Treat alignment like Luck and Exercise?

[Guest]

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

The present alignment system is broken, in that in all but pacifist
conduct, it has no meaning beyond the very early game. I'd propose
treating it more like in-game Luck and exercising for stats.

Presently, maximum alignment is 10 + (moves / 200). For a 50,000 turn
game, maximum alignment would be 260. Alignment penalties are typically
a single point, or perhaps a few. CMIIW, but I don't believe that
alignment scores of above 20 have any meaning, and that score only
affects entrance to the Quest. My impression is that most checks for
alignment merely check if it is negative.

I'd suggest a lower maximum alignment, akin to Luck's 10 (+3 with
luckstone). A point of lost alignment would actually be meaningful,
then. Plus, I don't know the formula for adding alignment points for
killing monsters, but it appears to increment alignment far too quickly.
I'd suggest either eliminating the alignment bonus for killing monsters
altogether, or treating it like exercise for stats: you would exercise
alignment by killing monsters, but wouldn't receive any direct alignment
benefit at the time. Periodically, the game would check for alignment
exercise and you would have a chance of an added point. (I wouldn't,
however, make this a visible status line stat.)

Obviously, calculations in code based on alignment would have to be
adjusted to the far smaller numbers that the alignment variable would hold.

The argument for making alignment more meaningful would be that it would
enforce a bit of necessary roleplay, and therefore game variability. You
couldn't play a lawful exactly like a chaotic and get away with it.

--
Kevin Wayne

"Stark raving sane."
--Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

 

[Guest]

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

Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
> Kevin Wayne wrote:
>
> > The present alignment system is broken, in that in all but pacifist
> > conduct, it has no meaning beyond the very early game. I'd propose
> > treating it more like in-game Luck and exercising for stats.
>
> After killing off a Medusa's level worth full of (peaceful) gremlins
> that were constantly getting in my way, I found out that even high level
> characters can do disastrous things to their alignment.

See to what lengths you had to go in order to notice it?

I'm curious, by the way: what happened as a result? Failed prayer?
(Which generally doesn't make a difference once the character is in
Gehennom anyway.)

--
Kevin Wayne

"I like to think you killed a man. It's the romantic in me."
--Captain Renault

 

[Guest]

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

Kevin Wayne wrote:

> The present alignment system is broken, in that in all but pacifist
> conduct, it has no meaning beyond the very early game. I'd propose
> treating it more like in-game Luck and exercising for stats.

After killing off a Medusa's level worth full of (peaceful) gremlins
that were constantly getting in my way, I found out that even high level
characters can do disastrous things to their alignment.

--
Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me

 

[Guest]

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

Kevin Wayne wrote:
> Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
> > Kevin Wayne wrote:
> >
> > > The present alignment system is broken, in that in all but pacifist
> > > conduct, it has no meaning beyond the very early game. I'd propose
> > > treating it more like in-game Luck and exercising for stats.
> >
> > After killing off a Medusa's level worth full of (peaceful) gremlins
> > that were constantly getting in my way, I found out that even high level
> > characters can do disastrous things to their alignment.
>
> See to what lengths you had to go in order to notice it?
>
> I'm curious, by the way: what happened as a result? Failed prayer?
> (Which generally doesn't make a difference once the character is in
> Gehennom anyway.)

I had a chaotic elven ranger going along quite nicely. Being chaotic
(and thus, mostly evil), she went back to Minetown to get her last few
points of protection. With many, many poisoned arrows. After buying
protection, she offed the cross-aligned priest. The holy man's body
wasn't even cold when the captain of the watch stepped in the door.
"My, that's a shiny silver saber you have" my ranger thought. Thwip!
Thwip! Thwip! One dead watch captain. Better get rid of his friends,
too. After all, what's more chaotic than a town without the law? A few
moves later, there wasn't a cop alive in all of Minetown. And almost
all of them went down within the first volley of arrows.

