Giantevilhead

Except everyone wants the game to cater to their own personal tastes. There are topics about how the portrayal of intelligent evil characters, realistic medieval combat, moral ambiguity, metaphysics, political intrigue, etc. Half of those ideas can be perceived as pet socio-political issues.

I'd like to see the introduction of game mechanics based on temperament/disposition/personality that's similar to a morality system. So instead of good vs. evil/order vs. chaos, you have impulsive vs. patient, vengeful vs. forgiving, prideful vs. modest, etc. And this would affect many different factors in the game from the way your character perceives things, the skills you learn, magic, etc. For example, if you always pick the aggressive or impulsive choices then over time, you'll begin to see encounters as being urgent and NPC's as being more confrontational. On the other hand, if you always pick the patient or methodical choices then over time, you'll notice more details in all your interactions, you might even begin to draw connections between unrelated things almost to the point of paranoia. Your character will also start getting a reputation for having a certain temperament so that other characters will interact with you differently. For example, if you have a reputation for being forgiving then some NPC's might try to take advantage of that but if you have a reputation for being vengeful then those NPC's would try not to piss you off. The system would also affect combat as different temperaments could affect how easily you can learn certain fighting styles or magical schools/spells. More lethal fighting moves might be easier to learn for characters who are ruthless while more peaceful characters might have an easier learning fighting moves that incapacitate opponents. Aggressive mages would be able to cast powerful but draining spells more effectively while patient mages would be able to cast spells with long term effects more effectively.

Obvious red shirts - Of course there has to be expendable characters in a game like this but it shouldn't be obvious. There shouldn't be any situations where you just know that a character is going to die to show how serious the situation is or how evil the bad guy is. Unprepared NPC's - You cast buffs on your characters and have them drink potions before combat, NPC's, both allies and enemies, should do the same. Inappropriate reactions from NPC's - NPC's should not always treat your characters like they're level 1 adventurers. How others interact with the PC should depend on their reputation and their level. When the PC has reached epic levels and is equipped with godly weapons and armor, NPC's should treat the PC with more respect and maybe even awe. Low level bandits should not be stupid enough to try to rob a high level PC. If your PC is evil and has a reputation for being ruthless and cruel, NPC's should not just stand there and talk with you like nothing's wrong, they should cower in fear, hide in their homes, and flee for their lives.

Paul Anthony Romero is a great composer, another example : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anoc67QPMaQ&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkQyQzzhft0&feature=relmfu Actually, the Might and Magic franchise has two composers, Paul Romero and Rob King. In fact, Rob King's music is used in a lot of different places.

I think you have to take the fantasy elements into consideration. Sure, it's difficult for a normal human to lug around a large shield but what about someone with 5 times the strength of a normal human or shields that are made of some kind of super light magical alloy?

Complex issues are generally very layered. Take the sweatshop example. Everything you mentioned was true. However, there is also the fact that the people who run those sweatshops do not want conditions to improve. If the sweatshop workers are no longer desperate, if they have other employment opportunities and a way out of poverty, they'll either leave the sweatshops or they'll want pay raises and better working conditions. It is in the interest of the sweatshop owners to ensure that the people have no where else to turn but the sweatshops. So they collude with the governments to ensure that the conditions remain bad enough so that people would always be desperate enough to work in sweatshops. Then there's the people who buy the products of the sweatshops. Everyone wants prices to be as low as possible but then there are also a lot of people can only afford to buy the cheapest products. That is the incentive for the companies to keep the sweatshops running and conditions bad enough so that there would always be people desperate enough to work in those sweatshops. At the same time, companies that don't use sweatshops can't compete with the low prices of the companies that do use sweatshops so either they go out of business or they have to start using sweatshops too. That's still a very simplistic description of the problem and there are many other factors involved. So not only do you have to look at the main problem, you have to look at the conditions that caused the big problem, the additional conditions that led up to those conditions that caused the problem, and so on. A true solution would then have to be very broad, tackle dozens of different issues, and take a lot of different factors and potential obstacles into consideration.

Great, then you'll volunteer as a subject then! You're missing the point. That some people have a big enough ego to think that they can play with human life. I've heard the same argument before under it's previous guise of "let's use the homeless for something useful". It is the same elitist bullcrap belief that life should be measured differently by birth rather than actions, because that justifies the fact that the elite are born into wealth without really deserving it. It's self satisfaction at its worst. But the fact is that we're already active participants in this kind of thing and it's not even done for some greater purpose like finding cures for diseases or research into new sources of energy. It's being done for the sake of convenience and comfort. Ever heard of sweatshops, blood diamonds, e-dumps, etc.? A lot of the things we buy are made sweatshops around the world. A lot of the computers and gadgets we use every day have precious metals in them that were mined by people working in brutal conditions without adequate safety precautions or medical insurance in case of accidents. The electronics we throw away end up in giant dumps in Asia and Africa where they pollute the water. We buy oil from sadistic dictators who use the money to ensure the supremacy of their state without regards to the rights of their people.

