POLL: Evil Alignment, But Playing "Good"?

Remove all ads!

Well, this is my first poll ever on SP... so here goes. We were having a discussion in the chatroom about whether or not people set their alignments as "Evil", yet play "Good" to take advantage of XP, gold, etc. We eventually got around to the topic of whether or not characters should be penalized for selecting evil alignments, but playing outside those alignments, since most games allow you to do so. There are subtle penalties, like your NPC's leaving, etc., but I'm thinking of something more formal, I guess.

So, the question is: Do you think characters should be penalized for playing outside their alignments?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 38 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Evil Alignment, But Playing "Good"? (38 votes.)

Should chars be formally penalized for playing outside their alignments? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 71% (27)
* No - 29% (11)

 

I do allow my players quite some freedom in their decisions, but acts that are obviously opposed to their alignment I usually punish in some way or another. Good poll

 

Seeing since all games which allow you to play evil never really give you any oppurtunity to do so except by being an idiotic jerk which leads to many various penalties I always play the good way when I am evil justifying it with my evil character aint stupid and knows that rewards might be greater if he puts up a nice facade.

I would sorely like a game where it could really pay off to be evil, but with equal risks to the eventual pay off. For instance you should be able to rob stores and burgle and various evil activity. This of course would lead to risks of BG1 style Flaming Fist though not as game over creating at that. The risks shouldnt be too high for playing evil though as then you would miss out on the good rewards you get for helping lost children and the like.

All in all I think it should pay off a lot to be evil, especially in the short run. Then as a balancing you might miss out on some wicked quest or serious loot. Or perhaps managing to get involved with way too powerful evil organisations or the like. Then there should always the stray party of paladins trying to hunt you down.

 

Most developers don't have guts/creativity to make some truly "evil" choises available, or even options that would mirror "neutral" alingment. I'm thinking some vampire games here, and those always seem to be "kill everything you meet." Right. Evil. Riiight.

As to penalties of playing outside the *pretended* alingment (as per in BG2 and similars), I don't think it's a good idea. IIRC, NWN had a bit better system, determining it by a slider (good action +, bad -).

 

Voted No.

I think that true role players don't commit actions outside their alignment anyway. Why not let the powergamers have their extra Exp, gold and equipment. Also I think that there is no such thing as utterly evil or downright holy anyway. Are there no persons who act evil but can accept a quest given by a 'good' person if they see a personal profit in it? I can't accept that an utterly evil person won't take on a quest which he/her sees profit in because besides it it may better the world in the smallest way.

Also I would like to see more alignment change when playing. A person can change during certain emotional situations right?

 

Apeman -- You bring up some good points....perhaps there should be no alignment to begin with. Or have some mechanism to allow for character growth. It just struck me, as I was playing BG2, that even though I had a decidedly evil party, the "good" dialogue was always available to me....and when I chose those options on occasion, my reputation sometimes changed, but my alignment stayed the same. I just think if we bother to state it up front to begin with, maybe we should have penalities for deviating from it. But I also agree with you too.... everyone has good days and bad....it's just that the way it is now, there's no consequence for deviating from prescribed alignments.

 

It depends. Good characters should be penalised for evil actions. I suggest some mildness when it comes to Good characters who think that ends justify means. They aren't evil per se; they simply don't get the idea. Means they're Neutral, but they could be given some chance to improve - well, if they see the evil consequences of their evil actions taken even with a good goal in mind, perhaps they'll realise something more than just the fact they screwed up. Maybe they'll learn. If not, welcome to the TN world.

Neutrals are a bit more tricky. They may do good for even altruistic reasons without necessarily becoming Good for good. They may do evil for personal reasons against personal enemies. In most cases that would be eye for an eye, which doesn't make one immediately evil. For selfish reasons, they might do acts that are generally classified as good.

Evil doesn't mean stupid. If it's more profitable to pass as a good and kind fellow, then why not? Evil is about looking out for number one and the act being good in nature doesn't change the fact it only came to effect as a result of ultimately selfish motivation.

Note, however, that doing good excessively for selfish reasons may still lead a person to seeing some inherent value of Good and dropping their Evil alignment without necessarily becoming Good. Perhaps somewhere in the middle: first doing good deeds when it pays. Next doing good deeds when it doesn't require much effort. Note that still having no qualms assassinating trade competitors or political enemies and some such.

Ultimately, the character might still at some point say "f*.*, I'm not going to let this happen" and die for a good cause, especially if he had been Good before.

On the other axis, there are more problems. There will always be disagreement as to what Lawful is, for example. Chaotic is typically, though not always, quite clear, but Lawful is a pain.

As a DM, I would probably force one step change on all chaotic characters who get overly consistent in obeying the law for its own sake or get too disciplined, or generally display legalism. Unlike evil characters who might do good for selfish reasons, chaotic characters won't really act lawful for convenience.

Neutrals depend on circumstances, so I would leave them alone unless they were very consistent in favouring one side of the axis.

As I said before, Lawful is a pain. Breaking an obviously oppressive law doesn't make it. Even breaking a stupid law doesn't, in fact. On the other hand, that something is allowed or even required by a particular law doesn't make it lawful.

