Expanded Broader Alignments

Its an Open Office sheet. I'll make it an excel one, it just slipped my mind. And like I said in my edit, it is a bit off because I made a wrong assumption on how you were going to do the permanent shift, but I'm fixing it.

Edit: Ok, I fixed it to match the way the permanent shift works. It actually slows down the permanent gain compared to simple addition to the base. I've added the new file (this time in excel format).
 
Alright, here's the NEW decay rate formula:

Code: 
iAlignmentShiftDecay = ((int)((GC.getDefineINT("BROADER_ALIGNMENT_DECAY_RATE_MODIFIER") / 100) * pow((float)(abs(getBroadShiftModifier())), (GC.getDefineINT("BROADER_ALIGNMENT_DECAY_RATE") / 100))));

Essentially, it's exactly as Odalrick posted. Just uses Global Defines (divided by 100, to get decimal values) as the modifiers... RATE_MODIFIER is 100 (so 1), DECAY_RATE is 50, so .5. Means sqr root.

The storage function is the same, but uses STORE_RATE rather than DECAY_RATE. Set to 33 (1/3) as of now, so cube root.

Edit: Also, I don't actually have office on this computer... One of the main reasons I use Google Docs to post things. :lol:
 
Code: 
GC.getDefineINT("BROADER_ALIGNMENT_DECAY_RATE_MODIFIER") / 100
GC.getDefineINT("BROADER_ALIGNMENT_DECAY_RATE") / 100

If the modifier and rate are stored as integers, and you divide with an integer; won't integer division be used?

So you'd get 0 for values of 0-99 and 1 for values 100-199 .
 
You're right on the first one; The second should be a float, thanks to the part in bold. Will check to make sure it applies to EVERYTHING within the following (), though. It may just apply to the first value.

Code: 
iAlignmentShiftDecay = ((int)((GC.getDefineINT("BROADER_ALIGNMENT_DECAY_RATE_MODIFIER") / 100) * pow([B](float)[/B](abs(getBroadShiftModifier())), (GC.getDefineINT("BROADER_ALIGNMENT_DECAY_RATE") / 100))));

I'll add the (float) call to the first define.
 
Valkrionn said:
You're right on the first one; The second should be a float, thanks to the part in bold. Will check to make sure it applies to EVERYTHING within the following (), though. It may just apply to the first value.

Code: 
iAlignmentShiftDecay = ((int)((GC.getDefineINT("BROADER_ALIGNMENT_DECAY_RATE_MODIFIER") / 100) * pow([B](float)[/B](abs(getBroadShiftModifier())), (GC.getDefineINT("BROADER_ALIGNMENT_DECAY_RATE") / 100))));

I'll add the (float) call to the first define.
Click to expand...

The second one is actually the third one, so to speak. The type cast you are talking about ends just before the ",". The following expression will be integers.

Code: 
iAlignmentShiftDecay = 
     ((int)(([I]GC.getDefineINT("BROADER_ALIGNMENT_DECAY_RATE_MODIFIER")[/I] / 100.) 
     * pow((float)[B](abs(getBroadShiftModifier()))[/B], 
     ([I]GC.getDefineINT("BROADER_ALIGNMENT_DECAY_RATE")[/I] / 100.))));

Bolded part is what the (float) affects, italics is what needs to be made floats. Making the constants floats, as I've done here, work should work as well as typecasting.
 
odalrick said:
The second one is actually the third one, so to speak. The type cast you are talking about ends just before the ",". The following expression will be integers.

Code: 
iAlignmentShiftDecay = 
     ((int)(([I]GC.getDefineINT("BROADER_ALIGNMENT_DECAY_RATE_MODIFIER")[/I] / 100.) 
     * pow((float)[B](abs(getBroadShiftModifier()))[/B], 
     ([I]GC.getDefineINT("BROADER_ALIGNMENT_DECAY_RATE")[/I] / 100.))));

Bolded part is what the (float) affects, italics is what needs to be made floats. Making the constants floats, as I've done here, work should work as well as typecasting.
Click to expand...

Actually, right after I made that post I made exactly the changes you mentioned...

Right up until I checked the globaldefine schema. I wasn't aware of it, as all other global defines in the file are ints, but it IS possible to use a float value. <fDefineFloatVal>. All three of the defines (only two are shown in that formula, the other is 0.33, used for storing a constant amount) are now stored as floats naturally. No messy conversion. ;)
 
As far as I remember Kael's words on design, the closer is the Armageddon, the more are nations leaning to extreme good or extreme evil, and the lesser are staying neutral. So, the idea is, maybe shifts should be influenced by AC as well? Say, on AC 100, good shifts for good player are twice more powerful, then evil ones (i. e. leading to neutrality) and vice versa.
Something like
AC_influenced_shift = Basic_Shift + Basic_Shift*(AC/100)*(if or ((shift is "+" and nation is "good");(shift is "-" and nation is "evil")), then 1, else 0).

