Moral alignment systems that do not incentivize you to max out your good/evil?

[Norfleet]

But that is what roleplaying is about - you're supposed to choose what your character is thinking as well as saying. You may not know exactly what circumstances you'll find ahead and whether you'll turn coat or not, but that's perfectly fine because neither does your character, and that's all that matters.

Yes, but if *I* don't know, my character certainly wouldn't either. I don't know if I'm actually going to kill him last. Whether or not I lied will only be determined if I even get the opportunity to do so!

[Demonic Fate]

But that is what roleplaying is about - you're supposed to choose what your character is thinking as well as saying. You may not know exactly what circumstances you'll find ahead and whether you'll turn coat or not, but that's perfectly fine because neither does your character, and that's all that matters.

Yes, but if *I* don't know, my character certainly wouldn't either. I don't know if I'm actually going to kill him last. Whether or not I lied will only be determined if I even get the opportunity to do so!

... I thought we had just agreed on the exact opposite? Or we're talking past each other

Lying is about intent. If I tell you "sure, I'll come to your party" but I plan to flake, I am still lying even though I might later change my mind and decide to show up.

That is implying that you have a plan to flake, yes. If you have no plan at all, then it isn't. Neurologically, according to a brainogram, it isn't lying.

Whether or not you lied is not determined later, it is determined based on what you(r character) intends to do as he speaks. And that you should both know. Doesn't matter if the intention will - unknowingly to either of you - turn out to be infeasible or impossible.

[Norfleet]

... I thought we had just agreed on the exact opposite? Or we're talking past each other

I dunno. I'm just saying: If I'm not thinking anything and have not locked in any definite plans, why would my character necessarily have to either? After all, the character knows even less than I do. There's an old saying: The enemy can't know what we're doing if we don't know what we're doing.

Whether or not you lied is not determined later, it is determined based on what you(r character) intends to do as he speaks. And that you should both know.

What, people are expected to be psychic and know the future now? As the player, I may have had the benefit of watching someone else play the game or reading the guide, so I have more information than my character. But if even *I* don't know, how would my character even know? The logical response would be to just make the requisite mouth noises and decide whether or not you lied afterwards. Until such time as the consequences can be observed, the statement is thus both true and false, existing in a state of quantum superposition.

[Tweed]

OP is also implying that there's an alignment system in the first place outside of whatever the developer thinks is good, like ****** paladins looting corpses and letting squatters steal property.

[Tangerine]

****** paladins

Paladins were better when it was a human only class.

[Tweed]

****** paladins

Paladins were better when it was a human only class.

Saurials were a kind of neato exception.

[Demonic Fate]

... I thought we had just agreed on the exact opposite? Or we're talking past each other

I dunno. I'm just saying: If I'm not thinking anything and have not locked in any definite plans, why would my character necessarily have to either? After all, the character knows even less than I do.

Because your character is not you, and he's the one having the conversation?

In-universe, someone is directly addressing him and saying "You are the Chosen One and must go slay the Evil Sith Lord Darkpuppystranglious! Will you do it, by the Jedi code that you believe in?". In-universe, he's not going to just blank out and say 'I dunno, I don't really have any particular opinion about Evil Sith Lords, I'm just here for the nude mods'.

Your character has a background and a history, you should play that role and figure out if that background and that history lead him to answer "Yes, by Yoda's green ***!" or "[Lie] Yes, by Yoda's green ***!" or "**** you, fascist bootlickers!", or at least which of the available options is most plausible and consistent. That's all.

[rusty_shackleford]

... I thought we had just agreed on the exact opposite? Or we're talking past each other

I dunno. I'm just saying: If I'm not thinking anything and have not locked in any definite plans, why would my character necessarily have to either? After all, the character knows even less than I do.

Because your character is not you, and he's the one having the conversation?

In-universe, someone is directly addressing him and saying "You are the Chosen One and must go slay the Evil Sith Lord Darkpuppystranglious! Will you do it, by the Jedi code that you believe in?". In-universe, he's not going to just blank out and say 'I dunno, I don't really have any particular opinion about Evil Sith Lords, I'm just here for the nude mods'.

