Post by: Loud Whispers on February 19, 2012, 03:37:52 pm
So, what if good regions got their counterpart (yes has been suggested a few dozen times before), but instead of doing good, they follow the theme of being too good.
Blotches of light blue clouds rolling over your Dwarves, turning them into good aligned husks, or some particularly "good" counterpart. Then said good husks killing everything. Or maybe just converting your other Dwarves to the goodness!
Maybe it does something good, that would be unwanted? Like good rain that's so blissfully serene that it makes everything unconscious! Or maybe just happy ;P
Or at the very least, working good aligned plants that move ;)
Post by: Maklak on February 19, 2012, 04:43:20 pm
Post by: BurnedToast on February 19, 2012, 04:49:30 pm
If anything, I think good regions should be even less dangerous and more survivable then they are now... that way the game has a built in difficulty option of sorts. Embark on good regions as a newbie or when you just want to screw around, embark on evil when you want !!fun!!, and embark on normal for in-between.
Post by: Neonivek on February 19, 2012, 04:54:41 pm
Good should be dangerous for the same reasons Evil regions are dangerous. They arn't made for you.
Powerful creatures empowered by the land's magics. Seedlings that fly in the air and play music that puts you to sleep. possible conversion or transformations of your dwarves into harmless creatures (Fluffy Wamblers).
Post by: dizzyelk on February 19, 2012, 05:06:14 pm
Post by: Neonivek on February 19, 2012, 05:07:25 pm
I can see badness happening to your dwarves in retribution. Like unicorns becoming your enemies if you hunt or joining you against sieges or something. Once farming becomes more difficult, good biomes could produce more food. Maybe good mists that turn the dwarves who get caught in it into pacifists?
Turned into Fuzzy bunny people?
I swear that is a reference to something.
Post by: irmo on February 19, 2012, 05:32:08 pm
So, what if good regions got their counterpart (yes has been suggested a few dozen times before), but instead of doing good, they follow the theme of being too good.
Blotches of light blue clouds rolling over your Dwarves, turning them into good aligned husks, or some particularly "good" counterpart. Then said good husks killing everything. Or maybe just converting your other Dwarves to the goodness!
They're good regions. Why should they do something bad to you?
Post by: TSTwizby on February 19, 2012, 05:35:31 pm
Post by: Neonivek on February 19, 2012, 05:47:48 pm
In all previous versions of Dwarf Fortress good regions were harder then ordinary regions (heck tougher then most evil regions). Not even that but they were even more annoying for dwarves to live in (fairies and pixies annoying you all the time)
Good regions should be as around as difficult to survive on as evil regions but for entirely different reasons.
Post by: TSTwizby on February 19, 2012, 06:14:45 pm
I'm sorry. I just don't see it.
Also, from the wiki:
DF2010
Quote
Good biomes tend to have less aggressive and weaker creatures, except for the unicorn. Good regions also support the wild sun berry, which makes the best booze in the game. There are generally slight changes between Benign Good and Savage Good.
40d
Quote
Good biomes tend to have less aggressive and weaker creatures, exception made for the pain-in-the-ass unicorn. Good regions also support the wild sun berry, which makes the best booze in the game. There are generally slight changes between Benign Good and Savage Good.
23a
Quote
Good biomes tend to have less aggressive and weaker creatures. There are generally slight changes between Benign Good and Savage Good.
In what way have good regions always been as hard as evil regions?
Post by: Artanis00 on February 19, 2012, 06:24:29 pm
Actually TSTwizby good regions are supposed to run on concepts that we are supposed to attribute to being good. Creating an almost storybook appeal.
In all previous versions of Dwarf Fortress good regions were harder then ordinary regions (heck tougher then most evil regions). Not even that but they were even more annoying for dwarves to live in (fairies and pixies annoying you all the time)
Good regions should be as around as difficult to survive on as evil regions but for entirely different reasons.
I have to agree. It's unfortunate they are called "good" and "evil" regions, though. Light is not Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LightIsNotGood) and all that.
I think dizzyelk has the right idea with the wildlife. Good regions don't have to be immediately fatal, but one misstep and the wildlife turns aggressive. Trample too much grass, kill a unicorn, etc.
I also like the idea of inherent hazards. Precipitation that softens everything it touches, or clouds of sugar that rots teeth, flora that induces sleep, fluffy were-wamblers.
Post by: Strange guy on February 19, 2012, 06:26:56 pm
Post by: TSTwizby on February 19, 2012, 06:32:34 pm
I think dizzyelk has the right idea with the wildlife. Good regions don't have to be immediately fatal, but one misstep and the wildlife turns aggressive. Trample too much grass, kill a unicorn, etc.
I actually kind of like this idea. I just don't think that there should be a direct analogue for features between evil and good biomes (evil mist that turns your dwarves into zombies - good mist that turns your dwarves into zombies). And while I can get behind the idea that light is not good, the idea that good is not good is a little harder to swallow.
I may have been overly harsh in my original post. Sorry about that.
Post by: Neonivek on February 19, 2012, 08:59:03 pm
Post by: Babylon on February 19, 2012, 09:10:19 pm
I am sure there are other interesting things that could happen but that one in particular I think would make the regions considerably different than neutral ones.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 19, 2012, 09:19:54 pm
So, what if good regions got their counterpart (yes has been suggested a few dozen times before), but instead of doing good, they follow the theme of being too good.
Blotches of light blue clouds rolling over your Dwarves, turning them into good aligned husks, or some particularly "good" counterpart. Then said good husks killing everything. Or maybe just converting your other Dwarves to the goodness!
They're good regions. Why should they do something bad to you?
Not something bad, just something too good. Too much of anything good kills you ;)
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 19, 2012, 09:31:55 pm
Maybe it does something good, that would be unwanted? Like good rain that's so blissfully serene that it makes everything unconscious! Or maybe just happy ;PA rainbow mist turning your dwarves into militant vegetarian teetotalling cat lovers. Or makes them attached to random plants or wild animals("don't you dare cutting down that tree, Urist!").
I can see how that would make good biomes difficult.
Post by: Babylon on February 19, 2012, 09:47:20 pm
Maybe it does something good, that would be unwanted? Like good rain that's so blissfully serene that it makes everything unconscious! Or maybe just happy ;PA rainbow mist turning your dwarves into militant vegetarian teetotalling cat lovers. Or makes them attached to random plants or wild animals("don't you dare cutting down that tree, Urist!").
I can see how that would make good biomes difficult.
ooh, I like that, everything in a good biome adopts dwarves the way cats do.
Post by: Vherid on February 19, 2012, 09:50:01 pm
Mists or sights that awe your dwarves with beauty, causing them to just stand and stare for a bit, even if being attacked.
Healing rain, meaning any invading goblins, you better bring them inside to kill them, or something.
More involvement with deities, OR ELSE, BECAUSE GOOD PEOPLE GO TO CHURCH ON SUNDAYS.
"For the greater good" basis
Basically things shouldn't be outright hostile, or directly hostile, but they can be indirectly hostile and eventually hostile.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 19, 2012, 09:51:07 pm
Maybe it does something good, that would be unwanted? Like good rain that's so blissfully serene that it makes everything unconscious! Or maybe just happy ;PA rainbow mist turning your dwarves into militant vegetarian teetotalling cat lovers. Or makes them attached to random plants or wild animals("don't you dare cutting down that tree, Urist!").
I can see how that would make good biomes difficult.
ooh, I like that, everything in a good biome adopts dwarves the way cats do.
Would work too if they behaved like pets, Urist McTree being comforted by his trees.
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 19, 2012, 10:02:27 pm
That way, you'd end up with half your fort chillin' out in the green valleys, under the magnificent trees etc. instead of partying at the well.
Post by: Watsst on February 20, 2012, 12:35:03 am
For example:
Healing Mists: Yes they heal your dwarfs, but in the same respects they should heal any injured ambushers or seigers. Perhaps healing works by an 'increasing metabolism to heal' premise, so dwarfs heal faster but also suddenly get hungry and thirsty. Maybe even have some creatures that are healed faster in mists than others due to also being good aligned, so a unicorn heals faster in 5 seconds of mist than the dwarf attacking it, which turns the tide of battle and lets him gore Urist to death.
Super Replenishment: Better watch out, cause your in really furtile lands. Your animals are breeding really fast, cats... cats everywhere. Fish and vermin replenish really fast (although fish dont currently replenish, it would be good to see lakes and rivers full of massive amounts of fish).
Born blessed: Normal creatures being born larger and stronger than normal, making them very very dangerous. Could apply to dwarves as well. They are being born in pristine locations with pure water, the freshest of air, and super crops.
Full of luck: Sometimes your just really lucky in a fight, or the same may be said for the goblins attacking you. Lucky shots that sometimes hit instead of missing, lucky dodges, etc. If toady doesnt like the idea of the areas being lucky, it could just be that with the creature being in such a pristine location, their really at their prime so are able to pull of something special.
All of these are good for your dwarfs, but in the same respect there good for anyone in the region. So its good, but not just good for you
Post by: SuicideJunkie on February 20, 2012, 12:54:44 am
1) Healing (including enemies/prey) and Booze rains
2) Pacifist-ifying/Mood-improving/Resurrection (not zombies, actually alive) clouds
3) Fairies/etc frolicking through the fort, opening doors, jamming mechanisms
4) Wildlife adopting dwarves to make them wander off into the forest when idle/on break
5) Bigger, stronger, tougher wildlife on average
6) Faster breeding, particularly vermin like fish and mosquitoes.
7) Trees/wildlife entrancing dwarves to treat them like masterworks (suffered the tragedy of
8) Plants able to grow through paved roads and floors, destroying them.
9) Metals and other non-organic materials suffer seasonal wear, leaving you to work with leather & wood.
Post by: Murphy on February 20, 2012, 01:06:16 am
EDIT: Ok supposedly there are evil faeries (Unseelie Court) and the less-evil ones (Seelie Court). Neither are particularly nice, it's just about whether you have to offend them before they torture, humiliate, enslave or drive you to madness. And offending may be as easy as sitting down in a wrong place.
Post by: Eagleon on February 20, 2012, 01:37:05 am
Also, your dwarves may not, themselves, be considered 'good' by the region - half of them would turn murderous if their supply of booze were cut off and they didn't have a bed, for instance. So why not make it react as such? Especially in Savage regions. You could have the ground and grass grabbing at their feet, the weather turn nasty (but just for them), water burst out in small flows to wash them in, bees chase them from hives, sand turn to quicksand, etc. All stuff that's plausibly survivable, but enough to scare a slightly less stubborn than normal dwarf straight. This would be good in some ways but bad in others - your overly negative dwarves would be in danger, but they might stop their tantrums afterwards and get back to work.
Post by: King Mir on February 20, 2012, 02:56:04 am
But I like the idea of Good regions providing Buffs contra to how the evil stuff kills you. An invigorating rain could perhaps make anyone caught in it stronger, friend or foe.
Healing would be a nice effect. Just region wide healing, much like unread regions work. Your crippled dwarves would slowly grow their feet back.
Post by: Starver on February 20, 2012, 07:07:49 am
The opposite of dead-husk inducing rain/mist/whatever in an evil zone would be... a rejuvenating area effect. When I get back to that machine, I may post that saved summary, anyway, but here's the core of it: Even without considering what it would do to enemies (I'll admit that I didn't even think of that!), your Legendary craftsdwarf might revert to childhood, and while he was at it forget most/all of his knowledge in the process.
Thus the region area is 'good', but still troublesome.
Post by: SuicideJunkie on February 20, 2012, 12:02:39 pm
Urist McLegendary has become a Peasant
Urist McLegendary has become a Child
Post by: NTJedi on February 20, 2012, 12:40:00 pm
As it stands, good regions don't have anything going for them except good aligned creatures, and evil regions get all the fun >:3Good regions are working as intended for players seeking a more peaceful environment. If you want more danger then embark in more evil areas.
So, what if good regions got their counterpart (yes has been suggested a few dozen times before), but instead of doing good, they follow the theme of being too good.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 20, 2012, 12:47:40 pm
For example, what if it gradually healed trauma, so that nobody could be "doesn't care about anything" anymore, and all start grieving heavily whenever things die (to the point that they might grieve for the poor cow that had to die for their supper). At the same time, however, they shouldn't actually tantrum, but they have mopey feelings. Maybe they get support from all their friends to help them get out of it? But they will grieve for a while, and won't be as productive while grieving.
"Mellow clouds" that you walk into and just... whoah... dude... did you ever just sit and... heeheehee... man... you know? Basically, a cloud of Lotus Eater Machine that makes dwarves happy and never want to leave, lowering productivity until you can get them out from there.
Most normal animals don't run away or fight back. Why would they? They just turn big puppy dog eyes at you and ask why you just killed their mommy.
Clouds of regrowth or the like bring wildlife and plants back when destroyed at a rapid pace. Basically, never run out of wood or herbs to pick.
Clouds of fertility or the like make pregnancies much faster. Yay for all the happy children playing together!
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on February 20, 2012, 12:52:26 pm
However...
Invaders use the healing springs. Dwarves with magical power go mad with power and/or normally, and take down more of your militia/civilians/infrastructure with them. Alcohol rain makes everything more flammable, which causes issues when a dragon or fire-breathing titan or something comes along.
In other words: Evil areas kill you, good areas help you nut also helps things trying to kill you.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on February 20, 2012, 01:01:38 pm
Some of the things I'd like to see apart from the previously mentioned:
Ent-like creatures protecting the trees of the area, going hostile if you cut any wood.
The aforementioned healing/refreshing rains, with the added effect of them killing off/weakening undead.
Having pixies/fairies cause mischief throughout the area.
Not sure if I like the idea of alcohol rains though, it sort of feels that'd only be good in the perspective of a dwarf, and cause damage to everything else ;P
Mists that confuse and enthrall any dwarves that wander inside, leaving them void of memory and making them forget any relations/skills.
The youthful cloud and mellow clouds also sounds awesome.
Post by: loose nut on February 20, 2012, 01:20:48 pm
– Dwarves get enchanted and don't want to work as much. Urist cancels dig: Bliss. That sort of thing.
– Dwarves actually wander away from the fort to go live with the fairies or whatever else is there.
– Creatures in the good region take it amiss when they are abused, and you wind up being sieged by fairies/unicorns/Na'vi (maybe until you repent somehow)
Post by: Neonivek on February 20, 2012, 02:58:35 pm
Quote
As for the good being dangerous or not, the obvious solution is to have serene areas be relatively safe and only include the positive effects, and the joyous wilds be the more dangerous ones
Well remember there is a reason why Humans don't embark in good regions of any type... and I doubt it is because they are too full on sunberries, hate having their wounds healed, and the harmless creatures.
As for other ways to make good regions more difficult. Remember you are dealing with creatures who essentially live in a region that embodies virtue many of which are intelligent. As well given the nature of how Toady has presented good regions it should also be inherantly magical.
Elves have goods and creatures (unicorns) from good regions because they can live at peace with their surroundings, something that should backfire on anyone else or even Elves themselves from time to time.
Fairies have been quite nasty in fiction. Making you dance until death, pernament slumber, shrinking, making you turn into mice (make them poison dust). They alone can make good regions deadly.
Post by: irmo on February 20, 2012, 03:12:24 pm
Fairies have been quite nasty in fiction. Making you dance until death, pernament slumber, shrinking, making you turn into mice (make them poison dust).
Why are they even in good regions, then?
I think my point is that good-aligned regions shouldn't be in the game, since there's no way for them to be really good that doesn't make it stupidly easy to build a settlement there.
Post by: Neonivek on February 20, 2012, 03:16:08 pm
It isn't "good incarnate" anymore then evil regions are "evil incarnate".
They take what we associate with good and use it against us.
Like Bleach. It makes everything pale and white by frying it. You are the alien, you are the perverting force and one that should be removed.
So think of it that way. Good regions are like a tub of powerful bleach. Bleach is good.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on February 20, 2012, 03:27:52 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 20, 2012, 04:27:13 pm
I presume humans don't embark there because they'd get a toothache.
Post by: Kavalion on February 20, 2012, 05:53:02 pm
Fairies have been quite nasty in fiction. Making you dance until death, pernament slumber, shrinking, making you turn into mice (make them poison dust).
Why are they even in good regions, then?
I think it would be fair to move them to evil forests and have them play nasty pranks on the dwarves, yeah.
Post by: Neonivek on February 20, 2012, 05:57:10 pm
Fairies have been quite nasty in fiction. Making you dance until death, pernament slumber, shrinking, making you turn into mice (make them poison dust).
Why are they even in good regions, then?
I think it would be fair to move them to evil forests and have them play nasty pranks on the dwarves, yeah.
That isn't exactly how fairies work. They may be malicious but they don't dress in the cloth of evil.
Post by: NTJedi on February 20, 2012, 06:06:26 pm
Post by: Kavalion on February 20, 2012, 07:17:55 pm
That isn't exactly how fairies work. They may be malicious but they don't dress in the cloth of evil.
Well, it depends on the fairy. In a lot of old myths, it seemed popular to depict them as seeming benevolent at first, but in the end they do something cruel and unfair, or at least undesirable. And often they present some perverted logic to explain their actions, making them tricksters, or at least really weird. They behaved much like modern devils, in some cases. A Tinkerbell, though, is just a bit fickle and not quite as bad. I don't know that they're ever really good, though I guess they sometimes make shoes for you.
That would be great. Good fairies take over your workshops and make a ton of useless wooden shoes for you, using up all your lumber.
Post by: irmo on February 20, 2012, 08:11:10 pm
I think it would be fair to move them to evil forests and have them play nasty pranks on the dwarves, yeah.
That isn't exactly how fairies work. They may be malicious but they don't dress in the cloth of evil.
The point is that if fairies are going to live in a region that matches their temperament, and they're classic folklore fairies that do nasty things to people, they should be in an evil region. It doesn't matter how they're dressed. Evil isn't a costume.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on February 20, 2012, 08:22:42 pm
The point is that if fairies are going to live in a region that matches their temperament, and they're classic folklore fairies that do nasty things to people, they should be in an evil region. It doesn't matter how they're dressed. Evil isn't a costume.
[/quote]
I think you're reading a lot into the words good and evil that just aren't there in this case. They aren't used as a descriptor of the moral alignment of the denizens, but rather as a label of the stereotypical fantasy sphere to which these creatures and effects belong. "Matching temperaments" has nothing to do with it at all.
Post by: Skyrunner on February 20, 2012, 09:06:02 pm
Post by: orius on February 21, 2012, 01:21:29 am
Healing rain. Good for the dorfs, but should also be able to affect wildlife and invaders as well.
Youth mist. The dorfs like being young again, but you just lost some very useful legendary dwarves who are now useless children. They shouldn't lose their skills, but they may get rusty depending on how long their new childhood lasts. They also will live longer as a result and maybe have more children if their spouse (if any) gets de-aged.
Bliss/ecstasy effects. Dorfs get too happy to work, slowing various productions to a crawl.
Ents/nature spirits/etc. Get hostile if you chop down too many trees on the surface, trample grass, pick plants, etc. May also not like extensive excavations or construcions on the surface (so becomes harder to build that megaproject.)
Fairies annoy the hell out of dwarves (but are otherwise harmless). Like the idea of them taking over workshops in an attempt to be "helpful" too. But if a dwarf or cat kills them, then you face the wrath of the other fairies. Also like nasty evil fairies for evil regions.
Post by: Orangebottle on February 21, 2012, 01:49:27 am
Then you tell your last remaining dwarf to pull the lever, the one that seals him inside and away from the rest of the world. This lever is also linked to the magma cannon that resides at the top of the mountain, and turns the region into a second magma sea.
Post by: white_darkness on February 21, 2012, 01:54:34 am
I do believe there were several old Irish tales about leaving an unshod horse and some money by a fairy mound and coming back the next day to find it shod and the money gone. Probably wouldn't find the horse if you didn't leave the money.
Or leaving out a bowl of milk at your front door and finding your house cleaned. No milk, and nothing done at best. At worst, they might mess it up.
Unless you're dealing with something like the Nac Mac Feegles. You leave an unshod horse and some money at a Feegle mound and return the next day, you'll find neither the horse or the money, and possibly, your liquor cabinet empty when you get home.
One thing I haven't spotted mentioned would be some form of were-bane, like the classic belief in wolfsbane repelling werewolves.
