Baldur’s Gate 3 is a story-rich, party-based RPG set in the universe of Dungeons & Dragons, where your choices shape a tale of fellowship and betrayal, survival and sacrifice, and the lure of absolute power. (Website)
If your post contains any possible spoilers, please:
Thank you!
Good, the alignment system doesn't translate into videogame format very well. You don't have a DM who can make on the fly decisions and changes as a reaction to alignment based missteps.
In a video game, it's just a limiting factor that likely will pre-dispose potential interactions. In ttRPGs people can have an infinite number of reactions and paths forward. In a videogame there's till a finite of hard-coded outcomes.
5e barely has an alignment system
That what I was reading.
I guess your actions will reflect who you are.
Alignments are only as good as people behind them. It's not alignment's fault when a juvenile edgelord selects Lawful Good and thinks he should still be allowed to lie, cheat, loot and kill like there's no tomorrow.
TBH, alignments are, at best, a shorthand for a character's morals, how they'll likely act in a philosophical vacuum as it were; with no context, will they default to upholding the law, or defying it? Helping others, or prioritizing themselves?
For a cosmological force/extraplanar entity, these things can be absolute and binding; upholding a law they believe unjust because it is law, withholding aid even when offering it might be in your best interest, because kindness is weakness. But for everyday people? Who, why, when, where; all the possible little nuances matter. Our "alignment" might change day by day with our mood.
Much more useful, IMO, for to just be ignored during character creation, and the characters judged by how they behave. You don't decide ahead of time whether or not you're playing a good character, you show me during the session. That way, it's not words on paper, it's the actual nature of the character you want to play. /shurg
TBH, alignments are, at best, a shorthand for a character’s morals, how they’ll likely act in a philosophical vacuum as it were; with no context, will they default to upholding the law, or defying it?
Absolutely not.
There are 9 separate alignments, each well covered and presented by D&D and its derivatives like Pathfinder as well as numerous articles and possibly sourcebooks/handbooks. There are suggestions as to how apply each by the DM to his NPCs and how to roleplay one as a PC.
The problem with alignment stems from people who didn't actually read the books for the games they are playing (not a jab, it's a common attitude - people learn from other people rather than from studying core/sourcebooks). Their understanding of the alignments isn't particularly good. As such they can't properly appply them to their games, so they try and discredit them, usually by using once-in-the-lifetime scenarios that rarely happen if ever at the actual table.
Our “alignment” might change day by day with our mood.
Not really, no. It takes a severe physical trauma/farmacology to change the character of a man. Mood might change, patience might fail, but you don't shift from a saint to a murderer overnight. You may walk among your fellow people pretending to be something else than you really are, but the mask isn't your "alignment" and by wearing it you're effectively casting a spell that hides the real you before the eyes of the other people.
You don’t decide ahead of time whether or not you’re playing a good character, you show me during the session.
I see no problem in deciding what character I will play before the game begins and trying to "fill the boots" during the session(s).
Absolutely not. There are 9 separate alignments, each well covered and presented by D&D and its derivatives like Pathfinder as well as numerous articles and possibly sourcebooks/handbooks. There are suggestions as to how apply each by the DM to his NPCs and how to roleplay one as a PC.
Eh. There are two axis divided up into approximate zones. Said suggestions, based on these zones, cover a wide range of characters, that might fundementally disagree on questions of morality and ethics. They provide guidelines and generalizations about what they care about and prioritize. The label only means as much as can be held true across all permutations of characters within it, which isn't a lot. Again, moral shorthand for general situations.
Not really, no. It takes a severe physical trauma/farmacology to change the character of a man. Mood might change, patience might fail, but you don’t shift from a saint to a murderer overnight. You may walk among your fellow people pretending to be something else than you really are, but the mask isn’t your “alignment” and by wearing it you’re effectively casting a spell that hides the real you before the eyes of the other people.
To avoid getting too deep into philosophical considerations of the self, and the nature of minds, I will just say that I fundementally disagree with this interpretation of humanity. And, it is worth noting, this hyperbolizes somewhat. A change from good to neutral is still a change. :P People don't tend to seesaw between extremes, but rather vary about some average. More importantly, perhaps, at what point does/must action reflect nature? But, ultimately, I think this is a philosphical disagreement that cannot be easily bridged. /shurg
I see no problem in deciding what character I will play before the game begins and trying to “fill the boots” during the session(s).
To be fair, this was poor phrasing, on my part. The morals and ethics of your character are, obviously, part of the character's concept. But if you want that concept to be reflected in the world, you have to live up to it. Words on paper do not determine the morality of your character. (Alignment is essentially entirely phased out at this point, mechanically, for a reason.) Your alignment only really matters for the DM, in how they make the world respond to you. And (unless you're dealing with cosmological forces/extraplanar entities), that is often more nuanced than nine vague categories can adequately express. /shurg
There are two axis divided up into approximate zones.
That's one of the reasons the alignments are misunderstood. People separate each of two pieces forming every alignment and think about them separately. It leads to a confusion. Too bad Arenson & Gygax didn't go with "Paladin/Judge/Madman" and similar descriptive names.
