Expanded Broader Alignments

[Valkrionn]

Alignment affects whether or not certain buildings/units can be built, which events can occur, and so on.

Honestly, it's main draw is for RP. Which is something I tend to do when playing a game... I play in character. Usually more creative characters, but still, in character.

There will likely be a few more units/buildings that require a certain alignment... Promotions and spells too, maybe.

 

[Chinchirorin]

Alignment affects whether or not certain buildings/units can be built, which events can occur, and so on.

Honestly, it's main draw is for RP. Which is something I tend to do when playing a game... I play in character. Usually more creative characters, but still, in character.

There will likely be a few more units/buildings that require a certain alignment... Promotions and spells too, maybe.

Well, I can relate to the roleplaying aspect - But it would be immensly helpful if like above poster stated, there were in-game system impacts on whether or not you went evil / good / neutral, besides being able to build new buildings or not.

I think that if you were good, and backstabbed another good civilization, your population would probably be pretty miffed and want to have you removed from your post.

 

[Valkrionn]

Honestly, I'm of the belief that your alignment shouldn't affect (overly much) what actions you are able to take. It SHOULD however, reflect those actions.

 

[Krschtschn]

I really like the Broader Alignment option, but it seems kind of useless, because of the rigid categorys good, neutral and evil.
I always wondered why it doesnt matter to the AI if your alignment is +100 or -100. Is it possible to implement a system, were the diplomacy modifier is dependent on the difference in alignment?

For example: Cardith is at 300. Your own alignment is 250, so you get +3 "you think like us". If you are at 200 (or 400) you get a lesser bonus. But even at 150 (technically neutral), he could still like you, because you are close to him. And the penalty for evil alignment would get worse, the lower your alignment is.

 

[tokala]

Honestly, I'm of the belief that your alignment shouldn't affect (overly much) what actions you are able to take. It SHOULD however, reflect those actions.

If you don't like inhibiting "inappropiate" actions, what about encouraging "appropriate" behaviour by giving out discounts on techs/units/buildings?

 

[Valkrionn]

I really like the Broader Alignment option, but it seems kind of useless, because of the rigid categorys good, neutral and evil.
I always wondered why it doesnt matter to the AI if your alignment is +100 or -100. Is it possible to implement a system, were the diplomacy modifier is dependent on the difference in alignment?

For example: Cardith is at 300. Your own alignment is 250, so you get +3 "you think like us". If you are at 200 (or 400) you get a lesser bonus. But even at 150 (technically neutral), he could still like you, because you are close to him. And the penalty for evil alignment would get worse, the lower your alignment is.

Hmm... Would be complicated, but it would be more fitting than what we have now. I'll work on it.

If you don't like inhibiting "inappropiate" actions, what about encouraging "appropriate" behaviour by giving out discounts on techs/units/buildings?

This would also be interesting... And would be a good way to allow you to play the way you want, while giving an incentive for sticking to a particular alignment.

 

[Valkrionn]

I've added a 'ShiftTowardsNeutral' mechanic, allowed for shifts without a max or min (Just keeps going forever), and have now expanded it to Civics.

 

[Hankc]

Reguarding rewarding apropriate actions/alighnments, how about giving players some incentives to play new ways as well? Let's say the amurite gets discounts for researching magic techs depending on alignment. Evil Amurites might get a discount when researching Necromancy, good Amurites might have a discount for Divination, while Amurites who stay neutral might get a discount on Elementalism and Alteration. It would still be "better" to stay neutral, but you don't penalize yourself (or the AI) by choosing to go another way.

 

[Brokenbone]

I wish you great luck with the system, but you're risking the old D&D debates re: alignment, event by event, building by building, choice by choice.

Example, that old Witch event, where you don't kill anyone on the whim of the people (no effect) or kill her (+1 for 10 turns), is that Good, or Evil? Or maybe more appropriately, would that be an in character action for the particular leader and/or Civ you've chosen? Amurites might be horrified at killing her, Bannor might want to hang 'er high.

Again, if you want to start assigning weights to all sorts of things, there's going to be "Broader Opinions" about the topic as well. Werewolf event made me evil? Made me good? Or both options gave me a Neutral shift? Letting Gaelan do his experiments in order to produce the Hero result to the event chain, is that Evil? What about if you're Amurites? Hiring a group of Balseraph mercenaries out for a good time, is that G, N, E, or none of the above? One of them is a Taskmaster who takes slaves so is that Evil?

Anyhow, sounds a bit like a pain to do, in support of Roleplay which may not always marry up well with the numbers the system would produce, with the main, hard mechanical results being eligibility to build Pallies, Eidolons or Druids, as well as the diplomatic bonus/malus depending where you sat alignment-wise in relation to other civs.

 

[Randomness]

While the topic of reworking the alignments is up, I will bring back an old suggestion (can't remember where it was, so sorry to whoever wrote it...) A four axis aligmnet system. Good-Evil and Lawful-Chaotic. (yay for complexity )

 

[Schwarzbart]

There is a big indeep dilema for what is good or what not ... I.E. eating meat to survive is this evil? Probably not ... but eating meat from a intelligent creature is this eavil? And if so who declear a creature intelligent? So if a Jotnar is eating on smaller races its not evil at its base because for them Goblins and co are simply catle. To bring it to a point evil and good is most of the time just who your asking about it.

