Originally posted by Dihoru LOL... voldemort lacking human characteristics... dude... you need to learn how to analyse books better... Voldemort is the textbook example of a non-powerless smeagol, he is the individual who thirsted for power and who's thirst only grew from (if I remember correctly) the abuse of the people who raised him as a child... not to mention being shun by his own father.
So, if you can "empathize" with an "evil" person, they are no longer evil? Am I reading you right? Was Voldemort not evil because he was beaten by his father? Was he then justified in his actions?
A male lion takes over a pride. He kills the young cubs of the former leader so that makes the female ready to mate again, to carry his own cubs to birth. Was he "evil?" Do you "empathize" with him? Is he human?
An orphan boy steals a loaf of bread for him and his little sister. Because they are hungry, does that justify the end? Is he less "evil" because you "empathize" with him? Did he ask for help from others? Did he try to find work? Did he ask the bakery owner if he could have it? No. He decided stealing was right. Because you "empathize" with him, is he right? Should anyone be able to steal if they are hungry?
What does "empathy" have to do with humanistic characteristics? I am seeing that you cannot drop your real world expectations and accept differing views. You project your own real world beliefs on a fantasy system.
EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices. It makes everyone "the same" instead of very different. Why even have different races if all they are is eye candy?
All that being said, I am actually FOR a system of "be anything." EQ is just not a game based in that system. If they wanted to make a game with this type of game play, by all means make it. Do NOT call it EQ. TES:O has the same problem. Attach the IP and expectations arise. Did you ever play EQ? Or is this just another, "I want every MMO made to be the way *I* it, regardless of what they want to present." type of comment?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Dihoru LOL... voldemort lacking human characteristics... dude... you need to learn how to analyse books better... Voldemort is the textbook example of a non-powerless smeagol, he is the individual who thirsted for power and who's thirst only grew from (if I remember correctly) the abuse of the people who raised him as a child... not to mention being shun by his own father.
So, if you can "empathize" with an "evil" person, they are no longer evil? Am I reading you right? Was Voldemort not evil because he was beaten by his father? Was he then justified in his actions?
A male lion takes over a pride. He kills the young cubs of the former leader so that makes the female ready to mate again, to carry his own cubs to birth. Was he "evil?" Do you "empathize" with him? Is he human?
An orphan boy steals a loaf of bread for him and his little sister. Because they are hungry, does that justify the end? Is he less "evil" because you "empathize" with him? Did he ask for help from others? Did he try to find work? Did he ask the bakery owner if he could have it? No. He decided stealing was right. Because you "empathize" with him, is he right? Should anyone be able to steal if they are hungry?
What does "empathy" have to do with humanistic characteristics? I am seeing that you cannot drop your real world expectations and accept differing views. You project your own real world beliefs on a fantasy system.
EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices. It makes everyone "the same" instead of very different. Why even have different races if all they are is eye candy?
All that being said, I am actually FOR a system of "be anything." EQ is just not a game based in that system. If they wanted to make a game with this type of game play, by all means make it. Do NOT call it EQ. TES:O has the same problem. Attach the IP and expectations arise. Did you ever play EQ? Or is this just another, "I want every MMO made to be the way *I* it, regardless of what they want to present." type of comment?
Being evil is a choice, just like being good is a choice, the fact you even used the lion example proves you're not grasping the difference between sentient beings and either animals or fantasy cardboard cutouts.
You miss the point completely btw... you cannot empathize with that which is not even in the least sense human (can you empathize with a virus? a tornado? rust?).I am surprised you didn't try to go with the only genre where human characteristics aren't known in the antagonists: horror (pure horror btw, not hybrids or anything else). That is the only genre where the inability to empathize with something makes it more effective.
If the game is a sandbox a "be anything but with consequences" system is what is needed and considering this is a reboot (something that TES:O is not I might add, it is classed as a prequel if I am not mistaken) then your IP argument falls apart (lest we compare other reboots which ended up being better than the original by leaps and bounds, not saying it is always the case but still).
EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices.
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices.
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
As much as I would like to argue against this one, I just can not.
I very much believe in class/race locking but your argument is very strong.
In the absence of free choice for a character (shall I do the honorable thing of what is in my immediate interest) how can there be good or evil?