I will pause now while the reader looks up the alignment penalties for
killing peaceful creatures. Add to that the penalty for killing a
peaceful creature on the first blow (elven ranger + elven bow +
poisoned elven arrows + maxed out luck = many five shot flights of
arrows). Yeah, ow.

Let me do a little hand-to-hand cleanup in town. You are blasted by
Stormbringer's power? That's strange. Well, must have to sacrifice a
few beasties to get back in favor. First thing to do is to convert that
altar....

Mercury accepts your change of heart/alignment/whatever?!?!? WHAT? I'm
a LAWFUL ranger? (Thank Mars I had done the quest by this point!)

Alignment hits can hurt, even in the mid-to-late game. If I hadn't done
the quest, I would have been really screwed. As it was, I eventually
got bored of that ranger. I might someday return to her, just to have a
lawful ranger in the high score list.

 

[Guest]

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

John Paxton wrote:

> Alignment hits can hurt, even in the mid-to-late game. If I hadn't done
> the quest, I would have been really screwed. As it was, I eventually
> got bored of that ranger. I might someday return to her, just to have a
> lawful ranger in the high score list.

Of course it's *possible* for them to hurt, but the original post's
point was that it almost never does. I've played a fair bit of Nethack
since 3.1.3 (many years ago now, hard to believe isn't it), and
alignment has only bothered me once, from an accidental early-game
conversion, long before I had my first ascension. Despite the offered
cases, in the vast majority of Nethack games that get beyond the first
few levels, alignment plays little real role.

I think the explanation for the high alignment cap has to do with
Nethack gods, being rather pragmatic, are willing to accept a few
broken eggs in exchange for their Amulet-flavored omlette, and the
further along in the game you get, the better He views your chances.

When it comes right down to it, despite the many ways your alignment
can get lowered, it doesn't happen all that much because most of the
things are occaisional, individual cases. So long as you don't go
around attacking peacefuls, or doing a host of other things that are
generally bad ideas anyway, your alignment is almost certain to balloon
up due to the bonuses for killing monsters, unless, as has been
observed, you're playing a pacfist.

There are exceptions to this, however, and they have to do with those
classes that get alignment hits for fighting actions. Knights and
Samurai would be hurt by a lowered alignment cap, since they get
punished for extra things that generally happen more frequently than
the other cases, like attacking fleeing monsters. They would be hurt
disproportionately much by an alignment max decrease.

- John H.

 

[Guest]

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

Kevin Wayne wrote:
> Boudewijn Waijers wrote:

>> After killing off a Medusa's level worth full of (peaceful) gremlins
>> that were constantly getting in my way, I found out that even high
>> level characters can do disastrous things to their alignment.

> See to what lengths you had to go in order to notice it?

> I'm curious, by the way: what happened as a result? Failed prayer?
> (Which generally doesn't make a difference once the character is in
> Gehennom anyway.)

I suspected my alignment to have taken a plunge, so I headed for the
closest altar, and remedied it before it bit.

--
Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:21:04 GMT, Kevin Wayne
<killedbyafoo@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The present alignment system is broken, in that in all but pacifist
>conduct, it has no meaning beyond the very early game. I'd propose
>treating it more like in-game Luck and exercising for stats.
>
>Presently, maximum alignment is 10 + (moves / 200). For a 50,000 turn
>game, maximum alignment would be 260. Alignment penalties are typically
>a single point, or perhaps a few. CMIIW, but I don't believe that
>alignment scores of above 20 have any meaning, and that score only
>affects entrance to the Quest. My impression is that most checks for
>alignment merely check if it is negative.
>
>I'd suggest a lower maximum alignment, akin to Luck's 10 (+3 with
>luckstone). A point of lost alignment would actually be meaningful,
>then. Plus, I don't know the formula for adding alignment points for
>killing monsters, but it appears to increment alignment far too quickly.
>I'd suggest either eliminating the alignment bonus for killing monsters
>altogether, or treating it like exercise for stats: you would exercise
>alignment by killing monsters, but wouldn't receive any direct alignment
>benefit at the time. Periodically, the game would check for alignment
>exercise and you would have a chance of an added point. (I wouldn't,
>however, make this a visible status line stat.)
>
>Obviously, calculations in code based on alignment would have to be
>adjusted to the far smaller numbers that the alignment variable would hold.
>
>The argument for making alignment more meaningful would be that it would
>enforce a bit of necessary roleplay, and therefore game variability. You
>couldn't play a lawful exactly like a chaotic and get away with it.