"The time is always right to do what’s right." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Ahh..but you see, when it comes to other topics you mention, no one is basicly trying to guilt trip you or implie oyu are bad/backward/ignorant and what have you. It is normal to want things you like in a game...well, within sense. Sometimes ones prefernces don't mesh well with what is known about the game, so pushing your agenda then is being extreemly self-centered. Otherwise? No problem wiht desires. The problem arises when it's no anymore about posting a desire and more about making political speeches. But who is doing that? Whenever a topic like this pops up, you immediately have reactionaries complaining about them and saying dumb things like "I want misogynists, racists, and gay bashers represented too!" After that, it's just people trying to explain why they want these kinds of subjects in the game. And you can't explain why sexism or racism or anti-gay attitudes are bad without making some references to the people who perpetrate those attitudes. That is not trying to guilt the developers into including these kinds of subjects in the game, that is simply explaining to the people who don't understand why there should be greater representation of women, minorities, and LGBT communities. I frankly think that specificy segregating and makring something is jsut as racists as ignorign it. There is no "white history" and "black history". There is only human history. And some regions have a well documented history, some don't. Same have a dominanat populace who naturally made most of the history of that area. The point is not to specifically segregate but to give greater representation and voice to those who have historically been excluded or diminished.

They don't discus much about how discrimination against different nationalities, cultures, religions of 'white men' there is by various 'white men'. Lumping a very diverse group together was one of the dumbest things government has done. Especially since there has been so much hate and violence among them. EDIT: bah... I should stop trying to form arguments and type while I have sleepy head. Except that's rarely if ever how the argument has been framed. Because we want entertainment, not political propaganda. Except it's only political propaganda because you disagree with it and therefore see it as political propaganda. It's like all those people who say that Harry Potter and Dungeons and Dragons are trying teach kids to be devil worshipers.

Great, then you'll volunteer as a subject then! You're missing the point. ... thatis pretty much what evil is. Not necessarily. For example, we have rules governing scientific and medical research that can potentially hinder progress. We can't perform experiments on humans. If we want to test drugs on humans, we have to go through a lot of testing on animals to ensure that it's safe. All that can slow down how quickly we develop cures and treatments for diseases. If we were not constrained by ethics or morality, and we performed experimentation on humans, we can potentially save many more lives than are lost. Or you could porentially cause even greater suffering. Anything has the potential to cause greater harm. Research in nuclear physics gave us nuclear power but it also led to the atomic bomb. Research in genetics and biotechnology leads to cures for diseases but it also allows for the creation of super viruses and other forms of biological weapons. It's a matter of weighing the potential costs vs. the potential benefits. Doing certain unethical things has the potential of doing a lot good. If let's say that performing medical experiments on humans has the potential to cure a disease much sooner than if you do it the "right way," and can save millions of lives, would you do it?

For all the people saying that they don't want this kind of thing in "fantasy" or a "game," why not? Why is OK for entertainment and games to deal with other issues of politics, culture, philosophy, and science but this subject is excluded? And why are you against the people who are pushing for this subject to be included in the games? When someone starts topic about wanting to include issues of ethics, metaphysics, different cultures in the world, the nature of a man, etc., in the game, no one goes in there and says, "stop pushing your agenda on the developers, let them put what they want in the game." No one in this topic is forcing the developers to do anything, any more than the people in the topic about how they want intelligent evil choices are forcing the developers to implement those ideas. And it's easy to be OK with the status quo when you aren't being negatively affected. Privileged people have the erroneous belief that everyone has those same privileges and that attempts to achieve greater equality are attempts to gain an unfair advantage over them. It's just like when white men in America complain about how there's a Black History Month and a Women History Month and a Hispanic History Month, etc. but there's no White Men History Month. They simply don't see that the society itself constantly celebrates the achievements of white men and that the history of America being taught in schools focuses mainly on the history of white men.

... thatis pretty much what evil is. Not necessarily. For example, we have rules governing scientific and medical research that can potentially hinder progress. We can't perform experiments on humans. If we want to test drugs on humans, we have to go through a lot of testing on animals to ensure that it's safe. All that can slow down how quickly we develop cures and treatments for diseases. If we were not constrained by ethics or morality, and we performed experimentation on humans, we can potentially save many more lives than are lost.

The problem is not the tropes but the lack of representation beyond the tropes. For example, let's say that there are ten Chinese characters in a story and nine of them are evil. Even if all those characters are well written and fully realized, the main representation of Chinese people in the story is that they're evil. Now let's say that there are 100 Caucasian characters in that same story and twenty of them are evil. Even though there are more evil Caucasian characters, it's not as bad due to the fact that Caucasians in other roles get a lot more representation. You can have those tropes as long as you have adequate representation of other roles. You can have damsels in distress and evil temptresses and other tropes, as long as they don't constitute a big percentage of all women in the game. Just like how you can have male stereotypes like dumb jocks and sexless nerds and evil rapists as long as they don't constitute a big percentage of all male characters.

