Study Of Alignment in Games

[Rosstin]

I'd like to stir up a discussion about alignment in games and videogames; I'm writing an essay about it and I figure you guys are probably some of the most knowledgeable, given how tabletop is probably the earliest example of alignment in games, and most forms of early alignment systems in videogames were based on DnD.

I'm interested in other early, notable examples of alignment tracking in videogames. What's the first game you played that kept track of whether what you did was good or evil?

Morrowind and the rest of the Elder Scrolls series are relevant for being very nonjudgemental in terms of how they approach character alignment. They allow you to kill, steal, or sweet talk your way out of most situations without actually judging you. However, characters are generally not psychic and any penalties for committing heinous crimes will eventually disappear.

I think a big trend now is in moving away from a simple "good" versus "evil" system, and towards systems where you have more nuanced options. We see a little of that with systems that focus on anarchy versus law, like in Mass Effect, but I'd also like to hear about other variants. Surely there have to be more interesting philisophical positions to track?

[endoperez]

Jade Empire tried this, but fell flat on its face.

The concept was cool - there were two opposing philosophies in pseudo-China.

Open Palm believes that the strong must protect the weak and help/guide/do quests for them. With great power comes responsibility.

Closed Fist believes that the power must be earned, that only those with power to take something for themselves and protect it should have that. The Closed Fist person believes, and would encourage, other people to better their own position in the world. Give man a fish and feed him once, teach him to fish...

Then you play the game and Open Palm is good/altruistic, Closed Fist is selfish/evil.

[MickJay]

In Jade Empire, there was at least one choice where picking an option that followed Closed Fist philosophy actually got you fewer CF points than being a total bastard for no good reason... In addition, going the CF route (the one endorsing self-interest and ambition) more often than not meant foregoing the greater rewards that Open Palm tended to net.
JE was probably the furthest I've seen a game go away from good/evil while keeping track of - essentially - moral consequences of character's actions. It wasn't very far.

Star Wars: KotOR games had light/dark side system, which pretty much amounted to 'good'-'evil'. Other SW games also tend to have light/dark scale implemented in one form or other.

Baldur's Gate had 'reputation', but it was effectively a tracker of how good your character was. It didn't, however, affect the alignment you picked at character creation.

Witcher games didn't keep track of your alignment, but all the major, and most of the moderately important decisions had some consequences. The setting is morally very gray, there are exceedingly few choices that come down to picking between 'G'ood and 'E'vil.

[Hiro Protagonest]

In Jade Empire, there was at least one choice where picking an option that followed Closed Fist philosophy actually got you fewer CF points than being a total bastard for no good reason... In addition, going the CF route (the one endorsing self-interest and ambition) more often than not meant foregoing the greater rewards that Open Palm tended to net.

Yeah. And if you did give the girl a knife and tell her to kill the slavers herself? She turns into a psycho.


Anyway, I only know of one type of game that actually uses alignments. BioWare RPGs. Maybe D&D-likes like Baldur's Gate and such use it too. Oh, and Dishonored.

Dishonored is the only game I think uses a good alignment system. Because it doesn't tell you what you are (although it tells you how much chaos you caused at the end of each chapter/arc). And it actually makes sense. The "good" (low chaos) ending is you usurp the usurper and brand or kill his most trusted comrades, placing the princess on the throne. The "bad" (ultra-high chaos) ending is that the plague is rampant, the Weepers are everywhere , most of the guards in the city are dead just because they got in your way, you've killed the usurper and all his comrades, and you've installed the princess as a puppet ruler completely loyal to you.

[endoperez]

In addition, going the CF route (the one endorsing self-interest and ambition) more often than not meant foregoing the greater rewards that Open Palm tended to net.

Oh, that one too. Closed Fist seemed to give rewards in money (or perhaps equipment), while Open Palm gave rewards in experience or other ways that are harder to come by, although I didn't get far enough to know if there'd be an experience cap you would hit.

[Cespenar]

In Witcher 2, Alpha Protocol, and Walking Dead: The Game, there is a "no alignment, but consequences" system. All great games, incidentally.

[Ogremindes]

Many of the Shin Megami Tensei games focus on a Law/Chaos dichotomy. While good and evil alignments are usually noted they don't matter for the story.

[OrcusMcP]

While not a perfect parallel, the trait system of Crusader Kings 2 might offer some interesting options for a full role-playing game.

