Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Angel Of Death]

This sounds great. I think some Forgotten Beasts should demand sacrifices (evil FB's) and some should demand insanly expensive items (Neutral FB's).

[anon_outlaw]

yeah you obviously play good and evil or atleast need to play it. seems your idea is good = prosperous but pussy and evil = badass and warlike.

not that simple also in DF there is no 'magic' (yeah i know we have dragons ect but there aint no spells or anything like that) so how do the crops increase in yield? another thing would be good = pussy is just awful, i would like to see absolutely no variance of power based on ethical alignment. also i feel a evil living deity would be selfish as fuck, even neutral would be ok with just legging it in the face of a full siege. they would probably march out to wipe out some raids to boots their followers faith and to home their own skills in combat but otherwise just sit there and make demands.

getting more into 'evil god = total prick' their behaviour towards their followers would be based on 3 things, it's own power, its followers power, it's followers faith.
-god is moderate in strength with a bunch of really strong followers with weak faith, it would try and bolster their belief before making huge demands. it's evil logic would say that they would be happy kicking it out/killing it if it was too much of a burden.
-god is strong and has really weak followers with weak faith, would slaughter some and turn the rest into fanatics through fear.
-god is really strong with really strong and faithful followers, would make them do nearly everything form fighting to sizeable but manageable demands. (not gonna risk loosing a good thing now is it?)
-god is really weak with strong to moderate followers, demands above all else sacrifices which either through eating or fighting them makes it stronger. has a risk of becoming too powerful and deciding to destroy the fortress now it has no more use for it.
-god is really strong with weak but faithful followers, fights for them but makes massive demands, happy to kill and punish for failure.

in the end good or neutral gods would be the only kind that would really bother going out to fight alongside it's worshippers.

[Girlinhat]

Good != Pussy.  It simply means a difference of style.  If you've got a being hanging around that increases the training speed of skills, you'll get better soldiers faster, and you'll have troops dominating the field.  It's really more a difference that good leads you from the back lines, with better infrastructure and development, and evil takes a more headfirst, in-own-hands approach that leaves enemies in pieces.  It's a difference in play style and can be somewhat boiled down to long term vs short term value.  A well-developed fort may survive for dozens of years, but it might go up in a whiff of smoke if it's hit by one good megabeast.  A powerful military might turn down dozens of sieges in short order, but if they're scrambling to keep civilians safe and struggling with food production and loss of life, then they won't last very long.

Just because something is physically weak, doesn't mean it is weak.

[Granite26]

"No magic" is a short term thing...

[anon_outlaw]

still a cliche snore fest and unrealistic, Hannibal (practically a god) was fighting the tyranny of the Roman empire (making him a good guy) and he did it with a sword and an army.

good dose not have to = pussy.

also why should evil = badass? if having a living god in your fortress is gonna come with bonuses there are lots more evil bonuses then a mega-beast on your side in battle.
"sacrifice x-amount of dorfs to me and i shall provide to you an artifact adamantium sword!"
"worship me and bones crushed and sprinkled over soil will makes crops grow!"

you could play with the most ass-weak evil god simply because they give a good bonus then have a titan crusading against evil come to trash your fort and refuse to leave until the evil one is slain.


i like how totally unorthodox this entire game is, elves are depicted as total hippies instead of 1000yr big fish in the little pond that is reality (LOTOR, Eragon and lots more), it focuses on dorfs who are usually taking a supporting role in fantasy settings, the gods are more often then not really powerful guys then actual 'i was hear when the world was made' gods. Now you want to take a totally kinder-garden approach of 'bad = fighting because fighting is bad'. the morals of the world are never that simple and in case no-one noticed; toady is making this game as realistic as is practical.

look at the hindu religion, they practice non-violence to the point that they cover their mouths so they wont inhale bugs. at the same time they believe it is their sworn duty to fight wickedness and injustice, everyone of their gods carry a weapon to this end. good dose not equal = pussy.
Gandhi was actually very outspoken in his total aversion to violence.

[Girlinhat]

Bad doesn't equal violence because violence is bad.  Bad equals violence, because being bad means being greedy and seeking instant gratification.  This is the cornerstone of violence.  It's quick and easy to punch someone in the stomach and take their wallet.  It's a means to an end.  Not to mention that all things evil are generally connected with all things "gratification at the cost of others" and it can be very gratifying to punch someone in the face.  Violence for the sheer pleasure of being violent is viable reason, or rather lack of reason, that's perfectly evil.  Good violence happens too, of course, it's just usually justified and righteous.

Although I would point out, that Hannibal isn't a good choice of examples to give.  We consider him the "good guy" because we consider the Romans to be tyrants, but I would assume the Romans had a very different opinion of the matter.  The "good guy" in a secular war is simply the one you like more.  Even religious wars have a gray area like that.  The crusades probably weren't popular to the Muslims.

[anon_outlaw]

errrr, Hannibal wanted to conquer rome where rome burnt the carthigian empire to the ground and never let it rebuild. i think he worked form the higher moral ground.

also primitive greed isn't the only evil, the reserve bank system manipulates the global economy to enormous profits and destroys the livelihoods of billions of people in the name of the almighty dollar. the process takes years and is not even close to instant nor ethical, evil comes in many forms far more complicated then a simple mugger.

[Misterstone]

Yeah, evil does not have to be simple, but these are beasts we're talking here.  Like the things in fairy tales that ask for live sacrifices.  Not sleezy bankers.  Of course, if there is a way to make the beast's behavior more insidious than downright brutal, I'm all for that.  Maybe it could try to corner to grain market through trade and force people from other sites to worship it for food or sth.

[anon_outlaw]

yeah, or the beast lets you train your miltato nearly always go into martial trances then sends you out to conquer. while the beast could be a weakling pussy he sill is evil and sill is useful. combat or economy they don't have to be one or the other because they are good or evil. an insidious evil type might make you not build a military beyond a certain number so you cant turn on it.

[werechicken]

Don't loads of civs already worship megabeasts in legends mode? This would be a really good extension. You could even extend it to your original civ declaring war on you for worshipping a false idol, instead of the tortoise demon that is currently the symbol of their civilisation.