One of the other threads got me thinking about this.

So, it's a cliche, yeah, but IMO it's a good one. The simple idea of "good vs. evil" is great at giving the feel of grand, sweeping, epic. In a good vs. evil battle, you know that what's going on has cosmic significance. Nothing mundane here, this is good vs. evil baby, and all our lives, maybe the existence of the universe, depends on the outcome.

The trick is, you have to do it with finess. If the cliche is seen for what it is, it seems heavy handed and boring. Ho hum, the dark stranger and the upstanding sherriff have their showdown at high noon... again.

So, I want some advice on how to be subtle about cosmic balance. Keep that in mind as you read. :)

I have a sort of a vague idea for a game, based on the previous, and on the idea of Paladins vs. Dark Knights.

Clinton gave us some mechanics for a game along these lines, but I'm fishing for setting ideas here. Here are the things I'm thinking about:

The foundational idea of the game is as follows: Dark power can be acquired easily, but the cost for such power takes the form of mental or physical deterioration, meaning that using the dark power is equivalent to self-destruction. Light power is very difficult to acquire, but is constructive, rather than destructive.

The fate of the universe can't be decided exclusively by Paladins and Dark Knights fighting each other... otherwise the war would have been decided long ago. Rather, the war must be won in some medium that neither side can directly control, but both can influence. I'm thinking that "the physical world" makes the most sense for this medium, but I'd like to hear any other ideas that are out there. Feel free to throw anything out, regardless of how bizarre. :)

For my taste, such a setting needs a mythic, arcane feeling. I think that will rule out a modern day setting. To me, the mundane elements in a modern day setting really get in the way of the sense of mystery and greatness that I'm looking for. I guess it can be done, but I don't think it's a natural marriage. So, I'm looking at a historical setting, or at a completely fictional construction.

I think the most important issue - central to the game - is how the upside and downside [1] powers actually work. What are they called in the game world? I'd like to stay way from just calling it "magic" or "Force." Something more exotic would be cool.

[1] Ironic nod to Spaceballs, which seems appropriate considering the circumstances! :)

So, how does this strike you? Any specific comments? Does it spark off any paralell / compatible ideas?

Note: Yes, there is a lot of Star Wars inspiration in here, but I want it to stop there, at inspiration. I'd like to get away from a lot of the cheesyness that Lucas has injected into the franchise over the years, and come up with something serious. To me, Star Wars at its core is Space Opera. That's what it's about. What I'd like to do here is extract one of the components of Star Wars - an element I find cool - and make it the focus of it's own setting. So, instead of having a setting that's about space cowboys with interstellar horses and laser guns, I'll have a serious setting that's about the corruption of power in the war between good and evil, whatever color trappings I come up with to hang on it.

My opinion is that Dioblo should never meet Star Wars, which this sounds like. You'll find that overcoming "cheesiness" is more difficult than it sounds. You must give us more of an idea than what you have. What is it centralised around, entities, or people? What is actually in conflict? Is it a battle for power, territory or people? How will physical reality be involved?

I see an alternate yet simutaneous reality (a world of dark fantasy) laid over top of a modern day setting. I'll try and explain.

The two realities would be seperate but intimately linked. An action in one reality could have an effect on the other. "Paladins and dark knights" would be aware of both realities and their war would wage across both of them.

People and places in the dark fantasy reality would take on physical aspects of how good or evil they were in the "real world." An accountant who beats his wife, kills the neighbors cat, and is generally shit as far as human decency goes would actually appear trollish in the other reality. A place where people sacrificed themselves to save others might be a sanctuary in the other realm, a place where evil couldn't enter. When you have someone who is at an extreme end of the "good/evil" spectrum their appearance in the other realm would become much more pronounced. I see the other realm as a very dream-like place, where geography can change abruptly and be very extreme in nature; lakes of molten glass, mystical forests that are bigger on the inside than the outside, roads that lead nowhere, and places where if you step sideways at the right time of day you may find yourself somewhere totally unexpected.

There is a line of fantasy books (can't remember the name) where the main characters exist in two worlds at once. When the characters go to sleep in one reality they wake up in the other. If a character gets knocked unconscious in the real world he immediately wakes up in the fantasy world. That seems appropriate to the setting I'm imagining.

