'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

If it's no bug or an idea, but it's still MUD-related, it goes here.

Moderator: Wizards

Message
Author
Phelan
Professional
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:13 pm

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#21 Post by Phelan » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:36 am

Nathan wrote:I personally mean that one of the most important reasons are the treaties between the good side and the evil one.

Infact - if you ignore some specific regions - every (good) guild lives in peace, and peace seems to bore people.

Nathan
The treaties were put in place for different reasons, but I think most of us agree that the current situation is not ideal. There are too many areas and ways to avoid any kind of conflict due to some of those treaties. Running into Szeven at the goblin camp and not being allowed to beat him/or get beaten up can be quite frustrating.

Since certain situations have changed, some of those treaties are not necessary anymore. Some weeks ago, a couple of players met in the OOC area to discuss the current situation and we made some proposal to make the MUD more interesting again, allowing more conflict. All present agreed on the proposed changes, but the players of the 'good' side wanted to talk to their guildleaders and get their approval/feedback. We haven't heard anything since then, at least I did not, and waiting before we proceed.

fernao
Champion
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:44 am

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#22 Post by fernao » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:49 am

And concerning these talks... the evil side has taken action, as promised. *grin*
Life is but a butterflies dream
Image

Nathan
Journeyman
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:36 pm

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#23 Post by Nathan » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:55 am

fernao wrote:And concerning these talks... the evil side has taken action, as promised. *grin*
Yeah I know, the bad guys are the true good force in this mud *g*

User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#24 Post by luminier » Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:51 am

Because if you don't have enough time to dedicate to the game (like me) making a treaty is good for people (like weaker goodies) who do have time to dedicate to the game.

I really don't think people would enjoy me cancelling and treaty and starting a fight that I cant participate in. If you can't participate in a conflict, don't start one - it's even in the 'help fair play' file.

Also when I did have time to play the Sathonites would play usually on opposite times that I have time to play (I play during the day my time, they play during the night my time) so there is no real way for me to normally interact with them and defend their attacks. People would suffer while I sleep and I figured that that was not good for the game, so when the treaties were offered, I took that offer.

Even though it would almost never be something Luminier would actually do RP-wise... im thinking of OOC playability for other people.

Sorry if the game is bad now lol
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

Zehren
Overlord
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:50 am

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#25 Post by Zehren » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:18 am

luminier wrote: Even though it would almost never be something Luminier would actually do RP-wise... im thinking of OOC playability for other people.

Sorry if the game is bad now lol
Blasphemy :shock:

I half-jest; too many OOC-considerations will make the game seem very inconsistent, too few will make the game frustrating.

I just lost the game, btw.
Drayn wrote:Zehren, the Karmassassin!

User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#26 Post by luminier » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:44 am

Dammit Zehren, I was doing so well.
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

User avatar
ewelyn
Professional
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#27 Post by ewelyn » Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:53 am

The common reason to play a neutral/evil character is because "you can do whatever you want". I think you can't - but from my experience that is how people reason. There are no laws you have to follow, there are no values you must defend.. plainly: you do not have to care so much. It is cheaper to avoid limitations. The problem with playing a goodie is that you have to do the opposite. You have to care. You can not lie, you can not cheat, you can not meet person X, you can not... The rules are very artificial in comparison with game mechanics.. and there is hardly a reward for it. Tougher is when you do something orthodox, like condemning or inquisitioning. It is supposed to be common, but the reaction from 90% of the people is: resistance. As if it's extreme.

But my main reason is the PVP situation. It feels like there is a "game within the game" which is about trying to kill each other for the sake of being on opposite sides. It many, many times that I play with one eye on screen (which is the normal way I play), and obviously I'm in "enemy land" (which is - surprise, surprise - all the useful areas of the MUD). An unknown character just appears and kills Ewelyn. Some people say this is realistic, but I think it is just un-cooperative. It does not blend with the idea that roleplay is something you do together. A co-operative effort. It's not about building up interesting interactions together. It is about winning.

