[MUD-Dev] Alignment

[Adam Wiggins]

[Vadim Tkachenko:]
> Adam Wiggins wrote:
> > Heh.  I guess you missed the long thread about alignments; most people
> > couldn't figure any good way to fit absolute good and evil into a mud at all
> 
> Well, I couldn't find the thread in last two months - November folder
> contains 194 unread messages, thread names don't tell anything about
> that - can you please remind me the thread name?

It was probably longer than two months ago, and I think 'alignment'
was in the title, but I don't remember precisely.  (Some help I am, eh?)

> > You have to keep in mind that these two alignment planes were designed as
> > a guideline for how you were supposed to play your character, *not* as a
> > reflection of how your character has behaved recently.
> 
> Well, I think exactly the opposite - because of my ambiguent treatment
> of RP

Which would seem to suggest some serious re-evaluation is in order?
If you change the assumptions upon which a system is based, you'd
best expect some serious changes to the system itself.

> >  Lawful and chaotic
> > make a lot more sense to me as far as personality application.  A lawful
> > character is predictable, a chaotic character is not.
> 
> Exactly, this is why I decided to split the usual 'alignment' term into
> 'alignment' (which is plain G-E) and 'predictability' (L-C).

Arctic has a very close model of the D&D alignment system working for them.
Staying chaotic is *very* difficult; it requires that you constantly
be doing wildly different things, which mudders tend not to do.

> In connection to the discussion about the safe zones and guard summons,
> can I tell that if there's a rule which says 'the violence in this area
> will not be tolerated', and character tries to kill/abuse somebody else,
> this character should be deemed more chaotic than it was before?

It depends how you're treating predictability.  This seems to attach
some sort of moral judgements to predictability, which I don't think
really applies (if you're taking the word at its pure form).
I'd tend to think that the above would make you more at odds with
the given faction (read 'evil' if you like), and might or might not
make you more chaotic.  If you normally kill and abuse people, it should
make you more lawful.  The most 'evil' characters are the lawful evil
ones, since they can be counted upon to do the most self-serving act
at any given time.  Versus the chaotic evil character that simply does
whatever they feel like, without regard for the feelings and lives of others.

> Also, I believe if the abovesaid is true (and recalling the idea about
> 'blaming' the character so next time the guards see him/her they  become
> more and more convinced [s]he should be eliminated), it may also reflect
> the guards' tendency to chase the chaotic characters as potential
> troublemakers - they are [supposedly] proven to disobey the law in the
> past.

I don't quite agree with this, for the reasons above.
If you do want to use this as a method of social control, you might as
well ditch the D&D planar stuff and just go with a more straightforward
mechanism like Raph's reputation stuff (see his post a few days ago).

> > Could this work in a mud without admin intervention?  I doubt it.  Even
> > *with* admins keeping an eye on things, judging a character's true motivatio
> > is frequently as difficult as it is in real life.
> 
> See, the worst problem for me is that instead of coding, I keep thinking
> over and over and thus don't have a possibility to test it :-/

Well, we here on the list are practical types.  We don't much like to
sit around dreaming up every possible scheme or method of doing things;
we just like to pick the one that is the most proven to work and start
coding.  Once coding, we make sure to keep ourselves focused on the task
until it's done, never getting distracted by thoughts of 'what if'.

(That's sacrasm, BTW.)

> > I think the real question is why you need to track a character's
> > motivations.
> 
> As said above, chaotic character is a potential troublemaker, and being

Aren't ALL characters potential troublemakers?  This is somewhat true,
though.  A chaotic good character is certainly more likely to step out
of line than a lawful good character.  However, one might note that
a chaotic evil character only *might* step out of line.  A lawful evil
character *will* step out of line, by definition.

> lawful is an IC requirement for some orders - notably, Paladine.

I'd tend to think that all factions (whether they be headed by deities or
not) would prefer lawful followers.

> > The only possible use that I can see is alignments with
> > particular factions - the example from the recent thread was the Empire
> > vs the Rebels in Star Wars - in which case your actions would be judged
> > by members of that faction, and if they were deemed out of line, you'd
> > be reprimanded or kicked out.
> 
> See, I don't believe in admin intervention - because usually admins have
> other problems, like work (how many MUD admins are full-time paid MUD
> admins?), implementation, you name it. Thus, I'd like to minimize it and
> eliminate any IC admin intervention.

I do believe in admin intervention, but I program in such a way as to
make the game self-sustaining in case no one is around to intervene.
Anyhow, that's not what I meant.  I meant that the factions note your
actions (automated) and take appropriate actions (also automated).
Thus, the Empire might demote you if you are not doing well at your
role ("You have failed me for the last time, admiral..."), and the Rebels
would certainly kick you out or worse if they discovered that you had
been associating with Empire sympathizers.
The code for this could be as simple and complex as you like.  Ie,
joining a group which contains known Empire followers could count as
'associating'.  Ideally this sort of a system would require witnesses,
allowing you to act as a double agent for as long as you aren't seen
by anyone.  If the leader of a given faction is a deity as they often
are in fantasy muds, you can get away with assuming that the deity is
watching over their followers at all times.