Or, if you make some permanent modifier, pulling player to neutrality, if he's not devote enough, you can just weaken it with the increase of AC.
 
Dropping in to post a screenshot of the newest addition... Let's see who notices it first? ;)

Civ4ScreenShot0014.jpg
 
You mean the fact that he is Lawful Good?

Nice addition, if that's it; the terms 'good' and 'evil' are way too vague to be used on their own (not to mention that their meaning varies from society to society (and person to person, really)).

Expect long and heated discussion about what is chaotic/lawful and what is good/evil, though.:rolleyes:
 
Exactly that. ;)

We've added an entirely new alignment axis (Not really all that difficult, just a MASSIVE amount of copy/paste/rename work. :lol: )

Though they are displayed together, they are in fact entirely separate... This is very important, as it allows BA to work. This is what I meant by the Alignment Shifts being simply the ground work for something else. :lol:

Main reason for this is flavor, and differentiation... Order will be Lawful, while Empy will be good, for example. Doesn't mean Order won't give a small boost to Good... Not decided yet there. What it DOES mean is it's main effect will be to make you Lawful. No more Good Calabim from following a corrupted Order. Good Calabim doesn't make sense.... Lawful Evil Calabim? Bingo. ;)

Another example is Basium and Sabathiel. Both are good, and yet in the lore still dislike each other.... Why? Because the first is Chaotic, while the other is Lawful. ;)

Now, the main reason I post this here is I WANT discussion. Which axis should each religion move you on, and how far? What alignment should the various leaders have?

One thing I would like, is a 'Pure' leader for each alignment. As in, one Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, and True Neutral. True Neutral is obviously Cassiel. I'm thinking the Emperor for Lawful... Perp as Chaotic? Not sure how evil he really is. Not sure who to use for good, either.

Both alignment meters will have in game effects... Decided to go with the discount mechanic, and there will be a few new buildings/units for each alignment. Keep in mind, bonus production can go the OTHER way as well... Chaotic shouldn't be able to construct Courthouses as easily, for example.

We could also use a better name for it, I think... For lack of a better name, the new axis is the Ethical Alignment axis. In DnD, alignments are Moral (good/evil) and Ethical (lawful/chaotic). Couldn't think of a better term, so I went with that. ;)

One final note: When looking at this, don't think DnD 4e. We have ALL (but one) alignments.... Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil (Hyborem?). The only one missing is Neutral Neutral... Decided we can skip that. True Neutral is an active thing... Doing what you can to preserve balance. Big time Cassiel. :lol: Neutral Neutral is more uncaring... Less important, less interesting, and not worth the distinction. ;)
 
As far as religions go:

Order - Lawful with some good
Empyrean - Good with some lawful
RoK - Lawful good? (some of both?)
FoL - Neutral
Esus - ?? (I'm thinking Lawful Evil or Evil, but not very. I see Esus as basically a thieves/assassins guild with religious overtones)
OO - Chaotic with a bit of evil
AV - Evil


For the pure leaders: (just picking who I think is the "best" candidate even though there could be many in each category)

Lawful Good - Sabathiel
Neutral Good - Ethne
Chaotic Good - Basium

Lawful Neutral - (I couldn't think of a clear winner here. Who cares for law and order, but doesn't care about good/evil?)
True Neutral - Cassiel
Chaotic Neutral - Perpentach (He could be seen as evil, or simply creating chaos which happens to have the nasty side effect or usually harming people) or Falamar (free spirited)

Lawful Evil - Flauros
Neutral Evil - Os-Gabella or Alexis
Chaotic Evil - Hyborem
 
Here are my own thoughts on religions:
Order:
Lawful, maybe a small boost to Good (Junil is the leader of the good angels, after all)
​
Empyrean:
Good. No lawful/chaotic here... Lugus doesn't seem to care much about law.
​
Runes of Kilmorph:
Not sure here... I think a mix. Given that it currently moves Evil to Neutral and Neutral to Good, I think it could fit.
​
Fellowship:
This one I'm very unsure about. It's traditionally the neutral religion, but I think a small Chaotic shift (Lawful->Neutral, Neutral->Chaotic) could work here. Could use discussion.
​
Esus:
Again, not sure, but I think Esus shouldn't move your alignment at all. It is meant to be a hidden religion, why should it have visible effects?
​
OO:
Chaotic. OO is not necessarily Evil, and I don't think it needs to push you in that direction.
​
AV:
Evil, but I could see Chaotic Evil. AV is all about destroying creation... I think Chaotic would fit it, albeit not as well as it does OO.
​
Ordo Machinarum:
If anything, a small value for Lawful Evil. Not enough to change your alignment unless you're on the edge already.
​
White Hand:
Lawful Evil again here. This one I'm not sure on, but I think it fits perfectly... It's planned to be an Evil religion that doesn't increase the AC, and Auric strikes me as a Lawful leader.
​




