Reputation system over Good/Evil System?

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Reputation system over Good/Evil System?

This topic contains 11 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Crivvens 6 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #227344

    4x_fan
    Member

    I’m going to be honest.

    I don’t have many criticisms for this game. Having played other fantastic 4x games, I really appreciate a lot of the game mechanics this game introduces.

    However, I do have one criticism: the Good/Evil system doesn’t make any sense.

    Take for instance chasing after fleeing units for EXP gives you 25 evil points, even though it’s often a good move to level up your troops.

    Or I get 100 evil points for razing a city to prevent my opponent from taking advantage of it.

    Why do I get “evil” points when I’m simply trying to gain an advantage?

    It’s like saying someone is evil in chess for sacrificing their queen to checkmate their opponent.

    It’s absurd.

    Let’s be honest. As a player, you’re an imperialist, so by definition that’s evil, so this whole system of good/evil doesn’t really even make much sense.

    I just think it doesn’t make sense to label good moves as “evil”.

    Which is why I propose a reputation system instead.

    Pillaging a village for valuables gives you a lower reputation let’s say.

    Lower reputations can mean small villages revolt and become independent.

    The Theocrat and Warlord class can have spells like Instil Propaganda to raise their reputation for instance.

    The Rogue can have a spell called “Spread Rumours” to reduce the opponent’s reputation.

    Completing quests can increase reputation.

    High reputation can decrease upkeep costs, among other things.

    I think a reputation system would make a lot more sense and be more valuable to gameplay then the current simple good/evil system.

    What do you guys think?

    #227347

    Thariorn
    Member

    Why do I get “evil” points when I’m simply trying to gain an advantage?

    Well, let’s just exterminate all these civilians of *insert random country* that way, the coutnry won’t have any infrastrucutre to fight against *insert aggresive nation*. We totally not evil guys, we just want that edge over them.

    In my book that’s pretty evil.

    Of course you could argue with your point of “taking advantage ain’t evil” as my post didn’t say anything against that.

    But then you’d define evil/good in another way ~

    #227348

    Nerdfish
    Member

    I think 4x’s point is everyone is evil :p

    #227349

    llfoso
    Member

    Why do I get “evil” points when I’m simply trying to gain an advantage?

    It’s like saying someone is evil in chess for sacrificing their queen to checkmate their opponent.

    It’s absurd.

    Lol. If you gain an advantage from something it’s not evil? What?

    Let’s be honest. As a player, you’re an imperialist, so by definition that’s evil, so this whole system of good/evil doesn’t really even make much sense.

    Well, if you play pure good you never declare war, let people join by choice, and grant cities you conquer independence or at least leave them to live happy lives after you conquer them.
    It’s definitely better than razing their homes or forced migration.

    #227351

    Wallthing
    Member

    A good/evil alignment system makes plenty of sense for a western high fantasy sort of game. Don’t let it give you too much of a headache by trying to fit it into real-life ethics or morals.

    I’d find a reputation-based system interesting for a mod but like the developers I wouldn’t have gone with that for the base game, given the setting history and such.

    #227354

    grimsly
    Member

    To a certain extent the good/evil system is a holdout from the older games, where different races were keyed directly to alignment. It plays a much smaller role here than it did in the original AOW, when trying to keep both elves and orcs in your army was an exercise in futility.

    That said, I think you may have a very different idea of what ‘evil’ means than I do. Making a “good move” is not the opposite of “evil”. Being kind, merciful and just is. What I’m saying is that ‘evil’ is not the same as ‘bad’, and that ‘good’ has different (sometimes opposite) meanings.Welcome to English, I guess, though I don’t know any languages off hand that are clear of that particular misunderstanding. One easy fix would be to switch “Good and Evil” with “Virtuous and Evil”, but frankly if there’s anything we’ve learned from D&D (and my Ethics course in college, for that matter), it’s that NO ONE can agree on any morality system, ever.

    #227357

    AoW3 isn’t a morality simulator. Alignment is just a game mechanic and it provides certain effects based on certain causes. It’s up to the player to achieve optimal play within the rules, simple as that.

    If you want to be good for whatever reason but need to raze a city then you have a strategic decision to make. It’s to the game’s benefit, imo, if these decisions are not always easy.

    #227358

    4x_fan
    Member

    AoW3 isn’t a morality simulator. Alignment is just a game mechanic and it provides certain effects based on certain causes. It’s up to the player to achieve optimal play within the rules, simple as that.

    If you want to be good for whatever reason but need to raze a city then you have a strategic decision to make. It’s to the game’s benefit, imo, if these decisions are not always easy.

    Yes, I understand that.

    I’m just saying that using a reputation game mechanic might add to the already amazing gameplay that AoW 3 has to offer.

    That way it can make choices like razing a city a far more difficult decision because in the current system, being good or evil is mostly negligible.

    In a reputational system, a low reputation can really hurt your empire, while a high reputation can benefit your empire.

    It also opens up more Spell options for different Heroes as well as buildings.

    It gives you more incentive to conquer brigand hideouts, side quests, etc.

    A reputation system would add another variable that players must seriously consider, adding more depth and rewarding good decisions, because sometimes it may be worth it to plunder a city even though it costs you reputation.

    Just a suggestion by the way. It’d be a great privilege to add value to great teams that make fantastic games like AoW 3.

    #227364

    A reputation system already exists because aside from alignment there’s individual racial relations so you can be evil but at the same time be loved by some of the races which also affects city happiness where those races live. And vice versa ofc.

    Those same racial relations can cause cities to revolt or switch sides. Completing quests can increase relations with specific independent cities etc. Racial governance is also affected by this and there’s even spells/skills that can influence your standing with given races/cities like Courtesan Ambassadors, Seed of Distrust or Rally the Populace.

    A lot of what you propose already exists and bad/good reputation seems interchangeable with good/evil alignment, it just changes the words. In any case there’s more to AoW3’s alignment/reputation system besides that binary aspect though it wasn’t all there at release.

    #227370

    llfoso
    Member

    Exactly. If you open the diplomacy screen on the right side you can see your leader’s reputation with each race tracked individually. So you can be totally evil but still beloved by certain races. “He’s an evil a-hole, but he’s our evil a-hole.”

    Really, unless you’re using one of the alignment specs you can just play how you want. It doesn’t have a huge impact.

    #227475

    SaintTodd
    Member

    I’m not a fan of the alignment system in this game, but not for the reason you bring up. To the opposite, actually. I feel the punishment for evil behavior is not severe enough, and the rewards for good behavior not generous enough. And I agree with what others have said, playing strictly to your own advantage IS evil. There’s a reason Machiavelli was referred to as a demon even in his own time.

    #227643

    Crivvens
    Member

    Solution for OP: Whenever you see “Evil”, mentally replace it with “has a reputation for Evil acts”. Same for Good. Now it’s a reputation system!

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.