Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Alignments!...

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 15, 2005 6:09:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Ive noticed that in most rls including nethack which i play, probably
not all though, the alignments are cheotic, neutral, and lawful. Why
not use an adnd system of LG,LN,LE,NG,TN,NE,CG,CN,CE? There are
probably others out there but i was wonderign why many dont include
this.

I am writing my own rl right now and was wondering how players would
react to this idea. Simlar to nethack the bold adventurer discends the
dungeons into the depths of hell to get an item, perform an action, or
accomplish something (any ideas on this would be great too... ;)  ). The
adventurer can choose their alignment at the begining of the game and
can change anytime through their actions reciving a seveire penalty for
the change. If they are evil, their action is either selfish if they
are CE or for an evil god (LE). If they are CG they are doing if for
the their own good to do good and if they are LG then maybe they are
doing it for a good diety or for a good organization or church on the
surface... hmmm. Should this be set or is it all just mental
roleplaying... thats a good question also! What is everyones thoughts
on this!

Thanks... r.g.r.d is the best!!

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM

More about : alignments

Anonymous
July 15, 2005 6:17:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 15 Jul 2005 14:09:22 -0700, Thomas wrote:

>Ive noticed that in most rls including nethack which i play, probably
>not all though, the alignments are cheotic, neutral, and lawful. Why
>not use an adnd system of LG,LN,LE,NG,TN,NE,CG,CN,CE? There are
>probably others out there but i was wonderign why many dont include
>this.

They do? I hadn't noticed. [shrug] If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

>I am writing my own rl right now and was wondering how players would
>react to this idea. Simlar to nethack the bold adventurer discends the
>dungeons into the depths of hell to get an item, perform an action, or
>accomplish something (any ideas on this would be great too... ;)  ). The
>adventurer can choose their alignment at the begining of the game and
>can change anytime through their actions reciving a seveire penalty for
>the change. If they are evil, their action is either selfish if they
>are CE or for an evil god (LE). If they are CG they are doing if for
>the their own good to do good and if they are LG then maybe they are
>doing it for a good diety or for a good organization or church on the
>surface... hmmm. Should this be set or is it all just mental
>roleplaying... thats a good question also! What is everyones thoughts
>on this!

I think that the character's actions should determine their "alignment"
as such. It's one thing to call your character "good"; it's another
thing to play him as "good". (Example: in the Baldur's Gate games, it's
easy to call your character "lawful good" but then take that character
on a murderous rampage across the countryside without your alignment
changing. WTF?)

*If* I were to use alignments, I would do it was Planescape: Torment
does it - your actions determine your alignment, which starts at
"neutral" and shifts accordingly.
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs.
July 15, 2005 6:52:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

great... i agree with that... start TN (NN) and then change... and the
first change would be free or what... how would you implement an
alignment change penalty...?

ok good but what are your thoughts on good - evil... should that side
of it be included?

Thanks.

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
Related resources
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 7:25:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 15 Jul 2005 14:09:22 -0700, "Thomas" <comments@foresightsagas.com>
wrote:

>Ive noticed that in most rls including nethack which i play, probably
>not all though, the alignments are cheotic, neutral, and lawful.

Most? Nethack (plus SLASH'EM) and ADOM do not constitute "most"
roguelikes.

>I am writing my own rl right now and was wondering how players would
>react to this idea.

What the purpose of this alignment system going to be? Answer that
*first*, then worry about what form it should take.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
July 15, 2005 8:14:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

sorry but nethack and adom are really the only ones that i know
anything about and pretty much all of that knowledge is nethack. i dont
really know adom at all aside from general knowledge... so i didn't
really mean most... "some of the main RLs" would be better.

I think that the alignment system would be there to add a roleplaying
function to the game. It would allow/force the player to conform to
cirtain behavoirs. the player could change there ways but only at a
strict cost. The roleplaying and general take on the game would enhance
it in the same way spliting the game into classes and races would
enhance it. One player may want to play a Lawful Good Fighter so they
can get a LG artifact... while another player might play a Neutral Evil
Wizard so they can specialize in necromancy and eventually perform to
rite to convert themselves to a lich (which i hope to allow for evil
wizards in CHAZM). It addsdiversity and choice to the game. And thats
what RLs (and most games) are about making complex choices in a
simulated environment for the fun of it!
hmmm... i hope that ramble made sense... I suppose thats my thinking on
the matter... i was wondering if others might have other ideas or
positions on the subject.

In CHAZM a player is able to specialize their class once they meet
cirtain requirments and fine tune their skills... they trade off some
for others. eg

barbarian->berzerker
fighter->ranger
fighter->paladin
rogue->assassin
rogue->thief
wizard->evoker
wizard->summoner
wizard->necromancer (further to lich if evil)

the pc being evil or good just adds more choices more options... more
fun to the game...

thoughts?

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 1:10:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Thomas wrote:
> Ive noticed that in most rls including nethack which i play, probably
> not all though, the alignments are cheotic, neutral, and lawful. Why
> not use an adnd system of LG,LN,LE,NG,TN,NE,CG,CN,CE? There are
> probably others out there but i was wonderign why many dont include
> this.

I'd recommend removing artificial alignment systems, instead of adding
in more new ones. "Alignments" are nasty little artifacts left over
from D&D, and they do nothing but hinder a game's development.

> I am writing my own rl right now and was wondering how players would
> react to this idea. Simlar to nethack the bold adventurer discends the
> dungeons into the depths of hell to get an item, perform an action, or
> accomplish something (any ideas on this would be great too... ;)  ). The
> adventurer can choose their alignment at the begining of the game and
> can change anytime through their actions reciving a seveire penalty for
> the change.

Why the hell would an alignment change bring them a severe penalty?
That's just plain silly, and would instantly break any immersion and
ruin the game for me. I can think of no valid reason to penalize a
player for changing alignments.

> If they are evil, their action is either selfish if they
> are CE or for an evil god (LE). If they are CG they are doing if for
> the their own good to do good and if they are LG then maybe they are
> doing it for a good diety or for a good organization or church on the
> surface... hmmm. Should this be set or is it all just mental
> roleplaying...

If you're trying to facilitate roleplaying, then an artificial,
kludgey alignment system will only hinder your effort.

> thats a good question also! What is everyones thoughts
> on this!
>
> Thanks... r.g.r.d is the best!!


--
My projects are currently on hold, but I do have
some junk at the site below.

http://www.freewebs.com/timsrl/index.htm

--
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 1:43:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 15 Jul 2005 16:14:40 -0700, "Thomas" <comments@foresightsagas.com>
wrote:


>I think that the alignment system would be there to add a roleplaying
>function to the game. It would allow/force the player to conform to
>cirtain behavoirs.

You are confusing railroading with role-playing.

>the player could change there ways but only at a
>strict cost.

Ah, yes, the number one reason alignments are the arch-enemies of
role-playing. Let's punish character development, since we all know
the best characters are cardboard action heroes who never change.

> The roleplaying and general take on the game would enhance
>it in the same way spliting the game into classes and races would
>enhance it. One player may want to play a Lawful Good Fighter so they
>can get a LG artifact...