A paladin in the real world might be paralyzed from the neck down but in the other world be an ass-kicking archon of righteous vengeance. Ofcourse if your enemies find out who you are in the real world they just might pay you a visit there, where you are probably less capable of defending yourself, or protecting your family.

Hmm, how to handle death. Killing in the real world certainly has conseqeunces that would make taking out the bad guys difficult. Maybe evil has to be destroyed in both worlds. If killed in the fantasy realm maybe you're only banished from there for a certain period of time (for some reason or another) and if you're only killed in the real world you actually become stronger in the fantasy world and can still wreak havoc by affecting the real world through your actions in the fantasy realm.

Normal people would only be aware of the reality they were in at any particular time. They would most likely not remember anything from the reality they go to when they sleep. If these normal people are hurt or tortured in the fantasy world this might carry over to the real world as making them more open to do evil deeds, lie, cheat, steal, just not give a damn, etc.

Some random thoughts (as if the post hasn't been rambly enough so far). Maybe people who are sufficiently neutral don't appear in the fantasy world, or maybe they show up as fairy creatures or something. What would whales look like in the other realm?; powerful guardians of good?

Well, hope you can dredge something of use from that mess.

-Chris

Hm. I have the beginnings of an idea that might be along the lines of what you're looking for, Paganini.

Your first post brought back a book I read a while ago, called Prince Ombra. I don't remember who it was by, as I just sort of happened upon it, but your idea brings it back in sharp relief.

The basic story was that the battle between Good and Evil had been going on forever... but quite specifically between two entities, souls, even. Prince Ombra was one, he/she/it was the Evil which had to be defeated, or else the evil in the world would grow stronger in the interlude before the next battle. The other was a mortal soul, born with no special power or gift except the knowledge of this struggle. It was put very picturesquely that baby souls, when born, were touched upon the lip by an angel, which told them to not remember what they knew before birth.. But that this one child was not so touched, and so did not have the divot in the lip that most people have. This child grew up with the knowledge of the battle to come. That was his or her only weapon.

It had that Arthur was one such child, and that Modred was the incarnation of Ombra.. In that battle, Ombra won, despite that Arthur killed Modred in the same blow. David and Goliath were also the smooth-lipped child and Ombra. Every major conflict between two heroes of legend was a battle between Good and Evil.

Okay, so before I ramble totally out of point, let me get back on track..

Premise: You were born with the knowledge of the true battle of Good and Evil, and thereby are one of the only people who can fight the battle.

Take this knowledge, plus all of the knowledge we lose as children (belief in magic, faeries and legend, etc.) the ability to consciously effect the "dream world" or whatever that Thickenergy was describing..

Anyhow, that's where my rave burns out. Maybe I've said something that strikes a chord in you, and if so, great. If not.. Well, I tried.

Nathan,

I think it's time for you to provide something more concrete to discuss, regarding this game idea. So far, you're perilously close to, "I have this notion, please give me lots of ideas to incorporate in my game." If you keep that up, the only response anyone can give you is, "Write it yourself."

Best,
Ron

Pyron wrote: You'll find that overcoming "cheesiness" is more difficult than it sounds.

Thickenergy-

I think the books you are talking about are the Thomas Covenant chronicles.

-Aaron

(P.S. - it's not like thispost was extremely enlightening, but it adds to my number.)

Well, Ron, I've actually got a couple of different ideas, but I can't make up my mind about them. I was hoping ideas from other posters would kind of spark me in the right direction. :)

The first idea I had was to do an actual science-fantasy setting. I like this idea, but I'm afraid it would be percieved as too Star Wars derivative, since Lucas has really been leaning in a Science Fantasy direction with the new movies.

Anyway, the idea was a universe with futuristic technology, not neccessarily provided by science. So there could be travel between worlds, but not neccesarily by star-ships. The old staple of "portals" would probably work fine. The warriors for good / evil would travel the universe attempting to sway the balance in favor of their side. Of course, this would be done by trying to create living conditions in keeping with the Code of each side. Frex, the good side would try to establish peace and harmony, while the evil side would sow tyrrany and destruction.

