Print

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

[Armok]

quote:Originally posted by Sub-Actuality:
<STRONG> I don't think anyone ever makes a conscious decision to do something 'evil' just for the sake of it.</STRONG>

I do.     :roll: )

[Sub-Actuality]

Hehe, fair enough...  

I do choose evil just for the sake of it as well, I suppose, but when I do so it's never a serious choice. In other words, I'm never doing it from a context-motivated point of view within the scope of the game.  I'm doing it as an outside observer.

What I want to see in games is the ability to choose between two (or more!) divergent moral paths that don't require you to think "welp, now I'm being evil!"

Even better would be a game which was so morally ambiguous that individual players would decide on their own which path was the 'good' one and which was the 'evil', and would come up with different results.  A game that could actually get people debating about what was wrong and right in the context of the game world.  Now that would make my day!  

I don't know if any of this can be applied at all to Dwarf Fortress, but I do know that if advanced concepts like these do start appearing in games, they will probably come from very clever developers like Toady and Threetoe!

[ October 16, 2007: Message edited by: Sub-Actuality ]

[Lightning4]

quote:Originally posted by Armok:
<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...
</STRONG>

Nope. You don't even have to do much more than stare into the chasm and something will eventually bite your head off. I'm pretty sure they're not friendly, no they're unfriendly to the extreme.

It's all in how you play, I suppose. If you co-exist with the chasm, doing little more than constructing a bridge over it to the other side, you can call an attack unprovoked and hostile. But if you've been throwing your garbage into the chasm as soon as you found it, well, that's not very friendly, is it?

And it's more than annoyance. When fifteen of them come up out of the chasm with no warning, no provocation, no intent on diplomacy, and they mob two innocent children and a peasant...
That's pretty evil in my books.

[Sub-Actuality]

If you stare long enough into the chasm, the chasm stares back at you.   :eek:

[Leerok the Lacerta]

Driving the Indians from their land 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 Indian lands spread throughout the world, undoubtedly with many more Indians.
It's more of a local pest removal type of deal. You don't even have to do anything to the Indian lands besides discover it to start getting things crawling out with intent to kill. Eventually you'll want to nuke the Indian lands because they'll strike at the most inopportune times, regardless of whether you even dump anything into the Indian lands or not. Believe me, I tried the "peace with the Indians" approach. It didn't work. No, it failed big time, especially when they started surrounding random innocent colonists and breaking every limb of their body until I can finally rescue them.

Besides, I like to think the Indian lands extend far to the north and south, possibly with other meeting points and openings to elsewhere... and at the rate and speed settlers travel, it'd seem more probable that only a few unlucky bastards get nerfed, the rest are forced to move somewhere else and leave the damn settlers alone.

Replace "Indians" with any other persecuted group.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

quote:Originally posted by Sub-Actuality:
<STRONG>What I want to see in games is the ability to choose between two (or more!) divergent moral paths that don't require you to think "welp, now I'm being evil!"

Even better would be a game which was so morally ambiguous that individual players would decide on their own which path was the 'good' one and which was the 'evil', and would come up with different results.  A game that could actually get people debating about what was wrong and right in the context of the game world.  Now that would make my day!   </STRONG>

I call that a challenge and I will do my best to make your day!

For the novice class moral debate, see this thread, regarding the choice to flood/magma the chasm. Dwarves being the beasts and wiping out tons of life from the caves in their greed firmly control their new domain? Or the just response to brutal attacks on Dwarven workers carried out by evil cave monsters?

For the advanced class moral debate, I present to you Terra Nova: The Horde is Evil. Posted: 24 Dec 2005. Last comment: 25 Apr 2007. World of Warcraft allows you to choose between the Horde faction (Orcs, Trolls, Tauren [Minotaurs], Blood Elves, and Undead) and the Alliance faction (Humans, Dwarves, Night Elves, Gnomes, and Draenei). To one unfamiliar with the Warcraft universe, the Horde would seem to be traditionally evil, because they have all the "monsters". Whether they actually are is the subject of intense disagreement. Warcraft presents a world in which you get to decide whether the Orcs and Trolls are actually evil or not, and personally, I was proud to play an Orc warrior, and I did not do it with the belief that I was playing an evil race at all -- I considered my side to be good.

