Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 25

Author Topic: Good regions being painfully good  (Read 88635 times)

NTJedi

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #120 on: February 29, 2012, 02:39:11 pm »

Looks like this topic discussion is becoming more complex than necessary and some are examining the world as viewed from every being, monster, entity which moves.  So here's my quick summary of why the system should remain as  Good, Neutral and Evil.

The game is called Dwarf Fortress and involves us playing the "dwarves" for the worlds we're generating.  The status of Good, Neutral and Evil are based on the dwarves we're playing where EVIL is naturally more painful, threatening and difficult as viewed by the entire "dwarven race" not the views of ogres, wolves, demons, etc., .

Some might argue they can make their dwarves behave with evil actions such as turning them all into vampires feeding on future migrants, killing elves, etc., etc., .  Just because the dwarven group you're playing decides to go postal, crazy or wannabe evil... doesn't change the view or actions of the rest of the "dwarven race" which is where these categories are created.  The EVIL creatures/areas are also not going to suddenly accept you into their world of darkness... those who try are merely twisted outcasts at best.  For example just because a human starts behaving, acting and hunting like a wolf doesn't mean they will be accepted by the wolves.  If the game by design allowed us to play as ogres, wolves, demons, etc., then yes we should change the titles  good, neutral and evil.  However we play a single race within a realm and by default the Good are friendly/comfortable areas.

*On a technical side note I strongly disagree having the developers spending their time changing the categories of good, neutral and evil as compared to working other more important issues.  All those suggesting the developers should change the categories as compared to working "broken" issues should be sealed in a 1X1 room.



Logged

G-Flex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #121 on: February 29, 2012, 02:43:42 pm »

The game is called Dwarf Fortress and involves us playing the "dwarves" for the worlds we're generating.  The status of Good, Neutral and Evil are based on the dwarves we're playing where EVIL is naturally more painful, threatening and difficult as viewed by the entire "dwarven race" not the views of ogres, wolves, demons, etc., .

This is a completely backward way of viewing it. The game is moving toward being less dwarf-centric, not moreso. Things like "good" and "evil" in the game are explicitly not by dwarven standards, otherwise why aren't they using good-flavored animals more or have the [GOOD] tag?

The good/evil/benign/savage surroundings aren't based on dwarven standards, they're based on kind of vague objective cosmological forces. Good, evil, etc. impact all civilizations the same way in worldgen, in theory. An evil place is still an evil place if you're a goblin; you just happen to be evil as well.
Logged
There are 2 types of people in the world: Those who understand hexadecimal, and those who don't.
Visit the #Bay12Games IRC channel on NewNet
== Human Renovation: My Deus Ex mod/fan patch (v1.30, updated 5/31/2012) ==

NTJedi

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #122 on: February 29, 2012, 03:03:57 pm »

This is a completely backward way of viewing it. The game is moving toward being less dwarf-centric, not moreso. Things like "good" and "evil" in the game are explicitly not by dwarven standards, otherwise why aren't they using good-flavored animals more or have the [GOOD] tag?
Good flavored animals exist in the good areas and evil flavored animals exist in the evil areas. The frequency is irrelevant.

The good/evil/benign/savage surroundings aren't based on dwarven standards, they're based on kind of vague objective cosmological forces. Good, evil, etc. impact all civilizations the same way in worldgen, in theory. An evil place is still an evil place if you're a goblin; you just happen to be evil as well.
"vague objective cosmological forces"??  I don't find any evidence of this being true beyond your own mind. 
An evil place from a goblins view can be home and happiness and thus from its point of view it would be a "GOOD" environment. 

In any case I'm sure 99% of the community would agree the developers should not waste time on something so trivial as compared to more important issues!
Logged

G-Flex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #123 on: February 29, 2012, 03:07:33 pm »

This is a completely backward way of viewing it. The game is moving toward being less dwarf-centric, not moreso. Things like "good" and "evil" in the game are explicitly not by dwarven standards, otherwise why aren't they using good-flavored animals more or have the [GOOD] tag?
Good flavored animals exist in the good areas and evil flavored animals exist in the evil areas. The frequency is irrelevant.

I'm not sure what you mean by "frequency". I'm saying that "good" and "evil" in Dwarf Fortress aren't subjective things as measured by dwarven standards.

