Plans for Good/Evil balance?

[Camber]

After playing for awhile, I'm beginning to wonder what deranged universe Kael and the others in the development team from from, where Armageddon leads to almost only negative outcomes. Granted, this is a fantasy world, but when you have obviously Christianesque elements like the "Four Horsemen" and "Armageddon," it begs the question where the Christ-figure is (or more to the point, why he was left out), and why the counter reaching 100 doesn't trigger something along the lines of the Second Coming.

Okay, let me back up.

No, I wouldn't like the game turned into some kind of Christian fantasy. I'm starting out with intentionally provocative statements to get a discussion going. Yes, I have read the bit about no unicorns and rainbows; e.g., dark fantasy means you aren't necessarily going to have happy endings. I get all that; I wouldn't want to sissify the game, and I appreciate that it's cool to have dark and evil stuff you can play with.

But forcryingoutloud, does it have to be SO unbalanced? It seems like most of the cool stuff in the game mechanics--like the way hell terrain works, advancing a vampire into lichdom, cranking up the Armageddon counter to see what interesting stuff arrives, the Sheamin planar gates, etc.--are all focused around the Bad stuff. It's as if the developers have a massive blind spot in their imaginations when it comes to all things Good.

Why is it that almost all the things you can do that will affect the Armageddon counter are on the plus side? Why is it that there are no Good equivalents of the Four Horsemen (with the possible exception of the Mithril Golem, but that is Neutral at best)? How come we never get to actually see the "child who will bring peace to the world" that is spoken of in the event--that would be very cool if some hero unit (one with a world spell that forces peace on all civs) appeared in one of your cities like 30 turns after that event, but you only get to keep it if you are Good (an option is given to turn to Good alignment and switch religions if necessary). How is it that we don't have attitude adjustments for Good mana types (i.e., "+4 You use Law mana") with good-leaning civs? Why the hell are neutral civs allowed to summon Basium???!!! That makes absolutely no sense--neutral angels. If Basium is straddling the fence between Good and Neutral, then we need an additional summonable civ that is a true counterweight to the Infernals--one that will only work with you if you are Good, and one that will refuse to fight against Good civs.

In short, Good needs a makeover in this game; it's far too obvious how biased the game is toward Evil. Maybe I've just missed the development thread stating that in Ice all this is planned alongside the Scenarios development. Hopefully.

 

[popejubal]

I would also like to register a complaint. Every zombie movie set in a mall focuses on escaping from zombies instead of the delightful amusements available at the mall as well as the excellent food and shopping opportunities.

Additionally, modern society seems extremely biased in favor of people who have access to large amounts of money - even if that money doesn't actually belong to those people. I'd like to know what meeting I missed that set out this design criteria or whether that is even a "works as designed" feature in the first place.

Also, why is it that In-and-Out Burgers don't have more options on their menu? Sure, their burgers are great and the price is hard to beat, but sometimes I'm in the mood for spaghetti and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get spaghetti at In-and-Out Burger. I think about these things and I wonder why more isn't being done about such serious issues.

 

[Camber]

lol. Great reply, you made my day.

 

[Kael]

Well, the Order have their anti-demon wars to war. The Fellowship have their happy fun preparing the world for the great paper companies of the next age. The Empyrean wage wars against the bad guys as well, but they do it from behind their councilor desks and make sure the TPS reports all get filled out correctly.

As cool as the evil elements are, they are there as a counter to the good. Hell terrain is a cool mechanic, but its just as, if not more exciting to be rallying against it, which is actually our default position. Being FfH we also allow the player to be the ones spreading armageddon, but thats up to the player.

Its very intentional that the player can create whatever combo he wants, so if you see a lot of promise in the evil visions my question isn't about game design, but why it appeals to you as a player?

But since you asked I did officially get a plot line rejected from a scenario for being to dark. So if you think there are horrible things going on in FfH, just imagine what we haven't included because we thought it would be to upsetting to play through.

Overall though I understand the paradigm you are expecting, but I dont see any reason to follow it. We could have a perfectly good angel civ to contrast the horribly evil infernals. But why? Because its typical for fantasy games? Why can't our angelic army be something unique? After all, if the accusation is that we have a "massive blind spot in our imagination" then I would think non-archetypal factions would be a bonus.

