Recommendation for alignment converstation trees

[ErictheRed]

After talking to Dana about her brother today, the alignment of my Druid shifted from Neutral to Neutral Good. That's not a big deal, but now I feel obligated to be a jerk to Dana a couple of times to get my alignment back to Neutral.

Is it possible to incorporate some Neutral responses in dialogue? It seems pretty artificial to me that if I want to keep my alignment Neutral, I have to be nice to someone three times (for a 3 point shift towards Good) and then a complete *** once (for a 3 point shift towards Evil). To me that's not RPing Neutrality; it's RPing someone with bipolar disorder.

I realize it's not on the top of everyone's to-do list, but if we had more neutral dialogue choices it'd be great.

[Alander]

Agreeeeeeed

[Delemont]

While we're on the topic, my pet-peeve with alignment-changing dialogue is that the alignment change is assessed while talking, instead of after the act.

Just because I agree to murder Mr. Smith doesn't mean I ever commit the murder. Alignment changes should be done after the act.

[Grayle]

Many things should change alignment, word and deed. Since each 'pivotal' choice a character makes moves a character in such baby-steps, I'm all for frequent alignment challenging situations that will make players think twice, especially if they have alignment-dependent classes.

I also like how some quests are tailored for specific alignment-changing options, rather than every mundane choice helping that player get Lawful back. Then again, I'm all for many and varied alignment-affecting possibilities. Most people here know how important I think that mechanic is.

Good job.

[ErictheRed]

I love the alignment affecting dialogues, and I understand that certain quests will shift my alignment in a Good or Evil direction no matter what (i.e., agreeing to murder Sister Oriana). My main point is that for a quest like Dana's, where you could agree to help her get info about her brother for any number of reasons, you are only allowed to choose a Good or Evil response when you complete the quest. I think that more quests like this should also have a Neutral option.

[Alander]

How true is that ?!

ErictheRed did not negate the nessecity of the system but the fact that there's no third option.
For the second time I have to agree that there's total lack of neutral options during the dialogues!

Best regards,
Al

[Wyvern]

An interesting observation. One we will take note of. Thanks.

[ChikenKannon]

In the case of the Furtrader last quest there is a neutral (or at least was one), just kill the bear and hand in the fur. *drops two pennies on the ground*

[seethings]

I actually think the neutral option needs to be kept to a minimum. If you want to be neutral you can occillate between choices to remain neutral overall. As soon as there is a neutral option then chars who are not neutral will be able to take the neutral option and preserve there alignment, hence doing a deed that is evil when they are a good alignment - via the neutral option. I agree this is not ideal, but I believe of all three alignments the neutral option SHOULD be the hardest to preserve.

The whole point of the quests is that you should think carefully before you do them. If anything I think the points shifts should be increased. How many good chars have assignated the guy in the warehouse at early levels?? Becuase one point makes not much differnce. Hence all missions become available to all chars and alignment makes little difference.

An alternative system would be to have the alignment points awarded differntly per char depending on their alignmment. So if a good char chooses to do the assasin mission (assasinating a non-criminal presumably good NPC) they might suffer 10 evil points. A NEUTRAL char might for the same evil choice only get 2 evil points... and the evil char would get none. On a quest choice that is not particularly evil, but a bit dodgy... good char gets 1pt of evil and the NEUTRAL none????? For Example.

This would mean that the benefit of being neutral is that you can RIDE missions of both natures with less penalty.

Remeber there are missions where no points are awarded good or evil... these are essentially true neutral missions. I think what you are saying is that as the world expands please make sure there are a good number of true neutral missions.

20cents worth.

[Jay Four]

I think you make a good point and I will try to keep it in mind.

[dallbee]

...*snip*...

While I kinda like the idea of having graded alignment shifts for different alignments who perform the same action (a lawful or good character doing chaotic or evil deeds gets a more "negative" shift than a neutral one would, because it's further out-of-alignment for them, for example), I disagree with some of your other interpretations of the original poster's idea.

I don't think saying "oscillate between good and evil choices to stay neutral" is the right way to RP a neutral character at all. MAYBE chaotic neutral...maybe...but that's about the only justification that I can think of for such spontaneous and unpredictable behavior.

Not having many truly neutral dialogue options forces those playing neutral PCs to be very bi-polar in their style.
I'm not saying every quest should have a full gamut of choices, because there are some that are just straight-up naughty no matter how you slice it, and you're gonna get an evil hit...but in most quests, it shouldn't be out of the question to have neutral options.

Something like the necklace in the bugbear caves, for example...a character could retrieve it for any number of reasons, be they totally self-serving (evil), out of empathy for the quest-giver and respect for her memories (good), or just because she asked, so if you find it, she may as well have it back (neutral).

It's really not a big deal, weighed against the already-existing ability to just answer a certain question over and over until you get an alignment shift, then answer it the opposite way to shift back.
That's awful RP, but if someone's gonna do it, they'll do it. Neutral dialogue options have much less exploit potential.

--D

[ErictheRed]

Seethings makes some good points. I agree that some quests/dialogue options should not have Neutral choices, but surely there are many that should. My main point is that if a certain quest allows for a Good and Evil choice, then in about 99% of the time it should also allow for a Neutral choice.

Some quests will be "pure good" or "pure evil," sure. But quests like Dana's should have a Neutral option. If I (or another player) can't continue to progress as a Druid because I didn't play like someone with bipolar disorder, that's pretty lame.

Also, why should it be harder to stay Neutral than any other alignment??

[Delemont]

I'm having a hard time reconciling these requests for appropriate in-character neutral-alignment dialogue options with the prevalence of quest-repeating.

Food for thought.

[dallbee]

I'm having a hard time reconciling these requests for appropriate in-character neutral-alignment dialogue options with the prevalence of quest-repeating.

Food for thought.

Maybe I'm missing it, but that logic seems kind of confusing...

If there's anything that jeopardizes the validity of in-character quest repitition, it's that there are *not* neutral options. With just good/evil and lawful/chaotic, every time someone does the quest, they're bound to take an alignment shift - so someone could theoretically pull a total 180 just by doing one quest over and over.

Nothing wrong with that, but how would neutral dialogue in some quests make this harder to reconcile than the already-existing scenario?

--D

[Eclipse]

Also, why should it be harder to stay Neutral than any other alignment??

The way I see it, staying neutral is and should be the most challenging alignment to play. The neutral alignment is without prejudice or compulsion. For most people, not feeling strongly about anything is a truly a challenge.

That said, neutral characters mostly think of good better than evil; they would rather have a good neighbor or ruler than an evil one. But they do not commit themselves to upholding good in society, and are more often than not tired of the concept of "morality". Some specific characters simply don't care, and I think it takes a lot for a person to get to the point where he cannot be suaded in either direction.

Not all neutral characters are utterly careless, certainly not. They strive to uphold balance between good and evil, and will most likely go for an option that best benefits a situation in the long run. Making choices like that is extremely difficult, as it most certainly will have some negative effect before the positives see the light of day.

"Neutral", in the true sense of the word, is to not be aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest. I think most of us know or can imagine how challenging it is not to get involved when perhaps two friends are having a dispute. To sum it up: This is what makes neutral characters more challenging to play than other alignments; because there is no set sense of direction.