Quote
"vague objective cosmological forces"??  I don't find any evidence of this being true beyond your own mind. 
An evil place from a goblins view can be home and happiness and thus from its point of view it would be a "GOOD" environment.

Except it's not, because goblins are evil. They are explicitly and objectively defined by the game as "evil" along with evil regions, evil wood, and evil animals. Goblins are evil. Demons are evil. A bunch of other things are evil. They don't turn "good" when you become something else that is also evil. They aren't relative terms.
Logged
There are 2 types of people in the world: Those who understand hexadecimal, and those who don't.
Visit the #Bay12Games IRC channel on NewNet
== Human Renovation: My Deus Ex mod/fan patch (v1.30, updated 5/31/2012) ==

NTJedi

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #124 on: February 29, 2012, 03:14:32 pm »

Except it's not, because goblins are evil. They are explicitly and objectively defined by the game as "evil" along with evil regions, evil wood, and evil animals. Goblins are evil. Demons are evil. A bunch of other things are evil. They don't turn "good" when you become something else that is also evil. They aren't relative terms.
They are evil as designed by the game per estimated views of the dwarven civilization. 

IF the game allowed us to play as goblins then the terms good, neutral and evil should be changed.  Since we play as dwarves the current descriptions are fine and should not change... especially when there's OBVIOUSLY more important issues. 
Logged

NTJedi

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #125 on: February 29, 2012, 03:17:44 pm »

I'm not sure what you mean by "frequency". I'm saying that "good" and "evil" in Dwarf Fortress aren't subjective things as measured by dwarven standards.
I believe my theory is more logical and reasonable as compared to your theory of "vague objective cosmological forces"?? LOL 
Logged

G-Flex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #126 on: February 29, 2012, 03:19:47 pm »

They are evil as designed by the game per estimated views of the dwarven civilization. 

IF the game allowed us to play as goblins then the terms good, neutral and evil should be changed.  Since we play as dwarves the current descriptions are fine and should not change... especially when there's OBVIOUSLY more important issues.

I really don't understand why you make the assumption that those terms have anything to do with dwarven society when they obviously have impacts on the world whether dwarves are alive in the world or not. I don't know why you're making the assumption that "good" and "evil" can't refer to objective concepts rather than some subjective cultural thing, especially when it's obvious they aren't subjective cultural things for the reason I mentioned, like the fact that they have ramifications on the gameworld that have nothing to do with any particular creature or civilization's ethics.

I'm not sure what you mean by "frequency". I'm saying that "good" and "evil" in Dwarf Fortress aren't subjective things as measured by dwarven standards.
I believe my theory is more logical and reasonable as compared to your theory of "vague objective cosmological forces"?? LOL 

I don't know why it's not "logical" or "reasonable" to assume that "good" and "evil" are just qualities of the world, forces within the world, or aspects of things in the world, that exist independently of any civilization's ethical considerations. It's not like it hasn't been done before in plenty of existing fantasy, and any actual evidence in the game makes this assumption fairly reasonable.

And I still have no idea what you meant by "frequency" or why.
Logged
There are 2 types of people in the world: Those who understand hexadecimal, and those who don't.
Visit the #Bay12Games IRC channel on NewNet
== Human Renovation: My Deus Ex mod/fan patch (v1.30, updated 5/31/2012) ==

irmo

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #127 on: February 29, 2012, 03:31:05 pm »

This is a completely backward way of viewing it. The game is moving toward being less dwarf-centric, not moreso.

To its detriment, mostly. Putting the focus back on the dwarves as protagonists would be an improvement, and defining "good" and "evil" by dwarven standards is one way to do that.
Logged

NTJedi

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #128 on: February 29, 2012, 03:46:36 pm »

I really don't understand why you make the assumption that those terms have anything to do with dwarven society when they obviously have impacts on the world whether dwarves are alive in the world or not. I don't know why you're making the assumption that "good" and "evil" can't refer to objective concepts rather than some subjective cultural thing, especially when it's obvious they aren't subjective cultural things for the reason I mentioned, like the fact that they have ramifications on the gameworld that have nothing to do with any particular creature or civilization's ethics.
The assumption is made because of the MANY other game references are dwarven references and not goblin references.  If the dwarves did not exist in the world the dwarven fortress game could not be played by design. It's therefore safe to identify this dwarven race as the main design of the game and since the terms good, neutral and evil are subjective views it's safe to assume they are the subjective views of dwarves or the developer himself.  Since it's more professional for a developer to remain subjective I lean towards the dwarves. 