And that'd be power-gaming, not role-playing. Doing it for the goodies
isn't role-playing.

>the pc being evil or good just adds more choices more options...

On the contrary, looks like you are using it to artificially restrict
choices.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:19:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 15 Jul 2005 14:52:32 -0700, Thomas wrote:

>great... i agree with that... start TN (NN) and then change... and the
>first change would be free or what... how would you implement an
>alignment change penalty...?

I wouldn't - alignment should reflect how the character acts, not
vice-versa. Planescape: Torment - my previously-mentioned example -
doesn't penalize the character in any way for alignment changes.

>ok good but what are your thoughts on good - evil... should that side
>of it be included?

Why should someone have to declare flat out "I'm a good guy"? Your
actions should make it plain whether or not you're good. It's quite easy
to play an "evil" character in D&D who does good and/or heroic deeds for
purely selfish motives - the general public would call that character
"good" and "hero", no matter what alignment you have written on your
character sheet.

To put it in a more real-world example. Let's say we have a high-up
mobster who builds a children's hospital just to improve his public
image. On the other hand, there's an every-day citizen who decides to
take the law into his own hands, and kills said mobster. Who's the bad
guy? According to D&D, the mobster is just plain evil, no exceptions,
while the every-day citizen is a hero - but in the real world, that
mobster might have been considered a saint (especially if his illegal
activities were unknown) whereas the every-day citizen is going to jail
(at least) if he's caught.
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
I blinked, therefore I ran.
July 16, 2005 6:13:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com> wrote:
> Ive noticed that in most rls including nethack which i play, probably
> not all though, the alignments are cheotic, neutral, and lawful. Why
> not use an adnd system of LG,LN,LE,NG,TN,NE,CG,CN,CE?

It is much easier to classify behaviour as to whether it promotes order
or chaos than to make abstract moral judgements about good and evil.
Either way, a reference to a klunky roleplaying rules system does not
promote roleplaying or interesting thinking anywhere.

Computer games need hard and fast rules. If you want a complex
"alignment" system, track how you are aligned with various factions
within the game. Those factions can have hard and fast rules about what
_they_ consider to be "good" and "evil" without the author having to
decide who is right and wrong. Moral ambiguity leads to thought and
potential roleplaying, whereas railroading the player into an alignment
description limits choice.

If nothing else, a faction system has a clear purpose within the game,
in terms of what options are available to the player. Introducing
aligned items is (to me) clearly backwash designed to justify the
existence of the alignment system.

Dungeon Crawl solves this beautifully. It makes no moral assertions. But
if you are Demonspawn, you cannot worship certain gods. If you use
necromancy, again, it will upset certain gods so you cannot worship
them. No alignment, but a clear game purpose for the tradeoffs of
morally uncertain decisions.

> Should this be set or is it all just mental
> roleplaying... thats a good question also! What is everyones thoughts
> on this!

At the risk of repeating myself, everyone makes their own moral
judgements. Blatantly destructive decisions should have practical
consequences in a world where you are interacting with other people.
Alignment rules however, especially hard rules with penalties (instead
of general descriptions of how others see you), are counterproductive
and I tend to get annoyed by such contrivances very quickly and ditch
the games which implement them.

> r.g.r.d is the best!!

I couldn't agree more. :)  I spend more time here than anywhere else on
the internet, simply because it has more to offer me.

--jude hungerford.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 3:14:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

"Thomas" <comments@foresightsagas.com> wrote:
>Ive noticed that in most rls including nethack which i play, probably
>not all though, the alignments are cheotic, neutral, and lawful. Why
>not use an adnd system of LG,LN,LE,NG,TN,NE,CG,CN,CE? There are
>probably others out there but i was wonderign why many dont include
>this.
>
>I am writing my own rl right now and was wondering how players would
>react to this idea. Simlar to nethack the bold adventurer discends the
>dungeons into the depths of hell to get an item, perform an action, or
>accomplish something (any ideas on this would be great too... ;)  ). The
>adventurer can choose their alignment at the begining of the game and
>can change anytime through their actions reciving a seveire penalty for
>the change. If they are evil, their action is either selfish if they
>are CE or for an evil god (LE). If they are CG they are doing if for
>the their own good to do good and if they are LG then maybe they are
>doing it for a good diety or for a good organization or church on the
>surface... hmmm. Should this be set or is it all just mental
>roleplaying... thats a good question also! What is everyones thoughts
>on this!
>
>Thanks... r.g.r.d is the best!!

Because there aren't many opportunities in roguelikes to be selfless
etc.
July 17, 2005 6:49:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

hmmm... ok... but would the game still gauge yout alignment based on
your actions? I agree their should be no penalty i thought that was
sort of a must for an rpg... i suppose i am mistaken.

if the game gauged that according to your actions you were good, could
you then recieve an evil artifact or worship an evil diety.. etc.. what
restrictions should be in place?

finally, when i said "rolplaying" i meant trying to aim for an
alignment and playing in a cirtain style. It is an aspect of the game..
not the whole game. Like any game the point of a RL is to win or
progress or gain cirtain items or the such but it is also about
roleplaing and trying to play in a style or with special challanges....

personally i think the most fun aspect of any RL is the fun derived
from its complexity. Nethack is most fun because of all of its secrets
and items and features. I am probably stumbling around my words to say
whats simple so ill sign off...

thanks and keep the ideas/opinions comming~!!

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 7:45:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 17 Jul 2005 02:49:07 -0700, Thomas wrote:

>hmmm... ok... but would the game still gauge yout alignment based on
>your actions? I agree their should be no penalty i thought that was
>sort of a must for an rpg... i suppose i am mistaken.

That was a "must" in D&D 1st & 2nd editions (don't know about 3rd or
v3.5).

As I said, *if* I were to use alignments, then yes, the game would pay
attention to what you do and modify your alignment accordingly. Certain
actions would have something like an "alignment modifier" associated
with them, and the character would have a counter (or two, if using
good-and-evil and law-and-order) that kept track of the actual
alignment. It would be signed, with 0=neutral, 100(ish)=pure good,
-100(ish)=pure evil. If the modifiers pushed you over a certain
threshold - probably 33/-33 - your displayed alignment would change.

For example: current alignment=35 [good], kill an old lady -> alignment
modifier -20, new alignment=15 [neutral] -> displayed alignment changes
from "GOOD" to "NEUTRAL".

But that's all theoretical - unless the game is an actual D&D game then
things like alignment are rather out of place IMO.

>if the game gauged that according to your actions you were good, could
>you then recieve an evil artifact or worship an evil diety.. etc.. what
>restrictions should be in place?

Why not? Instead of saying "you can't use that item/worship that god/
whatever", instead make things happen that aren't good - like, a good
item might curse evil characters so that they're clumsy, while an evil
item might physically harm good characters.
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
- I'm leaving.
- Not fast enough.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 10:55:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Auric__ wrote:
[...]
> >if the game gauged that according to your actions you were good, could
> >you then recieve an evil artifact or worship an evil diety.. etc.. what
> >restrictions should be in place?
>
> Why not? Instead of saying "you can't use that item/worship that god/
> whatever", instead make things happen that aren't good - like, a good
> item might curse evil characters so that they're clumsy, while an evil
> item might physically harm good characters.

