GameBanshee Forums

I don't see why doing Evil deeds would have a different and more drastic effect on your Alignment than Good deeds... Why would a Good person that commits a single Evil deed become Evil, but not the other way around? Even worse, not even an Evil person that commits lots of Good deeds (or even only Good deeds)) becomes Good. Someone care to explain?

@xyx, What about Viconia? Apart from the hell test BG 1&2 have no alignment change in any direction. A Paladin or Ranger has to watch reputation but doesn't change alignment when losing class specific abilities. The game is set up to be good focused so the whole evil doing good thing doesn't usually become a problem. In PnP the main difficulty with running an evil party is stopping them from extinguishing all life in a mileu (i.e. being good scarcely comes up). - Curdis

I think that the basic idea is that your traits are magnified and solidified in hell. As someone mentioned earlier D&D is based on a strict Good, Neutral, Evil system. In Hell, Neutral goes pretty much out the window, you're forced to stop equivocating. Think of the test with Sarevok as a part of Return of the Jedi. Hear me out here. Remember when the Emporer tries to get Luke to strike down Darth Vader in hatred, knowing that doing so will condemn him to evil? Remember how he doesn't in the end? Likewise, Sarevok is trying to get you to strike him down in anger. If you do...you're no better than Luke killing Vader in anger.
With the genie, it's a little bit more clear; the implication is clearly that killing him is evil. It brings up the question of "can good be the end result of an evil action?"
With Minsc, note that on higher levels, the victim is permanently dead. That should be your litmus test for this test.
The one with the cloak is pretty clear, do I really need to explain that?
And finally, the dragon one. First thing's first, the dragon is in hell. Meaning that it CAN'T go out to ravage the countryside, or if it can, you're killing an apparition of it that isn't the real thing. Despite the fact that it's a colored dragon (rather than a metallic one) and is therefore evil, it hasn't actually done anything. We don't arrest people because they might do something do we? And finally, as Sarevok so clearly puts it at the beginning of TOB, the only reason he's there (and the dragon as well) is because YOU dreamed them up and summoned them

As Shaw once wrote, the nice thing about evil is, you can do whatever you like without getting worse. But if you're good, you climb ever higher, and the slope gets ever slipperier.

These threads always provoke the same discussion. Nevertheless, it never seems to reach a conclusion and is quite interesting, so...

Originally posted by Curdis:
<STRONG>Apart from the hell test BG 1&2 have no alignment change in any direction.</STRONG>

So are you saying that whatever alignment-related mechanics are in BG are half-baked at best?

That certainly seems to be the case.

Remember the interesting and rather, ah, intense debate about the debt to Sarevok? That was based on an obviously shaky implementation of alignment and choices, and elicited quite the response.

Originally posted by Masteraleph:
<STRONG>Think of the test with Sarevok as a part of Return of the Jedi. Hear me out here. Remember when the Emporer tries to get Luke to strike down Darth Vader in hatred, knowing that doing so will condemn him to evil? Remember how he doesn't in the end?</STRONG>

Interesting you brought this up. Actually, there's two instances of what you describe going on.

Initially, the Emperor wants Luke to strike out at him (the Emperor himself), and Luke actually does that, although Vader parries his strike on behalf of the Emperor.

When the fighting is done, Luke stands over Vader, deciding whether to kill him or not. Here, Luke finally regains full self-control and decides to spare Vader.

Luke gave in to his anger, although he came out of it. Does this make him Evil?

If I give in to my anger when faced with Sarevok, but later repent having done so and decide to do something Good to attone (saving the peasant in the Selfishness test), am I Evil?

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>the nice thing about evil is, you can do whatever you like without getting worse. But if you're good, you climb ever higher, and the slope gets ever slipperier.</STRONG>

Depends on how you look at it, I think. There appear to be two main concepts of "Good & Evil".

There's the "if it's not Good, it's Evil" version. This seems to be what you describe. If actions or intentions are not geared towards the well-being of others (in that they are selfish), they are Evil. Being Neutral here must mean not caring about others, but not doing anything that endangers their well-being either. A tricky path.

Then there's the "Evil is the exact opposite of Good" version. Thinking about the well-being of others is Good. Not caring either way (or simply placing your own interests above others) is Neutral. Actually, consciously looking to harm others is Evil.

