5 réponses à ce sujet

[nicethugbert]

Set up alignment as an xp and level system.  The current system could constitute levels in alignment.  The alignment xp would be separate from character xp.  Dialog choices or acts or quast completion could award alignment xp at the discretion of the module builder.  There could be an alignment xp 2da as there is one for character xp.  So, each module builder can measure the alingment and magnitude of an act in or out of dialog in a more fine grain manner than the current system or in the same manner as character XP.  Just as a high level character is not going to waste time grinding kobolds, or a DM would not award XP for that, a character with a high level in their alignment would not grind petty acts, unless it's in character, nor would they be terribly penalized if they did such petty acts to bluff their way into a more advantegeous position to commits evil acts, or good acts, or ....  Or, it can be totally different, whatever the module builder finds appropriate for his module.

Everything in the world could have a simple one line dialog to facilite alignment based acts:  kick the puppy, steal the pie, ..........  This would give the world some extra life, extra interaction and meaning in both small and large ways.

The results can be many at the discretion of the module builder.  It might be necessary for clerics, etc., to get alignment levels in order for them to advance in cleric levels.  They might get a small bonus to their cure or wounds spells dependent on their alignment level.  Many possibilities both large and small.

In pnp you wouldn't need this because of interaction with the DM and party.  Although, it would not be useless.  But,  NWN2 is mechanized D&D so it only makes sense that the alignment system be on par with the rest of the gameplay in NWN2.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 19 avril 2012 - 11:36 .

[Dann-J]

The OC was originally going to have all characters start out as true neutral, and have them develop alignments based on their choices in the game. I'm not sure how that system would have worked though, since players couldn't have started out as any of the classes that require (or forbid) specific alignments. Perhaps a Kelgar-esque change of career at some point?

[nicethugbert]

Alignment restriction is not part of my proposal but my proposal works with it.

The current system has the player start 15 points away from maxing their alignment, unless they are neutral in which case they start at the center of the scale.

You could do that too under the system I propose.

Or, you could have everybody start with minimal points in the alignment of their choice, except for neutrals as neutral is the center of the scale. You could make an exception for classes that require a moral history, namely monks and divine classes, and award them a few points in their chosen alignment to show that they earned entry level in their class.

My proposed system basically stretches the alignment scale and allows non-linear progressions if the module builder wants.

It also quantifies moral acts and speech, for example, in the same way that killing kobolds and dragons does for character levels.

At the very least, it is a role play tool, and fleshes out modules.

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

In technical terms, you could just write an include file with a new set of functions that adjust alignment. So if you have a function like AdjustEvil(int iAdjust = 100) it takes the iAdjust number, scales it to level or whatever else, and then adds it to a local variable. If the local variable accrues beyond a logarithmic scale, like xp, then the actual Alignment gets adjusted.

The main advantage I see is that it would protect the standard alignment from shifting too rapidly, which means you can add alignment hits to routine in-game actions without borking PC's alignment. For example, it might make sense if the PC got an evil hit everytime they killed a non-evil creature, but with the standard system, that means you're just 25 kills away from changing your alignment. If the math works out, though, a good character could go to neutral in a few kills, but it would take maybe a hundred for a neutral to go evil. Paladins would have to balance the sin of killing neutrals with the brownie points they get from helping the needy, but neutral rogues would have to make killing a preoccupation before they become evil. And you could fine tune the moral value of different targets, kids are 2.5, hired guards 0.75, thugs 0.25, and rats 0.05, just like a CR.

[nicethugbert]

Yes, that is one of the advantages to this suggestion and one of the ways to go about implementing it. And, it's all at the module builders discretion.

For instance, you could make it easier to fall from grace than it is to achieve grace by using alignment level as a multiplier. Let's say good a character commits an evil act. He suffers negative xp for the act which takes his alignment in the direction of evil. The base xp for the act is 10, let's say, the character is level 10 in good. So he gets base xp * alignment level *(-1)= 10 * 10 * (-1) = -100 alignment xp on the good vs. evil axis.

Or, you can work in atonement. Let's say that acts that are opposite of your alignment act as an alignment xp penalty for your alignment. So, the good character commits evil thereby all his good actions give him reduced alignment xp in the direction of good until he atones.

