So you are using bad character design to backup your claim? The issue is that most of us don't like one dimensional characters like that. That is a character that was never fleshed out or explained other than "oh there are bad guys and there are good guys". Sorry that doesn't work for me. Every living being has factors and motivations that drive them to behave in a specific way. Cause and effect. Sometimes it is philosophical. Sometimes it is life experience. Psychological issues. If the emperor has no way of explaining why he does something (or for that matter the author of the damned story) then he is a <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> poor example of character design in general. Whether that be because those who told his story never told it completely or because they just need a filler obstacle to to occupy the protagonist.
Even Hitler and <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> Germany had their reasons (he was still a **** but still). If in doubt check out Nietzsche and the <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>'s on Netflix. It shows how philosophical beliefs were skewed and ultimately turned into full out tyranny.
The alignment system tends to encourage one dimensional character tropes without explaining them. Not to mention the there will always be actions that sit in the grey area and good people sometimes do bad things and bad people sometimes show mercy. Worrying about an alignment scale for that seems silly.
Alignment has always been one of those things I think has been clunky and restrictive. No one but shallow one dimensional characters behave in such a fashion. We're complex creatures in real life and the denizens of D&D should be too.
Often 'evil' can be subjective. An imperialistic kingdom conquering surrounding territories is probably perceived as evil by those who are subjugated. But what if the conquerors are 'lawful good' and bringing order and prosperity to a chaotic lawless and wild area? Are they still evil?
I would much rather prefer a more in depth system of factions and personal accountability for ones actions are the focus rather than an alignment point shift system. Even in traditionally evil societies mass murdering is generally frowned on. Even though murdering the 'weak' might be acceptable, just murdering the rest of your town may not be highly appreciated. It could be considered wasteful or even 'evil' for weakening the position of the kingdom with regards to its enemies.
In a faction system a racial group or nation might be outright hostile as they see you as an enemy, or they might be suspicious, ambivalent, somewhat positive, or genuinely friendly. Ones actions for or against that group could move their standing. Additionally mass murdering, excessive theft (that gains one a reputation for the act), and similar deeds might swing ones overall reputation in one direction or the other.
In effect it is an alignment system, but without the trite definitions and historically loaded meanings we've given to the system. I would like to see alignment, but in a deeper more thorough sense of the concept.
I like a lot of what Torskaldr has to say here. I have played D&D for last 35 years and loved debating the whole alignment thing for years as the game has evolved. It is a nice philosophical debate. In the end for game play it is too simplistic approach for good game play. Human history is filled with folks doing things they feel are for good in the long term even if evil in the short term - inquisision, crusades, civilizing the the indians and africa through slavery and conquest, the spread of islam by the sword, the spread of christianity by the sword, the spread of isreal by the sword.
The best approach is creating a wide variaty of religious factions representing good, evil, and everything in the middle that compete to dominate the world through either the sword or good works or both. The ultimate field of battle being the hearts and minds of the people of all race and the nations they live in. this would lead to awesome role play and well as combat PVP oppurtunities.
So you are using bad character design to backup your claim? The issue is that most of us don't like one dimensional characters like that. That is a character that was never fleshed out or explained other than "oh there are bad guys and there are good guys". Sorry that doesn't work for me. Every living being has factors and motivations that drive them to behave in a specific way. Cause and effect. Sometimes it is philosophical. Sometimes it is life experience. Psychological issues. If the emperor has no way of explaining why he does something (or for that matter the author of the damned story) then he is a <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> poor example of character design in general. Whether that be because those who told his story never told it completely or because they just need a filler obstacle to to occupy the protagonist.
Even Hitler and <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> Germany had their reasons (he was still a **** but still). If in doubt check out Nietzsche and the <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>'s on Netflix. It shows how philosophical beliefs were skewed and ultimately turned into full out tyranny.
The alignment system tends to encourage one dimensional character tropes without explaining them. Not to mention the there will always be actions that sit in the grey area and good people sometimes do bad things and bad people sometimes show mercy. Worrying about an alignment scale for that seems silly.
Who said anything about bad character design? I'm wondering if your even reading my posts.
0
klangeddinMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 882Arc User
edited June 2012
In the Pen and Paper, I'm pretty sure that if you don't like the alignment system, nothing forbids you to houserule something to replace it, or remove it entirely and not make it a factor at all.
In the case of videogames, you are in the realm of "limited", depending on what developers layed out for you, and something like the traditional alignment system is a fast and typical way to position your character in a few choices of the "iconical" behaviours of various characters in comics, fictions, ecc...
The same could be said of the class system, you could argue that it could be replaced by a "power source system", and then the iconical classes could be rebuilt via a choice of parameters, feats, powers ecc... while also allowing for more different choices that are in between a fighter and a paladin, or a paladin and a barbarian, or a barbarian and a fighter and so on (while also giving a custom name to the custom class you would create)...