I don't think approaching it as "evil" is necessarily the right way to do it. I think it should be more about having an ambition that is unbound by empathy, compassion, ethics, or morality. That ambition could be based on anything, it can come from a desire for personal gain, to destroy an enemy, to make one's nation strong, to create an empire of unrivaled power, or even to advance a philosophy for the entire world. For example, someone who believes that their nation has become weak and corrupt could orchestrate a war against their own people. And through this war, they could reveal the weakness and hypocrisy of the nation's leaders and seize control. They could then shape the culture to become more ruthless and unrelenting.

The way that souls work does open up some interesting dilemmas about the nature of choice and free will. How is free will defined in this world? Is it defined as someone being able to do whatever is within their capabilities? Is choice tied to free will? A person who is blind does not have the choice to see but we still consider them to have the same amount of free will as someone who is not blind. However, with souls, it's a possible constraint on what someone is capable of beyond their physical limitations. Does someone with a weak soul simply not have the ability to make certain decisions even if their body is perfectly capable of realizing that decision. If so, does someone with a stronger soul have more "free will" than someone with a weaker soul?

The way souls are described sounds kind of like bloodlines in Vampire: The Masquerade.

I think the problem with those kinds of gods is that they get boring and you can't really take them seriously after a while. If Eternity has sequels, I think people are going get tired of gods who only go around throwing temper tantrums like spoiled children.

What kind of gods would you like to see in Eternity? Do you want them to be like the Greek Gods? Where they're more like constant, unchanging forces that exist more as obstacles for the heroes or driving force behind conflicts rather than fully realized characters. For example, there are dozens of myths about Zeus's bastard children and Hera trying to kill them, but Zeus and Hera are essentially the same in all those stories. They never learn from their mistakes, they don't try to correct their flaws, they never really change. Or do you want them to be more nuanced and deep like the ones in a lot of modern day fantasies like Dungeons and Dragons? Where they're more aware of their own flaws, have some common sense, and are somewhat savvy about what they are. For example, like how Bhaal and Myrkul were aware of their own weaknesses and they knew about the loopholes in the divine rules so they try to game the system. Or do you want some other kind of gods?

If the soul is like the chi/qi in Chinese mysticism or the Force in Star Wars then there's no reason why warriors can create magic/spell like effects.

If they do introduce insanity then it should not be obvious. It should manifest as changes in the character's perception. For example, if your character is becoming paranoid, then there may be extra descriptions in dialogue or encounters and certain patterns may emerge. Like if you have an encounter with a group of bandits, there might be an extra line of description about how the bandit leader seems to be carrying a dagger that looks a lot like the one you saw a city guard carry. When you meet a new character, there might be an extra line saying that the person looks familiar to you. You may notice your companions talking to strangers or meeting amongst themselves more often. There could be all these little clues and hints that seem to be leading to some quest or suggests that your companion is plotting against you.

I think the problem here is that no one has articulated the reason why there should be LGBT representation, or representation for minorities and women as well. Lack of representation is not a sign of active repression. A story that has no women is not necessarily sexist, a story without minorities is not necessarily racist, and a story without LGBT is not necessarily anti-gay. The problem is that it creates a culture of exclusion. There is nothing wrong with a story where all the important characters are male or white or straight. However, what happens when 99% of all stories have only important male characters or white characters or straight characters with no representation for women, minorities, or LGBT. None of those stories may be racist or sexist or anti-gay, but a complete lack of representation marginalizes all those people. Even though the stories themselves may have no prejudices or animosity towards anyone, the culture you create is one that says the experiences and struggles of these people are not significant or worth exploring. There is also the problem of how those groups are represented. Let's say that there are ten gay characters in a fictional universe and nine of them are evil. Even if all those characters are well written and fully realized, the implications of having 90% of all gay character be bad guys isn't good. Now let's say that there are 100 straight characters in that same universe and twenty of them are evil. Even though there are more evil straight characters, it's not as bad due to the fact that it only constitutes 20% of the total number of straight characters.

But we put values on human life even when we're not in dire situations. When someone has a child, they don't spend their entire life saving to ensure that nothing bad will ever happen to the child. They don't put armor plating on their car to make sure that their child can't get hurt in an accident. They don't hire an army of mercenaries to guard to house to ensure that no robber can get into the house. They don't build a laboratory to analyze their food to make sure that it's 100% safe. It's not something that we do consciously but it's something that we do.

There should be a feature that lets you choose characters to stand watch during rest. You can either pick one character to stand watch the entire time or you can switch characters every hour. The characters who stand watch are less rested. The character standing watch will also influence the chances of a random encounter and whether or not you are surprised by the random encounter. If the character standing watch has good perception or survival skills, they may be able to scare away a wandering monster or wake the party up before they are attacked. If the character has poor perception/survival skills or if you don't pick someone to stand watch, the wandering monster could get in several free attacks before your party wakes up. There would also be spells and special items that can do the job of a watchman.

There is in fact a series of fantasy novels that explores that very possibility as a major theme. I wonder if any of the writers have read it. I would assume that's how a lot of lawful gods in D&D judge their worshipers.