[Armok]

quote:Originally posted by Leerok the Lacerta:
<STRONG>
Driving the Indians from their land 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 Indian lands spread throughout the world, undoubtedly with many more Indians.
It's more of a local pest removal type of deal. You don't even have to do anything to the Indian lands besides discover it to start getting things crawling out with intent to kill. Eventually you'll want to nuke the Indian lands because they'll strike at the most inopportune times, regardless of whether you even dump anything into the Indian lands or not. Believe me, I tried the "peace with the Indians" approach. It didn't work. No, it failed big time, especially when they started surrounding random innocent colonists and breaking every limb of their body until I can finally rescue them.

Besides, I like to think the Indian lands extend far to the north and south, possibly with other meeting points and openings to elsewhere... and at the rate and speed settlers travel, it'd seem more probable that only a few unlucky bastards get nerfed, the rest are forced to move somewhere else and leave the damn settlers alone.

Replace "Indians" with any other persecuted group.</STRONG>

Exactly my point.

[Sub-Actuality]

quote:Originally posted by Jonathan S. Fox:
<STRONG>

I call that a challenge and I will do my best to make your day!

For the novice class moral debate, see this thread, regarding the choice to flood/magma the chasm. Dwarves being the beasts and wiping out tons of life from the caves in their greed firmly control their new domain? Or the just response to brutal attacks on Dwarven workers carried out by evil cave monsters?

For the advanced class moral debate, I present to you Terra Nova: The Horde is Evil. Posted: 24 Dec 2005. Last comment: 25 Apr 2007. World of Warcraft allows you to choose between the Horde faction (Orcs, Trolls, Tauren [Minotaurs], Blood Elves, and Undead) and the Alliance faction (Humans, Dwarves, Night Elves, Gnomes, and Draenei). To one unfamiliar with the Warcraft universe, the Horde would seem to be traditionally evil, because they have all the "monsters". Whether they actually are is the subject of intense disagreement. Warcraft presents a world in which you get to decide whether the Orcs and Trolls are actually evil or not, and personally, I was proud to play an Orc warrior, and I did not do it with the belief that I was playing an evil race at all -- I considered my side to be good.</STRONG>

You raise a good point - and the division in World of Warcraft is an excellent example, well done.  I think that sort of choice is probably the closest thing I've seen to what I'm talking about.  You have met my challenge!  I love that people are debating this.

Now, as my next step, I would like to see that same sort of moral ambiguity, but without one side or the other sporting essentially universal symbols of 'evil', ie. horns, skulls, growling voices, the bloody undead, etc. while the other side sticks to visual attractiveness and 'good' symbols.  Even though in WoW the Horde has a very believable and noble motivation, they are still portrayed, at least to the raw senses, as overwhelmingly more fitting to the classic archetype of 'evil'.  (The latest expansion helped somewhat with this, giving each side a new species that appeared opposite to the usual 'style', but this is the exception to the rule.)

The trick, of course, is to eliminate the cliché of good/evil symbology without simply devolving your two factions into a homogenous, indistinguishable mess.  There should be a clear and visible contrast between the two sides, but the distinction should be something deeper than "monsters vs. knights" or "aliens vs. humans".

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I actually think that the presence of traditional symbols of evil is a better way of handling good and evil than it might initially seem, as to play on the preconceptions of the player to cloud their judgment is a very realistic theme. We live in a very "enlightened" time in which stereotypes and prejudgment are frowned upon, and free reign of these are only really allowed to play in entertainment and fantasy. Warcraft uses the fantasy dynamic of portraying primitive, traditionally evil races in combat with advanced, traditionally good races in order to recreate the theme of civilization against savages, one that has historically been a very serious one.

Even with the founding of the United States, and even in the south, where slavery was most concentrated, it was universally understood that slavery was, in abstract, a bad thing. It was excused by stereotypes of Africans and their descendants as simple, stupid, savage people who were only happy when controlled by others and would resort to truly monstrous and animalistic behavior if let free. In modern America we've mostly erased all mention of the old extremely crude and brutal stereotypes used to justify slavery, and hidden the memories away in libraries and academics so effectively that today many younger people would never recognize the old stereotypes.

Throughout history, endless wars and evil acts perpetrated by societies have been justified by widely-held beliefs in the inherent savagery and evil of certain other peoples, thus justifying brutality revisited upon the monsters. To have good and evil in action be more shades of gray and subjective opinion is very unusual; even the fierce debates of modern politics are rarely matters of full-on good and evil, and even then they are the few isolated conflicts that rise to the top of debate amongst thousands of less prominent disagreements or judgments that everyone can agree on. In most cases, disagreement about good and evil is a matter of disagreement about facts, and very often this is a matter of what preconceptions and stereotypes those committing evil have about the victims or their actions. Even the holocaust was ostensibly justified by portraying the victims as evil and the perpetrators as upright and noble protectors of humanity.

