POLL: Evil Alignment, But Playing "Good"?

Remove all ads!

I always saw it as an "ends-means" equation for most evil alignments, and the heart of evil in D&D is selfishness. Regardless of motivations, any half-intelligent evil character is not just going to kill everything that moves for the hell of it (although I'd never heard the term "chaotic stupid" - good one, joacquin!). There will be times when any power-/money-hungry individual will know that being popular (reputation) is far more important than mere wealth. One need only look at Sarevok in BG1 for an example of that. His motives are selfish, but to get what he wants, he needs to manipulate and abuse a system which requires him to appear to be the saviour of the people. Same goes for Senator Palpatine in the new Star Wars flicks. That he orchestrates everything behind the scenes for his own gain is what makes him evil.

I like the idea about alignment change - anyone who's played BG2 will be very familiar with that concept. People change as they go along, and redemption/falling from grace should be an element of the game as well, I think. That said, alignment is meant to be a guide, not a straightjacket. In 2nd ed you could change alignments, but you suffered an XP penalty (need double XP to reach your next level, representing failure, self-doubt, reflection, becoming used to the new self and finally moving forward). It becomes harder and harder to change as you go further, but you don't become weaker for it - it just takes a while to become comfortable with one's new outlook and attitude.

From a programming perspective, if event X occurs and there are a number of possible responses (let's say A, B and C), and an evil character makes a selfless, risky attempt to do the good thing without any outside pressure (option A), then the possibility of alignment change should be included. Maybe a counter system could track this and alter alignment accordingly (although mainly on the axis of good/neutral/evil rather than law/chaos) - enough points will make a good character become neutral or evil (or vice versa), and it would introduce a real RPing challenge for the neutral PC of balancing good and evil. Not sure if a penalty should exist in the game; the XP penalty is a bit onerous, and most games are geared towards a good protagonist anyway.

IIRC, Planescape had a limited alignment-change element in it - can someone confirm or deny that? It's been quite a while since I've played it.

 

The mod Virtue attends to the very things many of you are talking about.

1) Rather than the traditional rep system, there's two categories. 1 for rep (how the public views you) and 1 for virtue (how moral or immoral your actions are). So that means you can murder anyone you want, and as long as no one sees you, all the peasants don't turn hostile, and your repuatation doesn't suffer, only your virtue.

2) Virtue affects party members, so if your rep is high, but virtue is low, good party members will book it. Vice versa for evil NPC's.

3) You alignment will change according to your virtue. if it goes below 7, you're Neutral Evil. IIRC, 12 is True Neutral. Above that is Neutral Good. (BTW, this is only from memory, and it's been awhile).

 

I would like to try Virtue, as I always considered stupid the way in which alignments were treated in the BG series.

I played Arcanum recently and enjoyed the possibility of being "smartly evil" without receiving punishment. For example, you can accept a quest from a mage to destroy a steam engine. After you do it, and if you are not discovered, you can go to the town major and accept a quest to repair that same steam engine! Being evil really pays off.

 

Planescape did have an alignment change system. Lying was chaotic, taking oaths was lawful, and obviously threats and murder were evil, or demanding money for things, while giving up rewards and the like was good.

SPOILER

I acted so good the whole game I let that killer robot escape and didn't change alignment

 

That is someting I cannot understand. Why is requesting payment for a service considered a "questionable act" in so many games? Being a mercenary does not mean that one is evil.

Interestingly enough, paladins refuse any payment for their deeds because they work for a greater good, but the churches they belong to demand that you pay for their healing/restoring services. I wonder if paladins charge a standard fee to lay on hands to non NPCs... "Thine health hast been restored. Now methinks thou owest me the sum of one and thirty gold coins, with three coppers..."

 

"... failure to pay this debt will result in the re-emergence of those wounds I just healed."

I guess in Baldur's Gate you don't need payment for the quest because it usually involves killing someone/something and taking their stuff afterwards. Usually the stuff you loot is worth more than your cliet was going to pay you anyway.

 

I'm a little two sided on this, I believe the character should follow their allignment true or even be restricted during the first few chapters or levels, but after (or DCing) this they should have the freedom to change, as most chacters do.

@NonSequitur: Great idea of allignment changing with actions within the game, maybe extra exp should be awarded for actions outside your existing allignment e.g; Lawful good murders innocent person and looses steps of allignment (maybe chaotic good) but gets a 25% bonus due to it being out of character.