Print

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

[Captain Crazy]

The Featherwood has adopted Catten Gooberstein, Woodcutter!
Catten cancels chop wood: apologizing profusely

[GreatWyrmGold]

Here's my idea of what good and evil areas "should" be like:

Evil: Actively out to get you, and also anyone coming to attack you. If you can survive the land itself, you're golden.
Good: Actively out to help you, and also anyone else. It's easy to survive, but if (when) you get attacked, it'll be a lot harder to survive then.

[Revanchist]

This has been partially brought up, but I favored the idea of either:
1- The region is good/evil/hospitable/etc/whatever Toady puts in, based on the civilization you currently control. Currently that would be dwarves, but later should extend to humans, goblins, and those other, less awsome elves. Later it may hypothetically extend to include player-made civs, too. But this should be a long term goal, not a "do this now, and do it right" kind of thing; that's notwhat I'm asking.

2- The region is good/evil/you get the idea, but only in a relativistic sense (Meaning no booze rains, unless the sphere is booze, or something). That way, a good bime is only good if what you control is good. Otherwise why wouldn't the good lands all be colonised? The elves (cannibalistic tree-lovers they are) are considered good somehow by the PTB. That's why they settle in good regions. Evil would try to kill everybody, Good would try to "help" everybody, Youth would prolong aging, remove life-caps, or not have them age at all. Death would kill you, Disease would make you sick, give infections, and have water stagnate naturally. Labor could make you're dwarves inspired to work more, better, and faster, with fewer breaks. Basically, it would do http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin <that. This would, as it was stated, let players challenge, or relax, at their discretion. Some might be more open-ended in morality (Rebirth, Fate, Revelry, etc, http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Sphere but would still be suited to some playstyle. Maybe Urist McGod would have a son, who when he dies becomes Urist McGod Jr. and carries his insanely game-breaking genes? Again, not saying this should be implemented right away.

[Dorfimedes]

Okay, I'll throw in my vote.

Benign good regions = Extremely hospitable, a choice spot for a town or fort. A paradise.
Savage good regions = Not malicious, just incredibly alien. For example, the resident pixies or what have you might know better than to stare into the enchanted river, but your dwarves don't and so are turned into fish. The danger comes from unfamiliarity, not malice, and the fates your dwarves meet will tend to be G-rated most of the time as opposed to being gruesomely dismembered are husk'd. Or we could go the other way and end up with something like Happy Tree Friends. Should be harder than untamed wilds and have unique opportunities for the player, but not as hard as a terrifying embark. The difficulty curve for good regions wouldn't be as linear as other alignments. So:

Easy

Serene
Calm
Wilderness
Mirthful
Untamed Wilds
Sinister
Joyous Wilds
Haunted
Terrifying

Hard

[simonthedwarf]

The problem is that "extremely hospitable" sounds boring

[GreatWyrmGold]

And that "looking into river turns you into a fish" =/= "good" in any way, shape, or form, like (say) healing mists or monthly ressurection would be.

[Manveru Taurënér]

The problem is that "extremely hospitable" sounds boring

I wouldn't call that a problem really, it'd be good for new players getting started and for people wanting to construct their megaprojects in peace without having to alter the raws too much. And nothing would stop experienced players from continuing to pick the ones they find fun ^^

[Dorfimedes]

The problem is that "extremely hospitable" sounds boring

I wouldn't call that a problem really, it'd be good for new players getting started and for people wanting to construct their megaprojects in peace without having to alter the raws too much. And nothing would stop experienced players from continuing to pick the ones they find fun ^^

My thoughts exactly. Calm and Wilderness environments are already quite hospitable to all but the greenest dwarf fortress player, and if all 3 of the good surroundings were made easier than Calm it would mean 5 of the 9 total types of surroundings are a cakewalk. This being dwarf fortress, something would still manage to go wrong, but I like the idea of a gorgeous, yet mysterious and incomprehensible alien landscape with its own challenges, so I suggested a non-linear difficulty curve with relation to savagery. I thought it was a good compromise.

And that "looking into river turns you into a fish" =/= "good" in any way, shape, or form, like (say) healing mists or monthly ressurection would be.

Eh, I think you're thinking of a different kind of good. If we can find a way to make it flavorful enough to be worth playing then I'm all for it, but what I had in mind was sort of a fairy-tale kind of biome, where unfortunate fates like being turned into a fish befall people regularly. There isn't really anything horrific about it, but it can be a little depressing and sometimes humorous in the way of Aesop's fables and some of the other tragic stories of ancient greece.