So some sort of healing aura, something that weakens the undead, maybe helpful fairies that turn mischievous if you don't pay them (but not too helpful) or sometimes their help isn't quite what you want. Toss in the were-bane as a plant and make it farmable, then not only could you have something to repel them at the fort entrance, but if poisons ever get added, the perfect addition to a marksdwarf's arsenal.
The land turning against those who try to rape it is definitely also a thought, though one would want that confined to the more "dangerous" areas, rather than benign.
Post by: WillowLuman on February 21, 2012, 02:00:11 am
1) Humans and Dwarves don't settle in Good areas because Elves live there. The Humans and Dwarves had one too many elven missionaries knocking on their door on sunday.
2)Where did Toady say that Faeries in DF are supposed to be evil/malicious? Judging by ingame description, I think they are supposed to be Tinkerbell. Maybe they should be hateable as in "Urist was Annoyed by faeries giving him constant advice lately"
3)I think that good areas are supposed to be super-saccharine, I think the trope is "Tastes Like Diabetes." Either that or they're supposed to be like Rivendell
4) I like the ideas of indiscriminate healing mist/rain and effect on temperament. Maybe (depending on personality) dwarves might either get bored/disgusted by the sickeningly sweetness of the land or become enthralled by the charming place. Perhaps they might become contented and lazy, seeing no need to work (Bomrek McAnic cancels arm weapon trap: why bother?) They might become pacifist, refusing to fight except in self-defense, and if they kill a foe they lament over the horrid violence (was grieved to be forced to kill a fellow creature recently.)
Basically, I agree that there should be unique challenges in Good areas, but not a reskinned version of other challenges (i.e. everything trying to kill you.) Good areas could have their own different challenges by lulling you into a false sense of security, making you unprepared for when things from not-so-good areas come calling.
EDIT: Sorry for the snark
Post by: Starver on February 21, 2012, 05:27:12 am
Because of forum access errors, I was forced to rewrite a summary of my original attempt to post, last night, intending to post it later.Probably old stuff now...
Spoiler: What I couldn't post the other day (click to show/hide)
Post by: Starver on February 21, 2012, 05:49:51 am
Re-re-editing to make it obvious that I was editing the above, which had originally been a reply that I then found was superfluous. Darnit. Got in there so quickly it didn't even make an obvious "edited on" note...
Post by: simonthedwarf on February 21, 2012, 07:00:44 am
"Urist McRumple is unhappy. He was caught in brilliant sunlight recently. He was annoyed by pixies sprinkling glitter in his hair."
"Urist McGoodyTwoShoes canceled dig: doesn't believe in materialism anymore."
In a twisted way it also makes sense for evil creatures opposed to the "good biome" to assault it if civilization covets the area. Enjoying your heaven-like jungle of joy? Evil has landed to make the day sour for you.
Post by: TSTwizby on February 21, 2012, 08:37:23 pm
I would argue that Good regions should be challenging perhaps not in the same way as Evil regions because arguably dwarves are evil. They're a race dominated by greed and substance abuse. They are also war-like and aggressive. Perhaps good weather should annoy dwarves in some way.
Or you can have all your dwarves selflessly devote their lives to making toys, which you give away whenever a caravan comes by, and lock themselves indoors whenever a siege comes by until they get bored and leave. There are multiple playstyles, and none of them are really cannon as to how dwarves would be if you weren't ordering them around.
I like the idea that some dwarves would be annoyed by all the shiny happiness though. Perhaps if you didn't keep them away from the surface they could snap, and then the pixies would take their revenge, and fuel an ever-growing ball of retributive pranks. No socks would be safe from the pixies disorganizing touch, no sooner would you get your wood stockpile full than it would be scattered across the fortress. Dwarves will be locked in their rooms, and creatures let out of cages. Chaos would rule.
As for the evil creatures attacking the area, I think something like that should wait until different civilizations have a bit more personality. Maybe goblins will attack and try to destroy the land, while elves try to drive you off it and humans try to take it over when they're at war with you, or something.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 21, 2012, 10:10:09 pm
I would argue that Good regions should be challenging perhaps not in the same way as Evil regions because arguably dwarves are evil. They're a race dominated by greed and substance abuse. They are also war-like and aggressive. Perhaps good weather should annoy dwarves in some way.
"Urist McRumple is unhappy. He was caught in brilliant sunlight recently. He was annoyed by pixies sprinkling glitter in his hair."
"Urist McGoodyTwoShoes canceled dig: doesn't believe in materialism anymore."
In a twisted way it also makes sense for evil creatures opposed to the "good biome" to assault it if civilization covets the area. Enjoying your heaven-like jungle of joy? Evil has landed to make the day sour for you.
Actually, look at the ethics raws: dwarves are the most moral species (unless you somehow want to argue elves are, but I think the banishment for lying is silly and cannibalism is just way over the line) in the game. Even humans think slavery is just fine by them and killing someone who isn't a human is cool just so long as it doesn't start a war or something, it's not like they're human or anything.
It's just players that enjoy unfortunate accidents, magma cannons, mermaid soap factories, and kitten genocides.
Post by: Dynastia on February 22, 2012, 02:50:06 pm
- Healing mist ; should gradually heal irreparable nerve damage but not regrow missing parts
- Purifying rain ; cleanses all bloodstains, vomit, pus, freshens stagnant water etc.
- General laziness, longer breaks, more sleep
- Gradual shift of attributes to be more compassionate, empathetic, etc. Nobody can "Doesn't care about anything anymore"
- Goblin and kobold thieves change their mind and go home before reaching your fortress
- Goblin siegers are perma-stunned and regularly vomit at all the disgusting goodness.
- All warring civs more likely to send a peace offer
- Killing unicorns doesn't provoke a war, but rather the eventual suicide of all dwarfs involved
- No vampires, werewolves or necromancers dare approach
- Clowns spontaneously die on exposure to the surface
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on February 22, 2012, 05:38:57 pm
Also, mutually benifeting magic like I mentioned earlier.
Post by: San on February 22, 2012, 09:54:28 pm
Will animals like dogs and bears ever need food? Is that a planned feature?
Post by: isitanos on February 23, 2012, 06:03:41 am
Now, it's true that evil regions currently have a lot more interesting thematic stuff to them. Good regions should have more of that, not necessarily as a mirror image or as an extra challenge. Just good fluff.
Presumably, a region controlled by the powers of Good is a really bad place for dwarves who do evil things. So, damage nature too much, and it will start defending itself... it's like declaring war on the elves, except the plants start strangling you. Similarly, mass slaughters of animals or dwarves, tantrum spirals and the accompanying crimes should bring you some kind of retribution. Going by D&D classifications, said retribution could come more from the lawful good side (Die in fire from the Heavens, heathen dwarves who commit evil!) or more neutral good (Accomplish a quest/task to redeem yourself i.e. destroy evil creature/artefact on map) or even chaotic good (Narcotic cloud makes those it touches "peace and love" again.)
Good is not supposed to take sides between opponents who are both somewhat evil, so healing both you and the people sieging you would be a nice twist, as would be killing both, actually :P .
You could get special help against the HFS in those regions. If you've been good, of course. Or you may get punished for unleashing evil upon this peaceful region. In any case, angels could turn out pretty interesting if implemented "Toady-style", I think.
Finally you could encounter "extremist good", i.e. beings who are civilized and intelligent but have suffered too much and see evil everywhere, and think that the only solution is to eradicate every form of life except themselves. So, the Ur-Quan, for those who have played Star Control 2.
Post by: Neonivek on February 23, 2012, 01:35:05 pm
The Formen in Dungeons and dragons for example are the ultimate expression of order and find everyone them to be so chaotic (even lawful characters) that they simply want to enslave everyone.
Celestial beings that are so perfect that even saints seem like horrid beings are also common in fiction.
A SUPER good land being soo good that the dwarves seem like a sinful afront to it that needs to be removed also makes sense.
Post by: Archereon on February 23, 2012, 02:46:38 pm
No clear cutting forests/plant growths or importing it from non-elves, no over hunting, too many deaths of nonevil creatures angers the good region, too many constructions on the surface or in the caverns is a no no, don't flood everything with lava or change the landscape to much, ect.
But if you manage to keep the land reasonably happy, you get healing rains which make goblins and trolls disoriented and cause undead to burst into flame, ents who will come to your aid against the forces of evil, and maybe celestially who will come to your aid if you open the circus and re-seal it.
Of course, if you fail to appease the region, you'll get plants coming to life and attacking dwarves, rivers flooding the entire region, mists that disorient, deage, ect your dorfs, and if you piss it off, celestials will descend from the heavens to smite your fortress in an attack comparable to the clown car, and will keep attacking in small numbers from then on.
Post by: DarthBoogalo on February 23, 2012, 03:25:32 pm
Post by: Archos on February 23, 2012, 03:36:35 pm
Not that good regions should be easy, but like many said, with a different approach.
Strong and passive wildlife, difficulting hunt and punishing evil-natured dorfs. Annoying critters, hiding stuff on your fortress and playing pranks. Scolding spirits, telling that they should honor tradition and the gods. Guilty feelings for butchering puppies and kittens. Punishment (good avengers?) for killiing too much fauna/flora. Maybe it could be more harsh on unburied corpses, making vengeful spirits or something like that appears. That stuff. Something that is not exactly a threat, but that can be dangerous enough to relax and ignore.
Also, good is necessary linked to nature? A good region must be necessarily one full of elfish stuff?
Post by: G-Flex on February 23, 2012, 03:43:09 pm
I have to agree. It's unfortunate they are called "good" and "evil" regions, though. Light is not Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LightIsNotGood) and all that.
Except in this case they are good and evil, not "light and dark" or whatever other distinction. Good regions are not misnamed. They are supposed to be good-aligned.
I think this whole discussion is a bit moot, since it would be (in my opinion) more preferable for regions to have associations with spheres rather than "good" or "evil".
Post by: Neonivek on February 23, 2012, 05:13:10 pm
Post by: Sunken on February 23, 2012, 05:17:55 pm
Post by: G-Flex on February 23, 2012, 05:29:31 pm
Post by: dizzyelk on February 23, 2012, 05:32:35 pm
I think this whole discussion is a bit moot, since it would be (in my opinion) more preferable for regions to have associations with spheres rather than "good" or "evil".That's planned iirc.
I too think that good areas should be a challenge, but a challenge that is not "I have to be powerful/violent enough" like evil regions, but "I have to be nice/even-handed/non-violent enough". As already has been said, they should revolt against dwarfish endeavors like reshaping the earth, cutting down and otherwise disturbing the biome, killing animals, over-grazing... they should impose rules on behavior, in effect. The mechanisms, I'm less sure about. Elves, well sure; angry unicorns - but how does good strike back without being evil-ish?
Good striking back =/= evil anymore than killing in defense is evil. Good/evil is the motivation behind it.
Post by: Sphalerite on February 23, 2012, 07:07:21 pm
Post by: WillowLuman on February 23, 2012, 07:27:19 pm
Yep isitanos. Races that are soo "good" that they see everyone else around them as soo flawed as to be evil happens.
The Formen in Dungeons and dragons for example are the ultimate expression of order and find everyone them to be so chaotic (even lawful characters) that they simply want to enslave everyone.
Celestial beings that are so perfect that even saints seem like horrid beings are also common in fiction.
A SUPER good land being soo good that the dwarves seem like a sinful afront to it that needs to be removed also makes sense.
But beings like that are pure evil. It's not seemingly good, it's GOOD. It's like saying that we should have basically 2 different kinds of evil, and call one good. One being goblins who delight in cruelty, and the other being Nazi's who intend well but have a warped sense of reality.
Post by: isitanos on February 23, 2012, 07:58:04 pm
Also, good is necessary linked to nature? A good region must be necessarily one full of elfish stuff?
Respecting nature seems to go hand-in-hand with good, and good regions are mostly wilderness and are often inhabited by elves, so... But mainly, it sounds Fun.
But beings like that are pure evil. It's not seemingly good, it's GOOD. It's like saying that we should have basically 2 different kinds of evil, and call one good. One being goblins who delight in cruelty, and the other being Nazi's who intend well but have a warped sense of reality.If we only have the current style of "good" regions, of course it doesn't make sense. But if good regions were diversified into lawful/neutral/chaotic and good-turned-bad, it would be interesting.
P.S. Not sure about them being "pure evil" though. Very evil, sure, but wouldn't a pure evil society die off instantly, since everybody would just hate themselves and each other, and all die off in a suicide/murder orgy? Even a nazi society needs inside trust and presumably other good stuff like love between family members, etc, if it wants to efficiently be evil to other societies.
Post by: Neonivek on February 23, 2012, 08:02:10 pm
Yep isitanos. Races that are soo "good" that they see everyone else around them as soo flawed as to be evil happens.
The Formen in Dungeons and dragons for example are the ultimate expression of order and find everyone them to be so chaotic (even lawful characters) that they simply want to enslave everyone.
Celestial beings that are so perfect that even saints seem like horrid beings are also common in fiction.
A SUPER good land being soo good that the dwarves seem like a sinful afront to it that needs to be removed also makes sense.
But beings like that are pure evil. It's not seemingly good, it's GOOD. It's like saying that we should have basically 2 different kinds of evil, and call one good. One being goblins who delight in cruelty, and the other being Nazi's who intend well but have a warped sense of reality.
Evil isn't really evil.
You are thinking of the difference between Benevolence and Malevolence.
Good can be Malevolent and Evil can be Benovolent.
So if we have beneficial good lands, we will need beneficial evil lands.
Post by: WillowLuman on February 23, 2012, 10:27:31 pm
What's the point of having all areas being palette swaps of each other, some filled with slavering beak dogs who want to eat your flesh and others filled with slavering unicorns who want to eat your flesh? The evil regions are already challenging for being bleak and inhospitable (not to mention downright hostile.) Why make good regions the same? If good regions need more challenge, then it should be of the opposite sort, as they are opposite evil areas. Or, they could be easy to play in and not as full of challenge, but with the downside of not being as much !!FUN!!
Post by: irmo on February 23, 2012, 11:41:39 pm
You are thinking of the difference between Benevolence and Malevolence.
Good can be Malevolent and Evil can be Benovolent.
This doesn't even make any sense.
Post by: King Mir on February 24, 2012, 12:46:16 am
Also, good is necessary linked to nature? A good region must be necessarily one full of elfish stuff?This is a good point. It may be that only elves settle in good regions, but that does not mean that good regions should be an endorsement of elfish morality. Nor should they be someone else's image of virtue, since virtue is subjective. Good and Evil regions can't really be good or evil, because land doesn't have morality. So it really is a vague association with Light and Dark rather than morality that must define such regions.
For similar reasons, evil regions aren't havens for goblins. Goblins I'd agrue are more evil than anything found in evil regions. They are free thinking individuals with no empathy. That's much more evil then mindless undead.
Post by: Beznogim on February 24, 2012, 01:53:48 am
Good can be Malevolent and Evil can be Benovolent.
So if we have beneficial good lands, we will need beneficial evil lands.
Good and Evil region are called Good and Evil, because they represent the childish cartoonish concepts of Good and Evil that feather-like grass and unicorns are Good, because they look cute, while actually Good and Evil are just debatable philosophical concepts.
Goody-goodish hippie-style place can be a real nightmare to live in, especially if your freedom of actions is rather restricted. So, Malevolent Good should be a place, that is hospitable enough, but only until you start committing acts, deemed by Good region inhabitants as inexcusably evil - like slaughtering animals or cutting down trees. Then the inhabitants would repel against you. So as long as you follow rather strict set of rules - you are tolerated there.
Sort of like Garden of Eden from Bible - you take a wrong fruit from a wrong tree - and you are suddenly not welcome anymore.
In Benevolent Good region the creatures would be simply too scared of you to attack or too weak to cause you any serious harm, so that you can live there without having constant danger of your fortress being destroyed.
Benevolent Evil would be place that looks rather undangerous for you to survive, but it insensibly constantly affects your dwarves, like slowly changing their personality traits into more evil ones (less compassionate, more prone to anger, etc.) and eventually changing ethics of your dwarves, making the fortress separate from its civilization and start its own.
Post by: catoblepas on February 24, 2012, 01:56:23 am
Benign Good Biomes: Friendly wildlife, wild plants and trees grow faster. Creatures get bad thoguhts for attacking and/or killing other creatures ("Urist felt guilty over taking a life recently"). Possible defense buff for all living things in these areas (ex: "the arrow stops a hair away from the deer, and falls to the ground harmlessly!") This benefit would likely be waived for attackers though, so hunters killing deer or goblins attacking your dwarves might find themselves much less dangerous than they had hoped. If dwarves harm nature too much by cutting down too many trees/clearing too much grass/killing too much wildlife, they might suffer consequences such as axes breaking on tree trunks, animals leaving the map/arrows auto missing or being deflected by animals etc. Dwarves in this sort of biome would be naturally happier, but the difficulty would come from having to moderate your tree/hunting industries.
Savage Good Biomes: Similar in many ways to Benign Good biomes, but with harsher penalties for transgressions. Mist might descend on your fortress and cause dwarves to fall into a blissful sleap. Faries might snatch baby or even adult dwarves away, perhaps leaving changelings in their place. Hunting too much will cause unicorns and other wildlife to actively hunt down dwarves instead of vacating the map. overlogging will cause trees to attack dwarves instead as well as breaking axes. Booze might spoil. Satyrs or dryads might entice dwarves to frolic and be merry instead of working, perhaps even causing them to permanetely abandon the fortress to live in the wilds with them (in which case they follow them off map)
In all Good Biomes I think what we should be seeing is the biome being a safer, but not necessarily easier place to live. Violence and heavy industry should have consequences, but in the same time this should not exclude the possibility of fairies, satyrs, dryads, centaurs etc from causing mischief-ie hurdles should be typically non violent in nature. The exception being savage good biomes, where hunting will be more permissable and predator animals will be present, and fairy pranks should be more severe, possibly even fatal, with the possibility for things such as abductions or the odd wild hunt.
Post by: irmo on February 24, 2012, 12:53:18 pm
This is a good point. It may be that only elves settle in good regions, but that does not mean that good regions should be an endorsement of elfish morality. Nor should they be someone else's image of virtue, since virtue is subjective. Good and Evil regions can't really be good or evil, because land doesn't have morality. So it really is a vague association with Light and Dark rather than morality that must define such regions.
There's a simple way to fix this: Dwarves are the protagonists and the embark map is a dwarven map. Regions marked as "good" on that map are compatible with dwarves, and regions marked as "evil" are hostile to dwarves.
Once they're sphere-aligned, I expect regions that have a lot of alignments in common with dwarves will show as "good", and those that have a lot of alignments opposed will show as "evil", because dwarves don't know about spheres, but they do know that the land ruled by the forces of stone, fire, and ingenuity is a great place to live.
Post by: Neonivek on February 24, 2012, 01:21:09 pm
If Dwarves think it is a great place or a hellish landscape of death is an entirely different affair.
Post by: Starver on February 24, 2012, 09:34:26 pm
If you're into Pratchett at all, it might be worth considering the Vetinari effect. And, as a counterpoint, a number of those that have intend to overthrow Vetinari and institute their alternate regime.You are thinking of the difference between Benevolence and Malevolence.
Good can be Malevolent and Evil can be Benovolent.
This doesn't even make any sense.
According to the point of view of any given AM citizen (and there are many other directions to view this from, where it isn't so clear cut) Vetinari could easily be considered either "Evil but benevolent" or "Good but malevolent", with these others I mention generally taking on the opposing compass-point.
(Incidentally, if (as suggested) it's going to be more Sphere-based in future, it sounds like instead of "Good" and "Bad" zones, that there might be areas aligned to the likes of Food, Fire, Speech, Lightning, Deformity, Rebirth, Speech and Wind, among others, as well as Good and Evil.)
Post by: King Mir on February 25, 2012, 12:47:28 am
Post by: G-Flex on February 25, 2012, 01:01:04 am
I think what will happen is Toady will add more stuff to good regions, to make them something more unique. Then later he'll add a third sphere, and good and evil will no longer be a scale. It'll just be one of three spheres. And they probably won't be that diametrically opposed as good and evil, because whatever is added to make good regions good and fun, will be of a totally different sort than the evil regions.
