Tales of the Wild Coast Discussion Thread

This will be a great thing to do, and with a few problems about cenario, once the locations are exactly the same of ToEE, with modifications inside of the temple - and, well, a large Hommlet, but this just dont need to be improved - and some new or revised NPC - like the good and old Elmo, Furnok, Lareth....

 

I'm OK with the never ending army chasing after you if you slaughter civvies, but there should be at least one (albeit difficult) refuge. I.e. something along the lines of aligning yourself with a higher evil power and getting perks/benefits that make it possible to at least survive. For instance: 1) a stronghold with your own goons that is strong enough to provide you with at least one place to rest and recoup. 2) A way of misdirecting the pursuers or evading them stealthily (i.e. by providing false information or sending out a decoy force to draw them away). If the only chances of ever leaving the stronghold alive are limited to quest-related activities, that's OK too; but the rewards should be commensurate. Making it impossible to step a foot on the world map without getting insta-killed is OK, but the game shouldn't automatically end. A couple of high-reward end-of-game quests should do the trick.

-Mike

 

^ There's already an option to rest in the Moathouse spider tower (secret refuge if you will), or at the Ruined Temple if you saved Lareth.

Avoiding the pursuers through high Survival skill like any other random encounter would also do the trick, wouldn't it?

I'm very sad. The mod looked great. Maybe it's possible to somehow place it AFTER finishing Verbo?

Or then, if the evil party captures the Castle in Hommlet, you could deny them access to some Verbo quests unless they make a pretty high bluff roll in the conversation?


-------------------------------------------

Also, sending guard parties after the murderers and all, does this mean that the "Butcher" reputations will be gone, finally? I mean, you'd kill one and get away with it, but if everyone else goes aggro over it...

 

Wouldn't a stronghold make you a sitting duck. Basically the forces of good would know where you are and mount sufficient force to destroy the stronghold. Also, the party or members of the stronghold would have to make raids on nearby towns and counties to pay for the upkeep. You would have to be on "good" terms with somebody to provide the upkeep or have forced servitude. You would have to have a lawful evil, neutral evil or neutral governmental structure. You would be forced to have a very strong stronghold.

Far easier to have a evil benefactor in a high place to provide cover and shelter. Of course there is always the potential the benefactor will hang you out to dry (No honor among thieves).
A way of misdirecting or evading pursers should work some of the time, a percentage based on party level and the level of pursuit. The further apart the easier to evade or misdirect.

 

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. A benefactor (I'm assuming it's an evil one or else there would be no point) takes care of all the upkeep and defense in exchange for certain services. In this way you are protected from the militia/army and are free to roam the confines of the stronghold as long as you don't leave it, *but* you are also locked into an agreement and *must* live up to it or risk getting cast by the wayside and losing your stronghold.

I envisioned this all as being tied to quests. I.e. you are afforded free passage as part of a (or several) quest (or quests). "How" this is achieved doesn't really matter and is up to whomever scripts the quest(s), as the script writer could make it so that the party is transported instantaneously across the map. I just provided some ideas as examples that might be believable.

Also, as part of the "evil" quest, you and your benefactor basically together "defeat" your enemies and the stronghold becomes moot as there's no one left to chase you, though you might get to keep it permanently as a reward. Thus an evil alignment means of "winning" is provided.

-Mike

 

Benefactor does not have to be evil. A good or neutral benefactor could use the evil party to eliminate the competition. Much like countries used pirates during times of war, giving them a letter of maquee.

During quests a marker of recall could be set. The evil party will have to make it back to the marker to effectively elude the pursers. Just a thought.

 

No offense, but I think too many people are confusing Chaotic Evil with Chaotic Stupid.

Let me explain.

I'm not sold on the canonical definitions of the alignments because I think they are too abstract and theoretical. Most people approach life empirically and I think that would hold true in a fantasy world as well, so let's personalize these beliefs.

On a personal level, a Chaotic ethos would translate to 'I accept no authority over me' or 'I will be ruled by my will alone'. Yet, as we know, Orcs and other chaotic creatures group themselves into warbands, villages, and even larger social structures. Much like social predators in the animal kingdom they are ruled by the strongest, and challenges for leadership are tests of strength. But, for short periods of time, they are capable of acting in concert in a hierarchical organization. Tim Powers' novel On Stranger Tides, the inspiration for the Monkey Island adventure games, gives an insight into the social structure of Pirate crews, a chaotic group if ever there was one (why else would their be so much mutual hatred between them and the ultra-Lawful Ninja clans? :cool2. They are almost entirely self-ruled, and most important decisions are decided by vote; when the ship is 'in action', however, defying, disobeying, or questioning your Captain will get you a bullet in the head. Chaos, therefore, is not an absolute, reflexive, uncontrollable impulse.

