Print

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

[Revanchist]

That's probably why Toady wants to get away from good/evil.

[Dorfimedes]

Whoa, I forgot all about the sphere biomes. Ahh, I wonder if they're doing that in the future. Are there any DF talks that mention it? It's driving me nuts wondering how they're going to handle this mess.

e: Also, trying to abstract morality into a good-evil axis is a major pain in the ass. Look no further than the debates over DnD alignments.

[Neonivek]

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

That is because you are going too far into the word. Remember this land isn't "Good" in the sense that it tries to do good things in the same way "Evil" Lands arn't evil at all just openly hostile (It would be like saying a Desert or Volcano is evil)

The idea of "Painfully good" is basically taking a concept that we would call "good" and taking it to its logical extreme or taking something good and applying it all the time even when it is not needed.

I mean havn't you heard the saying "That was so sweet my dentist could feel it" (admittingly I edited that because I couldn't spell a specific word)?

Possibly the best example I can think of for this concept is "Candyland" you would say that Candyland would be a great example of one way a Good land could look right? Have you ever thought of how hard it would be to survive in Candyland? Everything is made of Candy which while tasty gives little-no nutrician... The Water is drenched in sugar as well. You can't grow crops because the dirt is chocolate. Fires are pointless because the trees are Gingerbread. Plus since the animals are essentially immortal here eating them must be a horrific experience and give you terrible indigestion.

This is entirely without going into ways that this place could actively hurt you. Afterall a very common trait with "Good" locations in settings is how addictive they are or how they force you to join them.

So there you go. Candyland a good land being a horrifying death trap without ever crossing out of being "Good". It is just incompatable.

This is ignoring that so far "Good" as far as DF is concerned is closer to Whimsy...

[weenog]

It's amazing how hard it is for some people to grasp that "good" doesn't mean "out to torture and murder and destroy you, but does it with light instead of darkness."

[Neonivek]

It's amazing how hard it is for some people to grasp that "good" doesn't mean "out to torture and murder and destroy you, but does it with light instead of darkness."

Since when in a subjective world didn't "Good" mean "I will kill you, but in a good way"? When does good mean peace? Ohh yes that is right... Modern viewpoint. In a lot of fantasy "good" is usually the opposite side of the same coin.

That aside we got the point long ago. We just rejected it on the grounds that Super Easy mode makes absolutely no sense with the way the world handles it. We also rejected it on the grounds that "Super good" deadly is more vast and interesting of a concept then Handholding easy mode Good.

Heck here is a better one. Why wouldn't living in a good area mean that you don't get attacked more simply because your living on the best place on earth? Paradise lands (As good =/= passifism or nice or "Not kill you"...) should be the most contested places in the world with the biggest baddest creatures living there.

Wait what was that? Why are there huge killer monsters living in "Good" lands as you defined them? (as in easy handholding land). Well why wouldn't all the most deadly monsters on earth migrate there if it is basically paradise? By all means Good lands should be the most contested lands for all the most deadly creatures as well. There should be constant dragon attacks. Better yet because these lands are so empowering these dragons, who migrated there and lived there for a thousand years, should be stronger then normal dragons who constantly regenerate because of their diet that includes nothing but the healing waters. Then the elves come with weapons that come from the most "Good" wood on earth, and since good means better it means their wooden weapons are sharper and stronger. Included that they lived there their whole life they are also equally empowered.

So there you go. How "Good" as in "Hand holding" good as many people want to add... is in fact the hardest land of all if we let logic seep through. Though that isn't what people want they want litterally good to mean easy and having the world actually take into account that a land is so perfect would make it not easy. That is what I find objectionable in a game that is a simulation of this kind.

It isn't hard to make good lands harder without them trying to kill you anyhow. Giant Immortal Deer who have grown almost superdeeran from the empowering nature of the lands that are too tough for any hunter. Fruit so delicious that your dwarves instantly become addicted. Birds that sing songs so beautiful that it is hard to work. Trees that don't stay dead after you chop them making wooden goods useless. Plants that grow so hearty and strong they litterally rip appart stone battlements (as they can in real life). furnature comming to life and constantly singing making noise. Bright Sun constantly. Heck maybe the dirt glows bright so it is like it is always day even underground. Fish so strong (its a good land) you cannot fish them because spears cannot peirce them and no line can hold them.

But once again they don't want "Good" they want "easy"... when the game already has a "Easy" area.

[Rtyh-C]

It would be interesting to have something that knocks people unconscious, while giving them a happy thought. Something like clouds which, when inhaled, are so pleasurable that you pass out. This wouldn't be dangerous (most of the time) and could even be helpful in some cases.

It would also be nice to have more aligned creatures (for good, evil and savage regions).

[Neonivek]

It would be interesting to have something that knocks people unconscious, while giving them a happy thought. Something like clouds which, when inhaled, are so pleasurable that you pass out. This wouldn't be dangerous (most of the time) and could even be helpful in some cases.

It would also be nice to have more aligned creatures (for good, evil and savage regions).

