I was curious as to what people think of character alignment systems (aka player can be good or bad) and if there is one, how should it impact game play?
Should alignment affect stats, skills, party members, endings or nothing in the game at all?
I was curious as to what people think of character alignment systems (aka player can be good or bad) and if there is one, how should it impact game play?
Should alignment affect stats, skills, party members, endings or nothing in the game at all?
I wouldn't have there be two separate story lines, that's just bad for the most part.(people don't want to have to play a game 2-3 times just to get the full story)
Instead perhaps allow certain classes to be alignment based, allow for alignment to be changed based on the actions of the player throughout the game. Make a char recruitment system, that char will only join if you are a certain alignment, ect(there's lots of options, and combinations of things that would work well)
Alignment is only really acceptable (to me anyway) in games with less emphasis on story that hold character development at the highest standard. (Like Elder Scrolls, Fallout, D&D and Fable). In these games it's okay because people do not play these games for the story (- the weird Bethesda lore historians trying to convince themselves that long, detailed back-stories to base the games in alone makes a great story that should never be messed with) they play them because they offer freedom of an unmitigated level when compared to other games. Most people who play these types of games a lot have probably played through the main story once if that, and spent the rest of the time doing whatever they want, role-playing and what have you. A good story gets in the way of an alignment system, conversely an alignment system will interfere with a good story as well.
The best I've ever seen it done was in Dragon Age Origins, (which basically amounted to 'if people don't like the way I do things I'll just give them cheap gifts and they'll be okay with it' while the good/evil choices effected so little in the game that most people are going to be evil most of the time because the incentive was usually better items.) the fact that this is the best use of an alignment system in a story driven game I can think of proves the point (in my perspective) that it really shouldn't be done, unless you have something really ground-shaking and different to turn it on it's head and prove my observations wrong. I just feel that if the story is the same regardless other than who joins you/what items you get and such it's a pointless system and also unbelievable. You really expect me to believe that a sadistic murdering fiend and a holier-than-though bleeding heart would end up taking the exact same path, doing the exact same thing - the player's input to decide whether they will perform the "evil" or the "good" action when presented with the opportunity? I just don't really buy it, and it would take a hell of a multifaceted, diverging story-line to make me buy it. Each new iteration nullifying others and making the story as a whole less and less important to the game as more opportunities arise, in short alignment systems are bad for stories, but really fun if you're just going to be screwing around.
It all depends on how much control you want to give the player. As Alexander mentions here, giving the player control over the main character's personality and moral codes comes with a few issues that need contemplating.
You don't want the game to put the player on a rail road, where their decisions only change minor things without giving them any real choice on what happens. This is something I did not like about the first Fable game. A game where, in the end, your decisions never really changed anything; you ended up in the same place. It's not bad, mind you, but it's not ground breaking either. So if you are dealing with a story, a plot with multiple facets and twists is needed to make the player feel like their actions actually mean something. Unless there is a powerful reason why the player character, regardless of if they are good or evil, is being drawn into the plot. But at that point, a morality system is kind of a tagged on feature anyways.
Reactions can become unbelievable sometimes when dealing with an alignment system. Allies and NPCs should not be completely indifferent to you regardless of whether or not you are a psychopath or a living saint. The same little npc should not want to ask the new lord of darkness to help him find berries as if he was just another neutral person. People need reactions and opinions. So you don't want to exclude that.
Also, Alexander kind of hits on this, but I've never really belived in there ALWAYS being a good or evil choice for the character no matter what they do. If a character is good, they usually won't be contemplating killing innocent people when the opportunity arises. If you want to give the player an opportunity for a character to change alignments, you need to have designated moments in the story where a character can have a change of heart. Character development, even when the player controls who that character is, should not involve a potential roller coaster with characters able to bounce back and forth between morals. Maybe that's just my extreme opinion there, but it's what I suggest.
There is nothing wrong with a morality system at all in story driven games, but it's not something that should be added on. It should be a core feature of the game and a center point in the story. If you want the player to really feel attached to the character, then regular character development needs to happen; with additional possible development paths for the different moral decisiosns. If you want this character to be more than a quirkly player pawn, you need ot make them a full-fledged character first, and then consider the possibilities for how things could go from there.
Of course... that's only when story is invovled.
When you just want to make a player pawn, then there's nothing wrong with defying any of the above notes from me. Just let the player do whatever. However, you can't really tie a good story to extreme freedom of choice; at least not a serious one. Trying to do so ends up with a railroad story and mere illusion of choice; as I mentioned earlier.
Also; consider an idea like Dante's Inferno or the more recent Castlevania: Lords of Shadow games and the skill development system in that. You have good weapon and bad weapon, good power and bad power, and the player can choose to fight using 'good' or 'evil'. But it's not really a morality system since it doesn't change how the character acts or their motives in general; it's just a method to them. So there is that. If you want to play with good and evil but don't want to mess with the bits of a complex alignment system, you can just have a 'good powers or bad powers' ability development; determining whether the character is brutal or ethical without changing their morals.
Also, Alexander kind of hits on this, but I've never really belived in there ALWAYS being a good or evil choice for the character no matter what they do. If a character is good, they usually won't be contemplating killing innocent people when the opportunity arises. If you want to give the player an opportunity for a character to change alignments, you need to have designated moments in the story where a character can have a change of heart. Character development, even when the player controls who that character is, should not involve a potential roller coaster with characters able to bounce back and forth between morals. Maybe that's just my extreme opinion there, but it's what I suggest.
...and I love this idea! I always hated the roller coaster morality system myself.
@Alexander there are quite a few games in my opinion that are story driven and do a decent job with a alignment system (Planescape Torment, KOTOR, etc), but they all are really old games. I wonder why that is.