I don't know why it's not "logical" or "reasonable" to assume that "good" and "evil" are just qualities of the world, forces within the world, or aspects of things in the world, that exist independently of any civilization's ethical considerations. It's not like it hasn't been done before in plenty of existing fantasy, and any actual evidence in the game makes this assumption fairly reasonable.
What one individual/creature might consider a good action another individual/creature might consider an evil action. If you were to awake tomorrow as a goblin in the dwarven fortress realm you wouldn't view yourself as evil. There is definite evil and good, however each side views what they're doing as justified and part of their lifestyle... so a goblin or monster views themself as good.  So if we played a game as goblins then these should be changed, but since we play the game as only dwarves this should not change. What's more important it sounds like neither of us want this to be changed so discussing the topic is not helpful. 

And I still have no idea what you meant by "frequency" or why.
Frequency was in response to your comment "good flavored animals more".
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #129 on: February 29, 2012, 04:01:22 pm »

-snip-

Was it really necessary to point out Dwarfs in Dwarf Fortress? Now back to the suggestions for adding depth, reward or risk to good regions?
Quite honestly this discussion of what evil and good is is becoming a derail, stay at least mildly on topic.

Good lands can still have their own sets of problems within the concept of good. In the same way unicorns used to be the king of beasts and pixies are the most annoying pests in the game.

I still stand by this.

NTJedi

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #130 on: February 29, 2012, 04:10:54 pm »

Was it really necessary to point out Dwarfs in Dwarf Fortress?
Yes, for added emphasis.

Now back to the suggestions for adding depth, reward or risk to good regions?
Depth could include enchantments, creating powerful food, unique visitors
Rewards could include taming/training strong holy beings/creatures or unique rewards from the land such as healing
Risk... overall these regions should be more "safe" so new players feel they can try learning the game someplace without RISK.  As mentioned earlier an event after a dozen years perhaps some strong evil army trys corrupting the land.
Logged

Dark Like Snipes

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #131 on: February 29, 2012, 04:39:33 pm »

Personally I'm not in favor of the whole candy canes and heart shaped trees style of good in this game. If you
Logged

WillowLuman

  • Bay Watcher
  • They/Them Life is weird
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #132 on: February 29, 2012, 07:10:43 pm »

Good areas can be kind without being Candyland. Just think of Tolkien style good lands; nice things live there, places of healing, all that stuff. All I'm saying it can be "pure" without being "saccharine"
Logged
Dwarf Souls: Prepare to Mine
Keep Me Safe - A Girl and Her Computer (Illustrated Game)
Darkest Garden - Illustrated game. - What mysteries lie in the abandoned dark?

Dark Like Snipes

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #133 on: February 29, 2012, 07:17:18 pm »

Personally I'm not in favor of the whole notion of a candy canes and heart shaped trees style of good in this game. If you want to go the fairytale style route for good it would also make it necessary to make evil into its fairytale style form. So instead of the brutal murder that you get in the games current evil biomes, you would get a lot more of necromancers kidnapping dwarf maidens and putting them at the top of their towers, or having dwarves being captured by ogres to be cooked (though still leaving plenty of time for the heroes to rescue them). While a fairytale style with the Dwarf Fortress style sense of humor and twists would be a fun option for world generation way down the line, I don't think it should be a primary feature in the game, and it's certainly not the way it should be now with evil being far more of a straightforward brutal rape style than a scheming to kidnap smurfs one.

As for as the objectiveness of good and how it should be defined, we can argue about the subjectivity of what is good and what isn't until we're all blue in the fingers and have gotten nowhere, or just decide that we're talking about a video game (albeit a highly intricate one) and that proving objective or inherent good and evil isn't really necessary. We can either leave these concepts out of the game entirely, or decide that common notions of good and evil should exist in some tangible form and have reflections in the game world. I'm inclined to go with the latter since we can already dig to a hell full of demons or embark in good and evil biomes, and given how prominent the conflicts between the forces of good and evil are in most fantasy, I think they should be in the game.