Savage is more like the difference between a forest and a jungle. It is more of the measure of the harshness of nature then a genuin alignment. Even low savagry places are dangerous (WOLVES!) but high ones are death traps.

Also I find it interesting that your idea of "good lands" are places with swirling clouds of drugs.

[weenog]

Funny thing about Good regions being disaster areas because theyr'e so desirable, the other side of that argument is that Evil areas become the "Super Easy" areas you so despise, by the same logic.  I get that you don't actually want Good areas, but let's not pretend it's anything other than what it is.

[Neonivek]

Funny thing about Good regions being disaster areas because theyr'e so desirable, the other side of that argument is that Evil areas become the "Super Easy" areas you so despise, by the same logic.  I get that you don't actually want Good areas, but let's not pretend it's anything other than what it is.

Actually Evil areas don't become super easy because no one wants to go there. They are still terrible places to be and are insanely difficult on their own merits.

Good lands (The "Easy mode" or "Paradise" version) become super difficult simply because everyone wants to go there. The land itself gives you little problem but the forces that want to control it or live in it are the bigger issue.

Good Lands (The "Too Good" version) are incompatable with Dwarves. Everything in these lands are pleasing to hear or tasty to eat. But either it is soo much so that it is overwhelming or it simply never turns off. A Land entirely made of candy or a land where everything sings are good examples of this, a great place to visit but living there is nightmarish.

Good Lands (The "Bleach" version) are where your Dwarves are essentially the evil invaders because they simply cannot be held up to the same standards (Compared a pure being we are evil) and thus the land protects itself from the dwarves. Afterall Good isn't pacifism.

I get that you don't actually want Good areas

No I am challenging you on your definition of Good. Good in this case is a motif and you are implying that a "Good" land is one that essentially caters to the whims of your dwarf (As in that land just stayed there for you to fill it) or rather you the player.

You don't want "Good" lands you want easy lands. As in you want the option to go to a land and have the game be put on easy mode basically. You don't want a paradise in the game because a paradise would mean contest and that wouldn't be easy.

[weenog]

You just said it, nobody wants to go there.  No enemies, no monsters, just a badland to be tamed and lived in peacefully, if anyone with a work ethic turns up.

Actually I'd prefer neither good nor evil lands... aligned lands is a stupid idea.  But don't pretend you accept the idea of aligned lands including good and evil when what you actually want is a universal death world.  All you do is give the impression that your idea of good and evil comes solely from JRPGs infested with evil light beings, sometimes called angels.

[irmo]

It's amazing how hard it is for some people to grasp that "good" doesn't mean "out to torture and murder and destroy you, but does it with light instead of darkness."

There's a fantasy trope that goes like this: there's a war between Good and Evil, but both sides are in the wrong, because they're extreme, and truth and justice are really about balance. Inevitably, Team Good is full of genocidal fanatics bent on world domination; the only real difference was that Team Evil openly admits to that, and decorates itself with blood and skulls, and maybe does overtly nasty things like human sacrifice or germ warfare or necromancy.

Optionally, Team Good can be heavily religious, in which case they're probably all sexual predators and/or oppressing some peaceful nature-oriented Old Faith, and about 2/3 of the book could be replaced with the words "My parents made me go to church when I was a kid and now I'm angry." Alternatively, Good itself can be tied up with the forces of nature and then it will be fully as vicious and destructive as Evil, except it'll use trees to kill you. (But not flesh-eating bacteria, even though those are also natural and will kill you a lot faster.)

This kind of thing is still around, but was more common 20-30 years ago. It was a big influence on the D&D alignment system (the figure of the Lawful Stupid paladin), and from there got into lots of RPGs and into most of us to some degree.

So, yes, you're right. Good/evil aligned lands are stupid.

[Neonivek]

You just said it, nobody wants to go there.  No enemies, no monsters, just a badland to be tamed and lived in peacefully, if anyone with a work ethic turns up.

Actually I'd prefer neither good nor evil lands... aligned lands is a stupid idea.  But don't pretend you accept the idea of aligned lands including good and evil when what you actually want is a universal death world.  All you do is give the impression that your idea of good and evil comes solely from JRPGs infested with evil light beings, sometimes called angels.

Actually Evil lands are populated by their own species. The Evil Land natives. Good lands have their own natives but in your version they would have to be harmless or outright beneficial. Thus I just applied basic logic.

All you do is give the impression that your idea of good and evil comes solely from JRPGs infested with evil light beings, sometimes called angels

Actually it is a wide area I take it from. From dungeons and dragons where "Good" is simply a stance but one that easily can create a villain. To more classical ideas like Knights or Holy objects.

Even to looking into mythology and looking at what "Good" was.

Then there is just adding reality into the mix. Taking concepts and building them to the extremes.

You are actually taking a very modern approach to good lands and are sticking to it. A Good land to you is one that essentially gives to you. One that helps and aids you. In otherwords it is a very subjective place that applies dirrectly to the player rather then the world around it. It isn't hard to find the flaw in game that is trying to simulate a world (Afterall why is that place ONLY helping you?).