The trend that people believe that the sides must be balanced in combat power to work just further proves my point: Everyone is supposed to walk around and kill eachother. Therefore sides have to balanced. Treaties must be pre-mediated in OOC areas. Otherwise one side would run the other the over (it must, because killing eachother is the goal). I think if people had more realistic and nuanced character goals, there wouldn't be a reason to kill on sight.

These "character goals" (hardly worth being called goals, or characters for that matter) is the big deterrent for me. I will not complain about it since I chose not to play. Evils killing others is common (as opposed to interesting) and has become the point. The ones who are not involved in that are usually not involved at all (which is sort of uninteresting too). I am fairly sure that most of you disagree with me. Which is fine! But - I have had a lot of fun though with specific characters (you know who you are) and I am grateful for that.

Hugs and coppers,
Ewelyn

Zehren
Overlord
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:50 am

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#28 Post by Zehren » Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:43 pm

Deleted comment.
Last edited by Zehren on Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Drayn wrote:Zehren, the Karmassassin!

User avatar
Delia
Overlord
Posts: 2782
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:22 am
Location: Finland

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#29 Post by Delia » Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:53 pm

I cringe everytime I read people talking to their killers as a ghost or the killer talking with the ghost and wrapping up the situation. I agree, it should be completely the other way around and no ghostly business whatsoever. I'd personally would like to see the ghost state gone. It just makes for silly situations IMHO even if it has its ease-of-play effects.
"To be is to do" - Sokrates
"To do is to be" - Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra

User avatar
Osiron
Experienced
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:35 pm

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#30 Post by Osiron » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:54 pm

Zehren wrote:
ewelyn wrote:Stuff.
Nemesis' recent attack on me was very boring.
Maybe for you but it actually made interesting news for me! Compared to the absence of all other newsworthy events it was very refreshing.
"Oshawott! Osha-wott!"

Zehren
Overlord
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:50 am

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#31 Post by Zehren » Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:13 pm

Deleted.
Last edited by Zehren on Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Drayn wrote:Zehren, the Karmassassin!

glorfindel
Hero
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:08 pm

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#32 Post by glorfindel » Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:53 am

ewelyn wrote:The common reason to play a neutral/evil character is because "you can do whatever you want". I think you can't - but from my experience that is how people reason. There are no laws you have to follow, there are no values you must defend.. plainly: you do not have to care so much. It is cheaper to avoid limitations.
Honestly, I do not think playing a 'neutral' character, is easier, yet I can imagine that people think it is, or believe they can easier avoid limitations. Maybe it depends on the type of character. Depending on where on the spectrum on the world your character positions themselves you will either have more or less trouble with people, depending on who currently is strong. Same goes for evil, I do not think it is easier, even though people imagine it to be.
ewelyn wrote: and there is hardly a reward for it. Tougher is when you do something orthodox, like condemning or inquisitioning. It is supposed to be common, but the reaction from 90% of the people is: resistance. As if it's extreme.
The 'no reward for it' thing is something I do not quite grasp to be honest. If you mean that you don't gain reward in terms of appreciation, then yes, I agree with you there.

As for the inquisitioning / condemning thing. It depends a bit on how you view it, yet I agree that it's image is too extreme / too much frowned upon. I've noticed that on several times. On medieval times, inquisitors were not exactly liked by the general population, they were often frowned upon and the common folk feared them. Yet there were other groups who wildly cheered them and praised them for doing the work of god. I think we're are lacking a lot of that duality. One the one hand, you should fear everybody who is an inquisitor (from a commoners view), on the other hand you should be eternally grateful that they root out the evil within society. Furthermore, there are things that should just come with a certain religion. If you are a follower of Taniel, then the stake burning of an neutral/evil to cleanse their soul is something good and you should cheer, or at least deem it as neccersary even though you do not like it. I tend to believe the same goes for followers of Evren too and I have adjusted my chars views to agree with that, once I realized how important it is that certain actions by a holy institution (Crusaders, Clerics) are accepted even though they are ugly. My char will never really like it, but his stance is a bit like 'It does calm the anger of Taniel and Evren, it offers the soul a path of redemption. Not my choice of a ritual, but it gets the job done.' I think there's much to be done in this regard and I think it has to be done by everyone of us, to get more in blend with the lore. I have worked on this with my char for a while now and I hope others will fill gaps there with their chars as well. Religion is important and it should greatly impact your chars belief system.
ewelyn wrote: But my main reason is the PVP situation. It feels like there is a "game within the game" which is about trying to kill each other for the sake of being on opposite sides.