The game already has plenty of spheres, and I believe Toady has stated before that linking regions to those instead of good/evil is a goal of some sort.
Post by: Neonivek on February 25, 2012, 01:26:33 am
Afterall "Lust" an evil theme could just as easily be a benevolent theme (Wish fulfillment for dwarves, Trees that grow high quality leather, or high birth rate for animals)
In the same way "Gems" a good theme could be a Malevolent theme (Creatures made of pure Gemstones attack, living crystal viens close off tunnets)
My purposal as always was not to nessisarily made "evil" lands malevolent and "good" lands benevolent.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 25, 2012, 08:19:55 am
I don't think good regions should be the same as their evil counterparts, as it would become "just another nightmarish region". I prefer them being different.
This is my reasoning on it, there has to be a reason why all the races avoid evil and good reasons.
Post by: Neonivek on February 25, 2012, 01:18:30 pm
I don't think good regions should be the same as their evil counterparts, as it would become "just another nightmarish region". I prefer them being different.
This is my reasoning on it, there has to be a reason why all the races avoid evil and good reasons.
Exactly.
If there is a biome that is an outright advantage I fully expect a civilisation to capitalise on it and not avoid it.
As it stands making Good biomes the exact opposite of Evil biomes (in that they are outright beneficial "easy mode" spots... or they are spots that can benefit enemies equally to yourself) sort of gives the game a really stupid quirk.
Human: "Ohh the land over here grows abundant fruit, has the best game, and heals our wounds... why don't we go there?"
Dwarf: "Didn't you read the sign? Players only"
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 25, 2012, 01:48:58 pm
Human: "Ohh the land over here grows abundant fruit, has the best game, and heals our wounds... why don't we go there?"
Dwarf: "Didn't you read the sign? Players only"
VS
Human: "Ohh the land over here grows abundant magical fruit, heals our wounds, causes ecstatic bliss and allows us to rest and live in harmony with nature, exploit bountiful resources and unique trees and it has Unicorns. FREAKING UNICORNS! ...Why don't we go there?
Dwarf: The bliss is murder.
Post by: axeman157 on February 25, 2012, 02:17:32 pm
Post by: WillowLuman on February 25, 2012, 02:30:18 pm
Post by: Neonivek on February 25, 2012, 02:54:32 pm
Maybe the other races HAVE taken advantage of the bountiful resources of good areas, but have lived there a while and used them up, so the remaining "good" areas are those that no-one's settled yet.
That would make sense if the Legends supported it.
Post by: WillowLuman on February 25, 2012, 04:19:51 pm
Maybe the other races HAVE taken advantage of the bountiful resources of good areas, but have lived there a while and used them up, so the remaining "good" areas are those that no-one's settled yet.
That would make sense if the Legends supported it.
Well, it seems to me like the world exists for some time before history begins, because you get people that "have the appearance of one who is X years old," for those born before history.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 25, 2012, 05:20:20 pm
Well, it seems to me like the world exists for some time before history begins, because you get people that "have the appearance of one who is X years old," for those born before history.
It also says that those people are "one of the first of their kind".
As in, the Gods created the world on the year 0, and the planet was created with light from the stars already enroute.
Post by: orius on February 25, 2012, 09:33:15 pm
After all, a Toad did it. ;)
Post by: AWdeV on February 26, 2012, 09:20:35 am
Which essentially translates to eternal ecstatic "on break"-dom for those affected. :P
Post by: Neonivek on February 26, 2012, 10:25:27 am
Or more simply, it's a fantasy-themed game so don't think too hard about it.
After all, a Toad did it. ;)
Yes but it is trying to be a "Simulation" so we can't give it too much leeway.
Post by: FaultyLogic on February 27, 2012, 10:49:35 am
Why should "good" forces convert your dwarves into murder machines? that... does not sound good at all.
If anything, I think good regions should be even less dangerous and more survivable then they are now... that way the game has a built in difficulty option of sorts. Embark on good regions as a newbie or when you just want to screw around, embark on evil when you want !!fun!!, and embark on normal for in-between.
Exactly! It would be a very nice way of changing the difficulity without using a boring toggle that just makes goblins weaker and blind or whatnot (not that this would ever be implemented). While there should of course always the the possibility of some good old dwarven Fun, there could also be very cheap benefits like healing rain, hapiness-inducing friendly clouds or helpful spirits that would aid your dwarves in mysterious ways (wild suggestan here).
Post by: Neonivek on February 27, 2012, 01:15:26 pm
Goblin, Elf, and Humans (and Dwarves) working together to take your land. With dieties hating you for defiling such pure lands, demons wanting to corrupt it, as well as your dwarves becoming ill from their own impure thoughts.
Post by: WillowLuman on February 27, 2012, 07:20:01 pm
I don't know, logically shouldn't this mean EVERYONE would want to destroy your fort for being the only fort allowed to exist on good lands?
Goblin, Elf, and Humans (and Dwarves) working together to take your land. With dieties hating you for defiling such pure lands, demons wanting to corrupt it, as well as your dwarves becoming ill from their own impure thoughts.
Again, logically, why should good areas be murderously difficult? As for gods, well, the patron diety of this game is the god of blood. Evil regions are practically hallowed gods like that.
Post by: Neonivek on February 27, 2012, 07:35:51 pm
I don't know, logically shouldn't this mean EVERYONE would want to destroy your fort for being the only fort allowed to exist on good lands?
Goblin, Elf, and Humans (and Dwarves) working together to take your land. With dieties hating you for defiling such pure lands, demons wanting to corrupt it, as well as your dwarves becoming ill from their own impure thoughts.
Again, logically, why should good areas be murderously difficult? As for gods, well, the patron diety of this game is the god of blood. Evil regions are practically hallowed gods like that.
I explained why.
Simply because this is such a beneficial, pure, and good land... that EVERYONE wants you dead for living there.
Why wouldn't they? Especially gods of blood who find these lands created by their sacrifice to be absolutely sacret to the lifeblood of the world.
I can flip your logic easily. Especially since "Armok" doesn't exist. Armok is a diety in a specific Dwarf Fortress setting.
If you object to good lands being outright harmful because they need to be beneficial. Then I present that good lands are indirrectly harmful because of how outright beneficial they are. Simple economics and one proven historically by almost every war ever fought.
We can even go further and say that good lands are "good" and that living there makes you a target as well because you are defiling what is considered "good" and "pure".
Post by: loose nut on February 27, 2012, 08:03:43 pm
- in good areas the sun is extra bright, making the dwarves extra sick
- in good areas, dwarves are more likely to get religion, not that that causes substantial effects yet
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 27, 2012, 08:17:16 pm
Especially since "Armok" doesn't exist.
Things in Dwarf Fortress bleed. This is proof enough of Armok.
Couple more ideas:
- in good areas the sun is extra bright, making the dwarves extra sick
Making cave adapt creatures vomit everywhere... Beautiful :P
Post by: bombzero on February 27, 2012, 09:20:56 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 27, 2012, 09:23:21 pm
i was gonna post something here, but then i realized it stupid arguing on these forums, everyone is dead set in their ideas with no willingness for change.
Since when? I don't see many challenging core beliefs cropping up anywhere ;)
Post by: bombzero on February 27, 2012, 09:30:59 pm
i was gonna post something here, but then i realized it stupid arguing on these forums, everyone is dead set in their ideas with no willingness for change.
Since when? I don't see many challenging core beliefs cropping up anywhere ;)
meh, just i have yet to see someone actually accept a different opinion on a matter yet ::)
anyways as a side note, read before posting people, i just read 7 pages of the same 10 ideas.
on the topic of good regions though, many widely stigmatized religions (i.e. paganism) are often outcasted by major religions due to believing that heaven is not truly 'good' and hell is not truly 'evil'.
many people are not taking savagery into account with their suggestions, benign evil regions aint that bad. savage good regions can be a living hell. though i believe someone made a suggestion about that reflecting in the features of good regions a few pages back.
Post by: catoblepas on February 28, 2012, 02:22:56 am
i was gonna post something here, but then i realized it stupid arguing on these forums, everyone is dead set in their ideas with no willingness for change.
Since when? I don't see many challenging core beliefs cropping up anywhere ;)
meh, just i have yet to see someone actually accept a different opinion on a matter yet ::)
anyways as a side note, read before posting people, i just read 7 pages of the same 10 ideas.
on the topic of good regions though, many widely stigmatized religions (i.e. paganism) are often outcasted by major religions due to believing that heaven is not truly 'good' and hell is not truly 'evil'.
many people are not taking savagery into account with their suggestions, benign evil regions aint that bad. savage good regions can be a living hell. though i believe someone made a suggestion about that reflecting in the features of good regions a few pages back.
Well I for one included savage good regions in my suggestion :). I think there are plenty of ways to make [GOOD] regions more challenging in a way that diverges from [EVIL] regions, and further ways that [SAVAGE][GOOD] can diverge from [SAVAGE][BENIGN] Benign should of course be peaceful, and probably the safest sort of palce to set up a fort. This can be accomplished bythings like faster growing plants and trees, peaceful wildlife, and helpful elves. Being a magical area however, forts that indulge in overhunting, overlogging, strip mining. elf murder, etc could suffer setbacks. being a benign region, these would best be served as passive ways of making the fort hardder to maintain. Plants would become bitter and nasty in taste to the dwarves, making them unhappy to eat them, animals would avoid the area. rain would not fall on the dwarves, elves would not trade, wood would splinter when worked, axes and picks would shatter when used, etc. Evil areas seem to be naturally adverse to the living, benign good areas should just encourage you to abandon, but only if your dwarves are behaving badly.
For savage good areas, there are other ways that this sort of thing can be dealt with. Faries playing tricks on you by stealing things, opening doors, confusing dwarves, putting them to sleep, kidnapping children etc seem like potential features. It could also be the case that the wildlife could be hostile, unlike in benign regions, with active predators.
In conclusion, I think that evil regions are pretty well implemented right now, but making [GOOD] regions simply more lethal is probably not the best solution, as it would not differentiate them much from evil regions, therefore I think they should be overall less lethal than good regions, but should have penalties for taking advantage of this trait, and should have their own unique challenges. A few scenarios:
Satyrs have arrived at the fortress! They have brought with them lots of alcohol, do you allow your dwarves to participate in their wild drinking, getting free alcohol in the process at the possible loss of productivity? Or do you raise the drawbridges and upset them?
Faries can be useful when invasion strikes, but do you want to put up with their pranks and baby snatching in exchange for it?
Trees are crowding out your farm plots. You could cut them down, but cut down too many and you might anger them! Rampaging ents could be a dire consequence to the overeager logger.
An elf has come to preach the virtues of a life at harmony with nature. Do you let him speak to your dwarves, possibly with the consequence of soem of them changing religion, becoming vegetarian, or even leaving to join the elven forest retreats? refusing or attacking him could lead to him letting out a horrible curse, changing various dwarves into trees and animals.
I think there are a lot of possible ways where they could be expanded, it's just a matter of defining the difference between [SAVAGE] [BENIGN] and normal good biomes.
Post by: Watsst on February 28, 2012, 11:17:12 am
Good Surroundings: Serene, Mirthful and Joyous Wilds.
Serene meaning its peaceful, mirthful meaning its plentiful, and joyous wilds for for lands full of wonderful goods and animals. All of these dont make any suggestions for the blessed by the gods approach, but is more implying that 'good' refers to the quality of the area. Its kind of like a oasis in a desert, a jewel of the land, an area teaming with life beyond that of the lands around it.
Stuff like arch angels shouldnt be coming from these areas, just as demons dont come from evil areas. Ents and super trees no, not because I think they wouldnt be cool, but because it doesnt fit with the 'better place to settle' mentality. Also because I think it would be far cooler if you could find them in lots of different places, as well as evil zones, giant rotten tree full of poison vine creature things. It should go for characteristics that make settling there a better place to be, but not necessarily easy. It should be good to whoever is in the area, friend or foe, and perhaps work in ways you werent expecting that causes problems. Rapid tree growth, more births, healing mists, massive monsoons, stronger fatter creatures (dwarves, goblins, all alike).
Post by: Neonivek on February 28, 2012, 11:19:14 am
Quote
because it doesnt fit with the 'better place to settle' mentality
Why would good lands be better to settle on? It is a land of "Good" not a land of benevolence.
Quote
but is more implying that 'good' refers to the quality of the area. Its kind of like a oasis in a desert, a jewel of the land, an area teaming with life beyond that of the lands around it.
Actually good lands are lands that for lack of a better word have a specific theme enforced on it. They arn't simply really great lands (which already exist as unsavage woodlands, with rivers, and mountains.).
In the future when good and evil lands are tossed out... "Good" are simply lands where the chief concepts behind them are things like music or fertility.
Quote
It should be good to whoever is in the area, friend or foe, and perhaps work in ways you werent expecting that causes problems
Good lands can still have their own sets of problems within the concept of good. In the same way unicorns used to be the king of beasts and pixies are the most annoying pests in the game.
You are dealing with a land where the creatures exemplify the concepts of virtue. A Knight is a symbol of virtue as well yet one you can easily understand can be violent and dangerous. In fact "Righteous Anger" is a thing and "Justice" even teetering on revenge are also concepts of good.
Good lands don't have to be so super benevolent that the problem is that your enemies are blessed too (though that isn't exactly a terrible thing... though one that opens up a lot of plotholes). It can also be lands where creatures exemplifying virtue live and as such the lands are more dangerous as a result.
Also Angels should be Diety servants... not creatures from good lands. Mind you not that there cannot be sentient creatures in good lands.
As well "Childlike Wonder" is also a concept of goodness, but as "Wonderland" shows us, it isn't a safe or desirable outcome to live in. Many concepts can be "good" but not desirable.
Good in the same way as evil lands is ultimately a "style" but not a true representation of form and should be treated as such. As well you are also limiting the aspect of "good" away from more interesting outcomes, in order to make "good" the exact opposite of "evil" instead of really recognising that they are superficially the same concept in different forms.
As well I will state again that if Good lands ever reach a point where they are outright beneficial... then the races should live there unless there is something that prevents them. (such as not knowing about it)
I am not against lands that are so blessed that they are an outright boon. It is just that it isn't what "good" lands are.
Also heck if you settle on a land that is an outright boon. Is there a reason why everyone shouldn't try to take it? Can we get an "easy mode" that makes sense?
As well I am also trying to push the idea people have away from "Fluffy cloud" good and more into a less contemporary idea of good. Even if the bubble grass does... kinda push it.
Post by: Watsst on February 28, 2012, 12:45:08 pm
Quote
Why would good lands be better to settle on? It is a land of "Good" not a land of benevolence.
I dont really get why people keep saying land of benevolence, definition for benevolence: disposition to do good, land of disposition to be good? when did I say anything like that? And if evil lands have poisonous rain, toxic fog and undead, shouldnt good lands go for more of a polar opposite?
Quote
Actually good lands are lands that for lack of a better word have a specific theme enforced on it. They arn't simply really great lands (which already exist as unsavage woodlands, with rivers, and mountains.)
Im saying the lands are so great they are unique, and if you read the bottom of my other post you'll see I did say a few things that arent anything like woodlands or rivers or mountains.
I read more of yours but it seems you missed a few concepts I was going for. Along with my other post, what I suggest is its too much of a boon, a double edged sword if you will. And why shouldnt other civs settle once in a while in a good area? Not all civs should, yes I agree, maybe some twist so its not open to every single civ.
So double edged boons:
Rapid tree growth = pinning you in, build build build to keep areas free.
Larger stronger creatures = better for meat and pets, but dangerous, powerful. And wouldnt it be cool if a goblin fort on a good land produced a sort of uber-goblin everyonce in a while in legends to have a goblin born larger than his size, and maybe become a legendary king, or arrive in a seige.
With healing mists = As I said in one of my posts perhaps some 'virtueous' creatures as you say heal faster than 'non-virtueous', so a battle could be turned from beneficial mist in a bad way.
Luck = maybe a goblin will get lucky against your legendary axeman, oh woe is he.
Quick breeding = includes vermin, and imagine all the cats and extra dangerous animals about.
And as I was saying, Im against the blessed idea, its more about super fertile lands, while evil is posinous lands.
Post by: Neonivek on February 28, 2012, 01:46:34 pm
Also funny that you included "Perpetual Plague" as part of the good concept.
Quote
I do really get why people keep saying land of benevolence, definition for benevolence: disposition to do good, land of disposition to be good? when did I say anything like that? And if evil lands have poisonous rain, toxic fog and undead, shouldnt good lands go for more of a polar opposite?
They are seperate concepts altogether and should be treated as such so they have their own unique flavor and not be made into exact opposites of eachother (ignoring that it is what is going to happen).
Also the difference between Good and Benevolent as such is simple. A Crusader is "good", but is a malevolent force.
Quote
Not all civs should
Why? There is no reason not to.
Post by: irmo on February 28, 2012, 04:19:00 pm
Also the difference between Good and Benevolent as such is simple. A Crusader is "good", but is a malevolent force.
The crusader thinks he's doing the right thing by liberating Jerusalem from the enemies of the Church. You think he's not. Why would you describe him as "good" at all? Because he thinks he is? (Doesn't everyone think that?) Isn't it more accurate to say "the crusader thinks he's good, but he's wrong"?
Post by: EnigmaticHat on February 28, 2012, 04:47:43 pm
Post by: Neonivek on February 28, 2012, 06:51:55 pm
Also the difference between Good and Benevolent as such is simple. A Crusader is "good", but is a malevolent force.
The crusader thinks he's doing the right thing by liberating Jerusalem from the enemies of the Church. You think he's not. Why would you describe him as "good" at all? Because he thinks he is? (Doesn't everyone think that?) Isn't it more accurate to say "the crusader thinks he's good, but he's wrong"?
A Crusader is a icon of all that is good and holy in this world and will champion good across the land.
He is good in the sense that he is a concept and symbol of good. He isn't because we know the difference between the concept of virtue and true virtue. Yet we still can recognise the symbol even when it is marred in reality.
Which is the point. "Good lands" are more of a representation of good and virtue but in no way genuinly reflect such. Since along with virtues like hope and charity we get others like Righteous anger, Justice, and even beauty. In otherwords "Good lands" shouldn't be anymore genuinly "good" then evil lands are "evil".
This is of course ignoring "Fairy Tale" Good lands.
Post by: WillowLuman on February 28, 2012, 07:08:42 pm
Post by: Neonivek on February 28, 2012, 07:12:49 pm
But this is all ignoring the fact that evil lands are genuine hell-holes of despair.
And there you go. Not genuin Evil.
Post by: G-Flex on February 28, 2012, 07:17:40 pm
Let's spend several pages of thread length arguing about what "good" and "evil" regions should be like, despite operating on totally different, baseless definitions of the words that we're effectively pulling out of our respective asses. Let's argue about what those places should be even though we can't even agree on the terms involved, and stick to our own baseless personal definitions while pretending those definitions are universal and objective.
We haven't done that yet, have we?
Post by: Neonivek on February 28, 2012, 07:19:59 pm
I have an idea on how to turn this thread around.
Let's spend several pages of thread length arguing about what "good" and "evil" regions should be like, despite operating on totally different, baseless definitions of the words that we're effectively pulling out of our respective asses. Let's argue about what those places should be even though we can't even agree on the terms involved, and stick to our own baseless personal definitions while pretending those definitions are universal and objective.
We haven't done that yet, have we?
Ohh no people have differing points that are generating a LOT of ideas of possible ways to do good lands and other sphere lands in the future? THE HORROR!
Though seriously G-Flex. Differing ideas are what we should be aiming for. Otherwise there would be no point in these suggestion threads.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 28, 2012, 07:28:03 pm
New ideas (even if they are conflicting ones) = Good
Post by: Neonivek on February 28, 2012, 07:37:06 pm
As long as everyone can discuss their differing views without getting personal about it, progress is made and the best models (or at the very least some good suggestions) arise.
New ideas (even if they are conflicting ones) = Good
Right now we have three models that people have brought up.
1) Fluffy Cloud (With two sub models: Easy mode, and Double Edged mode)
2) Fairy Tale
3) Malevolent Goodness
Though I should probably look more carefully. Don't treat these as written in stone or well researched.
Post by: Starver on February 28, 2012, 07:53:12 pm
A Crusader is a icon of all that is good and holy in this world and will champion good across the land.