Evil likewise can be understood from an indivual perspective. My personal definition (in life) is that Evil is selfishness taken to the ultimate degree, to the point where it doesn't admit of the wants, needs, or even value of others. Simply put, Evil could be understood as 'I will rob, torture, and/or murder if it benefits me in some way, even if that is solely for the amusement value'. It does NOT mean 'I will commit atrocities as soon as the opportunity presents itself even if it would result in my destruction'. Real life and the DnD fantasy worlds alike have examples of thoroughly evil creatures who are nonetheless capable of acting with some restraint if it suits them or is in their best interest. In short, crazy may be evil, but that doesn't mean evil is crazy.

To put this in the perspective of evil-aligned parties in the game, Hommlet and the Viscounty of Verbobonc is enemy territory. It is a Lawful Good-Lawful Neutral state that is nominally a vassal to Veluna, a powerful Lawful Good theocracy. Running around slaughtering peasants, while it might be in keeping with your natural tendencies or personal inclinations, would be sheer idiocy. Your eventual and inevitable destruction would be a source of great amusement for other evil types, who would likely dismiss you as 'amateurs', 'losers', 'incompetents' or 'wanna-bes'.

I would argue that from a player's standpoint evil isn't a truly viable option in ToEE, simply because of the lack of counterbalancing powers to the Verbobonc-Veluna axis. If Hommlet were in a contested area or a nebulous border region like Nulb you could conceivably go hog-wild and yet be protected from the forces of Good by larger political-military realities or an alliance with a powerful Evil patron or faction. When you are in the lion's den, however, it behooves you to tread lightly. There are a lot of implicit what-ifs and could-have-beens that could be mentioned here that would have/could have made playing full-blown evil practicable

• If ToEE hadn't been shoved out of the plane without a parachute
• If Troika had created an expansion pack or sequel
• If they hadn't gone out business
• If this was an MMO
• If this was a p'n'p campaign
• If Co8 could work on this fulltime.

As things stands, however, by the very setting of the game bad guys are going to be given short shrift. I don't know if Co8 has the resources or inclination to do so, but perhaps a less bloody evil path could be created that allowed players to extort, loot, enslave, and generally brutalize the denizens of Hommlet. This might lead to an earlier or different conduit to the evil operatives in Verbobonc. Another possibility is to allow players to get their hands bloody (to a limited extent) by giving them the ability to recruit allies, perhaps from those self-same operatives. Imagine a full-scale melee between an evil party and their allies and a detachment of Verbobonc troops.

In the interests of full disclosure, while I feel my analyses above are objective, correct, and absolute, that is to say, applicable beyond the scope of this topic, ToEE, and perhaps gaming as well, I have to admit that the reason I'm posting this is because I really want to see the fortress and the attendant content and quests included in 6.0.

Therefore, in furtherance of this cause, I am calling on the other good-aligned players on this forum, on the forces of Justice and Order- ON THE VERY GODS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AND LAW THEMSELVES- to rise up in might, and, as with a single throat, in a voice to crack the very roof of the Heavens, cry out-


"Pretty pleeeeaaase?"

 

