Ways to affect broader alignment?

Folket

Deity
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
4,027
Location
Sweden
In which way can you affect broader alignment?

I play as Cualli and it seems like nothing I do changes my alignment except a few civics(not pacifism?!).

I have tried to choose "good" options in events, built infrastructure, honoured my agreements with other nations, kept my people happy but I'm really evil =P.

What affects alignment and how much? Is there a list somewhere?
 
Is there noone that know how broader alignment works?
 
Does any other mod mod or mod mod mod have more developed broader alignment.

Perhaps time to start a list.
Dungeons lower alignment (lowers? At least makes you more evil)
 
Does any other mod mod or mod mod mod have more developed broader alignment.

Perhaps time to start a list.
Dungeons lower alignment (lowers? At least makes you more evil)

The only other modmod with BA is RifE. And we DO have a more developed system (allowing perturn changes, rather than lumpsum changes), but it's not fully implemented in the xml yet. ;)
 
I will have to try rise from Erebus next then.

btw,
Infermatory give +1
Mercurian gate +10
Shrine of Sirona +10
dungeons -5

Given that they give -5, dungeons should be renamed torture chambers.
 
I tried to use buildings to change my alignment, but it does not seem to work. Dungeons for instance absolutely change *nothing* in my alignment. I tried to turn bad, and the only solution that I found is razing... And it is take a very loooooooooong time.

BTW, does anybody knows the thresholds in your alignment that turn you good neutral or bad?
 
I tried to use buildings to change my alignment, but it does not seem to work. Dungeons for instance absolutely change *nothing* in my alignment. I tried to turn bad, and the only solution that I found is razing... And it is take a very loooooooooong time.

BTW, does anybody knows the thresholds in your alignment that turn you good neutral or bad?

In FF, it's as follows:
It is a value from -511 to +511, where -511 to -171 is Evil, -170 to +170 is Neutral, and 171 to 511 is Good, this makes 341 steps per alignment.

In RifE, we expanded it to -1000 to +1000; 500 steps per alignment, and easy to remember. Haven't adjusted any values for it, but religion gives a per-turn shift that is permanent (doesn't go away when religion changes).
 
Seems like being at peace should make people good and starting war/constant war should make people evil. Most building should make people good and most military units should make people evil. This way peaceful builders will be considered good but people who only build army and have war will be evil.
 
Seems like being at peace should make people good and starting war/constant war should make people evil. Most building should make people good and most military units should make people evil. This way peaceful builders will be considered good but people who only build army and have war will be evil.

That would actually tend to make everyone Neutral. You have to defend yourself as a builder, and a warmonger needs some economy.

Not a good method, IMO. ;)
 
It would make civilization that are at peace lean towards good and civilization at war lean towards evil.

And if everyone wars equal amount and build equal amount of infrastructure then it makes sense that they are equally evil/good.
 
Yes, it would do that. It would also remove all variability in the game. If everyone becomes Neutral, then there are no Alliances amongst the alignment blocks. You'd essentially be forcing the RoK-world issue, where everyone is neutral, everyone is friendly, and noone wars.

Basically, it would make sense but it would also make for a very boring game.
 
Why would it force anything? If just the AI starts a couple of wars they will stay evil.
 
Why would it force anything? If just the AI starts a couple of wars they will stay evil.

Your exact idea was for Military Units to make you evil, and Building to make you good. Should be obvious how that forces everyone to the middle, there... No matter how you play, you absolutely require military units, just as you require some kind of economy built up.

Even ignoring that, though, your idea is essentially baseless. The Mercurians are one of the most 'Good' civs, and yet they engage in almost constant warfare. Same thing with the Bannor. It would become inevitable for both to become evil.
 
Yes, but I do not agree that they are that good either.

That buildings and military units would effect alignment was only a part of my idea.

The idea is to balance alignment a little differently. Now it is only religion that matters.
 
In our world: Killing anyone = bad

In a world with completely different races, and gods who make themselves known to the world and stand opposed to one another: Killing opposing alignment = ideal.

So for a good civ to declare war on another good civ, sure, that is bad. For an Evil civ to declare war on a good civ... that's just expected.

I mean, one of the Civs is Demons, should the Bannor really be Evil just because they go around banishing Hyborem's forces back to the Abyss? Should those Demons be GOOD just because they have annihilated everyone they can find on their continent and have nobody else to kill till they finish Optics?

Anyway: Broader Alignments was coded a long time ago by Greyfox. It was a great idea, so we put it in FF. We have always considered it an unfinished token though, and had planned to make it far more detailed eventually, but haven't gotten to it, and likely won't ever since development is pretty much finished.
 
In our world: Killing anyone = bad

In a world with completely different races, and gods who make themselves known to the world and stand opposed to one another: Killing opposing alignment = ideal.

So for a good civ to declare war on another good civ, sure, that is bad. For an Evil civ to declare war on a good civ... that's just expected.

I mean, one of the Civs is Demons, should the Bannor really be Evil just because they go around banishing Hyborem's forces back to the Abyss? Should those Demons be GOOD just because they have annihilated everyone they can find on their continent and have nobody else to kill till they finish Optics?

Anyway: Broader Alignments was coded a long time ago by Greyfox. It was a great idea, so we put it in FF. We have always considered it an unfinished token though, and had planned to make it far more detailed eventually, but haven't gotten to it, and likely won't ever since development is pretty much finished.

Exactly. I could agree with making you take an alignment hit for declaring war on someone of your own alignment (at least for Good, not sure Evil-Evil wars should make someone more Good), but not just a war declaration. Would be a good way to have the Bannor fall.

There's a lot that I would like to do with BA (as we have it scheduled now, it's the entire substance of one of the patches) but don't have enough time just now.
 
Of course it should be balanced. I do not find it as evil to declare war if relations really bad compared to really good. Other examples are helping friends and honouring defensive pacts.

"Should those Demons be GOOD just because they have annihilated everyone they can find on their continent and have nobody else to kill till they finish Optics?"
If that would be the case then the alignment hit for annihilating people and being in peace are not well balanced.

Is there any suggestion that would work if they were badly balanced?

At the moment it does not matter if you are a pacifist or a Ruthless warmonger backstabbing your allies.

I just think the broader alignment has great potential for measuring how "good"/"evil" a leader are in secular terms instead of having it being decided by which god your worship.

Having "secular" score range between -200 and +200 while "religious" score range between -500 and +500 could be a suggestion.
 
Top Bottom