The Knights of the Old Republic games utilize this to apply a sheen of gray to the dark side, but they are fundamentally limited by the fact that the underlying world asserts that the dark side is evil, so for them, any indications that it's merely misunderstood are red herrings, and the player knows it. Blizzard (the company that owns the Warcraft universe) is free cut out the evil at the core of the Horde stereotypes, and leave only your preconceptions behind, thus recreating the good and evil debate in the form that has plagued humanity throughout history. Indeed, it's this very form of good against evil that dominates many discussions on both sides involving Al Qaeda, the West, Islam.

[ October 16, 2007: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]

[Lightning4]

quote:Originally posted by Leerok the Lacerta:
<STRONG>
Driving the Indians from their land is only iffy at worst... etc etc.

</STRONG>

Yes, because the dwarves live in the chasm and force them from their burrows, right? Because certaintly, a saddening real world example can apply to a video game race where they're programmed to attack you no matter what?
I can respect the analogy, but in this case it's not entirely right.

It goes back to the whole "how you play" thing I mentioned a few posts back. Pouring molten hot rock into the chasm because it's there and there's creepy sounds down there? Not all that right.
Pouring molten hot rock to force an extremely hostile race away from you, after they've been terrorizing your people for many years, disrespectful of any form of diplomacy other than using their fists on your cats and children?
Honestly... I wouldn't consider it good either. It's extreme and forces a large portion of an entire race away. The dwarves would probably consider it justified, but from our perspective, it's rather extreme to be justified. It's like setting fire to a village and salting the earth. It doesn't necessarily kill them but it forces them to move somewhere else.

Of course, it's more of a game limitation than anything. The chasm civs are programmed to be permenantly pissed off. This may change someday.
But for now, they're not exactly saintly themselves.

Also, way to make me seem like an ethnocentric, self-centered bastard. Way to go.

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

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

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I would love to be able to negotiate with Goblins and others, even if they're very nasty to get along with. Goblins might initially demand that you abandon your fortress, or later (in exchange for peace) pay regular tribute, dismantle your fortifications, and stop stockpiling weapons. Maybe if you get along they'd eventually agree to send small trade groups selling miscellaneous trinkets, but it would alienate other nearby races as the goblins are selling you the spoils of raids on human settlements in exchange for weapons or something. Any group that that's angered by your presence in their territory might demand a setback from their caves that you can't farm, dig, or build past, prohibitions on chasming things, that sort of thing.

[Lightning4]

Well, I think that was part of the discussion in the first place.

Though evil... I don't know. Currently, yeah, there's a definitive evil.

We don't know too much about goblins other than they hate dwarves. Who knows, maybe they're really the oppressed in the world, and the dwarves are the evil ones (however unlikely it is). It'd be interesting if the game delved into that deeper at some point. I mean sure, they steal your babies and attempt to stamp out all life at your fortress, but why exactly. I want to know what the dwarves did to start this ageless feud... if they did anything.
It's possible the goblins are like the dwarves. Sort of greedy, and they eventually both found some sort of ultra-rare mineral or something. Insults led to arguments, arguments led to fistfights, fistfights eventually lead to full out combat. This would make neither a true "good" or "evil". And the dwarves had some sort of diplomatic ties the goblins didn't have, and manage to convince the humans and elves that the goblins are evil.

Or, the goblins are really what we'd consider the good faction, albeit with different culturally percived notions of what is acceptable and not. They steal babies, but perhaps in their mind, they're giving these children a better life. They stick fallen enemies on pikes outside, but to them it's a defensive measure to demoralize enemies or cause them to outright turn tail and run.

Or, the goblins really are the homicidal maniacs they are potrayed to be. All is a possibility. We can't exactly apply the human thinking processes to something that thinks a different way. For all we know every goblin has something in their brain that causes them to hate every living thing with intense passion.

[Sowelu]

I dislike games with a Good vs Evil scale.  I prefer Fear vs Love.

The RPG Fallout did a pretty crummy job at this.  You could be mean and greedy, you could be nice, but for the most part it came down to a stat called "Karma" that represented whether you were good or evil.  Good quests? Good karma.  Bad quests? Bad karma.  Assault a friendly merchant out in the middle of nowhere?  Bad karma...and the last part is the REAL problem.

If nobody else ever finds out what you did, then it shouldn't have any effect on your alignment.  Maybe it'll make you bonkers, but hey, most adventurers are either literal psychopaths or they have a morality that's too complex for game characters to understand. Anyway, if nobody finds out what you've done, then nobody else should care. And if nobody cares, YOU shouldn't care.

