PDA

View Full Version : What about the alignment system?



spectre
03-17-2008, 10:43 PM
I am curious about your opinions on this one.
Are you satisfied with how it's handled in ADOM? And if not, how would you improve upon it, then?

Personally, I think whatever alignment system is used, it will always sound artificial and confining, so I think we need to set aside the 'playing a role' standpoint, and simply consider (if we were to change anything, of course, and I am the kind of guy that would modify and house-rule to death just about anything that won't run up a tree) what gives us more fun, ie. stuff to toy around it.

As far as ADOM was concerned, the L+ to C- axis was simplistic, but did suffice given the character of the game (and its cosmology as well), its main conflict (forces of good vs. forces of chaos, with neutrality as the middle ground).

However, even within this framework, it had problems. It equated chaotics with followers of chaos, which would'have been ok, if it didn't put demons, thieves and WMoPCs into the same basket. In the end, it was all put to the extreme, if you were good, you had to do goody stuff. If you were bad, you sneer at children, wear black, and get to grow tentacles in the end. If you were neutral, you jusy did a little bit of either.

Well, it's a game, dammit, and I am very fine with that. There is a beauty to be had in simplicity. But this is JADE, and JADE makes me want to think big.

So now, much blabber and no suggestions. So there it goes:
I would very much like the alignment in JADE to be more fixed. Once you are L, you stay that way. Period. It will take lots of work to change it to Neutral flavor, and turning Chaotic should be a lifetime goal. No switching back and forth.
Simple way of doing this would be to vastly expand the number of 'stones' needed to change.

I also think that the semi-alignments, like the LN and CN parts of the alignment axis should come to life a bit more. In ADOM these idicated that you were changing your morals, and rarely lasted for long. Perhaps in JADE these cold be lifestyles of their own?

An alternative I'd considered for some time was the notorious D&D double axis Good-Evil, Law-Chaos alignment. It seems logical, since ADOM doesn't care to hide its D&D heritage to much, o that's just adding to the pool. It also allows for some more complexity in the characters, cosmology, and a lot more.

I know there's a lot of people out there who despise D&D alignment system, and rightfully so. But I am of the opinion, that the system is not flawed, it is simply hard to do well. (Of all the examples, only Planescape: Torment comes to mind). It's not like it is rocket science, though. One simply needs to keep in mind that the Good-Evil dichotomy has been overdone ad nauseam. The important thing is, the Law-Chaos axis is NOT the same thing (although it's way to ofen confused), and is ripe with fresh ideas for characters, quests, viewpoints.

The more I think of it, the more it seems that such a change would be good. Think about it, ADOM already has the Lawful Neutral, Neutral Evil, only it represents them as LN and N-, merely short-lived transition steps, not alignments of their own. (Also, due to that Law = Good and Chaos = Evil, there's no such thing as Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil in the ADOM system)
Yeah, this also another flaw out there, Law vs. Chaos conflicts in ADOM are tentamount to Good vs. Evil. I see some squandered potential right there.
Robin Hood in ADOM has a problem here. He's not Lawful, cause he breaks the law actively, he's not Chaotic, since he helps the poor. That makes him a true N=, equating him with a druid-like guy. I think this misses something.

theotherhiveking
03-17-2008, 10:57 PM
D&D double axis is already ingame :p

look for TB posts.

Edit: not needed

http://www.adom.de/forums/showpost.php?p=718&postcount=10

spectre
03-17-2008, 11:43 PM
Oh, I somehow managed to miss this one. Thx. This kinda makes the whole agrument moot.

Grey
03-18-2008, 11:51 AM
One important thing about the implementation of the dual-axis is not to weight the game too heavily around Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil. Planescape for instance, whilst being a very nicely balanced game, has two extremely powerful artifacts that can only be used by these two opposing alignments. Everything inbetween doesn't matter. Some general thoughts:

Most enemies should not be chaotic evil. Kobolds might be lawful evil for instance, strictly obeying their evil masters. Doppelgangers would be neutral evil, since they are neither chaotic nor lawful. Many enemies could even come in different flavours of alignments - there's nothing to say that orc might not actually be a closet neutral good, and if you show him mercy he'll turn his life round set up an orphanage. All simple-minded creatures like animals and contructs would be some flavour of balance, since they don't have complex enough brains to choose between good and evil. The forces of corruption are generally associated with chaotic evil, but within their ranks there should be a lot more flavour.

