Yet another good vampire?

[Pazyryk]

Isn't there already a good Calabim leader without adding another?

I don't mind a few off-alignment leaders, but I'm not a big fan of "balanced" assortments where all Civs are likely to be any alignment. It's just too common now to have good vamps, good orcs, etc.

Anyway, a vampire (or an orc) that is struggling with issues of conscience and redemption should probably be neutral rather than good. Maybe they are striving for good, but that doesn't mean they are. I haven't read all the back stories (many are missing, last I checked), so maybe I'm wrong here. But if it is some kind of redemption thing, I'd say neutral is a much better fit.

I'd say keep the off-base alignment leaders at a 1:5 ratio, at most, so alignment flavors don't totally blur together. For total alignment reversals, they should be very rare and justified in some way: Bannor (because fallen Bannor are part of the lore); Balseraph (because they are crazy); Decius (again there is a specific story here); and that's all I can think of that I would support.

Again, I don't mind a few exceptions to "type". But when the exceptions become too common, then the "type" looses its particular flavor.

And since I'm already ranting and offending folks anyway, I'll also say that I think this reflects a sort of literary "laziness". The two Sheaim leaders (from base FFH) are hugely different, even though they are the same alignment. You can't just stick a different alignment tag on the leader and expect that to make them feel unique!

[takes a blood pressure pill] OK. I didn't actually go to the leader XML to validate my point above. But this is the impression I'm getting from playing multiple games.

 

[arstal]

how about some evil Elohim or Bannor then?

 

[Valkrionn]

how about some evil Elohim or Bannor then?

I'd say Elohim could be at most Neutral. As for Bannor, there's a good one by KC; He's not really released yet, but will be soon. And the art has been in for a few weeks. Of course, this is RifE I'm talking about, not Wild Mana, so it would be up to Sephi to merge the leader, though most others come from either there or LENA, whose creator is now on the RifE team.

During an (absolutely delightful) game as the Bannor, I realized that there were no truly corrupt Bannor leaders, save perhaps Ophelia (for a sufficiently loose definition of "corrupt"). I've got an idea for a minor leader to amend this: Gaius Octavius. Because, we can all agree, the Bannor need some Lawful Evil in the mix.
Basic bio: insane, racist, nationalist, generally vile theocratic Bannor cult leader
Alignment: Lawful Evil (550, -750)
Traits: Spiritual, Charismatic,
Image: I rather like the middle one on this page or the first one on this. If not, something else will do; my main theory is whatever he ends up looking like, it should be a priest/cult leader/inquisitor.
Favorite Civic: Theocracy
Favorite Wonder: Pillar of Chains
AI: disciple heavy, very strong preference for the Order, weights religious considerations above all others. Nastily aggressive.

Spoiler Gaius Octavius :

Brothers and sisters, citizens of the Bannor! I am Inquisitor Gaius Octavius, Greatest of the Bannor, True Chosen of Junil, Bearer of the Banner of Racial Purity! The old leaders have failed us! We have escaped Hell, but its dark temptations and whispers haunt every corner of Erebus! I need not speak of the wicked heresies of the Veil, the depraved rites of the Overlords, the mad goals of the White Hand, or the shadowy lies of Esus, for all good servants of the Order know to put the vile believers of such madness to the blade! They should continue to do so, of course, but there is more work to be done!

I have seen, with my own very eyes, the dark secrets of the so-called "Brother Religions." The Empyrean, the Fellowship, the Runes, all are as wicked and corrupt as the ritualists of the Ashen Veil, though they hide their own evils far more efecctively. But nevertheless, their sins must be purged from this world, lest they corrupt this world, twisting it into their own depraved image!

The Empyrean would have us believe they seek "wisdom" and enlightenment. Lies, lies, lies! Within the halls of the Overcouncil, the elders of this false religion scheme to strip the righteous nations of this world of their sovregnity, of their independence, of the power they need to hold back the forces of Hell, forcing us to rely upon them for our defense! Our armies shall be disbanded, replaced by foreign-born Radiant Guardsmen! They shall seduce your daughters, impregnating them with the seeds of tainted blood! Say no to the Overcouncil, no to foreign goods, no to the dilution of the Bannor bloodlines!

The Runes of Kilmorph are naught but a Dwarvern religion! Need I remind you, that dwarves are sub-humans, wretched, impure, vile creatures, as bad as the foul Orcs? Every time the price of corn goes up, a Dwarf is behind it! Dwarvern councilmen play the Overcouncil just as surely as the rapacious Empyrean, though their motivation even more base than the desire for Bannor women. Nay, though none would doubt they'd have your daughters given the chance, their dreams are of gold, Bannor gold flowing into their vaults. Greed drives the Dwarvern race, to the man, and their religion is built upon this disgusting greed. All who worship the Runes of Mammon are dwarves, say I, in soul if not in body than in soul. Every Bannor who kneels before an earthen altar is a traitor! Send these abominations to Hell, says I!

