Bay 12 Games Forum

-Mandates to not make things (for a given time period)

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.

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.

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on May 30, 2012, 07:00:27 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.

Woo!

Is it a deathtrap? Can we visit? Would that spoil the fun? Are you going to continue it later if you get another chance? Could someone else embark there? huh? huh? huhuh?

I really need some sleep, but those questions are valid.

Quote from: Neonivek on May 27, 2012, 12:05:54 am

Quote from: UHaulDwarf on May 26, 2012, 09:46:20 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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