My problem with the Evil alignment, especially Lawful Evil

[BigFloof]

Most games will associate Evil with being a murderhobo, or just generally a dong to everyone. However, of course an Evil person - especially Lawful Evil - will help those, even if just for ulterior motives. Being mean to your companions is not Evil, but stupid. Treating your companions well is something Evil people will do just like Good people, if not for different reasons.

[Stone]

Legacy D&D alignment handles this in the wrong way, I agree. CRPGs suffer from this a lot evil is selfish but not stupid.

[Gigabyte]

even if playing evil you dont have to pick every evil option, On my Demon mythic run I never really felt limited by the evil options. Even if I did there was generally a Neutral or Chaotic Option I could run too without worry.

[amills1]

I generally think of evil alignments as being selfish and/or lacking compassion. Regill is an example of the latter. He expects strict discipline even when it might cause someone to come to hard.

[ExcaliburV]

Originally posted by amills1:

I generally think of evil alignments as being selfish and/or lacking compassion. Regill is an example of the latter. He expects strict discipline even when it might cause someone to come to hard.

I think this is pretty much how it's summed up. A lack of compassion and generally being a cynical jerk are wrapped up in evil, so generally a lot of the "prick" options are evil.

Personally I played a NE character that picked a lot of good options for practical reasons and still maintained her alignment, so it's not impossible. But I think something that might be an improvement would be a kind of inner monologue/follow-up where you pick an option, then the game prompts you to explain why you're doing that action, and the "why" is what shifts your alignment.

[amills1]

Originally posted by ExcaliburV:

Originally posted by amills1:

I generally think of evil alignments as being selfish and/or lacking compassion. Regill is an example of the latter. He expects strict discipline even when it might cause someone to come to hard.

But I think something that might be an improvement would be a kind of inner monologue/follow-up where you pick an option, then the game prompts you to explain why you're doing that action, and the "why" is what shifts your alignment.

Possibly true, but that would be a lot of work given the amount of dialog in the game.

[ExcaliburV]

Originally posted by amills1:

Possibly true, but that would be a lot of work given the amount of dialog in the game.

Would it? Your character's inner thoughts would (almost) never be heard by anyone, so the way I picture it is this- you do an action, the game stops for a second and prompts you to say why, there's a list of however many answers, your alignment shifts but none of the dialogue or the outcome of the choice is affected because it's just an inner monologue.

So the only thing that would be added is more text options that don't branch at all. I'm not exactly a dev so I could be wrong, but that doesn't sound too bad to handle.

[Khloros]

Well thats just because in general, evil parties are harder to work with, because its harder to tell a story/narrative with an evil party because 9/10 times, the true evil thing to do, would horribly screw over the DM story progression.

If anything 'Evil' in dnd and this game can better be representative with 'uncaring'

Uncaring lawful: A person who goes by the books and law no matter what that means
Uncaring chaotic: just sort of does what ever they want with out care of the consequences
Uncaring neutral: Does what ever benefits them directly.

[amills1]

Originally posted by ExcaliburV:

Originally posted by amills1:

Possibly true, but that would be a lot of work given the amount of dialog in the game.

Would it? Your character's inner thoughts would (almost) never be heard by anyone, so the way I picture it is this- you do an action, the game stops for a second and prompts you to say why, there's a list of however many answers, your alignment shifts but none of the dialogue or the outcome of the choice is affected because it's just an inner monologue.

So the only thing that would be added is more text options that don't branch at all. I'm not exactly a dev so I could be wrong, but that doesn't sound too bad to handle.

Think about a simple scenario - you are travelling down a road and find a merchant with broken down cart. The game offers three options - help the merchant, rob the merchant, ignore the merchant. How would you justify the first option as being evil? How would you justify the second option as being good? For each such scenario the developers would have to come up with some kind of reasoning as to why a certain alignment might do such a thing.

[tokkie]

Honestly I turn off the alignment text next to the options (I think they should be off by default). It still tells me when I have chose a alignment option after I pick it though. I think this is a great way to play because it lets you play your character and not just pick your alignment options.