The second idea I had was to create an Oriental-based, yet fictional, setting. The problem with this is that there are already quite a few oriental settings out there, and I can see people grabbing the game and going "Oh, just another hong kong game. Blah." without even really looking at it.

The oriental setting seems to work well with the goal of providing a mything and mysterious feel, since the eastern martial arts and cultures have a sort of arcane appeal to western audiences. Also, you've got several warrior cultures right there to draw from when creating the good vs. evil sides. It seems like this could easily turn into just another light chi vs. dark chi style game, though, and I wouldn't want that.

And then there's the idea from Thickenergy and Wolfen. I really like the idea of a mirror world that reflects the spiritual condition of the physical world. Going back and forth is problematic, though. I don't really like the idea of dreaming in and out. It raises a lot of continuity problems. (Frex, what happens if you're asleep in the mirror world and you're attacked? If you wake up in the mirror world, do you immediately nod off in the physical world?)

Also, it's a bit difficult to fit in the power acquisition theme, and the holy warrior theme, which is what I want to be central. It seems like the dreamworld, and traveling between the two worlds, would become the theme of the game, rather than the fight.

Paganini wrote:

And then there's the idea from Thickenergy and Wolfen. I really like the idea of a mirror world that reflects the spiritual condition of the physical world. Going back and forth is problematic, though. I don't really like the idea of dreaming in and out. It raises a lot of continuity problems. (Frex, what happens if you're asleep in the mirror world and you're attacked? If you wake up in the mirror world, do you immediately nod off in the physical world?)

Have the evil manifest itself as disease, violence, etc. in the physical world, while it has a solid shape and form in the dream world. Dreaming, you can catch a glimpse of this evil, but to confront it you need to physicaly enter this realm. Characters jump into the dream world to do battle. While the dream world can messed up during these conflicts, the physical world only sees minor or subtle effects of this.

Paganini wrote: So, it's a cliche, yeah, but IMO it's a good one. The simple idea of "good vs. evil" is great at giving the feel of grand, sweeping, epic. In a good vs. evil battle, you know that what's going on has cosmic significance. Nothing mundane here, this is good vs. evil baby, and all our lives, maybe the existence of the universe, depends on the outcome.

...So, I want some advice on how to be subtle about cosmic balance. Keep that in mind as you read. :)

...The foundational idea of the game is as follows: Dark power can be acquired easily, but the cost for such power takes the form of mental or physical deterioration, meaning that using the dark power is equivalent to self-destruction. Light power is very difficult to acquire, but is constructive, rather than destructive.

...I'll have a serious setting that's about the corruption of power in the war between good and evil, whatever color trappings I come up with to hang on it.

You make a lot of weird assumptions and leaps of logic in there, Fang. For example, if I wanted to characterize orcs as evil for a game, then hell yes, orcs would be evil to their children. I think that humans are often evil to their children, so it's really not much of a stretch. Or are you going to argue that if it's culturally acceptable to abuse your children then it's not evil?

If a designer says that there are long-term evil organizations, I can buy into it. Just like I can buy into magic. I don't see the problem. Yes, Evil is problematic in the Real World, there's no Dark side of the Force in the Real World. There is in the Star Wars universe, however.

Too simplistic for your complex mind, Fang? I feel for you, man.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: You make a lot of weird assumptions and leaps of logic in there, Fang. For example, if I wanted to characterize orcs as evil for a game, then hell yes, orcs would be evil to their children. I think that humans are often evil to their children, so it's really not much of a stretch. Or are you going to argue that if it's culturally acceptable to abuse your children then it's not evil?

If a designer says that there are long-term evil organizations, I can buy into it. Just like I can buy into magic. I don't see the problem. Yes, Evil is problematic in the Real World, there's no Dark side of the Force in the Real World. There is in the Star Wars universe, however.

Fang got there before me and made some good points. What are "good" and "evil", really? In the real world they're generally social or political labels. For instance, "evil" is applied to people whose behaviour is so outside acceptable standards that we feel the need to distance ourselves from it. It's also applied to behaviour that breaks the rules of (insert religion of choice), even if those seem arbitary. I don't like the terms, because I don't think they refer to anything useful. I prefer "help" and "harm", for instance. However, we're not talking about the real world.