The only thing that should matter, in terms of alignment, is "How does this make other people see me".  If your fort's actions make other dwarves want to live there, then fine, call that 'good' for your purposes.  If you can make other people do what you say out of fear, then that's fine too.  Dwarven legends will say you're a hero.  Chasm critter legends will say you're the worst thing that ever happened to them.  I can deal with that.

The elves don't like you cutting down trees? Cool. Maybe you find goblins' short stature and bad smell offensive. Maybe goblins find dwarves' beards offensive. Maybe goblins have a problem with your mistreatment of GOLD or the mountain itself and they just don't know how to express it.

If goblins ate gold as their only sustenence, boy, that would start a war--and even if they were initially peaceful towards dwarves, I bet the player wouldn't let that peace stand for long.

I dunno. "Good" and "Evil" in games bugs me. I prefer to be loved or feared by various *people* instead of having some divine karma.  (Though I guess when there's gods involved, divine karma has more weight to it, too.)

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Sowelu, when you say Good versus Evil scale, as I understand, you mean a literal mechanic that tracks your behavior and passes judgment on your actions to give or take away alignment points. In the past, I've compared this to having an angel with a clipboard hovering over your shoulder taking notes on whether you should get into heaven or not. I personally do not mind having issues of good and evil be important in a game, but like you I prefer to have it be something in which the game does not explicitly define good and evil and judge all behavior in the game world around that axis.

One classic thing that I see over and over in games with a scale like that is the "help the beggar" event. You see a beggar. He wants money. He looks truly pitiful. You know that if you give him money you'll get good points. You know that if you rob him you'll get evil points. If you've decided to be evil, you rob the beggar. If you've decided to be good, you give him fifty bucks.

The irony is that the evil player is probably not really getting much benefit out of robbing beggars except bad guy points, and the good player is probably not doing it out of generosity, but out of desire for good guy points. The game designers, in their effort to create a world with a breathing morality system, have opened the floodgates of human behavior to allow you to be good or evil... and completely trivialized the meaning of both. I find it most silly when I'm having a conversation and feel like I'm following a script -- there's the good guy words, the bad guy words, the neutral words, and I'm supposed to pick one... and I obviously pick the one fitting my character's alignment. It's cool at first, but soon you tend to see that it really doesn't make as living a world as you might hope for.

Simulating love and hate instead results in a situation in which evil and good are less obvious to the player, but the world is more realistic. There is no angel over your shoulder taking notes on a clipboard as to whether you are good or evil, only the judgment of your simulated peers, and your own conscience as a player. Just as Dwarf Fortress does not decide for you whether you are good or evil for stalking a crossbow-toting dwarf into a goblin lair and turning goblin children into pincushions, it would be up to the player whether it's right or wrong. But unlike in Dwarf Fortress, the Goblins would remember you as the child butcher who slew a dozen goblin children and twice that many caretakers and escaped unscathed, and the Dwarves would remember you as a rogue warrior who returned vengeance on the goblins for the terror of their childsnatchers, and both sides would respond accordingly, giving you a sense of the different moralities existing in this world, and enabling you to decide for yourself which ones you most agree and believe in, if any.

In part I realize that I'm just restating what you've said in a different way. I'm also mulling over whether I agree with you though, and I think I do.

[nerdpride]

I think it would be better to look at it from the perspective of guilt.  When you murder someone, it changes you, like the Macbeths in the Shakespeare play.  The only thing those two did really bad was to conspire against their king, but it lead to a whole line of nasty things that completely changed them.  Maybe there are a few other drastic things that cause changes, drugs for mental illness can be considered a necessary evil.  It would be annoying to be presented with a situation where you would have to become a "bad guy", I don't know exactly how to work that.

I remember something in particular about always seeing blood on your hands when you murdered someone in cold blood (probably from Macbeth).  Usually video games make this look cool or something (Hitman, anyone?), but I think it would be neat to see a game where the character becomes crazy (more and more uncontrollable) when you do many mind-altering things.  This isn't the style of Dwarf Fortress, though.  DF would just have different events occur, like more migrants showing up, different priests being attracted to your fortress, conflict with certain beings, reduced happiness, and the like.

I just don't want to see DF do something that doesn't make sense.  However, Toady is smart, so no worries there.  Other game designers could use some lecturing on this topic, I'm extremely skeptical about the value of any commercially produced game being _sold_ today.  Stupid gamer culture.