[SoundsOfNight]

Originally posted by BigFloof:

Most games will associate Evil with being a murderhobo, or just generally a dong to everyone. However, of course an Evil person - especially Lawful Evil - will help those, even if just for ulterior motives. Being mean to your companions is not Evil, but stupid. Treating your companions well is something Evil people will do just like Good people, if not for different reasons.

I agree. Lawful Neutral / Evil are probably two of the most common real world leader-types, so you need to be able to lead people, for better or worse.

[Combat Wombat]

Planescape: Torment handled this stuff rather well. Basically at the start of the dialogue it would give some motives for the text. Same thing said, different motives. NPCs would almost always respond to what you said/did, without taking your motives into account. You might need a high attribute skill to pull it off, but that would be the only exception. Wrath? Well I guess PS:T may be older than the Owlcat crew.

[BigFloof]

Originally posted by ExcaliburV:

Originally posted by amills1:

Possibly true, but that would be a lot of work given the amount of dialog in the game.

Would it? Your character's inner thoughts would (almost) never be heard by anyone, so the way I picture it is this- you do an action, the game stops for a second and prompts you to say why, there's a list of however many answers, your alignment shifts but none of the dialogue or the outcome of the choice is affected because it's just an inner monologue.

So the only thing that would be added is more text options that don't branch at all. I'm not exactly a dev so I could be wrong, but that doesn't sound too bad to handle.

But isn't that the thing. It would be unrealistic to assume Evil is condensed to obviously destructive people. A lot of Evil hides beneath a very charming, kind, benevolent surface.

[Nevron]

Originally posted by Khloros:

Well thats just because in general, evil parties are harder to work with, because its harder to tell a story/narrative with an evil party because 9/10 times, the true evil thing to do, would horribly screw over the DM story progression.

If anything 'Evil' in dnd and this game can better be representative with 'uncaring'

Uncaring lawful: A person who goes by the books and law no matter what that means
Uncaring chaotic: just sort of does what ever they want with out care of the consequences
Uncaring neutral: Does what ever benefits them directly.

Actually what you just described with uncaring is more akin to neutral than evil. People who do Lawful actions do so to uphold the rule of law regardless of whether their actions would/could cause harm/help to innocents. The same with those doing a Chaotic action.

Take Inquisitor Hulrun for example. By all accounts he is an overzealous constable of the city looking to keep order in place, but in the process has charged and killed quite a few innocents under questionable circumstances. A Lawful Good Paladin serving under him would still obey his orders as to him the rule of law is more important than avenging the lives of innocents or preventing harm to possibly more innocents. It's not that the Paladin doesn't care about innocent people, but to him the collapse of order and law is a far worse crime than an authority figure who goes too far with his investigations.

[darkholyPL]

Originally posted by amills1:

Think about a simple scenario - you are travelling down a road and find a merchant with broken down cart. The game offers three options - help the merchant, rob the merchant, ignore the merchant. How would you justify the first option as being evil? How would you justify the second option as being good? For each such scenario the developers would have to come up with some kind of reasoning as to why a certain alignment might do such a thing.

Depends on the context. For instance:
The 'merchant' is actually an assassin who killed the original merchant and stole his cart full of potions of healing and scrolls, that were on their way to a temple full of sick people and children.
'Robbing' or even killing him would be a good action, helping him would be evil.
Or even without this scenario, helping him could still be evil, if you are just helping him to appear 'nice' to get into a city, close to someone you want to kill/manipulate later, and he can help with that.
It's all a matter of perspective and motive.

[provokastoras]

Help the merchant if I am evil,
lets say I am the crusader leader struggling with supply lines, the merchant is a regular supplier that braves the world wound to bring me and my army staff.. If I rob him 1 less supplier for me and my army. Also word will go to the merchant guild I don't condone legitimate trade. means no supplies for me or anyone. If I help him I will encourage people to trade with me.
Sure I can rob a loaf of bread... it wont do me any good though if the bakery closes because of it.