Let me just say I would be happier with races that have an initial bias towards one deity or another and leave it at that.
I hate when rpgs restrict your choices, especially a major thing like class selection.
It takes away the choice from the player, what if they want to play an Ogre who isn't like other ogre's and took up an interest in magic and the arcane arts for some reason?
HAving class restrictions leads to less choices from the players and less ability to play what they want. It leads to less variety in teh game world (IE that race = mage race, that race = warrior race, etc).
Now I am not saying you can't make the classes "different" for each race, it'd be entirely possible to have an ogre "mage" act/play different then a "human" mage in some ways. So each has their own "flavor."
However to restrict classes to me is just a cheap and easy way out to get players to roll alts.
Also to me it always seems the equivalent of racial stereotyping in games.
"Ogres/barbarians" have to be big dumb brutes, elves gotta be super smart mages, humans get jack of all.
I hate playing stereotypical race/class combinations, I like playing underdogs, the "odd" man out, people that are different.
Then there's the "Alignment" crap, I'm sorry but that is imo just as bad. Why do they have to be "Evil" or good based on RACE? These are things that for TRUE rp fans should be made based on the PLAYERS CHOICE, not the game making it for you based on what bloody race you choose.
If you want to be good or bad, it should be your choice through what you do in game, taking bad/good choices and affecting your alignment, not by merely picking some developers point of view of an "evil" race.
If someone wants to roll a race with "x" class does that AFFECT your game or play? no, so what''s the point? Oh it gives you a reason to re-roll or play an alt? You can do that any way.
In the absence of free choice for a character (shall I do the honorable thing of what is in my immediate interest) how can there be good or evil?
Let me just say I would be happier with races that have an initial bias towards one deity or another and leave it at that.
I totally agree with your last point. I think in order for the world to exist that reasonably matches whatever world SOE is trying to create, there need to be "tendencies" for certain races to go a certain way. So if trolls can only start out as evil, that's perfectly fine and would result in most trolls remaining evil. So long as there is no artificial restriction for them to always stay there. If I start out as an evil troll and spend 8 years helping people and saving the world from monsters.. well, i'm no longer evil.
I firmly believe there needs to be the opportunity to forge your own path and overcome your starting circumstances. That doesn't mean that i don't want those "starting circumstances" to exist. I just don't want them to be set in stone.
And I certainly am not implying that I should be able to click a button at creation and become an Innorruk Worshipping, evil-aligned Troll Paladin. That's completely ridiculous and by the very definition of "Paladin" not possible. That being said, if i start out as an evil Troll, i want to be able to do some good deeds, eventually change my religion and then, by following a righteous path to become a Paladin. It's the same with "good" races too. If you're born an elf, but spend your childhood skinning puppies and stealing potions, you shouldn't be able to become a paladin "just because you're an elf".
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
If you want to be good or bad, it should be your choice through what you do in game, taking bad/good choices and affecting your alignment, not by merely picking some developers point of view of an "evil" race.
Well according to the original EQ2 lore the Dark Elves and the Arasai where deliberately created to be evil by an evil god. So that kind of locked them into being evil. The same for the Fae, created good by a good god. It did not matter much with the Fae/Arasai: want an evil fairy roll an Arasai want a good fairy roll a Fae. This was the thing some races were created evil, some good, and some (like humans) neutral and could play either way.
If it makes sense and is consistent in the lore I like it that way, particularly where there is an evil counterpart for a good race. But it is something that fades away with time and patches. I suppose the time for this has past, and I will not miss it greatly.
If you want to be good or bad, it should be your choice through what you do in game, taking bad/good choices and affecting your alignment, not by merely picking some developers point of view of an "evil" race.
Well according to the original EQ2 lore the Dark Elves and the Arasai where deliberately created to be evil by an evil god. So that kind of locked them into being evil.
It locked them into starting out as evil. And just like every other race, through a lengthy and complicated series of actions, they were able to become good.
