207 réponses à ce sujet

[Fortlowe]

I always play good guys. Drunken, lecherous, smart ass good guys, but always good guys. Saving the village to hook up with the corrupt mayor's smoking hot wife kind of good, I guess.

[nightscrawl]

I generally try to be a decent person in my plays, but I also take each situation as it comes and try to respond as my character's personality and history dictates.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Ali Al Saachez was just that damn good

 

I decided to try to create a meme with it.

 

[A.Kazama]

I always tend to play a good character with a little bit of sarcasm...

So to sum it up I'll basically go around introducing myself:

Hello... I'm the doctor!

[thetinyevil]

I will try and be evil but will most likely feel bad about it, restart the game and go good or at least neutral.

[Biotic_Warlock]

Chaotic Neutral - The only force more destructive than chaotic evil.

[Gikia-Kimikia]

I unfortunately do not have the stomach to be anything but "good" in most of my playthroughs, although my form of it verges more on the chaotic side than anything. Generally my characters are haphazardly heroic snarkers who sometimes reveal a hair-trigger temper on certain issues that either results in them becoming completely ruthless for a limited time, or uncharacteristically driven.

The few times I have been "evil" have been more along the lines of a "wow, would you listen to this buttbiscuit" jerk as opposed to a "oh god don't make eye contact they wiLL KILL YOU" villainous protagonist.

[Elhanan]

It is my hope that the game mechanics are supportive of RP selections; not simply those of a Paragon/ Renegade/ Snarky pathway. I rather dislike being coerced into a certain mold, and my dialogue and action selections being already determined for me. While I quite enjoy the humor in past games, some occasions warrant sobriety. And sometimes I want to sucker punch or shoot the mass murderer instead of swaying them to join my side without jeopardizing the end game results I am aiming to obtain.

 

Pls do not misunderstand, I like being able to have options for persuasion and intimidation; just do not want to simply select that choice out of another's vision for my character.

[kathic]

Freedom for the mages at almost any price. That could lead to some evil. Mostly though I will be good.

[Plague Doctor D.]

In any other game i would be Lawful Evil(I really love this Alignment,dont know why^^).But since im all about freedom in Dragon Age games i guess its gonna be Chaotic Good.

Maybe Chaotic Neutral for my Female Qunari Bloodmage Inquisitor.

[SolNebula]

I love my good old pal...Murder Knife so if I have an option to use I generally do ......so i'm guess I'm EEEVIL!!!

[Noctis]

I love my good old pal...Murder Knife so if I have an option to use I generally do ......so i'm guess I'm EEEVIL!!!

I heard you saying that in a javik voice which was awesome lol

[Sylvius the Mad]

Good.  Evil.  The terms are largely meaningless.  My characters will pursue their objectives, as I define them.

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

I always play good guys. Drunken, lecherous, smart ass good guys, but always good guys. Saving the village to hook up with the corrupt mayor's smoking hot wife kind of good, I guess.

 

That would be the Chaotic good alignment, Which is what I plan to do, That or Neutral Good, I really hate Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil.

[Grieving Natashina]

That would be the Chaotic good alignment, Which is what I plan to do, That or Neutral Good, I really hate Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil.

I don't mind Lawful Good, it can be tricky to play one without being a stick-in-the-mud.  I am with you on Chaotic Evil.  I have nothing but respect for RP'ers that can pull it off, but truthfully I could never wrap up head around the mentality much to get into RP'ing CE.

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

I don't mind Lawful Good, it can be tricky to play one without being a stick-in-the-mud.  I am with you on Chaotic Evil.  I have nothing but respect for RP'ers that can pull it off, but truthfully I could never wrap up head around the mentality much to get into RP'ing CE.

 

If you come right down to it Lawful Good is often Lawful vs Good, because there are various instances where you can't be both. Now Chaotic Evil is whole nother Animal, Most players think that you have to a be blood-drinking, puppy-kicking maniac, to quality as a Chaotic Evil Char, But it is a little bit more complicated than that, One of my most favorite Chaotic Evil character is Bishop from NWN 2 . 

[CybAnt1]

I can remember a lot of people rejoicing when Bioware announced it was doing away from the alignment system of D & D in creating its own Dragon Age IP. 

 

This game has no alignments people; well, it did, until people were forced to be (Lawful) Diplomatic, (Chaotic) Angry, and (Neutral) Funny. But I digress.

 

There were a lot of good arguments made by people against alignment in D & D, 4E considered scrapping alignment, then reduced it from 9 alignments to 5. (Unfortunately, this also completely redoes D & D's planescape/cosmology as well, since that's based on the alignment system. But again I digress.) 

 

Generally speaking, although you could choose an alignment in most D & D CRPG games, the games more or less ignored it in terms of dialogue & interactions. It could limit your classes -- assassins had to be evil or neutral, for example, druids had to be true neutral. In NWN2 it often related to your deity/pantheon/domain if you were a cleric. The only way it ever really came into play was that if paladins kept doing evil stuff, eventually they would "morph" from lawful good paladins to lawful neutral warriors. I think sometimes in some games you also had to be evil to cast the "inverted" cleric spells (that harmed rather than healed). You also had some options in BG2 to change the alignment of two companions (you could make Anomen less good, or Viconia less evil.)

 

Anyhoo .... good riddance to it, and better we have characters who aren't trapped by moral absolutism when it comes to deciding between good and evil, or order and chaos. 

 

The whole Law vs. Chaos dichotomy is really in many ways Michael Moorcock's fundamental struggle, now translated into many fantasy game-verses. 

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

I can remember a lot of people rejoicing when Bioware announced it was doing away from the alignment system of D & D in creating its own Dragon Age IP. 