Your character has a background and a history, you should play that role and figure out if that background and that history lead him to answer "Yes, by Yoda's green ***!" or "[Lie] Yes, by Yoda's green ***!" or "**** you, fascist bootlickers!", or at least which of the available options is most plausible and consistent. That's all.

Character is me, simple as

[Stack of Turtles]

... I thought we had just agreed on the exact opposite? Or we're talking past each other

I dunno. I'm just saying: If I'm not thinking anything and have not locked in any definite plans, why would my character necessarily have to either? After all, the character knows even less than I do.

Because your character is not you, and he's the one having the conversation?

In-universe, someone is directly addressing him and saying "You are the Chosen One and must go slay the Evil Sith Lord Darkpuppystranglious! Will you do it, by the Jedi code that you believe in?". In-universe, he's not going to just blank out and say 'I dunno, I don't really have any particular opinion about Evil Sith Lords, I'm just here for the nude mods'.

Your character has a background and a history, you should play that role and figure out if that background and that history lead him to answer "Yes, by Yoda's green ***!" or "[Lie] Yes, by Yoda's green ***!" or "**** you, fascist bootlickers!", or at least which of the available options is most plausible and consistent. That's all.

I have no strong opinions on this one way or the other, and neither does my character.

[Norfleet]

In-universe, someone is directly addressing him and saying "You are the Chosen One and must go slay the Evil Sith Lord Darkpuppystranglious! Will you do it, by the Jedi code that you believe in?". In-universe, he's not going to just blank out and say 'I dunno, I don't really have any particular opinion about Evil Sith Lords, I'm just here for the nude mods'.

Maybe not that exactly.

Your character has a background and a history, you should play that role and figure out if that background and that history lead him to answer "Yes, by Yoda's green ***!" or "[Lie] Yes, by Yoda's green ***!" or "**** you, fascist bootlickers!", or at least which of the available options is most plausible and consistent. That's all.

Or, maybe, you're playing the kind of guy who just accepts quests because that's what an Adventureman does. Because you're an Adventureman. You can't not be an Adventureman, because that's not the kind of character the game allows you to play. You're not lying, specifically. You're just kinda going with the flow.

[Demonic Fate]

I have no strong opinions on this one way or the other, and neither does my character.

Or, maybe, you're playing the kind of guy who just accepts quests because that's what an Adventureman does.

If you don't care about what is happening, then just pick an option at random and move on. Easy peasy.

[Havitner]

In New Vegas, the only three perks that require the all-DLC level cap of 50 (Ain't Like That Now, Just Lucky I'm Alive, and Thought You Died) require evil/neutral/good karma, respectively. They also reset your karma to 0 when you first obtain them.

[gerey]

The problem with alignment systems is that unless morality choices are clearly defined the zoombrain player will freak out. The player is not allowed to feel ICKY without their consent.

I think the greater issue is how writers, especially shitlib ones, interpret said morality, as we've seen in games like Baldur's Gate 3.

That's why I dislike D&D's alignment system - by my moral compass allowing hordes of unwashed ******* into a White country is among the most morally reprehensible things you can possibly do, ditto for pozzing children with ***** propaganda, and yet to the diseased mind of the leftists, these are some of the most virtuous causes you can support. A character can be both lawful and good by supporting these (despite them leading to unlawfulness and evil deeds) since the writer can just declare importing infinity ******* is legal in the kingdom.

It's much easier to work with factions, since what they are about is clearer, and it's much more difficult for a writer to completely infect the choices with their own takes.

[Norfleet]

If you don't care about what is happening, then just pick an option at random and move on. Easy peasy.

It's not that I don't care. It's that I have no clue. Certainly no one has yet made a counter-offer for me to accept as an alternative. So if no one has made a counter-offer for me to consider, and I have no other ideas, why would I NOT just go along with whatever?

[J1M]

The most significant example would be alignment restricted class choices in D&D. For example, monk requires lawful, and bard requires non-lawful. Druid required neutral along at least one axis, etc.

Of course, as mentioned above devs implementing choices like taking the killing blow on a chaotic evil creature as evil acts but only if they happen in dialog is retardation.