I think there can be more varied, specialized, easy to implement,
meaningful and useful measurements of player behaviour than a sticker
of good/bad (or lawful/chaotic) alignment.
D&D experience shows that such broad categories are vague and often
conflicting; even if the conflicts are solved, like in real life,
players will not agree with each other and with the game author about
the solution, and they'll feel constrained and frustrated.
Is assaulting a wandering orc good because the orc is an evil creature
or evil because it is an act of violence and genocide? It depends. In
D&D, there would be classes like the Orc Slayer or the Peaceful Monk
with different and specific codes of conduct, independent from
alignment (good in both cases).

A RL game has less space for ethical and philosophical contrast than a
RPG: we should avoid aligment systems that lead to disagreements,
confusion and frustration like the D&D one.
Some more appropriate categories of quasi-alignments:

1) The traditional special restrictions, checked by the game (maybe
with warnings): not buying anything, not attacking first, etc. with the
satisfaction of the challenge as the only effect. If a player thinks
they are silly, unpleasant, or different from his idea of "pacifist" or
"ironman" he can simply ignore them.

2) Moral and personal judgements from NPCs.
An alignment in the D&D sense represents what the character really is
or what the character thinks of himself, therefore it has to match the
player's idea of his character (either by constraining the character or
by updating the alignment).
On the other hand, when good, evil etc. are attributed to some
character they become arbitrary opinions that the player doesn't need
to agree with and that have no relevance for game rules.

The gate of Hell is closed.
>c (chat)
The Gatekeeper says: "You are too good to enter, go away"

Of course the game is more fun if there is a rationale and a way to
make the NPC change his mind, or maybe a backup plan.

>c (chat)
The Gatekeeper says: "You have always fought in self defense. Sorry
that you are still alive."

[...goes away, assaults someone, comes back...]
>c (chat)
The Gatekeeper says: "You have never stolen. May your backpack
disappear."

[...goes away, robs a store, comes back...]
>c (chat)
The Gatekeeper says: "Welcome!"
The gate of Hell opens for you.

3) Magic items that watch the behaviour of their user. Their opinion of
the character can be very narrow (and easy to implement), very
important and motivating for the player, and easy to understand.
For example, the Wand of Change stops working whenever the hero dispels
an enchantment and remain on strike until the player makes two
permanent enchantments of his own, while the Kick Ass boots lose their
bonus gradually and recharge or improve when they cause death or
surrender; an intelligent Holy Weapon can request all sort of
atonements for a variety of minor acts (like trespassing or hunting)
before it allows itself to be wielded.
The rules of this sort of item should be known to the player, either by
direct explanations ("You are too dirty to wield Soapy, the Shining
Shield (+8)(d). Please take a bath") or by preemptive hints and
descriptions ("The Wand of Change was designed to fill the world with
wondrous and lasting magic").

4) Simple summaries, graphs and logs of what the character does, like
damage dealt and damage taken per turn, killed/fled enemy ratio, total
friend and enemy casualties, experience and loot value per victim,
damage per spell and for magic point spent, kills by species and turn
and so on. The player, apart from getting sick of the massacre, could
look back and easily spot trends and episodes like picking weak
targets, using too many attack spells, friendly fire etc and verify
theories (am I really a brave paladin if I've killed only small fry for
the last 600 turns, letting trolls and vampires escape?).

Lorenzo Gatti
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 1:04:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

At 17 Jul 2005 02:49:07 -0700,
Thomas wrote:

> if the game gauged that according to your actions you were good, could
> you then recieve an evil artifact or worship an evil diety.. etc.. what
> restrictions should be in place?

By saing things like this, you already assume that there is some kind of
feature in the character's soul, his 'goodness', that can be somehow
measured (by magical means, in this case).

In this case, you can call this feature 'alignment' and just treat it as
yet another stat -- allow to train it, have potions of gain/lose, even
stat drains. If you add some bonuses for actions, then the players will
naturally play so that they receive this bonus, the same way that the
players having dexterous characters will base on their speed rather than
strength.

What kind of actions should receive the bonus and hov to detect them is
just customary, but you will probably want to match it to the theme.

> finally, when i said "rolplaying" i meant trying to aim for an
> alignment and playing in a cirtain style. It is an aspect of the game..
> not the whole game. Like any game the point of a RL is to win or
> progress or gain cirtain items or the such but it is also about
> roleplaing and trying to play in a style or with special challanges....

There's no way to force the player into roleplaying, especially with rules
and mechanics. These are usually neutral to roleplaying, but may sometimes
be in the way.

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
<..> ] 0110110?
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 1:52:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

gatti@dsdata.it wrote:
> Auric__ wrote:
> [...]
> > >if the game gauged that according to your actions you were good, could
> > >you then recieve an evil artifact or worship an evil diety.. etc.. what
> > >restrictions should be in place?
> >
> > Why not? Instead of saying "you can't use that item/worship that god/
> > whatever", instead make things happen that aren't good - like, a good
> > item might curse evil characters so that they're clumsy, while an evil
> > item might physically harm good characters.
>
> I think there can be more varied, specialized, easy to implement,
> meaningful and useful measurements of player behaviour than a sticker
> of good/bad (or lawful/chaotic) alignment.
>
> 2) Moral and personal judgements from NPCs.
> An alignment in the D&D sense represents what the character really is
> or what the character thinks of himself, therefore it has to match the
> player's idea of his character (either by constraining the character or
> by updating the alignment).

This is effectively how POWDER handles the alignment question. The
NPCs in question are the deities of the game. As you act, the various
deities will watch you and adjust their opinion of you.

This means you may be well liked by Tlosh, the evil lich. Does this
make you evil? No. It just means that Tlosh is happy with what you
are doing.

This also lets you get more interesting "alignments" than just Good vs
Evil. The barbarian god, for example, disapproves of magic users (much
like Trog in Crawl). You thus have a Barbarian vs Non-Barbarian
alignment.

The most important point is that you have to determine how you are
going to use this before creating an alignment system. Don't create
some "complete" system and then try and fill it out with game mechanics
afterwards. It's better that the user have only a choice of 3
"alignments" that are filled out than 27 where only 3 have any depth.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
July 18, 2005 2:30:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Great!

I think i understand what everyone is saying alright. In my game i was
thinking about implementing a system where there were the 9 standard
alignments but they would be very loose and only vauge indications of
your temperment. Inside each alignment you get your specifics from a
system similar to the one jeff lait described... either one where a
plaer must please one god and could switch or where you try to please
all or more likely many gods and can switch who your patren god is.

When I asked what restrictions should be in place i didn't mean a
disability. You would "Never!!" get a message like "You cannot wield
that weapon." in my game if you tried to use a weapon or item that was
against your alignment. It just much less likely that you would ever
get a LE sword atifact if you were CG because it would never be granted
to you be your god and you would never recieve it as a gift for a
completion of a mission for a LE priest because a LE priest would never
give it to you. etc.... You would also probably be cursed by the sword
and it might not use its abilities for you by choice.

