Page 3 of 4

Re: Disguise

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:46 pm
by Zehren
adanath wrote: It would be nice if there were more.."neutral" creatures..like golems or the such.
There are golems already, I think?

Re: Disguise

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:35 pm
by ganandorf
There are golems. But they have a certain difficulty attached with them, with most lillithian creatures theres a difficulty gradient. You have nibblers/gremlins, goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, bugbears, ogres, giants. Start with the weak and worm your way upwards as you get better.

For non-lillithian creatures.
You have what, the bandits in the camp which are easy, minecrawlers, which are about as hard as bugbears, the golems which seem to be about that level to. Theres nothing i can think of that is neutral and near the goblin/hobgoblin/orc level and nothing neutral above bugbears, though at that point nymphs, sphinxes, etc. open up to you. But make it easier for you to be caught.

Honestly, this is a game. Everythings not going to be perfect roleplay wise. If it were, i would never let anyone go alive, and if you want my roleplay to be perfect, then i wont let anyone go alive. Sometimes you just have to compromise, to do whats easier, and makes the game better for the long term. Like i said, make lillithians killing lillithians not suffer a favour loss. Or code a bunch of new areas where lillithians can train. The first one seems easier to me.

edit: sorry kind of side tracked from disguises

Re: Disguise

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:01 pm
by Skragna
Everything in Geas (from my fairly new eyes) seems to be entirely polarized with the exception of the Shaolin, who are only a little bit so. You either want the Sathonites and Lillithians gone, or you want the Crusade and the Taniel Clerics gone. There's virtually no middle ground for those that want to stay out of the war.

Re: Disguise

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:03 pm
by ganandorf
Maybe thats one of the benefits of not joining a guild?

Re: Disguise

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:19 pm
by Skragna
There's no non-polarized guild... except the thieves, maybe, but they're also ostracized.

Re: Disguise

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:31 pm
by Olrane
Skragna wrote:There's no non-polarized guild... except the thieves, maybe, but they're also ostracized.
Eh, well...at least recently, even the thieves were incredibly polarized. Most if not all of the ones who stayed became Sathonys worshipers out of social pressure.

Re: Disguise

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 am
by adanath
Yeah the thieves were pretty polarized, because no neutral crowd would accept them due to well..their acts just causing such karma and rep ruin. Which eventually forced their hands into Sathonys or Lilith pretty much.

Re: Disguise

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:16 am
by adanath
Zehren wrote:
adanath wrote: It would be nice if there were more.."neutral" creatures..like golems or the such.
There are golems already, I think?
I meant more than just golems and a few others. As in more neutral creatures such as golems and the like. (obviously knowing they are already there)

Re: Disguise

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:47 pm
by seriah
I'd like to point something out for those who have not been around for longer than a few years.
For a long time the rogues existed, thrived, mingled, socialized, engaged, played, role-played, and all the same actions that others do with very little difficulty.
The reason for this was they RP'ed well, the players who knew many of the little nuances that could possibly identify a rogue kept that knowledge out of the gameplay, and they were very selective with who was invited into their ranks.
There is not anything more involved or complicated than that to playing a rogue and staying around the general population of the game. Lets not make this any more complicated than it really is.

Re: Disguise

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:38 pm
by lanyara
Yeah the thieves were pretty polarized, because no neutral crowd would accept them due to well..their acts just causing such karma and rep ruin. Which eventually forced their hands into Sathonys or Lilith pretty much.
It's very difficult to relate to old times when things change :)

The really old thieves never had to consider karma & reputation. They also did not have to deal with the law system, at least initially (I guess the courts came before both karma and reputation).

Evolution of the code often changes situations, even independent of player actions (like guildwars, which definitely have a very big impact on decisions made by players and their characters). Just take the addition of Asador. Sure, evil thieves probably had more places to hide within Asador, but Asador was always extremely polarized, so what about the "neutral" or "good" thieves? Do these have a place today?

Re: Disguise

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 8:30 pm
by luminier
thieves should be completely neutral. but really thats impossible. even the shao-lin have picked a side. i think the thieves should stay away from the sathonites sorta like the order has... lol it's important to not get group in with sathos I think... especially if you want to be neutral.

Also be stealthy.

By the way im a master thief.

Re: Disguise

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:57 am
by Delia
even the shao-lin have picked a side
Basically it would seem so but in truth the Shaos really have little in common with the goals of the Holy Order or the Taniel Church apart from destroying the undead and not wanting to see the world falling into pieces. Loose allies of convenience I would say.

Re: Disguise

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:08 am
by lanyara
The shaolins are definitely on the good side and have always been.

I think that thieves should try to stay as neutral as possible (as a guild entity).

Most thieves here were always more readily "evil" than not evil. With the karma system though, I believe it is not possible to play a "good" thief if you worship an evil deity.

I don't think you really get to have this freedom - black aura means you have done something wrong in the eyes of the other deities, and once worshipping an evil deity you will immediately attract goodies chasing you, even moreso if you do "evil actions" of any kind. And if theft is evil, well ... then it's just even more apparent. :D

NPCs will also hate on you and you can't manipulate the reputation as far as I know right now.

Re: Disguise

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:38 am
by Delia
A thief could destroy undead like crazy though...

Re: Disguise

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:18 am
by lanyara
Hmm... how?

Re: Disguise

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:26 am
by Olrane
lanyara wrote:Hmm... how?
To be fair, undeads aren't that hard (at least skeletons and zombies), they're just annoyingly slow to kill.

My problem with this idea is that it feels like cheating the system to manipulate karma like that.

Re: Disguise

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:45 pm
by luminier
Im with Olrane, I've been told before (by wizards) that changing your karma like that is gaming with the system, which shouldn't be done.

However I feel that when you are obviously trying to be deceptive and you know IC that killing undead will please Taniel and Evren, why not be deceptive and try to trick other people into thinking you are good? In this respect I do not think that it is incorrect or "gaming the system".

Re: Disguise

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:33 pm
by lanyara
You mean for evil characters it is forbidden to change their karma in a positive way?

Re: Disguise

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:35 pm
by Skragna
Honestly, theft should not always be considered evil. For instance, let's say a very powerful thief manages to sneak into and steal the Sathonite's orb. How, if he is stealing the main line of communication for an evil guild, is it an evil action? If he backstabs their guards to death, how is that evil? It'd be nice to see something in place that prevents "evil" thief actions on actually evil NPC's and characters and such that make them lean more toward good or just plain, outright neutrality.

Re: Disguise

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:36 pm
by luminier
lanyara wrote:You mean for evil characters it is forbidden to change their karma in a positive way?
That is actually the opposite of what I said. Read the second paragraph.