Lawful/Chaotic Alignment Axis Balance
- Thread starter Valkrionn
- Start date
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
It's more like
Good: supports gods on the side of the One
Evil: supports gods who are against the One
A large number of Evil characters didn't really have much contact with Demons specifically (Charadon, Faeryl etc). And most of those who did don't really like them, just see pacts with them an acceptable way to advance their goals.
Having said that, there are few decent characters among Evil leaders, while there are some among Good and Neutral ones.
Possibly not even that, I don't think you have to support gods to be Good or Evil.
The point is that Good and Evil are labels for the sides in a civil war, they don't have anything to do with ethics.
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
Not necessarily support gods knowingly. Since in FfH there's a god for pretty much every aspect of life, every action honors some god in a way.
There's a weak correlation, but it's true that there's no direct link.
Basically, Good and Neutral in FfH can refer to good, shady, and evil characters alike, but FfH Evil is usually indeed evil. Extreme, world-destroying evil is also reserved only for Evil.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
I don't particularly see Jonas as evil (Probably influenced by Thomas.Berubeg's portrayal of him for the Redeemed), while Sheelba I think despises the Bannor and seeks to destroy them.
As for the rest... Keep in mind, Basium is fighting the Fallen Angels because he (and the other Good gods) believe that is what the One wants, and what will eventually be best for Creation.
So is good/evil more a question of whether you get to fight for Basium or toil away under Hyborem when you die (with neutrals getting to pass metaphysical Go and collect their $200 eternal reward)? I mean I know this is for leaders rather than units, but is it something along those lines?
So it's Good to murder as long as you believe it will eventually be for the best? I can think of someone from last century who fits that description to a T.
No. What you have is gods on one side who believe in personal freedom and responsibility, and gods on the other side who want to control everyone. The first side arbitrarily got labelled "Evil", the other side "Good". Neither side is good. In fact I think the "Evil" gods are the lesser evil, at least they think human life is worth something.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
Actually, I don't think all evil gods could be lumped under 'belief in personal freedom'. Some, yes... Not too sure about others. Mulcarn, for example, who never really even fell; He just wanted people to worship him, and wanted things to stop changing. Camulos I think falls under freedom, but I'm not sure about Aeron.
Back on topic, though, 'Good' in FfH is not our definition of good. Nevertheless, they ARE doing what they think best for creation, as I said. Even if their methods are basically evil.
And I agree with you that some evil gods are the lesser evil; Agares doesn't actually seem that bad, he just doesn't control his minions.
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
Hyborem, Evil gods' representative on Erebus, doesn't care about human life any more then Basium or the Order hierarchy. He also tends to be more prone to sadism for the sake of it.
And I'd hardly call the desire to destroy creation - the goal of Evil gods' formal leader, Agares, caring about human life anyway.
I don't have really anything against Good gods with the exception of Junil. However, I agree with Cassiel that no god, whether good, neutral or evil, is worth worshipping.
On-topic, the problem with making Basium evil is that he'll start using Eidolons in his armies, give positive modifiers to Hyborem, Tebryn and guys like that.
thomas.berubeg
Wandering the World
On the Topic of Jonas and Sheelba, I see them as going in different directions in terms of alignment: Sheelba starts "goodish" because of her Bannor Upbringing, but becomes slowly consumed with bitterness and eventually completly falls to Evil. Jonas, on the other hand, (influenced both by rantine and his own observations on the state of his empire and his people in relation to others) would slowly become good...
Since the Evil gods are just the ones who aren't Good, it's hard to lump them together under a single battle-cry. Still, the Evil gods basically want to do their own thing and the Good gods want to stop them. It's Liberals versus Conservatives, with Mulcarn being too conservative and thus lumped in with the not-Good gods. (Original meaning of conservative and liberal.)
Then why call it "Good"? I know that it doesn't have anything to do with "good", but it's confusing to new players. Since you're changing the system anyway, why not go with a less misleading term?
Sure he does. Basium doesn't care about humans at all, they are just tools like swords, tomatoes, rocks or spinning jennys.
Hyborem, being a sadist, enjoys torturing people, thus he thinks that people have some value. You can't be a sadist by inflicting unspeakable agony on a dishcloth.
He wants to destroy human life, so he cares about it, albeit in a negative sense.
Basium and his Order buddies are utterly indifferent to people.
Which one is preferable is debatable, but Hyborem treats us more like equals and seems more open to reform.
As far as problems go, that's a non issue. Just give him a unique unit for Eidolons* and negative modifiers to everyone.
* Maybe an Orphan Patrol. He rounds up the orphans of the parents he got killed earlier in his war, puts them in armour and arms them. Then it's off to the frontlines where they are thrown into the fray. When they are killed, there is a chance that a new Orphan Patrol is spawned back home, as their deaths naturally creates more orphans. The entire purpose is of course to spawn more angels.
Riot_Starter
Warlord
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 169
New labels for good and evil could be useful. It would clarify their meaning and stop all these discussions on whether killing X is good/evil.