The part that is difficult for you to understand is that I am not trying to substitute Good with Evil and pretend that everything is the same. I am applying the concept of good and not adjusting for context because there is no context. This isn't a truely good land. It is a motif. It is Superficial. Since there is no objective Good in Dwarf Fortress there is no higher force that says "This is good and this is evil" thus a good land could never be a genuinly good place anyhow. It is following a pattern of good that can come from anywhere and be applied without sentience to any situation.

Heck even within your concept where a Good land is a land of boundless generosity. Who says it is giving to you? Who says the land couldn't overwhelmingly benefit those humans who hate you? Afterall Good can chose sides.

aligned lands is a stupid idea

Because you are adding absolute concepts to them. These arn't "Good" and "Evil" lands. These are motifs. Superficial motifs.

Heck if Toady actually goes through with his plans these lands will stop being "Good" and "Evil" and start being lands of "Murder" or "Fertility"

Also I object to your objection simply on the grounds that if at anytime someone took away the word "Good" and "Evil" from this. Your objection would melt away.

Also I like my idea of all those things I said applying and these lands being different. I object to "easy" lands being easy on the grounds of simulation.

This kind of thing is still around, but was more common 20-30 years ago

Actually it is still going strong now. In fact it is probably even more common now. I've never seen more "Jerk Angels".

Another reason for its resurgence is simply... Taking mythology and religion as it is written and applying it without editing while still retaining alignment. What we know as good and evil changed as we went along and many of the actions that were once considered the shining beacons of good are considered either odd or outright evil.

I mean for example. If Moses was a person alive today who in order to free people from enslavement hit an entire nation with plagues and murdered thousands of people? It isn't hard to take someone like Moses and make him a villain simply because of different standards. (Actually it was probably more then thousands. It was a pretty nasty final plague that is intentionally glossed over.)

It is because out knowledge of good is subjective.

Good doesn't have to be outright evil either. A lot of the time it is because they are so morally supperior that they outright can call you out constantly. I remember the Etherials in Aladin (cartoon) who outright destroyed Bagdad because they were evil until they managed to prove they weren't. They culled evil societies before they got out of control. For all we know their methods are just.

In another setting the Angels genuinly feel they are the moral supperiors, and in many ways they are, and they would love nothing but leaving us to our own devices but they simply cannot (we unfortunately have a portal that will destroy all reality). Thus a lot of the trouble with dealing with Angels in that setting is that we cannot actually hold outselves up to their standards. They don't cheat, lie, or give into temptation and thus to them we are horrible because we truely would be. It would be like if the world suddenly turned into the worst jerk you ever met. They only become a danger to us when they are forced to tip their hand, but in many ways it is for our benefit (once again, reality destroying portal) but they simply arn't omnisentient. Interestingly enough Demons also exist in that setting and they... Are not evil. In fact they hold themselves up to the same moral code angels do and generally look like ordinary angels. They just hate the Beaucracy of heaven. In fact they are also trying to save the earth too.
-Oddly enough this is probably the only setting I've seen where there is genuinly more good guys then bad guys. Where the setting is actually more antagonistic to heartless monsters then it is to saints.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'd like to note that I don't like the idea of good lands "striking back" at dwarves and more than I like the idea of them actively aiding the dwarves. If good lands treated any races differently, it'd be the goblins and ogres and stuff--creatures with the [EVIL] tag, you see?

[dizzyelk]

There's a fantasy trope that goes like this: there's a war between Good and Evil, but both sides are in the wrong, because they're extreme, and truth and justice are really about balance. Inevitably, Team Good is full of genocidal fanatics bent on world domination; the only real difference was that Team Evil openly admits to that, and decorates itself with blood and skulls, and maybe does overtly nasty things like human sacrifice or germ warfare or necromancy.

There's a novel, Villains by Necessity, that takes place after the last war between good and evil. Good won, of course, and sealed off the evil dimension. However, the last of the evil people in the world need to reverse it because everything is too good. Nothing dies, everything heals at a quicker rate, good wizards are able to cast mine altering spells that force people to be good, and so on. Touches on what you're saying.

I'd like to note that I don't like the idea of good lands "striking back" at dwarves and more than I like the idea of them actively aiding the dwarves. If good lands treated any races differently, it'd be the goblins and ogres and stuff--creatures with the [EVIL] tag, you see?

But the dwarves aren't good, they're closer to neutral. It'd better if the good lands only actively aided creatures with [GOOD] tags, if they treated races differently. Either they'd help everyone, regardless, or only their own. After all, a bunch of dwarves coming in and slaughtering the critters, chopping down the trees, and leaving dead bodies around isn't exactly good. The elves come far closer.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Dwarves most certainly aren't evil. You know what is? Attacking non-evil creatures. This means that, unless dwarves are classified as [EVIL], any biome that attacks them and not, say, elves deserves no higher title than "selfish."