Most good guys should not be lawful good. Most people are more likely to be neutral good than lawful good (how many do you know that obey every law strinctly?) There would be a fair number of lawful neutrals too - people who would obey evil laws out of fear. Chaotic good and chaotic neutrals could have all sorts of flavours of personality, not just the traditional Robin Hood and schizophrenic stereotypes respectively associated with them. Chaotic good needn't mean a rebel, but it could mean someone that's very individually motivated and likes to work for themself instead of others, but still does good things for others. Chaotic neutrals might be gamblers, mercenaries, or simply self-centred people.

Balance should be a real force. It's not just a mix of both - there's got to be real neutral and balanced quests. Balance is too often associated just with druids and nature, but it should be much more than that. If Chaos is defeated then maybe balanced characters would have to strike down the greatest good city to keep things on an even keel. Maybe good characters would have to defend against grey slayers attacking good and lawful people. Balance could also apply to balancing the elements, and not just law/chaos or good/evil. It could mean making sure power is balanced between rivals or enemies, or even gods. There needs to be a lot more to make sure the player isn't just choosing between some shade of black or white, and balance has the potential to provoke a lot of interesting player thoughts and decisions.

Players need to be given real ultimatums. There shouldn't be right or wrong choices - players should be given options that they really have to think about. Someone's on the run from the law, do you help them or reel them in? The latter choice is obviously lawful, the former not so clear (it could actually be an evil character tricking you, or it could be someone wrongly persecuted, or it could be a political refugee). A king orders you to crush some rebels, but they want help from oppression - neither side is evil, but who do you help? A good city will be destroyed by a dark god unless you sacrifice a child to him - do you stain your hands red and save the people (but gain their eternal hatred and make the god more powerful) or save what few you can and see the city laid to ruins (losing various quest possibilities in the process)? Two rival evil gangs vie for supremacy, each offering you different rewards for your service. Which do you help, or do you play them against each other reaping all the rewards you can? (Or play them against each other to weaken them allowing you to destroy both gangs, freeing the town from their tyranny?) There should be lots of choices and ways to deal with situations, and more shades of grey than Gandalf on a cloudy day.

spectre
03-18-2008, 01:03 PM
You are very right, Grey, there are lots of pitfalls in the D&D alignment system. And as we can see even the near perfect Torment has gotten its share.

I would add a few more to the list:

Evil does not mean we drink blood and eat children, and chaotic doesn't mean we speak funny That's a common vice in D&D.
I am an advocate of seeing the Evil axis more as denoting self centered individuals. They do not actively plot to take over the world in their leisure time, but are simply motivated by personal gain, money etc. Thus, a Neutral Evil might cater for both a murderer, greedy smuggler and a mercenary.

In D&D its nicely adjusted using Widom attribute. A low Wis character is more likely to be transparent in indulging his or her urges, just like a child gleefuly plucking wings off butterflies, while a high Wisdom Evil might be more clandestine.

I would also add to your point that bad guys shouldn't be Chaotic Evil, I'd say more, it shouldn't be always Evil. I can perfectly imagine Lawful bad guys, who 'meant well' and all. Even Good bad guys, especially if the player comes from an ork village. It's all relative.

I agree that there's a misconception foating around, that Lawful Good is somehow 'gooder' than Neutral Good and Chaotic Good. I think this is BS, since ultimately, all these alignments ARE good, they mean well for he fellow man (or woman, or dwarf), are equally capable of self sarifice. Their methods are of course quite different (and often unacceptable to one another, Lawful Goods and Chaotic Goods should very often speak at cross purposes)

I think the Chaotic part of the aligment is likewise misunderstood. It's clearly visible if you take the early descriptions of this alignment into onsideration. At first, it was a 'special' alignment suited best to madmen, and even now it is seen someimes in game design, where CNs are those who 'speak funny.'

Look how Torment hadled this. You are Chaotic if you lie, make oaths and break them, act funny (ie. unpredictably), go against the grain. You lie not because you're a bad person, but because it ultimately doesn't matter for you. (If you break the word because you see material gain, however, it's a different story.)
But there's more to this, I think t should be emphasized that Chaos stands for freedom. Thus, Chaotics should be, ultimately, free spirits and free thinkers.
They CAN be madmen, but I have a feeling that obsessive compulsives belong more in the realm of law. Think more of them as incurable romantics and artists.

Dougy
03-18-2008, 10:35 PM
And there's those characters that act good, but are secretly trying to trick you into helping them.

Or like Midna on Zelda, I could never tell if she was evil or not!

spectre
03-19-2008, 12:43 AM
That's true, and it also is partially the reason why D&D alignment fails when applied to "real life" situations.

I prefer to think about this as a rough guideline, an overall label that can be said to characterise the whole modus operandi of an entity. It's not like Evil are prohibited from funding an orphanage, their reasoning to do so, however is totally different (and not necessarily because they can burn it down later). It should always be a tool not a straight-jacket.