Print

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

[Watsst]

Why would good lands be better to settle on? It is a land of "Good" not a land of benevolence.

I dont really get why people keep saying land of benevolence, definition for benevolence: disposition to do good, land of disposition to be good? when did I say anything like that? And if evil lands have poisonous rain, toxic fog and undead, shouldnt good lands go for more of a polar opposite?

Actually good lands are lands that for lack of a better word have a specific theme enforced on it. They arn't simply really great lands (which already exist as unsavage woodlands, with rivers, and mountains.)

Im saying the lands are so great they are unique, and if you read the bottom of my other post you'll see I did say a few things that arent anything like woodlands or rivers or mountains.

I read more of yours but it seems you missed a few concepts I was going for. Along with my other post, what I suggest is its too much of a boon, a double edged sword if you will. And why shouldnt other civs settle once in a while in a good area? Not all civs should, yes I agree, maybe some twist so its not open to every single civ.

So double edged boons:
Rapid tree growth = pinning you in, build build build to keep areas free.
Larger stronger creatures = better for meat and pets, but dangerous, powerful. And wouldnt it be cool if a goblin fort on a good land produced a sort of uber-goblin everyonce in a while in legends to have a goblin born larger than his size, and maybe become a legendary king, or arrive in a seige.
With healing mists = As I said in one of my posts perhaps some 'virtueous' creatures as you say heal faster than 'non-virtueous', so a battle could be turned from beneficial mist in a bad way.
Luck = maybe a goblin will get lucky against your legendary axeman, oh woe is he.
Quick breeding = includes vermin, and imagine all the cats and extra dangerous animals about.

And as I was saying, Im against the blessed idea, its more about super fertile lands, while evil is posinous lands.

[Neonivek]

Actually I thought of a possible good land being a place where poisonous spiked plants grow unhindered because everything in that land is so aided.

Also funny that you included "Perpetual Plague" as part of the good concept.

I do really get why people keep saying land of benevolence, definition for benevolence: disposition to do good, land of disposition to be good? when did I say anything like that? And if evil lands have poisonous rain, toxic fog and undead, shouldnt good lands go for more of a polar opposite?

They are seperate concepts altogether and should be treated as such so they have their own unique flavor and not be made into exact opposites of eachother (ignoring that it is what is going to happen).

Also the difference between Good and Benevolent as such is simple. A Crusader is "good", but is a malevolent force.

Not all civs should

Why? There is no reason not to.

[irmo]

Also the difference between Good and Benevolent as such is simple. A Crusader is "good", but is a malevolent force.

The crusader thinks he's doing the right thing by liberating Jerusalem from the enemies of the Church. You think he's not. Why would you describe him as "good" at all? Because he thinks he is? (Doesn't everyone think that?) Isn't it more accurate to say "the crusader thinks he's good, but he's wrong"?

[EnigmaticHat]

From what threetoe has written one possibilty for good worlds is "sacred forest protected by a Spirit that guards the forest dwellers, and is aided by the elves and animal people", which has shown up numerous times in his stories.  This is supported by elves living in good regions and worshipping forest spirits.  So "good" in the sense that if you embark there, your dwarves are the bad guys and the forest dwellers are the good guys.  Not "good" in the sense that it is a nice place to live for everyone.

[Neonivek]

Also the difference between Good and Benevolent as such is simple. A Crusader is "good", but is a malevolent force.

The crusader thinks he's doing the right thing by liberating Jerusalem from the enemies of the Church. You think he's not. Why would you describe him as "good" at all? Because he thinks he is? (Doesn't everyone think that?) Isn't it more accurate to say "the crusader thinks he's good, but he's wrong"?

A Crusader is a icon of all that is good and holy in this world and will champion good across the land.

He is good in the sense that he is a concept and symbol of good. He isn't because we know the difference between the concept of virtue and true virtue. Yet we still can recognise the symbol even when it is marred in reality.

Which is the point. "Good lands" are more of a representation of good and virtue but in no way genuinly reflect such. Since along with virtues like hope and charity we get others like Righteous anger, Justice, and even beauty. In otherwords "Good lands" shouldn't be anymore genuinly "good" then evil lands are "evil".

This is of course ignoring "Fairy Tale" Good lands.

[WillowLuman]

But this is all ignoring the fact that evil lands are genuine hell-holes of despair.

[Neonivek]

But this is all ignoring the fact that evil lands are genuine hell-holes of despair.

And there you go. Not genuin Evil.

[G-Flex]

I have an idea on how to turn this thread around.

Let's spend several pages of thread length arguing about what "good" and "evil" regions should be like, despite operating on totally different, baseless definitions of the words that we're effectively pulling out of our respective asses. Let's argue about what those places should be even though we can't even agree on the terms involved, and stick to our own baseless personal definitions while pretending those definitions are universal and objective.

We haven't done that yet, have we?

[Neonivek]

I have an idea on how to turn this thread around.

Let's spend several pages of thread length arguing about what "good" and "evil" regions should be like, despite operating on totally different, baseless definitions of the words that we're effectively pulling out of our respective asses. Let's argue about what those places should be even though we can't even agree on the terms involved, and stick to our own baseless personal definitions while pretending those definitions are universal and objective.

We haven't done that yet, have we?

Ohh no people have differing points that are generating a LOT of ideas of possible ways to do good lands and other sphere lands in the future? THE HORROR!

