Expanded Broader Alignments

[blade117]

Amazing idea, Valk

 

[Swinkscalibur]

Is it possible to rename alignments so that they become

Lawful Good
Lawful (drop the neutral, if its not stated it can be assumed)
Lawful Evil
Good (again the lack of statement implies the neutral state of ethics)
Neutral
Evil
Chaotic Good
Chaotic
Chaotic Evil

I just think using the extra neutrals is redundant and possibly visually confusing.

Also is it possible to make "True Neutral" not an alignment. It seems to be more of a leader trait. It is essentially a trait which blocks alignment change and holds it to regular Neutral. The difference being its a leader trait which suggests that the leader is committed to being Neutral as apposed to just being undecided. This trait could could be done by including a new variable into your alignment shift calculations that is a boolean (For example bNotTrueNeutral). you could multiply the value of bNotTrueNeutral by the alignment shift calculations. If bNotTrueNeutral is 1 the alignment shifts will not change. But if its 0 (implying you are true neutral) you will never see alignment changes.

In fact the leader trait could be more along the lines of "Closed-Minded". And could be used with the variable "bOpenMinded." This would allow you to set a leaders alignment and then force them to keep it. I believe this should not be used a lot. But I could see a couple of leaders I would use it on. For example Cassiel and perhaps Basium and Hyborem.

Edit: On second thought. Given your disdain for full out blocking things. You could use the same logic to write code which simply makes the decay rate much higher for closed minded leaders. In effect making it much much harder for the player to shift alignments. But still possible. I'd still prefer the blocking thing. It just makes sense and is more lore appropriate. Cassiel was never meant to shift alignment and I'm fairly sure neither was Hyborem.

 

[Valkrionn]

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.

That would be interesting for the Order... Was already partially considering it. thomas.berubeg is working on a mod for LENA, which I've already told him I plan to merge. It introduces Religious Schisms, events through which a religion breaks into several smaller ones... Like FoL has the Wild Hunt, which would be Chaotic, Order can become Evil, OO can be Good or Evil, and so on. Main reason I want the 'major' religions kept to a distinct alignment.

About RoK - Thanks! Pretty much what I thought, so that's how I'll put it in.

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.

I disagree on OO. One building does not make up for the Asylum or the lore. I agree about it not being evil though.

Religions are having an impact because adopting them IS an action. They will give a temporary (goes away when you switch religion) push in a certain direction, but much smaller than they do now. They WILL shift you closer to it over time, however. Main reason it was put in.

Amazing idea, Valk

Is it possible to rename alignments so that they become

Lawful Good
Lawful (drop the neutral, if its not stated it can be assumed)
Lawful Evil
Good (again the lack of statement implies the neutral state of ethics)
Neutral
Evil
Chaotic Good
Chaotic
Chaotic Evil

I just think using the extra neutrals is redundant and possibly visually confusing.

Also is it possible to make "True Neutral" not an alignment. It seems to be more of a leader trait. It is essentially a trait which blocks alignment change and holds it to regular Neutral. The difference being its a leader trait which suggests that the leader is committed to being Neutral as apposed to just being undecided. This trait could could be done by including a new variable into your alignment shift calculations that is a boolean (For example bNotTrueNeutral). you could multiply the value of bNotTrueNeutral by the alignment shift calculations. If bNotTrueNeutral is 1 the alignment shifts will not change. But if its 0 (implying you are true neutral) you will never see alignment changes.

In fact the leader trait could be more along the lines of "Closed-Minded". And could be used with the variable "bOpenMinded." This would allow you to set a leaders alignment and then force them to keep it. I believe this should not be used a lot. But I could see a couple of leaders I would use it on. For example Cassiel and perhaps Basium and Hyborem.

Edit: On second thought. Given your disdain for full out blocking things. You could use the same logic to write code which simply makes the decay rate much higher for closed minded leaders. In effect making it much much harder for the player to shift alignments. But still possible. I'd still prefer the blocking thing. It just makes sense and is more lore appropriate. Cassiel was never meant to shift alignment and I'm fairly sure neither was Hyborem.

Well, I could do that EASILY. Just editing textkeys at this point. I'm not sure about it though....

Edit: Decided to do that. The colors will still be grayish, but the actual words will be dropped.

And actually, I'm already leaning towards doing something like that trait. Specifically for Cassiel, Hyborem, Basium, and Taranis.

 

[Imuratep]

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.

