Print

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

[isitanos]

I think fantasy worlds are more interesting when there's a sense of good and evil. In Lord of the Rings, Frodo refuses to kill Gollum out of the goodness of his heart. He (as does Gandalf) has some kind of inner trust that this is the right thing to do, and that Gollum may have a part to play in saving the world from the clutches of Sauron. As it ends, the ring could not have been destroyed without Gollum. Some kind of higher power (one of the Valar?) was watching all along, and they placed their trust right.

In that story, authentically good people don't want to compromise with their principles, and "win" the battle by using the tools of evil. Because that would allow evil in their own lives, and live on through them. That's also why Gandalf refuses to wear the ring.

What can be more epic than that? I think the best heroes are the ones who live that kind of moral dilemma. However, between those heroes and the pure villains such as Sauron, there's a lot of room for morally ambiguous characters, and people who just follow their own interest.

[Tahin]

As awesome as The Lord of the Rings is, the spirit of DF doesn't seem to really encompass an epic, world-conquering evil.

[THLawrence]

That's just because we haven;t gotten the chance. When we can take control of a country and conquer the world there will be LOTS who do. I know because I will be among them.

[Krash]

A quick derail...

quote: With the way the human population is growing we will soon be placing so much stress on the worlds resources that it will crumble.

This is a common myth taken as fact.  Our growth isn't exponential, it's slowing down.  We aren't close to starving, more people suffer from weight problems today  than lack of food.  And we aren't running out of resources.  The reason for the high prices of today are due to lack of refining power, not of dwindling stockpiles.  All this can easily seen if you take a good look at actual facts, and avoid scare propaganda.

But whatever...  About evil:

Evil paths often suffers in games, and ends up forcing you to be an asshole to everyone, killing puppies and not being nice even for a reward.  If someone pays me, a dark, foul warrior who revels in death and destruction, to rescue a princess from a necromancer; am I good for doing just that?  I'm doing it for the thrill and the money, not for being mr nice guy.  And still, I'll get a good reputation for it.  That makes the whole good/evil actually seem a bit obsolete, or at least incomplete, doesn't it?

But like I said, "game" evil mostly is about being as bad as possible, even in detriment to myself.  Ooo, lookee here, those are some fine chickens; lets gut them and throw them at children!  Why does evil in games often equal stupitidy?  Being shrewd and cunning is certainly a part of the personality of some "evil" people, and that should be reflected in game.  

What I would like to see, is no predefined evil/good stuff at all, rather simply choices and consequences.  Kill babies?  People won't love you.  Act nice?  Then they will.  Save people for money?  They still will love you, even though you didn't do it for them but for yourself.  Each action should carry a price, sometimes apparent, sometimes not.  That way, both evil and good actions will have interresting repercussions, and the game world will be all the better because of it.

[Idles]

Krash, much of your post not true at all.

While some countries' population growth is slowing (North America and parts of Europe), some countries' population growth rate is increasing. And some countries, with already large populations, are maintaining a growth rate that will most definitely leave them high and dry for want of some resources.

Most importantly, the global population is continually growing, although the rate of growth may peak soon, or may have already reached its peak (differs according to source).

Of the 6 billion+ people on Earth, about half live in poverty and at least one fifth are severely undernourished. The rest live out their lives in comparative comfort and health.

You are the one embracing a myth: the Earth's resources are ultimately finite, and its population is growing.

A well-respected educational institution's website about human populations: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html#Past

[Karlito]

quote:Originally posted by Krash:
<STRONG>What I would like to see, is no predefined evil/good stuff at all, rather simply choices and consequences.  Kill babies?  People won't love you.  Act nice?  Then they will.  Save people for money?  They still will love you, even though you didn't do it for them but for yourself.  Each action should carry a price, sometimes apparent, sometimes not.  That way, both evil and good actions will have interresting repercussions, and the game world will be all the better because of it.</STRONG>

quote:Originally posted by Tahin:
[QB]I don't think there should be any sense of "good" or "evil." Just who you have and haven't managed to piss off. /QB]

I think this is the kind of thing I would like to see.  If you are a brave dwarf adventurer who has slaughtered many a goblin the dwarves will hail you as a hero, but to the goblins you are as evil as they come.
I would like to see less of a "good" or "evil" but more of a "factional alignment" type of thing.

[Rollory]

If dwarves are unhappy when they get a strange mood, they will have one of the "evil" moods, and since that only requires another dwarf as a component they will always be successful.

So, if you want the max number of artifacts fast, leave plenty of miasma in your fortress, don't build beds but make them sleep on the bare stone, build plenty of chains for when they get TOO unhappy and tantrum, have lots of guards ... etc. ...

