Alignments

Something I found odd about FFh, is that the alignment system is pretty inflexible. It's basically binary (or trinary. Is that a word?), in that you're good, neutral., or eveil. With nothing in between.

It makes all those random events a bit less compelling, when I can experiment on my people for the +2 health in all cities, with no repercussions in karma, unless you count the temporary unhappiness.

Moreover, the only way to change alignment, is by religion. It's like saying man's only moral guidance must come from the divine, and that we're incapable of making our own decisions. Something that's particularly irksome as the grigori. Why can't an atheist still be a good person?

A few other games, notably the Knights of the Old Republic series, and Galactic Civilisations II, have pulled off an alignment system in a much more flexible, and organic manner.

I'm thinking, rather than having a single integer to represent alignment, it could be a float number, varying infinitely between -1 (pure, end of creation evil) and 1 (would sacrifice own life to save a puppy). The system of good and evil could still exist unabated, merely represented by ranges.

-1 to -0.4 = evil
-0.4 to 0.4 = neutral
0.4 to 1 = good

Each civ would start with it's own position somewhere along the range, though never starting at a complete extreme, so there's always reason to play inj character. Elohim coulkd start with 0.75, for instance. And Sheiam -0.75. Infernals could start the closest to the evil extreme, at -0.9. Perhaps infernals and mercurians could have upper/lower limits on their karma, to prevent Hyborem from ever becoming good, and Basium evil.

The various random events that happen in the world, could add or remove small amounts to your karma score, potentially affecting alignment.

Example

One of your units has been caught torturing prisoners. They say it improves training, blah blah...

Click to expand...

• Have the unit decomissioned (lose the unit, karma +0.05)
• Reprimand the unit commander (-2 xp)
• So ? (Karma -0.025)
• Congratulate the commander on his ferocity(+2xp, karma -0.05)

Such events could potentially cause a change in your alignment. I think a system like this would add a lot more flavor to the game, and give those events a bit more importance than simply weighing up the material pros and cons. This would replace the requirement to be evil, to do certain actions. So that any leader could do almost any action - and have to live with the consequences.

Razing captured cities could incur a -0.05 penalty, too, except where the city has Ashen veil Then it would either give no change, or a positive change in karma. Maybe a small -0.01 for sacrificing population with slavery, to hurry things.

Adopting a religion could have some effect on your alignment score too, like taking order or av would give +0.4/-0.4 respectively. So that religion could still play a part, but just not be the single and only way of doing things.

What does everyone think ?

FF has a wider alignment system I believe. Would be nice to see it implemented into FFH.

Yes, FF have this system, but in FFH world alignment isn`t from yours choices, but "you are on the side of fallen angels, angels fighting vs fallen angels and angel don`t fighting vs fallen angels for some reasons, but aren`t friends with fallen angels.", so it`s exactly founded on your civ patron angel. Why Orcs are evil? Because their goddes is now evil. Why Bannors are good? Because they now follow Junil.

Flexible alignment should send Basium and probably Bannors to evil , when Mahala and maybe Shelba to neutral.

Kinda everyone that've read the lore would agree that there is nothing such as pure good in Erebus. Even Einon, who's kinda saintly, have been forced to use very inhumane methods.

FfH is dark fantasy. The closest you can get to "pure good" are the true neutrals, who at least seem to follow their ethics (like Cassiel and Falamar). The good leaders might fight for a good cause, but their methods are certainly not able to be measured in a system like that, since their alignment only has to do with their gods (or rather, which god they are fighting, since it's kinda clear that some of the dwarves are under the influence of Mammon)

I, personally, see Cassiel as the leader that is the most pure good. I'm not sure about Sabathiel, but the events in Aurics scenario would certainly not count as a good act.

I, personally, see Cassiel as the leader that is the most pure good.

Click to expand...

Exactly, Cassiel is easily the most sympathetic character. After reading some Civilopedia articles and discussions about lore, I'm as sick of tired of all the FFH gods as him.

t in FFH world alignment isn`t from yours choices, but "you are on the side of fallen angels, angels fighting vs fallen angels and angel don`t fighting vs fallen angels for some reasons, but aren`t friends with fallen angels.",

Click to expand...

