Alternate Alignment Diplomacy

PotatoSamurai · May 16, 2009

Looking for criticism on this idea:
I find it kinda unrealistic that evil leaders treat each other just as good leaders treat each other. While it might encourage the good-and-evil thing... well, I took a swing at it. This is within globaldefinesalt.xml

Spoiler :

With these values, good leaders will overwhelmingly tend to cooperate, whereas evil leaders will distrust each other. Neutrals will be more trusting of good and more distrustful of evils.

Crazy_Ivan · May 16, 2009

This actually strikes me as an exceptional idea.

When someone is out for power, there's generally no reason (that I know of) to follow on with 'Good' unless you're going after a Crusade or Ancient Forrests.

Making Evil AI leaders the Targets of good, and unwilling to skip along hand in hand with the rest of the world makes for a far more interesting political topogrophy.

xienwolf · May 16, 2009

I would imagine bigger numbers might be better. Good ought to still treat Neutral decently well, and Evil ought to still treat Neutral like crap, but they aren't out to destroy them like they are with Good, and aren't perpetually afraid of a backstabbing like they are with Evil.

Honor · May 16, 2009

Yup, greater numbers, and IMO evil guys should love each other and sing kumbaya as well, since their interests lie in the same basket (i.e. destroy the good guys?). Diplomacy is all about appearances, so the evil leaders will probably appear to like one another on the outside, and that's all that matters in diplomatic relationships. Neutrals should probably not get any diplomacy modifiers - neither positive nor negative - against any alignment.

Good vs Good +6
Good vs Evil -6
Evil vs Evil +6 (maybe +4)
Evil vs Good -6 (maybe -8, if the above is +4)
Neutrals vs Everyone Else +0
Everyone Else vs Neutrals +0

Lone Wolf · May 16, 2009

In my personal version of FfH, most Good leaders are honorable (don't declare at Pleased), while most Evil ones aren't. So Evil-Evil confrontations are more common then Good-Good ones, especially if the civs in question follow different religions.

JimMorrison · May 17, 2009

Honor said:
Yup, greater numbers, and IMO evil guys should love each other and sing kumbaya as well, since their interests lie in the same basket (i.e. destroy the good guys?).

But in general terms, Evil is not about "destroy Good", it is about "own the world, or destroy it".

I think Evil should get no diplomacy bonus with Evil, BUT AV should give a very significant relations bonus with other AV - as adopting that faith, more than any other, sends a strong signal of your actual intent, and since that intent is external to you, then hey, we're one big happy family in hell.

Likewise, perhaps adopting Honor should give a small relations boots to all non-Evils, because "hey, you're looking out for our well being". Though it shouldn't be as large as the AV effect, because it's easier to preach Order, but still not actively be trying to stop the Armageddon.

Opera · May 17, 2009

I'm not sure I like the idea that the Good civs have to love each other just for the sake of Good. I don't think Elohim and Bannor would like each other seeing how their point of view is different.

I dislike the fact that, as always, all the Evil civs are mistrusting each others. You have the Good Alliance of Good Guys and... what? The Puny Svartalfar State of the Northern Forests, the Large Calabim Aristocracy of Much Food, the Armageddonist Sheaim Kingdom and the Crazy Anarchy of Innsmouth.

Milaga · May 17, 2009

JimMorrison said:
But in general terms, Evil is not about "destroy Good", it is about "own the world, or destroy it".

Philosophically speaking it is very difficult to objectively define what is good except to say that it is not evil. It is considerably easier to define what is evil. In the context of the game, wanting to destroy the world and end existence is unequivocally evil. It's harder to say that wanting to "own" the world is evil since some good civs have this objective as well, although perhaps with benign intentions in mind. In fact, owning the world is really the goal of the game, so you could say all civs have this trait.

As was said before, alignment based diplomacy modifiers are really about civs seeing cultural similarities (or differences) in other civs. There are also diplomacy modifiers for civs who have similar objectives. Religion modifiers (you are AV? you want to destroy the world too? cool!) and warfare modifiers (you want to kill the Lanun too? cool!)

Honor · May 17, 2009

JimMorrison said:
But in general terms, Evil is not about "destroy Good", it is about "own the world, or destroy it".

I think Evil should get no diplomacy bonus with Evil, BUT AV should give a very significant relations bonus with other AV - as adopting that faith, more than any other, sends a strong signal of your actual intent, and since that intent is external to you, then hey, we're one big happy family in hell.

Likewise, perhaps adopting Honor should give a small relations boots to all non-Evils, because "hey, you're looking out for our well being". Though it shouldn't be as large as the AV effect, because it's easier to preach Order, but still not actively be trying to stop the Armageddon.

Semantics aside, seeing evil alignment as the "red team" and the good alignment as the "blue team" will simply lead to more fun games in terms of the stereotypical good vs evil conflict, if only FoL and RoK didn't get in the way...

deadliver · May 17, 2009

This is cool I think BUT the relationship modifiers for different religions would need to be fixed as well. Two evil civs following Overlords would probably get along better than two evil civs following AV. As mentioned by someone earlier the Bannor and Elohim may not see eye to eye all the time (so that means they are not always making out with each other, just most of the time).

