DeletedUser
The thing is that a well designed and fluid balance of forces within the game would actually allow most of the great movie plot lines to develop in-game. I could give numerous examples of how this might work.
- Status
DeletedUser
if you want to protect the weak then be the hero thomas. you unargued your own arguement in your arguing statements.
the WEAK is the point. they are WEAK when it comes to dueling. in the movies you go on about, you dont see the WEAK ones rise up and gang rush the outlaws. you see them find a HERO. you want this game to be like the movies? dont try to break their decades long mould then. BECOME the hero and enforce justice, but dont try to empower weaker duelists and justify it.
the WEAK is the point. they are WEAK when it comes to dueling. in the movies you go on about, you dont see the WEAK ones rise up and gang rush the outlaws. you see them find a HERO. you want this game to be like the movies? dont try to break their decades long mould then. BECOME the hero and enforce justice, but dont try to empower weaker duelists and justify it.
DeletedUser
PAYBACK is not the same as Protection. Unless you have not learned to distinguish GOOD and EVIL.
Student X punches keighlon in the nose and takes his lunch money. Walks away laughing. Keighlon follows Student X home, punches him and his mother in the nose, steals their rent money. Walks away laughing.
Now you want me to believe that keighlon is a hero?
Student X punches keighlon in the nose and takes his lunch money. Walks away laughing. Keighlon follows Student X home, punches him and his mother in the nose, steals their rent money. Walks away laughing.
Now you want me to believe that keighlon is a hero?
DeletedUser
If we don't have strong duellers who will chase down 'the bad guys'?
All this good and evil business is doing my nut. It seems everyone is catching the disease.
It's a game about cowboys in the wildwest, it's fun!
It's not about the triumph of good over evil. That would be another game and you would like it and you would slay the dragon with your sword of righteousness and smite the evil goblin hordes back into the pit of necromancy from whence they came and Vesta, the shy elf-maiden, who the goblins had been ravishing would be yours forever......but instead you are stuck in this stoopid cowboy game. Here there are no heroes, just winners and losers.
All this good and evil business is doing my nut. It seems everyone is catching the disease.
It's a game about cowboys in the wildwest, it's fun!
It's not about the triumph of good over evil. That would be another game and you would like it and you would slay the dragon with your sword of righteousness and smite the evil goblin hordes back into the pit of necromancy from whence they came and Vesta, the shy elf-maiden, who the goblins had been ravishing would be yours forever......but instead you are stuck in this stoopid cowboy game. Here there are no heroes, just winners and losers.
DeletedUser1105
To be fair, if the goblins had been ravishing her, I doubt she would be much of a prize.....
DeletedUser
You've written better elsewhere Ulthor
You just called the ability to discern good from evil a disease?
OK read that again. Are you just arguing now? or do you actually think this?
"No good and evil in the Old West" ? "no heroes" ?!?
Please tell me your position is not "I have fun pillaging other players. Its much more satisfying knowing I'm thwarting a real person instead of another computer-bot. Robbery is fun, stop ruining my fun. I can do this six hours a day and it don't affect my thinking at all. Good and evil hurts my brain."
Pull your head out of your grand theft auto and pay attention to the world around you. The actual West and the fictional West were both FULL of heroes and villains.
I think you've been drinking too much postmodern anti-hero swill.
You just called the ability to discern good from evil a disease?
OK read that again. Are you just arguing now? or do you actually think this?
"No good and evil in the Old West" ? "no heroes" ?!?
Please tell me your position is not "I have fun pillaging other players. Its much more satisfying knowing I'm thwarting a real person instead of another computer-bot. Robbery is fun, stop ruining my fun. I can do this six hours a day and it don't affect my thinking at all. Good and evil hurts my brain."
Pull your head out of your grand theft auto and pay attention to the world around you. The actual West and the fictional West were both FULL of heroes and villains.
I think you've been drinking too much postmodern anti-hero swill.
