Print

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

[DarthBoogalo]

Good regions should rain booze. oops that was already suggested

[Archos]

I don't think good regions should be the same as their evil counterparts, as it would become "just another nightmarish region". I prefer them being different.
Not that good regions should be easy, but like many said, with a different approach.

Strong and passive wildlife, difficulting hunt and punishing evil-natured dorfs. Annoying critters, hiding stuff on your fortress and playing pranks. Scolding spirits, telling that they should honor tradition and the gods. Guilty feelings for butchering puppies and kittens. Punishment (good avengers?) for killiing too much fauna/flora. Maybe it could be more harsh on unburied corpses, making vengeful spirits or something like that appears. That stuff. Something that is not exactly a threat, but that can be dangerous enough to relax and ignore.

Also, good is necessary linked to nature? A good region must be necessarily one full of elfish stuff?

[G-Flex]

I have to agree. It's unfortunate they are called "good" and "evil" regions, though. Light is not Good and all that.

Except in this case they are good and evil, not "light and dark" or whatever other distinction. Good regions are not misnamed. They are supposed to be good-aligned.



I think this whole discussion is a bit moot, since it would be (in my opinion) more preferable for regions to have associations with spheres rather than "good" or "evil".

[Neonivek]

They arn't truely good and evil. They really are "Light and Dark" but called Good and Evil.

[Sunken]

I too think that good areas should be a challenge, but a challenge that is not "I have to be powerful/violent enough" like evil regions, but "I have to be nice/even-handed/non-violent enough". As already has been said, they should revolt against dwarfish endeavors like reshaping the earth, cutting down and otherwise disturbing the biome, killing animals, over-grazing... they should impose rules on behavior, in effect. The mechanisms, I'm less sure about. Elves, well sure; angry unicorns - but how does good strike back without being evil-ish?

[G-Flex]

I'm not sure it should "strike back" as much as incidentally make it more difficult. Like weapons being made supernaturally ineffective or the targets of your hunts otherwise being protected.

[dizzyelk]

I think this whole discussion is a bit moot, since it would be (in my opinion) more preferable for regions to have associations with spheres rather than "good" or "evil".

That's planned iirc.

I too think that good areas should be a challenge, but a challenge that is not "I have to be powerful/violent enough" like evil regions, but "I have to be nice/even-handed/non-violent enough". As already has been said, they should revolt against dwarfish endeavors like reshaping the earth, cutting down and otherwise disturbing the biome, killing animals, over-grazing... they should impose rules on behavior, in effect. The mechanisms, I'm less sure about. Elves, well sure; angry unicorns - but how does good strike back without being evil-ish?

Good striking back =/= evil anymore than killing in defense is evil. Good/evil is the motivation behind it.

[Sphalerite]

In Good regions, 'slept in the grass recently' should be a positive thought rather than a negative thought.  Seeing as how the grass is made of feathers and bubbles, it's probably incredibly comfortable to sleep on.

[WillowLuman]

Yep isitanos. Races that are soo "good" that they see everyone else around them as soo flawed as to be evil happens.

The Formen in Dungeons and dragons for example are the ultimate expression of order and find everyone them to be so chaotic (even lawful characters) that they simply want to enslave everyone.

Celestial beings that are so perfect that even saints seem like horrid beings are also common in fiction.

A SUPER good land being soo good that the dwarves seem like a sinful afront to it that needs to be removed also makes sense.

But beings like that are pure evil. It's not seemingly good, it's GOOD. It's like saying that we should have basically 2 different kinds of evil, and call one good. One being goblins who delight in cruelty, and the other being Nazi's who intend well but have a warped sense of reality.

[isitanos]

Also, good is necessary linked to nature? A good region must be necessarily one full of elfish stuff?

Respecting nature seems to go hand-in-hand with good, and good regions are mostly wilderness and are often inhabited by elves, so... But mainly, it sounds Fun.

But beings like that are pure evil. It's not seemingly good, it's GOOD. It's like saying that we should have basically 2 different kinds of evil, and call one good. One being goblins who delight in cruelty, and the other being Nazi's who intend well but have a warped sense of reality.

If we only have the current style of "good" regions, of course it doesn't make sense. But if good regions were diversified into lawful/neutral/chaotic and good-turned-bad, it would be interesting.