You start off on the wrong foot here.
The term "Crusade" has so many unfortunate connotations. Although it might mean "all that is [intended to be] good and holy!" to Western ears, it has probably the same connotation to other cultures as did the whole "The British are coming!" thing to contemporaries of Paul Revere[1].
I think there's two ways to think of this. The least defensible is that there are moral absolutes, where there are good deaths (caused by the definitely good guys, on the definitely bad guys) and bad deaths (vice-versa). A concentration of the former creates "good zones", and a concentration of the latter "evil zones". As masters of the universe (or Toady, as the ultimate arbiter), it is possible that we could make such a decision to apply to our world, but it still seems rather arbitrary. And consider the 'opposing sides' in the film Small Soldiers, if you know that pre-millennium film. The all-American-hero toys are most definitely the antagonists, while the 'monster-like' gorgonite toys who have been designated as the bad guys (by the execs of the company, not the original designers) are best considered to be the put-upon 'heroic' characters. (And, there are plenty of other examples where good and evil prejudices are messed about with. Anyone else get the revelation in Terminator 2 about The T-800? Those who aren't so young as to have known this prior to getting to see it, of course.)
The other approach is to tie Good and Evil towards (frexample, and there are other options, and problems with this particular suggestion) aspects of Life and Death. So that while Evil areas have deadly dangers and an abundance of undead, Good areas have a life-sustaining aspect (largely indiscriminate to the object of the effect, save for perhaps greater or lesser degrees according to the object's suitability) and excessive birthing... or something similar. There are problems with this specific example, of course, but even this leads the way to various novel dangers of being in the Good zone. Like that of (if not fatally so, certainly always on the edge) starvation as the number of mouths to feed outpaces the supplies/grazing available... I already find that (at least in .31) running the butcheries at top speed does not keep up with my rapidly outpacing populations of animals, while at the same time finding that I cannot support the larger grazing beasts (even those that are not intrinsically doomed by their inability to feed completely enough, like the elephants).
(Although I don't believe I've done justice in the above expositions, editing them down as I have, so naturally YMMV.)
((6 New replies while I was editing that? Probably been ninjaed/outdated.))
[1] Not that it was likely he actually even used those words, when it came down to it. He was necessarily more clandestine than to cry out as he is supposed to, and many who heeded the warnings he did carry considered themselves as British. But YGTI.
Post by: catoblepas on February 28, 2012, 08:02:32 pm
Thoughts?
Post by: WillowLuman on February 28, 2012, 08:05:11 pm
We have a lot of good ideas, IMO. But I think that if all, or even many were implemented, then things could get kinda crowded with features. Perhaps, in an effort to make individual [GOOD] regions more unique from one another, 2-4 features could be semi randomly chosen from a list? It would keep each biome unique without having too much feature bloat. Noone wants their dwarves to be getting drunk with satyrs, turned into trees, attacked by unicorns, getting their socks stolen by faries, and beign put to sleep by magical mists all at the same time, that would just be too chaotic. Good regions should have a few unique traits too set them apart from normal and evil biomes, but should try not to feel formulaic.
Thoughts?
Like how huskifying mists, dead plants, and blood rains are only potential features of any given evil zone? Sounds pretty good to me
Post by: G-Flex on February 28, 2012, 08:10:15 pm
Ohh no people have differing points that are generating a LOT of ideas of possible ways to do good lands and other sphere lands in the future? THE HORROR!
Though seriously G-Flex. Differing ideas are what we should be aiming for. Otherwise there would be no point in these suggestion threads.
My point is that people are saying things like "evil is this, not that" or "'good' doesn't mean this", and arguing from completely different definitions, even though all these words are, for all intents and purposes here, defined completely arbitrarily to begin with.
Differences of opinion are fine, but you can't discuss something reasonably when people are using different definitions of the terms involved, there is no real agreed-upon definition to begin with, and they're acting like their own personal definitions are somehow objectively correct.
Not like that's all that's happening in this thread, but it's something people have to pay mind to in order to avoid falling into unproductive discussion.
Post by: NTJedi on February 29, 2012, 02:39:11 pm
The game is called Dwarf Fortress and involves us playing the "dwarves" for the worlds we're generating. The status of Good, Neutral and Evil are based on the dwarves we're playing where EVIL is naturally more painful, threatening and difficult as viewed by the entire "dwarven race" not the views of ogres, wolves, demons, etc., .
Some might argue they can make their dwarves behave with evil actions such as turning them all into vampires feeding on future migrants, killing elves, etc., etc., . Just because the dwarven group you're playing decides to go postal, crazy or wannabe evil... doesn't change the view or actions of the rest of the "dwarven race" which is where these categories are created. The EVIL creatures/areas are also not going to suddenly accept you into their world of darkness... those who try are merely twisted outcasts at best. For example just because a human starts behaving, acting and hunting like a wolf doesn't mean they will be accepted by the wolves. If the game by design allowed us to play as ogres, wolves, demons, etc., then yes we should change the titles good, neutral and evil. However we play a single race within a realm and by default the Good are friendly/comfortable areas.
*On a technical side note I strongly disagree having the developers spending their time changing the categories of good, neutral and evil as compared to working other more important issues. All those suggesting the developers should change the categories as compared to working "broken" issues should be sealed in a 1X1 room.
Post by: G-Flex on February 29, 2012, 02:43:42 pm
The game is called Dwarf Fortress and involves us playing the "dwarves" for the worlds we're generating. The status of Good, Neutral and Evil are based on the dwarves we're playing where EVIL is naturally more painful, threatening and difficult as viewed by the entire "dwarven race" not the views of ogres, wolves, demons, etc., .
This is a completely backward way of viewing it. The game is moving toward being less dwarf-centric, not moreso. Things like "good" and "evil" in the game are explicitly not by dwarven standards, otherwise why aren't they using good-flavored animals more or have the [GOOD] tag?
The good/evil/benign/savage surroundings aren't based on dwarven standards, they're based on kind of vague objective cosmological forces. Good, evil, etc. impact all civilizations the same way in worldgen, in theory. An evil place is still an evil place if you're a goblin; you just happen to be evil as well.
Post by: NTJedi on February 29, 2012, 03:03:57 pm
This is a completely backward way of viewing it. The game is moving toward being less dwarf-centric, not moreso. Things like "good" and "evil" in the game are explicitly not by dwarven standards, otherwise why aren't they using good-flavored animals more or have the [GOOD] tag?Good flavored animals exist in the good areas and evil flavored animals exist in the evil areas. The frequency is irrelevant.
The good/evil/benign/savage surroundings aren't based on dwarven standards, they're based on kind of vague objective cosmological forces. Good, evil, etc. impact all civilizations the same way in worldgen, in theory. An evil place is still an evil place if you're a goblin; you just happen to be evil as well."vague objective cosmological forces"?? I don't find any evidence of this being true beyond your own mind.
An evil place from a goblins view can be home and happiness and thus from its point of view it would be a "GOOD" environment.
In any case I'm sure 99% of the community would agree the developers should not waste time on something so trivial as compared to more important issues!
Post by: G-Flex on February 29, 2012, 03:07:33 pm
This is a completely backward way of viewing it. The game is moving toward being less dwarf-centric, not moreso. Things like "good" and "evil" in the game are explicitly not by dwarven standards, otherwise why aren't they using good-flavored animals more or have the [GOOD] tag?Good flavored animals exist in the good areas and evil flavored animals exist in the evil areas. The frequency is irrelevant.
I'm not sure what you mean by "frequency". I'm saying that "good" and "evil" in Dwarf Fortress aren't subjective things as measured by dwarven standards.
Quote
"vague objective cosmological forces"?? I don't find any evidence of this being true beyond your own mind.
An evil place from a goblins view can be home and happiness and thus from its point of view it would be a "GOOD" environment.
Except it's not, because goblins are evil. They are explicitly and objectively defined by the game as "evil" along with evil regions, evil wood, and evil animals. Goblins are evil. Demons are evil. A bunch of other things are evil. They don't turn "good" when you become something else that is also evil. They aren't relative terms.
Post by: NTJedi on February 29, 2012, 03:14:32 pm
Except it's not, because goblins are evil. They are explicitly and objectively defined by the game as "evil" along with evil regions, evil wood, and evil animals. Goblins are evil. Demons are evil. A bunch of other things are evil. They don't turn "good" when you become something else that is also evil. They aren't relative terms.They are evil as designed by the game per estimated views of the dwarven civilization.
IF the game allowed us to play as goblins then the terms good, neutral and evil should be changed. Since we play as dwarves the current descriptions are fine and should not change... especially when there's OBVIOUSLY more important issues.
Post by: NTJedi on February 29, 2012, 03:17:44 pm
I'm not sure what you mean by "frequency". I'm saying that "good" and "evil" in Dwarf Fortress aren't subjective things as measured by dwarven standards.I believe my theory is more logical and reasonable as compared to your theory of "vague objective cosmological forces"?? LOL
Post by: G-Flex on February 29, 2012, 03:19:47 pm
They are evil as designed by the game per estimated views of the dwarven civilization.
IF the game allowed us to play as goblins then the terms good, neutral and evil should be changed. Since we play as dwarves the current descriptions are fine and should not change... especially when there's OBVIOUSLY more important issues.
I really don't understand why you make the assumption that those terms have anything to do with dwarven society when they obviously have impacts on the world whether dwarves are alive in the world or not. I don't know why you're making the assumption that "good" and "evil" can't refer to objective concepts rather than some subjective cultural thing, especially when it's obvious they aren't subjective cultural things for the reason I mentioned, like the fact that they have ramifications on the gameworld that have nothing to do with any particular creature or civilization's ethics.
I'm not sure what you mean by "frequency". I'm saying that "good" and "evil" in Dwarf Fortress aren't subjective things as measured by dwarven standards.I believe my theory is more logical and reasonable as compared to your theory of "vague objective cosmological forces"?? LOL
I don't know why it's not "logical" or "reasonable" to assume that "good" and "evil" are just qualities of the world, forces within the world, or aspects of things in the world, that exist independently of any civilization's ethical considerations. It's not like it hasn't been done before in plenty of existing fantasy, and any actual evidence in the game makes this assumption fairly reasonable.
And I still have no idea what you meant by "frequency" or why.
Post by: irmo on February 29, 2012, 03:31:05 pm
This is a completely backward way of viewing it. The game is moving toward being less dwarf-centric, not moreso.
To its detriment, mostly. Putting the focus back on the dwarves as protagonists would be an improvement, and defining "good" and "evil" by dwarven standards is one way to do that.
Post by: NTJedi on February 29, 2012, 03:46:36 pm
I really don't understand why you make the assumption that those terms have anything to do with dwarven society when they obviously have impacts on the world whether dwarves are alive in the world or not. I don't know why you're making the assumption that "good" and "evil" can't refer to objective concepts rather than some subjective cultural thing, especially when it's obvious they aren't subjective cultural things for the reason I mentioned, like the fact that they have ramifications on the gameworld that have nothing to do with any particular creature or civilization's ethics.The assumption is made because of the MANY other game references are dwarven references and not goblin references. If the dwarves did not exist in the world the dwarven fortress game could not be played by design. It's therefore safe to identify this dwarven race as the main design of the game and since the terms good, neutral and evil are subjective views it's safe to assume they are the subjective views of dwarves or the developer himself. Since it's more professional for a developer to remain subjective I lean towards the dwarves.
I don't know why it's not "logical" or "reasonable" to assume that "good" and "evil" are just qualities of the world, forces within the world, or aspects of things in the world, that exist independently of any civilization's ethical considerations. It's not like it hasn't been done before in plenty of existing fantasy, and any actual evidence in the game makes this assumption fairly reasonable.What one individual/creature might consider a good action another individual/creature might consider an evil action. If you were to awake tomorrow as a goblin in the dwarven fortress realm you wouldn't view yourself as evil. There is definite evil and good, however each side views what they're doing as justified and part of their lifestyle... so a goblin or monster views themself as good. So if we played a game as goblins then these should be changed, but since we play the game as only dwarves this should not change. What's more important it sounds like neither of us want this to be changed so discussing the topic is not helpful.
And I still have no idea what you meant by "frequency" or why.Frequency was in response to your comment "good flavored animals more".
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 29, 2012, 04:01:22 pm
-snip-
Was it really necessary to point out Dwarfs in Dwarf Fortress? Now back to the suggestions for adding depth, reward or risk to good regions?
Quite honestly this discussion of what evil and good is is becoming a derail, stay at least mildly on topic.
Good lands can still have their own sets of problems within the concept of good. In the same way unicorns used to be the king of beasts and pixies are the most annoying pests in the game.
I still stand by this.
Post by: NTJedi on February 29, 2012, 04:10:54 pm
Was it really necessary to point out Dwarfs in Dwarf Fortress?Yes, for added emphasis.
Now back to the suggestions for adding depth, reward or risk to good regions?Depth could include enchantments, creating powerful food, unique visitors
Rewards could include taming/training strong holy beings/creatures or unique rewards from the land such as healing
Risk... overall these regions should be more "safe" so new players feel they can try learning the game someplace without RISK. As mentioned earlier an event after a dozen years perhaps some strong evil army trys corrupting the land.
Post by: Dark Like Snipes on February 29, 2012, 04:39:33 pm
Post by: WillowLuman on February 29, 2012, 07:10:43 pm
Post by: Dark Like Snipes on February 29, 2012, 07:17:18 pm
As for as the objectiveness of good and how it should be defined, we can argue about the subjectivity of what is good and what isn't until we're all blue in the fingers and have gotten nowhere, or just decide that we're talking about a video game (albeit a highly intricate one) and that proving objective or inherent good and evil isn't really necessary. We can either leave these concepts out of the game entirely, or decide that common notions of good and evil should exist in some tangible form and have reflections in the game world. I'm inclined to go with the latter since we can already dig to a hell full of demons or embark in good and evil biomes, and given how prominent the conflicts between the forces of good and evil are in most fantasy, I think they should be in the game.
Now the question is to figure out what interpretation of good and evil you want to use. Personally I think the broad interpretations of good and evil in Dungeons and Dragons would fit this game well. In basic summation, in D&D evil means accomplishing your goals at the expense of others, while good means accomplishing your goals in spite of others, and there are real entities that watch over these sorts of behaviors. The way I picture it, the good and evil biomes should be highly linked to the divinity of their respective nature, and you should be judged, rewarded, and punished based on your actions. For example, say that a nearby human town is under attack and many refugees flee to your hills/mountain. In a good area you would be expected to shelter, feed, and protect them, and for extra good points you send them back home after the attack is over well provisioned and with a lot of building materials, causing your good gods to smile down on you. An evil biome on the other hand would reward you for bringing the refugees in, pilfering any valuables they happen to be carrying, and either sacrificing them for blessings or making them into slaves, much to the chagrin of the evil deities. Or in another scenario, say you're being sieged for the first time. In the good area the game may recognize that you're probably not prepared for the incoming enemy, and you'll receive a message through your priest or spirit medium saying that the deity watching your fortress will smite your enemies if you increase happiness in your fortress, or prepare more dwarves for war to help defend allies or something of that nature. On the other hand in the evil area you would get a message from the evil deity looking at your situation and say "Hahaha, I see you're in a bit of a predicament, sacrifice Urist McLegendaryminer to me and I will bless your dwarves with the ability to crush their foes." If you accept and sacrifice Urist, then three of your dwarves are chosen at random and made into great axedwarves with demonic armor grafted to their skin. If you deny these requests too frequently then the deity will start to see you as a threat and an affront to his land, and will send forces out to purge you. That's when the deities of the opposite alignment can come in and offer their aid, and all of a sudden there's some blue in that purple zone or vice versa, assuming that your actions have brought you in favor with those deities of course. The area that your fortress is in shouldn't just determine the creatures that inhabit it, it should also heavily influence the behavior and nature of your dwarves. For example, dwarves in good areas should be more resistant to sadness and tantrums, but when it does happen it should be disastrous due to how interconnected everyone is, while in evil areas tantrums and murders would be more frequent but less disastrous for the fort at large because the environment necessitates them not caring as much about each other.
The divine deities should also be highly concerned with battling their opposites, expanding good or evil territory and so on. Deities arm their followers for these conflicts with advanced healing abilities, paladins or shadow knights, destructive spells, or any other number of things that you can imagine, and call on their fortresses and towns to send soldiers out for war. This would also necessitate being diplomatic with neutral civilizations, and either converting them to your way or purging them from the map. This would make for some interesting embark choices, since you could potentially send a small no-nonsense military force to colonize an area on the periphery of the enemy area for the greater good (or evil as it were), or start as a neutral settlement and then work your way into the favors of one deity or another after building your shrine and making the surrounding area good or evil (and fulfilling the obligations that come with it), or you could be a neutral civilization that wants no part in a planar war and seeks to purge divine influence from the world for the sake of mortals. Or of course you'd still be able to set divinity to zero in your world parameters and have the conflict between good and evil be no more than an abstract concept in your world.
I would love to see a system implemented like this, and I have a feeling that it's going to be similar to the sphere and divinity system that Toady puts in. There's far more interesting ways to implement good and evil beyond simple healing rain or evil fogs, though they should still be in the game. You can also implement lawful and chaotic alignments for these areas, for instance having a chaotic good area fully regrow all its forests randomly, or have a lawful evil biome that rains elf blood from Sandstone to Timber every year. There's a lot of possibilities here, which is why I like it far more than having good areas just being different colored and slightly twisted evil or have them automatically defaulted to forest areas full of unicorns and elves. The forces of good are far more diverse than that.
Edit: Also how do you delete posts? Didn't notice my little flub up before.
Post by: Neonivek on February 29, 2012, 07:39:44 pm
Quote
Personally I think the broad interpretations of good and evil in Dungeons and Dragons would fit this game well.
Though by all means let us not... actually use it since their alignment system since even within their own system they break it and have many exceptions, omissions, and holes within it. It is why even Wizards of the Coast ignore their own allignment system.
Also you are sort of incorrect about the "Good and evil" allignment. As you are mistaking will and intent. Good characters spite creatures all the time and kill them by the bucket loads. Many evil characters also are law abiding citizens who would never genuinly bring someone to harm (unless you read the allignment as it is in the guides... where the Evil allignments are broken and don't follow the rules of the game)
Post by: Dark Like Snipes on February 29, 2012, 08:16:13 pm
QuotePersonally I think the broad interpretations of good and evil in Dungeons and Dragons would fit this game well.
Though by all means let us not... actually use it since their alignment system since even within their own system they break it and have many exceptions, omissions, and holes within it. It is why even Wizards of the Coast ignore their own allignment system.
Also you are sort of incorrect about the "Good and evil" allignment. As you are mistaking will and intent. Good characters spite creatures all the time and kill them by the bucket loads. Many evil characters also are law abiding citizens who would never genuinly bring someone to harm (unless you read the allignment as it is in the guides... where the Evil allignments are broken and don't follow the rules of the game)
It's not perfect, but that's the reason that it's a pen and paper ruleset and not a proper religious tome (and even those have holes and gaps). I'm not meaning a literal implementation of it, characters don't need to have an alignment on their personality page, I just think it would be a decent inspiration for the system. And an evil person may not physically attack everyone in sight, but they will build their ambitions by exploiting others in any number of ways. A simplified view sure, but it kind of needs to be for implementation in a video game.
Post by: Neonivek on February 29, 2012, 08:18:27 pm
Post by: aattss on February 29, 2012, 09:41:54 pm
Post by: Starver on February 29, 2012, 10:00:36 pm
Similarly, when I first tried D&D, I was attracted to the idea of being a Paladin. But I was discouraged from this idea by being told how difficult it was to do anything as a Paladin without some experience behind one's metagaming to in-character justify being able to attack and kill the various random XP-fodder monsters necessary to progress. But I later saw Paladins played so well that one of them could even justify the killing of a fellow group-member of long standing (it was expeditious to do so, but not strictly within the remit of the attentions of a supposedly extremely-lawful/extremely-good character).
There's wiggle room in such systems. And perspective. And the needs of Narrativium are also a prime influence, especially upon NPCs where the GM is more DM Of The Rings than Darths And Droids in nature... And I see Toady as the ultimate GM (or getting there, at least[4]), albeit by proxy.