Let's take some not-so black and white examples:

Subject A truly cares about others and will not take advantage of anyone if presented the opportunity. However, he cares even more about himself, and is not willing to make any real personal sacrifices either.

Subject B is uncaring and selfish, but has no desire to cause suffering to others if he doesn't stand to gain anything by it. Saemon Havarian probably falls into this category, as do Korgan, Edwin and Vicky.

Subject C is caring, dedicated and self-sacrificing where his loved ones are concerned, but will do cruel things to others if they get in his way.

Subject D is a sadistic b@st@rd that enjoys causing pain and suffering, not to anyone in particular. D&D demons and really mean villains (Neb, most likely) fall under this category.

Obviously, D is clearly black & white Evil.

How about the other three?

What about Irenicus? He doesn't just go around commiting Evil acts for the sake of being Evil. For example, he claims he at least had some purpose in mistreating the inhabitants of Spellhold, contrary to Wanev (who would, therefore, in that respect, be more Evil than Irenicus). He even feels a certain streak of righteousness in his vengeance against Suldanesselar.

Opinions?

Luke gave in to his anger, although he came out of it. Does this make him Evil?

Not at all. He was trying to strike down a foe, and an evil one at that.

In BG2, the equivilent is the blackrazor test, which rightly switches you to evil if you take the sword. Unlike the example above, you're striking down a defenceless being, which has displayed no threat to you or anyone (it's imprisoned for one). By doing this you show you value yourself above anything, and that you are willing to kill for this purpose. Not because you needed to, but because you decided you'd rather have that object.

As the best example I could think of on the fly, imagine you run across say...the winning lottery ticket. The perso who owns it is looking for it in the same place and see you have it (they're a sprinter, so lets eliminate run ), so you can either return the ticket, or you could harm them in order to keep it. Wouldn't you consider this an evil act under *any* circumstances?

In relation to you "subject" tests, alignment isn't black and white, the game simply shows the way you lean. It should be very easy to lose your good alignment though, because simply commiting an evil act, has shown you are quite willing to do so. Why should you be good? Who could trust you? Until you had shown once again that you were truly worthy of say, their trust, you would not be good aligned.

The AD&D alignment system is very basic and very limited, but I think it makes a good enough job.

So are you saying that whatever alignment-related mechanics are in BG are half-baked at best?

That certainly seems to be the case


I would disagree strongly. The BG series uses rep over alignment, and frankly, that's the way it should be. Rep reflects exactly what you've done.

The BG manual does say that if you rep doesn't run close to your alignment, there could be consequences. Never heard of anything happening to people who don't play their alignment. Anyone know?

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Quitch ]

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Quitch ]

This discussion is fruitless since the game designers have only implemented the AD&D alignment rules, which are extremly strict. They are, however, highly unrealistic and create flat characters. If a sole selfish decision makes you become evil, nobody on earth could be considered "good". Anyways, it's not the fault of interplay. BG is just an AD&D game with AD&D rules.

@Trym, no argument there. I've been saying (and writing) that Gygax's whole alignment system was ridiculous literally since it first appeared. I suppose he wanted and needed *something* to create an easily measureable ethical barometer for all potential DMs and players, and as a result we're stuck with it.

@Xyx, I'm not saying I buy into the "fall once, and you're evil" theory of alignment. It's extremely superficial, and I've never used Gygax's system in any games I've setup, myself. But that's the way he built it, and that's the way they implemented it in BG2. For what it's worth.

@Xyx, 'Always ends in the same discussion which comes to no conclusion..' Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. It is sometimes the journey and not the result which is important. However I stand by what I said the game makes no change to alignment ->whatsoever<- outside of the Hell tests.

This makes the arguments about 'BG1&2 have implemented the very silly/strict/flat AD&D alignment rules' pretty funny as they haven't implemented them AT ALL.

Even with reputation - you can take your Paladin all the way down to 1 rep and you'll be fighter a ->Lawful Good<- fighter. You'll have a heap of cowled wizards/amnish guards on you tail, but you'll still be ->Lawful Good<-.

While it is not perfect and I have heard all sorts of objections to it over the years, I stand by the nine alignment system as I understand it. It works really well in PnP. Implementing it in a CRPG? That would be fabulous but soooo much harder than getting a dragon to react to traps and wands of cloudkill (etc.).

P.S. I became evil just after I replied to this topic the second time. - Curdis

Originally posted by Quitch:
<STRONG>It should be very easy to lose your good alignment though, because simply commiting an evil act, has shown you are quite willing to do so.</STRONG>

Can't Good people commit Evil acts without being "quite willing" to do so?