 

[far_wanderer]

As a philosophy major specializing in ethical theory, I will quite happily dive into the at least dozens of debates that will probably spring up from an expansion of the alignment system. I'm not saying don't do it, quite the opposite in fact, just be aware of how very very deep the rabbit hole goes.

 

[2Hydroclopse]

There is a big indeep dilema for what is good or what not ... I.E. eating meat to survive is this evil? Probably not ... but eating meat from a intelligent creature is this eavil? And if so who declear a creature intelligent? So if a Jotnar is eating on smaller races its not evil at its base because for them Goblins and co are simply catle. To bring it to a point evil and good is most of the time just who your asking about it.

You remind me of an interpretation of natural law --with a splash of determinism-- from a comical satire of Voltaire.

"...for natural law teaches us to kill our neighbor, and that's how people behave all over the world. If we don't exercise the right to eat him, it's because we have other things to make a good meal of. But you don't have the same resources as we do, and it's certainly better to eat your enemies than abandon the fruit of your victory to crows and ravens."(Candide by Voltaire, Ch 16)

--
Out of curiosity...what is the alignment in RifE meant to reflect? The civilization? The leader? The destiny of the civ?

--

If you don't like inhibiting "inappropiate" actions, what about encouraging "appropriate" behaviour by giving out discounts on techs/units/buildings?

That would seem to be a more playable method of having alignments affect gameplay.

 

[Valkrionn]

Reguarding rewarding apropriate actions/alighnments, how about giving players some incentives to play new ways as well? Let's say the amurite gets discounts for researching magic techs depending on alignment. Evil Amurites might get a discount when researching Necromancy, good Amurites might have a discount for Divination, while Amurites who stay neutral might get a discount on Elementalism and Alteration. It would still be "better" to stay neutral, but you don't penalize yourself (or the AI) by choosing to go another way.

That would certainly be possible, but then I have to tie the discounts not just to alignment, but to civ/leader... Will think about it.

I wish you great luck with the system, but you're risking the old D&D debates re: alignment, event by event, building by building, choice by choice.

Example, that old Witch event, where you don't kill anyone on the whim of the people (no effect) or kill her (+1 for 10 turns), is that Good, or Evil? Or maybe more appropriately, would that be an in character action for the particular leader and/or Civ you've chosen? Amurites might be horrified at killing her, Bannor might want to hang 'er high.

Again, if you want to start assigning weights to all sorts of things, there's going to be "Broader Opinions" about the topic as well. Werewolf event made me evil? Made me good? Or both options gave me a Neutral shift? Letting Gaelan do his experiments in order to produce the Hero result to the event chain, is that Evil? What about if you're Amurites? Hiring a group of Balseraph mercenaries out for a good time, is that G, N, E, or none of the above? One of them is a Taskmaster who takes slaves so is that Evil?

Anyhow, sounds a bit like a pain to do, in support of Roleplay which may not always marry up well with the numbers the system would produce, with the main, hard mechanical results being eligibility to build Pallies, Eidolons or Druids, as well as the diplomatic bonus/malus depending where you sat alignment-wise in relation to other civs.

Yeah, I'm aware that alot of it will be argued over. Honestly, the whole intent of bringing it up now was to get a jumpstart on it.

Alot of events will need to be changed. I'm still not sure whether or not I'll allow them to have effects that take place over time (the new setup) or not... If I do, they'll still, in the end, be one-time effects. They'll affect your alignment for a certain number of turns, and then fade.

While the topic of reworking the alignments is up, I will bring back an old suggestion (can't remember where it was, so sorry to whoever wrote it...) A four axis aligmnet system. Good-Evil and Lawful-Chaotic. (yay for complexity )

.....................

Let's just put it this way... There's a reason I'm diving into reworking BA the way I want. Need it set up right before I can do something else.

As a philosophy major specializing in ethical theory, I will quite happily dive into the at least dozens of debates that will probably spring up from an expansion of the alignment system. I'm not saying don't do it, quite the opposite in fact, just be aware of how very very deep the rabbit hole goes.

Yeah, it's a rather deep one.

 

[Valkrionn]

You remind me of an interpretation of natural law --with a splash of determinism-- from a comical satire of Voltaire.

--
Out of curiosity...what is the alignment in RifE meant to reflect? The civilization? The leader? The destiny of the civ?

--

That would seem to be a more playable method of having alignments affect gameplay.

Alignment is the way the Leader treats his civilization, the way he interacts with other leaders, and so on. It's also the way the world SEES him to be... For example, religions will keep their instant effects (these go away when you switch religions), which represent the difference in the way other leaders now see you. They'll also have per-turn effects (already added these in, and these are permanent) that slowly build up, representing the way the charade has, in the end, changed you.


And I agree, discounts are a way to allow alignments to affect gameplay without restricting you. Already planning how to put them in.

 

[Riot_Starter]

From this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=270588

(I've bold-ed statements which I feel are the most relevant here)

A lot of this depends on how you define Good. If good is really "good," then Einion and Ethne would be the top two and Basium would be much lower than Cassiel.