Like that. I agree with what was said about getting items that are not
of your alignments.

I was interested by the idea of the pros/cons of having only one god
you pray to and you can switch (nethack style) or many and maybe one is
a patron or something... (or no...). Any more ideas on that... I dont
know much about POWDER though... only heard of it.

Thanks so much!

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:58:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 18 Jul 2005 06:55:55 -0700, gatti@dsdata.it wrote:

>I think there can be more varied, specialized, easy to implement,
>meaningful and useful measurements of player behaviour than a sticker
>of good/bad (or lawful/chaotic) alignment.

Of course. And if the OP had actually played most RLs, he'd have
likely played Crawl and seen them in action.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:50:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

"Thomas" <comments@foresightsagas.com> wrote:
> Ive noticed that in most rls including nethack which i play,
> probably not all though, the alignments are cheotic, neutral, and
> lawful. Why not use an adnd system of LG,LN,LE,NG,TN,NE,CG,CN,CE?
> There are probably others out there but i was wonderign why many
> dont include this.

Because the D&D system isn't even suitable for D&D, let alone for
roguelikes. I should clarify that: it works great for specifying the
alignment of a monster or species; a creature is "lawful" if it forms
societies and "chaotic" if it avoids them, "good" if it'll help save
the world and "evil" if it'll try to destroy it. But when you start
talking about player characters, the good/evil and law/chaos
alignment falls on its face, mainly because you have to reconcile
non-good and non-lawful characters questing to save the world and
save societies. (The 'neutral' alignment sure doesn't help any; I see
it alternately defined as 'wants to keep things in balance' and
'undecided'. But it's hard not to decide between good and evil, and
trying to "balance" them is a very rare, specialized and psychotic
mindset.)

NetHack took the lawful/neutral/chaotic theme and confidently
asserted that it's not the same as good/neutral/evil. Which is why
chaotic characters don't get penalized for doing evil deeds. ADOM
used law/chaos, but deliberately made law good and chaos evil, which
is an improvement, but you sometimes need your alignment at a certain
value for quest reasons... and so you fix it by - sacrificing lots of
stuff to the god of that alignment. Huh.

Neverwinter Nights used the D&D alignment system, and made it have no
effect except that certain alignments are excluded from certain
classes. I've played through it and its expansions twice and never
cared about alignment once.

> I am writing my own rl right now and was wondering how players
> would react to this idea. Simlar to nethack the bold adventurer
> discends the dungeons into the depths of hell to get an item,
> perform an action, or accomplish something (any ideas on this
> would be great too... ;)  ). The adventurer can choose their
> alignment at the begining of the game and can change anytime
> through their actions reciving a seveire penalty for the change.
> If they are evil, their action is either selfish if they are CE or
> for an evil god (LE). If they are CG they are doing if for the
> their own good to do good and if they are LG then maybe they are
> doing it for a good diety or for a good organization or church on
> the surface... hmmm. Should this be set or is it all just mental
> roleplaying... thats a good question also! What is everyones
> thoughts on this!

Why have an alignment system at all? Playing evil characters can be
interesting, but that possibility comes from the quests, not from the
presence of an 'evil' alignment. And what actually would be 'lawful'
or 'chaotic' in a roguelike? The usual answer seems to be 'killing
chaotic creatures' and 'killing lawful creatures', respectively, but
I just kill every creature that attacks me and leave peaceful
creatures alone (not much room to differentiate there!)

--
CalcRogue: TI-89, TI-92+, PalmOS, Windows and Linux.
http://calcrogue.jimrandomh.org/
July 19, 2005 3:42:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Ok. So maybe... no alignments. As in not only do only your choices
determin your alignment but the game doesent record it?

Should there not be any alignment or lets say temperment specific items
or achievments in the game. Could then a wizard necromancer who has
been perfectly good all game convert to a lich. Also how would this
play out if i give my players the choices to play different gods.
Shouldn't the gods be aligned or have "temperments." I would like to
allow worship of different gods and the player can choose who to
worship and change in the game. Also the gifts, and beneficial
reactions of praying would be different from god to god. You could also
be athiest as a challenge option.
I agree that alignments are best for npcs and not pcs but i was never
talking about them being more then vague catagories. mostly you
determin your own playign style. Its just so that a good player cant
become a lich just because they want their abilities and an evil player
cant specialize into a paladin mid-game without becoming an
ex-paladin... etc. I am not really sure how people think the game would
work properly without alignments all together. Could someone explain
that to me. I dont think i would be hurting the game by adding vague
catagories of alignments. And i think that alignments in games like
nethack make the game a lot better....

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 5:06:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 19 Jul 2005 11:42:01 -0700, Thomas wrote:

>Ok. So maybe... no alignments. As in not only do only your choices
>determin your alignment but the game doesent record it?

You *could* instead have a reputation, like is done in Baldur's Gate 2
(and probably BG1, tough I can't recall). Good things (helping old
ladies cross the street, getting kites out of trees) make the rep go up,
which gets better reactions from "good guys"; bad things (robbing banks,
burning houses down) make the rep go down, which gets better reactions
from "bad guys".

>Should there not be any alignment or lets say temperment specific items
>or achievments in the game. Could then a wizard necromancer who has
>been perfectly good all game convert to a lich. Also how would this
>play out if i give my players the choices to play different gods.
>Shouldn't the gods be aligned or have "temperments." I would like to
>allow worship of different gods and the player can choose who to
>worship and change in the game. Also the gifts, and beneficial
>reactions of praying would be different from god to god. You could also
>be athiest as a challenge option.

I don't see why a lich *has* to be evil. The D&D concept is that it's a
wizard who's extended his life well beyond the norm in search of
knowledge, but it's not a "good" thing, for some reason. Screw that -
why can't a good guy do the same? (Unless the instructions for the
"become a lich" spell include things like "drink a baby's blood" or
"murder your entire family" or something.)

>I agree that alignments are best for npcs and not pcs but i was never
>talking about them being more then vague catagories. mostly you
>determin your own playign style. Its just so that a good player cant
>become a lich just because they want their abilities and an evil player
>cant specialize into a paladin mid-game without becoming an
>ex-paladin... etc. I am not really sure how people think the game would
>work properly without alignments all together. Could someone explain
>that to me. I dont think i would be hurting the game by adding vague
>catagories of alignments. And i think that alignments in games like
>nethack make the game a lot better....

Why can't a "bad guy" be a paladin? Paladins (again, falling back on
D&D) must act virtuous and noble and blah blah blah, but if a "bad guy"
decides he wants the benefits of being one, can stand the requirements,
and can hide how he really feels, then why not?
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 5:24:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 19 Jul 2005 11:42:01 -0700, "Thomas" <comments@foresightsagas.com>
wrote:

>Should there not be any alignment or lets say temperment specific items
>or achievments in the game. Could then a wizard necromancer who has
>been perfectly good all game convert to a lich. Also how would this
>play out if i give my players the choices to play different gods.
>Shouldn't the gods be aligned or have "temperments."

GO. PLAY. CRAWL.

*See* what gods done well looks like.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
July 19, 2005 6:51:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Alright, When i get the chance ill dl and play crawl.

