47 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

In the D&D alignment system, Evil is a motivation, not a consequence.

[hexaligned]

No, those are tools to help people RP their own character, and even then they are not concrete, they just help to conceptualize motivation if the player needs it. I never understood giving NPC's alignments, other than for mechanics reasons. (+damage to evil and such).

Modifié par relhart, 14 septembre 2012 - 04:28 .

[hexaligned]

*double post

Modifié par relhart, 14 septembre 2012 - 04:27 .

[Maria Caliban]

In the DnD system, Evil is a metaphysical essence that someone (or even an object) can literally measure within you. Moreover, evil can be an inherited trait like blue eyes or green skin. Using magic, you can even infect someone with evil.

If you really want to talk about DnD alignment, you have to acknowledge that it's measuring something very different than what we talk about when we say 'evil.'

[hoorayforicecream]

Beerfish wrote...

I would say his rage that killed the family was harder on the family than on poor Sten.

The old saying of actions speak louder than words is perfect here.  His words and those of the Qun say one thing, his actions of murdering a whole family who saved his rump incluidng chldren was an evil act any way you look at it.

This is unless of course in your defintion of lawful neutral that it is acceptable to be a mass murderer for no other reason that to think someone might have stolen your sword, with no proof otherwise.

The 'ideal' Qunari might be thought of as lawful neutral as that is what their words suggest, unfortunatley their actions in many cases are any but lawful neutral.

By the Qun, the family that Sten killed were bas, not people. It wasn't murder, it was destruction of property.

[Xewaka]

Of all the wonderful RPG systems out there, why do people insist on ripping off D&D? It's not even that good.
A "reputations" metric would be a better fit in DA universe than alignments, in any case.

[Biotic_Warlock]

I didn't mean to suggest using alignment as a label; i just meant having characters that people can perceive as being good, evil or neutral.

Modifié par Biotic_Warlock, 14 septembre 2012 - 06:19 .

[Xewaka]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...
I didn't mean to suggest using alignment as a label; i just meant having characters that people can perceive as being good, evil or neutral.

You already have that. The fact that there are no labels attached is a strength of the setting. One man's evil person is another man's good.

[hexaligned]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

I didn't mean to suggest using alignment as a label; i just meant having characters that people can perceive as being good, evil or neutral.

Ah, well I wouldn't mind a bat**** crazy companion (as in completely fractured from reality, along the lines of Tiax or something), as they tend to amuse me.  In general though I would prefer characters that mimic real human persoanlities( to the best of the writers ability).  Which in general are far more dappled than they are uniformly consistant with any one "alignment".

Modifié par relhart, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:26 .

[cJohnOne]

I like Alignments.  This thread should be more popular!

[Realmzmaster]

The D & D alignment system made sense because the characters aligned themselves with different gods. The gods required their subjects to be of a particular alignment. The gods granted powers based on how will the person stayed to the alignment.

The system was not perfect. There very few instances where someone is chaotic evil all the time. Not everyone is always lawful good. D & D also punished the character if the character did sometime outside of the alignment. A paladin could fall from grace for doing acts that were good but not lawful.
D & D tried to model the world with the alignment system, but it is to rigid. I would rather the alignment occur over time because of the actions of the character. If the character performs evil acts at the beginning the character is perceived as evil. If the character reforms and starts do good or refrains from evil then the perception slowly changes. Some will still perceive the character as evil but others start to change their opinion.

[cJohnOne]

@Realmzmaster: Hey in NWN2 couldn't you change you alignment over time depending on you actions? Like you alignment is now such and such. I seem to remember something like that. So you can change alignments depending on you actions!

[Get Magna Carter]

not the D&D alignments -they have no link to the DA world so far
different perspectives yes -but not related to the alignments

[cJohnOne]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

not the D&D alignments -they have no link to the DA world so far
different perspectives yes -but not related to the alignments

I don't understand what different perspectives means in this sentence.

[InfinitePaths]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

Alignments such as:
Lawful Good
Neutral Good
Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral
True Neutral
Chaotic Neutral
Lawful Evil
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Evil

But of course, within Dragon Age this isn't expressed as a linear title as it is in D&D, but expressed in the attitudes of the characters; Sten wasn't one for following laws, and didn't mind who he killed, however does have certain opinions over things, so he could be considered either chaotic or true neutral to the player. Morrigan could be considered neutral evil, especially giving her dislike of people and weakness of others.

Considering Dragon Age companions, there weren't really many who could be considered evil at all (except morrigan and Zevran).

