[MUD-Dev] Re: Marion's Tailor Problem

[quzah]

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew R. Sheahan <chaos at crystal.palace.net>
To: mud-dev at kanga.nu <mud-dev at kanga.nu>
Date: Saturday, August 22, 1998 8:39 AM
Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: Marion's Tailor Problem


>i had the most simple yet amazing brainstorm on this topic last night.


[snip]

>so HMM now.  what sort of thing can you think of that's capricious, inconstant,
>petty, and has the power and motivation to enforce its personal moral code?
>
>that's right, a god.  i think a very viable solution to a lot of social
>engineering problems is in-character staff control of gods.


I posted a link to a small article on this very thing, "Implementing
God". I'm not sure it's still around, as I don't have the link to
it at the moment, and I'm writing off-line. You should be able to
find it if you look back in the archives, I think. :)

>so what about the moral codes enforced by evil gods?  divvy up the world
>geographically according to the spheres of influence of the various gods.
>if you want to be safe, stick to where a benevolent deity holds sway.  no
>problem.

Then the god's spheres wouldn't overlap or rather effect eachother? So
paladin_benevolent wanders into sphere_o_doom, and meets paladin_doom;
would the paladin get any help from their god, [ie: dnd terms: have
their spells/abilities] or would they be SOL? Also, would paladin_doom
going to sphere_o_benevolence and breaking sphere_o_doom's rules, would
their god take note, or, since they weren't in their own sphere, would
those broken rules not matter?

>i consider this a potential solution to the Tailor Problem because i do not
>think the solution lies in controlling the game potentialities which allow
>the tailor to be disturbed, but in controlling the people who would do the
>disturbing.  it doesn't mean that the tailor would be absolutely safe; if
>anyone requires that they can play a MUD with no combat system.  but it could
>be used to make sure that tailor-disturbing behavior is a survival liability,
>and that's what matters in directing player and player-base evolution.

>so, whatcha think?
>
>chiaroscuro

While I agree that it could be of use, I then to try and find out
why it wouldn't; as I suppose those who try and get around the rules
would. So, forgive my attempt to do so, as it is nothing personal,
ever. :) What about the tailor who wishes to be godless. Surely there
are those who would prefer not to be bothered with praying and such,
you know, all the required-to-keep-the-god-happy things. :) Now, I
guess this stems from having been brought up in church -- pray if
you're bad, give away your money, and all that -- So, naturally,
I have my own view of a 'benevolent god'. [The christian god does
not fall into my view of belevolent, dispite what my mother would
have liked me to believe; but I'm getting off topic.]

My idea of a benevolent god, is one that wishes entirely for the
happieness of those it holds dear. Read: If god_o_b is the patron
deity to city_o_b, then anyone would be welcome in this place,
and as such, the god_o_b. would wish for their safety, while they
were in said local. (Perhaps even beyond the city_o_b, but anyway.)

So, it wouldn't require prayers and money and the like, but would
be happy to recieve such affection; and not require it. That is
my view of a small piece of the benevolent god. Perhaps that is
what you mean, perhaps not. (That's how I'd do my "good god".)
-Q-