D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Scribe]

I haven't finished it, but I've seen a lot of times Regill was arguing for something that was extremely short-sighted and obviously counterproductive, but I guess it's a discussion for a different thread. He'll pretty much always argue against the Good thing, even if it makes more sense. The difference is, if you pick the Good thing anyway, he'll usually rationalize it.

I won't spoil it, but nothing in his quest arcs ever jumped out as like...psychotic evil. Like how most of the Evil dialogue options are 'haha now die!' for some stupid reason.

 

[Scribe]

I agree, which is why alignment shouldn’t have been implemented in the first place. It’s never going to be cut and dried, so stop incorporating mechanics on the basis that it is.

People not understanding how to use something, isn't a reason to remove it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

What it says, is that Regill wouldn't perform a Good deed unless it was militarily prudent (killing the wounded is his first act we see) Daeron is gleefully selfish and self centered, and has no care for anyone but his own hedonistic whims, and that our Inquisitor 'grimaced' as Ember bid him farewell.

Do you think Regill would have?

Haven’t got to that part yet. Does it make a difference to your alignment if you “grimace” but don’t change your behaviour?

 

[FrozenNorth]

People not understanding how to use something, isn't a reason to remove it.

That wasn’t @Ruin Explorer ’s point. The limitations in a game are such that it will never be implemented correctly, so why implement it?

 

[Scribe]

Haven’t got to that part yet. Does it make a difference to your alignment if you “grimace” but don’t change your behaviour?

Yes, I believe it does.

He's not some bloodthirsty reaver. He's not a closet cultist. He's an appointed official who's duty is to protect the city, by law.

My impression, is he regrets having burned Ember (I also killed him for it on my first play through...) while Regill for example? Wouldn't care at all.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Yes, the evil dialogue options are disappointing... Despite the game being well-written in some other aspects.

With regard to the grimacing, that's why I still think he at least thinking himself LN: he's obviously unsettled by his mistake and that Ember isn't a bad apple. He's flirting the line between LN and LE, maybe changing several time over the course of a month (given how the game's alignment wheel work for the MC)

 

[Scribe]

That wasn’t @Ruin Explorer ’s point. The limitations in a game are such that it will never be implemented correctly, so why implement it?

I disagree, I think the issue is expecting to operate it by absolutes, when that's simply not how it functions.

Alignment, is not a straight jacket.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I won't spoil it, but nothing in his quest arcs ever jumped out as like...psychotic evil. Like how most of the Evil dialogue options are 'haha now die!' for some stupid reason.

The player Evil options are definitely of the very "Man what? Why would I ever do that entirely counterproductive and insane thing?! type. There's a lot of randomly attacking people, encouraging pointless murders and so on.

Regill is clearly not from that school, but more the opportunistic, self-denying/closeted kind of Evil (which isn't available to the PC). He reminds me a bit of the guy from the Villain's Handbook, dude with the dogs.

PF:WotR is a tremendous illustration of why "mechanical" alignment is a bad idea though. The best example is trying to play LG. Many of the Lawful choices early in the game, for some reason border on or indeed are Lawful Evil (even if the game just says they're "Lawful"). Some are outright sadistic stuff that Judge Dredd would blanche at and labelled as Lawful. But if you don't pick a bunch of those, and just pick stuff labelled Good, your alignment will drift from LG to NG, potentially before the end of the first act.

Whilst the dialogue options in WotR (unlike KM) are all labelled just Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, they're actually NG, NE, LN and CN (mechanically), and it's just hiding that. And the writing makes Evil and Lawful very frequently look like Chaotic Evil and Lawful Evil respectively (for the player). They say they were trying to improve things by doing it this way but I think it makes it worse.

 

[Bolares]

Yes, the evil dialogue options are disappointing... Despite the game being well-written in some other aspects.

Nothing is worse than Kingmakers Lawfull good dialogue options.

 

[Scribe]

The player Evil options are definitely of the very "Man what? Why would I ever do that entirely counterproductive and insane thing?! type. There's a lot of randomly attacking people, encouraging pointless murders and so on.

Regill is clearly not from that school, but more the opportunistic, self-denying/closeted kind of Evil (which isn't available to the PC). He reminds me a bit of the guy from the Villain's Handbook, dude with the dogs.

PF:WotR is a tremendous illustration of why "mechanical" alignment is a bad idea though. The best example is trying to play LG. Many of the Lawful choices early in the game, for some reason border on or indeed are Lawful Evil (even if the game just says they're "Lawful"). Some are outright sadistic stuff that Judge Dredd would blanche at and labelled as Lawful. But if you don't pick a bunch of those, and just pick stuff labelled Good, your alignment will drift from LG to NG, potentially before the end of the first act.

Whilst the dialogue options in WotR (unlike KM) are all labelled just Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, they're actually NG, NE, LN and CN (mechanically), and it's just hiding that. And the writing makes Evil and Lawful very frequently look like Chaotic Evil and Lawful Evil respectively (for the player). They say they were trying to improve things by doing it this way but I think it makes it worse.

There is something to this, but to me it's a baby and bathwater scenario.

I didn't have an issue with remaining LG, but you do have to game the system a bit.

I actually have up on my Aeon run as the lawful dialogue was getting annoying.