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

[krazykidd]

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 ?

Wouldn't that be lawful evil?

I believe there are 9 or so alignements. Lawful good , lawful neutral , lawful evil, neutral good , true neutral , neutreal evil , chaostic good , chaostic , neutral and chaostic evil .

I think you example falls under lawful evil .

OT: i think it's a good idea , but would require a lot of work . It's something for a long game that won't be rushed out . But i would gladly accept that in modern games.

 

[Rack]

If a morality system includes the word "evil" then its not fit for anything more nuanced than saving a busload of babies vs eating them.

 

[Savagezion]

mmm did that programmer just ran through the window. Ah yes John from the AI coding!
-Snip-
Poor John.

ROFL. Yeah, that's why I just "messed with the numbers". Programmers now are having a hard enough time making a decent system with just a good and evil axis. Usually, its lawful good vs. Chaotic evil as choices. (Paragon/Renegade) Then it works more as a binary function than an "axis" as it is usually better to be completely at one end or the other. Being anywhere else the "axis" is not rewarded.

As a side note, Arcanum did this well, but it removed Law vs. Order in favor of social stigmas (racism, reputation, beauty, etc.) and Magic vs. Tech.

 

[Kahunaburger]

It can be done well - see also Planescape: Torment. Unfortunately, the Planescape setting is about the only one where the D&D alignment structure is more interesting than a pure "order vs. chaos," "good vs. evil," "philosophy X vs. philosophy Y" or "faction vs. faction vs. faction vs..." system.

 

[masticina]

mmm did that programmer just ran through the window. Ah yes John from the AI coding!
-Snip-
Poor John.

ROFL. Yeah, that's why I just "messed with the numbers". Programmers now are having a hard enough time making a decent system with just a good and evil axis. Usually, its lawful good vs. Chaotic evil as choices. (Paragon/Renegade) Then it works more as a binary function than an "axis" as it is usually better to be completely at one end or the other. Being anywhere else the "axis" is not rewarded.

As a side note, Arcanum did this well, but it removed Law vs. Order in favor of social stigmas (racism, reputation, beauty, etc.) and Magic vs. Tech.

Mmm it probably is easier to use the Us versus Them method indeed. As in different factions that own different territories or have access to different technology. And your choices both give you access to some as they block you from others.

Mmm Arcanum right added to the list.

 

[Savagezion]

mmm did that programmer just ran through the window. Ah yes John from the AI coding!
-Snip-
Poor John.

ROFL. Yeah, that's why I just "messed with the numbers". Programmers now are having a hard enough time making a decent system with just a good and evil axis. Usually, its lawful good vs. Chaotic evil as choices. (Paragon/Renegade) Then it works more as a binary function than an "axis" as it is usually better to be completely at one end or the other. Being anywhere else the "axis" is not rewarded.

As a side note, Arcanum did this well, but it removed Law vs. Order in favor of social stigmas (racism, reputation, beauty, etc.) and Magic vs. Tech.

Mmm it probably is easier to use the Us versus Them method indeed. As in different factions that own different territories or have access to different technology. And your choices both give you access to some as they block you from others.

Mmm Arcanum right added to the list.

Well, you just made my day. LOL. Anytime I can recommend Arcanum to somebody who hasn't already played it I am happy. You might also check out Planescape: Torment if you haven't already as Kahunaburger said. It and Arcanum are similar in many ways but seperate in others. (Obligatory mention of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games)

Both of those games made me excited to see where games were headed when I first played them roughly around the same time. Then, I don't know, stuff went 3D and we haven't found our way back for some reason. I still can't grasp how 3D in any way can be the culprit but the late 90s-2000 put out some of the deepest RPG models to date and then went 3D (perhaps coincidentally) and suddenly everything was simplified to "good guys" and "bad guys". That still baffles me to this day because I can't see any direct link to the two. My best guess is these models are just being overlooked by the industry for some reason. I would like to know why though.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

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.

 

[theonecookie]

The real question is why do we need a system at all let the players choices speak for them and if you really want to have each choice have its own bonus

the good evil meter is a fairly stupid when you think about it and adding more axis does not help in fact it makes it worse you only need to look at your average lawful stupid paladin

 

[Sovvolf]

Because it would probably be a programming nightmare. I think there is like 9 different alignments in D&D, each of those would have their own special perks and such, maybe add to the story... That's a lot of variables to consider. Hell ones with only three alignments (Good, neutral, evil) have a hard enough time with that kind of thing, imagine timing that by three.

