Poll: Why Don't Games Use D&D Alignment for Moral Choice?

[Manji187]

Fallout: New Vegas.

But isn't this just a more complex bipolar system?

got that right.. on everyones side then screw them all for the win didnt see that one comming did you

Yeah...the manic depressive sure has the element of surprise on his/ her side XD. All those poor NPCs with high intelligence and perception...it didn't help em one bit. Perceive THIS....BLAM!

 

[Tayh]

Somewhere along the way, traditional D&D/P&P rules became untrendy in D&D RPG games, and they were quickly phased out.
See: Dragon Age, Mass Effect(?), WAR Online, Fallout 3, [any other modern RPGame].
Gamers today just don't have patience for that kind of stuff or rulesets.

 

[Supernova2000]

Another problem is that the choices labelled 'good' and 'evil' are completely arbitrary. In The Old Republic for example, there's a side-quest involving a jedi master who suspects 2 of his students of being romantically involved and ultimately, when you go back to him, you have to decide whether to a) blow the whistle, the "good" option or b) keep their secret, the "evil" option, which is the wrong way round in my opinion because as much as romance makes me want to puke, revealing it to those who would only try to stamp it out like some sort of disease is the bigger dick move.

 

[Woodsey]

Because that's a lot more choices you're having to implement at every choice, and because you aren't solving the issue (namely, choices shouldn't really be 'moral' at all - see The Witcher 2), just appeasing it slightly.

 

[Something Amyss]

You want to add another axis when games can barely handle a moral hoice system that's completely binary?

 

[Johann610]

Right. The problem is that "good" and "evil" as well as "rules-follower" and "rules-breaker" exist in the context of the character's home kingdom / tribe / whatever. A character who reads as "lawful good" in terms of, say, always acting in favor of the greater good and within the code of, say, pirates, is considered a chaotic neutral, at best, to the Spanish Main that he regularly plunders. You could argue the same thing about Batman--his actions are unilateral (chaotic) and violent (evil), yet he acts within his own code, which includes justice and law-enforcement.
The subtleties are beyond the capabilities of many game writers, who cast Batman as either a non-lethal, acrobatic version of a swat team, or the only sane man in a city hypnotized by evil.

 

[Tarkand]

I'm not a big fan of the D&D alignment system precisely because it fails to handle gray area properly and because it's subject to a determination by a higher power.

In D&D, it's usually the gods... who out of sheer coincidence, share similar value to a modern western society. It's pretty silly to think about it and all it really does is remove the gray area by making sure that the view the majority of player hold are the 'correct one'.

The whole system falls apart as soon as you try to use it in complex situation, or if you try to apply it to real life.

A good example of this is slavery... which wasn't abolished that long ago. To our modern sensibility, slavery is clearly evil. So it is in D&D as well... even thought most D&D settings fit in a time frame were slavery was a common fact of life. If we apply this to real life, are we to assume that pretty much every single culture that ever existed on this planet has evil roots?

I mean, it's extremely easy for me to look at the culture of society of other less fortunate country and decry them as lawful evil because they follow their ancient religious law to the letter and seems to have no respect for their women... but I'm pretty sure they look at me as being lawful evil (or maybe even chaotic evil) too. Who's right? Who's wrong? In real life, this is a complex matter. In D&D, it's not - because the gods have already called it.

 

[spartan231490]

It would be a lot of effort for the developers. there are 9 possibilities in the dnd alignment, even using a system like radiant story that would be a lot of effort to implement. Beyond that, it sounds like a great fucking idea. It covers most ways a person would want to play, which I love. Become a developer and make this happen

 

[Joepow]

Because D&D's alignment system sucks.

There are as many definitions of lawful and chaotic as there are D&D players.

 

[IridRadiant]

does it sound like a good idea, rather than the traditional bipolar system?

Please remind me, because i forgot the details...

Let's say there's this Orc going by the name of "Bulg".
Bulg believes in strength, fire, blood and battle. He perceives civilization of Mankind as weak abomination that should be burned to the ground.
On the other hand he is a strict follower of the laws his little tribe.

Is Bulg Lawful of Chaotic ?

Bulg is Neutral. He is using Chaotic means to satisfy the Laws of his tribe. If he was truly Lawful, he would recognize then respect that they have a code of conduct and use the laws of Mankind to take them over because they are so weak. If he was truly Chaotic, he would not care about the laws of his tribe, only that he is not strong enough in battle (two of his main beliefs) to defy them.

You could argue that he is lawful if Mankind has no laws and rules by might alone, in which case he would be following their laws. This is one way that paladins can operate in a system that emphasizes combat.

There is not enough evidence to determine whether he is evil (does he take advantage of his lessers in the tribe to the extent of the law?) or just neutral (takes care of his tribe, persecutes outsiders).

The D&D alignment system (at least until they simplified it in 4th ed) is great because moral ambiguity gets swept into the Neutral pile. What people generally get confused with is that there are 2 Neutrals - Law/Chaos neutrality and Good/Evil neutrality.

