Evilness... Will there be ?

[Rob]

I like your train of thought, Stupidity, but I don't think that Respect Vs Fear could work, simply because that 1D way of looking at things doesn't sufficiently span human emotion space.

Good vs Evil relates to the protagonist. This 1D metric can work, because "good" is perceived as the opposite of "evil".

In contrast, Respect Vs Fear relates to the NPC's perception of the character, and is not an intrinsic property of the protagonist. Note also that respect is not the opposite of fear; it could be possible to both respect and fear someone, and vice versa. Also, there are other emotions that would play a part in addition to Respect and Fear, such as Anger, Hatred, Love, etc.

I too would like to see a system with more depth than simply Good Vs Evil. I would ideally like to see an array of different emotions, which will undoubtedly be correlated. Individual NPCs should have predispositions towards certain character traits (such as being friendly/unfriendly, cautious/welcoming, fearful/fearless etc), as well as specific feelings towards the character based on historical personal experience, which may include global perception (e.g. from word-of-mouth, or fame).

 

[Bibidibop]

There could be a two axis gauge of "goodness," or ethics, which measures lawful and righteous actions. Lawfulness would measure whether your actions have been within the law or not, as arbitrarily decided by local rulers, and righteousness could measure arbitrary socially accepted, but not necessarily legal, actions. This could give different combinations and different sorts of reputations with different classes of people.

Imagine being particularly righteous and unlawful, people would probably ask you to help with revenge plots. On the other hand, if you get suckered a lot, and kill the person the people and the law don't want dead, then you're just going to be hated, except by other criminals, and even they would be weary if you were too lacking in righteousness. If you were -100 on both axises, then you probably murder for fun. If you are a 100% righteous and lawful, then you would be a shiny golden god to everyone. Realistically, you would also probably be a truly sneaky bastard, or some sort of genius, since it should be possible to hide actions without witnesses.

Another system to throw in might be to make the axises both additive and capped. Petty theft would cap low, and killing people could cap at the highest. That way, if you were a compulsive thief of a billion empty purses you would never be as hated as a one time murderer.

 

[Baerke Hinn Gauzki]

Only the evil of THE DARK (Dolan) HELMET is truly to be considered evil. Only I wield the mighty Schwartz with the grip of an evil man.
MAY THE SCHWARTZ BE WITH ME.

 

[TigerBunnyHeart]

Rather than a Good vs Evil system how about Respect Vs Fear.
If you've rescued enough princesses and defended enough travelers you get respect. If you ride an undead horse and are a known casual genocider or necromancer people will fear you.
All players definitely shouldn't be treated equal though.

YUP! and I excited if it comes out.

 

[SergeDavid]

Evil lies in the heart of every man. Basing the world off the premise of good vs evil is a bad idea for this game as it is about options. Such a black and white list of values will hinder the scope of what can be done in the game and will flatten the interactions you have within it if it plays a key role. With a few exceptions you can't really call many people evil even though they do evil deeds. I prefer a system that uses deeds instead of intentions as a means to how people treat you.

If you slaughter a whole village I'm sure you'd rack up a few points on the "evil meter", however if that village was full of bandits or cannibals or something would that instead be "good points"? It all has to deal with the context of the individual's deeds in relation to the observers goals and morals. As a note I'm sure a bandit will probably think more highly(for lack of a better word) of you if you slaughter a village that he didn't care about.

 

[Aarius]

I think D&D's alignment system is fine for SG, but our avatar's character shouldn't be limited. I suggest something like faction's reputation with or better without basic good-evil meter. For example: bandits from south forest know us as the almighty warrior, because we cleaned a dangerous cave which lies near the camp. At the same time bandits from mountains heard about our actions. Some of them believe in stories, rest consider it a tales. Factions of course would have different level of gathering information. E.g. We helped people from several villages. Before the landlord will speak with us (about reward, joining to city militia or anything else), a few days pass.

Another idea:
If there will be good-evil meter, then too many changes in avatar's character would lead to madness. Some sort of graphics filter, random actions, time jumps.

 

[Bibidibop]

I would rather have no good/evil rating if it had to be universal, absolute measure. In that case, I think it would be better for NPC's to be ignorant of any reputation, and only carry on in accordance with direct interaction. That way, at the very least, if you killed every single person in a town for no apparent reason, you get to start over from scratch in a new town.

Now that I think about it, if there is any sort of reputation which can precede you it should probably be pretty limited. If you withhold your name it is going to be very unlikely anyone has any idea who you are, and without the printing press it is unlikely a face can precede you, or even much of a description. Lower classes are going to have next to no communication outside their towns, with only the wealthy and lords having the kind of communication to be knowledgeable about news. The printing press would change that a bit, news will still be slow.