[Babylon]

The problem is that "extremely hospitable" sounds boring

I wouldn't call that a problem really, it'd be good for new players getting started and for people wanting to construct their megaprojects in peace without having to alter the raws too much. And nothing would stop experienced players from continuing to pick the ones they find fun ^^

That's what neutral is for.  Good should be more challenging than neutral

[NW_Kohaku]

That's what neutral is for.  Good should be more challenging than neutral

... Why, exactly? 

"Good", thus far, means bubble-grass, feather trees, fairies, unicorns (in joyous wilds), mermaids, sunberries that have a little liquid sunshine inside them...

It's basically candyland.  It's strange and sappy, but why should it necessarily be more challenging than any normal place to embark.

If anything, I'd expect it to be like Sluggy Freelance, where Torg (and later the demons) went to the good dimension where everyone was ultra-nice to the point that they were sickeningly sweet.  (And when the demons showed up, they were incapable of violence, and so were completely slaughtered in an often non-funny way, while Torg found out his sword he needed to fight the demons ran on the blood of innocents, which was incidentally in quite ready supply in a dimension of innocents...)

I'd expect giggling fairies and what they might see as harmless pranks that might be potentially very dangerous (fairies that pull levers or the like), and ideas like clouds that heal people, even when they are fighting one another are decent for odd stuff that can be good or bad for the player, but are generally "good" in nature.

I don't see why we should expect Good regions to be harder than normal in and of themselves, however.  There isn't much reason why Good regions can't have net positive with some odd or potentially very disruptive behavior going on (potential happy tree friends or evil dwarves abusing the fairies that are basically children and can't fight back type stuff... much less the mermaid farms...)

[Neonivek]

Well one thing that defintely shouldn't happen is good lands on easy mode.

"Hey Humans why don't you embark here?"
"Because that area is good... all that free healing, serene landscapes, and only good things would get to us"
"Ok what is the REAL reason?"
"PCs only"

I don't see why we should expect Good regions to be harder than normal in and of themselves, however

Well normal reasons are otherwise natural with the occasional monster thrown in.

A Good region is outright supernatural and thus everything in there is essentially a monster. Like with Evil regions you are at the mercy of whatever is there.

While evil regions kill you simply through being a hostile environment, good regions kill/inconveniance you by simply being incompatable. Heck lets go by the candyland analogy. Imagine if the only thing that could grow on good soil was candy (Plump Helmets come out as Plump drops). It doesn't hurt the Faeries they can live off of candy but the dwarves would get sick and die.

Mind you any "Good" region that doesn't present a tougher level of play simply should either be populated or not populated for another good reason. Heck I'd imagine that a good reason that was heavily populated would cease to be.

Also remember. Good isn't always gooey. It is as much of the Shining knight destroying evil as it is the marshmellow. Heck I could imagine a Super Good land where the dwarves are considered to be absolute evil (and they are) and thus they need to be espunged. Good =/= Nice.

So yeah another reason you are incompatable is simply because while you are in a good region by all means you are essentially evil. (Ignoring that good lands is more of a motif then a genuin measure of goodness. Alice in Wonderland could be considered a "Good Land" and it was a nightmarish place.. and ignoring that Evil lands arn't evil either they are just blindly hostile)

I am also reminded of a Santa Clause movie where Fairies were fighting giants. Some of the things they did was shrink their opponents to ants and turn them into vermin. Turning people into fuzzy animals certainly sounds like something a good region would do. Heck turning your people into trees is another good thing good regions can do.

[NW_Kohaku]

I actually do wonder why humans don't settle in good areas, but elves can live in good regions, and get good-aligned goods like sunberries to trade.

Also remember. Good isn't always gooey. It is as much of the Shining knight destroying evil as it is the marshmellow. Heck I could imagine a Super Good land where the dwarves are considered to be absolute evil (and they are) and thus they need to be espunged. Good =/= Nice.

There isn't a point trying to bring your vision of good into it, because Toady's version of "Good" is, explicitly, Candyland. 

"Good" regions are like normal regions but have bubble grass, feather trees, giggling fairies, fluffy wamblers, and maybe some unicorns or mermaids.  They really are pretty pretty princess fairy tale for 4-year-old-girls type of "good" regions. You can't try to shoehorn some sort of righteous paladin smiting evil type of idea onto that, you have to work with the setting you have.