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited June 2012
And (with a few exceptions like said Emperor Palpatine for example) most "evil" characters do not consider themselves evil but justified in doing the said "evil acts" for the "betterment" of their realm in the outcome. While it becomes philosophical to start talking about the "ends justifying the means," these people are the psychological equivalents of the personality types that change everything around them to fit their definition on how things work, justified or not (or not justified in reality for said insane "visionaries" like Hitler, Stalin, etc.)
Who said anything about bad character design? I'm wondering if your even reading my posts.
Here's a great example: The Emperor from the original Star Wars. He conquers everything in sight and dominates lesser beings with brutality and murder. To what end? To him it is his own end. He is evil, and he just likes being evil.
You did by bringing one up sir. You were arguing for one dimensional character design. That is ultimately what this is about. Sometimes I wonder if you even read your own posts.
Who said anything about bad character design? I'm wondering if your even reading my posts.
Emperor Palpatine *is* a one dimensional character along with most of the other Star Wars characters. That stuff makes for boring game play.
My post wasn't suggesting to do away with the idea of good/neutral/evil, but redefine the implementation and broaden it from the shallow restrictive system in core rules.
I don't feel like you read my post at all, but just kneejerked into a response. The core rules system is restrictive with very little consequence built into the system. I also pointed out inherent accountability for ones actions even within an evil society.
I feel like you want a simpler and clearer alignment system in place, but one with no consequences. I don't want that and I surely don't want it just so someone can play evil and roleplay that way. Alignment checks and painting complex beings into 5 different moral boxes are something I am not interested in having in game. I am, however, all for a more detailed and well thought out system that factors in various cultural and racial perspectives along with personal accountability for ones actions.
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited June 2012
Either have consequences for a character's actions in game or don't bother with the alignment system at all. 'Nuff said.
Will we even have choices in the game? If the game is devoid of any choice (AKA- the same as pretty much every single mmo other than SWTOR), then alignment in game probably just be flavour- like the colour of your eyes.
It will only really matter when it comes into how you play your character- which really only matters to the RP crowd.
Or, at most, it might effect the gear you can use (like holy weapons or anarchic) and stuff like that.
I would like to see though some questing where you aren't always taking the moral high ground.
Comments
Even Hitler and <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> Germany had their reasons (he was still a **** but still). If in doubt check out Nietzsche and the <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>'s on Netflix. It shows how philosophical beliefs were skewed and ultimately turned into full out tyranny.
The alignment system tends to encourage one dimensional character tropes without explaining them. Not to mention the there will always be actions that sit in the grey area and good people sometimes do bad things and bad people sometimes show mercy. Worrying about an alignment scale for that seems silly.
I like a lot of what Torskaldr has to say here. I have played D&D for last 35 years and loved debating the whole alignment thing for years as the game has evolved. It is a nice philosophical debate. In the end for game play it is too simplistic approach for good game play. Human history is filled with folks doing things they feel are for good in the long term even if evil in the short term - inquisision, crusades, civilizing the the indians and africa through slavery and conquest, the spread of islam by the sword, the spread of christianity by the sword, the spread of isreal by the sword.
The best approach is creating a wide variaty of religious factions representing good, evil, and everything in the middle that compete to dominate the world through either the sword or good works or both. The ultimate field of battle being the hearts and minds of the people of all race and the nations they live in. this would lead to awesome role play and well as combat PVP oppurtunities.
Who said anything about bad character design? I'm wondering if your even reading my posts.
In the case of videogames, you are in the realm of "limited", depending on what developers layed out for you, and something like the traditional alignment system is a fast and typical way to position your character in a few choices of the "iconical" behaviours of various characters in comics, fictions, ecc...
The same could be said of the class system, you could argue that it could be replaced by a "power source system", and then the iconical classes could be rebuilt via a choice of parameters, feats, powers ecc... while also allowing for more different choices that are in between a fighter and a paladin, or a paladin and a barbarian, or a barbarian and a fighter and so on (while also giving a custom name to the custom class you would create)...
You did by bringing one up sir. You were arguing for one dimensional character design. That is ultimately what this is about. Sometimes I wonder if you even read your own posts.
Emperor Palpatine *is* a one dimensional character along with most of the other Star Wars characters. That stuff makes for boring game play.
My post wasn't suggesting to do away with the idea of good/neutral/evil, but redefine the implementation and broaden it from the shallow restrictive system in core rules.
I don't feel like you read my post at all, but just kneejerked into a response. The core rules system is restrictive with very little consequence built into the system. I also pointed out inherent accountability for ones actions even within an evil society.
I feel like you want a simpler and clearer alignment system in place, but one with no consequences. I don't want that and I surely don't want it just so someone can play evil and roleplay that way. Alignment checks and painting complex beings into 5 different moral boxes are something I am not interested in having in game. I am, however, all for a more detailed and well thought out system that factors in various cultural and racial perspectives along with personal accountability for ones actions.
It will only really matter when it comes into how you play your character- which really only matters to the RP crowd.
Or, at most, it might effect the gear you can use (like holy weapons or anarchic) and stuff like that.
I would like to see though some questing where you aren't always taking the moral high ground.