I guess the definition of "Anti-Evil" probably fits better. In that case I'd probably say:

Spoiler :

Good as they get

Basium ~+400
Sabathiel ~+370
Capria ~ +330
Cardith ~ +320
Varn ~ +310
Einion ~+300
Ethne ~+290
Arendel ~+240
Garrim ~+175
Beeri ~+175

Arturus ~+150
Kandros ~+150
Dain ~+60
Rhoanna ~+50
Falamar ~+45
Amelanchier ~+20
Sandalphon ~+5
-----------
Cassiel ~0
-----------
Thessa ~-15
Tasunke ~-30
Valledia ~-60
Hannah ~-160


Mahala ~-175
Auric ~-180
Sheelba ~-200
Charadon ~-220
Jonas ~ -230
Faeryl ~-240
Keelyn ~-250
Perpentach ~-290
Flauros ~-310
Alexis ~-330
Os-Gabella ~-360
Tebryn ~ -360
Hyborem ~-400
​

Eviler than Skeletor

The leaders listed are only base FFH.

No, Evil are the gods who rebel against the One and seek to harm humanity. Good are the ones who fight Evil and try to protect humanity. Neutral are the ones who stay out of the conflict and stick to their original purpose. Still, the line between good and neutral is mostly man made, and can be unclear at times.


All the Evil gods willingly signed the compact. Although Mulcarn broke the compact (as did Basium and Hyborem later), most Evil gods are still supportive of it. They managed to get enough provisions in it that they can violate the spirit of the agreement but not the letter of the law, and so can use it to defend their actions.

Cassiel was opposed to such provisions. Although the compact was his idea, he did not think it went far enough and so chose to fall.

In FfH Good is mostly defined by being opposed to evil, not by the ethics of the leader. While Cassiel is one of the most ethical leaders, he is the least fanatical or partisan one. My good-evil spectrum was really an anti-evil-evil spectrum, in which case Cassiel should be neutral; in his view, either extreme is really evil and balance is good.

This argument of what is good/evil has been had many times over in the lore forums. The important distinction that must be made here is that these are FFH good and evil and are completely separate from morality. While I enjoy philosophical discussions, they are unnecessary here and would only go off topic.

The change in alignment of civics/buildings/religions should reflect the above. Anything that opposes evil should be + and anything that harms humanity's existence or threatens creation should be evil.

Example, that old Witch event, where you don't kill anyone on the whim of the people (no effect) or kill her (+1 for 10 turns), is that Good, or Evil? Or maybe more appropriately, would that be an in character action for the particular leader and/or Civ you've chosen? Amurites might be horrified at killing her, Bannor might want to hang 'er high.

Is the "witch" a disciple of AV? Order? FoL? If we assume she's evil, then killing her would be good (opposing evil) and letting her live is neutral (just leave her be). If she is wrongly accused (which is what I assume the event is meant to represent), then killing her would be evil (harming humanity), letting her live would be neutral. The happy bonus would stay on the kill her option because the event says that's what the people want, hence the +1 , but what the people want is independent of the good/evil scale. (Unless you want to make the event incredibly complicated and determine what the people want based off your Civ/Alignment/Religion combination and create choices that cover all the bases, which is not worth it for 1 event. Also, this is a Civ game. Since when do you care about what your people want? ).

 

[2Hydroclopse]

I must say, from a utilitarian point of view, 1 life for a 23 size city gaining 1 happiness might in fact be considered a 'good' thing --as apposed to being harmful--.

I suppose you nearly escape the philosophical struggle by defining good as opposed to evil; but, "anything that harms humanity's existence or threatens creation" is certainly debatable --until mod-mandated anyway--. Therefore what evil is will be debated. Without evil defined, good looses cohesion as well, because it's definition is dependent of evil's.

What is harmful to humanity --and it's existence--? That is then the question.

I wonder if a hypothetical Bannor civ, who cut down every tree on a continent to make spears to fight evil --and in doing so, forever changed creation--, would be evil or good?

 

[Valkrionn]

Evil in FfH is most clearly opposition to the One, or worship of those gods who oppose him.

Given that, I would think anything that embraces their spheres could also be called evil... Greed, unnecessary violence, so on.

 

[2Hydroclopse]

So, alignment is your perceived negative traits balanced against how much you are perceived to be against those negative traits?

It would be nice if you could just hide your movements--religion, civics, etc.-- within your own borders; then, your enemies would not be able to see the handy dandy alignment indicator.

Perhaps that should be how espionage is reincarnated, a search for information to judge your rivals.

Though, it is a bit odd that the opinions of your rivals dictate how quickly hell terrain spreads.

 

[Zai]

What about AI weighting based on leader alignment? I only fear in the end the AI leaders would all homogenize to some extent as they created the same buildings and units and picked the same civics, based on utility rather than morality. IE if you built every building possible in a city there would be a net shift in some direction, and if every AI eventually got to that point, they'd all end up very similar in alignment.

From my understanding there already is weighting in place for religion, but I don't know if it's possible for individual buildings, which is why I ask.