Originally posted by Curdis:
<STRONG>the game makes no change to alignment ->whatsoever<- outside of the Hell tests.</STRONG>

There's another one; Anomen.

His change is also suspect, though. He's practically pushed in the "right" direction by the protagonist, so any decision he makes that supposedly influences his alignment is not completely his own. Whether he chooses to kill Saerk or not is less relevant, since he has a bit of a weak and malleable character to begin with.

If being gullible or impressionable means being Evil, a lot of people are Evil...

In ToB, there's Vicky and Sarevok as well. These are actually implemented pretty well, IMO, since they change out of their own volition after seeing the right example.

Both are "living" proof that in BG one Evil deed does not permanently mark you as Evil, by the way...

Originally posted by Curdis:
<STRONG>I stand by the nine alignment system as I understand it. It works really well in PnP.</STRONG>

In AD&D, it's quite the straightjacket... In 3E, however, it becomes truly free. Alignment changes no longer carry the huge XP penalty anymore, and can be made just about whenever the player feels the time is there.

I think the Good - Neutral - Evil division works fine, for a game. The only problems I occasionally have with it is that it marks people that only think about themselves as Evil instead of possibly Neutral. Isn't "not caring more either way" the very gist of neutrality?

A fine example how to handle the alignment issue is Planescape Torment's system. The alignment of the Nameless One is determined by his actions and will(gradually) change - independant of his reputation.
Nonetheless, I agree that in ROLEplaying you should be acting as your character would. Consequently, you would have to reduce the gamer's free choice of how to maneuver throughout BG. A rather annoying option.
The Nameless One is a character who lost his memories, so his alignment has yet to develope. Very much so the Bhaalspawn who's gotta find his place in the world (or heavens). I guess, the alignment system of Plabescape Torment would have served BG better and would have given the game lots of new possibilties.

I think everyone should remember that your character is a Bhaalspawn, and therefore heavily susceptable to the evil nature of his (or her) blood. Giving in to the evil that created you would take hold, twisting you to evil purpose. Similar to Luke's desicion in Return of the Jedi. Wait a minute, did I not already say this? Oh yes. I did.

Originally posted by Trym:
<STRONG>in ROLEplaying you should be acting as your character would. Consequently, you would have to reduce the gamer's free choice of how to maneuver throughout BG. A rather annoying option.</STRONG>

IMHO, alignment should be made to fit the character's actions and motives, not the other way around...

@ styx

That's just what I'm saying. But in BG the alignment is constant, for instance even if a good character butchers everybody on sight. The alignment should (gradually) be determined by ALL of your actions, not (finally) by ONE.

Four post to this topic! I'm now irretr-evil-ably evil, Oh well. @Xyx my comment relates to the PC only. I already made the point about Viconia redeeming herself (forgot about Anomen though..Freudian) they are NPC's and not subject to PC alignment changes. Hell is the only place it happens.

Most misused quote in this discussion. 'Alignment is a tool, not a straightjacket', AD&D 2nd Edition Players Handbook. Alignment is a tool which should(shall) be used to guide role playing human beings to a better/happier/more enjoyable role playing experience. In CPRG (especially one which has a four question in hell alignment change mechanism only) like I said before Computer AI just isn't up to it. Except in a PST setting where every dialogue you do has a scripted alignment consequence. PST was far too much of a storyline/straitjacket deal to be generally implemented as an alignment engine.

Players who most disliked the AD&D alignment system seemed to like playing Chaotic characters more......(hmmmm - the mirror also observes) - Curdis.

Whoa!! Didn't expect this to turn into such a gigantic philosophical discussion! I just wanted some hints man!!

Originally posted by Luther the Hard:
<STRONG>Whoa!! Didn't expect this to turn into such a gigantic philosophical discussion! I just wanted some hints man!!
</STRONG>

Right. Next, you're going to try to convince us that you don't buy into a Gnostically structured dualistic concept of the universe, immanent in its presence and finite! *sneer*

Originally posted by Luther the Hard:
<STRONG>Whoa!! Didn't expect this to turn into such a gigantic philosophical discussion!</STRONG>

This topic invariably provokes that discussion. This certainly wasn't the first time, and I bet it won't be the last either. Have yet to see it slip by unnoticed.