Seems like there is a lot of dislike of dnd in here. I am not in any
way advocating that dnd is better then most rls or even that its good
but i do think that the moods and themes and feeling of the game is
important. The idea is that a lich is a wizard who has betrayed the way
of the world and become immortal by becoming undead with evil magic.
The feeling and aura of a lich is evil. I know its not nessessary but i
think it is important to have aspects of the game that depend on your
alignment like that. I did get an idea from what you said though. What
if instead of ever restricting a specilization or skill or class or
spell or something, I did have it require doing evil (or good) things.
A healer might have to help others and do good things to become a
healer and a necromancer might have to like... drink baby blood or
sacrifice an innocent or something during the rite-of-becoming-a-lich.
What do you think of that?

I like how BG1 does it (i never actually got around to playing my copy
of BG2!) with reputation like you said. But what about doing it in
secret? The alignment system is jst your speritual and self-idea of
what your temperment is. I am still thinking that alignments are a good
idea but I do agree that much of the system should be hidden from the
player and not have a strict impact on the game. I also like the idea
of no-pealty for switching... it might just set you back because your
god might not like you doing bad things if your good and would dislike
you even if there was not an xp penalty like in dnd. that does seem
extreem.

Maybe everyone here (probably i mean) has different POVs but am i
hearing that a good idea would be to cut out alignments entirly or
almost entirly and just have evil actions upset a good diety and such
so that you start athiest and then start worshiping a specific god and
will anger your diety and loose your hard earned standing with him/her
if you betray their ideals... does that make sense? I like that idea
pretty well. It might be a good way to entirly replace alignments and
make for an excellant god(ess) system also.

When I was first thinking about this i was thinking basically that same
god system with alignments also... but maybe because of that system i
dont need alignments at all, even as a loose framework of your
temperement.. like an estimate?

I dont think though that i could cut it all out and have no system at
all because then anyone could erratically be good for a while and then
turn evil and then be good and then turn evil and then... without
anything recordign it or changing ... except maybe gaurds in cities...

What i am thinking now is maybe the god system i mentioned earlier with
a law-chaos and good-evil alignment reputations... that the gods
ignore.

wielding an evil artifact would make your good god mad and it might
curse you but as long as it doesent have like an aura of evil no one
else will know. Where as killing a farmer or something will both lower
your reputation and anger your good god.

if you have an evil reputation you be attacked if you go into the
city... if you have a chaotic reputation but a good one also.. then
either nothing or you mgiht be denied entrance to the city if you dont
have a high charisma... like that...

Well I feel pretty good about that system.. what does everyone else
think....

Sorry if i started rambling in there. Im thinking aloud... (typing
aloud...)

hmm... bad joke.

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
July 19, 2005 7:28:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Thomas wrote:
> Alright, When i get the chance ill dl and play crawl.
>
> Seems like there is a lot of dislike of dnd in here. I am not in any
> way advocating that dnd is better then most rls or even that its good
> but i do think that the moods and themes and feeling of the game is
> important. The idea is that a lich is a wizard who has betrayed the way
> of the world and become immortal by becoming undead with evil magic.
> The feeling and aura of a lich is evil. I know its not nessessary but i
> think it is important to have aspects of the game that depend on your
> alignment like that. I did get an idea from what you said though. What
> if instead of ever restricting a specilization or skill or class or
> spell or something, I did have it require doing evil (or good) things.
> A healer might have to help others and do good things to become a
> healer and a necromancer might have to like... drink baby blood or
> sacrifice an innocent or something during the rite-of-becoming-a-lich.
> What do you think of that?
>
> I like how BG1 does it (i never actually got around to playing my copy
> of BG2!) with reputation like you said. But what about doing it in
> secret? The alignment system is jst your speritual and self-idea of
> what your temperment is. I am still thinking that alignments are a good
> idea but I do agree that much of the system should be hidden from the
> player and not have a strict impact on the game. I also like the idea
> of no-pealty for switching... it might just set you back because your
> god might not like you doing bad things if your good and would dislike
> you even if there was not an xp penalty like in dnd. that does seem
> extreem.
>
> Maybe everyone here (probably i mean) has different POVs but am i
> hearing that a good idea would be to cut out alignments entirly or
> almost entirly and just have evil actions upset a good diety and such
> so that you start athiest and then start worshiping a specific god and
> will anger your diety and loose your hard earned standing with him/her
> if you betray their ideals... does that make sense? I like that idea
> pretty well. It might be a good way to entirly replace alignments and
> make for an excellant god(ess) system also.
>
> When I was first thinking about this i was thinking basically that same
> god system with alignments also... but maybe because of that system i
> dont need alignments at all, even as a loose framework of your
> temperement.. like an estimate?
>
> I dont think though that i could cut it all out and have no system at
> all because then anyone could erratically be good for a while and then
> turn evil and then be good and then turn evil and then... without
> anything recordign it or changing ... except maybe gaurds in cities...
>
> What i am thinking now is maybe the god system i mentioned earlier with
> a law-chaos and good-evil alignment reputations... that the gods
> ignore.
>
> wielding an evil artifact would make your good god mad and it might
> curse you but as long as it doesent have like an aura of evil no one
> else will know. Where as killing a farmer or something will both lower
> your reputation and anger your good god.
>
> if you have an evil reputation you be attacked if you go into the
> city... if you have a chaotic reputation but a good one also.. then
> either nothing or you mgiht be denied entrance to the city if you dont
> have a high charisma... like that...

An alternative is just to have a game where you can't be evil or do
evil stuff.

Where you can't attack peacefuls or rob shops or turn into a Lich or
worship dark gods or, in your words, "drink baby blood or sacrifice an
innocent".

These are not essential elements in roguelikes!

A.
July 19, 2005 8:36:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Well, Yeah!

I first off assumed that you could only be good, but in the end i
decided the game would be better and more diferse and interesting if
you could really, do whatever you wanted. My game is going to be far
less linear then nethack and allow for a lot of divergence from the
"normal" tiemline. Bigger maps. Fewer classes but specialization
options adn the such. evil and good spectrums and more gods belong in
the game in my opinon. Besides... whats stopping you?

Should there be a message, if i (hypothetically) did only allow good,
that reads "Oh, you wouldn'd want to attack the <(wo)man named ____>
would you?" -- Y -- "Well too bad."

Or would the gaurds just run after you... oh wait thats what would
happen anyway. being good would be easier and more straight forward..
more acceptable. But evil would have special bonuses (lich conversion,
raise dead to serve spells, more freedom to attack anyone, etc...) and
could be better if your in for a harder game at first... ;)  A CE rogue
could pickpocket and be chaotic and not evil but if he were evil and
the pickpocket failed, he could just attack and loot instead of run
away... that kind of thing. Originally i agreed with you.. but again, i
think it adds more options... and in my mind thats what RLs are all
about. Complexity over emersion, game over graphics. Thanks for your
opinon though.