I was thinking of the main characters morality impacting who joins the party and how people react to him with some story changes.
...and I love this idea! I always hated the roller coaster morality system myself.
@Alexander there are quite a few games in my opinion that are story driven and do a decent job with a alignment system (Planescape Torment, KOTOR, etc), but they all are really old games. I wonder why that is.
Because the old school style of designing systems is far superior to modern system designing techniques. If you want a robust, quality system, you're better at using older games as templates/examples to work off of or to brainstorm off of.
Hell even Action/RPGs were better designed in the past, even though the improved tech should make it easier to make quality Action/RPGs now. It's the design techniques/philosophy that most companies have switched to, which leads the systems in their games, to feel shallow/half assed these days.
My first game actually using karma system depends on what you do in the whole game. Story, dialogues, party members and endings are different on each route. It also shapes the main character's personality and party's morale.
I think it's pretty fun to gave people to what they want to be. I love giving players choices in actions, you can save a person or leave that person behind.
But when it's a pretty long game not many people want to discover other routes.
Rather than character alignment, it would be interesting to have different philosophies, each with good and bad aspects, reflected in the character.
Things like idealist vs pragmatic, lawful vs individualist...
Or maybe having different factions, and keeping track of which faction likes you more.
Like having a rebel faction that likes you if you steal from the rich, but dislikes you if you steal from the poor, while the "police" faction likes you if you don't steal at all, maybe a mercenary faction that likes you if you take a more fighting-oriented approach to solving your problems...
Usually, having a simple good/evil alignment never generates interesting choices.
I think story focused alignment works fine, aka SWTOR style where you are either jerk or nice and your options open up from going deeper in either direction.
Jade Empire probably hit closest to this for a AAA-developed game. Instead of Good/Evil, the game used the "Open Palm" (for "good") and the "Closed Fist" (for "evil"); rather than just changing the names of an existing metasystem, however, Bioware actually appears to have tried to go the whole nine yards and aimed to make the choices more about "are you going to go all-out and help everyone, or give them the finger and basically make your aim about personal achievement rather than assisting every mook that comes along.
For example, there's one overarching quest about a third of the way through where you can save a village by "activating" the dam... or you can be an ass and break it for personal gain, and turn around and tell the village chief that "Hey, you want someone else to fix everything for you? Go do it yourself next time." Another had the player in a position where, if they continued onwards without a care, they'd be spotted by a slave and have to fight off a whole bunch of dudes... or you could untie/cut a rope holding a precariously-hanging cannon up and drop it onto the bridge, killing said slave but also allowing the party to pass through with far less trouble because all the guards there are distracted by one of their grunts getting squished and their bridge being ruined XD
Too bad it didn't stick with that all the way through.
Another good example would be KotOR 2; even if the game kinda petered out near the half-way point, the way Kreia makes you feel like a dip**** regardless of which path you take is awesome. Plus there are some very critical decisions in that game. If Obsidian had actually taken the time to finish the damn game instead of rushing it (a habit they have, unfortunately), it could have very likely surpassed the original in storytelling and gameplay, I'm sure.
If you do get KotOR 2, download the Restoration mod - it basically fixes most every bug in the game and makes it completeable, along with adding back in some deleted or unfinished content. It's very spiffy & shiny :3
Honestly, though, I dislike "alignments" because A) there are few truly "good" or "evil" forces that exist - it's all about perspective; and B ) [EDIT: Stop emoting my lists, InvisionFree] they lock the player into choices they might not make if the systems were more transparent. One of the reasons I love the 2004 The Bard's Tale is because of it's "alignment" choice system: "Snarky or Nice". Almost every time, the choices are spur-of-the-moment, and only last long enough to make a small difference in that moment, but not a lasting impact that forces the player to change how they play. it's just "hey, do you wanna be a nice person and possibly get screwed over, or be a sneering asshat and have people hate you even more?" And the ending? You get to decide what it is, and fight a different boss depending upon that decision alone <3
Or not - if you choose the "Neutral" ending, the Bard just walks away
Needless to say, being an asshat is exceedingly fun <3
You can also just implement both sides of the alignment tree in the same playthrough. Some games have done it where you play as both the heroes and the villains, or the Heroes and the Anti-Heroes. By eventing the party switches, you can shuffle back and forth between Good guys, Bad guys and get both sides of the storyline at the same time. You can even have humorous events this way where things are the way they are because of something the other party had done just twenty minutes ago. It's even easy to reuse content because you can have both parties go through the same dungeons, yet end up at different exits. Perhaps it's because when Team Evil went through the dungeon, they caused a cave in that blocked the easy exit. So now when Team Good goes through the same dungeon, they have to aim for the harder to reach exit. Branching dialogues, splitting focus, and end it all with an intermingled party or all out brawl. Heck, you can give the player the satisfaction of being both good AND bad while the only true decision he makes is how it will end.
This is actually my favorite type of storyline. Receiving information about enemies or non-player characters through cutscenes is less satisfying than actually having Sephiroth in your party helping you break into the facility. It creates emotional connections along with a sense of betrayal... not just for Cloud, but for you the player! Playing both sides of the storyline in the same playthrough gives a more complete version of the story while still allowing you to end up wherever you'd like.
In this case, alignment doesn't matter so much because the party you are given can be radically different between heroes and villains. Think Sora and Riku in Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories. It's the same game but played VERY differently between both character. Two parties, two alignments, two entirely unique ways of playing the game, it's double the fun with half the work. No more needing to explain in a cutscene what the bad guys are doing... just let the player find out himself.
Cartoonier cloud cover that better fits the art style, as well as (slightly) improved blending/fading... fading clouds when there are larger patterns is still somewhat abrupt for some reason.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
