[MUD-Dev] Re: evil - good realism
Thu Oct 22 01:33:13 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998
From: Wilburn, E.J. <WilburnE at kochind.com> on Wednesday, October 21, 1998 at
Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: evil - good realism
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vladimir Prelovac [SMTP:tomcat at galeb.etf.bg.ac.yu]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 12:25 PM
>> or use that item). And the other way around. For reality's sake, I would
>> certainly prohibit good people killing good people, and evil killing evil,
>> forcing the war between good and evil. Thats nice. But most of the things
>> good players would then get would have !GOOD flag on it! And the other way
>> around. How ironic!
>> any thoughts?
>First I'd say restricting good players from killing good is not realistic.
>You're assuming that a player, once good, is always good. Good people
>should be able to attack/harm good people it would just cause them to swing
>towards the Evil side. (However quickly, maybe one murder would instantly
>make them evil). Also, evil killing evil from everything I've ever read is
>a fairly common occurence. There is no honor amoung thieves. I suppose if
>you changed it from Good vs. Evil to Human vs. Dwarf that would be
What? You jest! Good killing makes you evil? Nay, say it isn't so, for
everyone must agree the Crusaders were in the right! (Unless you're on
the recieving end ;) And we must not forget all of those people that
bomb abortion clinics. Oh, for sure, they are doing good!
It is my belief that for a great deal of it, good and evil is more of
a "view". Something is only evil if those around you and/or on the
recieving end view it as so. (Take the crusades, and the freaks that
bomb buildings.) Perhaps your method of asigning good and evil should
take into account your peers before adjusting the good/evil-ness.
Or rather, it seems like it would fit better into something like:
Then either keep track of the members of each group. (Make a small
group that is your close friends, the more you stick together it
could + your number with them, or whatever. (Then, Boffo, who is
in your "friend group" could:
% secretly loath Biff
Your view of Biff has decreased dramatically.
Or something like that. Biff would still think that Boffo liked
him, but Boffo would know that he hates Biff, and thus, the more
he's around Biff his "biff number" would decrease (go towards the
>As for !GOOD and !EVIL flags on items generally you would want to limit the
>use of those to special equipment. A Great Sword (be it from a Templar,
>Paladin, Dark Knight or what-have-you) is a great sword. If it has no magic
>generally there would be no alignment. A soul stealer sword would probably
>be !GOOD though and a Holy Great Sword would probalby be !EVIL. When
>designing equipment try to think to yourself, "Does this flag make sense?
>Why _couldn't_ a good/evil player use this?".
>WilburnE at Kochind.com
Nod. I think of it as "intellegent weapons" in AD&D and or the items
magical alliance. (If the item was embedded with a strong magical
effect from someone that is "evil", it picks up some of that essence,
thus making it evil.) (Or, if it posesses its own intellegence, then
it has its own view of good/evil.)
More information about the MUD-Dev