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 11:02:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

At 19 Jul 2005 14:51:34 -0700,
Thomas wrote:

> Alright, When i get the chance ill dl and play crawl.
>
> Seems like there is a lot of dislike of dnd in here. I am not in any
> way advocating that dnd is better then most rls or even that its good
> but i do think that the moods and themes and feeling of the game is
> important. The idea is that a lich is a wizard who has betrayed the way
> of the world and become immortal by becoming undead with evil magic.
> The feeling and aura of a lich is evil. I know its not nessessary but i
> think it is important to have aspects of the game that depend on your
> alignment like that. I did get an idea from what you said though. What
> if instead of ever restricting a specilization or skill or class or
> spell or something, I did have it require doing evil (or good) things.
> A healer might have to help others and do good things to become a
> healer and a necromancer might have to like... drink baby blood or
> sacrifice an innocent or something during the rite-of-becoming-a-lich.
> What do you think of that?

Seems like in your game world the alignment is a property of the character
itself, not only it's behavior. So the behavior leaves visible marks on
his soul, or whatever, and this can be detected as some kind of aura.

The alignment becomes more of a gameplay element than role playing
element. It's more like a stat than a background story.

Why not just start it treating as a stat then? It's really similar to
other stats.

Imagine a character that levls up and chooses to increase his strength. How
come? To increase his strength he's supposed to train regullary and
perform feats of strength! Ok, you say, he's supposed to do that when he
collected the experience points needed for level up, now he just decides
what exactly he was doing then. Well, it's little fishy, but it's well
accepted in most mechanics.

Now imagine a character that levels up and decides his aura will become
a little bit more evil. Normally, he's supposed to do bad things, take the
candys form the children, betray, use tricky attacks, etc. to make himself
evil. But as with strength, we can assume he did it all the time while
earning the experience points -- in fact you don't know exact moves done
in combat nor the dialogues, etc. He might have insulted the shopkeeper's
mother when he was shopping, and he was trying to make only especially
painful and crippling wounds when he's fighting.

Once it's a stat, an aura that can be felt or even measured in some
magical means, there's no need to hide it's value from the player -- the
player character can easily feel how good or evil he is.

Once you've got it this way, you can use the alignment in any way you
like, to make gods angry or pleased, to make artifacts lose their magical
abilities, to make animals attack on sight, but also, the alignment can
affect the actions of player character -- ther can be bonuses and
penalties to combat, evil character might be less effective trying to heal
others, spell failure rates could change dramatically depending on the
'alignment' of the book, etc.
There can be also some flavour messages, it always help.

Ofcourse, the player can still act as he likes -- maybe helping others is
a part of his evil plan of conquering the world? Still, he can receive
penalties to his 'good' actions, because he twists inside on the mere
thought of them.

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(@a) 3 Be?
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 12:58:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 2005-07-20, The Sheep <thesheep@sheep.prv.pl> wrote:
> Now imagine a character that levels up and decides his aura will become
> a little bit more evil. Normally, he's supposed to do bad things, take the
> candys form the children, betray, use tricky attacks, etc. to make himself
> evil. But as with strength, we can assume he did it all the time while
> earning the experience points -- in fact you don't know exact moves done

The important point here is that training for strength is boring. Doing
evil or good things isn't. Making the player adjust an evilness meter
instead of doing evil stuff is going to make a pretty dry game, just
like making the player do 300 "lift weights" commands every time before
resting to optimally boost up the strength stat is going to be pretty
boring.

--
Risto Saarelma
July 20, 2005 1:25:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

I went to the gurps website but couln't find much but how to buy their
books and i'm not looking for that large an investment in that system
w/o knowing anything about it. Besides, I am really set on developing
my own system that is a combination between new ideas i've had, a
little nethack, and a little d20 system (I like the idea of d20 + stats
>? DC). I am doubtful that i would just pick and follow another system.

I am not making my game just a computerized dnd. You really cant. I
dont even play dnd... I used to but even then i never really played
stricktly by the rules. I just happen to have my own ideas. I dont
think a necromancer has do be evil LG might be a stretch but CG is
immaginable. I am saying ... not always... but in my game... a lich
would be evil. Its hard for me to imagine how a 200 year old wizard who
has sacrificed a natural life to live forever as a living corpse
feeding off the live of others to stay immortal could EVER be good!

I like the idea of treating alignment as a stat... i agree that in some
ways i am already... however, Some stats like weapon proficiancy are
hidden and you only can guess how good you are at a weapon by how...
good you are at a weapon. If i was going fo extreem realism... I would
say that it is reasonable that you could gauge your strength or
dexterity or even charisma... your health... your manna if your a wiz
but alignment is only year actions... that should be obvious to even
the player. It is a choice. I dont feel i am limiting the game by
adding a little roleplaying and making you decide your path. I would
guess the same people who are saying no alignment woudl also say.. no
classes just skills (I will have both). In my game, you choose a
class: Barbarian, Fighter, Cleric, Druid, Rogue, or Wizard and then
spend the game buying skills at levelups, and training your weapon
skills or learning spells and then once cirtain requirments are met
(depending on class) I will let you, inside of your general class,
specialize if you wish (e.g. fighter->ranger or paladin, barbarian ->
berzerker, wizard->either school specialist or a sorceror, Rogue ->
assassin or master thief, Cleric->Monk or Paladin, though a cleric
paladin would be different from a fighter paladin, and many others).
You can also gain titles like... dragonslayer if you kill 3 of the same
type dragon.. or such. Bob the dragonslayer... And it is a title from
your diety like crowning in some RLs. You can get gifts and can only
get it when you are in good standing with your god. I think that maybe
it is just not in my style of game to do wtihout alignments. My game
will be how I think a good RL should be... you need to make choices as
the game moves on and its deciding to specialize or to train in a
specific weapon or spell that makes the game fun.

Although the reason why i came here is to find out if any of my ideas
were going to make people not want to play Chazm. I want to make
seomthing the players will like also. Does anyone think this system is
terriable or needs to be changed. Outside of the fact that everyone has
a different pov and that no game will be ideal, what are your thoughts
about the general system i have outlined here. Both concerning
alignment and not. Thanks.

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 2:17:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com> schrieb:
> necromancer might have to like... drink baby blood or sacrifice an
> innocent or something during the rite-of-becoming-a-lich.

In the TV show 'The Venture Brothers' there is a non-evil Necromancer.
The problem is that you're using your alignment system to apply
arbitrary limitations.

D&D certainly made leaps and bounds in role playing, but other leaps and
bounds have been made since then. I recommend that you look into other
role playing systems (GURPS), and you definitely need to play many more
roguelikes.

--
Jim Strathmeyer
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 4:46:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com> schrieb:
> I went to the gurps website but couln't find much but how to buy their
> books and i'm not looking for that large an investment in that system
> w/o knowing anything about it.

Free 32 page download:

http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/

--
Jim Strathmeyer
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 4:54:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com> schrieb:
> In my game, you choose a class: Barbarian, Fighter, Cleric, Druid,
> Rogue, or Wizard and then spend the game buying skills at levelups,
> and training your weapon skills or learning spells and then once
> cirtain requirments are met (depending on class) I will let you,
> inside of your general class, specialize if you wish (e.g.
> fighter->ranger or paladin, barbarian -> berzerker, wizard->either
> school specialist or a sorceror, Rogue -> assassin or master thief,
> Cleric->Monk or Paladin, though a cleric paladin would be different
> from a fighter paladin, and many others). You can also gain titles
> like... dragonslayer if you kill 3 of the same type dragon.. or such.
> Bob the dragonslayer...

