Safe Zone/Free Zone ala Tribal Creeds

[MrDDT]

If you're saying, the potential loss from committing acts of evil (penalties) should match the potential loss of the victim of such actions (evils reward). I couldn't agree more.

What if someone attacks my neighbor? Should I be able to defend my neighbor without being labeled evil unjustly? In those chain of events, how would the game determine that I had rightly attacked first? How complex or blind should the system be?

It would need to be pretty complex imo. To the extent that it is blind to these nuances, it would mean that every time you place restrictions on evil you also tie the hands of good. I have a problem with that.

First off good people dont kill others. Unless its self defense, or defense of others.
So simple there, just put a timer of when an attacker can be killed. (UO, L2 many games have this blue grey red etc).
Good people dont loot the dead.
Good people dont deal with evils.


Those are just a few ways to "tie" the hands of good.

I dont believe penalties should match the potential loss. I think there should just be enough that curbs the want or drive to be evil.

[Trenchfoot]

First off good people dont kill others. Unless its self defense, or defense of others.
So simple there, just put a timer of when an attacker can be killed. (UO, L2 many games have this blue grey red etc).

Makes sense.

Good people dont loot the dead.

Don't necessarily agree with that one.

Good people dont deal with evils.

I generally agree with this, although does this mean there should be no conversion from evil to good?

Those are just a few ways to "tie" the hands of good.

I dont believe penalties should match the potential loss. I think there should just be enough that curbs the want or drive to be evil.

While I agree that to be evil should not be desirable, I don't believe it should be necessarily undesirable either. In other words, it should have the same capability to advance as good does. The difficulty of trying to be evil should lie primarily in its opposition (good). People should want to play both sides good and evil equally. Each having it's own set of pitfalls and boons. In that sense I would agree with you that something should be in place so that one side isn't favored as the 'winning side' by mechanics. Evil shouldn't be a min/max go to.

[MrDDT]

Don't necessarily agree with that one.

Do you take items off a dead guy you saw on the side of the road? Heck no you wouldnt, thats clearly an Evil act. Even stealing from an evil person is an evil act right now. Granted Xsyon doesnt live by these rules, nor should they really have to fully enforce them to make it right. But it could.
I mean really what if there were a limit, say take 1 item, but no more. If you take more then you are committing evil acts. That's just a way to balance out the system.
Its a harsh one but one that could be done. It really depends on the punishments you want to place on evil. More punishments on evil the more restrictions on good, else like you said there will be no evil and it will be worthless.

I generally agree with this, although does this mean there should be no conversion from evil to good?

I mean like trading, and supporting evil players.
IE, building a wall for a tribe thats evil while you are good.
Or being part of a trade with an evil player.

While I agree that to be evil should not be desirable, I don't believe it should be necessarily undesirable either. In other words, it should have the same capability to advance as good does. The difficulty of trying to be evil should lie primarily in its opposition (good). People should want to play both sides good and evil equally. Each having it's own set of pitfalls and boons. In that sense I would agree with you that something should be in place so that one side isn't favored as the 'winning side' by mechanics. Evil shouldn't be a min/max go to.

I dont think Good players should equal Evil players. I think there should be much less Evil players, and their play style. Its good for a game to have it that way. I think the most common should be neutral players or people in the middle area of good and evil.
Being a "Good" person in life is very hard, believe it or not. Just think, you cant lie, cheat, steal, attack, commit crimes, help people, self sacrifice etc?
Being a "normal" person as I would call it, is normally pretty good, but does slip and do some evil actions. I think this will by far be the most common aspect of people playing.

[Trenchfoot]

Do you take items off a dead guy you saw on the side of the road?

Generally no, but I can see circumstances where I might.

As for the rest I'm pretty much in agreement. Though I wasn't saying evil players base should be equal in number. I simply meant it should be as viable a game play choice as good. It shouldn't be a dead end choice otherwise why present it in the first place.

[MrDDT]

Generally no, but I can see circumstances where I might.

Then you would have broken the law, and I believe many people would think that is a very evil act. Which you would have to suffer for both morally and if someone were to know. Good thing about games is that "GOD" can be programed in to make "Payback a bitch". Unlike life, people can do bad deeds, and god might not factor in. (I dont want to get into a debate about beliefs)
Heck some people dont even want their pictures taken because it "steals" their souls.

You can also answer that for most things. Like eating another persons (cannibalism) sure its not something you normally do, but if you were about to die, and they were already dead, you were starving in the middle of nowhere sure.
But really all these factors cant be programed into the game effectively. So they just put "Eating other players is an evil action." and be done with it.

Its all about the morals the game wants to enforce to ensure fun play. Really, I dont think looting people in the game would be bad in this world, if it were something you or your tribe needed. But my point was that it can be considered evil and a limiting factor.

[Trenchfoot]

Like I said generally speaking. I don't believe cutting out a dead mans gold teeth after watching him mow down my buddies with a machine gun to be 'clearly' evil. Or robbing a dead body of its clothes because you're freezing to death, etc. But in general I would agree it would be considered thieving.