Though seriously G-Flex. Differing ideas are what we should be aiming for. Otherwise there would be no point in these suggestion threads.

[Loud Whispers]

As long as everyone can discuss their differing views without getting personal about it, progress is made and the best models (or at the very least some good suggestions) arise.

New ideas (even if they are conflicting ones) = Good

[Neonivek]

As long as everyone can discuss their differing views without getting personal about it, progress is made and the best models (or at the very least some good suggestions) arise.

New ideas (even if they are conflicting ones) = Good

Right now we have three models that people have brought up.

1) Fluffy Cloud (With two sub models: Easy mode, and Double Edged mode)
2) Fairy Tale
3) Malevolent Goodness

Though I should probably look more carefully. Don't treat these as written in stone or well researched.

[Starver]

A Crusader is a icon of all that is good and holy in this world and will champion good across the land.

You start off on the wrong foot here.

The term "Crusade" has so many unfortunate connotations.  Although it might mean "all that is [intended to be] good and holy!" to Western ears, it has probably the same connotation to other cultures as did the whole "The British are coming!" thing to contemporaries of Paul Revere[1].


I think there's two ways to think of this.  The least defensible is that there are moral absolutes, where there are good deaths (caused by the definitely good guys, on the definitely bad guys) and bad deaths (vice-versa).  A concentration of the former creates "good zones", and a concentration of the latter "evil zones".  As masters of the universe (or Toady, as the ultimate arbiter), it is possible that we could make such a decision to apply to our world, but it still seems rather arbitrary.  And consider the 'opposing sides' in the film Small Soldiers, if you know that pre-millennium film.  The all-American-hero toys are most definitely the antagonists, while the 'monster-like' gorgonite toys who have been designated as the bad guys (by the execs of the company, not the original designers) are best considered to be the put-upon 'heroic' characters.  (And, there are plenty of other examples where good and evil prejudices are messed about with.  Anyone else get the revelation in Terminator 2 about The T-800?  Those who aren't so young as to have known this prior to getting to see it, of course.)

The other approach is to tie Good and Evil towards (frexample, and there are other options, and problems with this particular suggestion) aspects of Life and Death.  So that while Evil areas have deadly dangers and an abundance of undead, Good areas have a life-sustaining aspect (largely indiscriminate to the object of the effect, save for perhaps greater or lesser degrees according to the object's suitability) and excessive birthing... or something similar.  There are problems with this specific example, of course, but even this leads the way to various novel dangers of being in the Good zone.  Like that of (if not fatally so, certainly always on the edge) starvation as the number of mouths to feed outpaces the supplies/grazing available...  I already find that (at least in .31) running the butcheries at top speed does not keep up with my rapidly outpacing populations of animals, while at the same time finding that I cannot support the larger grazing beasts (even those that are not intrinsically doomed by their inability to feed completely enough, like the elephants).


(Although I don't believe I've done justice in the above expositions, editing them down as I have, so naturally YMMV.)

((6 New replies while I was editing that?  Probably been ninjaed/outdated.))



[1] Not that it was likely he actually even used those words, when it came down to it.  He was necessarily more clandestine than to cry out as he is supposed to, and many who heeded the warnings he did carry considered themselves as British. But YGTI.

[catoblepas]

We have a lot of good ideas, IMO. But I think that if all, or even many were implemented, then things could get kinda crowded with features. Perhaps, in an effort to make individual [GOOD] regions more unique from one another, 2-4 features could be semi randomly chosen from a list? It would keep each biome unique without having too much feature bloat. Noone wants their dwarves to be getting drunk with satyrs, turned into trees, attacked by unicorns, getting their socks stolen by faries, and beign put to sleep by magical mists all at the same time, that would just be too chaotic. Good regions should have a few unique traits too set them apart from normal and evil biomes, but should try not to feel formulaic.

Thoughts?

[WillowLuman]

We have a lot of good ideas, IMO. But I think that if all, or even many were implemented, then things could get kinda crowded with features. Perhaps, in an effort to make individual [GOOD] regions more unique from one another, 2-4 features could be semi randomly chosen from a list? It would keep each biome unique without having too much feature bloat. Noone wants their dwarves to be getting drunk with satyrs, turned into trees, attacked by unicorns, getting their socks stolen by faries, and beign put to sleep by magical mists all at the same time, that would just be too chaotic. Good regions should have a few unique traits too set them apart from normal and evil biomes, but should try not to feel formulaic.

Thoughts?

Like how huskifying mists, dead plants, and blood rains are only potential features of any given evil zone? Sounds pretty good to me

[G-Flex]

Ohh no people have differing points that are generating a LOT of ideas of possible ways to do good lands and other sphere lands in the future? THE HORROR!

Though seriously G-Flex. Differing ideas are what we should be aiming for. Otherwise there would be no point in these suggestion threads.

My point is that people are saying things like "evil is this, not that" or "'good' doesn't mean this", and arguing from completely different definitions, even though all these words are, for all intents and purposes here, defined completely arbitrarily to begin with.

Differences of opinion are fine, but you can't discuss something reasonably when people are using different definitions of the terms involved, there is no real agreed-upon definition to begin with, and they're acting like their own personal definitions are somehow objectively correct.

Not like that's all that's happening in this thread, but it's something people have to pay mind to in order to avoid falling into unproductive discussion.