If OO is based on Lovecraft in this point like the majority of its other lore it is most certainly chaotic. Read my signature and nothing else will make sense.
For the alignment of the single leaders I think the D&D definition of the alignments give quite a good impression:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

That's why I think both Clan of Embers leaders definitely should be evil. Life has absolutely no value in Orc society.
For Keelyn I think she should be CE. Though she kills people unconsciously life still has no value for her.
For Faeryl she is a schemer that's true, but you can't say that she is lawful as that meant she is bond by these laws. When everyone mistrusts everyone (including Faeryl) and only obeys because he can't think of a way to kill the other that's everything but lawful. D&D Drow which act in the same way are Chaotic Evil and I think for a good reason. Perhaps NE is the best alignment for her.

Characters of this alignment are typically selfish and have no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment. They have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient for them.

So my opinion about alignments is:
Sheelba Chaotic Evil
Jonas Endain Chaotic Evil
Keelyn Chaotic Evil
Faeryl Neutral Evil

 

[Wodan]

What's the game functionality of this? Another "dial" to cause conflict (in single player, it would give you a -2 to -4 on relations... so lawful good to chaotic evil would have a -8)? Any other game effect?

If you wanted, alignment could be prerequisite for some more buildings / units.

 

[Valkrionn]

There will be more buildings/units that require certain alignments... There will also be production discounts/penalties for certain units/buildings. I'm also rewriting all of the civics... Some of the new civics will require a certain alignment.

 

[blade117]

All awesome permutations of this new system.

 

[Riot_Starter]

A small suggestion here. Have anything that lowers the AC also makes you more good and anything that raises it to make you more evil. Seems like something obvious, but also a way for a player to define their alignment (intentionally or otherwise).

I hope there are enough modifiers like these that make playing a certain alignment actually "feel" like being that alignment and doing things out of your alignment will slowly switch you to another.

 

[Valkrionn]

A small suggestion here. Have anything that lowers the AC also makes you more good and anything that raises it to make you more evil. Seems like something obvious, but also a way for a player to define their alignment (intentionally or otherwise).

I hope there are enough modifiers like these that make playing a certain alignment actually "feel" like being that alignment and doing things out of your alignment will slowly switch you to another.

Hmm... I think I can do that. Would have to find where AC contributions are calculated, of course. I'm not sure whether increasing it is Evil, or Chaotic though... Destruction of everything is BOTH, so I'm rather torn.

 

[Riot_Starter]

Well I'm going under the premise that Evil wants armageddon (among other things), while Good is trying to prevent it. Why would you make increasing be Chaotic if the goal of Evil is to bring armageddon? Armageddon isn't about random destruction. The goal is about corruption, so that The One will end creation. If you make armageddon both chaotic and evil, then that starts to break down the distinction between the 2. I think each alignment should have a clear purpose (or maybe lack of one, in the case of Chaotic) and Good and Evil already have these nice goals already laid out.

 

[Wodan]

OTOH it might be too much of a disincentive for good to raze evil cities?

 

[black_imperator]

theres is something a little wrong with your last statement Riot_Starter, Evil doesn't want armageddon. Sheaim and possibly Infernals want Armageddon, Veil Leaders too. There is no way most of the other evil leaders want to annihilate creation. they have easier goals or no goals at all for some of them ( Perpy is the best example of that) .

Yet , i agree that increasing AC should be linked to alignment, not because Evil wants Armageddon , but because Wanting Armageddon is Evil.

 

[Valkrionn]

Well I'm going under the premise that Evil wants armageddon (among other things), while Good is trying to prevent it. Why would you make increasing be Chaotic if the goal of Evil is to bring armageddon? Armageddon isn't about random destruction. The goal is about corruption, so that The One will end creation. If you make armageddon both chaotic and evil, then that starts to break down the distinction between the 2. I think each alignment should have a clear purpose (or maybe lack of one, in the case of Chaotic) and Good and Evil already have these nice goals already laid out.

True, Armageddon in FfH is rather different than it is normally.

OTOH it might be too much of a disincentive for good to raze evil cities?

It could be... But it would be easy to weight it so that if a city has an evil religion the change is decreased/nullified. With AV it could even make you good.

 

[Riot_Starter]

theres is something a little wrong with your last statement Riot_Starter, Evil doesn't want armageddon. Sheaim and possibly Infernals want Armageddon, Veil Leaders too. There is no way most of the other evil leaders want to annihilate creation. they have easier goals or no goals at all for some of them ( Perpy is the best example of that) .

Yet , i agree that increasing AC should be linked to alignment, not because Evil wants Armageddon , but because Wanting Armageddon is Evil.