...

Some people say this is realistic, but I think it is just un-cooperative. It does not blend with the idea that roleplay is something you do together. A co-operative effort. It's not about building up interesting interactions together. It is about winning.
I see the problem with that too and I have had many situations where my char's only option was to run because he already was faced with a power swinging cleric that had blocked the exit within seconds. I would like to see more interaction there, though many have mentioned that at least between clerics there is no point/reason/whatever, I still disagree. My opinion is that it'd be always more interesting if hunt/kill would only be the last option, not the first.

ewelyn wrote: The ones who are not involved in that are usually not involved at all (which is sort of uninteresting too).
Sadly, there's not much point involving unless you want to join the kill and kill around. I do not disagree with PvP, but I disagree with it being the only choice you have to do all day, not moving anywhere without having to fight in a PvP fight. Other then that certain guilds are more vulnerable then others and since it's so extremely easy to gain the weaknesses of any guild just by a few little tricks, some guilds are literally unable to join the fight.

User avatar
ewelyn
Professional
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#33 Post by ewelyn » Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:33 pm

There are some minor things I disagree with you about, but I won't delve into it. My main point is still the "game inside the game". That is, that the goal of the game should be to kill eachother for fun (and that having such a goal is accepted as a valid goal). It has, in my opinion, nothing to do with roleplaying. The reason for these attacks are usually that "you attacked me last time", and that's it. It's just nothing of a story or interaction.

There are for example very few players who perform emotes during PVP. It's not a necessary thing per se, but it's an example of one of those things that does not happen because the game has the wrong focus. Which is that the player is busy trying to win the fight, rather than make an interesting and believable situation (or build-up something more advanced that adds something to history).

Additionally, I suspect that most people spend their time either trying to increase their skills intentionally, rather than let them increase as a side effect of who their character is and what she does. The same goes for any other "strength" attributes such as preventing god switching. Alas the game as such is very focused around being strong and winning.

I will admit that my last few weeks with Ewelyn was, in moments, quite dull/frustrating and I probably did not play that inspiring either. I consider a few kills legitimate (and consequently tried to roleplay them), others were just a big yawn where I ended up trying to find someone to make something interesting with not long after that. So my main objection is not that my character is dying or that some game mechanic is too hard. My main object is rather that too big a propertion of the characters I've met are played with the wrong focus.

User avatar
Allurana
Hero
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#34 Post by Allurana » Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:11 pm

ewelyn wrote:it's an example of one of those things that does not happen because the game has the wrong focus.

My main object is rather that too big a propertion of the characters I've met are played with the wrong focus.
Is it that the game and its players are wrong, or is it that you're expecting from the mud what it was not designed to offer?

That the combat system is one of the most complex systems of the game, and that most other systems (such as crafting or trading) are simple or lacking altogether I think is suggestive of what the main inspiration was from the creators. In addition with most skills being combat oriented, or most guilds being combat oriented, and so on.

That's not to say the creators didn't want roleplay, or alternatives- after all, the game is roleplay mandatory, and there are alternatives to combat, but I think trying to deny the influence of combat in the game is misleading.

Regardless, I think the mindset of "the game and its players are doing it wrong except me" is not a good or attractive perspective to have. GEAS isn't an RPI. I doubt it will ever be an RPI. It's a 50/50 split of roleplay and hack&slash, and I think it's always going to be that way, take it or leave it.

Wanting to influence or inspire players to put more roleplay into their actions is an admirable goal, and I support that. Suggesting that players do things your way because their way is wrong is not so flattering.