In children's TV shows, "good" and "evil" refer to powerful combinations of political allegiance and personal identity. These are things you ARE, and everyone in the setting accepts them as meaningful. They can make for exciting stories. But they always seem odd, because this version of good/evil doesn't connect with real world experience for a lot of us. (If your personal worldview includes supernatural entities driving good and evil, it'll be easier.)

It links with the point, often made, that people don't set out to "be evil" (excepting cases of psychological disorder). People have certain goals and pursue them in certain ways. They become "evil" with reference to the standards of some other person or group. The most common version, I guess, is that "good" people hold fast to standards of behaviour regarded as virtuous, and "evil" people disregard those standards altogether. (That applies pretty well to the portrayal of the Force.) Most people fall in between. If this is accurate, it would be nonsensical to say that orcs are evil to their children.

This is rambling - let's go for a point. Who decides what is "good" and what is "evil"?

Also, be careful with "evil" knights gradually destroying themselves - the "good guys" might argue that they just have to wait them out. Also, what about long-term consequences for being "good"? If the consequences for evil are social, eg hard to get followers, you can certainly apply some to the other side too. Most people find it hard to have everyday dealings with people who adhere rigidly to virtuous principles. It can make it harder to get things done (lack of compromise). It can make them uncomfortable. Henchmen might be held to standards they can't live with, and leave. If there are metaphysical consequences too, "good" characters might grow further away from "ordinary" humanity. Maybe exemplars of the two sides eventually become metaphysical entities like angels and devils.


EDITINESS: Being "good" should be HARD. Because it is. If it's all, "Look at that guy over there, his face is melting and he smells bad, but everybody loves ME!", then it's not a proper struggle. So as well as (or as part of) defining what G&E are, you need to look at why people pursue them. How did they get into this? Many games and fictions have characters fall into the Actual Way Things Are by accident. This might work here if they're acolytes of some kind, but to be real movers it needs to come fairly deliberately from something inside them.

You could use a sort of RL war parallel. Bright young things sign up, attracted by the white robes and adulation, and gradually find the expectations of their new station eating their lives. This could be magnified if instead of keeping it all abstract there's a Good Organisation with rules that have developed from central principles, like RL religions. "What do you mean I can't smoke Squelfish? What's wrong with that?" "To cut your hair is to surrender to the Dark Side!" Etc.

Tim Gray wrote: Fang got there before me and made some good points. What are "good" and "evil", really? In the real world they're generally social or political labels.

...However, we're not talking about the real world.

...The most common version, I guess, is that "good" people hold fast to standards of behaviour regarded as virtuous, and "evil" people disregard those standards altogether.


Most people fall in between.


...Also, what about long-term consequences for being "good"?

...Most people find it hard to have everyday dealings with people who adhere rigidly to virtuous principles.


Being "good" should be HARD. Because it is.

good (with a little "g") - doing what you do without hurting anyone; getting along

Virtue is based on anything that helps the group (as opposed to strictly helping everybody - outsiders might be helped, but that seems irrelevant).

Tim Gray wrote:
This is rambling - let's go for a point. Who decides what is "good" and what is "evil"?

Le Joueur wrote: To sum it up, there is no 'overriding evil' in the Star Wars universe; 'The Dark Side' is not out to get anybody. In that realm, evil is the product of man's ambition. Now other posts have implied wholly different brands of evil and I just wanted to say that Nathan would be well-served to focus on what kind was desired for his game first.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: To sum it up, there is no 'overriding evil' in the Star Wars universe; 'The Dark Side' is not out to get anybody. In that realm, evil is the product of man's ambition. Now other posts have implied wholly different brands of evil and I just wanted to say that Nathan would be well-served to focus on what kind was desired for his game first.

No overriding evil in Star Wars? Certainly the "Dark Side" is just a metaphor as with everything else in Star Wars, but, in RL, ambition does not enable you to fling things through the air with a wave of your hand. Star Wars proposes an objective Force that is only obtained through giving in to evil impulses. Sounds evil to me. Anyway, I buy into it.

