What the hell is up with the Law vs Chaos options?

[Dragon x62]

Is it just me, or do a lot of the Law options seem more like good aligned options? I tell a man to go back home because he has children to raise: 0 points good. 1 point Lawful. I prevent thugs from beating up a merchant for not paying up protection: 0 good. 1 Lawful. Does Bioware believe in Chaotic Stupid or is there something I'm missing?

[Undead Rufus]

Obsidian developed NWN2. BioWare developed the Aurora Engine, upon which the Electron Engine of NWN2 was based.

As far as I can remember, most alignment shifts in the game make sense, but I agree there are some questionable ones. I suppose that's not surprising with so much dialogue.

[Dragon x62]

Yea, been playing a bit more and I'm fine now. Was kinda worried my Barbarian might slip into Lawful Good and thus I'd have to multiclass.

[dwobwinkle]

Honestly, I felt like most options were both lawful and good or chaotic and evil. Kind of weak

[(>♡.♡)>]

Lawful good: Following the rules to do good things.

Chaotic good: Breaking the rules to do good things.

[Dragon x62]

I know, but as dwobwinkle said, it's a whole lot more LG vs CE decisions than any others. Kinda annoying

[dwobwinkle]

Originally posted by Elite x62:

I know, but as dwobwinkle said, it's a whole lot more LG vs CE decisions than any others. Kinda annoying

^^

I get the difference, lol. Captain America: Civil War is basically the perfect mainstream example of it. Within the structure of the game, Chaotic good and lawful evil options are seriously lacking.

[EolSunder]

actually with civil war its more lawful neutral (stark side) and chaotic good (cap side). With star its about following the government rules, and not really for good but for the will of the controlling governments, which often aren't good at all. So more lawful neutral hero jobs. Cap on the other hand wants to do good no matter what, and doesn't want any sort of controlling government telling them what to do, more like Robin Hood.

[dwobwinkle]

I can see your argument there, but I'm not seeing it. They didn't sign on to be agents of the government, just not do their vigilante thing without approval (unless I'm remembering wrong). Since they wouldn't be compelled to act in ways that they didn't believe were good, I'd still put Stark's side as good.

[(>♡.♡)>]

Originally posted by dwobwinkle:

Chaotic good and lawful evil options are seriously lacking.

None of the decisions give a result on both axis simultaneously. If you want lawful evil, you have to do both evil decisions and lawful decisions seperately. Same for chaotic good. I always found plenty of ways to shift my alignment whichever way I wanted.

[EolSunder]

stark and company ARE signing on to be agents of the government. The accords put them under control of country government agencies, they don't get to pick and choose who they help any more. Thus, Lawful neutral. Under control, and are now the tools of the multi-country agencies.

That is the entire reason Cap and his team are rebelling, they don't want to be under the thumb of any government or country agencies and they don't want to be told who and when to help, and who and when to not help.

So, lawful neutral vs chaotic good.

[dwobwinkle]

Originally posted by EolSunder:

stark and company ARE signing on to be agents of the government. The accords put them under control of country government agencies, they don't get to pick and choose who they help any more. Thus, Lawful neutral. Under control, and are now the tools of the multi-country agencies.

That is the entire reason Cap and his team are rebelling, they don't want to be under the thumb of any government or country agencies and they don't want to be told who and when to help, and who and when to not help.

So, lawful neutral vs chaotic good.

I guess I remembered wrong. I thought the accords required them to get permission to act. I didn't realize they could also be compelled to act when they didn't want to.