Also events effecting relationships would need to be tweaked and increased otherwise the good guys would ALWAYS work together. Do the Order and Empyrean get along famously even though their philosophies are quite different?

Maybe the evil civs should simply be less patient with social gaffe events and other things such as stopping trading, trading with their enemies, declaring war on their few friends etc. That would make evil civs more dangerous because they would be more likely to fly off the handle.

Opera · May 17, 2009

deadliver said:
This is cool I think BUT the relationship modifiers for different religions would need to be fixed as well. Two evil civs following Overlords would probably get along better than two evil civs following AV. As mentioned by someone earlier the Bannor and Elohim may not see eye to eye all the time (so that means they are not always making out with each other, just most of the time).

Also events effecting relationships would need to be tweaked and increased otherwise the good guys would ALWAYS work together. Do the Order and Empyrean get along famously even though their philosophies are quite different?

Maybe the evil civs should simply be less patient with social gaffe events and other things such as stopping trading, trading with their enemies, declaring war on their few friends etc. That would make evil civs more dangerous because they would be more likely to fly off the handle.

Hmm... We're talking about civilizations but, in fact, alignment and other relationship modifiers are tied to leaders. I think all should depend more on the leader than on the civilization. Just take the Balseraphs: even though Perp and Keelyn are both evil, they wouldn't behave the same way. Maybe Keelyn would be even less honourable than her father and also more grudgy. And somel leaders give more importance to religion than some others.

Lone Wolf · May 17, 2009

Do the Order and Empyrean get along famously even though their philosophies are quite different?

I've seen Empyrian Varn be cold and cautious with me (Order Capria) because of religion differences.

Lorewise, the Bannor protect worshippers of Lugus and Sirona in their lands.

MagisterCultuum · May 17, 2009

The Empyrean should be quite tolerant of other faiths, except obviously evil ones. Even then, they would prefer to evangelize rather than crusade, at least until directly threatened.

The Bannor don't like the worship of Lugus or Sirona, but they tolerate it and provide public support for some temples to these gods. The priests are however required to help them in their crusades, and would be severely punished or at least ejected from the capital if they did things like encourage soldiers to go AWOL. I wonder if the temples of Lugus and Sirona in Torrolerial might actually be like the state-sponsored christian churches in China, which have some of their doctrines censored and are compelled to support the communist party. They exist primarily for show, and to distract from the fact that unofficial churches are being persecuted. There are still laws against going out to evangelize. The faiths of Lugus and Sirona are probably treated something like Judaism and Christianity are treated in the Muslim world, where Dhimmis are protected but also subjected to an extra tax and not fully trusted by the society. Leaving Junil for another good god is likely still a crime, but their religions are considered far preferable to evil religions so their evangelism to the pagans might be encouraged and those raised in those faiths are allowed to practice openly.

I suspect that Sirona's priests just serve as Medics to the army instead of fighting personally, and that many of the Empyrean do the same but the Empyrean is known for some very powerful Paladins whose valor in combat against demons and the undead is unrivaled. There are very few Bannor left with strong enough faith in Junil for them to be able to channel his divine power into miracles, but that devotion is much more common in the younger faith. Their divination and thoughtful natures also mean they are very good at devising winning strategies, which Order soldiers excel at following to the letter. (I guess I don't have much to really base it on, but for some reason I always assumed that most of those serving with Vaghan of Lugus were Order-Bannor soldiers.)

PPQ_Purple · May 17, 2009

I think that instead something should be done with the civic choices.
For example a civ runing Liberty would realy hate anyone runing slavery or Sacrafice the weak.
And a civ runing crusade or a similar civic would realy dislike anyone with a liberal standpoint.

Get the concept?

ICanHasName? · May 17, 2009

It would be cool if modifiers varied based on religion too. As an obvious example, the order nations should be bestest buddies, and totally hate the AV. It could be used to weaken the big Kilmorph/Leaf love circles too, by making those religions not really care either way about what you worship.

solistus · May 18, 2009

How flexible is the diplo modifier system in civ? There are a lot of interesting ideas here but before I dive into theory crafting about changes to diplomacy it would be helpful to know what is and isn't feasible.

Basic questions would be: what sorts of things can/can't trigger diplo penalties/bonuses and what criteria can be used (civ, leader, religion, civics, etc.) to decide which penalties/bonuses to apply? For example (random hypothetical, not at all a suggestion I advocate), could you set a diplo penalty that only applies to Falamar running Liberty against AV civs? Can the conditions be more complicated than that (e.g., one of these set of leaders running one of these 3 civics and/or this religion)? It may be easier to just explain the basics of how the system works than to answer my random questions.

