Print

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

Import YG2 stuff to YG-lite

9 (27.3%)

Import YG2 stuff to YG-lite

10 (30.3%)

Start from scratch for YG-lite

4 (12.1%)

Start from scratch for YG-lite

3 (9.1%)

Do both

5 (15.2%)

Do both

2 (6.1%)

Total Members Voted: 18

[Andres]

On a note unrelated to the morality discussion, I'm half wondering if I should just bite the bullet, admit I'm unoriginal, create a soul eating sword, and trick a human whose name begins with A into wielding it. 

Where's that from? Also feel free. No one here's gonna hold it against you. It's not against the rules, after all.

Ever play Warcraft III? Know who Arthas Menethil is?

I'm gonna guess the Lich King. To be honest, soul-stealing swords and other items are pretty common in their own right. I thought you were talking about a Japanese myth, for instance.

Hmm, how about the trait you want affects people with the "Evil" trait as well as those who act in a manner embodying the "Evil" trait, despite potentially not having it?

Yeah, this works pretty much perfectly. Thank you.

[Vgray]

On a note unrelated to the morality discussion, I'm half wondering if I should just bite the bullet, admit I'm unoriginal, create a soul eating sword, and trick a human whose name begins with A into wielding it. 

Where's that from? Also feel free. No one here's gonna hold it against you. It's not against the rules, after all.

Ever play Warcraft III? Know who Arthas Menethil is?

I'm gonna guess the Lich King. To be honest, soul-stealing swords and other items are pretty common in their own right. I thought you were talking about a Japanese myth, for instance.

Hmm, how about the trait you want affects people with the "Evil" trait as well as those who act in a manner embodying the "Evil" trait, despite potentially not having it?

Yeah, this works pretty much perfectly. Thank you.

I was not aware of that.

And, sort of. Arthas ultimately puts on the crown that contains the soul of the Lich King and fuses with him.

Wait, why am I telling you what my evil scheme for the downfall of humanity is? 

PS. I am currently taking suggestions for an undead trait/template.

[FArgHalfnr]

Damn, I came late to the debate. I always love morality debates, shame I couldn't join

Since there's apparently some confusion on the [evil] trait, I described it as "Is a sadistic psychopath" when I first used it. I know that doesn't includes the entire spectrum that is evil, but then again I didn't want it to do so when I made it (if KJP didn't make it before). For other villainous things people could always make other, more specific traits like [greedy] or [aggressive] or whatever (just what came into my mind first, there's probably better examples). Trying to fit something as broad as good or evil in a single trait doesn't seems to be such a good idea now that I think of it, considering how hard it could be to represent every single shade of them, especially when used on a single individual.

[Rolepgeek]

[Soul-Bound] is a good one to start with, Vgray. Add on [Immortal], [Deathless], [Sterile(Magic)] and sprinkle with assorted traits for the various flavors of undead, and ta-da!

[Vgray]

I see now that we already have an Existing soul trait,


Existing soul <0.6>: Is made from the Lost Souls count (and creation is thus limited to it)

[Andres]

Trying to fit something as broad as good or evil in a single trait doesn't seems to be such a good idea now that I think of it, considering how hard it could be to represent every single shade of them, especially when used on a single individual.

Well what if the Evil trait merely makes a being evil in some way. Some can be ultra-violent psychopaths, others can be manipulative bastards, and some can even be affably evil, to give some examples, but in the end they're still evil in some way. This way, you have a race of evil people but still leave room for personalities and variations.

[FArgHalfnr]

Trying to fit something as broad as good or evil in a single trait doesn't seems to be such a good idea now that I think of it, considering how hard it could be to represent every single shade of them, especially when used on a single individual.

Well what if the Evil trait merely makes a being evil in some way. Some can be ultra-violent psychopaths, others can be manipulative bastards, and some can even be affably evil, to give some examples, but in the end they're still evil in some way. This way, you have a race of evil people but still leave room for personalities and variations.

I guess we could do that, but it would need to be specified when making the trait. It also still leaves the problem of trying to apply the trait on a single person. I suppose the nature of the evilness could be rolled randomly by KJP, but I'd doubt anyone would want to leave that kind of thing to randomness when making an important npc/angel.

[Andres]

Trying to fit something as broad as good or evil in a single trait doesn't seems to be such a good idea now that I think of it, considering how hard it could be to represent every single shade of them, especially when used on a single individual.

Well what if the Evil trait merely makes a being evil in some way. Some can be ultra-violent psychopaths, others can be manipulative bastards, and some can even be affably evil, to give some examples, but in the end they're still evil in some way. This way, you have a race of evil people but still leave room for personalities and variations.

I guess we could do that, but it would need to be specified when making the trait. It also still leaves the problem of trying to apply the trait on a single person. I suppose the nature of the evilness could be rolled randomly by KJP, but I'd doubt anyone would want to leave that kind of thing to randomness when making an important npc/angel.

In that case, the creator can simply tell KJP what kind of evil the agent is.

[FArgHalfnr]

Sounds good to me then. We might need to rename the current [evil] trait or find another name for what you just described. Maybe [Broad Evil] or [Generic Evil]? I'm not good at coming up with names for that kind of things, partially because of an annoying language barrier.

[~Neri]

Or we could be very specific with what traits do.

[Andres]

When we create races, do they automatically have 100% piety towards all gods of the creator's pantheon or does the creator have to specify that?