I like your leader assignments, though. I'm still kind of leaning towards making the Emperor Lawful Neutral (His cult is practiced in what may as well be a courthouse, after all), but I could be talked out of it. :lol:
 
White Hand seems very Lawful Evil to me, as Mulcarn's goal is stasis, and what could be more lawful? At the same time, he don't care who he hurts or kills to achieve this, clearly evil.

Regarding the Emperor, lawful is definatly his thing, the courthouse shrines and the fanatical cult of personality fits lawfulness very well.

I'm a bit curious about Ordo, however. Why do you see them as lawful evil?
 
Here's the in game display... Is it easy to understand? The first value displayed is Ethics (Lawful, in this case), the second is Morals (Good).

I WOULD move it, but if I did that you wouldn't be able to see the alignment of other players. Maybe the scoreboard should just display the actual alignment, with the values located elsewhere?

Civ4ScreenShot0015.jpg


Also, what colors should we use to display alignment? I think setting a color for each 'Pure' alignment, and mixing them for hybrids, would work fine. Currently, they are as follows:

  • Good - Yellow
  • Neutral - Grey
  • Evil - Red
  • Lawful - ?
  • Neutral - ?
  • Chaotic - ?

Green, Blue, and Purple are already used for Leader Status, although with those as Icons it's not a big deal.
 
Hankc said:
White Hand seems very Lawful Evil to me, as Mulcarn's goal is stasis, and what could be more lawful? At the same time, he don't care who he hurts or kills to achieve this, clearly evil.

Regarding the Emperor, lawful is definatly his thing, the courthouse shrines and the fanatical cult of personality fits lawfulness very well.

I'm a bit curious about Ordo, however. Why do you see them as lawful evil?
Click to expand...

My thoughts on the Hand and the Emperor exactly. :goodjob:

As for Machinarum... Really, my opinion is flavoured by a leader who isn't in yet (Check the Ideas thread), but it's more of a 'lean' than an actual alignment here. The religion would be neutral on both axes... What it WOULD do though is give you a small push towards those values. Currently (in 1.12) it gives -100, towards Evil.

Basically, the religion is neutral. But it's more Evil than it is Good, and it's more Lawful than it is Chaotic. It is all about the ability of Mankind to progress, to usurp the power of the Gods. Like AV, it is a religion based around Power... Unlike AV, you do not sell your soul to achieve. Instead, you forsake all gods and rely on your own abilities.... Too often, this power is used for evil purposes, hence the lean in that direction. Lawful is a bit easier to explain... It's a religion based on Science. Science is about as un-Chaotic as you can get, really... It's still a weak lean, however, as it's more of a rigid thought process, not a rigid social structure.

Hopefully that makes a bit of sense? :lol:
 
One thing I forgot to post earlier... Here's a potential list of Alignments, posted in the team group by Opera. And here is a description of the nine alignments, as well.
When reading those descriptions, keep in mind that the True Neutral we are using is this:
Some Neutral characters, rather than feeling undecided, are committed to a balance between the alignments. They may see good, evil, law and chaos as simply prejudices and dangerous extremes.
Click to expand...

  • Sabathiel: Lawful Good
  • Capria: Neutral Good
  • Varn: Neutral Good
  • Ethne: Neutral Good
  • Einion: Neutral Good
  • Basium: Chaotic Good
  • Garrim: ? Good
  • Beeri: Lawful Good
  • Cardith: Lawful Good
  • Amelanchier: Lawful Neutral
  • Arendel: Neutral Good
  • Thessa: Chaotic Neutral
  • Arturus: Lawful Neutral?
  • Kandros: Neutral?
  • Sandalphon: Chaotic Neutral?
  • Falamar: Chaotic Good
  • Hannah: Chaotic Neutral
  • Cassiel: Neutral
  • Tasunke: Chaotic Neutral
  • Rhoanna: Lawful Neutral, True Neutral?
  • Valledia: Chaotic Neutral
  • Dain: Neutral Good
  • Charadon: Chaotic Evil
  • Mahala: Neutral
  • Perp: Chaotic Evil
  • Keelyn: Chaotic Neutral
  • Jonas: Chaotic Neutral
  • Sheelba: Neutral Evil
  • Faeryl: Lawful Evil (in the meaning of a schemer)
  • Alexis: Neutral Evil
  • Flauros: Lawful Evil
  • Tebryn: Chaotic Evil
  • Os-Gabella: Neutral Evil
  • Hyborem: Chaotic Evil?
  • Auric: Lawful Evil
 