 

[Samechiel]

http://darksoulswiki.wikispaces.com/Covenants

It is, sometimes.
I personally think that this system could be improved by eliminating evil/good and replacing it with something less arbitrary.

I'm glad somebody mentioned Dark Souls, because I love the way From Software handled morality; everything is a different shade of gray.

It all looks very cut-and-dry on the surface. There are good deeds to be done, people to be saved (I was soooo happy when I learned I didn't have to kill Priscilla), justice to mete out... but also murders to commit, vile plans to undertake. Monsters need killing and Undead = bad! Rrrraaarrgh!

But then you start getting into the lore of the game. You start finding out what exactly is going on and suddenly everything you thought was, isn't. Take the Darkwraiths, for instance. According to the chart, they squat squarely in the Chaotic Evil box and surely they fit that bill -they're crazy murdering bastards bent on a lifetime of rape and pillage.

And then you learn why they're doing that. In the end, their goals are actually noble, even if their methods to reach that end are anything but.

 

[loudestmute]

I'm sure that a great morality system for a tabletop game, but I'm struggling to see how it would be implemented in a video game in a way that's got more substantial difference than what's currently going on in terms of morality systems. Players would still pick out which side of the two sliders they'd like to fall under, and only take on the quests and side tasks that help to increase those levels.

While I haven't played New Vegas enough to get to the concept of group-oriented morality, the idea does hold some appeal. Less on what you do, more on what others think about what you do. For a proof of future concept, let's engage in a little thought experiment.

Spoiler: The Cathedral

Let's imagine a standard fantasy setting, one of the early areas in the game being a decaying church on the outskirts of your starting village. No story critical stuff here, just a gang of monks led by a former thief who reacts differently depending on your outstanding alliances.

Town Guard (Night watch jobs): "Hello, sailor! As you can see, we've got a bit of a money problem around here. Seems that we're having some problems getting our pledged tithing amounts to match with what's in our coffers. I think someone's been lightening our load, so to speak. Can you hang around for a couple nights, give us an idea of who we should be questioning?"

Sword and Shield (Bounty hunting jobs): "...I should have known my past would catch up with me. Listen, I know you're probably here to collect the bounty on my head, but if it's not too much to ask, will you let me perform a formal confession before you take me in? We're in a place of divine authority after all, so please, hear me out before passing judgement?"

College of the Third Eye (Mage's guild stuff): "Glad you could join us, traveler! We could actually use someone with your talents. See, we're trying to translate some old scriptures, and we've hit a bit of a snag. We've seemed to uncover some divine litanies that could be of service to the College, but none of the acolytes here are experienced enough in the arcane to test them. Feel up to the challenge?"

Thieves Guild (stealing, being sneaky, etc): "Well now, I'm guessing you're not here to seek forgiveness. And you can probably tell there's not much for a cutpurse like you to take. But I do think we can come to a...mutually beneficial relationship. There's an estate nearby owned by a family of degenerates, shaking down the merchants in town for protection money. Shameful stuff. They've already bought off the town guard, and they keep inviting me over thinking that divine judgement can be just as easily swayed. So I've got the lay of the place pretty good, and I got a rough idea where they keep their most valued possessions. You take what you can, I'll refer you to an old associate, we split the take 50-50, and I can keep this place open without as many worries. Sound like a plan?"

For a different take on the issue, my current favorite "morality" system is in Saints Row 3. Since most moral choice systems basically boil down to "choose your alignment at the start of the game, we'll dispense appropriate gameplay benefits", it's nice to see a system that makes the benefits as bold-faced as possible while removing any deifying/demonizing of the player's actions. Yes, the cutscenes following these choices still give your actions context, but there's no consequence for shifting your character's priorities. You'll always be an asshole, so the choice is now more what toys you want that asshole to play with.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

9 > 2. More work for the game makers is my guess as to why not.

 

[ResonanceSD]

9 > 2. More work for the game makers is my guess as to why not.

Ninjaed. There are nine different DnD alignments. Or fifteen million, if you accept that Chaotic Neutral is a polite way of saying "completely insane". You try coding that for every interaction.

 

[thelittleman66]

Any sort of "moral" choice system that distinguishes between good and evil is bound for failure.

 

[darksakul]

I think the closes anyone got to an alinement system from D&D inb a video game was the PC game Balders Gate.

9 > 2. More work for the game makers is my guess as to why not.

Ninjaed. There are nine different DnD alignments. Or fifteen million, if you accept that Chaotic Neutral is a polite way of saying "completely insane". You try coding that for every interaction.

I disagree, True Neutral is more insane is played properly

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

9 > 2. More work for the game makers is my guess as to why not.

Ninjaed. There are nine different DnD alignments. Or fifteen million, if you accept that Chaotic Neutral is a polite way of saying "completely insane". You try coding that for every interaction.

I disagree, True Neutral is more insane is played properly

I'm with Darksakul. From what I've seen, Chaotic Neutral people are essentially libertarians, which makes them easy to figure out. However, with someone devoted to maintaining the True Neutral balance of the universe, you can never be quite sure which side their on.