Should there be some companions who are properly evil, those who show no mercy or sympathy for others, or who help the protagonist just because the blight, or templar/mage war or whatever DA3 is all about involves them, and they help the protagonist to protect their own interests.

This isn't D&D,i don't want it to be.Altrough we already have Lawfull evil people=chantry

[Realmzmaster]

cJohnOne wrote...

@Realmzmaster: Hey in NWN2 couldn't you change you alignment over time depending on you actions? Like you alignment is now such and such. I seem to remember something like that. So you can change alignments depending on you actions!

Yes you could change your alignment, but for classes like a Palaldin that meant falling from grace and becoming a fighter until atonement was made. The character could also lose the support of the chosen god because of the alignment shift.

[Realmzmaster]

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

Alignments such as:
Lawful Good
Neutral Good
Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral
True Neutral
Chaotic Neutral
Lawful Evil
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Evil

But of course, within Dragon Age this isn't expressed as a linear title as it is in D&D, but expressed in the attitudes of the characters; Sten wasn't one for following laws, and didn't mind who he killed, however does have certain opinions over things, so he could be considered either chaotic or true neutral to the player. Morrigan could be considered neutral evil, especially giving her dislike of people and weakness of others.

Considering Dragon Age companions, there weren't really many who could be considered evil at all (except morrigan and Zevran).

Should there be some companions who are properly evil, those who show no mercy or sympathy for others, or who help the protagonist just because the blight, or templar/mage war or whatever DA3 is all about involves them, and they help the protagonist to protect their own interests.

This isn't D&D,i don't want it to be.Altrough we already have Lawfull evil people=chantry

That is a matter of perspective. Many see the Chantry as Lawful Good.

[Fast Jimmy]

The problem with Lawful as an alignment is the fact that laws vary wildly from land to land. In his homeland, Sten is very much Lawful Good. He follows the orders of the Beresand (Lawful) and follows the tenets of the Qun (good). So it assumes a centralized idea of good, evil, lawful and chaotic, as well as a defined definition of neutral.

Bioware would never let you play an evil character, anyway. You could never tell the Landsmeet "I will only save your country if you submit to my rule" or join the Architect in helping his experiments.

[DarkDragon777]

Yes.

[Rjames112]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that while the characters' personalities/sketches probably will have leanings one way or the other, implementation will be more akin to NPCs reacting to player choices individually rather than on the basis on an arbitrary allignment. The industry of RPGs is moving toward that fluidity of character allignment because it reflects a great way to add depth and player interpretation to the characters which in turn gives the feeling of immersion.

[EricHVela]

Rjames112 wrote...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that while the characters' personalities/sketches probably will have leanings one way or the other, implementation will be more akin to NPCs reacting to player choices individually rather than on the basis on an arbitrary allignment. The industry of RPGs is moving toward that fluidity of character allignment because it reflects a great way to add depth and player interpretation to the characters which in turn gives the feeling of immersion.

You mean based on the character's reputation. That's fine. It makes more sense than magically knowing the character's alignment.

If they don't know something about the player, they should merely react based on what's in front of them and not some aura they can sense (unless they can actually sense auras -- hopefully not something that is common).

[Biotic_Warlock]

Realmzmaster wrote...

That is a matter of perspective. Many see the Chantry as Lawful Good.

In the DA universe the chantry pretty much is the law, so it would be. I'm not sure, but i think alignments are based on human society (being the dominant race in many places; in D&D i think laws in elf, human and dwarf cities are very much the same anyway). Those against the chantry (such as apostates) would be chaotic, maleficarum could be considered evil due to them allowing blood magic to control them, except Jowan (forgot how to spell) who seems intent on doing good.

I'm not sure if templars can be considered as good; they do apparently have the interests of 'normal' non-magic users in mind and think they are protecting tem by hunting apostates and inflicting harse judgements and punishments. They seem to me to be very extreme paladins.

[haroldhardluck]

The alignment system in D&D originally meant alignment with a patron god for clerics. It got broaden over the years to include personal behavior. Alignments in DA would be silly as the gods or God have all gone and no longer answer prayers. There is no indications that the gods in DA have alignments as in D&D. Some such as Dumat seem to be evil. The Dalish have their Trickster who could be considered chaotic. The Chantry has The Creator who seems to be good. But there is no explicit alignment system for the gods.

In both DA games you are given several options of behavior and you can mix and match them to get the exact moral combination for your characters. A D&D alignment system would actually be a step backward as it restricts the choices you can make as a PC.

The bottom line is the D&D alignment system is obsolete and archaic because it is too simplistic. Modern RPG systems and especially the computer based ones can support far more complicated moral choices for its characters.

Harold