test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Evil
criticalwit
Member Posts: 14 Arc User
As someone who desperately searches the interwebs and game-stores for any computer D&D experience I have not played through a half-dozen times I am really excited about Neverwinter. That said, I have a feeling I will be disapointed by the lack of something I have been dying for in D&D games - evil.
If the ability to play an evil or chaotic character is in the game, I imagine it will likely be limited to minor decisions and not affect what quests you receive, etc. That's unfortunate. It never really feels like there's much difference between good and evil when your on the same damn quests.
But we'll see. Just some idol speculation and commentary.
If the ability to play an evil or chaotic character is in the game, I imagine it will likely be limited to minor decisions and not affect what quests you receive, etc. That's unfortunate. It never really feels like there's much difference between good and evil when your on the same damn quests.
But we'll see. Just some idol speculation and commentary.
Post edited by criticalwit on
0
Comments
So saying if you have participated in tiefling purge means you have to always kick a puppy when you see one may not make sense. This is the direction in which 4e rules are drifting towards. It doesn't tie you up as a strictly evil or good; but gives you enough independence.
Good is good; evil is evil. The situation "what is evil for one can be good for other" doesn't exist. In the cosmos, there is a law which judges and determines whether someone or something is good or evil.
Why is tiefling in D&D defined as an evil race? Because things are clear, what they do are often evil.
With regard to the "devil invasion" example, if devils actually use the tieflings as gates to mortal world, then killing the tieflings surely is a good behavior.
That means if I try to save tiefling, being a tiefling wizard myself (or save myself), that will be evil behavior. And if I survive the purge, I would always have to kick the puppy because I am evil.
That is what 4e is not. It doesn't forces you to be good or evil.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
btw it was a trick question and similar argument can be constructed for the other option. Both options are evil and both options are good.
And ofc a player can choose to be good even if the predefined alignment of his/her race is evil. Drizzt is an example.
btw, I never said tieflings were helping devils. In case you haven't realized yet, it was a classic dilema of protecting the weak vs greater good for greater number. Former is used to protect the rights of minorities while latter is used to empower democracy. And both are conflicting from the time of that socrates disciple - forgot his name.
If the player can choose to do good, then they are just action. It means that the npc options won't change based on alignment. In that case, it doesn't matter as you can always script anything in foundry. It means that player will always have A, B, C options without anyone checking the alignment.
Having alignment would mean the option A would be there for all, but B will be different for good or evil.
Good luck with that in life. b:laugh
You can't judge good and evil objectively, because viewpoints change drastically from person to person.
I really, really hate to have to go into real politics, but just for this one I will have to make a light-as-possibe touch on it: Palestine vs Israel: who are the evil ones and who the good ones? Think about it for a bit (and please don't answer, because politics discussions are 1) not alowed here and 2) useless anyway)
btw, you happened to pick... sorry 'lieeghtly touch'(!) the hottest one of them.
I would say, no comments
*runs away*
Oh well... in the FW forums we once picked up a whole thread conversation about lolicon <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> -which mind you was not locked, for whatever reason, until recently someone came and necroed it- so it's not even the longest "pole" I've ever touched around these forums b:laugh
Ok -ahem*cough*cough- back to the topic: good and evil are entirely subjective. Based on what angle are you looking from at the events, people's alignments will vary drastically. Based on how much knowledge you have on the subject, your views will vary drastically.
Mind I suggest two excellent stories on that matter, of how good and evil change as you get a different, closer viewpoint: the anime adaptation of "Code Geass" -especially the second season- and a manga titled "The Record of a Fallen Vampire" -also known as "Vampire Juuji Kai".
There is no law judging every person. Not in this world, anyway...
We are talking about Good and Evil here, not Lawful and Chaotic, that's offtopic! b:chuckle
I think you are all straying away from the OP post. So I quoted it. And I will say again.
I imagine it will likely be limited to minor decisions and not affect what quests you receive, etc.
That is going to be true whatsoever as the game is based on 4e. 4e treats alignments very lightly compared to 3.5e or 3e (the 3x3 matrix). The alignments can change, if you have good alignment, you are free to do evil deeds etc.