User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#35 Post by luminier » Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:58 pm

While this is starting to evolve/devolve into a roleplay discussion (yet again haha) I do think Allurana has the right of it.

In the past when the creators of Geas were more active and even played characters IG it seems as though roleplay-combat was common.

I recall a time when people would never fight and Sathonites would talk to people at the crossing and just have a good chat. The wizards of the time wanted to change that to include more conflict based roleplay.

Eventually people got better at fighting... and now? It seems as thought the current wizards (correct me if I am wrong) want us to go back to not fighting and strictly talking and non-combat roleplay/politics and war as a last last resort. I am not saying this is terrible and not the focus of Geas, but I am saying that largely... this happens already? With the exception of the Sathonites, most wars that Luminier has started have started because of a long series of talking and mails and a lot of "fix your ways now!!" "warning!".

I do see where Ewelyn is coming from, and I do think that she is right in some aspects. However, I think while it may look like "you attacked me last time, therefore Im going to hurt you", it's really just -looks- that way because lets face it, when have the Sathonites and Crusaders NOT been fighting each other? The Crusaders exist to hunt evil, hunt will eventually mean fight unless the Sathonites just want to stroll into Fal-Arth Rachen to get purified and completely abandon their ways.

The Crusader motto is "where there is evil, there shall you do battle." think about that for a minute. How does that imply combat should be the last option? It sounds to me like a Crusader should smash first, ask questions later.

Also you seem to be implying that combat has no place in roleplay... before I elaborate on that, because I feel it is grossly incorrect, am I right in you thinking that Ewelyn? or Others?
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

User avatar
ewelyn
Professional
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#36 Post by ewelyn » Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:04 pm

Allurana wrote:Is it that the game and its players are wrong, or is it that you're expecting from the mud what it was not designed to offer?
I believe that it was designed to offer something, but fails to do so. Then I went on describing the general idea and a couple of examples of that. You might claim that it was not designed to offer roleplaying (but we probably just have a very different definition of that word).

".. but I think trying to deny the influence of combat in the game is misleading."

Did I mention anywhere that combat can not be a part of roleplay?

Your understanding seems to be that I wish to remove/decrease combat. I don't. Although I do not consider such a system necessary for a roleplaying game (it would have been a good, symbolic excersise for Geas to do that for a week or two). But it is an incorrect way of understanding what I just wrote. I want the underlying reasons for the things that happen to be completely different. If they lead to less or more combat, or if the influence it has changes - I do not care.

"It's a 50/50 split of roleplay and hack&slash, and I think it's always going to be that way, take it or leave it."

I do not agree that a hack&slash game can be a roleplaying game - those are mutually exclusive. Again, you can disagree on that definition (although a discussion on which definition is which is sort of long/uninteresting - I think you understand what I mean at least)..

I would also disagree that the extent of what I described as negative (H&S) is just 50%, but then again it is hard for either of us to measure scientifically. To claim it is is just as bad/good as saying it isn't. But part of the system I was trying to describe what goes on in Geas suggests it is much more than that. Not saying anyone does it with bad intentions (although in some cases I wonder if the whole point wasn't to "win" - no names mentioned).

"Suggesting that players do things your way because their way is wrong is not so flattering."

And now you just suggested that I did, which is not so flattering either. Did I write something to upset you? I am sorry if I did, and in that case I apologize - but that wasn't a very nice thing to say.

I came to the conclusion that the game simply does not include what I wish out of it (especially not as a good character). To say that other players is not a factor is impossible (it's the main stuffing, sort of). Are they wrong? Am I wrong? I think it is the wrong question (and I would not like to blame anyone). There is a mismatch. And just like I said before, I'm fine with that (I moved on). If you think there is anything to my analysis - good! Otherwise - OK!

