Print

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

[Neonivek]

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."

Well there are no truely "good" or "Evil" in the game outside the raws. By all means the Elves likely see the Dwarves as Evil.

[Starver]

[Ninjaed, or at least interjected, by two posts, while editing, re-editing and probably removing most of the original relevance...  Take it as you will, I'm not sure it reads quite as orderly as originally intended.]


I can see all kinds of interpretations of "Good", in the recent history of this thread.  (In this way I suppose the argument to escape "Good/Evil" and head towards spheres might well be justified.)

One of the least touched-upon concepts (although the very last post might well have done so, I'm not familiar with that particular work) comes from "History is written by the victors".  Not at all wishing to invoke Godwin's Law, but WW2 was won by the Allies and we can see what nasty Germany did (and yet we complain about Dresden), but had it swung the other way then the resultant Nazi-based society might have considered the Axis to have been in the right, with perhaps the barest social conscience concentrating on something other than the concentration camps, which are considered just.  (Or not.  See the book Fatherland.)

Good has also been compared to life-sustaining/re-animation effects.  Which, interestingly enough, is also something that the zombifying regions manage, albeit that the manner of the effects are not considered universally conducive.

Then there's Good as equated to Lawful (although the Lawful/Chaotic axis is considered perpendicular to the Good/Evil one in many considerations).  This may or may not be separate to the Liberal/Totalitarian axis, although the perspective (and possibly the position of the observer in this society) dictates as to whether Liberal==Good (freedom) or Totalitarian==Good (nurturing), respectively leaving Totalitarianism as a despotic evil or Liberalism as an anarchic mess.

Of course, Good as moderation with Evil as extreme (imagine "You will live as long as we can keep you on life support" or "Nobody shall be allowed to live beyond the age of 30", both evil in their own way).  Even mere cotton-woolling.  Is it better for society to freeze all development at the point of Utopian ideal?  Is it better to live under the tight yoke of a (self-described) 'benign' dictator than to have any ability to make mistakes or be a problem to others?  So many different ways, most of them interconnected and sharing synonyms, and yet also could equally be associated via antonyms, in a mutually-exclusive manner.


All this, related to DF, means you're going to have a multitude of interpretations.  I still rather go with the idea that Good (in DF terms) equates to Life-Affirmation, indiscriminately and with no thought to whether this is going to cause problems to anyone else.  But variants like that which include environmental retribution to those who take life (everything from killing invaders to treading on the grass!) are possible.

But I can see so many other ways of doing it.  Could an individual be 'tied' to the land, and all those who disfavour them (or are actively against them) find the elements of the environment to be hostile?  The same elements that are utterly benign to those that do not fall foul of the power structure?  A calming environment might well be governed by a 'monster' whose vapours cause pacification of those that encounter it (to the extent of terminal lethargy/death through procrastination?).  And while there are so many ways of discussing "Good", I think tying it to that word is going to give argument.

[Neonivek]

Well personally Starver I think my largest issue is that I've been attacking people a bit too much.

When really I should have taken EVERYTHING everyone has said in this entire topic and said. "You know what these are all great ideas for good flavor lands. We can only hope evil lands are this diverse one day".

As I said in these cases good is a motif and can take pretty much any form.

The only issue I have Starver is with "Easy lands". I could understand there being lands of paradise and thus everyone takes advantage of and powerful beasts migrate to. I think the idea of a land that is sooo perfect that no one goes there except the PC (and elves) is a detrimental idea that no one has yet to really justify.

"Easy Lands" is the only idea that I think is outright bad and not a acceptible interpretation. I don't mean so much that the land it easy to settle and that creatures there are inoffensive and harmless... I mean in the sense that the game should see that your on "Easy land" and intentionally fudge the game in order to keep it that way.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Agreed, Neonivek. I still go with my old interpretation: Evil hurts everyone, Good helps everyone. The exception might be [EVIL] creatures; they might be immune/resistant to evil-region stuff and maybe might be struck with the bad side of the stick in good regions, but then again that might be too much of a pain to deal with.

[Neonivek]

Agreed, Neonivek. I still go with my old interpretation: Evil hurts everyone, Good helps everyone. The exception might be [EVIL] creatures; they might be immune/resistant to evil-region stuff and maybe might be struck with the bad side of the stick in good regions, but then again that might be too much of a pain to deal with.

Ok I'll call this: The Benevolent Land interpretation.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Or the "All-Loving" interpretation. Same idea, expresses the lack of pro-dwarf-ism better.

[Neonivek]

Or the "All-Loving" interpretation. Same idea, expresses the lack of pro-dwarf-ism better.

Well you know... Love is the Carrot and the stick

[Babylon]

As far as I can tell the only people who have been arguing for good=easy don't even like the idea of aligned lands to begin with.

[weenog]

You don't have to like the idea of aligned regions to understand that Good is not the same thing as a reskin of Evil with more white and gold colours.

[Babylon]

You don't have to like the idea of aligned regions to understand that Good is not the same thing as a reskin of Evil with more white and gold colours.