DeletedUser
And before you get your undies in a bundle about my harsh tone... remember you don't believe in good or evil so you can't be offended by anything i say or do.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
thats the most rediculous arguement i have ever heard. thomas, good and evil have nothing to do with being offended and personally discharged by someones attack, and it doesnt have anything to do with the structure of this game. its made for CHOICES. i can choose to be good, or i can choose to be bad, just like life. you want to limit people and restrict what the bad guys can do. you want to restrict choice.
and this honor crap its just stupid. whos honor? your honor? my honor? your idea of honor is completely different from other peoples, and trust me, its not original. its what been ingrained into you by your various experiences and influences. your parroting what people have told you in your life.
have you ever been in a situation where there was no good choice? if you hold so harshly to your rigid set of morals, how could you live with yourself afterwards? did you choose the lesser of two evils and justify it? or are you just spouting nonsense because it sounds pretty without actually thinking about it?
and trust me... there are no more heroes.
and this honor crap its just stupid. whos honor? your honor? my honor? your idea of honor is completely different from other peoples, and trust me, its not original. its what been ingrained into you by your various experiences and influences. your parroting what people have told you in your life.
have you ever been in a situation where there was no good choice? if you hold so harshly to your rigid set of morals, how could you live with yourself afterwards? did you choose the lesser of two evils and justify it? or are you just spouting nonsense because it sounds pretty without actually thinking about it?
and trust me... there are no more heroes.
DeletedUser
You've thought it out too much, just leave the idea at "challenge/ambush"
I like the original idea, but that other mumbo jumbo sneak past guard idea is weird
I like the original idea, but that other mumbo jumbo sneak past guard idea is weird
DeletedUser
In rl the concept of good and evil is one that i would certainly subscribe to. And on a personal level i share your disdain for sloppy post-modern thinking. However to bring it into this particular game is ridiculous. I'm not offended by you thomas and your ideas are always worth hearing.
In the end we will agree because I support ideas that allow you to frame your experience in this particular way. I just don't want to be forced to think in the same way you do. It doesn't hurt my brain to think about good and evil. Just reading Nietzsche 'beyond good and evil' and let me tell you - it's a blast!
What kinda worries me is that people centre on their own experience and conclude that those who may have duelled one of their town members are somehow morally deficient. That person is then subject to be reviled in quite a personal way. They can then be attacked and the victory over them portrayed as a triumph of good over evil, which is just sloppy thinking and bad sportsmanship.
I got knocked out by the same player twice this week. This is annoying but it is entirely inappropriate to go 'hating' him. I'll try and knock him out and whoop in triumph if i do, but will not delude myself that good has triumphed over evil, just that i beat him.
In the end we will agree because I support ideas that allow you to frame your experience in this particular way. I just don't want to be forced to think in the same way you do. It doesn't hurt my brain to think about good and evil. Just reading Nietzsche 'beyond good and evil' and let me tell you - it's a blast!
What kinda worries me is that people centre on their own experience and conclude that those who may have duelled one of their town members are somehow morally deficient. That person is then subject to be reviled in quite a personal way. They can then be attacked and the victory over them portrayed as a triumph of good over evil, which is just sloppy thinking and bad sportsmanship.
I got knocked out by the same player twice this week. This is annoying but it is entirely inappropriate to go 'hating' him. I'll try and knock him out and whoop in triumph if i do, but will not delude myself that good has triumphed over evil, just that i beat him.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser1105
Hobbin makes a fair point. We have gone way past the idea of the thread into discussing morality.
DeletedUser
Thanks for trying to keep up...
Character B, without provocation, sees character A, decides A is an ideal target (weaker non-combatant probably carrying cash). Attacks A and steals her earnings. K insists this action is not evil (because he doesn't want it to be?).
Observation: Good and evil are integral to the structure of the game.
... ... ... deep sigh... ... ...
Were their once heroes? But now the essence of reality prevents them from existing... OR Were their never heroes, because good and evil never existed at any time.... OR do you mean you've never met or read about any and therefore your personal lack of direct contact with any heroes is supposed to persuade everyone that because you've never seen it it doesn't exist.
I like you Ulthor, at least you're trying.
Nope. I posted the thread... and morality goes straight to the heart of the issue. I want the option to play good. And good, by definition, behaves differently from evil and part of this different behavior will include limiting the impact of evil.
Groups of weaker good guys? A willing David courageous enough to trust Providence and risk his skin against a bigger, stronger and better armed Goliath. Numerous possibilities discussed in other threads...
Wrong. You say "No good, No evil" Therefore, being polite cannot be good, and rude personal insults cannot be evil. You cannot be offended unless you accept my position that good and evil are universal and apply to all behavior (even on this thread). So if you're offended you prove my point. Some behavior is always evil.
