POLL: Should NPC alignments be visible?

Remove all ads!

Should it be possible (as is the case) to simply see the alignment of any NPC you have in your party, or would it be better if this remained unknown without some specific detection attempt?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 31 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Should NPC alignments be visible? (31 votes.)

Should NPC alignments be visible? (Choose 1)
* Alignments should be obvious. - 32% (10)
* Alignments should be unknown. - 68% (21)

 

It should be known. It's what makes BG2 different from ToEE - the game was balanced, re-evaluated, and made more appealing to the public since the average gamer usually doesn't play pen and paper.

In more ways than one this may be sacrilege to a devoted D&D player, but the success of BG2 proves otherwise.

Though truthfully you shouldn't be able to see the alignment of people until you get to know them better or cast alignment spells on them, this will serve more as an annoyance factor than help act out surprise especially in a game like BG2.
Besides, this was annoying enough in ToEE.

[ January 20, 2004, 15:23: Message edited by: Scythesong Immortal ]

 

I think knowing a character's alignment from the beginning forces you to judge a person unfairly. With exception, everyone knows that paladins are lawful good, druids are true neutral and rangers, for the larger part, are good aligned. We know this because those are requirements. Straying from those requirements, again with some exception, is due to circumstance and comes with great consequence.

If you bring a character along in your party, it's because of what they contribute to the party; not necessarily which direction their moral compass points. Edwin, for example, is an exceptional mage so a party that lacked or wanted a powerful spellcaster would recruit him for his skills. Only through his actions while within the party would you be able to determine his true nature and then comes a decision -- are you going to keep him because he is valuable to the party and has helped you tremendously in your travels or are you going to dismiss him because he is evil and, therefore, a possible threat to the party? The same holds true for Viconia. The Drow race is evil but her cleric abilities are unmatched amongst the other available choices for a cleric. She is also an outcast which means that she is not the typical Drow. On the same thread, Drizzt is Drow but is far from typical.

One of the things I liked abount PnP is that unless the players openly revealed everything about themselves, which was pretty unlikely, you learned about a person and during that time, you drew your own conclusions based on their actions; not by a preconceived notion.

"Judge not; lest ye be judged" I believe is the way the phrase goes.

 

It might have added a new dimension to the game if we didn't know.

 

It would make "Know aligment" -scrolls more useful, but since you have to play with the characters you choose for the rest of the game, I would prefer to know whetever or not the character are evil/neutral/good.

 

I think it should be unknown myself, firstly because I'm a staunch goody-two-shoes and I simply won't have an evil character in the group - thus, I don't really get a chance to enjoy them that much. I have played the evil characters but only for their side quest XPs, during which time I pretend I'm discovering what they are like. I always ask them about themselves i.e. check their bios; the evil guys quickly identify themselves! Another reason is that it simply shouldn't be seen, however much one might like the fact that it is. I think it would have added something if you had to cast know alignment on party members - for which the writers could have a few surprise reactions included. Casting such a spell is the height of mistrust of course - plus, in real terms, no one knows their own alignment e.g. Korgan might (read *would*) argue that everything he did was fully justified! So anyone a spell said was 'evil' would likely get all uppity to say the least. Maybe it would kill a romance or something.
[Edit] I've just thought: imagine if you cast the spell on a staunch good ally and he got angry and disappeared (written to do this automatically) with everything he was carrying. Then, later on, you get to see him again with another party, coming out of a dungeon. Perhaps he makes a casual remark and goes on his way. You go on, as normal and clear out the dungeon. Only when you had played the game several times, would you discover that there is more, and better treasure in that particular dungeon, if he had stayed with you i.e. your ex-party member and his companions cleared much of the treasure out! Perhaps you lose out on a superb magical weapon if you upset him!

[ January 20, 2004, 18:32: Message edited by: keldor ]

 

I say leave it as it is.

keldor > Why not just kill him and his fellows when they come out of the cavern and get your equipment back, plus all his companions AND their loot! Wiho. "Hack and slash your way to fortune!"

 

Because his friends are named Ao, Mystra, Tiamat, and Lothar.

You should probably know at least which way they should lean in their actions. No paladin in his right mind would want Korgan along, for example.

 

Guess fighting prowess is more easily noticed than alignment and same goes for spells. BTW, some spells have alignment comportment, so alignments could be guessed that way.

 

Duke Eltan, re the ex-party member: I was thinking that you might see him/her again in the manner that the game protagonist comes across Anath the werewolf at the Umar cave i.e. one of those where they quickly disappear.
Further to what Rastor said about paladins not *wanting* to adventure with Korgan, they aren't *allowed* to adventure with any evil persons.

