Re: CF: Relations, races and gods

[David Sundqvist <>]

On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Mark Wedel wrote:
> 
>  This would obviously have to be done by setting up attributes in the object for
> a 'kill penalty'.  So this requires a lot of map updates.

Well, I dont think we should be afraid of that during this discussion,
since it's a where-we-want-to-go discussion. Some changes might require a 
total map remake, but if we wish to implement one such change we might as 
well have a clear goal of where we wish to go so we just have to do *one* 
such remake rather than several.

But this would not necessarily result in all objects having to set such
attributes, you could possibly set it in the map and let objects inherit
their faction alignment from the region common alignment. 
 
> > Well, IMO, ideally actual groups or 'factions' should be separated from
> > gods and race and be more flexible. The way I'd suggest it would work
> > would be that each faction has an initializer value against stereotypes,
> > which can be in a range from attack on sight (<50) through neutral (128)
> > to good friend (>200). Stereotypes would be religion, race and perhaps
> > class. The first time a player meets a member of a certain faction, an
> > invisible inventory item with the initializer value is set. For example, a
> > human priest of Gaea meets with an orc of The Orcs of Scorn. The Orcs of
> > Scorn faction has initializer relations with hatred for humans and Gaea,
> > and will attack on sight. If the same orc meets with an halforc warrior of
> > Gnarg, where they have only a dislike for halforcs and a liking for Gnarg,
> > then the orc might not attack unless attacked first. There could be a
> > forest orc faction that actually like Gaea, and if the same priest met one
> > of those, the liking for Gaea would balance out the hatred for humans and
> > they might just dislike the priest, but not attack.
> 
>  I think that might be overkill.  And it only really makes sense for
> interactions with players, as most monsters don't have gods and don't hav a use
> for gods.

Well, the primary use for monsters relation to gods would be to decide
their attitude towards players primarily. It currently would not make much
difference, but if we advance the game with politics and such, gods would
be one way to differentiate actions of townspeople in one city versus
townspeople of another city. A player worshipping Gaea would not be very
welcome in a city where Devourers is the primary worshipped god. This
could also be caused by differentiating the races of the different town,
if they're both human, but people of the same race having the same racial
attributes also has uses. 

For some atmosphere things it's also necessary to have a more detailed
distinction. For example, to make it possible to create more of a
permanent nastiness if you go around killing townspeople, each town or
region with some towns would have the same faction. So if you kill a
couple of decent upstanding citizens you'll get attacked by the guards and
some other townspeople. However, that should not result in a player being
unable to visit any town, so while they have the same race (which is part 
of controlling initial faction attitude towards the player), they would
have to have separate factions. 

Now, this doesnt mean we should implement it at once. However, if we do
make some changes we might as well extend support so far, since the
current system would also be implementable under a faction based system
(just add the same default faction to all maps or archetypes of a certain 
race).

>  Anything not a friend or enemy is treated as neutral.  the friends would
> actually refer to other races, as do the enemies.  the members would be what
> archetypes contain to the race.  In reality, the archetype itself should point
> to the right race definition.

Yes.
 
>  This starts to seem a bit more complicated.  In reality, god relations should
> not be affected much - I am presuming that both the player and monsters don't
> have things saying 'my god is XXX' pasted on their chest.  So if you run into
> some orcs, they would have no idea what your god is, and likewise you would have
> no idea what their god is.

Well, true, so it shouldnt affect it too much. On the other hand, a good
priest would know that his god takes a liking to certain creatures. This
could very well be part of easily accessible temple lore. Religion would
perhaps not have too much to do with the setting of initializing faction
regard of a player, but both religion and class as well as race would be
useful for plotlines and world development. For example, in current Navar
city, the guards state they do not like necromancy, thus they would not
view a Devourers priest in full attire with favour. 

Another thing is that hints (that would also improve atmosphere) could be
placed in both god and NPC behaviour. The player may get a message about
feeling uneasy about killing that orc, and NPC's could get added info in
conversation so they say a bit more by default and hint about how they 
feel about the player.

>  So god relations, if added at all, should be very indirect.  I think for
> simplicity, there isn't really any need to add god relations.  Since each god
> has some races related to it (and in face, to extend the race definition above,
> the race could also have an entry for the default god), I think it would
> probably be good enough to see what races the good is allied and an enemy with,
> look that up in the player structure (who is presumably the only one who will
> really care about relations), and adjust accordingly.  But this should really
> only be needed when dealing with relations of the god themselves.  A player in
> bad standing with the goblin guard is not likely to be able to easily convert. 
> And if you are in bad standing with your god, then the random benefits you get
> should be lower.

Well, players would primarily be the only ones who care about relations
since they'll be directly affected by them (since it would affect pricing
in stores, if people will talk to them, if someone will attack them, etc),
altho it might be interesting to have monsters affected by it too (a smart
player followed by a monster could run to the nearest guard and the guard
would kill the monster (this might be a bit too complicated tho, I dont
know if there's any code dealing with monsters attacking eachother at all 
yet, altho it might also be a practical balancing utility; it might
allow simulation where you can place enemies on a map together and get
a fair hint of how difficult they'll be compared to other monsters)). 

/David
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to ]