[MUD-Dev] Alignment

[Paul Schwanz - Enterprise Services]

Spin wrote:
>   Isn't adding all these terms just compounding the problem? 

That depends entirely on what you believe the problem to be.  :-)  Strangely 
enough, the terms "evil" and "good" are perfectly adequate in describing 
alignment which is only concerned with evil and good.  But if we confine 
ourselves to only these two adjectives when describing characters, should we be 
surprised that our players don't think too deeply about who their characters 
really are?  Are they simply an evil thief, or are they a greedy, secretive 
thief who is loyal to friends and not devoid of respect for life?  Which thief 
do you want your players to play and how will you encourage them to play it?

> 
>   Most of the discussion has skirted the issue of game use. What will 
> the alignment be used for? I find it inane that other characters might
> automatically might know the alignment of my character. Magic items 
> are obviously an exception, cause they're magic. 		
> 

I also find it inane (well inane is perhaps too strong a word) for characters to 
be given omniscience.  I'd like to see reputation based on some sort of 
word-of-mouth simulation which is rooted in observed actions.  On the other 
hand, I don't think it is inane at all to give deities omniscience.  Your 
reputation with deity will affect that deity's favor, which could have 
tremendous impact on the magic you are able to weild.

>   On my mud, killing is an evil act. Just starting combat will cause
> your alignment to fall. There are of course problems with this.
> 
> Alignment conundrum #29863: Killing is evil, but that nasty dragon is
> just about to eat the good princess...

Solution #29863:  Use the wonderful properties of multiplying signed integers.  
Killing is evil (-).   Killing is _very_ evil (-5).  Dragon is evil (-).  Dragon 
is _quite_ evil (-3).  Princess is _very_ good (+5).  Killing the dragon is now 
_extremely_ good (-5 * -3 = +15), but killing the princess is _supremely_ evil 
(-5 * +5 = -25).

If it works for evil, maybe it will work for other areas as well.  Killing an 
ally is disloyal.  Killing an enemy is loyal.  And so on...

> 
>   One may also subdue opponents on my mud, but theoricatlly this leads
> to Alignment conundrum #29864: Yah, we subduaded the evil troll and
> hog tied it. Now what? We can't kill it, that is _evil_. We can't leave
> it tied up, bacause that will kill it. We can't let it go, because if
> it every kills someone else, we would be partly to blame...
> 

Solution #29864:  see solution #29863.

> Third party information is also difficult to deal with.
> If Bubba tells me that my best friend Boffo was planning to kill me
> tomorrow, should I hate Boffo for wanting to off me, or Bubba for telling
> obvious "lies" about Boffo?

Good point.  I discussed this same issue with Ben Taggert on gamasutra.  We 
concluded that believability is based upon your relationship with the person 
telling you something as well as how well the information they give you lines up 
with your previous knowledge of the subject.  If you "believe" them, then the 
information will likely be altered, but if you don't, then your opinion of them 
will likely be altered.  Given mathematical values for relationship and similar 
values for knowledge of subject, it would not be difficult to calculate 
believability.  However, just to be on the safe side, I think you should be 
given the opportunity to set a filter on what you hear.  Perhaps you set a 
filter to prompt you whenever you are "told" something about your friend Boffo.  
When you receive the information from Bubba, you can decide to believe or 
disbelieve.  You make the choice.  Do you allow Bubba's news to sour your 
relationship with Boffo, or, based on your previous information regarding Boffo, 
do you decide that Bubba is a liar out to slander your good friend's name?
 
> 
>   Finally, I'd like to re-iterate the Alignment solution #0;
> 
>   "I've killed everyone that disagreed with me, therefore I'm right and
> good."

That is a perfectly legitimate solution which will, of course, obviate the 
discussion.  However, my personal opinion is that this solution will encourage 
PK in a HnS type of game.  If that's your aim, then I can see how this whole 
discussion might seem ludicrous to you.  My goal has been to encourage deeper 
role-play and immersion, and address what I see as IC "moral" issues: PK and 
other types of related behavior.  Different goals will usually lead to different 
solutions.

--Phinehas

-----------------------------------------------------------------
		"All things are permissable,
			but not all things are expedient." 
-----------------------------------------------------------------                 




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev