D&D alignment sucks. There, you said it. They suck in every version of the board game, but they especially suck in D&D video games. What a relief to hear Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't use it at all.
For those unfamiliar, alignment is sort of an objective label for D&D character morality. Different versions have different categories of alignment, but one widely used across versions ranks characters along a legal vs. chaotic and good vs. evil axis. A good, lawful character is kind and just, always following as closely as possible the laws of the land; Chaotic Evil follows their dark heart's desire, causing death and suffering at will. Characters can be neutral on one or both axes as well. a neutral anarchist who believes in freedom and self-determination above all else; A true neutral character (neutral to both) seeks balance in all things; A good, neutral character that dedicates itself to... er, get back to me on that.
It's a system that's been around for so long because of nostalgia and tradition, but it's always been awkward and reductive. It's restrictive enough to stifle subtle character development, but vague enough that you're probably already mad at me about my interpretation of one of the alignments above. It's led to decades of foolish arguments about the morality of fantasy worlds — the D&D version of "Would you go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby?" Is "Is it okay for a paladin to kill a demonic demon child?" , an incredibly stressful, infuriating assumption that's actually fitting for this game.This is because in many versions of D&D, alignment is built into the basic rules of the game. It can restrict any class it can be - at one time all Druids had to be True Neutral, for example. It can affect the spells you can cast, or the effects certain spells can have on you. In the case of Paladins, straying from a legally good alignment could lose you access to your class abilities, turning you into just a guy in inappropriately shining armor. It is for this reason that many of them end up in lengthy philosophical discussions with the Dungeon Masters.
In video games, there isn't even a DM to discuss - and the developers have struggled a lot to implement alignment in a satisfactory way. The nature of the system means that games must try to cover an absurd range of possible character viewpoints in their dialogue choices, and oftentimes the result is awkward and artificial moral choices.
Thanks for saving my cat from the tree, adventurer! Here is your 100th golden reward.
[Legal Good] Don't think so, citizen - and please save the gold.
Hello, thanks for the gold.
[Chaotic Evil] I dropped your cat just so I could kill it - and you!!!
. People simply fit into this elegance. Worse, the long copy alignment led to some seriously uncomfortable implications in D&D world building.
When you say that certain types of wise beings are inherently good or evil from birth, whether you realize it or not, you are making a very, very good statement about right and wrong in your environment. In combination particularly with D&D's historical use of the word "race" rather than "species", it has drifted comfortably, seeing as certain groups have some innately negative ideas in the real world.
In the real world, right and wrong are messy, subjective, and have many discussions around. By taking objective and literal judicial action for the good and the bad you are affected by, you then have to take strong action. If orcs are born evil, does this mean that good people should strive to have all David wiped out on them? Yes? Great, now our light fantasy world is pro-annihilation!
It is such issues that have led Wizards of the Coast to increasingly deemphasize alignment, starting in 4e and continuing into the most recent rule set, 5e, which removed things like alignment restrictions on classes and innate alignment of races. With playtesting of 5e's next update rolling in, signs seem to be that alignment is being permanently phased out entirely from now on, or at least it's been turned into an optional, vestigial item with no impact on gameplay or setting.
So it makes sense that Baldur's Gate 3 - built directly on 5e - would have taken this step early, in collaboration with WOTC. With its aim of absurd levels of interaction and choice of narrative, the game could only benefit from being bound by a moral system conceived 50 years ago. Larian is free to create his own, more nuanced story and world, and players can build whatever characters they want without being categorized into specific personality types through their mechanical choices. Thankfully - I'll never need to know if it's morally appropriate for my real, neutral character to stack 10 Explosive Barrels next to an NPC before attacking them.