[1] Steampunk RPG, essentially, for those that don't know it. Set in a mock-Victorian universe with HG Wells tech and more... But societally, and stylistically, the caricaturisation was very much Victorian. IN SPACE![2]
[2] Well, it included 'Perelandra'-esque interplanatary empire-building and exploration... You could stay earhbound (or hop onto Nemo-esque submarines) according to the particular campaign plot/derail you were into...
[3] Not me, I was often an engineer/inventor in that genre of game. Once was even a "Scott Montgomery", with my own liftwood spaceship, invented 'space torpedoes' for it, had speaking tube arrangements that you'd make a rather particular whistle down to attract attention of the rest of the crew.
[4] And he's already making his worlds obey one of the number one rules for both screenwriting and proper RPG campaigning: Always know what your characters are doing when they're not on the screen (interacting with the PCs).
Post by: Wastedlabor on March 01, 2012, 09:23:46 am
As a practical example, in a good biome, if grazing animals were starving due to drought, dwarves would share their harvest and let everybody be a little hungrier. A consequence of that, though, is that, because that system has the power to impose starving, a goblin siege could burn the pastures and make the system kill the dwarves.
An absolute good biome could be tricky on its own because there's no wiggle room. If some trees have clogged a water channel, you can't cut them now and compensate mother nature later; maybe your plump helmet stocks are so low that paying back for the (inedible) trees throws you into a spiral of starving and hunting for vermin instead of getting work done. A non sentient system cannot make judgements about how much it can trust you to repay in the future, so it would want to apply the compensations required to preserve "good" immediately.
Post by: Neonivek on March 01, 2012, 09:26:28 am
Good and evil lands are not actually "good" and "Evil". So they cannot really be "Absolute good". Mind you this isn't an objection to what you are saying but more of a "you don't have to worry about reflecting your idea of absolute good, because that concept doesn't exist in Dwarf Fortress as each race, being, and diety has their own interpretation that isn't enforced by the universe".
Post by: Babylon on March 06, 2012, 12:22:44 am
Post by: Archereon on March 06, 2012, 12:04:01 pm
Rather, they should have great benefits, but be extremely demanding, and will turn passive aggressive at the slightest provocation, and actively hostile a little beyond that.
Cut down tons of trees and hunt lots of animals?
Pixies start harassing your dwarves, stealing stuff, and worse sometimes.
On the other hand, you get healing rain (which also helps invaders) or something like that.
Post by: NTJedi on March 06, 2012, 06:20:49 pm
Post by: dizzyelk on March 06, 2012, 06:50:48 pm
I think the game should overall stay the same in regards to good, neutral and evil because new players generally need an easy relaxed area such as the current good areas to learn the game. One of the main reasons new players give-up on dwarf fortress is because the game is so complex... we don't need to make good areas more demanding or difficult and scare off the struggling new players to even a greater extent. For this reason good areas need to remain easy and peaceful... the good, neutral and evil areas are essentially one of the main variables for determining the games difficulty levels.
The problem with that, though, is that good areas are no more easy than a tame/wilderness area. The only difference is the unicorns and whatnot wandering through. A good area should FEEL different than a nonaligned area.
Post by: Leatra on March 07, 2012, 06:23:48 am
I think the game should overall stay the same in regards to good, neutral and evil because new players generally need an easy relaxed area such as the current good areas to learn the game. One of the main reasons new players give-up on dwarf fortress is because the game is so complex... we don't need to make good areas more demanding or difficult and scare off the struggling new players to even a greater extent. For this reason good areas need to remain easy and peaceful... the good, neutral and evil areas are essentially one of the main variables for determining the games difficulty levels.
This.
Post by: Neonivek on March 07, 2012, 11:12:40 am
It REALLY cannot get any easier then a No savagry forest or grassland or mountain.
Any easier then that and you are babying the player and removing core elements from the game.
Post by: Leatra on March 07, 2012, 11:45:12 am
We already have "Easy mode" lands.
It REALLY cannot get any easier then a No savagry forest or grassland or mountain.
Any easier then that and you are babying the player and removing core elements from the game.
I still play with no aquifer.
Post by: Neonivek on March 07, 2012, 12:42:55 pm
We already have "Easy mode" lands.
It REALLY cannot get any easier then a No savagry forest or grassland or mountain.
Any easier then that and you are babying the player and removing core elements from the game.
I still play with no aquifer.
I mean even bigger elements then Aquifers. Aquifers are nothing compared to the "Easy mode" we are suggesting here.
Post by: Sadrice on March 07, 2012, 02:59:30 pm
As for good regions, I don't like the idea of direct analogues of evil effects (though healing rain might be interesting).
I really like the idea of there being severe consequences to messing with the locals in a good region (by cutting trees, harvesting plants, planting aboveground farms, killing the wildlife, open pit mining, etc). Perhaps the elves could be even less tolerant of clearcutting good regions, while not minding so much if you fell all of the dead trees in an evil region?
Post by: WillowLuman on March 07, 2012, 07:53:21 pm
We already have "Easy mode" lands.
It REALLY cannot get any easier then a No savagry forest or grassland or mountain.
Any easier then that and you are babying the player and removing core elements from the game.
What I'd suggest for making good "easy mode" would be to make those other areas harder, and leave good as-is.
Post by: Neonivek on March 07, 2012, 07:59:12 pm
We already have "Easy mode" lands.
It REALLY cannot get any easier then a No savagry forest or grassland or mountain.
Any easier then that and you are babying the player and removing core elements from the game.
What I'd suggest for making good "easy mode" would be to make those other areas harder, and leave good as-is.
Why would a peaceful forest be more difficult? It already has steriotypical fantasy wolves.
Post by: WillowLuman on March 07, 2012, 09:28:46 pm
We already have "Easy mode" lands.
It REALLY cannot get any easier then a No savagry forest or grassland or mountain.
Any easier then that and you are babying the player and removing core elements from the game.
What I'd suggest for making good "easy mode" would be to make those other areas harder, and leave good as-is.
Why would a peaceful forest be more difficult? It already has steriotypical fantasy wolves.
Like make the farming more realistic, so that food is more difficult to get, except in good areas where you can grow some things out of season or in the wrong type of soil. Not introducing more savage wildlife to non-savage areas.
Post by: irmo on March 07, 2012, 09:30:03 pm
Like make the farming more realistic, so that food is more difficult to get, except in good areas where you can grow some things out of season or in the wrong type of soil. Not introducing more savage wildlife to non-savage areas.
Like if you had to grow crops in specific seasons, and nothing would grow in winter, and then you'd have to irrigate all your farms again in the spring. Some sort of mechanic like that.
Post by: WillowLuman on March 07, 2012, 11:06:59 pm
Like make the farming more realistic, so that food is more difficult to get, except in good areas where you can grow some things out of season or in the wrong type of soil. Not introducing more savage wildlife to non-savage areas.
Like if you had to grow crops in specific seasons, and nothing would grow in winter, and then you'd have to irrigate all your farms again in the spring. Some sort of mechanic like that.
Exactly. Normal areas could have that, but you could grow out of season or skip irrigating for a year in good regions.
Post by: teres_draconis on March 08, 2012, 07:09:10 pm
I like the idea of Angels instead of Demons in the underworld of Good aligned regions, with not much other than a name and description change.
I lke the idea that dwarves would (should?) need an attribute (like laziness or helpfulness) that reflects their own personal good/evil alignmenet to be attacked by surface good critters, so that Beings of Good would attack anyone who doesn't meet their personal requirements for Goodness. Consider, if you will, if You Personally were to meet an Avatar of Good (even a minor one)... would you not fear that perhaps it would smite you for your own petty (or not so petty) evils? Why should dwarves fair differently? And for those who perhaps think that additional Fun stuff should be limited in Good aligned areas, maybe put in the init files a way of controling that.. I'd put it in the same place as disabling weather, tempurature, moods and such. Maybe say something like "Dwarves Judged on Alignment - YES/NO"...
Or perhaps coming into contact with such a Being might (over time) change such things as helpfulness and courage, though that might be a harder thing to code. (Being a modder, not a programer, I don't actually know.)
Ok, this has sparked some thought in me... I will consider it in more detail so that I can maybe add something that doesn't sound so disjointed.
The moving plant things is easy-ish, though.. simply create some animals, mod to have specific plant tissues instead of meat tissues, and (if you like) set their movements to something incredibly slow. (Check out bronze colossus and wagons to see how they work, if you need some hints.) You can make them highly agressive without making them savage. ... or quick, for that matter. I have several, the vermin of which drop plant seeds instead of small remains, and the larger of which drops logs. I like to use the related tiles from the plants on which they're based to give the appearance of slow moving plants. I especially like making them bleed booze. I would like to make them change any blank soil they walk over to having grasses of that type, but I suspect that requires hard code changes. Putting in the grazing tag with a negative number fails... I now assume that that number reflects how many time units pass before a creature eats (which explains why bigger creatures have smaller numbers). Pah. If someone else figures this out, let me know, k?
Post by: WillowLuman on March 08, 2012, 07:26:38 pm
I like the idea of Angels instead of Demons in the underworld of Good aligned regions, with not much other than a name and description change.
Again, why just rename evil things and port it to good? While good regions could be more interesting, as has been said many times before we don't need a palette swap of evil regions.
Moving plants sounds cool though. I think those aren't necessarily a good concept, but more like a savage thing. Maybe evil regions could have evil thorny vine creatures, while good could have flowers or trees?
Post by: Neonivek on March 08, 2012, 07:34:25 pm
Heck Toady juggled with the concept of having the underworld have its own regions.
Post by: Sonlirain on March 08, 2012, 08:28:05 pm
Post by: Sus on March 19, 2012, 03:16:17 am
Post by: Watsst on March 19, 2012, 11:40:11 am
This is why we can't have nice things in DF; someone in our lovely little community of sociopaths has to demand that they be turned into "nice" things what kill you eleven kinds of dead. :(
I dont get the frowny face... eleven kinds of dead is awesome! But more things that kill is far better than things that make the game easier, as fortress's do tend to get stale once you've built a few things here and there. Also if people dont like the added difficulty it can be modded out.
If "nice" things are added, it should be a lot of fun when they try to kill your dwarves. As in presented in such a way that it is unique to the game. Mists nuking dwarves, rain creating crazy effects, necromancers raising the dead, vampires sneaking through your fortress. All of those have changed how people create their fortress's, where they settle, what they do, and is also great for mods. "Nice" things need to be dangerous, not easy
Post by: NTJedi on March 19, 2012, 04:31:40 pm
But more things that kill is far better than things that make the game easier, as fortress's do tend to get stale once you've built a few things here and there. Also if people dont like the added difficulty it can be modded out.I feel if people want added difficulty for good areas they should either move to more dangerous areas such as haunted OR they can use modding to make good areas more difficult thus removing the extra work required for Toady. Obviously if good areas were made more difficult a percentage of players would complain as what we're seeing in this thread and this game doesn't need drama on the forums.
In regards to fortresses becoming stale it's because there's NO CREATURES or NATURAL DISASTERS in the game which will break walls, tunnel thru earth, destroy raised bridges... thus allowing players to be 100% safe without risk or danger with the first underground gate. I feel so sorry for the sieges when they're unable to do anything except look at the fortress walls and gates.
Post by: KainInt on March 19, 2012, 04:51:06 pm
What if a 'serene rain' made your dwarves unwilling to butcher animals, or fight?
Say a siege comes, and your military rushes out to fight, when suddenly a cloud rolls over, and both the siege and your military start laying around in the grass, forced into lackadaisical moods. When the effect wears off, any advantage you had by positioning or otherwise is gone, as your dwarves and the goblins rolled around in the grass, jumbling up into a random assortment of creatures, suddenly exploding into a pile of blood as the effects wear off.
A cloud comes over the trade caravan, and your broker decides to be a good guy and give away your stuff.
Post by: Sus on March 19, 2012, 09:09:05 pm
Say a siege comes, and your military rushes out to fight, when suddenly a cloud rolls over, and both the siege and your military start laying around in the grass, forced into lackadaisical moods. When the effect wears off, any advantage you had by positioning or otherwise is gone, as your dwarves and the goblins rolled around in the grass, jumbling up into a random assortment of creatures, suddenly exploding into a pile of blood as the effects wear off.Or, say...
"Phew, that Titan is finally almost finished..."
> It is raining invigorating elixir!
"FFFFFFUUUUUUUU..."
P.S. Watsst, the frowny face is mostly ironic. ;)
Post by: Radiant_Phoenix on March 19, 2012, 09:46:28 pm
When this happens, I would presume that the 'easy' regions would be those that have either little alignment at all, or those with spheres your individual play style gets along with -- e.g., if you tend to make a big, active military, a strong [SPHERE:WAR] alignment region should make that easier, and with it your game, but if you don't make much of a military at all, the local sites would be more likely to crush you with armies than normal.
Thus, for a more difficult game, try to kill diplomats in a [SPHERE:HOSPITALITY] region, or declare war on a [SPHERE:VICTORY] region, but if you want an easier game, do that in a [SPHERE:MURDER] or on a [SPHERE:SUICIDE] region, respectively.
Post by: WillowLuman on March 19, 2012, 11:05:39 pm
Post by: Radiant_Phoenix on March 20, 2012, 11:03:30 am
Need brain bleach, imagined a [SPHERE:UNTOWARD] region.I can one-up that:
[SPHERE:LUST] with... zombies.
Post by: WillowLuman on March 20, 2012, 07:54:12 pm
Need brain bleach, imagined a [SPHERE:UNTOWARD] region.I can one-up that:
[SPHERE:LUST] with... zombies.
Must be secretly already implemented, as only embarking on one can explain my current fort. all 7 artifacts are thongs, one of which is from a fell mood.
Anyway, had another idea for fairytale style regions: children never grow up.
Post by: Radiant_Phoenix on March 20, 2012, 08:03:47 pm
Anyway, had another idea for fairytale style regions: children never grow up.Worse: Dwarves age in reverse, which also includes becoming less skilled in the tasks they perform and more skilled in the tasks they don't; strange moods erase a skill entirely!
EDIT: Now you will know why you fear the
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 20, 2012, 08:04:27 pm
Anyway, had another idea for fairytale style regions: children never grow up.
This is one of the better suggestions o-o
Post by: WillowLuman on March 20, 2012, 08:08:22 pm
Post by: potatato on March 20, 2012, 09:32:35 pm
Post by: Couchmonster on March 21, 2012, 01:38:56 am
If good regions were really so valuable then everyone else would embark there as well but currently races avoid good regions as well.
Good should be dangerous for the same reasons Evil regions are dangerous. They arn't made for you.
Powerful creatures empowered by the land's magics. Seedlings that fly in the air and play music that puts you to sleep. possible conversion or transformations of your dwarves into harmless creatures (Fluffy Wamblers).
Ever tried killing an unicorn? Have !!FUN!!
Post by: Radiant_Phoenix on March 21, 2012, 02:32:44 am
Post by: kaijyuu on March 21, 2012, 02:51:55 am
Never going to happen but I would die laughing.
Post by: Neonivek on March 21, 2012, 08:39:52 am
Good regions need ponies.
Never going to happen but I would die laughing.
Pony are just miniature horses. I am pretty sure you mean another kind of Pony.
Wait... does the game even have Pony?
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 21, 2012, 11:23:19 am
What if like unsmoothed stone would slowly grow back. I don't know if this IS a good idea but I think it'd be exploitable AND annoying.
Woah, the possibilities...
Digging enemies would be able to make tunnels without ruining aesthetics!
Post by: kaenneth on March 21, 2012, 07:10:31 pm
Addictive plants that are only eaten if out of other food. (Lotus eaters as mentioned)
Mists/Rains the trigger 'On Break' or 'Attend Party' some healing, refreshing, etc.
Children not growing up at all is a bit severe, but maybe take up to 50% longer (18); maybe make the harsh life of evil area make dwarves grow up faster (9) heck, apply that to the whole lifespan of every creature; evil areas cut lifespans, good areas extend them.
Elves should get annoyed at tree cutting in good biomes, as well as channeling/digging grass and damaging natural surface terrain, and well as redirecting rivers; if the water doesn't exit the map at the same point it did on Embark, you are depriving the downstream ecology. Elves should be as tough in good areas as goblins are in normal; perhaps even with a special 'wood' armor as hard as steel. But if you make a simple entrance into a rock face and do everything underground, heading to the caverns ASAP for fungus 'wood' they won't mind as much.
Can a good area be immediately next to an evil area, or will there always be a neutral buffer zone?
Post by: white_darkness on March 21, 2012, 07:36:04 pm
So you could get homicidal zombie unicorns rising up out of your refuse stockpile, if it's in the wrong place...
Post by: WillowLuman on March 21, 2012, 08:40:49 pm
Post by: King Mir on March 21, 2012, 09:57:43 pm
Can a good area be immediately next to an evil area, or will there always be a neutral buffer zone?You can have good region and evil regions in adjacent biomes. I had a map like this recently.
Post by: WillowLuman on March 21, 2012, 10:39:49 pm
Can a good area be immediately next to an evil area, or will there always be a neutral buffer zone?You can have good region and evil regions in adjacent biomes. I had a map like this recently.
I prize areas like this, playing them whenever possible
Post by: Watsst on March 22, 2012, 01:05:27 am
I prize areas like this, playing them whenever possibleCan a good area be immediately next to an evil area, or will there always be a neutral buffer zone?You can have good region and evil regions in adjacent biomes. I had a map like this recently.
I always go 'Aw that's gonna be awesome! Good and evil pitted against one another, hell yeah!', then have a look around and realize that there's nothing that special about good areas atm, and that undead thirp men have killed all my dwarves. Its especially so if you don't have unicorns, although I think Toady mentioned that he fixed the spawn rate of good and evil plants/trees?
Sidenote: My spellcheck always says dwarfs, I always write dwarves, and google says they both work.... WHICH ONE IS RIGHT?!
Post by: Starver on March 22, 2012, 09:49:32 am
Canonically, the spelling in the raws that Toady uses is the standard Tolkienesque one, and what we should be using. I'm corrupted (or, rather, was already a long time familiar with) by the PTerry version, and then I tend to get confused and get them the wrong way round. Hopefully right in this post!
The acceptable forum plural is "Dorfs", so... if in doubt... ;)
(edit: Coincidence or not, this thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=83787.0) just got replied to again. Happy reading. ;) )
Post by: Ubiq on March 22, 2012, 08:59:04 pm
Quote from: J.R.R. Tolkien
It may be observed that in this book as in The Hobbit the form dwarves is used, although the dictionaries tell us that the plural of dwarf is dwarfs. It should be dwarrows (or dwerrows), if singular and plural had each gone its own way down the years, as have man and men, or goose and geese. But we no longer speak of a dwarf as often as we do of a man, or even of a goose, and memories have not been fresh enough among Men to keep hold of a special plural for a race now abandoned to folk-tales, where at least a shadow of truth is preserved, or at last to nonsense stories in which they have become mere figures of fun. But in the Third Age something of their old character and power is still glimpsed, if already a little dimmed; these are the descendents of the Naugrim of the Elder Days, in whose hearts still burns ancient fire of Aule the Smith, and the embers smolder of their long grudge against the Elves; and in whose hands still lives the skill in work of stone that none have surpassed.
It is to mark this that I have ventured to use the form dwarves, and remove them perhaps, from the sillier tales of these latter days. Dwarrows would have been better; but I have used that form only in the name Dwarrowdelf, to represent the name of Moria in the Common Speech: Phurunargian. For that meant 'Dwarf-delving' and yet was already a word of antique form.
And there you have it, Tolkien used dwarves more or less because people associated Dwarfs with things like Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs; as such, people might have taken them less seriously than he wanted.
Post by: Watsst on March 23, 2012, 01:51:42 am
Post by: brainfreez on March 27, 2012, 08:25:07 am
As it stands, good regions don't have anything going for them except good aligned creatures, and evil regions get all the fun >:3\
So, what if good regions got their counterpart (yes has been suggested a few dozen times before), but instead of doing good, they follow the theme of being too good.
Blotches of light blue clouds rolling over your Dwarves, turning them into good aligned husks, or some particularly "good" counterpart. Then said good husks killing everything. Or maybe just converting your other Dwarves to the goodness!