Could you make it so that The Order turns Neutral civs Good, but leaves Evil civs Evil? Those who are neutral are already basically good but don't have the fanaticism that The Order would give. Those who are evil would likely use this fanaticism to enforce their twisted laws. It would also be interesting if good-evil alignment changes were more pronounced for the extremists of The Order. They essentially cannot see neutrality, and so are more likely yo fall into real evil when they fall short of The Good.

The Empyrean should move one towards good without effecting how lawful one is. I think of Lugus as at least slightly more lawful than chaotic, but that isn't as big of a deal. His followers are expected to have strong personal codes of ethics but they are to rationally convince others to follow them rather than use the force of law. Sinners are harshly punished, but the purpose is always to rehabilitate the sinner or re compensate those he harmed, never to get revenge or intimidate others. Punishment is always decided based on the merits of the case, not according to any legal code.

Kilmorph is definitely Lawful, although not to the extent of Junil. I see RoK as moving towards Lawful, plus moving towards both good and neutral (so it makes evil neutral, and would generally move one towards good but would moderate the most extreme, fanatical good.) It is a very tradition oriented religion, which could perhaps dampen alignment changes.

I see FoL as moving everyone towards Neutral, perhaps with a slight push towards chaos too.

OO is almost pure chaos. I could see building certain OO units and its wonder as moving towards evil rather than the religion itself. The Overlords have plenty of good followers, but the the cult leaders are pretty much all quite evil.

AV should probably be pure evil. Agares actually does not want to destroy creation, he wants to corrupt it enough so that The One will destroy creation. The Emrys (Ceridwen's followers) and the ones that want to destroy creation themselves.

(In the scenarios, OO was the main enemy of The Order, while the Empyrean mostly fought AV, indicating that these pairs of religions should be opposites alignmentwise.)

The White Hand is certainly Lawful Evil, and is likely much more Lawful than Evil. Auric does seem more evil that Mulcarn was though now, even though he was a very nice boy in his youth and seems to be decent again after his death when the precept of Ice is no longer directing him.


I'm not really sure about Esus. It would be interesting if it let you set your own apparent alignment, while corrupting your true alignment.
 
For me OO is neither chaotic or evil, just NN or LN.
--The reasoning behind this thought is that, as far as GvE alignment, states of OO have no real agenda of good or evil, and I don't see why they would help out evil civs or good civs. They might not qualify for good, because of their like of the insane, but that is hardly as detrimental to society as marching off all your population to war.--
--For the LvC alignment, it would seem that with a building like a Tower of Complacency, that OO values law more than chaos. Just because a significant portion of their population is insane, does not mean that the ruling party is.--


AV seems to be a very good choice for CE, however.
--It both actively seeks to destroy humanity, and hurts its friends and enemies inconsistently.--

Esus might make for a good CN religion.
--GvE, it hate all religions equally.--
--CvL, if pushed an Esus diplomat might need to resort to inconsistent decision making in order hide their true motives. This erratic behavior seems appropriate for a chaotic.--


Also, I don't really think any of the religions should have much impact on the alignment of a character. Actions should make the alignment, and in a Civ4 based games, the actions available often throw lore out the window --FoL going on a crusade* and inquisition, while possibly out of character, is an executable action within RifE; a Lincoln instituting communism and slavery is also a lore no-no, but is something that could happen in a Civ4 based game (if BtS had slavery, I can't recall)--. *Not specifically the Bannor one, but the idea is similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Civilopedia: List of Topics That Cover Only The Current Age
Replies
2
Views
346
SammyKhalifa
SammyKhalifa
Jayman1000
Discord?
Replies
5
Views
422
Walter Hawkwood
Walter Hawkwood
bengalryan9
Civ Discussion - Han
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Nic@Melbourne
N
R
Rogue's UI - Production Improvements
Replies
1
Views
1K
sschwarz
sschwarz
Recursive
Final 2UC Version - 4.22 (May 31, 2025)
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
13K
TheOrpheus
T
Back
Top Bottom