Poll: Why Don't Games Use D&D Alignment for Moral Choice?
- Thread starter Thunderous Cacophony
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Honestly, I think I'd prefer a morality system that was a little more dynamic, simply because many games restrict bonuses or cause the player to miss content unless they're "all the way" one direction or another. Can't I be a champion of the downtrodden and a lecherous womanizer? Or a vicious thug with a soft spot for children? Or decide that it's okay to steal from someone who's struggling because I'm on a quest that serves the greater good? Or a racist who sees the error of their ways half-way through the game?
The game developer is the judge of course, or if your playing DnD then the moral system that the DMs local culture believes in.JesterRaiin said:Wait, wait please...Savagezion said:
We - the citizens of our kingdom don't consider ourselves Lawful Evil. Sure, we're trying to expand our borders but it's the way for civilizations to thrive. We have countless mouths to feed, ya know... Sure, we're waging wars here and there, but it's because we don't simply back off, don't run away from conflicts. We're skilled, and fearless warriors so why should we ? Of course, there were... incidents, but the saying "war is hell" isn't just a slogan.
It's them who are evil. We're the good guys here.
How does it sound ?
That's what i'm talking here about. "I dub thee Evil" and that's it ? Who's the judge ?
Copyright issues mostly I'd imagine. I imagine WoTC are very protective of their stuff, and unless devs feel like implementing a full D&D system.. they can't touch this system.
Personally I think it's a great system that manages to express a lot of moral archetypes and it's a hell of a lot better than the binary system we have in place now. Actually the utter lack of a moral system is a hell of a lot better than the binary system, but hey...
Personally I think it's a great system that manages to express a lot of moral archetypes and it's a hell of a lot better than the binary system we have in place now. Actually the utter lack of a moral system is a hell of a lot better than the binary system, but hey...
D&D morality systems are restrictive in that you pick them rather then the game giving them to you.
This happened to me constantly when I played D&D. I'd pick a morality for a character but realized later on down the road the way I roleplayed him/her was completely different.
However D&D typically isn't a serious game regardless so you can play this to your advantage. But for PC roleplaying games, this just feels like an awkward thing to add. In Baldur's Gate alignment didn't really mean very much besides some characters didn't like others and that they didn't like when you did nice things.
This happened to me constantly when I played D&D. I'd pick a morality for a character but realized later on down the road the way I roleplayed him/her was completely different.
However D&D typically isn't a serious game regardless so you can play this to your advantage. But for PC roleplaying games, this just feels like an awkward thing to add. In Baldur's Gate alignment didn't really mean very much besides some characters didn't like others and that they didn't like when you did nice things.
If it's easily labeled as "good/bad", it's not a good moral choice in the first place,, just an arbitrary stat that people will power level if possible. If you're in a moral grey zone and actually have to decide for yourself what's right and wrong in the situation, then it's a moral choice.
This is why Deus Ex: Human Revolution handles moral choices better than, say, Mass Effect. There's no clear right and wrong in most of the situations, and the game doesn't judge you if you decide to act in one way or another.
This is why Deus Ex: Human Revolution handles moral choices better than, say, Mass Effect. There's no clear right and wrong in most of the situations, and the game doesn't judge you if you decide to act in one way or another.
Actually it is not at all arbitrary. It is BADLY explained in most of the books, however.LastGreatBlasphemer said:
D&D Alignment is actually based on a particular school of philosophy. I'll spare you the details, but it is supposed to work like this.
Law/Chaos: When seeking "the Good," do the Ends justify the Means? If Yes, you are Chaotic. If No, you are Lawful. If sometimes/depends/bacon, you are Neutral.
Good/Evil: To whom does "the Good" apply? If 'Everyone' you are Good. If 'Me only' you are Evil. If your answer is more nuanced (people I personally know, my hometown, my clan, etc) you are probably neutral, although the larger the group the "gooder" you are.
"The Good" in this case being Plato's good. Yes, D&D alignment is based on Greek philosophy.
Those are both pretty standard chaotic actions. This was the point of the D&D system in that it has a little bit more than black and white even though it's far from perfect.theemporer said:
I want to put out that some of the greatest villains of all time believe that have the law/ morality on there side.
Examples
Darth Vader does operate under his own code of ethics, as in reimbursing Boba Fett if Han Solo didn't survive carbonite freezing. His goals are to bring order to the Galaxy, ever offering his son Luke a chance to be at his side despite his involvement with the rebel alliance.
A Drow Priestess will kill humans on sight not just because to her kind "humans" are evil who dwell in poisonous sun light. Killing the human protects her house, family, city and gains the favor of her beloved goddess. As we would kill goblins who "invade our territory".
Capt Hook, responsible for his ship the Joly Roger, must maintain strict order and discipline at all times. An undisciplined ship is a sunken ship, here comes an uninvited, unwanted attacker Peter Pan, who constantly harass and assault him and his crew and took a disability from injuries from this unwanted wild child.
