaign progresses rules are expanded, altered or dropped entirely as the DM sees fit.

My current PnP campaign just recently turned 20. (20 years of REAL time playing at least twice a month.) Two of my eight players are originals. On an interesting side note, my newest player is the actual son of one of my original player's girlfriend! At this point, some parts of my game bear little resemblance to the game described in the DMG. Other parts haven't changed at all. Each change was made, by me, to add to the realism and character development of the game. In my world, experience, gold and levels aren't as important as real, believable character development and interaction. Thus in my world, creating a character is a long and involved process. But I have to say, as much as I like my rule changes and as much as *I* think they add to the game, I'm sure a lot of people would find them unnecessarily complicated. I mean, if you're playing to quickly level up a character and kill Demon Lords and Arch Devils, why are you going to care about your character's childhood?

I guess the point I'm belaboring here is that if you look at ANY AD&D rule (first edition, remember) it's going to seem simplistic and underdeveloped, but it's supposed to be that way. Where it goes from there...is up to the DM.

It IS the longest lived, most popular RPG in the world, afterall. They musta done something right!

Gamaworld? I don't see anybody working on a revival.
Twilight 2000? (Hey! It's 2001!) No action there.
Car Wars? Why isn't somebody bringing that one back!? (It was a LOT of fun!)

But D&D is alive and doing well......

Quitch · Post by **Quitch** » Sat Feb 16, 2002 12:17 pm

LOL, I can see the game now

DM: OK so roll the D20 an...

Player: D20? What kind of crap system is this?

DM: Well it's in the rule you kn...

Player: Rules? They're guidlines! What the hell kind of DM are you?

DM: Well I was just going by the ru...

Player: In *my* group we play AD&D with house rules, in fact, after buying the manual we threw it away and created a NEW set of rules, then called it AD&D.

DM: But doesn't that mean AD&D sucks?

Player: Hell no, we just had the sense to realise all the rules needed changing. So you see it isn't AD&D that sucks, it's DMs that buy it and then use the AD&D rules.

DM: Uh...

Phantom Lord · Post by **Phantom Lord** » Sat Feb 16, 2002 12:36 pm

LOL!

We've played 2nd edition with skill & powers, combat & tactics and spells & magic rules, we were glad if we at least managed to remember all the existing rules, not to speak of character creation, which became a science of it's own.

With a custom rule set on top of this I guess the group would probably never have moved away from the starting point because of rule discussion ...

Gothmog · Post by **Gothmog** » Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:59 pm

Rule discussions??

You must be joking. When gametime roles around, the DM's word is law. And if a player has a problem with that, he or she is welcome to pack up their dice and play elsewhere.

I don't refer to the DM as the G(ame)O(verall)D(irector) just because I think it's clever.....