About this question of tendencies, I think that this is just a point of view of law, order, evil and good. The neutrality of druids is based on the fact that nature - and most of his creatures - arent good or lawfull, or anything. They just are. Balance - and this is a specific question about Beory and his followers - reside in the maintenace of the nautrality of the nature, where thigs like evil and good don't exist. But considering that this things exist outside of nature's range, in the monsters, mankind and theyr creations, the druids keep to find the balance in those things, just this. A Chaotic being it's not a crazy monkey, just someone that follow his own rules. Lawful people, for the other side, try to keep the status quo over all things.
Good and evil is much more hard to understand. Trully, there are no "bad" or "good" if yare keeping the order - for a lawfull person - or staying free - for a chaotic person. So, in my point of viwe, good and evil its just the way that a given subject chooses to keep the law or the chaos. An chaotic good person it's just someone that puts the order, the law, over all, beings included, doing bad things for anybody that looks a menace for this order. Good orderous people try to keep the order helping other people, giving the exemple, trying to showe that goodness is the short way for order, becose if all people do the right things - the good - then all will be at order.
Chaotic good persons just try to keep the freedon avoiding harm people, and don't see any problem in help if this dont put his freedon in risk. Chaotic evil people, in the other hand, see all things as a potential menace for his freedon. The expansion of the "civilization" (order) is one of the bigger foes of his all menaced freedon. So, running agaist civilization is the same to keep yer freedon intact. Killing anybody its the short way to stay free, even if alone!
The neutrality makes an centralization of this thinking. A True lawful person just try to keep order in the best way. If harm somepeople for a bigger good its the only way, lets do this. If do the good helps the status quo to keep itself, lets do this.
A true chaotic person just try to keep freedon by all means. Sometimes killing people who menace his freedon, sometimes helping if this bring no risk for his own may to see the things. True good persons puts the help of anothers over all, not for a bigger good, but for his own personal satisfaction. If this bring order or chaos to the world, its not the most important. True evil people just matter about what is good for thenselves, and the way to have those things just dont matter.

Well, this is my particular point of view... And I have no idea of why I have writed all this, but I believe that there are some kind of importance here....

And I'm a true Chaotic Confused person!

 

Oudeis

'Bout this specific passage, let me say something:
Chaotic Evil IS stupid becose of a simply circle o events. Ya're free, and a towen comes close of the place where ya lives. This town is a sign of civilization, that seens freedon as a minor thing front of the maintanance of the order. So, they're the enemy, becose they will try to get yer freedon for his own point of view about "how the things should be done". Ya have three options here: One, go for the city, drop out yer personal freedon and turn of in a citzen. Two, run for a place where ya shall stay free. Three, fight the system! First option shall be taken for chaotic good persons, maybe chaotic neutral. Second option shall be choosed by any chaotic person. Thyrd shall be taken for chaotic evil people.
what happens so is easy to wonder: Ya attack the civilization, and the civilization strikes back. Ya need to run or die. Ya loose yer freedon. Yare doing something that will make yer to be chased to death or caged. Yare stupid.
See? Simple.

 

The alignments in D & D are an imperfect abstract way of representing the various types of characters you may meet in life. Everyone to some degree has tendencies of each alignment, but they lean more to one alignment than the others. It is easy to tell during role playing when you are doing something against or in conjunction with alignment. The DM can then reward the character for playing within alignment or start shifting the character's alignment if they keep acting against the declared alignment. Hence your paladin falls or your druid becomes less neutral.

Simplistic? yes, but it works within the context of a fantasy world. The problems come when we try to interject more realism into our fantasy world. Alignments then start to make less and less sense.
How many people in real life are completely lawful good? Are we good to keep the law off our backs? Why do we have structure and not complete anarchy?

The game is stacked against evil characters, because most people (game designers included) believe good should ultimately win. We are subconsciously conditioned to believe in good trumping evil. Evil winning in the end goes against the grain. Also it easier to design good or neutral quests. But give the designers of TOEE some credit for designing a somewhat evil path.

 

I doubt that CO8 has the resources or time (given RL issues) necessary to implement a completely evil path given the game engine. I find it amazing that they are able to breath this much life into the game.
Even if two or three modders could work full time on this endeavor where is the motivation? Right now it is a hobby. Do it full time it becomes work. That also leads to expectations on our part. I am not saying that the modders of Co8 would not do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but to what end? They could not sell the mod, not without Atari crying foul.
Even now they have put in a great deal of work and their only reward is our appreciation of the effort and the satisfaction of a job well done..

 

Since I quit world of moneycraft almost a year ago, I am no longer offered to beta test the holy grail of video games, Starcraft II. I would like to offer my humble services as a beta tester for TotWC. I have about 25 years of playing video games to recommend me, starting with the pioneer, PONG, and then moving into the old cartridge text games for the VIC-20 up through current day computers. I have held a position as software tester/QC with "Big Blue", (IBM) for about 2 and a half years a while back and am confident that if there's bugs in the game, I will find them and find out what causes them, but not able to fix them.

I will do all beta testing "pro bono", considering that I have a vested interest in the project, lol. :evil_laug