[orious13]

Taking anything from any person without consent is an evil act...always. Even if you're starving/cold. Burying them and praying for their immortal soul (running to their family...to explain) would be an act of good (beliefs aside). So by looting someone the best you can do is be neutral. Much of the time the act of good is walking away (passive), however, apathy is not an act of good. Killing in self defense might be neutral-evil -> pray for their soul as an example of a selfless act turns it neutral-good. Killing to protect someone else may be seen as neutral-->pray for their soul turns it good. The good are those that are more selfless and sympathetic. Evil are for those who are more selfish and apathetic, which includes stealing because you're starving and getting ahead at work at the cost of "friendship". You have to then make up and neutralize that "karma" by including other motives that are greater than yourself. As was said... most people are neutral in life because being evil has harsh consequences and being good often sets you up for other personal failures. The reward for being evil (mostly tangible) pays off better than does many rewards for being good (mostly not tangible...often you lose tangible things for the sake of doing good).

At least that's the strictness of my personal morals in terms of shoddy wording. Good and Evil are really just measurements on one's own inner meter. My drum may pound at a stricter beat.

There's gotta be greater incentive to be good than to be evil in games. If both have the same incentive, more people will seem evil based on how gaming history has played out already. I'd not really care if Xsyon wanted a greater amount of evil players to grasp the whole "apocalyptic/animal-like/de-evolved man" thing, but he doesn't. You shouldn't necessarily be limited, but in order for there to be more good players it should be harder to be evil and not easy for it to be forgiven.

[MrDDT]

Taking anything from any person without consent is an evil act...always. Even if you're starving/cold. Burying them and praying for their immortal soul (running to their family...to explain) would be an act of good (beliefs aside). So by looting someone the best you can do is be neutral. Much of the time the act of good is walking away (passive), however, apathy is not an act of good. Killing in self defense might be neutral-evil -> pray for their soul as an example of a selfless act turns it neutral-good. Killing to protect someone else may be seen as neutral-->pray for their soul turns it good. The good are those that are more selfless and sympathetic. Evil are for those who are more selfish and apathetic, which includes stealing because you're starving and getting ahead at work at the cost of "friendship". You have to then make up and neutralize that "karma" by including other motives that are greater than yourself. As was said... most people are neutral in life because being evil has harsh consequences and being good often sets you up for other personal failures. The reward for being evil (mostly tangible) pays off better than does many rewards for being good (mostly not tangible...often you lose tangible things for the sake of doing good).

At least that's the strictness of my personal morals in terms of shoddy wording. Good and Evil are really just measurements on one's own inner meter. My drum may pound at a stricter beat.

There's gotta be greater incentive to be good than to be evil in games. If both have the same incentive, more people will seem evil based on how gaming history has played out already. I'd not really care if Xsyon wanted a greater amount of evil players to grasp the whole "apocalyptic/animal-like/de-evolved man" thing, but he doesn't. You shouldn't necessarily be limited, but in order for there to be more good players it should be harder to be evil and not easy for it to be forgiven.

Great way to put it, and I agree with it all.
I think good acts can be harmful to someone if very very careful of how they are done. IE, pushing someone that is attacking another person, and holding them down so they cant fight anymore.

I think the KO system vs killing/murdering someone will play a big role in good vs evil. As will looting. Looting is a huge reward, and it should be a huge sway to the evil side, as is killing someone while you are the aggressor.
I fully agree that good acts should be greatly rewarded, there are many ways for this. (Faster healing, larger totem area, able to carry more weight etc) Which doesnt have to be + to combat stats or skills.
Evil should be punished also. IE, slower skill gain, or faster stat/skill loss. This will make evil be less wanted to be, because the rewards are already there. Making evil = to good plus able to do what they want will allow way to many people to be evil.

[xyberviri]

Great way to put it, and I agree with it all.
I think good acts can be harmful to someone if very very careful of how they are done. IE, pushing someone that is attacking another person, and holding them down so they cant fight anymore.

I think the KO system vs killing/murdering someone will play a big role in good vs evil. As will looting. Looting is a huge reward, and it should be a huge sway to the evil side, as is killing someone while you are the aggressor.
I fully agree that good acts should be greatly rewarded, there are many ways for this. (Faster healing, larger totem area, able to carry more weight etc) Which doesnt have to be + to combat stats or skills.
Evil should be punished also. IE, slower skill gain, or faster stat/skill loss. This will make evil be less wanted to be, because the rewards are already there. Making evil = to good plus able to do what they want will allow way to many people to be evil.

I don't agree with being good getting rewarded... Its not like i have to encourage you to do something good because your going to get some trinket or special ability, being good should bring in social rewards alone.

[MrDDT]

I don't agree with being good getting rewarded... Its not like i have to encourage you to do something good because your going to get some trinket or special ability, being good should bring in social rewards alone.

So you are ok with 90% people being evil 9% neutral and 1% good?
Because if you dont reward people for being good (or at least not punish them) then no one will be good but a few RPers