Perhaps, Fallen -> Evil (the game is called FALL from heaven after all) and that's all that really hold the "evil" gods together. They all fell and went against the One for differing reasons.
Maybe, Loyal -> Good? These are the gods who didn't fall and stayed loyal to the One.
These labels can also be carried over to the leaders (and by association, the civs). They just don't use these labels on or amongst themselves. For example, Flauros isn't going to describe himself as Fallen (hell, he wouldn't even have called himself Evil for that matter). It is just his actions are done in the spirit of these Fallen gods (although for some leaders like Tebryn or Os-Gabella, their actions are done literally for these gods). I think this makes things clearer and gets rid of all the good/evil discussions that are separate from the game alignment. So people could call Basium an evil bastard, but he's an evil bastard who is loyal to the One.
The actions of most of the characters in this game are in the grey area morally anyway, so why use such loaded words like good and evil? Go with loyal and fallen since these only describe the literal actions the gods took. I doubt anyone is going to argue that Agares is still loyal to the one
. This also leaves neutral for those gods who didn't exactly fall or just don't care (like Danalin).
Perhaps, Fallen -> Evil (the game is called FALL from heaven after all) and that's all that really hold the "evil" gods together. They all fell and went against the One for differing reasons.
Maybe, Loyal -> Good? These are the gods who didn't fall and stayed loyal to the One.
These labels can also be carried over to the leaders (and by association, the civs). They just don't use these labels on or amongst themselves. For example, Flauros isn't going to describe himself as Fallen (hell, he wouldn't even have called himself Evil for that matter). It is just his actions are done in the spirit of these Fallen gods (although for some leaders like Tebryn or Os-Gabella, their actions are done literally for these gods). I think this makes things clearer and gets rid of all the good/evil discussions that are separate from the game alignment. So people could call Basium an evil bastard, but he's an evil bastard who is loyal to the One.
The actions of most of the characters in this game are in the grey area morally anyway, so why use such loaded words like good and evil? Go with loyal and fallen since these only describe the literal actions the gods took. I doubt anyone is going to argue that Agares is still loyal to the one
. This also leaves neutral for those gods who didn't exactly fall or just don't care (like Danalin).
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
To be perfectly blunt, no.
Good and Evil are blurred in FfH, yes. That only becomes obvious, however, when you start digging into the lore... A new player can start a game, see that he is Good, and instantly know Evil leaders won't be people he gets along with. The same goes for Lawful and Chaotic; They are iconic names, and will be recognized by virtually EVERYONE who downloads the mod. I have had long discussions with several people about the naming of the Lawful/Chaotic axis, and the same holds true here; Recognizability trumps Lore.
Beyond that, I don't mind one bit that the two are blurred. In fact, I think it's a GOOD thing. I'm tired of games with clear cut divisions between things that ARE NOT CLEAR. To cite an example from the news, in the UK recently a man and his family were held at knife point by three robbers. The man's son escaped, got his Uncle, and returned to help the others, successfully scaring off the robbers. The man and his brother (the uncle) subsequently caught and beat one of the robbers, badly enough to severely injure the man. Was this Good? Evil? Somewhere between? Is it GOOD to do what's right, even if it leads to the deaths of hundreds?
There is no black and white in the real world, only shades of grey. I love that FfH acknowledges that.
Good and Evil are blurred in FfH, yes. That only becomes obvious, however, when you start digging into the lore... A new player can start a game, see that he is Good, and instantly know Evil leaders won't be people he gets along with. The same goes for Lawful and Chaotic; They are iconic names, and will be recognized by virtually EVERYONE who downloads the mod. I have had long discussions with several people about the naming of the Lawful/Chaotic axis, and the same holds true here; Recognizability trumps Lore.
Beyond that, I don't mind one bit that the two are blurred. In fact, I think it's a GOOD thing. I'm tired of games with clear cut divisions between things that ARE NOT CLEAR. To cite an example from the news, in the UK recently a man and his family were held at knife point by three robbers. The man's son escaped, got his Uncle, and returned to help the others, successfully scaring off the robbers. The man and his brother (the uncle) subsequently caught and beat one of the robbers, badly enough to severely injure the man. Was this Good? Evil? Somewhere between? Is it GOOD to do what's right, even if it leads to the deaths of hundreds?
There is no black and white in the real world, only shades of grey. I love that FfH acknowledges that.
Riot_Starter
Warlord
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 169
I do enjoy the morally gray actions of pretty much everyone (since they do make things interesting). The situation you described is exactly why things need to be clearer in game. Those guys would have an alignment in-game. Either good, neutral, or evil. The game doesn't argue, it just gives them a label and that's that. People could argue for days on which they are (and they usually do).
Maybe this might be clearer. Thought experiment time: Suppose I thought Basium should be a chaotic evil leader. I think this because he kills indiscriminately and brutally. How would you counter my argument? Most likely by saying "But Riot, Basium is good because he kills for the One to save creation". My response could be, "But that isn't good. Good is petting kittens and helping old ladies cross streets." Then what? "Good in FFH isn't the same as good in real life". Then why call it good???
