Print

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

[GreatWyrmGold]

Well, first off, the idea of rains that make people prey for unicorns is both ludicrous (unicorns are vegetarians), and against the idea of a benevolent land. Also, wouldn't YOU be unhappy about something that lead to you being eaten to death?

I wouldn't care because I'd be under the affects of the rain.

So...it mind-rapes you into not minding that you're being eaten, and mind-rapes some nearby herbivores into eating you? How is that in ANY way good?

Well, I doubt that there'd be that many aspects of good lands that are outright benevolant to dwarves if they decided to settle there. Sure if it's elves, who are inherently magical by themselves and live in harmony with the land, not damaging it or those that dwell there and know what to do and what to avoid. A dwarf on the other hand, barging in, striking the earth, tilling the soil and cutting down the ancient trees would most definitly be at odds with the local wildlife/inhabitants and would also most likely have !!FUN!! encounters with the various magical phenomenon that occurs there of which dwarvenkind has never seen or heard before ^^

Again, that's less "good" than "self-protecting." Which is pretty much what evil lands do.

[Manveru Taurënér]

The way I see it "good" is just a placeholder for magical forests/lands where magical critters and elves live as that's pretty much what they look to be and makes the most sense, and what will most likely still exist after the magical sphere seperation of all magical environments. If Toady ever tinkers with good areas before that I'd reckon that's the aspects that'd make sense to add to as it'd all still be of use afterwards.

(And regardless I don't see how self-protecting in any way would conflict with it being good? ^^)

[Neonivek]

So...it mind-rapes you into not minding that you're being eaten, and mind-rapes some nearby herbivores into eating you? How is that in ANY way good?

Carebears

[Omnis]

My thoughts on this and they are based on cognitive behavioural therapy, I will preface this by saying I'm not all that good or knowledgeable at df, but I will try some logic:
I think the idea that 'Good' and 'Evil' are descriptors provided by the dwarfs is disproven because 'Good' lands are full of Elves and Dwarfs are enemies thus living there might be undesirable, likewise 'Evil' lands can have very good materials, so they be desirable (if your brave/greedy enough).

So, lets start with an initial assumption, that perhaps 'Good' or 'Evil' are innate properties of the lands that encourages a certain types of behaviour -- because they are described as such in the biome.  If this is not being enforced visibly (e.g. gods are not manifesting themselves physically and telling people what to do) then this behaviour must be enforced by the gods through an unknown mechanism (i.e. a game mechanic).  Now if we also accept the thought precedes the deed - that a dwarf, a goblin or any other living (or unliving?) creature has to mentally conceive of an act before actually acting on it, and ones behaviour is the collective sum of ones actions, then it become clear that in these 'Good' or 'Evil' lands the inhabitants are subject to a certain cognitive therapy (via game mechanics).

So, it follows we can deduce the cognitive therapy mechanics from the behaviour of their inhabitants for two reasons:
 - Over time the cumulative effect of the therapy would cause a change in behaviour
 - If creatures have the ability to choose where they live and creatures enjoy having thoughts in tune their nature, then those creatures amenable to these cognitive changes would thrive and those not amenable would not.

If a 'Good' area is populated predominantly by elves, then there must be a mechanic enforcing elven behaviour.  Thoughts about killing are unhappy thoughts.  Thoughts involving killing animals and cutting down trees would be unhappy thoughts.
This might explain why dwarfs don't start in Good areas, because Dwarfs are industrious by nature and resent being conditioned to act against their nature.  And it would also explain why evil creatures don't tend to live in good areas, because a monster might be disturbed by unhappy thoughts when acting according to their nature.

If an 'Evil' area is populated by creatures that exist predominately to kill, then the mechanism there encourages that behaviour by associating it with happy thoughts (which would be disturbing for dwarfs, elves and humans but not for monsters).

One can also assume that Neutral areas have no overall thought influencing mechanism by definition.

I'll haven't talked about actual effects in the game, this can wait I think.

[King Mir]

I think people in this thread should focus less on what the definition of "Good" is, and more on what would be cool to have in the game. A rehash of evil regions, but candy flavoured would make a nice mod, but I think the game deserves more.

Evil regions are cool without good regions. What would make "Good" regions cool without evil regions?

[GreatWyrmGold]

So...it mind-rapes you into not minding that you're being eaten, and mind-rapes some nearby herbivores into eating you? How is that in ANY way good?

Carebears

...?

I think people in this thread should focus less on what the definition of "Good" is, and more on what would be cool to have in the game. A rehash of evil regions, but candy flavoured would make a nice mod, but I think the game deserves more.

Evil regions are cool without good regions. What would make "Good" regions cool without evil regions?

Stuff like healing mists and ressurection, which help dwarves but also indiscriminately help their enemies. How's that for cool?

[WillowLuman]

I think that the obvious downside to good regions, already in the game, is that it usually means your nearest neighbors are elves.