More Hugs & Coppers

User avatar
Allurana
Hero
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#37 Post by Allurana » Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:14 pm

ewelyn wrote:I believe that it was designed to offer something, but fails to do so. Then I went on describing the general idea and a couple of examples of that. You might claim that it was not designed to offer roleplaying (but we probably just have a very different definition of that word).
I feel GEAS is designed for roleplay. But perhaps it's not designed to offer your definition of roleplay.
Did I mention anywhere that combat can not be a part of roleplay?
You seemed to imply that it was the "wrong focus".
I want the underlying reasons for the things that happen to be completely different. If they lead to less or more combat, or if the influence it has changes - I do not care.
Which may just come down to personal preference or interpretation. What may be a good reason for one may not be a good reason for another.
I do not agree that a hack&slash game can be a roleplaying game - those are mutually exclusive. Again, you can disagree on that definition (although a discussion on which definition is which is sort of long/uninteresting - I think you understand what I mean at least)..
Fair enough. Though between playing RPIs and H&S games, I don't feel GEAS fits under the definition of either.
I would also disagree that the extent of what I described as negative (H&S) is just 50%, but then again it is hard for either of us to measure scientifically.
50/50 was a figure of speech to denote that GEAS has elements of both genres and is not a purebred of either.
And now you just suggested that I did, which is not so flattering either. Did I write something to upset you? I am sorry if I did, and in that case I apologize - but that wasn't a very nice thing to say.
I don't know what else you meant by saying that this game and several players are wrong in their focus, other than that your preferred focus is not wrong.
Are they wrong? Am I wrong? I think it is the wrong question (and I would not like to blame anyone). There is a mismatch.
I think mismatch is the best way to put it. I don't think anyone is wrong here- different strokes for different folks.

User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#38 Post by luminier » Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:51 am

I think that's a good middle ground. The middle ground. It makes sense for Geas too!
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

User avatar
ewelyn
Professional
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#39 Post by ewelyn » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:35 am

Allurana:

"I feel GEAS is designed for roleplay. But perhaps it's not designed to offer your definition of roleplay."

It is not "my" definition of roleplay. I think it is the best fit and only one (and most commonly spread). But yes, I agree that it might indeed not offer a roleplaying world.

"You seemed to imply that it was the "wrong focus"."

Well, no I was not. There is nothing "wrong focus" about combat. My note was about having wrong focus in the sense that the underlying reasons are wrong.

"Which may just come down to personal preference or interpretation. What may be a good reason for one may not be a good reason for another."

That is what I consider to be part of the actual roleplay in itself. The game definition as such is not supposed to be volatile.

"Fair enough. Though between playing RPIs and H&S games, I don't feel GEAS fits under the definition of either."


I do not think RPI and H&S is to be compared on the same scale.

RPI is just a more intense variation of RP. Such systems often lack any game mechanics at all - or have very few of them. Play is co-ordinated through OOC channels and the level of detail is much higher. Geas got much more mechanics (which I liked), but that does not in any way invalidate/change the idea of RP as such.

H&S on the other hand is a different game with a completely different purpose. It is like comparing mounting-climbing and lacemaking.

"50/50 was a figure of speech to denote that GEAS has elements of both genres and is not a purebred of either."

I understand that it was a figure of speech. But I still made a point of that 50% is not a ratio of blend elements if we consider the spread of its application.

"I don't know what else you meant by saying that this game and several players are wrong in their focus, other than that your preferred focus is not wrong."

I was trying to discuss systems and trends, not people. Once again, I am deeply sorry if I offended you.

But yes, by saying that I am wrong in claiming that it's the wrong focus, you are also saying that not doing it your way is wrong (since roleplay is complete and consistent). So claiming that the "wrong" isn't there (or that it isn't wrong) is just as hurtful to me since I depend on its absence assumingly as much as you depend on its existance. I believe you have the easier situation.

"I think mismatch is the best way to put it. I don't think anyone is wrong here- different strokes for different folks."


Now you make it sound as if following the game idea was a matter of taste - but that was not my point.

Nathan
Journeyman
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:36 pm

Re: 'Good' being out, neutral is the new good ?

#40 Post by Nathan » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:11 am

Yea, the middle ground!

Post Reply