Breaking a valid oath, unfaithfulness to legitimate authority, treason, forging money, false testimony in courts, violating court procedure (mock trials of evil characters under some bogus charge and without proper procedure are... a good way to become CE) that's what makes it. Amongst everyday minutiae, I guess it's hard to find something sufficiently clear to warrant alignment change from Lawful. It would have to be something really stupid or thoroughly disordered, or vastly anti-social. Rash and relentless thoughtlessness characterising some Lawful characters may lead them to become Chaotic.

I suggest caution: after all, everyone is more likely to do good when it's profitable and everyone is more likely to be mean when sufficiently provoked. Just about everyone, regardlessly of alignment, has to display some Lawfulness to function normally in a society. Ultimately, just about every single one of our adventurous PCs who won't simply settle down and lead a normal productive life has some Chaotic traits.

Heck, even the oh so Lawful paladins are inherently marked by chaotic tendencies - guys who won't call Evil Good just because the majority says so. Guys who won't give a damn about social approval when something is downright wrong in their perceptions. Charismatic loners who have excellent leadership capabilities and still are reclusive, work typically alone or in small groups and so on. Also, they aren't typically known for strict adherence to proper trial. On the other hand even your iconic Chaotic Good ranger has some set of rules and principles he won't break, some set of more or less consistent habits, probably behaves honourably and all. See?

 

True Chev... but... there are multiple Evil alignments. A NE or LE would probably do good deeds once in awhile, as it's all about what's best for him and the quest for gold. But a CE character is way out there....killing for the sake of killing, not really simply for the sake of gold. I think a good action from an established CE character should be made to pay!

 

Not even CE means chaotic stupid. Even a demon can keep itself under control if it understands that it would be a very bad idea to go on a killing spree just then and there.

 

Apeman: you got it spot on!
Furthermore, I also find it EXTREMELY annoying that there are so few games (In fact, none AFAIK)that will allow you to play any alignment (within reason) and still not be the idiot who ends up with 1 thirds of the exp. gold and items the players of 'the other' alignment get - alignments should be more or less equally rewarding, with Evil getting slightly more then good, but having certain disadvantages as well (be hunted, trouble getting help from anyone, (good) priests unwilling to service your party etc).
Basically making evil what it is in RL: a course with great risks, and social disadvantages, leading to great riches if you succeed (honestly, who has ever gotten rich be doing good eh?)

 

For me, the freedom of choise is more important. I'm pretty much up to my neck full of "110% heroic" characters. I can take one or two of them, but when every game and movie is based on that clichê, you begin to wish some change...

 

@Spelly: Just as not every LG is nice or polite, not every CE has to be immediately and manifestly hostile. He may actually plot insanely behind the stages while maintaining a 100% amiable presence and being reputed for several good traits. Doing good deeds only reinforces the reputation of a hero that he needs

 

I agee (and those are the smart ones) but tell me one game in which you can actually play such character?

 

In all the IE ones. Impression is handled by reputation and reputation reflects your deeds, with only a slight adjustment to your alignment at the beginning of the game. Characters join or leave basing on your reputation and not alignment. That's how other people view you as well. Few things are based directly on your alignment when it comes to the reception you get. And you can always choose a good or an evil option no matter what your current alignment is.

 

They should not be penalized. However, all actions have consequences.

If a Neutral Good Ranger begins slaughtering children, don't take away XP - change his alignment. If a Chaotic Evil Sorcerer uses his magic to save a group of innocent pilgrims, then you should consider that a good act (by itself), and also consider alignment change.

The problem seems to be that it is tricky to do this with computer games.

 

I think that a better developed evil good system to replace the current one, and the reputation system as well.

I never liked reputation actually. I mean, you kill a city gaurd on a deserted street at 1am and you rep drops. I mean, if nobody saw you....

 

Oaz makes a good point. By penalised I meant forced to change alignment. This is associated with an XP penalty, which is a canon rule, though still I'd rather get rid of it, no matter if the character finally accepts the change and lives with it or returns to his prior alignment. Alignment change would be seen as penalty by players willing to have their characters maintain an alignment that is inconsistent with their actions. However, technically, this is a natural consequence of their actions rather than a penalty per se, given that alignment system describes a character and not the other way round.

 

Doesent Greyhawk (the new one) provide very good options for playing with whatever alignment? I heard the whole game changes according to your aligntment, ex: EVIL:instead of fighting the bad guys you join them

 

Evil characters can do almost anything they want because there's always some vile reason out there to justisfy it. The arguments seem endless, from pure savagery, holding ransoms to faking a good appearance. I think it would be hard for the programmers to cater to so many schemes - it would be like trying to read the player's mind. So trying to punish evil characters for doing good things would be too complex to implement.

I don't like the XP penalty idea. I think XP determines how good a fighter or mage you are. It's more of a physical thing; how well you fight, what spells you know and HP. It doesn't really say anything about how well your decisions match your alignment. Just because a righteous fighter commits treason doesn't mean he loses his fighting ability with every castle guard he kills. (Sorry, crude example)

Reputation is totally geared towards playing good. Evil characters with a low reputation should get some bonuses. Perhaps give them a high success rate when stealing from stores. Then at least this discourages the "fake to get a high reputation to buy at lower costs" scheme because you'd rather steal the item for free.

 

Jaguar rises an interesting point. If nobody saw you do something evil, how can your reputation suffer? Kill all witnessess, who is going to report it?

Rather than having a singe reputation meter, multiple would be handy. One for the local law, one for the clergy, one for the underworld etc. An increase in your reputation for the local law results in a fall in your reputation with the underworld.