Character A chooses to work, and use her earnings to improve their community. K insists this is not good behavior.
Character B, without provocation, sees character A, decides A is an ideal target (weaker non-combatant probably carrying cash). Attacks A and steals her earnings. K insists this action is not evil (because he doesn't want it to be?).
Observation: Good and evil are integral to the structure of the game.
I'm want more choice. The freedom to choose to help added to the current option to choose to harm. I want to expand the combat options so I don't have to fight like a coward.
Original is not good (according to your view. Remember? no good) neither is honor stupid (you can't make value judgments like that K.. remember no good no evil). Unless you would like to first conceed the point that some actions are always good and some actions are always evil.
Nice. Does that help you avoid any heavy thinking? Am I the only one that is a mere product of outside influences or does that analysis apply to you as well. Can either of us have a thought or change our minds? If you're consistent with this keighlon there is no reason for anyone to talk to anyone. Nice world.
No.
There you go again. You cannot imply that my "rigid morals" are bad unless you accept the existence of good and bad. You don't get to borrow my presuppositions to bolster your weak argument.
... ... ... deep sigh... ... ...
Were their once heroes? But now the essence of reality prevents them from existing... OR Were their never heroes, because good and evil never existed at any time.... OR do you mean you've never met or read about any and therefore your personal lack of direct contact with any heroes is supposed to persuade everyone that because you've never seen it it doesn't exist.
Why?
How very pomo of you.
Likewise, that is why I originally posted asking for an honorable and good option in combat. Its not actually a choice if there is only one option and it involves aggravated assault and theft.
It's not "a blast", it's deadly serious (in RL ) Ask Heinrich Himmler and Pol Pot. Nietzsche's Ubermensch hasn't ever shown up in a red cape with a logo on his chest. He's just given us killing fields the world over. I was in Guatemala. Had friends in Rwanda. Have friends in Sudan and Cambodia.
is worry bad or good?
Your pomo shoelaces are showing again.
Did your 'duel' consist of an unsolicited attack on a weaker non-combatant?
Are you admitting that reviling is bad?
bad! So there is such a universal standard as 'good sportsmanship? Does it include the aforementioned unsolicited attack on a weaker non-combatant?
I like you Ulthor, at least you're trying.
Nope. I posted the thread... and morality goes straight to the heart of the issue. I want the option to play good. And good, by definition, behaves differently from evil and part of this different behavior will include limiting the impact of evil.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
thomas, has you ever heard of the logical fallacies? your riddled with them. you answer your own arguements with examples from your own arguements. you build positions on assumed truths that have no backing except your arbitrary agreement with them. when you learn how to form a logical, well thought out discussion based on facts and unbiased observations i will begin to listen to your opinions, but this entire post pretty much sums up what is wrong with discussion forums in the first place.
DeletedUser
hahaha it does too
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
If you really want to only fight "honorably", send a telegram to the other player asking for a duel or telling them you're challenging them to avenge a fellow town member. There's really no need to change the game mechanics for it.
DeletedUser1105
That is not his point artemis. He also wants the ability for weaker groups to gang together to defeat a stronger dueller. Whilst they can all go and duel him around the same time, one by one they would probably lose.
DeletedUser
Well bounties solves the actual problem if anyone is actually interested in that.
DeletedUser
I like the concept of putting a bounty on someones head . I fail to see the long term benefit .
Gunslingers track him down , knock him out , two days latter he's back at Your town causing grief .
Gunslingers track him down , knock him out , two days latter he's back at Your town causing grief .
DeletedUser
One is direct to the person you want to duel and try to beat i.e. some worker perhaps?(they'll have a lot more money) where said worker gets a choice and they can accept or decline.
the Second is 'Ambush' where if certain skills are high enough, or higher than the towns 'Soldiers' etc then you can attack said worker without them even having to accept/decline, if you succeed you attack the worker and avoid guards, if you fail then you have to fight your way through the soldiers of the town to get to this worker, if you fail from that you then either go to jail or try to get your ass out of there.
I think that the jail or running away should depend on your current energy at the time, if less than half then you go to jail, if above half you can run away.
Edit: Bounties I too agree on, it's an awesome way to scare someone away from your town and the money must come from a players own money or the town treasury. (This could also make more use of the Mortician building perhaps?)
DeletedUser
ok thomas. please explain your use of the word pomo?
- Status