Without knowing these details, I like the idea in general of Good civs being more prone to cooperation than Evils. I don't think Evil-Evil should have a penalty; rather, there should be no bonus (as there should be with good/good) and every civ, including other evil civs, should have a small penalty against Evil civs (EVERYBODY distrusts those crazy clown people, not just other evils). Evil and Good should hate each other more than they do now (it should be nearly impossible for a Good civ and an Evil civ to stay on good terms for very long). From a lore perspective, Neutrals should probably have few bonuses or penalties toward anyone but from a gameplay perspective anything that boosts the FoL/RoK lovefest is problematic. Honestly, on that front, I don't see any solution beyond changing the religions - having the first two religions that tend to spread and entrench themselves far and wide shift civs to Neutral is the root of the problem.

IMHO the big picture goal of the diplo system should consist of 4 parts:
1. Good and Evil civs should usually hate each other, and giant Good on Evil world wars should be encouraged.
2. Good civs should find it easier than Evil ones to work together but Evil civs should not be stuck as loners against a united front of Good for balance reasons; ideally, Evil civs should become more willing to work together the more unified and powerful the Good civs are.
3. Neutral civs should have more flexibility to work with both sides but should have a harder time forming strong alliances with anyone.
4. Alignment-based diplo effects should be significant enough to direct the general flow of most games but not to straightjacket gameplay; the whole point of FFH as a civ mod is that you can 'change history' beyond the limits of the lore. It should be _possible_ to avoid getting sucked in to the Good vs. Evil dichotomy, just an uphill battle to avoid playing your role (like not going FoL as elves or not focusing on your civ's "preferred" tech path).

PPQ_Purple · May 18, 2009

solistus said:
IMHO the big picture goal of the diplo system should consist of 4 parts:
1. Good and Evil civs should usually hate each other, and giant Good on Evil world wars should be encouraged.
2. Good civs should find it easier than Evil ones to work together but Evil civs should not be stuck as loners against a united front of Good for balance reasons; ideally, Evil civs should become more willing to work together the more unified and powerful the Good civs are.
3. Neutral civs should have more flexibility to work with both sides but should have a harder time forming strong alliances with anyone.
4. Alignment-based diplo effects should be significant enough to direct the general flow of most games but not to straightjacket gameplay; the whole point of FFH as a civ mod is that you can 'change history' beyond the limits of the lore. It should be _possible_ to avoid getting sucked in to the Good vs. Evil dichotomy, just an uphill battle to avoid playing your role (like not going FoL as elves or not focusing on your civ's "preferred" tech path).

1. I dislike this, I would rather not see fixed alligments so much. They are anying already.
2. Again, this is lore vise silly. Take for example Banor, other civs would "tolerate" them as long as they crusade against demons, but I can't imagine anyone liking berserker "holy good" fanatics.
3. Neutral civs should be completely shiftey. Evil today, good tomorow.
4. No! No! No!
This I completely disagree with. We do not need a more agresive world.

All in all, I would rather have the bonuses made individualy for each civ. (Mercurians and Banor hate anyone with AV. Svats hate the Other elves, scions like calibim (imortal friends xD), Perpentarch hates the Amurites but Keelyn does not care, ect.)

I hate the entire good vs evil divide as it puts a lot of civs on the wrong side.
Not all evils are that bad, I meen, the svats or calibim don't do much more evil than the Banor. And nether of the three likes demons that much.

Opera · May 18, 2009

What I would like to create is a SpecialRelations tag for the Leaders. In it, you could specify relationship modifiers for specific leaders. For example, you could set that Faeryl Viconia dislikes Arendel Phaedra and starts with -4 relation with her. Maybe the thing could be expanded in two tags: SpecialRelationsLeaders and SpecialRelationsCivs. If I understood the DLL right, setting it shouldn't be too difficult using the example Kael gave (where he sets up the death mana thing).

Lone Wolf · May 18, 2009

Not all evils are that bad, I meen, the svats or calibim don't do much more evil than the Banor.

The Calabim are certainly more evil then Bannor. And good-evil in FfH is not entirely based on personal ethics anyway, althrough there is much correlation.

xienwolf · May 18, 2009

You can do anything you want with diplomacy, could have it be modified based on the latest promotion one of your units took against the last emphasis order the other player gave one of their city governors. Mainly because in order to make new diplomacy fields work, you NEED to go into the DLL. From there you can set things up to work through python a little bit more, but as written right now, there is only 1 "general use" diplomacy category, and the text key for it is silly, and I can't quite remember what the decay rules are for it either, but you don't get much control over that side of it at all.

Main reason it is so "hard coded" is that you have a LOT of factors to work out for each individual diplo-mod, so it is hard to generalize it enough to create completely new ones with XML only (mostly it is the trackers which make this an issue. So I suppose you could create a generalized structure which allowed new Diplo setups to be generated and assumes further DLL modification for trackers or simple python setting and then DLL controlled (via XML numbers) decay.

Alternate Alignment Diplomacy

ChooseReligion enthusiast

Chieftain

Deity

Immortal

Deity

Philosopher Poet

Deity

Prince

Immortal

Loud Mouth Amateur

Deity

Deity

Great Sage

Purple Cube

Warlord

Warlord

Purple Cube

Deity

Deity

Deity

Similar threads