 

[Blakmane]

If you think good is boring, have a read of shatner's threads such as this one:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=296178


I often play as good because lorewise I find their weaknesses and struggles much more interesting. The team has certainly done a great job making each good civ both good and flawed at the same time - I would certainly never wish to see a super angelic 'good' civ, because for me that totally ruins the point of the game, which is Dark Fantasy after-all. The developers don't have a blind spot, they've intentionally left out all super good jesus figures. This isn't a world about to be saved, it's a world about to burn horribly.

So thumbs up to Kael and the team for creating a world as rich and interesting as those done by the fantasy greats =D

 

[heisenberg]

Just my 2 cents take on the issues you mentioned here...

After playing for awhile, I'm beginning to wonder what deranged universe Kael and the others in the development team from from, where Armageddon leads to almost only negative outcomes. Granted, this is a fantasy world, but when you have obviously Christianesque elements like the "Four Horsemen" and "Armageddon," it begs the question where the Christ-figure is (or more to the point, why he was left out), and why the counter reaching 100 doesn't trigger something along the lines of the Second Coming.

The so called "good" civs are supposed to keep the AC low.
The AC rising and reaching 100 means that the forces of evil are winning, numerous cities have been razed, the Ashen Veil is spreading... so... why should Armageddon, or the other AC related events for that matter, have anything to do with "good" events favouring those who have "lost" this battle?

But forcryingoutloud, does it have to be SO unbalanced? It seems like most of the cool stuff in the game mechanics--like the way hell terrain works, advancing a vampire into lichdom, cranking up the Armageddon counter to see what interesting stuff arrives, the Sheamin planar gates, etc.--are all focused around the Bad stuff. It's as if the developers have a massive blind spot in their imaginations when it comes to all things Good.

Now... perhaps your view of "cool" is just perhaps aligned with some of the mechanics of the evil civs...
Every civ has its own brilliant uniqueness--which is why FfH is so much different from vanilla civ.
Perhaps you just like the concepts of vampirism (Calabim), and demon summoning (Sheaim)--but not so much of Luchuirp's golem fun, Kuriotates' massive cities, or (borrowing a page from the beloved FF Modmod) the Elohim's Monk fun.
And perhaps I should point out too, that hell terrain spreads much faster in evil terrain than good, harming the evil civs much more than the good (at least for the time being)

In short, Good needs a makeover in this game; it's far too obvious how biased the game is toward Evil. Maybe I've just missed the development thread stating that in Ice all this is planned alongside the Scenarios development. Hopefully.

Oook... As we weigh on the number of goodies the "good" and the "evil" have... Allow me to mention a couple that you omitted.

1. Good/Neutral Civs can build the Altar of the Luonnotar.
For one, it is one entire extra way of winning that the evil forces are barred from (thats already a HUGE plus for not being "evil")
The bonuses from the altar past the 3rd level are really very nice if you took a look at them.

2. Alignment specific rituals.
The "Good" get Glory Everlasting--Destroying ALL Demons in the world.
The "Evil" get Bane Divine--Turning ALL disciple class units to level 1, Including your own evil ritualists.
I don't think I really need to go into which one is the way stronger do I?

3. Hell terrain spread
I already mentioned this earlier in the post.

For me, the forces of "Good" are simply trying to maintain the status quo in the world, thus you *might* not find them as interesting. Trying to build up might not be as fun as trying to tear down
The "Evil" are trying to bring the world to Armageddon, whether intentionally (Sheaim), or simply through the pursuit of power regardless of the cost (Ashen Veil).

Different players have would have differing views on their preferred style of playing.
Some like a builder style, some are warmongers.
Some like the concepts of the "evil" civs, and enjoy bringing chaos to the world, some prefer playing the "good" civs and not having to deal with stuff like the Infernals or hell terrain.
Coincidentally, I would consider myself to be in the latter for the first and the former in the second, I (personally) find it more entertaining that way.

 

[it-ogo]

As I understand there are no solid metaphysical-theological model in FFH: FFH gods are quite physical phenomena. In fact they are more like pagan gods. So there is more sense to think about FFH in terms of Planescape Universe model and geopolitics: aggressive plane "Hell" have strong cultural influence on plane Erebus and try to spread its "evil" way of life there, colonize Erebus and assimilate its population. Another plane (where gods and angels live) sent some volunteers to organize resistance who are ready to ally any local power etc.

As for "good is less interesting then evil" it is a general property of human mind. To make good more interesting one should make it not so good.

 

[Camber]

Thank you for the reply, Kael.

Well, the Order have their anti-demon wars to war. The Fellowship have their happy fun preparing the world for the great paper companies of the next age. The Empyrean wage wars against the bad guys as well, but they do it from behind their councilor desks and make sure the TPS reports all get filled out correctly.