I think that is pretty evil, and for a coherent reason.  It is something I want to try at some point - though I'm waiting for the new version right now.

[John Hopoate]

Organised crime in the form of smuggling, dealing in contraband, piracy, looting, banditry, etc has been a risky way for ambitious people to get rich quick for the better part of human history. In too many games this isn't properly simulated, in games like Privateer and other Elite style games like X3 there are tons of pirates and yet piracy is marginally profitable whilst being incredibly risky.

Lets look at what could be possible if Toady does this properly. You start off as a human in some trashy little town, you know how to use a sword and want something better in life. After learning about the trade patterns of your region, you recruit half a dozen local drunks (all former military men), give them some cheap crossbows and wait in ambush on the road to the nearest Dwarf Fortress. The caravan guards are either killed or routed, the high quality axes, fancy cheese and barrels of booze are so valuable that you and your comrades have made more in a week than you'd have otherwise earned in a year! Luckily for you the horses haven't bolted and you're able to take the carts of goods to a distant land, selling the proceeds of your foul deeds without attracting too much attention.

Soon you recruit more men, raid more caravans, fight off bandit patrols and establish a permanent base, cementing your status as the local robber baron. Eventually the Dwarfs decide to pay you off, they pay you a regular tribute you  you fund your lifestyle and private army with the proceeds of extortion.  

The humans of your homeland do not regard you as evil, you're a local boy who made a name for himself, someone who stole from the rich and greedy Dwarfs and gave most of his plunder to his underprivileged human comrades. He's still a loyal subject of the king, he's even on good terms with his royal highness (who's mostly just happy that human caravans aren't getting raided).

[WillNZ]

Usually, when people say "everyone's evil" or such crap, it's usually self-justification to why they behave so selfishly, which is, ironically, what "good" people do. Ultimately, virtually all actions have a component of good and evil. There are acts so terrible they benefit no one and cannot be construed in any way as selfless. On the other hand, some acts are so self-sacrificing that they cannot be construed in any way as benefiting them in even a "warm fuzzy feeling" sense, much to the shock of the most cynical of folks.

That is an aside, by the way, because I hate the "everyone's evil" argument.

In game terms, though, I can't say I enjoy being evil. I experience evil every day, and it sucks ass. I play games because at least I can put an axe through the skull of an evil sucker, something I unfortunately can't do in real life. The reason why evil is rewarding is really obvious. It's more important to have some real reasons to be good.

Basically, if you become a "good" person, there should be some emotional reward. Maybe the guy you save the life of builds a home somewhere and you meet him again in your travels. If you give 100 gold to a beggar randomly, maybe he *does* pick himself up and get a life. Doing good things is all well, but making a difference is where the good path really doles out.

...Yeah, alright, that does sound a bit wishy-washy, but maybe I'm just like that.

*hugs a kitten*

[Tahin]

We definitely need more than the standard, "Goblins are evil, therefore it is OK to kill them," style of gameplay. Now, the Humans and dwarves might believe this, but if you talk to the goblins, you'll instead hear about all the horrible things the "good" races have done.

Every "evil" action has some reason behind it, oftentimes this reason is even perceived as being good in the long-run by the "villain."

Of course, you could play some kind of psychopath, going around and biting babies' heads off, but the majority of people have some reason behind their "evil" actions, even if it's just, "I wanted the money," which is really more selfish than it is evil.

Also, once religion gets implemented we'll have people going around killing "heretics" and the like, which will add one more level of depth to the Good/Evil divide.

Overall, DF is too awesome to be diluted with overly-simplified Good/Neutral/Evil alignments, or even Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic, though that might be useful to assign to NPCS simply for the purpose of deciding whether they will turn you into the local law enforcement or not, or whether they will join your band of bandits.

Okay... I'm done.

[Saktoth]

Helloooo? Kitten mittens and extermination rooms? Genociding the chasm and opening the adamantium prison out of greed?

90% of fortresses are about as evil as you get- and its all down to the players choosing to play that way. Genocide of inconvenient races and mass murder of the weak, lame and useless is just practical. The game doesnt judge your actions or give you 'evil' points, and nor should it. The actions speak for themselves

[Lightning4]

Nuking the chasm is only iffy at worst.

Genocide entails that every single last being of that race is completely wiped out. This is not so, for we know there are more chasms spread throughout the world, undoubtedly with many more bat/rat/antmen.
It's more of a local pest removal type of deal. You don't even have to do anything to the chasm besides discover it to start getting things crawling out with intent to kill. Eventually you'll want to nuke the chasm because they'll strike at the most inopportune times, regardless of whether you even dump anything into the chasm or not. Believe me, I tried the "peace with the chasm" approach. It didn't work. No, it failed big time, especially when they started surrounding random innocent dwarves and breaking every limb of their body until I can finally rescue them.