I fundementally disagree with this interpretation of humanity.
I'd want to disagree too, but I can't. That's not how human mind works. The gist of it is that while we can change PLENTY about our characters, the underlying pattern, let's call it "a nervous system" is pretty much immutable. A choleric may learn some self-control, but he won't become a phlegmatic.
Alignments are more forgiving in this department, they allow for a total switch, but hell, we're talking about reality where magic exists, not the real world.
More importantly, perhaps, at what point does/must action reflect nature?
A person isn't a still, but a process, more like a movie. No single frame defines him or her. People misunderstanding the alignments often summon some improper, ridiculously exaggerated case of "and then the Paladin Falls" scenario, but they forget that actions forced upon a character, that leave him with only "wrong" options do not shape his alignment.
The gist of it is that you absolutely do not shift alignment every time when you act "contrary" to your nature.
Your alignment only really matters for the DM,
By heaven's no! It's fun to play a selected role, trying to uphold your internal, selected coherency and creed in spite of dire situations and against the fate. That's part of the experience and by taking it away, Role-Playing Games suffer severe limitation and evolve in "too easy" direction.
Fun fact: caster's supremacy is the direct result of people complaining that spell-required resource tracking is too much of a bother. Fast forward a few iterations of D&D and suddenly everyone's a caster. Of sorts. Because why would you be pure martial if every spellcaster will mop the floor with your character?
I... am growing somewhat confused as to what is being argued, here.
Alignment as an axes system is flawed (but people liked it better this way, other systems have been experimented with in other editions), yeah, because the axes correlate by nature, and things like good and law have different meanings based on how much you value the other. But... categories aren't better? Because morality and ethics do exist on a spectrum, as much as the spectrum used is a poor representation. I get the sense (no intent to put words in your mouth, correct me if I'm wrong) you see alignments as broad character archetypes, more so than descriptions of their ethics and morality? Which is fine if you want to treat them that way, just liable to get confusing.
Again, fairly fundemental philosophical differences. This isn't the forum for writing essays about the nature of self and of minds, and the capacity for change, so I'm not going to do that here.
As for actions; this is actually what I was getting at. Nature and action can be in opposition, but as outside observers, we determine nature from action. Is a change in action a change in nature, or a facet of complex circumstance? Can nature change without a correlating change in action? The NPCs and other characters shouldn't have access to the writing on your character sheet. They should judge you by the information they have available.
I think, again, I have managed to put my foot into my mouth, but I also think this is maybe reaching the root of the disagreement (although, as mentioned, I am a little confused about that :P). To my mind, alignment is something determined from character, not a in-depth descriptor of character. Your character, their role in the story and their personality, matters to the whole table. But your alignment is an (incomplete and over-generalized) aspect of that, not the whole of it, nowhere close.
But… categories aren’t better?
They are easier to grasp. Your example of thinking about alignments as pairs of qualities is the proof for that. Again: there are 9 distinctive alignments. They absolutely shouldn't be broken into pairs of qualities, each analyzed separately as people do it.
For example, for me there's no such thing as Lawful + Good, where Law forces the character to do this, while Good - that. It's "Lawfulgood" and it's the expression of a struggle to be as close to archetypal paladin or warrior-saint as possible. Fight, fail, get up, fight again. Struggle.
This isn’t the forum for writing essays about the nature of self and of minds, and the capacity for change, so I’m not going to do that here.
Way I see it, if the discussion requires it, then it absolutely is. If the discussion can't be resolved because the arguments can't be brought up, then what's the point of even starting the discussion?
Is a change in action a change in nature, or a facet of complex circumstance?
No single action is enough to determine the nature of man.
Can nature change without a correlating change in action?
Yes. I can chain a person to a wall, pump enough chemicals into her bloodstream that it remakes her into a violent monster, or perform full frontal lobotomy (Jekyll & Hyde scenario) and leave her like that. It will be impossible for her to commit any action, but her nature will change radically.
But your alignment is an (incomplete and over-generalized) aspect of that, not the whole of it, nowhere close.
That's how alignments are described and were described since the beginning, yes. The idea that an alignment limits the actions and choices of a character is entirely wrong and stems from the lack of proper understanding of how they should be applied to a game.
I mean, what about if you want to play an evil character? Being "evil" in many rpg videogames is being a psychopath that kills because they enjoy it, steals when there's no need, and in general does evil for the sake of it. Instead of you making "bad roleplaying choices", it's the game forcing its view of the alignment on you.
I'm all for a more grey moral system where you can be evil because you do something for personal gain that happens to fuck up a lot of people, or something like that. Not having that is actually the reason I rarely play evil characters in games.
Stripping the game off of alignments won't provide you with the options you want.
Play ttRPGs with DM who allows for such a gameplay and a group that is ok with that.
I stopped giving my characters alignments after 5e came out, and I've never once missed them. Safe to say by this point I never will. Good on Larian.
Looks like we will not have to pick an alignment. Article says that 5e down played it and WOTC is planning to remove it.