Rather than a spot on an axis of some kind, each character has a variety of traits(virtues, sins, honesty, lifestyle, etc) that give some mechanical bonuses/penalties while also speaking to the nautre of the character.

You can expect a character with the decitful trait to try to stab you in the back, or a greedy one to like you more after being bribed, etc, while characters with differing traits would not get along as well as those with similar.

As such, the sum of a characters traits will inform their outlook and their actions to more precise degree than a simple place on the axis.

[TaRix]

No one's mentioned Ultima IV yet? Pity. Alignment was the whole point of the game. Of course, it wasn't too hard to abuse the system if you really felt like it, but it's the earliest game I know that had a moral code of any sort. (Wizardry put in a G-N-E bit, but it was mainly to keep paladins from buddying up with ninjas.)
Ultima V built on IV's virtues system by exploring what would happen to said system if someone like Miko were in charge.

[Morty]

Most alignment systems or karma tracks in games fall flat. The Paragon/Renegade system in Mass Effect is better than most, but still rather annoying. Like Cespenar said, many good games do not use any sort of alignment system at all, which is the correct choice.

[The_Jackal]

One of the first attempts to make player alignment and decisions actually affect gameplay was the original Jedi Knight from Lucas Arts.

[Hullabaloo]

First one I remember distinctly for its alignment use in game was Fable.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Most alignment systems or karma tracks in games fall flat. The Paragon/Renegade system in Mass Effect is better than most, but still rather annoying. Like Cespenar said, many good games do not use any sort of alignment system at all, which is the correct choice.

This is even more true in tabletop games, because there's no hard and fast rules for what stuff does to your alignment, and maintaining one of D&D's nine is definitely harder than maintaining one of two.

[Antonok]

Jade Empire- It didn't even really matter for the most part. The only things it really affected were getting an extra style (the earth or wind magic styles), who you helped at the martial arts school in the academy, wether you could turn Dawn Star/the Princess to CF/OP, and the CF path gave you an extra sidequest line.


Another series that had a form of alignment was a few of the Shin Megami games, but mostly only to determine what demons you could get.

[snoopy13a]

Neverwinter Nights, I guess.

[kurokotetsu]

The first game I played with that system was Jedi Knight. BUt goo implementations, I really like the SHin Megami Tensei way of doing it as both extremes are shown exactly as that extremes, and isn't that judgemental, and in the Devil Survivor games you don't choose even from "law", "chaos", "good" or "evil" but with whom you agree with. ALso, Planescape: Torment uses smart writing to show different possibilities in the D&D alignment system, form what I've heard.

[Morty]

This is even more true in tabletop games, because there's no hard and fast rules for what stuff does to your alignment, and maintaining one of D&D's nine is definitely harder than maintaining one of two.

While I agree that alignment systems are silly in tabletop games as well, they're worse in video games. In a tabletop game, the players and game masters can adjust the mortality meters of the characters in a way that makes sense for them. But in video games, it's just numbers. You get a "karma meter" and doing certain things adds points to it. Which tends to have rather nonsensical results.

[MickJay]

First one I remember distinctly for its alignment use in game was Fable.

The concept of that one was quite cool, your looks changed according to your alignment (at extreme ends of the spectrum, the character sprouted horns or got that particularly 'noble' look). Unfortunately, the system suffered from some poor design decisions. Stuffing your face with tofu made you good, while eating little chickens raw turned you evil. Donating money to a temple made you good, while murdering peasants was (obviously) evil, but you could measure exactly how much gold it took to offset a murder. Most memorable: making your spouse divorce you (because of mistreatment) meant a massive shift to Evil, but killing said spouse quickly enough (before he or she managed to leave you) meant 'only' a standard penalty for murder (which wasn't that significant to begin with).

[Guancyto]

Dishonored is the only game I think uses a good alignment system. Because it doesn't tell you what you are (although it tells you how much chaos you caused at the end of each chapter/arc). And it actually makes sense.

That's what it purports to be, but it's actually much more far-reaching than that.

For an example, in the Backyard in the High Overseer mission, there are a group of Overseers, one of which is infected with the plague.
-If you've been Low Chaos, he asks his buddies to kill him before the plague progresses too far and he hurts anyone. Kneels, lets them do it while they recite some of their scriptures in a pretty 'heartwarming in a bittersweet way' sort of scene.
-If you've been High Chaos, his buddies figure it out instead and advance on him with swords drawn and corner him while he tries his best to beg his way out of his impending death. It's a bit brutal.