Mind you, as much as I love EQ2 (it's my main MMO), the good/evil setup of the game is really stupid. You have all these "Evil" characters and what are they doing? The exact same thing as the "good" characters - they're going around the world helping people and saving the world from monsters. Out of the game's 6000+ quests, there are maybe 20 that let you do evil things, the rest are about you doing good things to help people out. All the major end-game stuff is "good" also. You're always saving this and freeing that. "Defeat rallos zek, free the world!". There isn't single zone where you "attack totally innocent village, pillage, rape and enslave everyone". I mean, wtf is even the point of having an evil alignment if there are no evil actions to take in the game?
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Originally posted by AlBQuirky EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices.
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
But you can commit good/evil acts in EQ1. Once the character is created (and you be of sufficient level) you can then attack "factions" and change you faction standing. Killing guards was a popular way to raise a specific faction. Dark Elves were Kill On Sight (KOS) in many good aligned cities like Felwithe or Kaladim. Kill enough "evil aligned city guards" and your faction rose with the good aligned factions (subsequently dropping your "evil aligned factions). This was a big part of the "end game" many players partook of.
There was a story about an Iksar (Monk I think his class was) that became "acceptable" (non-KOS) to every city. Ikasr were pretty much KOS anywhere but their own home.
But... a player could not change their deity, as far as I recall. I do not know if Clerics lost their favor if they did such alignment swings. I do not think so.
It is at character creation that the restriction is in place. Afterwards, the player may play that character however they desire. They just will never be able to be a Paladin of an evil race, no matter how good they become. Shadow Knight, Necromancer, and Shaman were really the only other good/neutral/evil restrictions. Monks, for some reason were Human only and later Iksar when Ruins of Kunark introduced them into the game. Otherwise, the restrictions were pretty much like "Dwarfs do not handle magic at all." Clerics were fine, since dwarfs did believe in Gods and could channel the divine power. Any race could be a fighter, cleric, or rogue. The specialty and hybrid classes were rather restricted. Some races were more attuned with magical use, or nature based abilities. Differences.
Did that make sense?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by AlBQuirky EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices.
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
But you can commit good/evil acts in EQ1. Once the character is created (and you be of sufficient level) you can then attack "factions" and change you faction standing. Killing guards was a popular way to raise a specific faction. Dark Elves were Kill On Sight (KOS) in many good aligned cities like Felwithe or Kaladim. Kill enough "evil aligned city guards" and your faction rose with the good aligned factions (subsequently dropping your "evil aligned factions). This was a big part of the "end game" many players partook of.
There was a story about an Iksar (Monk I think his class was) that became "acceptable" (non-KOS) to every city. Ikasr were pretty much KOS anywhere but their own home.
But... a player could not change their deity, as far as I recall. I do not know if Clerics lost their favor if they did such alignment swings. I do not think so.
It is at character creation that the restriction is in place. Afterwards, the player may play that character however they desire. They just will never be able to be a Paladin of an evil race, no matter how good they become. Shadow Knight, Necromancer, and Shaman were really the only other good/neutral/evil restrictions. Monks, for some reason were Human only and later Iksar when Ruins of Kunark introduced them into the game. Otherwise, the restrictions were pretty much like "Dwarfs do not handle magic at all." Clerics were fine, since dwarfs did believe in Gods and could channel the divine power. Any race could be a fighter, cleric, or rogue. The specialty and hybrid classes were rather restricted. Some races were more attuned with magical use, or nature based abilities. Differences.
Did that make sense?
Oh i understand the restrictions that were in EQ1 and EQ2 (in EQ2 btw, you could work to change your alignment and depending on the class it required a class change. A wizard could be good but become evil and remain a wizard, but a Paladin would need to become a Shadowknight, you couldn't be an evil Paladin).
To me, it makes no sense though that if a Paladin is a mass-murderer (of friendly city guards as your example) that they would remain a Paladin. By definition, they shouldn't be a paladin anymore.
I really don't want my entire life and career to be defined by the choice I made at character creation. I don't want to click the "good" button and know that no matter what i do for eternity in the game, I will remain a "good" person. If i choose "good + paladin" and I mass murder "good" people, i want to be kicked out of the Paladin order and forced to become something else (i.e. SK).
Many of those other arbitrary restrictions just seem random. Only humans could be Monks? Dwarves can be granted magical powers by one god but not another? I'm sure there were reasons and things back in the day, but it just doesn't make much sense. I can certainly understand limitations like this existing for STARTING out your character. But all these races and deities end up intermingling, so it makes most sense that once they mingle, some of them drift away from being what they started out as.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Originally posted by AlBQuirky EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices.