Anyway, dwaves are not inherently evil - by the ethics raws, they're the most ethical race by our modern standards, although if you're down with cannibalism, maybe a case could be made for elves.  There is nothing in their ethics that inherently means evil, it's the actions of some of the players that is evil, and assuming that every player is evil is a mistake.  (In fact, there was just a poll about elves, and only about 20% of players said they even hate or kill elves, while the plurality are fine so long as they breed good things to trade, and a larger proportion than always hated elves said they liked elves, generally.  It's just that the elf-haters are a vocal minority.)

You can have some groundrules where if a lot of fairies get killed by environmental hazards (or your cats), then they might start hating your dwarves (or their cats) and get revenge.  Unicorns and satyrs might get pissed at your clear-cutting ways in a manner more violent than elves typically do, and mermaids might be opposed to commercial whaling or ocean-dumping.  Other than that, good creatures should generally be less hostile.

That said, having gnomes that sneak into your fort and steal your booze, or fairies that play "pranks" or are curious about "what does THIS lever do?" *pull* *cue Dexter's Laboratory-style mayhem if you haven't specifically set up a mechanical logic double-lock system* are in the proper mode of "good" regions.

[Neonivek]

I actually do wonder why humans don't settle in good areas, but elves can live in good regions, and get good-aligned goods like sunberries to trade

I figure it is part of the Elves' ability to remain neutral to nature. Rather their harmony with nature allows them to remain in good regions without ill effect.

There isn't a point trying to bring your vision of good into it, because Toady's version of "Good" is, explicitly, Candyland

For now. This IS a suggestion forum. As well I am still hoping the plants to scrap Good and Evil lands for Sphere lands happens. Even if it is looking less and less likely everyday..

Plus you are going a bit too far in interpreting Bubble Grass, Unicorns, and Fairies as "Candyland". That is closer to "Dream Land".

"Good" regions are like normal regions but have bubble grass, feather trees, giggling fairies, fluffy wamblers, and maybe some unicorns or mermaids.  They really are pretty pretty princess fairy tale for 4-year-old-girls type of "good" regions. You can't try to shoehorn some sort of righteous paladin smiting evil type of idea onto that, you have to work with the setting you have

There are unicorns which are a knights symbol and a example of purity and nobility. *Swish*

Anyway, dwaves are not inherently evil

They are being judged upon the ethics of Candyland. Unless they are freekishly saintly they are evil.

You can have some groundrules where if a lot of fairies get killed by environmental hazards (or your cats), then they might start hating your dwarves (or their cats) and get revenge

Their faeries they don't need a reason to pull harmful pranks or just outright maiming people.

Unicorns and satyrs might get pissed at your clear-cutting ways in a manner more violent than elves typically do, and mermaids might be opposed to commercial whaling or ocean-dumping.  Other than that, good creatures should generally be less hostile

Actually... Mermaids while beneign have often been very violent and deadly. Often the Sirens are made into Mermaids. Unicorns are also hostile to all but Pure hearted maidens.

are in the proper mode of "good" regions

Really? That isn't Candyland that is Hold your hand and guide you through the game land. You arn't playing up the Alien nature enough or the fact that Candyland is a nice place to visit but a horrible place to stay.

Ohh I just thought of another thing Good lands can do. The Trees could fight back. Afterall you yourself said Candyland. Thus all the trees are sentient and alive and probably sing ALL THE TIME! Driving Dwarves insane.

[Graknorke]

I have to go with the excessive goodness deal. It just... works best in my mind. In that the forces at work are both equally powerful and dangerous; they just use it differently.
Kind of like FFIII backstory where the magical wizard people built a tower to honour light's protection against darkness, then they tried to use it to manipulate light's power, it resisted and seriously messed up the whole world. An intermediate balancing force (Who is really, the only thing that could be considered "good" in the personality sense) gave four warriors the power of darkness and they beat light up pretty good. Then it was okay.
AND THEN somebody tried the same but with darkness (In a creepily shiny crystal castle) and darkness proved to not need as much provocation, and swallowed up most of the world too.

Basically, they're both powerful and potentially destructive forces, but the "good" acts a lot more in defense of itself and what it sees to be right; whereas "evil" actively seeks to cause damage.

[UHaulDwarf]

Good regions being painfully good is a paradox, ether the region is good or it is not good at all.