Now I've some games with that, like Neverwinter nights and such however, it didn't really change that much in the game and aside from maybe one or two changes in the dialogue options to pick from here and there it was pretty much pointless.

 

[Pebkio]

Of course they shouldn't. That's a blatant violation of US copywrite laws! The 2-axis moral alignment system in D&D is trademarked Wizards of the Coast and you should be investigated for even suggesting such a blatant disregard for our sacred constitutions...

-_- *serious face*

...bwahaha! Of course it should be used, but Triple-A designers are too invested with mediocrity the status quo.

 

[PurePareidolia]

Use reputation systems, track your interactions with all the relevant factions, and if you're really advanced, have people from new factions look at how you treat their allies for a first impression. It's not going to work all that well otherwise - too black and white.

 

[The Pinray]

I personally don't like the idea of some big chart in the sky tracking how good or mean you are. I like how they did it in New Vegas or Dragon Age. Your actions are judged by the people or factions you surround yourself with.

If you do something terrible to a group of nuns in one town, a group of nuns in the other won't know. They won't whip out their charts and study your evilness level. They'll just see you as Joe Nobody until you burn down the cathedral.

 

[BabySinclair]

Namely it's because it's harder to implement. You have nine different options instead of a binary choice.

 

[Nohra]

1.) Most games use binary moral choice (Good/Bad, Renegade/Paragon, etc.) because adding options doubles or triples the amount of dialog you have to record and the amount of coding you have to do. Having nine distinct options would be a nightmare, even if you could overlap things in a few places. But if you do that, what's the point in having nine? Why not pare it down to 6? 3?

2.) The D&D alignment system is actually a point of hate for many D&D players, as it attempts to distill your character's essence down to two words, which leads to some players doing things for no good reason other than "My sheet says Lawful Good/Chaotic Evil!" (Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid, colloquially).

It would be far better if character reactions were based on your deeds, and not a slider that says "YOU AMS THE GREETEST." This was one of the things the original Witcher did very well, though at its core, the entire game was about there being consequences for your actions.

Fallout: New Vegas.

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

Nude Vague Ass and the other Fallout games have all been binary, or slightly trinary, but you could still choose to be an evil fuck even if you've been running around, feeding orphans and obliterating raiders. Unlike Mass Effect where you get locked in after a while, or just stop progressing because you tried to walk a tightrope.

Which is, really, a better way to develop your character, since you can decide to start out being selfish and taking everything for yourself, but partway through your adventure, "see the light" and realize that you are in a unique position to help humanity rebuild, and blah blah blah words.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

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.

Umm......Lawful/Decent, and.......Chaotic/Jerk face? Let's call it what it is, good and evil are not arbitrary terms, nor are they subjective. Good is good, you do something nice for the old lady down the street, it's good, you stab a puppy for laugh, it's evil.
I think they just need to add a fourth end of the good v.evil spectrum. Neutral is the arbitrary point. How do you determine a neutral character? Did he stab a puppy? Well obviously he's evil, did he help an old lady? Obviously he's good. They need something to encompass, impulsiveness.

If a person stabs a puppy to put it out of the misery of a disease, is it evil? Some say yes, some say no. Subjective.
If a person lies to protect people's lives, is it good? Good and evil are subjective.

Not all moral choices are black and white.

 

[tanithwolf]

The D&D allignment system probably shouldn't be used for any games, not even D&D. It is a horrible thing which inspires nothing but arguments. This thread even testifys to that. I do like having a morality system in some of my games. I like having it feel like my actions have further reaching consequences then what happens immediately afterwards. But when it starts getting more complex then good and evil it starts detracting from my percieved idea of my character.

It also comes down to the point of the game can't always tell your intentions behind your choices. An example of this is back in the original Neverwinter Nights I was playing a character who had to keep a Neutral allignment, but I started getting shifted towards good because I was doing sidequests helping people. The only reason I was doing the sidequests was that I needed the money and experience. I ended up having to kill an innocent npc just to balance out my allignment. Which felt stupid and completely out of character.

 

[Darknacht]

Games such as Planescape: Torment do. It would actually be even better if they used a actions have consequences instead of a limited morality system.