 

I think it should be unknown, so you'd have to dive into the NPC behaviour more - enhacing roleplay, lessening powergaming.

 

There are exceptions but they all come down to saving the world and similar. Viconia romance wouldn't be a good excuse... or would, if you wished to convert her. With Korgan, that's definitely not the point and same for Edwin.

 

Not knowing someones alighnment right off the be best imo. It would do everything that's already been stated, plus it would make the game a true RPG, rather than an Action/Adventure game as it is for most people who play it, (The Powergamers).

 

I know this suggsetion would have made the game take longer to design etc. etc. but options to change more of the NPCs alignments would have been appreciated.

Korgan for example near the end has no real reason to stick around, yet he still does. Viconia *spoiler* admits she cared for her brother and didn't agree with killing the baby while serving as a priest obviously shows some early signs of possible redemption. Another problem I saw with Viccy was how open she was to admitting that she was a cleric of Shar. Shar is the goddess of undisclosed secrets, the last thing a cleric of her faith would do is admit that the cleric follows her faith.

 

Yes but changing alignment is a rare and radical thing to do Abomination. It is akin to having an existential breakdown. You begin to question your past actions from which you formed your sense of self. If you decide to live life according to new beliefs, your friends and co-workers etc. will be affected by your altered views - and they may not like the 'new' you. Having friends and possibly even family desert you would be another huge problem to come to terms with.

 

If I remember rightly PnP D&D has some pretty severe penalties for changing alignment - its not something that should be attempted lightly as alignment is meant to be what you're ACTUALLY like, not just how you feel at the time.

 

Hence why Korgan would be so easy to redeem, as would Viconia. Korgan and Viconia HAVE no family or important relations (at least, those who aren't dead).

Of course not everyone would be succeptable to this type of thing. Edwin is far too intelligent and arrogant to change his ways. Keldorn is an old paladin, he's faced greater temptations than many could imagine. Haer'dalis is a complete nut-case who worships chaos in its highest form. Minsc is simply... well... Minsc - I mean he has Boo!

I would think Imoen would be succeptable to falling from grace, possessing the taint and all. Jan could easily become chaotic-good, especially after his quest. Jaheria and Cernd are easily contenders for Neutral-Good if only 2nd edition didn't force druids to be True-Neutral.

 

Virne, you *don't* have to play the characters you choose, for the rest of the game. If you discover you don't like an NPC, you can dump him.

Abomination, druid is a sub-class of priest. Priests have a set of beliefs and the druids' is one of balance. It is impossible for a druid to be anything *other* than true neutral if he wants to uphold the tenets of balance! This isn't the fault of the rules - it's just the way D&D druids are!

For Korgan to be 'redeemed' he would have to do great deeds of good - so great that people can forgive him his past murderous acts. If you mean it might be easy for him to *convert* to being good, he would, for a start, have to change his views about murder since good people don't go around murdering others. If he was somehow convinced to accept that murder was wrong, it stands to reason that he would have to come to terms with how wrong he had been in committing past murders. He would have to bear eternal regrets for his past, which *wouldn't* be 'easy' at all.
Similarly, Jan changing from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Good wouldn't be easy. Neutral is a position of 'not caring' about good or evil, and 'good' is a position of *caring* very much for goodness. Thus, the two, while not *diametrically* opposed, are opposed positions nonetheless, which means it's a misconception to think the two positions are somehow close to one another and that it would therefore be easy to change from one to the other. *Why* should Jan start to care about 'good'? Don't forget, by your argument, it would be just as easy for Jan to become Neutral *Evil*.

Alignment is not a matter of *moods*. It is a matter of fundamental beliefs that the person has developed in response to his experiences and memories; it illustrates how that person has come to see how his actions affect the world he lives in and the people he meets.

[ January 27, 2004, 18:38: Message edited by: keldor ]

 

Why should alignment be given so much consideration when coosing a party anyway. A good character could still take an evil character thinking that while the npc is under his/her control he would be doing good and that by having the strongest companions possible he/she would be maximising the chances of doing the gretest amount of good posible.
For the evil NPC he wouldn't care too much about the allignments of his companiopns as long as he is getting plenty of spoils and is killing his opponents.

 

That would presuppose, Stu, that evil NPCs are only evil because they kill, and can be kept happy as long as they have money, which is simplistic e.g. good characters kill and enjoy money too. Whatever actions cause an NPC to have an 'evil' alignment, they must be different from those of good people, or else there'd be no difference.
I would suggest that evil people consciously enjoy the likes of torture and senseless violence against innocents and if they are kept from doing such things, they will become unhappy.