Maybe this might be clearer. Thought experiment time: Suppose I thought Basium should be a chaotic evil leader. I think this because he kills indiscriminately and brutally. How would you counter my argument? Most likely by saying "But Riot, Basium is good because he kills for the One to save creation". My response could be, "But that isn't good. Good is petting kittens and helping old ladies cross streets." Then what? "Good in FFH isn't the same as good in real life". Then why call it good???
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
I think I answered that question; It is RECOGNIZABLE. It is ICONIC. Upon looking at it, you get an instant idea of what the mechanic means. And unless you start digging into the Lore and learn of the ambiguity, you're perfectly happy with your own definition for it.
Using different names makes the game less approachable (Already difficult enough; Major work planned to change that, as you are aware.
). If you see a leader is marked as 'Fallen', what does it MEAN? Fallen from WHAT? Using the name Evil is valid enough for most places... The whole thing is only questionable for a few outlying leaders, like Basium, or Auric. Again, to be blunt; Regardless of debate, the titles 'Good' and 'Evil' will not change. I'm perfectly willing to have debate on the status of each leader, or to take criticism for my choices, but those names will not change. Those who know enough to debate on the assignments are already well aware of the ambiguity, and can work around it.
Riot_Starter
Warlord
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 169
Well if it won't change, then let's work on a way to reduce confusion for those who do go snooping around the pedia and lore. I seem to remember you mentioning expanding the concepts section, especially the alignment entry (since it's going to be horribly outdated after the next patch). So when they are updated, why not add a note on what the different alignments stand for. So some of the people who would have come to the forums complaining that Basium is an evil bastard and should be labeled as such might see it and understand the justification for calling him good.
No they're not. In essence that's the problem. Basium can rape, murder, pillage and commit genocide, he's still Good. Hyborem can save kittens, care for orphans and institute universal healthcare, he's still Evil. Alexis can have he people live in absolute squalor, their only hope of being put out of their misery that some vampire comes along and eats their soul; as long as she pays lip service to the Order, she's Good.
There is no blurring of the lines in Fall from Heaven.
Loyalist and secessionists would have the same effect, and would make it clear that they are just labels that apply to two otherwise indistinguishable sides. Or "North" and "South". Or "Plodunks" and "Farqwas".
"Lawful" and "chaotic" isn't loaded with as much value as "good" and "evil", so they're all-right. Plus it actually has something to do with what they do, rather than being arbitrary labels.
Again they are not blurred. No more than making a new kind of battery acid and calling it "Milk" would change the diet of infants.
It's just stuff that happened. In the real world there is no Good and Evil.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
One more thing I'd like to mention here... Yes, currently the game forces you into one alignment or the other. That will remain true as of the patch, but eventually the goal is for BA to be MUCH more intuitive, more tied into the game. I'm not the only one working on that, either. The BA system allows us Granularity; Lets us specify where on the scale that leader is, how close to a different alignment they are, how borderline they are. It's still a 'one or the other' system, but it's a more changeable system, and better reflects the leader's personality.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
Play with BA. Basium is razing cities and performing other evil acts? He WILL become Evil. Hyborem does Good? He will move up the scale. As my previous post said, the system will be renovated and massively expanded. It is for those exact reasons that Grey Fox designed it in the first place.
And you twisted my meaning anyway; Good and Evil ARE blurred in FfH. Good does not always mean what you think it does, and Evil can quite easily do what traditionally would be called 'Good'.
I disagree. They both serve as labels, yes, but you don't know loyal to WHAT. Like I said, Good and Evil DO fit in most situations. It's only the outliers that screw the system.
Which was my point exactly. The terms are just names, attached to concepts which are entirely artificial. But they are also terms which anyone familiar with fantasy will recognize, at least well enough to understand the system.
Better terms would likely be Selfish and Altruistic, as they fit in most locations are recognizable... Still, I am not changing the description. If you'd like to yourself, it's two (2) textkeys.
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
It's slightly different then that - Hyborem consistently saving kittens and stuff, while neither doing nor intending any evil acts would mean that he abandoned his purpose - to aid the destruction of the world (since it's a both evil and Evil act). Therefore, he becomes Neutral, like other decent non-religious characters (Cassiel, Falamar).
Veil and OO practices are evil and Evil both. There's some wiggle room for Esus, but people who associate with him are still shady.
But if Alexis institutes a nightmarish totalitarian Order state, that indeed makes her Good, but not good.
Evil = evil, but Good =/= good. That's how I view FfH universe. The best people are Neutrals with a honorable moral code and Goodies to whom decency comes first, religion second. (Though I have a hard time coming up with the idea of an evil Empyrean. I guess it'll be Order-like Empyrean evolved in militaristic Zen Buddhism direction).
Similar threads