Though they almost appear human, the Elves are no better than the Dwarves. And so to is their religion; the Fellowship of Leaves is built upon bloody sacrifice and cruel hunts! Honorable men are set loose, then hunted by elves and the traitors who have given their souls to the Fellowship! Some claim I have no proof of these claims, but that is only because they hide it, so enchanted by Elven whores, older than their own grandmothers, they'd give their pureborn sons and daughters to the bloodstained altars hidden deep within the sacred groves of the Fellowship!

Our old leaders will not put these "lesser" heretics to steel, as they so rightly deserve! They show restraint and mercy to those who only deserve suffering and death! I, Inquisitor Gaius, alone, stand against the tide of heresy disguised as "tolerance" and "diplomacy." Know this, brothers and sisters of the Bannor, that I am your only hope! Unite behind me! Know that the corrupt Bannor leadership fears me! They refused to allow me to take up arms the military, accusing me of being "mentally unfit for duty" because I refused to kneel down before a officers drawn from peasantry and foreigners. They kicked me out of the Temple of the Order when I began to ask questions they feared to answer, also accusing me of madness! Is it madness to ask why the inquisitors are not out in full force, why our taxes feed unbelievers and foreign-blooded mongrels? Follow me, and we shall restore the Church and the Nation to its true glory!

Alright, Gaius Octavius has been added.

Spoiler Screenshot :

Yes, the trait is a weak version of Spiritual. Ignore that.

 

[Sephi]

I don't mind a few off-alignment leaders, but I'm not a big fan of "balanced" assortments where all Civs are likely to be any alignment. It's just too common now to have good vamps, good orcs, etc.

you should really check the numbers. There isn't one evil leader for good civs (apart from Decius who can be evil) and for evil civs there are 4 good leaders (including the new one for Calabim) and 40 evil leaders.

 

[Pazyryk]

Yeah, I didn't check the numbers. I had good Calabim, good Clan, good Lanun and good Hippus in a game I just set up (maybe others but I quit at that point...). How am I supposed to have a Bannor crusade if everyone else loves puppies too? I got a little annoyed and went on a forum rant. My apologies.

 

[tesb]

it would not make much sense for an evil bannor leader to choose the order as an religion, since it will change him back to good

 

[CitizenSnips]

A Fred Phelps like Bannor leader could be pretty interesting. "God hates orcs!"

 

[Valkrionn]

it would not make much sense for an evil bannor leader to choose the order as an religion, since it will change him back to good

Not in RifE, which is where the leader is designed for.

Order makes you Lawful, not Good. Can make Evil leaders Neutral, but that's only with BA turned off.

 

[apenpaap]

you should really check the numbers. There isn't one evil leader for good civs (apart from Decius who can be evil) and for evil civs there are 4 good leaders (including the new one for Calabim) and 40 evil leaders.

IMO that's even worse than having all civs able to be any alignment.

 

[Imuratep]

IMHO it would be really important to have a pedia for those leaders to be able to imagine what makes them good. It would be really interesting to know how a civ that consumes the souls of their citizens can have a good leader.

 

[DonQuigleone]

This is gonna sound rather vain, but besides the Svartalfar pretty much all the hot female leaders are good.


Isn't Evil supposed to be sexy?

Anyway, I think some evil interpretations of good civs could be interesting.

For instance:

Luchuirp -> forging living souls into Golems (like in Dragon age).

Bannor -> Evil Crusade instead of good crusade. (pretty easy to imagine)

Malakim and Kuriotates don't seem like they would have to be inherently good to me.

Elohim would be the most difficult to imagine being evil.

 

[Sephi]

I thought about adding an evil Bannor leader recently, but the ratio is already 34 good leaders to 41 evil

 

[DonQuigleone]

You have a point Sephi, however:

1. In original FFH there were more Evil then Good Civs anyway.
2. The Good leaders are spread out, whereas the Evil Leaders are more concentrated in the "Evil" Civs, as there are more evil civs, of course there's going to be more evil leaders.
3. So the end result is that with a random algorithm that first chooses Civs, and then chooses Leaders, more Good leaders are likely to come out. Further if the player prechooses the Civs in his game, but not the leaders it's even more likely to be skewed. Because every Neutral and evil Civ he puts in will have a chance of going good, but the good civs are guaranteed to stay good. So if he chooses a balanced set of civs alignment wise it's very easy for that alignment mix to get thrown off.