GlaDOS follows her programing and protocols as she was programed to follow.
And GlaDOS has a test subject that refuses to follow protocol, endanger the integrity of the lab and assaults the main computer (GlaDOS) who only following the test protocol she has no choice but to obey. This unruly test subject damaged and almost destroyed poor GlaDOS, then later made her into a Potato. The AI core that took over almost caused a nuclear explosion from his mismanagement of the testing facilities. A Near catastrophic event that would not occur if GlaDOS was still in charge of the lab's administrations.
Examples
Darth Vader does operate under his own code of ethics, as in reimbursing Boba Fett if Han Solo didn't survive carbonite freezing. His goals are to bring order to the Galaxy, ever offering his son Luke a chance to be at his side despite his involvement with the rebel alliance.
A Drow Priestess will kill humans on sight not just because to her kind "humans" are evil who dwell in poisonous sun light. Killing the human protects her house, family, city and gains the favor of her beloved goddess. As we would kill goblins who "invade our territory".
Capt Hook, responsible for his ship the Joly Roger, must maintain strict order and discipline at all times. An undisciplined ship is a sunken ship, here comes an uninvited, unwanted attacker Peter Pan, who constantly harass and assault him and his crew and took a disability from injuries from this unwanted wild child.
GlaDOS follows her programing and protocols as she was programed to follow.
And GlaDOS has a test subject that refuses to follow protocol, endanger the integrity of the lab and assaults the main computer (GlaDOS) who only following the test protocol she has no choice but to obey. This unruly test subject damaged and almost destroyed poor GlaDOS, then later made her into a Potato. The AI core that took over almost caused a nuclear explosion from his mismanagement of the testing facilities. A Near catastrophic event that would not occur if GlaDOS was still in charge of the lab's administrations.
D&D's morality system is hardly perfect - frankly, my own ideas on morals and ethics put me by default somewhere near the neutral area, even though that's because it's an average of me being all over the place. With that said, it would certainly be a step up from binary morality.
I think maybe a good intermediate step would be by making some form of neutrality a viable option, or by making all four corners viable and distinct options - going for all nine as distinct options is too fast a move, and too likely to fail in execution.
Or, you could do away with it - the reputation system has its strengths - perhaps something that could incorporate the strengths of both. Morality's problem is that good and evil can be artificial constructs at times, and that even so, your good/evilness isn't painted on your face for everyone to judge you by. On the other hand, the reputation system has the problem that it devolves into an exercise of manipulating the opinions of others, and it makes it too easy to do so.
In short? Just move away from contrived, binary decisions of good vs. evil. Move ANYWHERE.
I think maybe a good intermediate step would be by making some form of neutrality a viable option, or by making all four corners viable and distinct options - going for all nine as distinct options is too fast a move, and too likely to fail in execution.
Or, you could do away with it - the reputation system has its strengths - perhaps something that could incorporate the strengths of both. Morality's problem is that good and evil can be artificial constructs at times, and that even so, your good/evilness isn't painted on your face for everyone to judge you by. On the other hand, the reputation system has the problem that it devolves into an exercise of manipulating the opinions of others, and it makes it too easy to do so.
In short? Just move away from contrived, binary decisions of good vs. evil. Move ANYWHERE.
agafaba said:
Thunderous Cacophony said:
Guys, this answer was supposed to be very long, but near the end i realized that we're running away from the meritum, which is "the games and alignment table featured in DnD".Savagezion said:
We can talk about this system and argue what is what and how. For example i fail to see moral dilemma in crushing the eggs of Red "Mr notorious bad guy" Dragon, i can prove that DnD gods are nothing more than mere people with bag of tricks so they can't work as moral lighthouses, or i can talk for hours about my replacement of alignment table based on modified version of Johari Window. But that's pointless.
I want to remind all of you, that DnD alignment system is crude and underdeveloped. I'm not saying that because i hate DnD (i despise 4th ed but that's another story). I'm saying it, because i fail to acknowledge that human with all his traits of character can be described by system consisting from two words, especially if part of this system is the eternal "good vs evil" problem that wasn't resolved to this day since the beginning of the Mankind.
IT WORKS but only in tabletop gaming, when there's alive, creative and (hopefully) mature enough judge (DM/GM/Keeper) ready to talk about actions of an adventurer and their impact on the world, ready to support this system when it enters the territory of moral ambiguity. Video games can't recreate this role in massive games we all are talking about here.
I think that any kind of moral systems is useless at this point, because there's only finite number of possible aftermaths of every action developers can and want to put into the game. No matter which one will be chosen, gaming forums will be always full people that will call it buls*t because in their opinion that's not the way hero/villain/humble peasant should act.
It's simple as that...
You're missing the point - making a alignment/morality system more complicated than good/evil while still making the choices impactful is much more difficult than you imagine.
