Finished my latest playthrough of Arcanum a few days ago, and it was probably the most rewarding one to date. Stumbled upon several locations I hadn't found before, solved several quests I had never done previously, including finally bothering to do the God's quest and for the first time ever, mastered the fine art of gambling. Played a Sold your Soul elf, with all the interesting evil companions in my entourage and when I had mastered persuasion, took on Raven and made her 1) fall in love with me (which I have done before) 2) stay in the same party as Z'an (which I didn't think was possible). One thing that still puzzles me though, is the way the evil alignment in Arcanum works. Z'an highly values virtues such as honesty, despises Dark Elf philosophy and all that has been done in their name, wants to put an end to their evil and yet... she is herself evil? Torian Kel might wish to have the world destroyed in the end (though, for very understandable reasons), yet he is probably the most loyal and noble character in the game up until that point. There is something I do not get here.
Their evil might be a reflection of the things they've done in the past. It's how the world views them (like karma in fallout), but not necessarily who they are. Or something like that.
Alignment in cRPGs is nothing more but a silly relic of D&D's past. It never makes sense. Good thing they got rid of it in Dragon Age.
I think alignment can be useful. If certain characters won't speak with you or offer you quests because of your alignment, then that's one more thing to choose while playing/creating your character. And choice is good.
You should be rewarded/penalized depending on your choices, not just some magical meter (I especially find it ridiculous how complete strangers instantly know your alignment). E.g. save a village from orcs = the ruler of the castle nearby makes you a knight, burn the village = the knights try to hunt you down.
Actually, what nags me the most about the alignment system in D&D is that it's never used to its full potential. Bioware and others certainly take the Good/Evil axis into account in their own silly way, but few ever make much real distinction between Law and Chaos, and the possibilities for moral conflict this could spur. Let's say that the antagonist is a Lawful Evil dictatorship of some sort. Naturally, a Chaotic Good elven cleric of Corellon would be diametrically opposed to this system and would likely do anything to bring it down. A Lawful Good Paladin could on the other hand be hesitant overthrowing the existing order, as it would be a Chaotic act. Within the D&D alignment system you have all the opportunities in the world to create conflicts between various alliances, yet it is almost never evident in D&D CRPG's. A true shame. Oh, and Dragon Age. While I disagree that it's better than Arcanum, it handles morality very well. No side is completely good, nor is anyone completely evil. It makes moral choices interesting, instead of the typical choice between bloodthirsty maniacs who kill babies because it's fun and Mother Theresa-like saints.
I usually play Lawful Good Paladins anyway so I never experience the alignment systems that much. The issue I have with D&D style is how you can be Chaotic Evil and all that jazz but still complete the game being seen as the hero.
Well, that's the problem with computer games, in pnp you can at least explain your actions and how you view them. I generally manage to stay chaotic neutral in pnp, but in computer games my alignment shifts all over the scale. For example, I have a reason to kill a king. To get to him, I first do a few good deeds, so I can approach him with a weapon.
I do not have a problem with dark heroes. After all, how many of those we regard as champions haven't been motivated by a desire for glory or personal power, or used highly immoral methods to achieve their ends? A Chaotic Evil character could very well be seen as a hero; after all, he killed the dragon threatening to destroy the entire city, didn't he? The fact that he lied, murdered and raped his way toward that end, or sacrificed virgins on obsidian altars to reach the levels of power needed to stand against the wyrm, certainly wouldn't be known by many, and even those who have privy to his history would likely accept his actions as beneficial for the greater good - after all, the lives of a handful of comely virgins pales in comparison to the obliteration of an entire city. Despite his annoying signature, Drog is spot on here. A reputation system is far superior to an alignment meter, and some reputations should supercede others.
The PnP campaigns I've been involved in of late have all been shopping sprees and die-chuck-fests. Alignment--and role playing for that matter--is seldom applied. Is slaying the dragon for loot and glory truly evil? I'd declare that an evil action would be to cooperate with the dragon to enslave the village and impose an experience penalty on your character. I think alignment still has it's place, but the reputation would be much more useful from a story viewpoint.
Just because you're chaotic evil doesn't mean you have to cooperate with a dragon. Sure, it's a nice roleplaying opportunity, but I think a chaotic evil character can have good reasons not to play with dragons. Perhaps the dragon is chaotic neutral, and the town in some way threatens the nature of chaos.
I was wondering something; (I had this sort of situation in one of my pnp.) What if a neutral character wants to send out a good dragon to destroy a village of an utterly wicked and evil tribe of cannibals, but he knows that most of the people are not soldiers?
The alignment aspect seemed to me like a mockery of morals in most cases. If you play as a ruthless bandit just doing what's best for yourself you'll still finish the game with +100. You can kill Archibald in Dernholm in order to get Glady's ring and after handling it over to her, lying about his fate, your alignment rises. It's more like reputation actually (despite several exceptions from the rule).
[quote="TheDavisChanger"Is slaying the dragon for loot and glory truly evil? [/quote] Depends. Your motivations for doing so should be taken into account somewhere. If you couldn't care less about the city the dragon threatens, and really only kill it because you know that you can make a potion of permanent +12 Strength from its heart or something, killing it is at best a neutral action, no? According to an alignment system it would be, from the point of view of a reputation system you would still be the hero.
You're right. Alignment in Arcanum is not a reflection of your inner self, but a reflection of how other individuals in Arcanum view you.