As for the Evil Bannor, you could have one or two Bannor leaders who might be prone to "falling" and worshiping the Ashen Veil. They start off good but have the potential to turn evil. After all Bannor need to worship some kind of religion and they're the evil religion that fits best (overlords and Esus are probably too chaotic).

Also having all the Kuriotates alternative leaders be Centaurs may be a bit much. Aren't they supposed to be multiracial?

 

[Imuratep]

People seldom create good civs. Most civs that have been added compared to base FFH were Neutral (Faeries, Mechanos in Orbis, Palatinate in Orbis, Scions in FF, Dao in Orbis, Chislev in FF, Austrin in FF). Evil Civs were less than neutral civs (Archos in FF, D'Tesh in FF+, Frozen, Cualli in FF), but still more than good (IIRC just Mazatl in FF and Dural in FF). Perhaps Evil is considered more interesting, but still it would be good to create more good civs to equate the ratio of good/evil civs (and thus to allow some leaders with deviant alignment).

 

[Valkrionn]

People seldom create good civs. Most civs that have been added compared to base FFH were Neutral (Faeries, Mechanos in Orbis, Palatinate in Orbis, Scions in FF, Dao in Orbis, Chislev in FF, Austrin in FF). Evil Civs were less than neutral civs (Archos in FF, D'Tesh in RifE, Frozen, Cualli in FF), but still more than good (IIRC just Mazatl in FF and Dural in FF). Perhaps Evil is considered more interesting, but still it would be good to create more good civs to equate the ratio of good/evil civs (and thus to allow some leaders with deviant alignment).

Fixed.

You missed the Jotnar, who have a leader of each alignment.

There will also be at least one new good civ in RifE, the Bezeri.

 

[Imuratep]

Yeah right forgot them. But they also show the trend to neutrality as the additional leader in RifE is (Lawful) Neutral too.
I think this trend away from Good comes from D&D. Nonplayable races are detailed in the Monster Manual and as usually the heroes fight evil creatures the monsters in there are evil (because why should you fight a good race? You are a hero. Mostly...).

 

[Pazyryk]

As OP for this thread, I feel like a kid who complained about having to eat broccoli, only to have more piled on his plate.

I do like this idea:

As for the Evil Bannor, you could have one or two Bannor leaders who might be prone to "falling" and worshiping the Ashen Veil. They start off good but have the potential to turn evil.

I'd extend DonQuigleone's idea to other leaders. Instead of having vamp and orc leaders start out good (if you must insist on having them), just make them very likely to be "redeemed" to good by Junil, or partly redeemed by another god, by using a strong religious preference. And have the converse for a few new leaders of good civs. This would be much more organic feeling (and who cares anyway if the initial alignments are balanced; it's how the game unfolds that matters).

 

[Valkrionn]

Yeah right forgot them. But they also show the trend to neutrality as the additional leader in RifE is (Lawful) Neutral too.
I think this trend away from Good comes from D&D. Nonplayable races are detailed in the Monster Manual and as usually the heroes fight evil creatures the monsters in there are evil (because why should you fight a good race? You are a hero. Mostly...).

I consider them neutral as well, though mostly because their leaders run the gamut of good/evil; Same with the Lanun.

 

[Imuratep]

I'd extend DonQuigleone's idea to other leaders. Instead of having vamp and orc leaders start out good (if you must insist on having them), just make them very likely to be "redeemed" to good by Junil, or partly redeemed by another god, by using a strong religious preference. And have the converse for a few new leaders of good civs. This would be much more organic feeling (and who cares anyway if the initial alignments are balanced; it's how the game unfolds that matters).

I think if and only if you know why a leader is deviating from his civ's alignment these leaders can enrich the game.
If Kro'Mear openly offers to people to let their souls to be devoured and makes it clear that there won't be an afterlife for them, but they will get paradise on Erebus instead by getting all that they want in life and that she won't force anyone if he doesn't want to, is she good or a damn hypocrit that thinks it play god by believing to be able to emulate a god's paradise? I don't know much about the ritual of devouring souls. Is it very painful to lose his soul? If you don't have to suffer eternal torment like in hell this offer should be very tempting for a lot of people (especially if there is an active propaganda for it...).

 

[Pazyryk]

That sounds like a deal with the devil to me. Yeah, maybe she's saving some from hell, but still pretty twisted. If that's her story, I'd leave her at evil or maybe neutral.