We want choice in games, we want plenty of it, and we want that choice to affect how the game plays out and ends. We want the consequences of our actions to echo down the line, for the game world and characters to react to them as well as building our own character through those choices.
Now imagine you need to develop a game. Let's say we start with a linear game with no choice. You need to write and record dialogue, build assets, do the design work, etc. Now let's say you want a Good/Evil morality system that changes how the game plays out. Well, now you need to record dialogue for both the Good and Evil options (and maybe Neutral), you need the various responses mapped out, cover every permutation. Then let's say you want some major events in the game (major quest chains, for instance) to have specific effects on the game, so you need to cover the various possible outcomes of such events, cover the Good/Evil options, etc. You are already doind 2-3 times as much work (maybe even more) in the writing/dialogue/voiceover department than you would for a linear game.
But now someone wants to add a Chaotic/Lawful scale to your Good/Evil scale. Suddenly, the number of permutations possible increases exponentially. And if you don't provide enough variety, people will whine about your game having no choice. You can make a quest chain have six different resolutions, but the Lawful Neutral player might end up whining that his alignment wasn't catered to, that he couldn't ropleplay his character the way he wanted to.
And that's why you don't get more complex choice systems in games today, at least not in AAA titles - the more choice you put in and the more impact it has on how the game plays out, the work and cost of making such a game skyrockets compared to a no-choice game. And as Shamus Young points out [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9331-The-Big-Cost-of-Small-Places], making games is already a massive undertaking, to the point where they can't even match the complexity of older games, much less surpass it.
Dreaming about the stuff you'd like to see in games is all well and good, but you really should try to be realistic about the implementation of such mechanics.
We want choice in games, we want plenty of it, and we want that choice to affect how the game plays out and ends. We want the consequences of our actions to echo down the line, for the game world and characters to react to them as well as building our own character through those choices.
Now imagine you need to develop a game. Let's say we start with a linear game with no choice. You need to write and record dialogue, build assets, do the design work, etc. Now let's say you want a Good/Evil morality system that changes how the game plays out. Well, now you need to record dialogue for both the Good and Evil options (and maybe Neutral), you need the various responses mapped out, cover every permutation. Then let's say you want some major events in the game (major quest chains, for instance) to have specific effects on the game, so you need to cover the various possible outcomes of such events, cover the Good/Evil options, etc. You are already doind 2-3 times as much work (maybe even more) in the writing/dialogue/voiceover department than you would for a linear game.
But now someone wants to add a Chaotic/Lawful scale to your Good/Evil scale. Suddenly, the number of permutations possible increases exponentially. And if you don't provide enough variety, people will whine about your game having no choice. You can make a quest chain have six different resolutions, but the Lawful Neutral player might end up whining that his alignment wasn't catered to, that he couldn't ropleplay his character the way he wanted to.
And that's why you don't get more complex choice systems in games today, at least not in AAA titles - the more choice you put in and the more impact it has on how the game plays out, the work and cost of making such a game skyrockets compared to a no-choice game. And as Shamus Young points out [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9331-The-Big-Cost-of-Small-Places], making games is already a massive undertaking, to the point where they can't even match the complexity of older games, much less surpass it.
Dreaming about the stuff you'd like to see in games is all well and good, but you really should try to be realistic about the implementation of such mechanics.
Part of why we will never have a true alignment system in video games (at least not in the forseeable future) is because apart from the limited choices. The game doesn't take into account your motivations for said action. for example I could be burning that tree to the ground because the kitten is an evil overlord. or I could save it because I want to drown it personally/use it as leverage for financial gain from the owner.
Hmm...JesterRaiin said:
I would say lawful neutral. Your interests are within your tribe, with hatred for anyone except your tribe. Some would say evil because you only care about your own interests rather than the world's interest. However since you are lawful to your tribe, not just yourself, I would go for neutral.
Okay besides that, I see your point, but I truly think that is what GODS are for, they can pretty much define good & evil however they want. If not the gods that are in the game, just put it up to the game developer.
For the OP, even though a D&D style alignment system would be nice (assume you don't pick it from the start, but it develops and can be changed depending on your decisions) I personally think there shouldn't be an alignment system at all. You want moral choices? Give your character some morals. The game doesn't need to come up with them for you. Moral conflicts only happen when you have morals.
I've always liked the law/chaos good/evil system. I think that while it's not entirely comprehensive, it is a good guideline and it defines most possible alignments quite well. So I suppose I would like to see it implemented more often than a strict black and white system that is so often used.
1. DnD gods aren't omnipotent, all knowing deities. Some of them were mere human that tricked their way into the godly pantheon. Some died, some were punished, stripped of their power.Fishyash said:
2. Developers make mistakes too. Remember KOTOR or Mass Effect discussion regarding moral choices ?
Also : <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.339579.13740041>this