Besides, I like to think the chasm extends far to the north and south in the current maps, possibly with other meeting points and openings to elsewhere or even the surface... and at the rate and speed lava flows, it'd seem more probable that only a few unlucky bastards get cooked, the rest are forced to move somewhere else and leave the damn dwarves alone.

I sorta agree with the cripple thing though, I can never bring myself to do that type of stuff, no matter if they're going to be bedridden for life.
Besides, one of my hammerdwarves with a broken spine helped cure any other thought I had. When goblins got to the entrance of my fortress (barracks is next to entrance), he crawled out of bed and immediately dragged himself out with fury in his eyes. I think he smashed a good few goblins until he started moving away. Sadly, he got shot and killed next wave, but damn that was a heroic way to go. Anyway, back on topic.

And the greed thing, well, dwarves are almost always stereotypically greedy. It's almost to the point where if a dwarf isn't greedy, they aren't a true dwarf. Same with alcohol.

[ October 16, 2007: Message edited by: Lightning4 ]

[Armok]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning4:
<STRONG>Nuking the chasm is only iffy at worst.

Genocide entails that every single last being of that race is completely wiped out. This is not so, for we know there are more chasms spread throughout the world, undoubtedly with many more bat/rat/antmen.
It's more of a local pest removal type of deal. You don't even have to do anything to the chasm besides discover it to start getting things crawling out with intent to kill. Eventually you'll want to nuke the chasm because they'll strike at the most inopportune times, regardless of whether you even dump anything into the chasm or not. Believe me, I tried the "peace with the chasm" approach. It didn't work. No, it failed big time, especially when they started surrounding random innocent dwarves and breaking every limb of their body until I can finally rescue them.

Besides, I like to think the chasm extends far to the north and south in the current maps, possibly with other meeting points and openings to elsewhere or even the surface... and at the rate and speed lava flows, it'd seem more probable that only a few unlucky bastards get cooked, the rest are forced to move somewhere else and leave the damn dwarves alone.
</STRONG>

Except the "pests" are infact sentient and sapient, albit technologically primitive, also, they have lived here for milenia, ten you comes trowing tings at them...
FROM A HEIGHT OF SEVERAL HUNDRED METERS! Really, a mitten might not be very heavy, but it can still kill batman cup or antman larva if it has enough speed,
taken that into consideration it's more like the Aztecs than "local pest removal", besides, killing poor innocent flies or ants or rats just because they ANNOYS you I consider quite evil even if they are not sapient, because sentinent is a compleatly diferent thing

[Sub-Actuality]

Interesting reading in this thread!

As far as 'good' and 'evil' are concerned, and as several people have mentioned already, I don't think anyone ever makes a conscious decision to do something 'evil' just for the sake of it.  This is why people choose the 'evil' path in games 'just to see what happens'.  It's the only conceivable motivation.

What I would like to see in a game is the following: Instead of a very black-and-white choice between being 'good' or 'evil', the player is forced to choose between extremely divergent viewpoints or factions, both of which have perfectly justifiable motivations.

For example, a powerful artifact is discovered.  One faction intends to use this artifact's power to eliminate the threat of dragons or some such for the sake of peace, while the other faction insists that the use of the artifact is a danger in and of itself.  Neither of these factions is led by a growling, sinewy vampire who laughs maniacally, or a blue-eyed Adonis who inspires his loyal underlings.  They're all just regular people, with completely good intentions, who are at odds with each other's viewpoints.

I haven't yet seen this in a game, but I would love to.  It goes a lot deeper than a cliché choice between flawlessly moral benevolence and pure, unbridled, black-and-red-wearing evil.

[Mephisto]

quote:Originally posted by Saktoth:
<STRONG>Helloooo? Kitten mittens and extermination rooms? Genociding the chasm and opening the adamantium prison out of greed?</STRONG>

Killing kittens is evil how? People need to get the idea out of their minds that "Ooh, it's CUUUTEEE! Let's cuddle!" I used to raise pigs. Not cute and cuddly, are they? Maybe not, but they can be just as friendly as your cuddly kittens. Most of nature's cute and cuddly animals that you see won't hesitate to rip your face off.

Plus, let's say that it's winter and you're starving. You've got many kittens. Why not kill a few to keep you warm and fed?

The thought of evil is subjective. I can't remember where I read that at. It's all about what each person thinks is right and wrong.

The exception to that rule is, as said, the sociopaths.

[ October 16, 2007: Message edited by: Mephisto ]