Now the question is to figure out what interpretation of good and evil you want to use. Personally I think the broad interpretations of good and evil in Dungeons and Dragons would fit this game well. In basic summation, in D&D evil means accomplishing your goals at the expense of others, while good means accomplishing your goals in spite of others, and there are real entities that watch over these sorts of behaviors. The way I picture it, the good and evil biomes should be highly linked to the divinity of their respective nature, and you should be judged, rewarded, and punished based on your actions. For example, say that a nearby human town is under attack and many refugees flee to your hills/mountain. In a good area you would be expected to shelter, feed, and protect them, and for extra good points you send them back home after the attack is over well provisioned and with a lot of building materials, causing your good gods to smile down on you. An evil biome on the other hand would reward you for bringing the refugees in, pilfering any valuables they happen to be carrying, and either sacrificing them for blessings or making them into slaves, much to the chagrin of the evil deities. Or in another scenario, say you're being sieged for the first time. In the good area the game may recognize that you're probably not prepared for the incoming enemy, and you'll receive a message through your priest or spirit medium saying that the deity watching your fortress will smite your enemies if you increase happiness in your fortress, or prepare more dwarves for war to help defend allies or something of that nature. On the other hand in the evil area you would get a message from the evil deity looking at your situation and say "Hahaha, I see you're in a bit of a predicament, sacrifice Urist McLegendaryminer to me and I will bless your dwarves with the ability to crush their foes." If you accept and sacrifice Urist, then three of your dwarves are chosen at random and made into great axedwarves with demonic armor grafted to their skin. If you deny these requests too frequently then the deity will start to see you as a threat and an affront to his land, and will send forces out to purge you. That's when the deities of the opposite alignment can come in and offer their aid, and all of a sudden there's some blue in that purple zone or vice versa, assuming that your actions have brought you in favor with those deities of course. The area that your fortress is in shouldn't just determine the creatures that inhabit it, it should also heavily influence the behavior and nature of your dwarves. For example, dwarves in good areas should be more resistant to sadness and tantrums, but when it does happen it should be disastrous due to how interconnected everyone is, while in evil areas tantrums and murders would be more frequent but less disastrous for the fort at large because the environment necessitates them not caring as much about each other.

The divine deities should also be highly concerned with battling their opposites, expanding good or evil territory and so on. Deities arm their followers for these conflicts with advanced healing abilities, paladins or shadow knights, destructive spells, or any other number of things that you can imagine, and call on their fortresses and towns to send soldiers out for war. This would also necessitate being diplomatic with neutral civilizations, and either converting them to your way or purging them from the map. This would make for some interesting embark choices, since you could potentially send a small no-nonsense military force to colonize an area on the periphery of the enemy area for the greater good (or evil as it were), or start as a neutral settlement and then work your way into the favors of one deity or another after building your shrine and making the surrounding area good or evil (and fulfilling the obligations that come with it), or you could be a neutral civilization that wants no part in a planar war and seeks to purge divine influence from the world for the sake of mortals. Or of course you'd still be able to set divinity to zero in your world parameters and have the conflict between good and evil be no more than an abstract concept in your world.

I would love to see a system implemented like this, and I have a feeling that it's going to be similar to the sphere and divinity system that Toady puts in. There's far more interesting ways to implement good and evil beyond simple healing rain or evil fogs, though they should still be in the game. You can also implement lawful and chaotic alignments for these areas, for instance having a chaotic good area fully regrow all its forests randomly, or have a lawful evil biome that rains elf blood from Sandstone to Timber every year. There's a lot of possibilities here, which is why I like it far more than having good areas just being different colored and slightly twisted evil or have them automatically defaulted to forest areas full of unicorns and elves. The forces of good are far more diverse than that.

Edit: Also how do you delete posts? Didn't notice my little flub up before.
Logged

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Good regions being painfully good
« Reply #134 on: February 29, 2012, 07:39:44 pm »

Quote
Personally I think the broad interpretations of good and evil in Dungeons and Dragons would fit this game well.

Though by all means let us not... actually use it since their alignment system since even within their own system they break it and have many exceptions, omissions, and holes within it. It is why even Wizards of the Coast ignore their own allignment system.

Also you are sort of incorrect about the "Good and evil" allignment. As you are mistaking will and intent. Good characters spite creatures all the time and kill them by the bucket loads. Many evil characters also are law abiding citizens who would never genuinly bring someone to harm (unless you read the allignment as it is in the guides... where the Evil allignments are broken and don't follow the rules of the game)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 25