Wait until the first time a level fills with peaceful gremlins
and you're chaotic. That's when I found out what the message
"You feel partially absolved" meant.


--
All the best,

Jove

 

[Guest]

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

On 28 Aug 2005 14:41:40 -0700, "John H." <JohnWH@gmail.com>
wrote:

>John Paxton wrote:
>
>> Alignment hits can hurt, even in the mid-to-late game. If I hadn't done
>> the quest, I would have been really screwed. As it was, I eventually
>> got bored of that ranger. I might someday return to her, just to have a
>> lawful ranger in the high score list.
>
>Of course it's *possible* for them to hurt, but the original post's
>point was that it almost never does. I've played a fair bit of Nethack
>since 3.1.3 (many years ago now, hard to believe isn't it), and
>alignment has only bothered me once, from an accidental early-game
>conversion, long before I had my first ascension. Despite the offered
>cases, in the vast majority of Nethack games that get beyond the first
>few levels, alignment plays little real role.
>
>I think the explanation for the high alignment cap has to do with
>Nethack gods, being rather pragmatic, are willing to accept a few
>broken eggs in exchange for their Amulet-flavored omlette, and the
>further along in the game you get, the better He views your chances.
>
>When it comes right down to it, despite the many ways your alignment
>can get lowered, it doesn't happen all that much because most of the
>things are occaisional, individual cases. So long as you don't go
>around attacking peacefuls, or doing a host of other things that are
>generally bad ideas anyway, your alignment is almost certain to balloon
>up due to the bonuses for killing monsters, unless, as has been
>observed, you're playing a pacfist.
>
>There are exceptions to this, however, and they have to do with those
>classes that get alignment hits for fighting actions. Knights and
>Samurai would be hurt by a lowered alignment cap, since they get
>punished for extra things that generally happen more frequently than
>the other cases, like attacking fleeing monsters. They would be hurt
>disproportionately much by an alignment max decrease.
>
>- John H.

Without the many games where alignment doesn't matter, the
alignment hit when it *does* matter doesn't come as so much of a
surprise. It's just one more characteristic (like luck) to keep
track of. There are plenty of things to keep track of already.

Those nasty little 1 in a hundred game surprises are a big part
of what makes NetHack Nethack.

--
All the best,

Jove

 

[Guest]

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

On 8/28/05 12:21 PM, John Paxton wrote:
>
> I had a chaotic elven ranger going along quite nicely. Being chaotic
> (and thus, mostly evil), she went back to Minetown to get her last few
> points of protection. With many, many poisoned arrows. After buying
> protection, she offed the cross-aligned priest. The holy man's body
> wasn't even cold when the captain of the watch stepped in the door.
> "My, that's a shiny silver saber you have" my ranger thought. Thwip!
> Thwip! Thwip! One dead watch captain. Better get rid of his friends,
> too. After all, what's more chaotic than a town without the law? A few
> moves later, there wasn't a cop alive in all of Minetown. And almost
> all of them went down within the first volley of arrows.
>
> I will pause now while the reader looks up the alignment penalties for
> killing peaceful creatures. Add to that the penalty for killing a
> peaceful creature on the first blow (elven ranger + elven bow +
> poisoned elven arrows + maxed out luck = many five shot flights of
> arrows). Yeah, ow.