[Kilojoule Proton]

General announcements
Evil trait: As the description describes, stereotypical silly villainy "Send me one million gold bars or I erupt this volcano (on this private island where I'd probably suffer a lot more from it than the rest of the world anyway)! Now sit tight as I ramble for an hour on why I'm better than you, giving you enough time to foil my overly complicated plan!" Now that I think of it, the listed trait description may have drifted from the intended trait.
A Good trait would probably describe stereotypical silly heroism. "You'll never get away with this!"
Neither of them will probably do much in practice, hence why [Evil] is <x1> rather than <x0.5>. They're mostly for-GM behavior/personality flags so I don't have to memorize all the descriptions (yet).

Behavior/morality/personality traits, current and otherwise, will probably always be GM behavior/personality guidelnes.

Demonic Spoon: Amended Heal:
Heal+1 <x1.4>: Heal minor mundane diseases monthly
Heal+2 <x2.0>: Heal weak mundane diseases monthly and minor mundane diseases daily
Heal+3 <x2.8>: Heal strong mundane diseases monthly and weak mundane diseases daily
Heal+4 <x4.0>: Heal super strong but mundane diseases monthly and strong mundane diseases daily

Demonic Spoon and Andres: Ability trait: Not yet, I think I'll just simplify it to an abiliskill thing using [Affinity] to reduce the headache from handling so much magic business. Note that for me, I consider magic to be a fairly minor part of the game and typically just go with what makes sense and is sufficiently balanced. Just lumping magical skill and ability into affinity seems like the logical option given how many changes separating the two would produce.

Fr0stbyt3: Probably, but I think it'd be a waste of your free magic schools. May as well use them for something normally impossible, no?

Rolepgeek: 2-3E to invent Thunder Guns

micelus: Probably not (have to explain why it's an expy = original enough, have to explain why it's not an expy ~ expy)

Microbes: Since they're not sapient, they'd probably be treated as flora/fauna/somethingbiota. If they mostly just sit around secreting dyes, food, or something not too significant, they'd end up 0E. If they caused sufficiently weak real diseases, they'd still be 0E. Even immortality probably wouldn't change much given how often bacterial growth is limited by nutrition, infections, and antibiotic compounds other things secrete.

Andres: Yes, a motivated individual can master a cross-school. It probably doesn't happen too often for much the same reason not everyone wants to work towards mastering a single field of study in particular.

If the person casting magic is a wire, burnout is when said wire melts from carrying too much current for too long. If there isn't a thematically appropriate injury/death, I just roll for one (which can affect not just the body too). Angels and agents tend to be thicker wires in this analogy, but gods don't exactly fit properly in it.

Creating with intent to inflame: No

Creating races and pantheons: Everyone who contributes to the race gets 100% god-specific piety unless otherwise specified. For agents, loyalty will be to the pantheon's decisions/consensus rather than individuals unless otherwise specified. (How the pantheon reaches a decision is left up to individual pantheons to decide)

FArgHalfnr: Expies are those things clearly lazily copied from some source other than mythology and public domain works. The minimum required to get flagged as an expy is probably lifting something with no significant changes beyond renaming/recoloring (if at all). Things from public domain works and mythology are less likely to get marked as expies because they tend to be far less avoidable. Taking inspiration from a work, in which you take concepts from any work at all and reshape them to better fit your character and the setting will not cause things to be marked as expies.

$$$Response
Demonic Spoon:
Heal (only soul-eating/rending diseases) <x2.0>: Heals from soul-eating/soul-rending diseases (does not resurrect)

Andres:
Healing Hands: Probably a decorative version of Heal? (Not likely to differ much in price given closely related function)
Eats Evil Souls: x1.4, does not actually give the ability to identify which souls are evil before eating, maybe inherently an evil act?
Strong Soul: What does this do?

TheBiggerFish:
Inoculations against soul-eating diseases: Probably 1F/14000
Trait to prevent soul-eating: Soulless (race) <0.5>: Race lacks a soul and provides no worship
Soulless (agent) <2>: Agent lacks a soul

Rolepgeek: Are you sure those traits wouldn't be better as bits of description text?
Magically Attuned+1 <x1.3>: Grants improved attunement to magic of all types, blocks learning Antimancy and [Magic Resistance]

[micelus]

Ok, lets go with the ridiculous examples.

Two million microbes with <Will Be Back> <Fruitful+4> <Assassin+3> <Extremophile+3>.

48 billion microbes with <Fruitful+2><Will Be Back><Eats Entropy><Eats Souls>.

 At this point the microbes are actually useful. Surely there must be a cost.

[Happy Demon]

Eh, I use a very simple system of good and evil

Good: All
Neutral: Us
Evil: Me

Alignment isn't whether they're sent to heaven or hell, it's an easy way to tell how they think.
A person out for revenge is evil, as he does so for himself, and any task done with the intention of getting to that goal, is evil.
A person who wants to kill someone to prevent him from harming him and his friends, is neutral. It's done for a group which the person is part of.
A person who conquers a country for the sake of running it better than the last ruler, to make people happier, is good.

It's not to determine if they're good or bad, it's just an easy way to roleplay.
Good can be bad (someone thinks Orcs are the problem and decides to exterminate them), and evil can be good (revenge on the person who's exterminating the Orcs).

[FArgHalfnr]

I personally tend to equate evil/good with harmful/beneficial most of the time, mostly because of the fact that both of them are approximately just as subjective as the other, and that the latter is better defined. I say most of the time because I always keep the right to not use that system should there be some exception that can't fit in or something similar.