I credit you with making the Order good at demon-fighting, and I do enjoy the forest-spreading mechanic of FoL. The Overcouncil's decisions usually seem overly restrictive, which perhaps is part of the reason I feel good gets the short end of the stick in the game--I don't see any self-limiting resolutions being passed by the Undercouncil. My impression of "Good" is that it limits itself not just for the sake of self-restriction, but for the purpose of achieving something else that it values more than what it is giving up. So if you are going to pass a law to outlaw Death mana, for example, it would make sense to have a tradeoff, such as getting your Death mana (even if it is granted by your Palace) exchanged for, say, Life mana.

As cool as the evil elements are, they are there as a counter to the good. Hell terrain is a cool mechanic, but its just as, if not more exciting to be rallying against it, which is actually our default position. Being FfH we also allow the player to be the ones spreading armageddon, but thats up to the player.

I see your point. In most of my games, my top priority is to keep the AC below 25, which does create a lot of interest.

Its very intentional that the player can create whatever combo he wants, so if you see a lot of promise in the evil visions my question isn't about game design, but why it appeals to you as a player?

I do appreciate that freedom in the game. And you are right, my reaction to the "coolness" of the evil options is probably a Rorschach indication of what appeals to me; I think it is fitting that Evil should be a temptation (I have been interested in trying out the Planar Gates, for example, but can't bring myself to play the Sheamin, so instead I conquered them as the Elohim). I still hold to the suggestion though that some equally interesting game mechanics could be employed for the positive alignment as well, such as some way for ground to be "hallowed" so that it will be more resistant to AC spread and creates a demon barrier. It surprises me that there is so little in the game to keep evil in check besides outright war, once Hyborem is out of the bag.

But since you asked I did officially get a plot line rejected from a scenario for being to dark. So if you think there are horrible things going on in FfH, just imagine what we haven't included because we thought it would be to upsetting to play through.

You certainly are convincing--and I'm grateful you didn't go for the scenario anyway over the objections. I for one feel you have made the world a better place with that bit of restraint

Overall though I understand the paradigm you are expecting, but I dont see any reason to follow it. We could have a perfectly good angel civ to contrast the horribly evil infernals. But why? Because its typical for fantasy games? Why can't our angelic army be something unique? After all, if the accusation is that we have a "massive blind spot in our imagination" then I would think non-archetypal factions would be a bonus.

Non-archetypal is a fitting way to put it--you have done an interesting job of mixing up the elements in ways that defy stereotypes. I stand by the observation though that neutral angels (or at least ones that would consort with neutrals) make for a very perplexing storyline, one that is difficult for me to make sense of as I'm creating my own plot. I give you big props for making so many elements of the game wide open to personal interpretation, so that players aren't locked into particular plotlines. I suppose you could argue that like Sphener they are all ones that have rejected the strict definition of "angel" and chosen to defy their Junil. It just goes so strongly against my idea of what an angel is, that it is difficult to reconcile, and I usually just have to shelve the question when I'm playing in order to enjoy the game.

 

[Wyrmhero]

But since you asked I did officially get a plot line rejected from a scenario for being to dark. So if you think there are horrible things going on in FfH, just imagine what we haven't included because we thought it would be to upsetting to play through.

What was this scenario? Come on, you can tell us.

In all seriousness, I think that FfH shouldn't be 'balanced' towards everyone; that's what makes it so fun. It's an upward struggle for the Good guys, as it should be in dark fantasy. If you're Evil, you want to coat the world in darkness, but that's not all. Just doing that gets you nowhere, you have to go and win afterwards. Good, on the otherhand, prevents the darkness. Again, it doesn't help you win. And, like has already been mentioned, most of Evil's powers rely (ironically enough) on self-sacrifice, such as Divine Bane or Hell Terrain, which hurt you just as much (or more) than the Good guys.

On the other hand, I would prefer the Overcouncil to have a few new toys to play with, such as a diplomacy victory.

 

[Fafnir13]

On the other hand, I would prefer the Overcouncil to have a few new toys to play with, such as a diplomacy victory.

Yes! Consider that seconded.
While we're at it, many many more things to vote on would be good.

 

[Xuenay]

Kael - any chance the "too dark" scenario could get released as an unofficial bonus, or anything? You know we want it...

I stand by the observation though that neutral angels (or at least ones that would consort with neutrals) make for a very perplexing storyline, one that is difficult for me to make sense of as I'm creating my own plot.