I just had total deja vu reading this post. Have you described this
exactly before? Or is it just exactly like many other people's idea of
what they want to do?

Nobody here is trying to discourage you. It's just that there's only so
many times we can discuss the same (boring) thing over and over. I've
never felt there's much help the group can give to people with just
ideas because we can tell you that something is a bad idea, but you're
not going to believe it until you implement it.

Good luck.

--
Jim Strathmeyer
July 20, 2005 4:56:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Yes, I have actually posted something else about that example a while
back i think. I'm not positive though.

I know what you mean that This group repeats the same discussion over a
lot. I think I will go ahead and create the game the way i discussed
earlier. I do like input though because i would hate to find out nobody
would play my game After it is mostly done....

I still dont think i have done anything more (in your mind worse) with
alignments then nethack does and that is a wonderful game. I personally
like alignments but if i thought no one would play the game i wouldn't
implement. If there is anything I have described that really needs to
be removed i would be more then happy to rethink it. If this is not the
case then I will be happy to finish my game and when done everyone may
change their minds about alignments and such... or maybe not ;) 

Oh, and while this topic is called "Alignments!" I was wondering if
anyone had an opinion on my class, specialize, title, and skills ideas
i have mentioned. If you need more info i can give that too.

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
July 20, 2005 5:42:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Yeah.. I guess I'll see when its done.

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 10:21:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Quoting Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com>:
>Seems like there is a lot of dislike of dnd in here.

I don't dislike D&D's mechanics per se - in fact I think 3rd Edition is
very good for a certain style of tabletop play - but I dislike it when
they (or any other set of mechanics hem-hem White Wolf) are used without
consideration of whether they promote the desired gameplay.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is First Oneiros, July.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 12:35:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

At 20 Jul 2005 12:56:08 -0700,
Thomas wrote:

> Yes, I have actually posted something else about that example a while
> back i think. I'm not positive though.
>
> I know what you mean that This group repeats the same discussion over a
> lot. I think I will go ahead and create the game the way i discussed
> earlier. I do like input though because i would hate to find out nobody
> would play my game After it is mostly done....

You can always tweak and change some details later, if people doesn't like
it. It's very hard to tell whether you like something or not without even
trying it.


--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(nn) 3 Grin
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 8:53:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
> Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com> schrieb:
>> In my game, you choose a class: Barbarian, Fighter, Cleric,
>> Druid, Rogue, or Wizard and then spend the game buying skills at
>> levelups, and training your weapon skills or learning spells and
>> then once cirtain requirments are met (depending on class) I will
>> let you, inside of your general class, specialize if you wish
>> (e.g. fighter->ranger or paladin, barbarian -> berzerker,
>> wizard->either school specialist or a sorceror, Rogue -> assassin
>> or master thief, Cleric->Monk or Paladin, though a cleric paladin
>> would be different from a fighter paladin, and many others). You
>> can also gain titles like... dragonslayer if you kill 3 of the
>> same type dragon.. or such. Bob the dragonslayer...
>
> I just had total deja vu reading this post. Have you described
> this exactly before? Or is it just exactly like many other
> people's idea of what they want to do?

Sounds similar to an old idea of mine, which I probably posted about,
for CalcRogue; and that idea was itself similar to the "prestige
classes" idea in D&D 3rd Ed. In D&D's version, once you meet certain
requirements you can multiclass to more distinct classes. In my
version, you switch your class entirely upon completing a certain
quest. That way, you can have a small number of starting classes, to
avoid intimidating new players, and a large number of 'real' classes so
the experienced players have more variety.

--
CalcRogue: TI-89, TI-92+, PalmOS, Windows and Linux.
http://calcrogue.jimrandomh.org/
July 21, 2005 2:27:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

I do agree with what was said about not forcing the playing to classify
themselfs and have more real world consequeses of being good-evil.

A good player can worship sucvh and such and get a specific gift and an
evil player cant just kill anyone in a town without having to face some
tough gaurds.

I am just wondering how to have the game keep track of actions without
haveing the only consequense of being good or evil immidiate like being
attcked by gaurds. Is a worship system good. The alignments are
represented by the gods and who you worship most defignes what you are
able to do. EG. a specialized class may be granted after cirtain
requirments by a god. BlahBlah the benevolent wont give you the lich
class even if you did drink "babies blood" ( ;)  ) and perform a ritual
and such. (which probably made him/her mad anyway). Is that a better
system?

Yes. I will get around to dling and playing crawl.

Wow Yeah, The system you described sounds just like what i was thinking
of. A beggining player might want to just pick wizard out of 5 others
not elementalist out of 50 others so have a wizard who at level 12+
with at least 8 elemental spells memorized and the tome of the
elementalist specialize and let an advanced player have more fun and
make the decition later.

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 5:42:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Quoting Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com>:
>ways i am already... however, Some stats like weapon proficiancy are
>hidden and you only can guess how good you are at a weapon by how...
>good you are at a weapon.

Why? Why make your players miserable by asking them to making tactical
decisions without information?

>If i was going fo extreem realism...

then you wouldn't be doing a pseudofantasy setting at all?
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is First Mania, July.
July 21, 2005 5:43:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Ok, I'll think about it. I like the idea you are suggesting. I thought
people were advocating for a dont keep track of what the player does
system.

My only problem with this system is grouping.

your saying i have instead of align_good, align_Law veriables i should
have

Align_criminal //steals?
Align_murder //kills innocents
Align_cannable //eats.. well you get the idea
Align_laws // breaks local town laws or obays them
Align_... etc.

+ there should be god/godesses who are the dietys of different things

God1 // god of stone
God2 // god of war
God3 // God of selflessness lord of the poor...
God4 // god of magic
God5 // god of the undead
God...

and each different diety would have differnt veriables controling their
opinon of you.

(Q: should i have each god have a cirtain opinon and thats it or should
you have a set patron diety who you worship most though you can worship
others... in that case the god of magic might assume you will worship
him/her and another but the god of the undead might insist you worship
only him and get pissed if you pray to another...)

It seems to me that i would simply group many of those things as good
or chaotic or whatever

besides there are many things undeserving of a catagory but would not
fit into "not obaying laws". If you do something that is not evil but
widely unacceptable, then normaly i could add a very small amount to
chaos but under this system it fits nowhere. Your not breaking laws. I
think maybe the best thing would be like:

Align_Law //-ischaos
Align_Good //-is evil

and then also'

Align_criminal
Align_murderer
etc

the above are controled hidden by what god you worship, every act you
perform and have subtle effects on the game, most major things are done
viably like you "cant be a lich unless the undead god favors you," and
the lower alignment vars are like your reputation are are only altered
when you kill or steal or whatever in public.