The issue of whether alignment penalties should be the same as they are
now is distinct from my proposal (essentially, having a low ceiling and
harder time building up alignment points). I agree that killing
peacefuls shouldn't be handled by chaotics in the same way that it's
handled by lawfuls (the omission of "You murderer!" and the retention of
telepathy aren't enough of a difference).
>
> Let me do a little hand-to-hand cleanup in town. You are blasted by
> Stormbringer's power? That's strange. Well, must have to sacrifice a
> few beasties to get back in favor. First thing to do is to convert that
> altar....
>
> Mercury accepts your change of heart/alignment/whatever?!?!? WHAT? I'm
> a LAWFUL ranger? (Thank Mars I had done the quest by this point!)
>
> Alignment hits can hurt, even in the mid-to-late game. If I hadn't done
> the quest, I would have been really screwed. As it was, I eventually
> got bored of that ranger. I might someday return to her, just to have a
> lawful ranger in the high score list.

The only way alignment hits can hurt is by wiping out a bunch of
peacefuls in one rampage, and then trying to pray or convert an altar.
That's an easily avoidable scenario. (And actually, shouldn't have to be
avoided by chaotics.)

--
Kevin Wayne

"Stark raving sane."
--Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

 

[Guest]

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

On 8/28/05 5:41 PM, John H. wrote:
> John Paxton wrote:
>
> When it comes right down to it, despite the many ways your alignment
> can get lowered, it doesn't happen all that much because most of the
> things are occaisional, individual cases. So long as you don't go
> around attacking peacefuls, or doing a host of other things that are
> generally bad ideas anyway, your alignment is almost certain to balloon
> up due to the bonuses for killing monsters, unless, as has been
> observed, you're playing a pacfist.
>
> There are exceptions to this, however, and they have to do with those
> classes that get alignment hits for fighting actions. Knights and
> Samurai would be hurt by a lowered alignment cap, since they get
> punished for extra things that generally happen more frequently than
> the other cases, like attacking fleeing monsters. They would be hurt
> disproportionately much by an alignment max decrease.

Yes, but I think that those classes are intended to be a bit more
challenging for that reason; which, at the present time, they're not.
The general advice given to players of monks, knights, and samurai is,
"Ignore the message. You'll gain back the alignment loss with the next
monster you kill."

That said, I think that the behavior which allows monsters to attack you
while "frightened" but makes you a "caitiff" if you attack back should
be fixed.

--
Kevin Wayne

"Stark raving sane."
--Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

 

[Guest]

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

On 8/28/05 9:00 PM, Jove wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:21:04 GMT, Kevin Wayne wrote:
>>The argument for making alignment more meaningful would be that it would
>>enforce a bit of necessary roleplay, and therefore game variability. You
>>couldn't play a lawful exactly like a chaotic and get away with it.
>
> Wait until the first time a level fills with peaceful gremlins
> and you're chaotic. That's when I found out what the message
> "You feel partially absolved" meant.

Let your pet kill them. Kill only one and dig down; get a cursed potion
of gain level for going back up. Genocide them. Tame a bunch and
displace them (confused taming would be helpful here).

But as I wrote in another post, I don't like the way the code handles
the "killing and angering peacefuls" issue--mainly because it's *not*
much different for the three alignments. I'd propose no effect on
chaotics, an alignment hit for killing peacefuls on neutrals, and an
alignment hit for killing or angering peacefuls on lawfuls. To balance,
perhaps an alignment hit for #chatting with peacefuls on chaotics (or
abusing alignment, if we go the "exercise" route), to make dealing with
shopkeepers and priests a bit more dicey for them.

At any rate, if there were no alignment hit for killing peacefuls on
chaotics, then gremlins wouldn't be a problem. (They wouldn't be
generated peaceful for neutrals or lawfuls.)

--
Kevin Wayne

"Stark raving sane."
--Rosencrantz and Guildenstern