Maybe it does something good, that would be unwanted? Like good rain that's so blissfully serene that it makes everything unconscious! Or maybe just happy ;P
Or at the very least, working good aligned plants that move ;)
Why should good do something bad to you?
better would be Good Little birds that sing so good that it makes your dwarves with good musical sense to stop the laboring and just sit down and listen to the good music or start working slower to enyoy the music, it should get a good tought about "listening good music on soft grass(or hard stone floor)".But that would be anoying , because your dwarves (with good musical sense ) would be gathering around the bird to listen it and would stop working.I think the bird should sing for a half day .
Or the fluffy "Cute animal name here" animal , wich dwarves (who like this animal) would just pick it up and adopt it , the dwarf should try to catch it by any cost ("underwater exploration", a big fall from a big mountain or "meeting with the uninvited guests") . The animal could be tamed , but while its still Wild , the dwarf should keep it in its room and get a happy tought.
The good region should have good , but anoying not evil creatures !
(all of the animals could get killed by your military !)
Post by: Starver on March 27, 2012, 09:00:01 am
[...] Maybe it does something good, that would be unwanted? [...]Why should good do something bad to you?
[...]Good Little birds[...] make dwarves ... stop working.
dwarves catch [a creature] by any cost
Maybe I've unfairly edited/highlighted this, but what you replied to was full of "so good it's bad" ideas, which you appear to deride and then... gave your own alternatives that were "so good it's bad" as well. Basically, that's one of the main ideas.
(The other main alternative being that the place is so Good-aligned that it automatically starts a Gaia-like Holy War against you when your nasty, sneaky
Post by: Archereon on March 27, 2012, 10:32:15 am
Once you start cutting down trees and killing animals, and soaking the land with the blood of nonevil creatures, shit gets real, and the good region becomes passive aggressive (faeries steal your stuff, mess with your dorfs, plants start hitting back), and if you keep going, flat out aggressive (plants come to life and siege your fortress ocassionally, and animals are extremely hostile. Faeires go from mischevious to downright malevolent, and start flipping levers, destroying food and items, and locking/unlocking doors)
I think that should combine with the "good but also helps enemy" thing like healing mists and pacifying rain
Post by: loose nut on March 27, 2012, 12:10:52 pm
I think this has to go in the Eternal Suggestions list.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 27, 2012, 12:25:09 pm
Actually, I just did some looks back on the talk of the upcoming Personality Rewrite that were discussed a little over a year ago, and one of the major things Toady was talking about was in making personality traits that more specifically are "bad" or even "evil". As in "this dwarf likes hurting other people" or "this dwarf has criminal tendencies".
If we're talking about personality-changing good auras around these places, then such personality traits would be obvious targets for them, and would both make the "good clouds" possibly have a "good" purpose (makes criminal dwarves reconsider their life choices), and have a non- "Good is just like evil, but with rainbows" type of effect.
Post by: Radiant_Phoenix on March 27, 2012, 04:58:12 pm
Post by: Starver on March 27, 2012, 05:28:38 pm
(I'm also think of an "Errol and 'The King'" situation, for those that get the reference.)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 27, 2012, 05:39:19 pm
Quote from: Donkey
Look at all my little mutant babies...
I'm gonna need a job.
Post by: obolisk0430 on May 25, 2012, 08:31:23 pm
Post by: Captain Crazy on May 25, 2012, 08:36:52 pm
Catten cancels chop wood: apologizing profusely
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on May 26, 2012, 08:11:47 am
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.
Post by: Revanchist on May 26, 2012, 11:41:35 am
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 (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 (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.
Post by: Dorfimedes on May 26, 2012, 01:28:46 pm
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
Post by: simonthedwarf on May 26, 2012, 01:40:55 pm
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on May 26, 2012, 01:55:09 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 26, 2012, 01:57:13 pm
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 ^^
Post by: Dorfimedes on May 26, 2012, 02:24:00 pm
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.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 ^^
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.
Post by: Babylon on May 26, 2012, 02:27:55 pm
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
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 26, 2012, 02:37:20 pm
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...)
Post by: Neonivek on May 26, 2012, 03:10:09 pm
"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"
Quote
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.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 26, 2012, 03:58:46 pm
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.
Post by: Neonivek on May 26, 2012, 04:15:20 pm
Quote
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.
Quote
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".
Quote
"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*
Quote
Anyway, dwaves are not inherently evil
They are being judged upon the ethics of Candyland. Unless they are freekishly saintly they are evil.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: Graknorke on May 26, 2012, 05:07:08 pm
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.
Post by: UHaulDwarf on May 26, 2012, 09:46:20 pm
Post by: Revanchist on May 26, 2012, 09:49:33 pm
Post by: Dorfimedes on May 26, 2012, 10:03:32 pm
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.
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2012, 12:05:54 am
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...
Post by: weenog on May 27, 2012, 01:04:18 am
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2012, 02:38:52 am
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.
Post by: Rtyh-C on May 27, 2012, 03:01:53 am
It would also be nice to have more aligned creatures (for good, evil and savage regions).
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2012, 03:04:07 am
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.
Post by: weenog on May 27, 2012, 03:22:37 am
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2012, 03:29:13 am
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: weenog on May 27, 2012, 03:33:34 am
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.
Post by: irmo on May 27, 2012, 03:43:50 am
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.
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2012, 03:50:43 am
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on May 27, 2012, 06:57:27 am
Post by: dizzyelk on May 27, 2012, 03:14:33 pm
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.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on May 27, 2012, 03:54:38 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2012, 04:11:31 pm
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.
Post by: Starver on May 27, 2012, 04:23:59 pm
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.
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2012, 04:51:22 pm
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.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on May 27, 2012, 05:11:12 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2012, 05:14:10 pm
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.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on May 27, 2012, 05:27:39 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2012, 06:11:14 pm
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
Post by: Babylon on May 27, 2012, 07:45:08 pm
Post by: weenog on May 27, 2012, 07:56:38 pm
Post by: Babylon on May 27, 2012, 08:12:36 pm
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.
Post by: weenog on May 27, 2012, 08:56:54 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2012, 09:43:26 pm
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.
Post by: UHaulDwarf on May 27, 2012, 11:15:09 pm
But that is not good at all, that is insidiousness. If it were truly good then there would be no drawbacks.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...
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.
Post by: Neonivek on May 28, 2012, 02:16:40 am
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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".
Quote
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).
Quote
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.
Quote
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".
Post by: Babylon on May 28, 2012, 02:48:48 am
But that is not good at all, that is insidiousness. If it were truly good then there would be no drawbacks.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...
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.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 28, 2012, 02:52:44 am
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.
Indeed, it's probably closest to good as seen by the elves, since they are the only ones settling there and the areas in general are sort of themed towards magical forests/etc with magical fantastical creatures, thus right up the elves alley.
Post by: Sus on May 28, 2012, 04:30:59 am
Which is why dwarves without [NATURE_HIPPIE] are unlikely to settle on good regions. Unicorns will mess up your shit something fierce if provoked. And boy do dwarves ever provoke random wildlife...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.
Indeed, it's probably closest to good as seen by the elves, since they are the only ones settling there and the areas in general are sort of themed towards magical forests/etc with magical fantastical creatures, thus right up the elves alley.
But on the topic, I think good regions should mirror the evil ones in having "good" weather like happy thought -inducing rains or mists or random healing effects. These could, of course, benefit any intruders as well as the dorfs... Another possible perk would be making any corpses on good terrain impossible to raise, even by necromancers.
Post by: Neonivek on May 28, 2012, 04:39:45 am
It would be far more effective if good lands got their own identity.
Post by: Revanchist on May 28, 2012, 12:45:45 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 28, 2012, 01:01:46 pm
Wouldn't a Dwarf's Candyland be smothered in Adamantine with Adamantine sprinkles, glazed in Adamantine, and with a chewy molten Adamantine core? How many players wouldn't go there, and how many civs would? Moreover, how many players would survive there?
But Good lands arn't made for dwarves. Also no... Dwarves are about crafting and "Food craft" is actually one of the many activities they admire.
Post by: Graknorke on May 28, 2012, 01:43:07 pm
With all of their pretty steel, I'm sure they wouldn't mind a land covered in a metal that is only a metal when necessary.
Post by: Revanchist on May 28, 2012, 02:08:32 pm
Post by: Starver on May 28, 2012, 03:33:25 pm
(No, sorry, just pondering. ;) )
Post by: Revanchist on May 28, 2012, 03:45:56 pm
And, in a Good Region™, measured against a measure that is not dwarf-based, there is an "Alcohol is baaad... M'Kay?" aura that could mean the area-wide neutralising of alcohol (for the common good!), making it actually hell for dwarves...!That is the Absolute! Most! UnDwarfish! Place! On Earth! That's easily worse than dwarven hell. Armok couldn't allow a place like this to even exist!
(No, sorry, just pondering. ;) )
Post by: Aseaheru on May 28, 2012, 03:52:35 pm
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on May 29, 2012, 02:59:13 pm
Benevolent ~= Good.
Evil areas are malevolent, with blood rains and the like to drive people out, and husks and zombes to kill those who don't agree.
To be the opposite, good areas should be benevolent: Removing the need to drink from some dwarves (and therefore the ability to get drunk), raising the dead (dwarven and goblin), and producing mists that aid in restful sleep (giving happy thoughts...not everything needs a dark side).
Post by: Aseaheru on May 29, 2012, 03:18:31 pm
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on May 29, 2012, 06:09:31 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 29, 2012, 06:17:08 pm
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.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 29, 2012, 06:22:28 pm
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on May 29, 2012, 06:29:37 pm
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, 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.
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.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 29, 2012, 06:38:37 pm
(And regardless I don't see how self-protecting in any way would conflict with it being good? ^^)
Post by: Neonivek on May 29, 2012, 06:50:16 pm
Quote
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
Post by: Omnis on May 29, 2012, 06:51:07 pm
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.
Post by: King Mir on May 29, 2012, 06:56:37 pm
Evil regions are cool without good regions. What would make "Good" regions cool without evil regions?
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on May 29, 2012, 08:47:58 pm
...?QuoteSo...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.Stuff like healing mists and ressurection, which help dwarves but also indiscriminately help their enemies. How's that for cool?
Evil regions are cool without good regions. What would make "Good" regions cool without evil regions?
Post by: WillowLuman on May 29, 2012, 09:17:56 pm
Post by: dizzyelk on May 29, 2012, 09:28:13 pm
First thought?QuoteSo...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
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.
Post by: WillowLuman on May 29, 2012, 09:48:55 pm
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on May 30, 2012, 07:00:27 am
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 30, 2012, 07:46:48 am
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.
Post by: King Mir on May 30, 2012, 10:31:08 am
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.
Post by: dizzyelk on May 30, 2012, 10:48:30 am
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.
Post by: Babylon on May 30, 2012, 12:24:40 pm
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.
Post by: Neonivek on May 30, 2012, 12:30:04 pm
Quote
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.
Post by: Babylon on May 30, 2012, 12:34:08 pm
QuoteI 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.
I dunno, they don't wear armor on their arms and legs a fair amount of the time, and weapon traps tend to take advantage of that and cut off their limbs. healing rain could make weapon traps much less effective.
Hunters also often just wound the animals they are hunting.
Post by: Starver on May 30, 2012, 01:27:18 pm
But although there has been some talk about Easy and Hard equating to region-alignment, given that an Evil embark is terribly easy to play if you do <foo> while being terribly hard to play if you do <bar>, I'm afraid I can only see this as a red-herring argument, or possibly a misguided one in the first-place.
Post by: Babylon on May 30, 2012, 02:25:07 pm
I don't think this is relevant to the suggestion. If the complaint is that so-called "Easy" good regions are actually made hard to play, by such a change, then the true "Easy" embarks are actually in neutral regions with hard/harder embarks (or equally, although differently, hard ones) to be found in good ones and evil ones. It all comes out in the wash.
But although there has been some talk about Easy and Hard equating to region-alignment, given that an Evil embark is terribly easy to play if you do <foo> while being terribly hard to play if you do <bar>, I'm afraid I can only see this as a red-herring argument, or possibly a misguided one in the first-place.
the easy region is supposed to be the neutral ones.
Good should be challenging in a different way than evil, but still more challenging than neutral.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 30, 2012, 02:51:57 pm
I don't think this is relevant to the suggestion. If the complaint is that so-called "Easy" good regions are actually made hard to play, by such a change, then the true "Easy" embarks are actually in neutral regions with hard/harder embarks (or equally, although differently, hard ones) to be found in good ones and evil ones. It all comes out in the wash.
But although there has been some talk about Easy and Hard equating to region-alignment, given that an Evil embark is terribly easy to play if you do <foo> while being terribly hard to play if you do <bar>, I'm afraid I can only see this as a red-herring argument, or possibly a misguided one in the first-place.
the easy region is supposed to be the neutral ones.
Good should be challenging in a different way than evil, but still more challenging than neutral.
Once again, I have to ask, "why?"
I don't think Good should be more challenging than Neutral. I think it should just be more strange/interesting.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on May 30, 2012, 07:34:24 pm
Protecting from what? Having holes dug in the ground? How is a land killing people trying to make a living in the only way they know how good, at all?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.
Seriously, I'm sick of the argument of "Good lands are obviously supposed to be a place where the land kills people who do stuff the land doesn't like!" That's not good. That's mean, at the very least.
-snip-I think that, ideally, each type of land should offer its own challenges. For instance, evil areas have you fighting the undead and such, but goblins really don't survive long enough in this area to be dangerous. Good areas are easy to live in, and might (for instance) give hungry dwarves fruit and heal them, but enemies are also going to get those benifets, and dwarves would be less motivated to work.
Once again, I have to ask, "why?"
I don't think Good should be more challenging than Neutral. I think it should just be more strange/interesting.
Post by: King Mir on May 30, 2012, 08:01:53 pm
Post by: dizzyelk on May 30, 2012, 08:15:29 pm
How is protecting yourself not good? It would only be mean if it was unwarranted. And dwarves do more than dig in the ground, 2 years after embarking my dwarves have clear cut the whole embark area and slaughtered every animal in the region. The ground and stream is awash with blood, the whole shape of the land has been changed as I decide this slope would make a great cliff for the entrance of my fortress. And stopping that is what I mean by protecting. We're unwanted invaders in the area. I'm sick of the argument that "good lands passively sit back and be destroyed while helping those that are ruining it." The whole point is that it is a great and fertile land, but it has protectors. And those protectors should be the unicorns and satyrs. It should have creatures that don't understand mortals and hurt them in tricks like fairies. Gnomes should just be curious and pull levers and drink your booze. If you play by their rules and only dig a hole in the ground, and don't cut down too many trees, and don't massively change the landscape, you should get rewards, but you shouldn't get the benefits if you're there to destroy the natural beauty of the place. Otherwise what are the purpose of the good biome creatures?Protecting from what? Having holes dug in the ground? How is a land killing people trying to make a living in the only way they know how good, at all?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.
Seriously, I'm sick of the argument of "Good lands are obviously supposed to be a place where the land kills people who do stuff the land doesn't like!" That's not good. That's mean, at the very least.
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.And those healing rains should be there, although I don't see how it ups the challenge if your dwarves are being healed at the same rate at the same time.
Any kind of buff to everyone is still an advantage to the residents. That doesn't count as a new challenge; it makes things easier.This, and that's why, at the very least, you should be able to lose that buff. Although it would be better, if in the more savage areas, you also have to answer for your actions.
Post by: Neonivek on May 31, 2012, 12:19:24 am
Quote
How is protecting yourself not good?
They are going with the passifism version and are also going Dwarf Centric.
In otherwords a "Good" land is a land that is "good for them". It isn't a hard line of thought to hear. The problem is often that they are so diehard that good lands can only be this way that you are not sure if they mean "should" or if they mean "It only makes sense this way".
Or to sum up: "Evil will always win because good is dumb".
Quote
Once again, I have to ask, "why?"
I don't think Good should be more challenging than Neutral. I think it should just be more strange/interesting
A good neutral area has a lot of natural resources and a calm wilderness with few-no preditors or strong creatures and lots of game that can easily be taken care of. This is perfect the ideal location.
A good area may not have a lot of natural resources and its wilderness actually can be full of strong creatures. It at least is tougher.
Now what makes it tougher depends on the kind of good interpretation we are going for.
-Benevolent Lands are dangerous because it aids friend and foe alike and are valuable
--A Goblin raids occurs, the wind seems to be on their back and they are exceptionally tough to wound. As if the land itself was helping them that day.
-Easy Lands / Paradise lands are dangerous because they are so absolutely contested.
--Dragons fighting hard to try to earn a home to live in a land where their young can grow strong. Even working together with other creatures just to ensure the victory.
-Alien Lands are dangerous because they are made for the survival of their own animals that they are incompatable with dwarves.
--Candyland where everything is made of Candy and thus nothing grows and there is nothing healthy to eat.
-Nature Lands are dangerous because the land protects itself and Dwarves are very harmful to the surroundings.
--A land where all the trees have Dryads living inside them, or where the ground is in fact the flesh of the land itself.
-Bleach Lands are dangerous because your dwarves are the evil invaders that need to be espunged.
--A Land where even the mildest bad thought causes crippling pain to the wilderness, making the Paladin Boars mad.
-Too Good lands are dangerous because Dwarves are not equipped to remain productive in such a place.
--Fruits so delicious a dwarf just stops working.
-Whimsy lands are dangerous because they are just good themed but in fact can be just as malicious as anywhere else.
--Fairies who are just as likely to leave a tack on your chair as they are to push you off a fortification.
-Strengthening Lands are dangerous simply because all the inhabitants are empowered.
--A massive titan, the genus loci, of the land stomps through destroying all in its blindness.
The thing is... Neutral lands is all benefits and no drawback. There is nothing strange or exceptional in them to alter how they are played unless a new element is introduced.
A Good land may have benefits (like healing rain that everyone gives as an example... which I wish people would come up with a better example of a good effect and not a "lets reverse what evil lands do") but it also has many detriments.
And yes IMO perfectly neutral forests with mountains should be the lowest point of easy the game should provide unless something fantastic happens in world gen (and I mean... not even "in every game" fantastic)
Also I love how people forget that "Good lands" can be deserts and Glaciers... For some that would mean that they should be hot and water deprived.. or cold and equally water deprived.
Post by: WillowLuman on May 31, 2012, 05:25:46 pm
Post by: UHaulDwarf on June 01, 2012, 12:23:21 am
I don't think we would be having this talk if the lands you were digging in where gods backyard.
I think that dwarves also regard the craft of constant alchoholism in much higher regards than anything else. This seems reflected in many of their works. Like engravings of engravings of cheese, or their diet of two meals and four drinks per season, or the fact that a newborn (dwarven) baby's first meal is probably alcohol. They need alchohol mentally.Sunberry's make the best alcohol so good regions would be the best lands for them.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on June 01, 2012, 06:04:36 am
I guess much of this thread was just nullified ^^
Post by: Neonivek on June 01, 2012, 10:03:45 am
Quote from the new updated dev page: "Scrap good/evil lands for lands with more variety"
I guess much of this thread was just nullified ^^
Believe it or not Toady had taking out good and evil lands and replacing them with sphere lands for ages. Years ago in fact.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on June 01, 2012, 10:21:21 am
Post by: obolisk0430 on June 01, 2012, 11:12:46 am
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on June 01, 2012, 11:35:17 am
What does sphere land imply?
Sort of that instead of having generic Good/evil lands of different degrees, we'll have lands associated to the different deities and their spheres. For example lands of fertility, lands of murder, lands of wealth etc.
Post by: Neonivek on June 01, 2012, 12:40:06 pm
What does sphere land imply?
Sort of that instead of having generic Good/evil lands of different degrees, we'll have lands associated to the different deities and their spheres. For example lands of fertility, lands of murder, lands of wealth etc.
It would even be possible to include multiple ones. Like a land of Fire and Animals.
Post by: WillowLuman on June 01, 2012, 11:57:27 pm
Post by: Graknorke on June 02, 2012, 12:23:09 am
Post by: WillowLuman on June 02, 2012, 12:43:27 am
Post by: orius on June 02, 2012, 06:54:23 am
What does sphere land imply?
Sort of that instead of having generic Good/evil lands of different degrees, we'll have lands associated to the different deities and their spheres. For example lands of fertility, lands of murder, lands of wealth etc.
It would even be possible to include multiple ones. Like a land of Fire and Animals.