Apparently there is a point at which your disbelief suspenders are snapped by certain portrayals of Evil. I am simply pointing out that you are finding fault where I believe there is none. In every game that I have read where there are Evil Orcs, there is a statement about how they are so evil, and usually some description about them being brutal, etc, something that explains why they are considered evil. Where is the missing part about what the evil is? If I say there is an objective evil in my game world that is long term and out to get someone, that's not enough? Nathan's idea isn't well fleshed out, but it makes total sense to me as far as it's been described. Your suggestion that he not take that rout is what I object to.

Tim Gray wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: good (with a little "g") - doing what you do without hurting anyone; getting along

No, that's not anything at all. The labels are of most use when applied to thought-and-action that is notable in some way.

Tim Gray wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Virtue is based on anything that helps the group (as opposed to strictly helping everybody - outsiders might be helped, but that seems irrelevant).

That's debatable too. Hospitality to strangers has often been thought a major virtue. Destroying the group's entire belief system and/or way of life could be virtuous, harming its short-term interests to improve it in the longer term. It's not as simple as you paint it, and possibly not even accurate. It may well be that "what serves the common good" coincides with virtue, but that doesn't mean one derives from the other. "Good" is not completely described by utilitarianism.

Hey,

Scuse me, but Mike and Fang, you two are well over the personal-line in this discussion. C'mon, the point here is to help Nathan, not to see whose hard-on is bigger.

You'll help Nathan best by articulating how you think good and evil are best represented in role-playing design, or conversely ways which have fallen flat. Period. Who's making the most sense is Nathan's choice relative to his goals for the game. Since those goals are, to say the least, vague, that means no one else can even guess which concept/paradigm is going to fly best for him.

Just make yourselves clear to him, get feedback regarding that clarity, and quit talkin' to each other about it. Any debate you two have in this regard is irrelevant, and the way you're going about it is descending rapidly into a bad place.

Best,
Ron

My apollogies if the tone was somehow over the line. Just a subject I feel pasionate about.

Mike

Well, for my money the concept of good and evil as abstract metaphysical entities is too weak to fly in any circumstance. Take star wars again - is the degree of stoic self-denial described by the jedi in fact virtuous? Could not the criticism be made that they are disappearing up their own fundaments, and that true enlightenment arises from commiting wholly and with the heart? I'm not going to go too far down this path 'cos the bad jedi are obviously made as bad jedi, but as soon as you get players examining your conceptual system from the inside the seams are going to start to show. Any definition of good can be warped in such a way that if you look at it from the right perspective, almost any behaviour can be rationalised as good. IMO as soon as you start tryonig to think about NPC's coherently, to get inside their heads and make them real people,m concepts of good and evil get the chuck - people almost never self-identify as evil, and the rare exceptions are almost certainly IMO a psychological disorder. I think abstract good and evil can only work in one of two ways: as uncritical "us vs. them", as in He-Man, or as the orverriding premise, a thesis of "what is good", or more accurately, "this is good". Neither IMO are conducive to interesting characterisation.

contracycle wrote: I think abstract good and evil can only work in one of two ways: as uncritical "us vs. them", as in He-Man, or as the orverriding premise, a thesis of "what is good", or more accurately, "this is good". Neither IMO are conducive to interesting characterisation.

Fang said:
If you think 'being nice' and not causing problems is "not anything at all," woe betides a society of people like you. (Is it getting grim in here or is it just me; this is supposed to be humorous.)

Tim,

Exactly. My initial concern with Nathan's vagueness is justified. Without topical focus, discussion becomes occasionally-insightful maundering and an arena for rivalry.

This thread is closed unless Nathan chimes in with some concrete design concern for his game. Everyone else, please do not post unless this happens.

Best,
Ron

Tim Gray wrote: Fang, You've got it backwards. I was assuming that just getting along without harming each other was the default position, and therefore no special label is needed for it. That seems to me a decent basis for a society

Tim Gray wrote: Later in your post you require someone to be a total saint before they qualify as "virtuous" - now that would be an unpleasantly cynical society. The label "high virtue" someone used before would be as good as anything for the paladin-types.

Tim Gray wrote: I've cheated here, of course, by getting in a point in the philosophical discussion after Ron's post. I agree with him - this should be about helping to develop the game idea, but that's really hard without more input from the original poster. And I've pretty much forgotten the original question...

Ron Edwards wrote:
This thread is closed unless Nathan chimes in with some concrete design concern for his game. Everyone else, please do not post unless this happens.