You keep saying that.  How is a land that heals everyone a reskin of evil with different colors?  Besides, you don't like aligned regions anyways, why do you care how they are handled?  You'd rther they were jsut taken out entirely.

[weenog]

Preferring aligned regions are removed altogether should not be conflated with tacit approval for goofy ideas like wandering murder clouds that kill dwarves with bliss in allegedly Good regions.

[Neonivek]

Preferring aligned regions are removed altogether should not be conflated with tacit approval for goofy ideas like wandering murder clouds that kill dwarves with bliss in allegedly Good regions.

But we already have stuff like this in real life.

[UHaulDwarf]

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...

But that is not good at all, that is insidiousness. If it were truly good then there would be no drawbacks.

Good is good, that is it. A good plan in not a plan destined for failure. A good church does not do questionable thing behind closed doors.
Having a good morning is enjoying a nice sunrise, a great meal, and friendly company. If you went to a good dinner, you would not have to look for tacks in you food.
If you rubbed a good magic lamp, the genie would be helpful and not trick you. I could go on and on but it will always be the same. Its not a trick question. Good is good.

Of course when I say good I mean good as seen by dwarfs. A good region would have all the things that a dwarf would want to have at a site.
The region is good because of its high compatibility with the dwarfs. Dwarfs call them good for a reason.
While I understand the 'too good to be true' line of thought, there is no need to make the regions needlessly obtuse.
If you want to introduce more region types into the game, more power to you. But there is no reason to alter the definition of good to fit your desire.

Besides there are plenty of good regions in the history of fantasies. Whether or not the regions stayed good is another question, but that is another kettle of fish entirely.

[Neonivek]

But that is not good at all, that is insidiousness. If it were truly good then there would be no drawbacks

We arn't speaking about an absolute good here. We arn't speaking about a land of true goodness.

We are speaking of a land that exudes the theme or motif of goodness or whimsy.

there is no reason to alter the definition of good to fit your desire

Well there are actually many definitions of good and here is an interesting one you may be interested in knowing. The only things capable of being good or evil have to be fully aware of the choice and be capable of doing so.

Thus a nonsentient land cannot be good or evil because it cannot make the choice to be either.

Don't get so caught up in the word "good".

Heck better yet you said that my Candyland was "Insideous" as in "Secretly evil" when really... it isn't. It is Candyland. It is a hellish place to live simply because it is Candyland. Not because it is trying to kill you but because you chose to live in Candyland. In what way isn't it a "Good" place? Just because Dwarves cannot live there it doesn't exclude it from any definition of "good" we are using. It simply is incompatable with the lives of dwarves.

How is Candyland being anything but good by this limited vague definition we are throwing around?

If it were truly good then there would be no drawbacks

No. If it was truely paradise there would be no drawbacks (or at least nothing that really detracts from it).

I can imagine you tearing down Candyland by saying "That isn't really a good place... that is just a place made of Candy".

The region is good because of its high compatibility with the dwarfs. Dwarfs call them good for a reason

Wait what? No the game categorises them as "Good" and "Evil" metagamingly. Dwarves don't actually reference them as good and evil and even if you were going to bring the metagame knowledge into it they actually give entirely different words to describe these places (For example lightly evil lands are scary or haunted).

Of course when I say good I mean good as seen by dwarfs. A good region would have all the things that a dwarf would want to have at a site.

Ohhh now I get it. These arn't the "Good" and "Evil" lands the game uses. This is what the Dwarves consider "Good" and "Evil"

So you are refering to a "Good region" as in any place a Dwarf refers to as "Good". You are aware that religious sites have often been located in very hostile regions. As well Dwarves are not quite human their idea of what may be "good". It could just be a very beautiful land, I'd fully imagine a Dwarf considering the incredible hostile environment to live in a place that looks like a artifact grade work of art to be well worth it even if they couldn't grow anything there.

Besides there are plenty of good regions in the history of fantasies

What do you mean? Paradise, Holy, lawful, what? There are many ways I can take "good regions".

[Babylon]

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...

But that is not good at all, that is insidiousness. If it were truly good then there would be no drawbacks.

Good is good, that is it. A good plan in not a plan destined for failure. A good church does not do questionable thing behind closed doors.
Having a good morning is enjoying a nice sunrise, a great meal, and friendly company. If you went to a good dinner, you would not have to look for tacks in you food.
If you rubbed a good magic lamp, the genie would be helpful and not trick you. I could go on and on but it will always be the same. Its not a trick question. Good is good.

Of course when I say good I mean good as seen by dwarfs. A good region would have all the things that a dwarf would want to have at a site.
The region is good because of its high compatibility with the dwarfs. Dwarfs call them good for a reason.
While I understand the 'too good to be true' line of thought, there is no need to make the regions needlessly obtuse.
If you want to introduce more region types into the game, more power to you. But there is no reason to alter the definition of good to fit your desire.

Besides there are plenty of good regions in the history of fantasies. Whether or not the regions stayed good is another question, but that is another kettle of fish entirely.

good is not good as seen by dwarves though, or dwarves would settle there during worldgen, they don't, they only settle in neutral regions.