Think of it this way - the angels are here to fight Hyborem. They don't particularly care all that much about who they happen to ally themselves with, for as long as they get to eliminate the demonic influence.

(And if they do happen to care about alignment... hey, it's better to ally themselves with a neutral civilization and drag them into war with them, letting the neutrals take the casualties instead of the good ones. )

 

[Blackmantle]

Horray to the neutrals. Screw those "do-gooders" and wannabe world-damners.

Who needs good and bad in FFH2 when Neutral is sooo powerful. (on a bit more serious note, i really do avoid Order and Veil. And not for storyline reasons...)

Nuff said on the matter of that thread...

Edit: Yay to the superdark scenario as an unofficial bonus.

 

[Imuratep]

Overall I think Armageddon events should be reworked because right now they hit a single person not the whole world (and with the barbarians targeting a single player this player gets all horsemen whilst all others can watch and drink some cocktails.) The horsemen usually are too stupid to use their abilities properly and you can easily kill them with some summoned units (I killed each of them with about 10 skeletons from my adepts - Not quite dangerous eh?)

 

[darkwatcher]

I agree that the scenario should be an unofficial bonus.
I want to watch the Dark scenario,

 

[Kael]

It just goes so strongly against my idea of what an angel is, that it is difficult to reconcile, and I usually just have to shelve the question when I'm playing in order to enjoy the game.

Thats fair. There is an advantage and disadvantage to using objects that already have a connotation in peoples head. We gain all the style form the picture and it makes the game easier to play because people immediatly associate that object with the impression they have. It makes "sense" that elves like forests, dwarves like gold and vampires kill people to get stronger. Its also very easy for them to remember. Which civilization can build improvements on forests, why the elven ones of course.

But we also have to deal with the incorrect associations that vision conjurers. Why aren't vampires undead, how can they get diseased? Why are the "good" elves worshipping demons and the "bad" elves turned neutral worshipping kilmorph?

Thats just part of the cost of breaking form the traditional archetypes. The alternative is that we dont use any fantasy type archetypes, so they arent angels they are "divinities" and they arent dwarves they are "sons of the mountain". Or we could go the other way and stay with the standard archetypes and lock the objects into them.

Both ways are less interesting to me. We are trying to walk that line where a new player finds the game accessible because he finds elements he recognizes. But as he digs deeper he finds an implementation of those ideas that is unique. I want a new player to look at the mod and think "this is a typical fantasy verison of civ4 with elves, werewolves, vampire,s wizards, etc" and an experienced player to walk away thinking that hes never seen a world quite like Erebus.

Kael - any chance the "too dark" scenario could get released as an unofficial bonus, or anything? You know we want it...

The scenario is still in, its just had a character switch so that it would be more fun and less likely to require a prescription for anti-depressents before playing. I may write it up as a short story sometime, if so I'll slip it into FfH.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

edit: ninja-ed

 

[xienwolf]

If you want to understand Neutral (or even Evil) angels, just watch the Prophecy Movies Those angels flat out HATE us.

 

[KillerClowns]

...The scenario is still in, its just had a character switch so that it would be more fun and less likely to require a prescription for anti-depressents before playing. I may write it up as a short story sometime, if so I'll slip it into FfH.

...
I'm wondering what you came up with that's darker than, say, Madero's 'pedia entry.

 

[Mailbox]

It seems like that from the spoiler entry that the story of Varn's wife could be pretty depressing, especially if that entry is just the start.

 

[Kael]

...
I'm wondering what you came up with that's darker than, say, Madero's 'pedia entry.

It seems like that from the spoiler entry that the story of Varn's wife could be pretty depressing, especially if that entry is just the start.

Tya entered the Cave of Ancestors to take her test. Inside she met the spirit of a young boy with no name who helped her through her trials. In the cave she learned to master several forms of magic. After she learned spirit magic she was able to sense two spirits within her, she was pregnant.

She had no opportunity to quit the trial, and you either passed the test or died, so she continued on. But the trial was an incrediable strain on her spiritually and physically. It was during the greatest of these challenges, when she herself was near death that the child inside her died from the strain. As her baby died the ghost of the boy faded and dissapeared.


So...

Its a really dark story and a very uncomfortable place to put the player. Especially if they have suffered through the pain of a miscarriage or losing a child.

I like dark stories, I like making the player feel sympathy for the characters, I like stories that evoke emotion. But this was to dark, even for FfH. I dont know how you compare it to the dark stories like Mardero's and Talia's, but its more personal and we decided that it was a bad idea for a scenario.