Didn't Boatmurdered already do that one? :D
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on June 02, 2012, 04:03:47 pm
To those arguing that giving everyone bonuses =/= a new challenge: Imagine infinitely respawning goblins as they keep coming back to life. Imagine a cloud of dealing mist rolling onto a hunted animal, undoing a dozen bolts of damage. Imagine dwarves oversleeping. Imagine a dwarf falling into lava, screaming, but the land heals him of all his burns, until the dwarf goes insane. Imagine these and a hundred, a thousand other times when a well-meaning land tries to make everyone happy and safe. How are these anything but new challenges one coming into a good area would need to overcome?
To those arguing that this is a redundant thread, since spherical biomes will replace those that are merely good or evil: This is all stuff that should be added to some sphere-biome or another. Probably healing or life, for most of them.
Post by: Revanchist on June 02, 2012, 05:41:55 pm
That would translate to hunters gathering far less meat, farmers bringing less crops, due to the good soil avoiding these invasive plants, and perhaps accidents could happen to your dwarves and other invading things (such as tiredness, unrelenting soberness, an unwillingness to attack their enemies).
Just some thoughts that I don't expect anyone to agree with. I also hope Toady has time to get rid of this line in favour of some more interesting developments.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on June 02, 2012, 05:52:12 pm
Also, while I can see good lands hindering hunting, why would they impede farming? Plump helmets and prickle berries are as native to good caverns and fields as neutral or even evil ones.
Finally, once again, most of this stuff we're suggesting would be useful once spherey biomes are in. Even the ones I don't like--many would be good for the vengeance sphere or something.
Post by: Dorfimedes on June 02, 2012, 06:29:13 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on June 02, 2012, 07:34:40 pm
Edit: As well as copying the relevant bits from here ofc.
Post by: Starver on June 02, 2012, 07:49:55 pm
Civilisations/entities are defined by three main compass-points, being warlike, expansionist and/or secretive. A warrior race has an advantage over an expansionist one (at least at first meeting), the expansionist race out-competes the secretive and insular type, while this third group can inveigle themselves under the radar of the warlike species. (However, there are also blends of qualities, but it does make them less effective in a shared quality than a 'pure' one, and the outcome would depend on the balances of each quality, and the nature of the encounter.)
Who's Good and Bad? Well, any civilisations themselves are 'Good' (sections of the society may tend towards somewhere else on the continuity, of course) and 'Bad' is the power-type that considers this society to be a walk-over. But the walk-overable power-type... Well, probably not even worth a passing consideration (despite the reciprical concerns).
So, how might we put that in DF terms? Well, current evil zones are ones that should just walk over standard dwarves that settle. In various ways, players have devised methods to fight (or shield themselves from) this onslaught. Doesn't tend to stop the natural attacks from happening. Meanwhile, Neutral/Good zones (as defined by DF) are equally "my place", for the player dwarves, even though no natural home form them is in DF's Good-defined areas.
But what are the Elves thinking? Dwarfs digging up their land, felling their trees! They'd probably find ('Neutral') bare-rock mountainside inhospitable in the extreme, but might they have some kind of "turn undead" ability for the zombie wildlife? And let's say for argument that Goblin civs would find the natural flora and fauna of the so-called-'Evil' areas to be much like a nature reserve and (normal player defences notwithstanding) Neutral mountains just a bit less full of undead stuff, but imagine their problems when trying to live among Unicorn herds!
It's not an exact equivalence (I suppose that taking 'Evil' as 'Warlike', that would make Neutral as Expansionist and Good as the third aspect, but I can see alternate mappings, too), and I'm taking definite liberties in that last paragraph, but perhaps imagine that sphere-alignment is like RPS (RPSLizardSpock, or even like RPS101 (http://www.umop.com/rps101.htm)) so that for any two spheres, one is dominant so that a (to take an RPS101 element) a Castle-type sphere race is good to go into a Rain-sphere area (while a Rain-type race has a disadvantage in a Castle-sphere area) due to the "Castle providing shelter from rain", while anything Water-based (Water, itself being dominated over its neighbouring Rain item) has a natural ability to overcome a Castle-based element, in whatever capacity, due to a "Water floods/erodes Castle" relationship.
Though given the contrivance of some of the RPS101 dominance/subservience reasons, I'm not entirely sure that there'd be an easy route towards arranging DF's own compliment of spheres into perfectly balanced order around the circle-of-competition. OTOH, if it's taken merely as an edge of one over another (and, as we know, dwarves can populate Hell, never mind significantly subdue an Evil biome) it needn't even be perfectly balanced, anyway. And in the case of multi-sphered alignments there might be positive and negative modifiers for any particular entity or region interacting with another entity or region.
I was replying here immediately after (though not necessarily in reference to) GreatWyrm. But, in the usual nature of such synchronicity, I can see points made by Dorfimedes and Manveru Taurener, in-betweentimes, that meld to what I'm saying. Especially the idea of gathering together the known spheres. Anyhow...
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on June 02, 2012, 07:55:06 pm
Maybe it would be an idea to make a new thread for sphere land suggestions (my search didn't show any existing) and list all the current deity spheres along with suggestions for which effects would be suitable for each of them? ^^I've been meaning to do that for a while.
Edit: As well as copying the relevant bits from here ofc.
Starver: Are you suggesting that semi-sentient biomes help or hinder others based on their own alignment/ethics? Sounds...Fun, I guess.
Post by: Starver on June 02, 2012, 08:52:05 pm
Post by: Dorfimedes on June 03, 2012, 03:30:44 am
*snip*
Nah, I get what you're saying! http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ElementalRockPaperScissors
I think it sounds pretty exciting, actually! It kind of makes sense, certain races might have an affinity for one sphere, and a certain sphere might be sort oppositely aligned to them and thus be hostile. Gods, I can't wait until spheres are implemented.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on June 03, 2012, 08:16:44 am
Maybe, or maybe just that those that attempt to occupy a place are given help or hindrance according to their ability to dominate the locale or tendency to be overcome by it. You're an agricultural-esque grouping, fertile lands are your bread-and-butter (in some respects, literally?) but surviving on a bleak, remote mountain-side is another issue. Someone else might relish hunting mountain-goats, but can't handle the verdant river-plains, with so much goddarn life! What are you supposed to do with seeds? It seems like everything grows but what you want to grow. And the stuff that moves... The bugs? They're huge and many! And will eat you alive! Trees and long grasses obscure your view of hostile carnivors and the undergrowth is full of plants with spikes and poisonous bits! Is that a tiger, in that dappled shadow, or just a dappled shadow? Ouch!! Did I mention the bugs?!? And have those shadows moved!?! Bugger this, give me my bow, I'm off back to the mountains!Ah, so pretty much the same thing I thought you meant, only with cause and effect reversed. I see now.
Post by: Starver on June 03, 2012, 10:40:03 am
Nah, I get what you're saying! http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ElementalRockPaperScissorsI'm going to have to invoice you for that time, you know.
(It wasn't so many jumps to reading the notes about Wild Weasel (/SEAD) missions, actually, and I was dissapointed that the More Dakka page was one disallowed to have Real Life examples, but after a detour through The World Is Made Of Cardboard, and via a tenuous route revisiting the world of Firefly, I... erm... well, I must have done something else during all this time, but I honestly can't remember what. And that's while operating four separate computers on my desk here, only one of which was actually Troping...)
Post by: dizzyelk on June 03, 2012, 01:35:03 pm
Nah, I get what you're saying! http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ElementalRockPaperScissorsI'm going to have to invoice you for that time, you know.
(It wasn't so many jumps to reading the notes about Wild Weasel (/SEAD) missions, actually, and I was dissapointed that the More Dakka page was one disallowed to have Real Life examples, but after a detour through The World Is Made Of Cardboard, and via a tenuous route revisiting the world of Firefly, I... erm... well, I must have done something else during all this time, but I honestly can't remember what. And that's while operating four separate computers on my desk here, only one of which was actually Troping...)
I always imagine people cackling evilly and muttering "Now they're gonna lose their whole afternoon!" when linking to that site.
Post by: Graknorke on June 03, 2012, 04:32:07 pm
Because then you lose your sleep time too.
Post by: Gitaxias on June 18, 2012, 11:55:46 pm
Post by: orius on June 19, 2012, 02:53:33 pm
Nah, I get what you're saying! http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ElementalRockPaperScissorsI'm going to have to invoice you for that time, you know.
(It wasn't so many jumps to reading the notes about Wild Weasel (/SEAD) missions, actually, and I was dissapointed that the More Dakka page was one disallowed to have Real Life examples, but after a detour through The World Is Made Of Cardboard, and via a tenuous route revisiting the world of Firefly, I... erm... well, I must have done something else during all this time, but I honestly can't remember what. And that's while operating four separate computers on my desk here, only one of which was actually Troping...)
I always imagine people cackling evilly and muttering "Now they're gonna lose their whole afternoon!" when linking to that site.
Well, I usually don't bother with the evil laugh, but I will deliberately link to TV Tropes on forums where it's popular knowing damn well people are going to get sucked in (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SchmuckBait) and waste several hours (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife). Muwahahahahaha! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilLaugh) And it seems to be a fairly popular site on this forum too, probbly related to the fact that I discovered DF over there (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/DwarfFortress?from=Main.DwarfFortress), so this is a good place to post links.
My sister recently confessed she's susceptible to getting sidedtracked on (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WikiWalk) Wikipedia (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Wiki/Wikipedia). My response?
"Have you ever heard of a site called...TV Tropes? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouMonster)
I have to be careful when I'm doing this, because I can trap myself when I'm setting up links for other people (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HoistByHisOwnPetard). OTOH, I'm familiar enough with the site at this point that it's a bit easier to restrain myself.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on June 19, 2012, 07:50:38 pm
ORIUS!!! (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SkywardScream)HOW DARE YOU?!? (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/LargeHam)
Time-wasting links to TV Tropes (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife) are MY thing! How could you steal that? (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/AndThatsTerrible) You are a mean person, (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YouMonster) you schtick-stealing person! (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/BuffySpeak) You have demonstrated yourself to be irritating, cruel, (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TheLongList) and (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/RuleOfThree) amateur. (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ArsonMudrerAndJaywalking) You haven't (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/AvertedTrope) linked every word to TV Tropes! (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/AllBluePage) You know what will happen now? (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DisproportionateRetribution) A storm is coming, orius. (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TheresAStormIsComing) But you know this. (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/AsYouKnow)
Post by: orius on June 19, 2012, 08:29:28 pm
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on June 20, 2012, 05:58:01 pm
Post by: Leatra on June 20, 2012, 08:49:49 pm
I guess I'll sleep a little later than usual.
Post by: Babylon on August 25, 2013, 03:49:56 am
Post by: auris2 on September 03, 2013, 01:04:09 am
Post by: kero42 on September 03, 2013, 01:23:25 am
how about trees that when hacked at by a tree cutter, uproot and run away, or even defend themselves? would be funny and make the good aligned region less boring. maybe add a gnome race which worships trees, standing around them in prayer and killing anything which dares to chop down their beloved gods! maybe in good regions unicorns should attack you for butchering animals, as it goes against their moral code. maybe have more good aligned and brutal creatures spawn in to help the unicorns. tons of ideas!
Interesting, but I would argue that unless guided by some supernatural force or a sentient race, then unicorns wouldn't attack you for moral reasons simply because, good as they may be, they're still animals with no/few ethics or morals. I could see the hypothetical gnomes using the unicorns in fights against you though, and the running tree idea seems neat (simply because I would like to capture these running trees :) ). Still, more non-forest ideas would be interesting, what do you suppose a good desert or tundra could be like?
Post by: auris2 on September 03, 2013, 01:46:47 am
Interesting, but I would argue that unless guided by some supernatural force or a sentient race, then unicorns wouldn't attack you for moral reasons simply because, good as they may be, they're still animals with no ethics or morals. I could see the hypothetical gnomes using the unicorns in fights against you though, and the running tree idea seems neat (simply because I would like to capture these running trees :) ). Still, more non-forest ideas would be interesting, what do you suppose a good desert or tundra could be like?
[/quote]
I would counter argue that unicorns are instructed by mothernature in their fight, as mother nature wants to preserve her good and peaceful biome. Also, I have never embarked on a tundra biome or area without trees, I couldn't survive in a biome without any trees. But to make a suggestion not involving trees... I think evil aligned creatures or races might invade every once and a while to try and convert the land [to sinister/terrifying]... you know good versus evil and all. Bonus points if toady adds powerful enemies which convert parts of your embark biome in real time, although this could take a ton of work seeing as how biomes are made during world gen. Actually, maybe during goblin sieges they could bring their own evil livestock/pets and slowly convert the land if they are not killed...
Post by: WillowLuman on September 03, 2013, 12:37:10 pm
Why must Good regions be lethal at all? The point of them is to be more hospitable, not to murder your dwarves or make them useless.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on September 03, 2013, 01:00:57 pm
So why must gnomes be shorter clones of elves? Seriously, we already have elves that worship trees and kill people who chop them.
Why must Good regions be lethal at all? The point of them is to be more hospitable, not to murder your dwarves or make them useless.
Well, the point most people are trying to get across is that dwarves generally aren't a good-aligned race but usually (lawful?) neutral, not taking the actions of the player into account, and as such would most likely be considered invaders in a good region. Besides, we also already have the Benign/Neutral/Savage distinctions on top of it to allow for further variation.
If one where to settle a good region and not cut down any trees, dig up the ground too much, hunt the wildlife etc, you'd probably be accepted and not set upon by its magical denizens. Generally though, most players playing normally would upset the magical forces present and should suffer as a result. In a benign good region (Serene) there shouldn't be that many dangers. But a savage good region (Joyous wilds) should have you beset by Ents, Unicorns, Satyrs etc if you disturb the peace, in my opinion :P
Then again, arguing over how to interpret the "good" part of good regions is kind of moot since they'll most likely be revamped into the sphere alignment regions before any major changes are done :>
Post by: WillowLuman on September 03, 2013, 01:07:33 pm
Murdering someone for being "DnD neutral" and not "good" seems more evil to me. TBH, nature spirits that murder defiliers are usually grouped into some kind of DnD neutral. The whole "nature trying to kill you" seems like the point of Savage regions.
For good regions, I imagine them being more like "the giving tree," giving their resources to those who need them but wind up exploited and thus slowly disappear.
Post by: Babylon on September 03, 2013, 03:35:59 pm
So why must gnomes be shorter clones of elves? Seriously, we already have elves that worship trees and kill people who chop them.
Why must Good regions be lethal at all? The point of them is to be more hospitable, not to murder your dwarves or make them useless.
So in your system what are neutral regions for?
Currently most races can't settle in good regions in world Gen, presumably that is because they are more challenging to settle in, that ought to be reflected in play, it would also make the game more interesting to have the three different alignments represent three different ways of playing (vanilla for neutral, scary like we have now for evil and challenging in some other interesting way for good) the point of this thread is to examine that "challenging in some other interesting way" approach.
Post by: Babylon on September 03, 2013, 03:38:42 pm
Post by: WillowLuman on September 03, 2013, 03:45:11 pm
But good regions are unlikely to get a revamp, since Toady plans to replace them with sphere-aligned regions relatively soon.
Post by: auris2 on September 03, 2013, 04:47:20 pm
So why must gnomes be shorter clones of elves? Seriously, we already have elves that worship trees and kill people who chop them.
Why must Good regions be lethal at all? The point of them is to be more hospitable, not to murder your dwarves or make them useless.
Well, the point most people are trying to get across is that dwarves generally aren't a good-aligned race but usually (lawful?) neutral, not taking the actions of the player into account, and as such would most likely be considered invaders in a good region. Besides, we also already have the Benign/Neutral/Savage distinctions on top of it to allow for further variation.
If one where to settle a good region and not cut down any trees, dig up the ground too much, hunt the wildlife etc, you'd probably be accepted and not set upon by its magical denizens. Generally though, most players playing normally would upset the magical forces present and should suffer as a result. In a benign good region (Serene) there shouldn't be that many dangers. But a savage good region (Joyous wilds) should have you beset by Ents, Unicorns, Satyrs etc if you disturb the peace, in my opinion :P
Then again, arguing over how to interpret the "good" part of good regions is kind of moot since they'll most likely be revamped into the sphere alignment regions before any major changes are done :>
can you expand on what sphere alignment will be?
Post by: auris2 on September 03, 2013, 04:49:17 pm
Yeah, they're due to be replaced. However, good doesn't mean "unspoilt nature, defend rabidly", good means "benevolent, empathic, sympathetic, kind, etc."
Murdering someone for being "DnD neutral" and not "good" seems more evil to me. TBH, nature spirits that murder defiliers are usually grouped into some kind of DnD neutral. The whole "nature trying to kill you" seems like the point of Savage regions.
For good regions, I imagine them being more like "the giving tree," giving their resources to those who need them but wind up exploited and thus slowly disappear.
the joyous wilds region type is categorized as savage-good
Post by: WillowLuman on September 03, 2013, 04:50:51 pm
Simple: regions aligned with the thematic spheres: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/v0.31:Sphere
For example, a "nature" aligned region might be somewhat like what you suggest for good regions, a "food" aligned zone might make crops and livestock more bountiful (or have plants that make pies), a "love" aligned zone might make dwarves fall in love more often, etc.
Post by: loose nut on September 03, 2013, 04:59:06 pm
Good regions periodically turn your dwarves into Philosopher nobles!
Well, if terrain is aligned with thematic spheres that won't happen; however, a lot of the spheres seem like they should have interesting effects on their inhabitants. For example Trickery, Treachery, Rebirth, Mercy, Lightning, Depravity... as well as more prosaic/ easily-translated ones like Labor, Courage, Jewels, Agriculture...
Post by: auris2 on September 03, 2013, 06:05:45 pm
ninja'd
Simple: regions aligned with the thematic spheres: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/v0.31:Sphere
For example, a "nature" aligned region might be somewhat like what you suggest for good regions, a "food" aligned zone might make crops and livestock more bountiful (or have plants that make pies), a "love" aligned zone might make dwarves fall in love more often, etc.
cool! thanks for the link and reply, so it seems like spheres will entirely replace the 'surrounding' biomes mechanic in the next version, is this true?
Post by: WillowLuman on September 03, 2013, 06:09:04 pm
Post by: Wastedlabor on September 18, 2013, 01:18:53 pm
Post by: Pinstar on September 18, 2013, 01:59:18 pm
I imagine one of the new personality traits that a dwarf could have that could deviate from "dwarven society norms" is a kind of pacifism. They refuse to join a squad, they refuse to pick up a weapon and would rather run than fight. They also will never have a violent tantrum. You might get one or two stray individuals in your fort with this trait naturally, but it'll be easy enough to stick them with some civilian job where they won't be expected to fight.
Now imagine a cloud that induces this personality trait on anyone who it envelops. Imagine your well-trained military suddenly gets caught in it. While it wont' kill or send a single dwarf to the hospital, it has none the less rendered your military useless.
Post by: ZodGilla on September 21, 2013, 06:54:47 pm
Instead of suggesting a revamp of the Good Regions and how they are easier...Try an Evil Region.
Post by: Bumber on September 21, 2013, 08:22:34 pm
I really don't understand. Good regions are supposed to be...Good. Easier. It doesn't make sense to make a good region more dangerous than a neutral region. Then it wouldn't be good.Because dwarves aren't good, they're neutral. Expect to be punished (e.g. turned into an ent or tree) for defiling sacred forests and stuff.
Instead of suggesting a revamp of the Good Regions and how they are easier...Try an Evil Region.
Elves (good aligned) may be filthy tree huggers, but they aren't pacifists, you know.
Post by: Babylon on September 23, 2013, 02:50:34 pm
I could see this working with syndromes and the up and coming personality traits.
I imagine one of the new personality traits that a dwarf could have that could deviate from "dwarven society norms" is a kind of pacifism. They refuse to join a squad, they refuse to pick up a weapon and would rather run than fight. They also will never have a violent tantrum. You might get one or two stray individuals in your fort with this trait naturally, but it'll be easy enough to stick them with some civilian job where they won't be expected to fight.
Now imagine a cloud that induces this personality trait on anyone who it envelops. Imagine your well-trained military suddenly gets caught in it. While it wont' kill or send a single dwarf to the hospital, it has none the less rendered your military useless.
