Elden Ring Factions & Alignments Discussion

[SoundsOfNight]

Hey yall, lmk what you think. Using the old DnD structure:

1. Lawful Good - Golden Order (Goldmask)
2. Neutral Good - None
3. Chaotic Good - None

4. Lawful Neutral - None
5. True Neutral - Primeval Sorcerers (Sellen & Jerren)
6. Chaotic Neutral - Volcano Manor (Tanith) & Mohgwyn Dynasty (Varre)

7. Lawful Evil - Carian Royal Family (Ranni & Co.)
8. Neutral Evil - Those Who Live In Death (Fia)
9. Chaotic Evil - Frenzied Flame (Shabiri)

[An Irate Walrus]

引用自 Sabaithal：

引用自 An Irate Walrus：

Edit: TL;DR response below; this one got away from me.

Any time I've played a TTRPG, whether as player or DM/GM, I've viewed alignment as a guidepost for the character that they must grapple with if they choose to do something outside of that alignment; it's about the character behaving realistically within a given framework, rather than an absolute set of rigid walls.

Think of it like this: you probably have your own moral code, however loosely it may be defined, right? When you act *outside* of that code, it's not as if a god, goddess, or giant ethereal rabbit kicks you in the skull and tells you "nope, against the rules!" But you still probably *recognize* that you're acting against your code, and on some level, internally or externally, you have to come to terms with that (with the difficulty of that coming to terms being dependent on the context in which you broke your code).

As a simple example, I have zero moral compunction against profanity around adults; they're just words (with exceptions for racist and homophobic language; those insults are targeted and specific, whereas "♥♥♥♥" has all kinds of applications that don't include a ton of historical baggage), and they really only have the power we give them.

However, I try not to swear around my students; they're college kids, and I know they know what the words are and almost certainly use them themselves, but as an educator, part of my job is to make the learning environment as welcoming as possible for *all* of my students--even the ones offended by "dirty words."

The last time I swore in front of a class, a kid had just told a female student her brother deserved to die (I teach argument, and in-class discussions can occasionally get a little impassioned) because he'd had a drug habit that got the better of him.

I'm not particularly proud of it (there were better ways to handle the situation, in hindsight), but I told the offending student to get the ♥♥♥♥ out, and come back when he felt like being a human being.

Extenuating circumstances. Broke my personal code of ethics. Still troubles me, despite believing I did the right thing in the moment with the situation being what it was.

That's how alignments are supposed to work. They're guidelines, not chains.

People who have absolutely *zero* internal code or feeling of at least basic obligation to their fellow humans under most circumstances are not, in my experience, "free thinkers." They're sociopaths.

No argument here, I just have an issue when "moral alignments" in games are applied rigidly.

Fallout 3 for example, sliding spectrum between "Good, neutral, evil" but lets be real if you're not all one or all the other you don't get any options. The main thing I remember is that certain companions just couldn't be recruited outright (the option didn't exist) if you weren't the "correct alignment". I hate crap like that, if we're gonna have an alignment system it should be based on the decisions I make, then affect dialogue and impressions, not the other way around.

Fair. I'd reference Fable's morality system as being another example of this problem, but the whole thing is cartoonish in execution, so probably not the best point of reference.

I will say this in defense of characters being locked off from recruitment: if it's solely your *selected* alignment that prevents those choices, I totally agree with you--real people often have strange bedfellows because they align on a specific issue, even if they disagree in most other areas.

But there are some folks I find so repellent that I wouldn't work with them in any but the direst and most immediate of threat situations--and I don't think I'm alone in that (example: Andrew Tate can ♥♥♥♥ off into the sun; about the only thing that would make me partner with that sad excuse for a man would be a threat to my wife--and there's too much chance *he'd* be the threat, given his professed attitudes and beliefs).

So if your choices and actions gate you off from party members and quests, that makes sense.

...but I think that's exactly what you're saying, so: yeah, you're right. I really need to read more closely before I respond; sorry about that.