 

This game has no alignments people; well, it did, until people were forced to be (Lawful) Diplomatic, (Chaotic) Angry, and (Neutral) Funny. But I digress.

 

There were a lot of good arguments made by people against alignment in D & D, 4E considered scrapping alignment, then reduced it from 9 alignments to 5. (Unfortunately, this also completely redoes D & D's planescape/cosmology as well, since that's based on the alignment system. But again I digress.) 

 

Generally speaking, although you could choose an alignment in most D & D CRPG games, the games more or less ignored it in terms of dialogue & interactions. It could limit your classes -- assassins had to be evil or neutral, for example, druids had to be true neutral. In NWN2 it often related to your deity/pantheon/domain if you were a cleric. The only way it ever really came into play was that if paladins kept doing evil stuff, eventually they would "morph" from lawful good paladins to lawful neutral warriors. I think sometimes in some games you also had to be evil to cast the "inverted" cleric spells (that harmed rather than healed). You also had some options in BG2 to change the alignment of two companions (you could make Anomen less good, or Viconia less evil.)

 

Anyhoo .... good riddance to it, and better we have characters who aren't trapped by moral absolutism when it comes to deciding between good and evil, or order and chaos. 

 

The whole Law vs. Chaos dichotomy is really in many ways Michael Moorcock's fundamental struggle, now translated into many fantasy game-verses. 

 

I can't help but agree, Although I liked the D&D morality till 3.5, One of the most important thing that made Dragon Age different from other games was its Grey and Gray Morality, So, While I would love to RP as a CG or an NG protagonist, I am blown away by DA's approach to the morality and showing that sometimes there are no good and bad choices. 

[Grieving Natashina]

 

I can remember a lot of people rejoicing when Bioware announced it was doing away from the alignment system of D & D in creating its own Dragon Age IP. 

 

This game has no alignments people; well, it did, until people were forced to be (Lawful) Diplomatic, (Chaotic) Angry, and (Neutral) Funny. But I digress.

 

There were a lot of good arguments made by people against alignment in D & D, 4E considered scrapping alignment, then reduced it from 9 alignments to 5. (Unfortunately, this also completely redoes D & D's planescape/cosmology as well, since that's based on the alignment system. But again I digress.) 

 

Generally speaking, although you could choose an alignment in most D & D CRPG games, the games more or less ignored it in terms of dialogue & interactions. It could limit your classes -- assassins had to be evil or neutral, for example, druids had to be true neutral. In NWN2 it often related to your deity/pantheon/domain if you were a cleric. The only way it ever really came into play was that if paladins kept doing evil stuff, eventually they would "morph" from lawful good paladins to lawful neutral warriors. I think sometimes in some games you also had to be evil to cast the "inverted" cleric spells (that harmed rather than healed). You also had some options in BG2 to change the alignment of two companions (you could make Anomen less good, or Viconia less evil.)

 

Anyhoo .... good riddance to it, and better we have characters who aren't trapped by moral absolutism when it comes to deciding between good and evil, or order and chaos. 

 

The whole Law vs. Chaos dichotomy is really in many ways Michael Moorcock's fundamental struggle, now translated into many fantasy game-verses. 

 

 

 

Thank you for the information, but I think you've gotten some of the tone of this thread wrong.  I haven't seen a single person in the thread ask for the return of the alignment spectrum.  I am also glad that it isn't a part of the Dragon Age games, since it really wouldn't suit the tone or intent.

 

I took this thread in much more simpler terms: Out of the more traditional D&D alignment system, what reflects your RP style and philosophy?  This thread is all meant in good fun, so please ease up.  By the way, not all us like or enjoy 4th ed's new alignment set up. I respect your views on the subject, but please respect those that are having fun with the topic.

[Kimarous]

Somewhere between "Good-ish" and "Lawful Hypocrite" - trying to help the common folk by bringing down anything I view as a tyrannical system while trying to form my own orderly regime, all while trying to not feel like a scumbag.

[Noctis]

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the information, but I think you've gotten some of the tone of this thread wrong.  I haven't seen a single person in the thread ask for the return of the alignment spectrum.  I am also glad that it isn't a part of the Dragon Age games, since it really wouldn't suit the tone or intent.

 

I took this thread in much more simpler terms: Out of the more traditional D&D alignment system, what reflects your RP style and philosophy?  This thread is all meant in good fun, so please ease up.  By the way, not all us like or enjoy 4th ed's new alignment set up. I respect your views on the subject, but please respect those that are having fun with the topic.

 

yeah this thread is just for fun that was my intention for making this thread

[Innsmouth Dweller]

I don't really know yet. It depends on the quantity of general companions goodness and amount of heroism expected from the protagonist. In DAO I RPd evil badass in spite of Alistair/Leliana (I really liked those characters and usually had them in party on my casual PTs). DA2 was so heavy and tense, I could only RP diplomatic do-gooder (I tried to be evil, pro-mage, chantry-blowing jerk but failed).

[Sir DeLoria]

Oh, I'm gonna be a total Knight Templar. Hardcore lawful evil ftw!

[naddaya]

My character will probably be pragmatic and snarky. They tend to be. The rest will shape up when I play the story. I never start with a specific character in mind, they come alive on their own anyway. I fail to see the appeal of "evil for the sake of evil" and "self-righteous and dumb", so anything in between. D&D alignments are too simplicistic.

[Han Shot First]

My Inquisitor is going to be ruthless, but I don't seem him as evil. He won't be a sadist or someone using violence to secure his own political power or wealth. 

 

His loyalty is going to be the security of the realm. Anyone who threatens the security of the realm or otherwise stands in his way in closing the veil or restoring order will be dealt with mercilessly, but violence will merely be a means to an end. I suppose if I were to use the D&D alignment system the closest would probably be Lawful Neutral.