Well, you can still have a choice of converting to an aligment-changing religion.

Lone Wolf said:

Well, you can still have a choice of converting to an aligment-changing religion.

Click to expand...

Unless you're Cassiel

More importantly "sliding scale" systems have their own drawbacks. You could want to be neutral to get access to druids, but not be able to because you selected an event option or razed a city for game play reasons that switched your alignment enough that your druids abandon you or you are blocked from building them.

Its not that sliding scale mechanics are bad (the C is a sliding scale mechanic) but that there are pros and cons of both sides.

With a sliding scale: players options are limited and incented to role play their decisions in order to achieve the game play goals they want. On the positive the players smaller decisions impact their later goals.

Without a sliding scale: players can ignore role play entirely and choose decisions completely on their game play goals. This keeps players from feeling bound by the game conventions, but also creates some logical falicies where players game play can deviate significantly from their role play persona.


As in most game development questions neither side of this arguement is ideal. The trick is to find a happy middle where you minimize the bad and get as much of the good as possible. But that magic spot isnt the same for everyone, people who prefer more role-playing typically like more of this, while those more interested just int he strategy aspects want less.

For FfH we really try to stay away from forcing role play convention as much as possible. Our thought is that if you as a player want to "do what your leader would do" (as many players including myself would do) then you can do that. But if you dont want to then that is fine too. This is also why we are extremely open with civs and religions. You can play the Elohim as evil demon worshippers, you can play the Sheaim as tree worshippers. That may not make much sense from a FfH lore perspective, but we leave the options to the players.

You can play the Elohim as evil demon worshippers, you can play the Sheaim as tree worshippers.

Click to expand...

Well, obviousy Ethne couldn't stand all that suffering around her, completely broke, went mad and decided to embrace evil, since she decided it's pointless to fight it. And logically, changing some religions changed your aligment. FFH, like Civ classic, is alternate history.

And what's wrong with tree-worshipping Sheaim? Fellowship of Leaves logically even doesn't change your aligment. True, the word needs to be ended, but the trees are the most beautiful thing in it, so let's worship them.

Kael said:

... switched your alignment enough that your druids abandon you or you are blocked from building them.

Click to expand...

A little off-topic, but are those national disciples supposed to abandon you if you change alignment? Because, you know, currently they don't.

Kael said:

You can play the Elohim as evil demon worshippers, you can play the Sheaim as tree worshippers. That may not make much sense from a FfH lore perspective, but we leave the options to the players.

Click to expand...

And this has been a hugely good decision IMO, as it makes for more replayability and some cool unexpected situations (Order Sheaim) that, if role played, would be more exciting than the standard fare.

it sure would be cool to see chaotic, lawful and neutral also added a la D&D.

And although players hsould be able to play the game as they wish, adn against role, there still should be consequences for actions. Evil deeds should steer towards evil units. If the player wants druids, they should try and play a neutral game.

Kael said:

Its not that sliding scale mechanics are bad (the C is a sliding scale mechanic) but that there are pros and cons of both sides.

With a sliding scale: players options are limited and incented to role play their decisions in order to achieve the game play goals they want. On the positive the players smaller decisions impact their later goals.

Without a sliding scale: players can ignore role play entirely and choose decisions completely on their game play goals. This keeps players from feeling bound by the game conventions, but also creates some logical falicies where players game play can deviate significantly from their role play persona.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that making 'strategic' players roleplay is that bad an idea. It's a game mechanic - as long as the alignment adjustments make thematic sense, aiming towards an optimal alignment is the same as roleplaying. As religions would be still be one of the major ways to adjust alignment, players' options are less limited than before.

As in most game development questions neither side of this arguement is ideal. The trick is to find a happy middle where you minimize the bad and get as much of the good as possible. But that magic spot isnt the same for everyone, people who prefer more role-playing typically like more of this, while those more interested just int he strategy aspects want less.

Click to expand...

