TWiki Home Tharsis . Design . AlignMent (r1.1 vs. r1.8) Tharsis webs:
Design | Guilds | Combat | Website
Design . { Home | Changes | Index | Search | Go }
 <<O>>  Difference Topic AlignMent (r1.8 - 27 Jan 2011 - FirE)

 <<O>>  Difference Topic AlignMent (r1.7 - 14 Jun 2004 - ProdigY)

  • To say you should be punished for bad seems wrong when we have clans which are made to wrongdo. If thieves were moralistic, they wouldn't make the best of thieves. Thus alignment should be dependant on more variables than killing and stealing, and should also effect more than a tag. What if the guards were corrupt, maybe they would hunt good aligned players? A storm, for example, is an offensive guild in my opinion - a storm supposed to kill people (currently)
  • I think this becomes easier with the new guild development of commands being taught, and maybe long term if guilds are all but taken away for a more open choice of commands to players then alignment could feesably have a lot of weight on how good commands are performed. Although it can cut out large portions of an area for the player who doesn't want to get a negative alignment. -- ProdigY - 14 Jun 2004

 <<O>>  Difference Topic AlignMent (r1.6 - 16 May 2003 - DonaldKincannon)

-- DonaldKincannon - 17 May 2003

 <<O>>  Difference Topic AlignMent (r1.5 - 16 May 2003 - PumaN)

An article from imaginaryrealities (which tends to be down most of the time, thus I uploaded it here). It explains the reasons not to have the 1000 to -1000 alignment system...

-- PumaN - 16 May 2003 %META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="DumpAlignmentNow.htm" attr="" comment="" date="1053056835" path="C:\WINDOWS\Skrivbord\Tharsis\texts\imaginary\Dump Alignment Now.htm" size="26119" user="PumaN" version="1.1"}%

 <<O>>  Difference Topic AlignMent (r1.4 - 16 May 2003 - FantoM)

A long time ago in some galaxy in which Riano existed he and I spent some time working on a means of improving the rate at which alignment shifted. It went like this:

  • Your alignment has a value somewhere between 2 arbitrary values (1000 and -1000 for argument's sake).
  • Killing something alters your alignment.
  • erk - must go - bbiam.

-- FantoM - 16 May 2003

 <<O>>  Difference Topic AlignMent (r1.3 - 15 May 2003 - ElffyB)

Please always TAG your posts ...

We currently have a good / evil alignment system that is as simple as you explain ... but we removed its visibility to play. We removed it because it shifts so easily that your alignment can change in the span of 5 minutes or less. And in some circumstances if you are selective can teeter-totter over good and evil with every kill you make.

Alignment is an excellent addition to the game, and I agree that lots could be done to further our goal but your implementation idea is too simplistic.

-- ElffyB - 16 May 2003

 <<O>>  Difference Topic AlignMent (r1.2 - 14 May 2003 - DonaldKincannon)

What if we went with the current alignment system and just add cutoff points....Something like this:

Alignments of 100+ would be "Good" Alignemtns of +100 to -100 would be "Neutral" Alignments of -100 and down would be "Bad"

The numbers don't really matter

Reading those terms that Puma listed...regarding virtues....I feel that virtues are either good or bad, and so, we say that if someone does a good virtue they'd get a sum added (depending on how good) to their alignment total. The reverse would happen if they do something bad...

I think that determining whether something is good or bad is common doing a good deed for the friendly wanderer, or rescuing the princess. We need to decide though what special things should be a no-no (I'm thinking entering another persons guild)

Also, when doing quests, if you help out a monster with an evil alignment, then you should be penalized, and vice versa.

What we need to determine is "If something is worst than something else". While some of these might be fairly obvious I'm sure there are going to be snag's in determining this. I guess we could use those virtues that Puma found and decide on and order of how good/bad they are. If we had a list like that...well, let me do another example...

You have a choice between lying or saving yourself (Truth vs. Self-Sacrifice) Which would be more weighty (Evil)? Which is why if we arranged those in some order....I think you get my point.

Anyways, you get a evil enough alignment and then the guards would start hunting you....etc, depending on how evil you make it to, before you get thrown into jail.

 <<O>>  Difference Topic AlignMent (r1.1 - 07 Mar 2003 - PumaN)

%META:TOPICINFO{author="PumaN" date="1047059640" format="1.0" version="1.1"}% %META:TOPICPARENT{name="WebHome"}% Instead of having a single positive/negative alignment for "good/evil" we should have some key values that change in a similar fashion, in total they make up your alignment.

Different organizations will care about different values, while druids think its good that you are aligned with nature, knights will care more about bravery and loyalty. An 'organization' can be a single person or a deity just as well as a town or a guild.

Certain actions you do would alter these values and the organizations actions towards you would depend on these values.

Some suggested pairs (most stolen from article, might want to develop others instead, I dont quite like them):

  • creation - destruction
  • magical - technological
  • chaotic - lawful (?)
  • honesty - ?
  • compassion - malice
  • valor - cowardice(?)
  • morality - immorality (?)
  • pride - humility

Richard Garriott about the virtues in Ultima IV:

"RG: [...] As I did more research, I began to notice things like greed and envy would have some overlap, so I needed to create a core set. You can easily split them up into virtues and vices, and eventually arrived at three primary aspects, which became the principle virtues of Truth, Love and Courage. Truth became Honesty, Love became Compassion, Courage became Valor, and I created the eight possible combinations of these three. Truth tempered by Love became Justice, Love and Courage became Personal Self-sacrifice, Courage and Truth became Chivalric Honor. Truth Love and Courage was kind of arbitrary, so I thought, "What is the all-encompassing virtue?" I said, "Spirituality," whether or not you're doing good or bad deeds in the world."

"And what if you do none of the above? If not being virtuous is part of your psyche, I call it pride. Pride is not a virtue, so I decided to use the opposite, Humility. Since the eighth combination created a non-virtue, I began to create bits of pseudo-science I was pretty pleased with."

-- PumaN - 07 Mar 2003

Topic AlignMent . { View | Diffs | r1.8 | > | r1.7 | > | r1.6 | More }
Revision r1.1 - 07 Mar 2003 - 17:54 GMT - PumaN
Revision r1.8 - 27 Jan 2011 - 04:40 GMT - FirE
Copyright © 2001 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration tool is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Tharsis? Send feedback.