P.S. Not sure about them being "pure evil" though. Very evil, sure, but wouldn't a pure evil society die off instantly, since everybody would just hate themselves and each other, and all die off in a suicide/murder orgy? Even a nazi society needs inside trust and presumably other good stuff like love between family members, etc, if it wants to efficiently be evil to other societies.

[Neonivek]

Yep isitanos. Races that are soo "good" that they see everyone else around them as soo flawed as to be evil happens.

The Formen in Dungeons and dragons for example are the ultimate expression of order and find everyone them to be so chaotic (even lawful characters) that they simply want to enslave everyone.

Celestial beings that are so perfect that even saints seem like horrid beings are also common in fiction.

A SUPER good land being soo good that the dwarves seem like a sinful afront to it that needs to be removed also makes sense.

But beings like that are pure evil. It's not seemingly good, it's GOOD. It's like saying that we should have basically 2 different kinds of evil, and call one good. One being goblins who delight in cruelty, and the other being Nazi's who intend well but have a warped sense of reality.

Evil isn't really evil.

You are thinking of the difference between Benevolence and Malevolence.

Good can be Malevolent and Evil can be Benovolent.

So if we have beneficial good lands, we will need beneficial evil lands.

[WillowLuman]

In general and in the game so far, Benevolent means 'good' and Malevolent means 'evil'. But if you want it like that, then I think that it would be the "benevolent" evil area that lulls you into a false sense of security before pouncing, not the good ones.

What's the point of having all areas being palette swaps of each other, some filled with slavering beak dogs who want to eat your flesh and others filled with slavering unicorns who want to eat your flesh? The evil regions are already challenging for being bleak and inhospitable (not to mention downright hostile.) Why make good regions the same? If good regions need more challenge, then it should be of the opposite sort, as they are opposite evil areas. Or, they could be easy to play in and not as full of challenge, but with the downside of not being as much !!FUN!!

[irmo]

You are thinking of the difference between Benevolence and Malevolence.

Good can be Malevolent and Evil can be Benovolent.

This doesn't even make any sense.

[King Mir]

Several people talked about how prankster fey would be belong in Good regions. I agree that there is a lot of mythology and fairy tails about faeries, and DF would do well to include more of it. I'm not sure that fey should be exclusive to good regions though.

Also, good is necessary linked to nature? A good region must be necessarily one full of elfish stuff?

This is a good point. It may be that only elves settle in good regions, but that does not mean that good regions should be an endorsement of elfish morality. Nor should they be someone else's image of virtue, since virtue is subjective. Good and Evil regions can't really be good or evil, because land doesn't have morality. So it really is a vague association with Light and Dark rather than morality that must define such regions.

For similar reasons, evil regions aren't havens for goblins. Goblins I'd agrue are more evil than anything found in evil regions. They are free thinking individuals with no empathy. That's much more evil then mindless undead.

[Beznogim]

Good can be Malevolent and Evil can be Benovolent.

So if we have beneficial good lands, we will need beneficial evil lands.

Good and Evil region are called Good and Evil, because they represent the childish cartoonish concepts of Good and Evil that feather-like grass and unicorns are Good, because they look cute, while actually Good and Evil are just debatable philosophical concepts.

Goody-goodish hippie-style place can be a real nightmare to live in, especially if your freedom of actions is rather restricted. So, Malevolent Good should be a place, that is hospitable enough, but only until you start committing acts, deemed by Good region inhabitants as inexcusably evil - like slaughtering animals or cutting down trees. Then the inhabitants would repel against you. So as long as you follow rather strict set of rules - you are tolerated there.
Sort of like Garden of Eden from Bible - you take a wrong fruit from a wrong tree - and you are suddenly not welcome anymore.
In Benevolent Good region the creatures would be simply too scared of you to attack or too weak to cause you any serious harm, so that you can live there without having constant danger of your fortress being destroyed.

Benevolent Evil would be place that looks rather undangerous for you to survive, but it insensibly constantly affects your dwarves, like slowly changing their personality traits into more evil ones (less compassionate, more prone to anger, etc.) and eventually changing ethics of your dwarves, making the fortress separate from its civilization and start its own.