The only way I can see 'strategic' players hating the sliding scale system is if they're unfairly restricted by it. As long as explicit rewards aren't given for acting "in character" (of your civ/leader), these players can still aim for the alignment that benefits them the most. If you tie this more to events or big choices (religion, certain civics, declaring wars, giving aid), and less to gameplay (razing cities, pillaging, spying, HN units), the player still has a lot of control, and can adjust their strategy accordingly.

For FfH we really try to stay away from forcing role play convention as much as possible. Our thought is that if you as a player want to "do what your leader would do" (as many players including myself would do) then you can do that. But if you dont want to then that is fine too. This is also why we are extremely open with civs and religions. You can play the Elohim as evil demon worshippers, you can play the Sheaim as tree worshippers. That may not make much sense from a FfH lore perspective, but we leave the options to the players.

Click to expand...

Doesn't a sliding scale alignment system (influenced by events, religion, and some gameplay choices) do this better than what's currently implemented? This roleplay is not about "doing what your leader would do" to get a reward, it's playing your leader how you want in order to change the gamestate, just like making the Elohim AV in your example.

More importantly "sliding scale" systems have their own drawbacks. You could want to be neutral to get access to druids, but not be able to because you selected an event option or razed a city for game play reasons that switched your alignment enough that your druids abandon you or you are blocked from building them.

Click to expand...

Most importantly: a sliding scale system shouldn't just be tacked onto the existing framework. It should be largely separate (excluding religion and some civics), with its own events that have minimal to no repercussions outside of alignment adjustment. This should be cleaner and easier to implement, as you don't have to consider every single action in the game.

the_fish said:

I'm not sure that making 'strategic' players roleplay is that bad an idea. It's a game mechanic - as long as the alignment adjustments make thematic sense, aiming towards an optimal alignment is the same as roleplaying. As religions would be still be one of the major ways to adjust alignment, players' options are less limited than before.

The only way I can see 'strategic' players hating the sliding scale system is if they're unfairly restricted by it. As long as explicit rewards aren't given for acting "in character" (of your civ/leader), these players can still aim for the alignment that benefits them the most. If you tie this more to events or big choices (religion, certain civics, declaring wars, giving aid), and less to gameplay (razing cities, pillaging, spying, HN units), the player still has a lot of control, and can adjust their strategy accordingly.

Click to expand...

This is part of that middle ground. You are talking about having the option make a difference, but not to much of a difference. On the one hand you have "why have it mean anything at all if it doesnt really matter" and on the other you have "im to restricted by these role play options".

But no matter how fine a line you put on it the player will come to one of three options:

1. The player is given a choice, but (from an alignment sliding scale perspective) it doesnt matter because hes firmly entrenched in one category. This is not fun for the player.

or

2. The player is given a choice and despite what he wants to do he cant because of an alignment sliding scale option. Lets say he wants to raze an enemy city because it is just untenable to keep, but thats just enough to push him to evil and cause him to lose his druids and whatever else the implications are. This is not fun for the player.

or

3. The player wants another alignment so had to game his event and other decisions to try and reach it. No matter what he would prefer to answer to an event, or run with as a civic, the player feels pushed to react in order to get to the alignment he wants. This is not fun for the player.


In my experience sliding scale systems are really fun to design and talk about. But are rarely any fun in the game.

Doesn't a sliding scale alignment system (influenced by events, religion, and some gameplay choices) do this better than what's currently implemented? This roleplay is not about "doing what your leader would do" to get a reward, it's playing your leader how you want in order to change the gamestate, just like making the Elohim AV in your example.

Most importantly: a sliding scale system shouldn't just be tacked onto the existing framework. It should be largely separate (excluding religion and some civics), with its own events that have minimal to no repercussions outside of alignment adjustment. This should be cleaner and easier to implement, as you don't have to consider every single action in the game.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree with the last. If you want a sliding scale alignment system the first thing you really need is to make alignment really matter. Its currently a minor mechanic in FfH, a very important and flavorful one (I believe it was the first thing I added to FfH2), but it doesnt have a ton of gameplay ties. There isnt a ton of reasons to worry about it.

If you wanted to tie it to events, civics, player actions the first thing you would need to do is to make it more important. Why spend all the time programming a complex system and then not use it. And the second problem with this suggestion is that I dont see any real value in increasing the role of alignment in this way.