These ideas can be powerful quest motivators or help manage them.

[Avalon Aurora]

Committing even a single evil act loses paladinhood. You can atone, but there is probably a limit to how many times clerics and your god will be willing to even offer the atonement (probably only get the quest one or two times at most). Committing evil acts tends to drain away good alignment faster than committing good acts drains away evil alignment. Neutral is what you should end up if you commit occasional evil acts but do a bunch of good to try and make up for it.

However killing specific targets isn't necessarily good or evil. A paladin can kill good or neutral targets under a number of conditions, such as if they are controlled by evil and a paladin doesn't have a way to break this control or otherwise disable the target without allowing a greater evil than killing them to occur. They can also kill in self-defense, such as in a case where a good target is somehow convinced a paladin is their enemy and won't give up, or neutral targets are attacking them such as by being members of an enemy nation to where the paladin comes from.

You could even have two paladins wind up killing each-other in a holy war of some sort, although the conditions for this to happen would be immensely complicated for it not to cause either of the paladins to fail their oaths.

Killing being a sin is a fabrication of modern Christianity and a few other religions, and not relevant to the Forgotten Realms or most other D&D settings. Murder might be a sin, but not all killing is murder.

Some acts will be seriously super evil, and should seriously impinge on a character's alignment. Others are just being a jerk, and should have a minor effect, if any. Paladins are allowed to be jerks. Good is not necessarily nice. Good doesn't mean stupid either. Good individuals will however place their life in danger for the good of the many. They are not obligated or expected to be able to save everyone, or to sacrifice themselves when innocent hostages are threatened, and stupid stuff like that, and they do have to consider the value of their own lives in furthering future good when taking on dangerous enemies. They do not, however, possess fear, they merely need to consider the future, and if they can really do more good by sacrificing themselves now than all the good they are needed to do and can do in the future. Being practical and not suicidally self-sacrificing shouldn't impinge on your alignment, depending on the circumstances. A level 1 paladin isn't expected to face an evil army or a great wyrm red dragon on their own. A 20th level paladin with a party of similar strength would however be expected to deal with the aforementioned army and/or dragon.

Things are a bit more flexible for other classes in terms of alignment than for paladins, so you need to track doing evil acts (and other acts against paladinhood, like lying) at all separately from your general alignment. A lawful good cleric won't get in trouble for lying a few times, unless it is a specific prohibition of their god, or it otherwise pisses off their god, at least not unless they lie so much and/or in such ways that their alignment changes.

Exalted characters are similar to Paladins in these ways if you implement the Book of Exalted Deeds stuff, they also lose their abilities immediately upon a single evil act, or when violating certain specific prohibitions to their various forms of exalted states, like Vow of Poverty, or Vow of Chastity.

I think a good way to handle this might be to have some acts get a secondary 'EVIL' or 'non-Paladin' marker, some acts, like killing good or neutral enemies that attack you, could still give you evil points, but won't necessarily affect things like paladinhood unless done consistently without making up for it with good acts or just doing a ton of it, other acts however are clearly evil not matter how you put it, and should cause massive evil points for any characters who do them and immediate violation of paladin oaths.

Also, being nice or being a jerk should not necessarily affect your alignment. Especially in the case of charismatic or deceptive evil characters, or some lawful evil types, or jerk with with a heart of gold good types, except in some more extreme cases of such.

Killing non-evil targets when not in self-defense or defense of another should probably count as an evil marker type act, killing in self defense or defense of another will be a lesser evil that only is evil points.

Good points should require some degree of service or self-sacrifice, not just being nice, but going out of your way to help others, although not necessarily without gain. You shouldn't demand it, that would be merely a neutral act, but asking for a reward for something you'd do anyway or already did shouldn't negate the goodness of it unless there is a threat involved, although it might mitigate somewhat the goodness of it. Paladins need to eat too, and need to equip themselves, and their parties aren't necessarily as pure as the Paladin themselves.

It should take extreme circumstances for a paladin to willingly adventure with an individual they know is evil, and doing so would violate their paladin oaths except under very complex mitigating circumstances, and only so long as the individual commits no evil acts while the paladin is adventuring with them. PC paladins should be allowed to refuse party members of Evil alignment.