In other words, D&D 4e gives you more independence. So you cannot have what is in red above as OP asked. The OP is correct in his/her assumption that alignment will not largely influence your decisions, whether good or bad.
P.S. I would also partly apologize as the deviation from topic was partly my fault too.
That being clear, what I was trying to say after establishing that; which now is partly off-topic and partly not-relevant - I personally feel that this step is a step in right direction. The other game like dragon age:origin etc. also give you independence to be evil or good depending on situations, even at time be less evil or more evil for greater good.
Thank you for your understanding.
EDIT: Also from a previous lengthy discussion with truthseeker we summarized that (actually I didn't have more than tiny contribution in that summary) that even in items, only one cleric implement is the one that checks good alignment before equipping and even that is not an important implement. And truthseeker reiterated again and again that alignment don't make much of a difference in 4e. That discussion should be in the archives if you want to see. That made me realise that alignment debates are fruitless and go nowhere (however I forgot that lesson when I first replied to the post).
I don't believe I have ever read that in any of the 4e books I currently own. Feel like citing a specific source?
Also the adolescent alignment system just needs to go. Best thing you might be able to implement is philosophical alignment and even then that should be a player choice with only RP story implications. Not game mechanic implications. Just MHO.
It is there in 4e books. Somewhere 'tis written that evil alignment should only be chosen if allowed by DM. There are evil campaigns and I guess you can play all the campaigns with evil character, however there are sentences which tend to discourage such practice in normal sessions.
However, considering alignments don't make much of a difference, it is just a guideline and not a rule or something.
So the alignment system is very loose, however using evil characters while playing is something they assume won't happen in normal sessions(like saying DM won't allow it).
EDIT: btw, did I mention most DM I have played with never follow guidelines?
As you see, van is right about what he said that evi is allowed, however ezgoezit is partially right about existence of the line discouraging evil. That is because party will hate an evil character (who would want their throats slit on the eve of facing demon king).
So it is a guideline and not a rule. And van is right in saying all campaigns can be run being evil.
There are a lot of great modules for NwN games that focus on being evil, true. But even the best of modules (generally) lack the polish of games made by a real developer.
But anyway, a lot of you are missing my point entirely (on the internet? No way!). D&D has always contained a morality system which helps in both role-playing your characters actions and affects some of the games mechanics. In 4.0 the alignments are Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil. These all mean something very specific, though they can stem from countless factors and view points.
I understand the difficulties in developing a game where characters can truly live up to the mantle of "true evil," especially in an MMO like this, so I am not going to fault the developers for not including it. I am just ruminating on how awesome that would be.
Agreed. Best of community modules are simply the best. They also have more polish than official content and have more creativity. I am sure good creators can copy/recreate official content, however modules usually go a step further from that.
If you want to become anakin skywalker and go kill younglings, I am sure there could be a user content to do that. But if you want that a certain choice available to evil character should not be available to good character, it is my opinion, it won't be that way.
As for the "where does it say evil shouldn't be often used by players" guideline. I refer you to the 4th edition Player's Handbook Chapter Two, the Alignment topic, third paragraph (not counting the box on Alignment:)
All of this is moot if there aren't any game consequences (both good and bad) on your alignment. So what if I save kitties from trees or wipe villages out if it doesn't do anything in game?
I beat you to the quote in my previous 20th post.
*celebrates with a victory dance*
*alignment shifts 3 towards evil*
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.
This is just plain incorrect. I have played dozens upon dozens of table-top campaigns and can honestly claim to never have played a character identical to the last. Evil, good, lawful, chaotic come as a result of a characters background and personality, of which there are infinite possibilities.
In fact, I find it hard to roll the same character twice out of the builders guide, let alone just free-balling it. It's absolutely wrong to say that alignment is restrictive. A) you can shift your alignment, and
As to good and evil being relative? Well, aside from the fact that "relative truth" is self-referentially incoherrent (**** spelling), this is a game with rules, and the rules for good and evil aren't complicated. People can have different reasons for committing an evil act, for instance. They may view themselves as justified, but it's still evil, and the world around them recognizes it as such.
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.
Can you somehow justify his actions? Is there some "perspective" unique to him that gives purpose to his actions? Of course not, he's just evil for evil's sake because he likes it.