That would be awesome.
Post by: Babylon on September 23, 2013, 02:51:52 pm
I really don't understand. Good regions are supposed to be...Good. Easier. It doesn't make sense to make a good region more dangerous than a neutral region. Then it wouldn't be good.
Instead of suggesting a revamp of the Good Regions and how they are easier...Try an Evil Region.
Common misconception. As is good regions are slightly more difficult than neutral regions, cause of unicorns. The suggestion here is that they be made more interesting. They shouldn't be as hellish as an evil region, but having them offer their own sort of challenge would make the game more interesting.
Post by: Solarius Scorch on October 08, 2013, 06:00:37 pm
What would a "good region" be (in general, not specifically DF)? Well, a region with strong influence of powers with Good alignment. So, how about simply making such regions cause the inhabitants to be less tolerant toward evil and violence, and having bad thoughts when such things occur?
- Hunting and killing animals may cause a minor bad thought, possibly greater for Good creatures like unicorns.
- Witnessing violence may cause more bad thoughts than normal.
- Killing invaders may cause bad thoughts too.
- The hammerer has insomnia, as his job is giving him a moral dilemma.
- Eating meat and wearing leather becomes uncomfortable to some citizens, as they are produced through suffering.
- And so on.
Post by: Tacyn on October 09, 2013, 04:20:45 am
I admit I haven't read the entirety of the thread, but how about making Good regions problematic for psychological reasons?
What would a "good region" be (in general, not specifically DF)? Well, a region with strong influence of powers with Good alignment. So, how about simply making such regions cause the inhabitants to be less tolerant toward evil and violence, and having bad thoughts when such things occur?These effects would be fairly minor, so that the game doesn't differ too much from the norm, but still they'd accumulate over time. I envision a 10 year fortress to be more "converted" than a new one. This will cause fortresses to become progressively less violent over the years (with an appropriate cultural impact, when cultures are properly introduced) and therefore less efficient in certain areas, such as military. On the other hand, we can expect less tantrums, but it still should be more of an inconvenience than a boon.
- Hunting and killing animals may cause a minor bad thought, possibly greater for Good creatures like unicorns.
- Witnessing violence may cause more bad thoughts than normal.
- Killing invaders may cause bad thoughts too.
- The hammerer has insomnia, as his job is giving him a moral dilemma.
- Eating meat and wearing leather becomes uncomfortable to some citizens, as they are produced through suffering.
- And so on.
So in essence, your dwarfs turn into elves?
Post by: Solarius Scorch on October 09, 2013, 06:14:56 am
So in essence, your dwarfs turn into elves?
Not at all. Elves are hardly good; in the simple DnD terminology, I'd call them Lawful Neutral in the extreme (fanatics). Their values are determined by culture and possibly physiology, not moral influence from supernatural forces.
Dwarves would retain their own culture, at least for some time, but would probably gradually shy away from the actions that make them feel uncomfortable due to unanticipated feelings of guilt.
Post by: WillowLuman on October 09, 2013, 05:27:32 pm
Post by: Lord_lemonpie on October 12, 2013, 04:43:18 pm
Post by: dashadowlord on October 12, 2013, 09:36:17 pm
How about good mist that releases creatures from chains/cages?
hmmm why is there 2 dragons a roc and a goblen army loose in my fortress, could be interresting
Post by: Solarius Scorch on October 12, 2013, 10:50:54 pm
How about good mist that releases creatures from chains/cages?
I'm not sure if it'd be good, but surely a surprise. XD
Post by: darkrider2 on October 13, 2013, 09:44:47 am
If your fortress butchers too many animals, or cuts down too many trees, or gathers too many plants (designation plant gathering, farming is fine), then a horde of wild creatures will arrive to besiege your fortress and put an end to your atrocities against nature.
Hell this could even give elves context.
Spoiler: I got carried away with the idea (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Warron on October 13, 2013, 11:26:58 am
One idea is to have satyrs play music that could have various effects on the dwarves. For instance it could lull them to sleep, or cause them to interrupt their work to seek out the source of the music, or maybe throw them into a panic.
One common fantasy trope is faerie food that is so delicious people who eat it become obsessed with it, like the fruit in "Goblin Market." Perhaps good regions could contain fruit so delicious that dwarves who eat it start having unhappy thoughts whenever they eat anything else. Perhaps elven caravans could even trade this fruit to unwitting players who don't know the danger.
Someone suggested a good mist that de-ages your dwarves. That's an interesting idea, but why make it a mist? Perhaps it could be a magic spring or an extract from a certain plant. (I think it should be exceptionally rare, by the way) If it could be collected it would make for a valuable trade good, but you would still have to worry about dwarves drinking from it, whether unwittingly or because they really do want to be young again.
Post by: Warron on October 13, 2013, 11:33:03 am
Post by: WillowLuman on October 13, 2013, 02:29:00 pm
Think of it like some kind of generous person. They'll give to anyone freely, without limits or resentment, but if someone gets greedy and takes beyond their measure to provide, the giver becomes impoverished and unable to help anyone else.
Post by: dashadowlord on October 14, 2013, 01:14:53 am
How about: Wildlife Siege (good regions only)
You find an ancient book amongst the belongings of a dead elf
~Ancient book - written in human~
At first our people were no different than humans, we took from the land to build temples honoring the gods and great walls for protection. Great tales were told of adventures to faraway lands, where sun berries grew, and feathers coated the earth, and all manner of food and tree were plentiful. The kings sent many an expedition to colonize these places, and here our people prospered, it seemed that all around, there was no end to the bounty of the land.
Then they came.
A tide of fur consumed our towns, our temples were destroyed, our walls could not keep out the winged assailants, our dogs turned on us, and the sewers ran red with blood. Though they did not speak any human tongue, their demands were clear, submit to the will of nature, or die.
For thousands of years, my people lived in fear, under the rule of the animal kings. No longer would we know the protections of four walls and a roof, or the warmth of a fireplace, for tree cutting was forbidden. No longer could we document our history, for writing with the ink of an octopus and the feather of a bird was punishable by death. Though many secretly held strong the beliefs of the old gods, we could no longer construct temples in their honor, instead, we were forced to create crude and simple temples, to honor the titans which ruled over us.
In the trees we now lived and depended, we grew short, thin, and agile to survive, our ears became more perceptive, and grew to points. Our language changed drastically, many of the hard consonants used by humans faded from use, as our people chose to speak softly and quietly to avoid being overheard by our rulers.
- Here the writing changes to elf -
As it no longer seemed apparent that elves and humans could be related, trade was allowed, but only under the watchful eye of our masters, do not be fooled, those "pack animals" may carry our goods, but their eyes watch our merchants and report to our masters, even in faraway lands, we can never be free.
How do I know all this you may ask, among the oldest of the human cities, I was sought out by a man who would not speak his name, and he gave me this book, I have hidden it among my possessions and write in it when the mules are grazing. He would only tell me that this was a documented history of my people, passed down and copied many times through many generations, and that all elves must read it and rise again to truly be free. Though this book has taught me much, our rulers have many spies among the elves, the druids are but puppets, I cannot trust it to anyone.
I am Ririli EarthOrders, elf merchant. Our caravan has visited many towns and mountain halls, and in each we have pleaded that the inhabitants to cease cutting down the forests which surround them, only to be scoffed at and ignored, little do they know, and I cannot tell them, for when I speak too loosely I can feel the breath of a Donkey at my back, ever-present, waiting for me to make one mistake.
It is in the mountainhomes where I see what you might call 'freedom', the dwarves submit to no gods, purge the members of their society which believe themselves as rulers, reap the lands with no concern for anything but the booze in their barrels and the steel in their forges. They seize our goods, and I sense the mules at my back, I can only utter the words "take what you want, there's nothing I can do", the feeling of submission is never far from the elven heart.
I cannot live like this any longer.
Upon reaching the nearest forest retreat, I will tell the elves of the 'atrocities' committed by the dwarves against nature, against our rulers. I myself will lead a war party against the dwarven halls, which I have seen first hand, the walls there are insurmountable, their defenses impenetrable, even the armies of the goblins would fail against the mechanations of the dwarves. My brethren do not know this, but I know one thing, I would rather die under bolt and hammer, than horn and hoof.
[/spoiler]Spoiler (click to show/hide)
wow darkrider2 this is an epic idea i soo want this in the game. it also gives a reason why humans don't settle in good regions.
Post by: TurtleMadness on December 10, 2013, 06:31:09 pm
Post by: fractalman on January 15, 2014, 02:58:48 am
[snip] sieged by [snip] Na'vi [snip]Brain Bleach. WHERE IS IT OH ARMOK THE HORROR!!!!!!!
Fractalman has canceled post: went insane.
Post by: 4maskwolf on January 15, 2014, 04:46:16 am
[snip] sieged by [snip] Na'vi [snip]Brain Bleach. WHERE IS IT OH ARMOK THE HORROR!!!!!!!
Fractalman has canceled post: went insane.
This was hardly necessary, and certainly not worth a necro.
Post by: Treefingers on February 16, 2014, 10:06:02 pm
So maybe you can embark safely, but if you start acting like anything less than a paragon of virtue, the area turns on you until you leave. In the eyes of an extremely good region, some common dwarven activities could be as death-worthy as common kobold and goblin activities are to dwarves. Example transgressions might be killing puppies (or maybe killing anything at all), establishing dangerous educational facilities, seizing trade goods or not offering generous enough profits to visiting traders.
A variant might be that the region directly prevents you from doing these things. Maybe your dwarves become so serene that they go all vegan pacifist, simply refusing to slaughter animals or make weapons. You'd have to find ways to live on plants alone and defend yourself non-violently through trap/release and misdirection. Maybe when invaders start getting violent, the region becomes hostile to them and effectively defends you fortress for you.
So basically some things would be easier in exchange for others being more difficult. And keep in mind that I'm only suggesting that any of these things happen in the most sickeningly wholesome corners or the world. No reason other good areas can't be just as they currently are.
/two cents
Post by: Solarius Scorch on February 16, 2014, 10:30:29 pm
Post by: darknessofthenight on February 17, 2014, 10:44:05 am
When you say that the region turns on you however that seems less than good because the region would be using violence to stop violence. Maybe the region could just mess with thought values such that everyone would become really sad if they killed something...
Post by: Blastbeard on February 17, 2014, 12:48:00 pm
I've always wondered what makes good regions so good. Maybe it's because there's some force at work actively removing negative elements, similar to how the general maliciousness of evil regions making normal life impossible. If that's the case, good creatures in good regions should go out of their way to destroy or repel things they regard as evil, if only out of instinctual fear of seeing their home become a husk-producing wasteland.
'Evil' could be anything from a goblin's inherent evilness to uncouth behavior such as excessive tree harvesting, eating sapients, or having performed acts of cruelty such as torture and brutal executions. There's no shortage of any of these in most worlds, and exactly which acts result in a violent reaction could depend on how good a region is. Regardless, the average blacklist for any good region would probably be extensive.
Whatever the criteria is, if a creature entering a good region meets it, all the unicorns and fluffy wamblers and whatever drop what they're doing and hunt the intruder down until it dies or flees the region. It's kind of like an immune system's response to bacteria, relentlessly pursuing foreign agents until they are destroyed to protect the body.
They should probably prioritize the most 'evil' target first simply because it would be the most offensive intruder. Given the choice between a neutral dwarf, a goblin that beheaded an entire family of humans, and another goblin that tortured a cat once, creatures behaving like this would ignore the dwarf(unless it does something foolish like attack the evil-hunters) and go after the family-slaying goblin first before focusing on the other one.
The good part of this comes when you establish a fort in a good region and somehow manage not to turn it against you. If you could manage to live in harmony with a good region that somehow understands and rewards that, your dwarves would receive a degree of protection from the land. Good creatures would neither threaten nor frighten citizens provided they leave them alone, and if a goblin siege appears, you might be treated to something spectacular like the arrival of a massive herd of unicorns with a serious hate-on for the color green.
A possible downside of this is that your dwarves could also eventually become part of this response system, feeling an uncontrollable rage at the presence of offensive intruders and go out of their way to kill them. This would probably result in numerous civilian casualties and an inability to peacefully deal with other races that that have aggravated the region.
Post by: catoblepas on February 19, 2014, 02:58:07 am
Post by: Treefingers on February 19, 2014, 03:56:54 am
I like Blastbeard's immune system idea, but with different justification. Good isn't a point of view according to traditional fantasy RPG rules. I was never into pen and paper, but I know from computer DnD games that Paladins and Solars and the like (lawful IIRC) are pretty much required by their alignment to be mortally opposed to anything evil-aligned. DF clearly labels "good" and "evil" regions and has an explicitly medieval setting. So I take the moral scale to be pretty absolute (with dwarves, elves, and human civs on the whole being somewhere in the neutral zone). Maximally good beings are more than just nice and friendly. They know exactly what evil is and will try to wipe it out. It's not just violence stopping violence, it would be more like righteously driving vandals from a temple sanctuary. You've arrived in their immaculate paradise with the stench of moral compromise about you, pulling wagons of slaughtered trees, the bones of mutilated sheep dangling around your necks. The region's residents will consider violently purging even slightly evil beings to be a good act, fully justified (even required by duty) since it would restore the region's purity.*
Yeah, I don't want RL humans acting like this because we're so far from agreed on whether good and evil even exist, let alone what they are. But in the hypothetical context of there being a real, knowable Good, I'd fully expect its legit representatives to act this way.
I'm not sure I'm okay with good regions altering the minds of those who stick around long enough. For whatever reason, I consider free will to be integral to their being a valid difference between good and evil. Without a choice, acting one way or the other has no moral value. So if a region "compels" you to do good (in gameplay terms) I'd want to see it reflected in the dwarves listed personalities and preferences, and in a way that suggests not that they're becoming mindless cuddle zombies, but are inspired by their new environment to strive to be more humble, calm, and empathetic. This would bring in a justification for darknessofthenight's idea. Your veteran dwarves might eventually be so transformed that instead of taking joy in slaughter, they will instead be horrified at themselves for killing something, even by accident or in self-defence.
Maybe only dwarves born in the region are capable of becoming fully good. Maybe they're born fully good to start. Maybe along the DnD alignment end, catoblepas' idea for region personalities could be minimally fulfilled if the current chaos axis wasn't just "calm to wild" but was more like "chaotic to lawful" with calm in the middle. Lawful would be the "purge all evil" type. Chaotic might be more of a hippie love-in pacifist thing which would be much easier to take advantage of economically, but wouldn't offer the protections of a lawful region, and the locals might not share dwarven concepts of private property and personal space (some of that in good regions already).
* I realize that perhaps this kind of agency should only be found in the "higher" creatures (humanoids and the like) while "lesser" creatures might act instinctively or indifferently. It's a complex game, right?
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on February 19, 2014, 07:54:28 am
Some such as Charity, Hospitality and Generosity will most likely be of the giving with little consequence type, whereas Nature, Earth and Animals could give benefits but strike back if you don't play by the rules. Some such as Order and Balance would obviously be even stricter about not upsetting the status quo. And the more directly sinister versions would be represented by Torture, Disease, Misery etc. You could possibly even go with combinations of different spheres, same as the gods tend to represent a few different ones. A Tundra of Revenge and Trees would obviously have Nasty Treants/Ents or similar wreaking havoc if you dare to cut any down.
No matter how it turns out a sphere-oriented system sure has a lot of potential. The way I'd see it done would be to have spheres sort of grouped into a few different categories. Each category would have some base properties applied to the land, like for example Nature, Fertility and Plants among others all creating the current sort of nature-themed biome that elves are so fond of with the unicorns and stuff. Then each one would have a few unique characteristics setting them apart as well.
This would leave well enough room for having a good number of both "painfully good" regions as well as the more friendly ones.
Edit: Almost forgot linking the quotes from the dev plan etc.
Quote from: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html
Scrap good/evil lands for lands with more variety
Quote from: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html
Core94, RANDOMIZED REGIONS AND THEIR FLORA/FAUNA, (Future): The current good/evil regions should be scrapped and replaced by a system that aligns a region to varying degrees with a set of spheres. In this way you could end up with a desert where the stones sing or a forest where the trees bleed, with all sorts of randomly generated creatures and plants that are appropriate to the sphere settings. It's important that randomly generated objects be introduced to the player carefully during play rather than just being thrown one after another to allow for immersion, though there's also something to be said for cold dumping the player in a world with completely random settings, provided they can access enough information by looking/listening and having conversations, etc.
Quote from: http://www.bay12games.com/media/df_talk_19_transcript.html
Threetoe: Okay, so the second question comes from King Mir: 'You've stated previously how the good and evil regions are ultimately going to be replaced by sphere-aligned regions. Recently you added a lot to the evil regions; how have these changes affected your future plans? Are you going to put as much work into every sphere? Will some spheres be much more distinct than others, or will you just stick with good and evil?'
Toady: We did add a lot of undead and blood rain and mists and things floating around in the evil regions because we were just on our continuing night creatures drive, to get through those. It hasn't really affected the long-term plans. We still plan to diversify what the regions look like. The spheres ... talking about them specifically, like sphere-regions, is ... when you say, 'Will some be more distinct than others?' there are spheres like 'trade', or something like that, where because that's such a civilized concept ... there are probably going to be some spheres that simply aren't appropriate for regions, and a sphere is really just an idea, or a concept, so if you want to make one region more musical, or fiery, or evil, or torture-based, or darker, these different concepts ... that's really what we're getting at, that we wanted to have a strong sense of flavoring to the regions that sets the atmosphere but doesn't just go along this linear scale of good or evil, that allows things to be more diverse. So in a sense just adding stuff to the regions moves us along the way there. We haven't really started that project yet, but I it's still something that I think we're planning to do.
Post by: Arowhun on February 20, 2014, 08:09:50 pm
Post by: WillowLuman on February 20, 2014, 08:20:56 pm
Post by: Solarius Scorch on February 21, 2014, 06:54:14 am
Maybe there could be syndrome clouds that could completely brain wipe dwarves, so they lose their ability to speak and do pretty much everything. They would act similar to zombies, but instead of being UNDEAD and OPPOSED_TO_LIFE they would strip naked and live in the wilderness.
One word: shrooms.
Post by: Dirst on February 21, 2014, 10:41:23 am
I can just see cutting open an entrance, going down a couple z-levels, and zipping 3/4 of the map sideways to get at the awesome minerals under the unicorns.
It would be interesting if civilizations or even historical figures came from off the map to defend "defiled" biomes.
The demon Anakakasak has appeared, enraged that you furrowed the dead grass it admires to plant disgusting strawberries!
Post by: GuesssWho on March 08, 2014, 09:14:28 pm
Given the choice between a neutral dwarf, a goblin that beheaded an entire family of humans, and another goblin that tortured a cat once, creatures behaving like this would ignore the dwarf(unless it does something foolish like attack the evil-hunters) and go after the family-slaying goblin first before focusing on the other one.
Surely you have this backwards.
Post by: Melting Sky on March 09, 2014, 03:59:08 am
Post by: Fluoman on March 11, 2014, 06:42:25 am
Pixies would be Chaotic Good (Joyous wilds), while the angel of justice incarnate would be Lawful Good (Serene). Both are Good-aligned, but one of them is unpredictable.
So there could be Good Forgotten Beasts: guardians (Lawful Good) of a certain aspect of nature/civilization. For example The Great Protector of Plump Helmets (A gigantic, moving, mushroom-shaped mushroom made of mushrooms) that seeks to avenge the murders of so many mushrooms. As aspects of nature, they can die temporarily but will come back (unless all plump helmets and spawns disappear from the world).
On the other hand, there could be Good Mishief Makers (contrast with Evil Mishief Makers such as syndrome clouds, freak weather, or Neutral Mishief Makers such as ghosts) like fairies etc. These things could have unspecified effects, but mostly good from a certain point of view -> bliss cloud making everyone fall into a coma (everyone happy! dreams!), all alcohols turn to sunshine/mead (sunshine, lollipops!).
Anyway, that's just something to think about while waiting for spheres.
Post by: Arowhun on March 11, 2014, 08:49:13 am
So basically slightly weaker husks in all but name?
Not really, because they aren't opposed to life. Sentient beings effected by this syndrom become like animals, basically.
This effect could come from a cloud, or maybe dwarves get it if they stay outside for too long.