[dizzyelk]

So...it mind-rapes you into not minding that you're being eaten, and mind-rapes some nearby herbivores into eating you? How is that in ANY way good?

Carebears

First thought?
Homer Simpson: Are you a Care Bear?
Care Bear: [Holding a crowbar] I'm an Intensive Care Bear.
Homer Simpson: Why would a bear hold a crowbar?
Care Bear: Eh, I didn't want to get my hands dirty.

Well, I doubt that there'd be that many aspects of good lands that are outright benevolant to dwarves if they decided to settle there. Sure if it's elves, who are inherently magical by themselves and live in harmony with the land, not damaging it or those that dwell there and know what to do and what to avoid. A dwarf on the other hand, barging in, striking the earth, tilling the soil and cutting down the ancient trees would most definitly be at odds with the local wildlife/inhabitants and would also most likely have !!FUN!! encounters with the various magical phenomenon that occurs there of which dwarvenkind has never seen or heard before ^^

That's the position I'm in. Good =/= letting dwarves come in and rape the land, cause that's what they do. Granted the good lands wouldn't be outright dangerous to your dwarves in the way that evil lands are. However, if you piss them off their revenge should be swift and deadly.

[WillowLuman]

I think that should be the deal with Savage lands, or Savage Good lands. Savage lands embody the more "wild" characteristics.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I agree with HugoLuman. Good areas should be nice, not vengeful. If you're afraid of nice == easy, don't worry; they'd be nice to goblins, too.

[Manveru Taurënér]

Unrelated to whatever view anyone has on "good" etc, I was thinking, has anything been said regarding the powers wielded by elven druids? We know elves have a relation to good areas and would most likely try to defend them from harm even more than they care for other forests (the old going to war over clearcutting). So even if the land itself didn't have the power or will to defend itself from dwarves wreaking havoc with the landscape, shouldn't the elves logically invest even more effort in protecting these?

Lets say you settle in a good area and start cutting down trees, digging up the earth, messing with the river etc, I can think of loads of awesome stuff that the elves could do to spice things up. Much of the previous suggestions regarding the lands fighting back, trees waking to life, plants growing and crumbling walls and stuff like that could be attributed to the elven druids instead, harnessing the magics of the land and turning it against you. You'd then have to choose when settling to either walk a fine balance of not damaging too much of the nature as to bring the wrath of the elves, or ignore them and prepare to dig in and defend yourself for what might very well eventually equate to releasing the clowns from the circus.

[King Mir]

Stuff like healing mists and ressurection, which help dwarves but also indiscriminately help their enemies. How's that for cool?

I'd probably go for healing rain. Mists are too rare to have much effect, if they only heal. But healing rains would mean outdoor hospitals.

But ultimately that's a net benefit to any player.

[dizzyelk]

I agree with HugoLuman. Good areas should be nice, not vengeful. If you're afraid of nice == easy, don't worry; they'd be nice to goblins, too.

Protecting is not being vengeful. Are we vengeful when we cut a tumor out of a patient? As stated before, there has to be a reason why only elves live there. Otherwise, everyone would want to live in the land of happiness and healing rains. Its not that I'm afraid of nice being easy, I'm afraid of nice being stupid and gamey. Not that there's anything wrong with healing rains and everything else. That should all go in, but there should be a cost associated with it, and that cost should be protecting the land. I feel that savagery should only alter how soon you hit the cut off of how much despoiling the land is willing to take, and maybe the response, where in benign lands you just get cut off from all the good effects. In mirthful you'll occasionally get a small amount of unicorns ambushing you in addition to losing the effects. And in Joyous Wilds you get a never-ending siege of unicorns and walking trees and what not, plus losing the effects.

[Babylon]

I agree with HugoLuman. Good areas should be nice, not vengeful. If you're afraid of nice == easy, don't worry; they'd be nice to goblins, too.

Protecting is not being vengeful. Are we vengeful when we cut a tumor out of a patient? As stated before, there has to be a reason why only elves live there. Otherwise, everyone would want to live in the land of happiness and healing rains. Its not that I'm afraid of nice being easy, I'm afraid of nice being stupid and gamey. Not that there's anything wrong with healing rains and everything else. That should all go in, but there should be a cost associated with it, and that cost should be protecting the land. I feel that savagery should only alter how soon you hit the cut off of how much despoiling the land is willing to take, and maybe the response, where in benign lands you just get cut off from all the good effects. In mirthful you'll occasionally get a small amount of unicorns ambushing you in addition to losing the effects. And in Joyous Wilds you get a never-ending siege of unicorns and walking trees and what not, plus losing the effects.

I think healing rain that heals goblins is going to up the challenge level quite a bit.  Animals that are being hunted getting healed does as well.

[Neonivek]

I think healing rain that heals goblins is going to up the challenge level quite a bit

Dwarf Fortress is sort of a game of killing blows. Goblins tend to be killed or crippled in single strikes.