I don't know why Kael made certain people evil, but I think the idea was that the Evil people contribute to Armageddon unknowingly because of the corruption and suffering they create. So them being Evil (in game terms) isn't a conscious decision, but a side effect of w/e they were doing.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Evil does not in general want Armageddon. The Infernals and Sheaim are the only civilizations who want the world to end. Only Ceridwen (and maybe Cammulos) wants to personally destroy Creation, while Agares is the only one who wants The One to destroy it. Mammon, Aeron, and formerly Mulcarn want to dominate the world, not destroy it. (Mammon's archangel Hastur however has done more than most to try to destroy the world, but that was just to distract Condatis from keeping him from gaining control of Danalin.) They hate the idea of The One ever returning or getting involved in Creation every again, as it would mean the end of their power.

Alexis is a bit shortsighted, but Flauros is strongly opposed to demonic pacts and wants to save his lands from the blight and pestilences of Armageddon at all costs.

Esus himself sent Faeryl Viconia to save the world.

 

[Imuratep]

What's the game functionality of this? Another "dial" to cause conflict (in single player, it would give you a -2 to -4 on relations... so lawful good to chaotic evil would have a -8)? Any other game effect?

If you wanted, alignment could be prerequisite for some more buildings / units.

The problem with this is that leaders that should not like each other will be indifferent if you use the same diplo-penalties to chaotic/lawful as for evil/good. For example Flauros Lawful Evil and Sabathiel Lawful Good would get along quite well -4 for evil +4 for lawful / -4 for good and +4 for lawful.

 

[Valkrionn]

Evil does not in general want Armageddon. The Infernals and Sheaim are the only civilizations who want the world to end. Only Ceridwen (and maybe Cammulos) wants to personally destroy Creation, while Agares is the only one who wants The One to destroy it. Mammon, Aeron, and formerly Mulcarn want to dominate the world, not destroy it. (Mammon's archangel Hastur however has done more than most to try to destroy the world, but that was just to distract Condatis from keeping him from gaining control of Danalin.) They hate the idea of The One ever returning or getting involved in Creation every again, as it would mean the end of their power.

Alexis is a bit shortsighted, but Flauros is strongly opposed to demonic pacts and wants to save his lands from the blight and pestilences of Armageddon at all costs.

Esus himself sent Faeryl Viconia to save the world.

Hmm... For now I think I'll avoid a direct tie between alignment and contributions to AC. Some of those actions could definitely move your alignment, but I'll do it on an item-by-item basis.

The problem with this is that leaders that should not like each other will be indifferent if you use the same diplo-penalties to chaotic/lawful as for evil/good. For example Flauros Lawful Evil and Sabathiel Lawful Good would get along quite well -4 for evil +4 for lawful / -4 for good and +4 for lawful.

Good point. I think dropping the Lawful/Chaotic modifiers by half would work out... I could see Sabathiel disliking Flauros less than Alexis, for example, but he'd still dislike him.

 

[Riot_Starter]

Evil does not in general want Armageddon. The Infernals and Sheaim are the only civilizations who want the world to end. Only Ceridwen (and maybe Cammulos) wants to personally destroy Creation, while Agares is the only one who wants The One to destroy it. Mammon, Aeron, and formerly Mulcarn want to dominate the world, not destroy it. (Mammon's archangel Hastur however has done more than most to try to destroy the world, but that was just to distract Condatis from keeping him from gaining control of Danalin.) They hate the idea of The One ever returning or getting involved in Creation every again, as it would mean the end of their power.

Alexis is a bit shortsighted, but Flauros is strongly opposed to demonic pacts and wants to save his lands from the blight and pestilences of Armageddon at all costs.

Esus himself sent Faeryl Viconia to save the world.

Interesting. I see what you mean and agree. But this brings something else up. Dying with Esus or OO takes you to their respective vault (Esus or Mammon in the case of in-game Esus religion and wherever OO worshipers go: Cammulos?), so why would dead Esus units go to Infernals if Esus and Mammon don't want armageddon?

 

[Valkrionn]

Interesting. I see what you mean and agree. But this brings something else up. Dying with Esus or OO takes you to their respective vault (Esus or Mammon in the case of in-game Esus religion and wherever OO worshipers go: Cammulos?), so why would dead Esus units go to Infernals if Esus and Mammon don't want armageddon?

All evil religious units go to Infernals, as all Evil vaults connect to one another. Part of the process of corrupting souls and forging Demons.

 

[black_imperator]

technically OO followers don't have a vault to go to since it's a religion without god to worship ( at least not one of the twenty-one that are twenty-two) . I'd say they go in Danalin's Vault, which is pretty much controlled by Hastur ( or at least in part) or directly in Mammon's one.

for more precisions, concerning what happens to people sent into one of the hells, you should see this post from kael :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=306677