Neither of these has anything to do with the main character or his actions thus far (it's an early mission). This gets played out with some regularity across the game; it's not exactly good or evil, but it changes the whole tone (and possibly the whole genre) of the game. In spite of the darkness, Low Chaos is more like a darkish superhero story complete with 'nonlethal' fates for your opposition that might well be worse than death.

High Chaos is more like the default tone of Dishonored and a story of tragic heroism, the guy who pursues revenge and ultimately ends up destroying everything he fought for. It's emphatically more about good/evil than it claims to be.

Witcher, Alpha Protocol, Dragon Age, etc did morality and alignment much better than anything with a meter, by not using a frigging meter (or alignment!) to represent moral choices. Of games with a meter, I think Overlord and Mass Effect did the best with it.

[Macros]

I think the first game I played that kept track of alignment was Baldur's Gate II (well, not so much alignment than reputation, but you get the gist). And I tend to agree it often is quite a clumsy system.

I know Dragon Age II got a lot of flak, but I enjoyed the Friendship / Rivalry meter. You don't have an alignment per see, but your actions change the way people around you treats you. Perhaps that kind of system is worth exploring more.

[atomicpenguin]

I've noticed that the problem with creating an interesting alignment system in today's market seems to be that no one is able to look past the good/evil or good/******* dichotomy. The closest attempt in my opinion was Mass Effect, since they specific detached paragon and renegade from the titles "good" and "evil". However, most of the choices ended up being help the family that's being harassed by thugs or take a bribe to look the other way, with some other factors like humanity-first or galactic unity thrown in.

What I would like to see is a game where the alignment mechanic is simply Lawful vs. Chaos, where lawful is the belief that order and authoritarianism should be used to defend people against chaos and destruction, and chaos is the belief that the freedom for people to do what they want is more important than being oppressed and held under the thumb of a government. This scale is separate and distinct from any sense of good vs evil and this would need to be reflected in the choices presented to the player(s) to work; sometimes there are cases where Lawful is the good choice (defending a family from bandits or turning a blind eye in return for a bribe) but there should also be cases where Chaos is the good choice (choosing to free a man who only stole from the wealthy lord because the lord has been taxing him with impunity and he cannot feed his family). The important thing is that there is a mix of moral decisions so that commitment to either side means choosing an ideal that goes beyond simple good versus evil.

[Flickerdart]

Witcher, Alpha Protocol, Dragon Age, etc did morality and alignment much better than anything with a meter, by not using a frigging meter (or alignment!) to represent moral choices. Of games with a meter, I think Overlord and Mass Effect did the best with it.
Dragon Age's alignment system is basically "Morrigan Disapproves".

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I've noticed that the problem with creating an interesting alignment system in today's market seems to be that no one is able to look past the good/evil or good/******* dichotomy. The closest attempt in my opinion was Mass Effect, since they specific detached paragon and renegade from the titles "good" and "evil". However, most of the choices ended up being help the family that's being harassed by thugs or take a bribe to look the other way, with some other factors like humanity-first or galactic unity thrown in.
This.

Let the player decide, based on how events unfold, whether their choices are good or bad, and make sure to hit them with consequences no matter what they choose. (After all, virtue is seldom easy, nor is vice repugnant on the face of things.)

What would be interesting is a sort of multi-track system that tracks various choice-related Qualities, bringing consequences to bear as Qualities hit certain levels. When you consistently choose some courses of action, that impacts the world in several ways: people's reactions, your own gut impulses, even the options which come to you at any given moment. Someone with a high Hedonist quality won't come up with the same solutions to a problem that someone with a high Forceful quality will.

[Starbuck_II]

.

High Chaos is more like the default tone of Dishonored and a story of tragic heroism, the guy who pursues revenge and ultimately ends up destroying everything he fought for. It's emphatically more about good/evil than it claims to be.


I thought that was only if you killed Emily. I thought that was the best ending: you go away to another city to adeventure (potential sequel).

[ObadiahtheSlim]

ADOM has a Law/Chaos meter. It's pretty superficial and has special endings that have alignment requirements.
There is even a special artifact that you get for descending down to the bottom level of the CoC without committing 1 chaotic act or (prior to 1.2.x) allowing one lawful creature to die. The artifact will also kill you if you have it equipped and commit a chaotic act. Interestingly, it is still possible (although very very hard) to do a majority of the quests, including getting special ending and still meeting the requirements for the artifact.