I am really not sure, I just think that a wider looser system would be
better with many factors like:

cannabalism decreases the law var
gaining entrance to a town or guild increases the law var
killing innocents decreases good var
worshiping a good diety or donating to a town cleric increases the good
var

i dont like separating them all out

you are saying that instead of having many factors (see above) effect a
general outcome

like this:

Cannibalism \\\
law abiding \\\\\\\\\____ General Chaos-Good Align
Vars
donation ////////// to control
general outcome
breaking property ///
stealing //


i should have each produce its own very specific limited outcome

Cannibalism ---------------
law abiding --------------- Specific Action Align Vars
donation ---------------- to
control exact outcome
breaking property ----------------
stealing ----------------

I think that to combine them so that the game knows your general
alignment but not you or anyone else but it also keeps reputation
veriables that are specific like criminal that might for example: make
shopkeepers refuse service...

so 3 alignment factors:
hidden general alignment factors that only effect you subtely
reputation alignment factors that are spcific and effect you in
specific ways
your dietys and their opinons...

hmm.. i just dont know

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 5:58:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net (Jim Strathmeyer) wrote:
>Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com> schrieb:
>> necromancer might have to like... drink baby blood or sacrifice an
>> innocent or something during the rite-of-becoming-a-lich.
>
>In the TV show 'The Venture Brothers' there is a non-evil Necromancer.
>The problem is that you're using your alignment system to apply
>arbitrary limitations.
>
>D&D certainly made leaps and bounds in role playing, but other leaps and
>bounds have been made since then. I recommend that you look into other
>role playing systems (GURPS), and you definitely need to play many more
>roguelikes.

Ash is technically a necromancer but he's not evil.
Evil Ash is though.
July 21, 2005 6:57:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com> wrote:
> it is just not in my style of game to do wtihout alignments. My game
> will be how I think a good RL should be... you need to make choices as
> the game moves on and its deciding to specialize or to train in a
> specific weapon or spell that makes the game fun.

I have to repeat the advice given before: if you want to see these
things done well, play Dungeon Crawl. Lots.
There are many things about Crawl which I would change, but for its
meaningful and fair addressing of character development and "alignment"
style choices, I see it as a primary required text for roguelike
developers. Not necessarily to copy it (though for elements of it that
would be acceptable) but at least to understand how it solves these
problems.
Because indeed, I will not play a game which forces me to phaff around
with an alignment meter, but I will play a game which encourages me to
think about moral ambiguities and gives me the appropriate benefits and
tradeoffs of my choices.
Deciding between the words "good" and "evil" is not a meaningful choice.
It leads to no meaningful thought. Ambiguities, the border cases, are
where the meaningful thought is provoked. They will never be
adequately covered by a set of alignment descriptors.

--jude hungerford.
July 21, 2005 10:09:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com> wrote:
> I am just wondering how to have the game keep track of actions without
> haveing the only consequense of being good or evil immidiate like being
> attcked by gaurds.

These things can be recorded. Every plot decision can be recorded and
referenced later. Certain people care about which specific choices
you've made, but mostly they just care if you have a reputation for
robbing people or attacking without provocation. Rather than classify
these actions as good vs evil, record things like:
Does this character steal a lot? (If yes, shopkeepers may distrust you.)
Does this character attack many friendly people? (If yes, all sorts of
consequences flow in every interaction.)
Did this character perform quest X (and perhaps only two people in
the whole game care about the answer, but it can be useful for plot
makers to have such flexibility).

Alternatively, just track favour with the gods. They see all and each
judges you by their own criteria.

> Is a worship system good.

Subjectively: yes, when done well (ref: Crawl). It's certainly not the
only way, but it can work.

--jude hungerford.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 2:05:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

At 21 Jul 2005 13:43:41 -0700,
Thomas wrote:

> Ok, I'll think about it. I like the idea you are suggesting. I thought
> people were advocating for a dont keep track of what the player does
> system.
>
> My only problem with this system is grouping.
>
> your saying i have instead of align_good, align_Law veriables i should
> have
>
> Align_criminal //steals?
> Align_murder //kills innocents
> Align_cannable //eats.. well you get the idea
> Align_laws // breaks local town laws or obays them
> Align_... etc.

Keep them all as variables instead of values!
Why do you want so desperately put tags on the characters?
You're implying that when I'm a thief, then I cannot be murderer?

Just use a system similar to NetHack to sum up your game -- only use
quantitative values instead of yes/no flags.

So you'd have:
You have stolen goods worth x gold.
You have murdered x innocents.
You have eaten meat x times.
You have eaten human meat x times.
You have eaten when not hungry x times.
You have broken law x times.
etc.

Then the NPCs could look at some of those variables and decide how
to treat PC.

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(nn) 3 Grin
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
July 22, 2005 5:20:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com> wrote:
> your saying i have instead of align_good, align_Law veriables i should
> have

I'm not saying what you should have. If you can envision a system you
like, go ahead and use it. But if you are willing to be swayed, I'd
still recommend studying Dungeon Crawl. You will see no mention of
alignment, but there are clear requirements for worship of each god.

> (Q: should i have each god have a cirtain opinon and thats it or should
> you have a set patron diety who you worship most though you can worship
> others...

How would *you* prefer to solve that in your game? Do you want gods in
your game at all?
You could have a pantheon in which each god has an independent opinion
of you. You could have a selection of deities whose opinions only
matter if you worship them or if you royally p them off (as in Crawl).
Both are acceptable. It's not a question of what you should do, but what
would you prefer for your game? You have to decide, but again, I think
playing lots of Crawl is a good education for any RL developer.

> It seems to me that i would simply group many of those things as good
> or chaotic or whatever

AD&D alignments are a massive simplification of some very complex
philosophical problems. If you haven't already, I recommend studying
ethical relativism. Not that you should necessarily agree with it, but
it's a good introduction to why people blanch at alignment rules.
Put simply, every society, and every person within that society, has a
different view of good and evil. Ethics from one society may be totally
wrong in another society. Absolute alignment rules must make clear
assertions about what is good and what is evil, and not everyone will
agree.

> besides there are many things undeserving of a catagory but would not
> fit into "not obaying laws". If you do something that is not evil but
> widely unacceptable,

What's the difference?
My point is that evil is subjective. If an action is widely
unacceptable, the character is widely not accepted. Labelling the action
"evil" or "chaotic" serves no purpose.

> then normaly i could add a very small amount to
> chaos but under this system it fits nowhere. Your not breaking laws. I

It fits directly into the "Bad reputation for socially unacceptable
actions" category.

> i dont like separating them all out

Then by all means, don't.
But some players will feel that it is a contrived simplification,
when either
a) removing it entirely, or
b) having a more detailed, less universal and judgemental system
would serve better.

> so 3 alignment factors:
> hidden general alignment factors that only effect you subtely

If they are hidden and subtle, why include them?

> reputation alignment factors that are spcific and effect you in
> specific ways

Specific results of specific actions are logical and easy to code.

> your dietys and their opinons...

Also logical and easy to code.

> hmm.. i just dont know

I'm not claiming that I know either. My input may have been more
confusing than helpful, but I guess I'm trying to give the warning that
I and many other ex-AD&D players are thoroughly tired of the ridiculous
contrivances of its alignment system, and when I see a game which makes
me fiddle about with alignment, I ditch it very quickly.

--jude hungerford.
!