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
But you can commit good/evil acts in EQ1. Once the character is created (and you be of sufficient level) you can then attack "factions" and change you faction standing. Killing guards was a popular way to raise a specific faction. Dark Elves were Kill On Sight (KOS) in many good aligned cities like Felwithe or Kaladim. Kill enough "evil aligned city guards" and your faction rose with the good aligned factions (subsequently dropping your "evil aligned factions). This was a big part of the "end game" many players partook of.
There was a story about an Iksar (Monk I think his class was) that became "acceptable" (non-KOS) to every city. Ikasr were pretty much KOS anywhere but their own home.
But... a player could not change their deity, as far as I recall. I do not know if Clerics lost their favor if they did such alignment swings. I do not think so.
It is at character creation that the restriction is in place. Afterwards, the player may play that character however they desire. They just will never be able to be a Paladin of an evil race, no matter how good they become. Shadow Knight, Necromancer, and Shaman were really the only other good/neutral/evil restrictions. Monks, for some reason were Human only and later Iksar when Ruins of Kunark introduced them into the game. Otherwise, the restrictions were pretty much like "Dwarfs do not handle magic at all." Clerics were fine, since dwarfs did believe in Gods and could channel the divine power. Any race could be a fighter, cleric, or rogue. The specialty and hybrid classes were rather restricted. Some races were more attuned with magical use, or nature based abilities. Differences.
Did that make sense?
Then Deity should also be mutable based on choices and desire :P and multiclassing/advanced classes.
Originally posted by Dihoru LOL... voldemort lacking human characteristics... dude... you need to learn how to analyse books better... Voldemort is the textbook example of a non-powerless smeagol, he is the individual who thirsted for power and who's thirst only grew from (if I remember correctly) the abuse of the people who raised him as a child... not to mention being shun by his own father.
So, if you can "empathize" with an "evil" person, they are no longer evil? Am I reading you right? Was Voldemort not evil because he was beaten by his father? Was he then justified in his actions?A male lion takes over a pride. He kills the young cubs of the former leader so that makes the female ready to mate again, to carry his own cubs to birth. Was he "evil?" Do you "empathize" with him? Is he human?An orphan boy steals a loaf of bread for him and his little sister. Because they are hungry, does that justify the end? Is he less "evil" because you "empathize" with him? Did he ask for help from others? Did he try to find work? Did he ask the bakery owner if he could have it? No. He decided stealing was right. Because you "empathize" with him, is he right? Should anyone be able to steal if they are hungry?What does "empathy" have to do with humanistic characteristics? I am seeing that you cannot drop your real world expectations and accept differing views. You project your own real world beliefs on a fantasy system.EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices. It makes everyone "the same" instead of very different. Why even have different races if all they are is eye candy?All that being said, I am actually FOR a system of "be anything." EQ is just not a game based in that system. If they wanted to make a game with this type of game play, by all means make it. Do NOT call it EQ. TES:O has the same problem. Attach the IP and expectations arise. Did you ever play EQ? Or is this just another, "I want every MMO made to be the way *I* it, regardless of what they want to present." type of comment?
Being evil is a choice, just like being good is a choice, the fact you even used the lion example proves you're not grasping the difference between sentient beings and either animals or fantasy cardboard cutouts.You miss the point completely btw... you cannot empathize with that which is not even in the least sense human (can you empathize with a virus? a tornado? rust?).I am surprised you didn't try to go with the only genre where human characteristics aren't known in the antagonists: horror (pure horror btw, not hybrids or anything else). That is the only genre where the inability to empathize with something makes it more effective.If the game is a sandbox a "be anything but with consequences" system is what is needed and considering this is a reboot (something that TES:O is not I might add, it is classed as a prequel if I am not mistaken) then your IP argument falls apart (lest we compare other reboots which ended up being better than the original by leaps and bounds, not saying it is always the case but still).
Being good/evil is a choice? Really? No hardwiring going on in the psyche? What caused Jefferey Dahlmer to kill and eat young teenage boys?
Generally, I agree with your premise. Most evil people I have met can be good when they wish or want something. They know the difference. There are others that just cannot do this.
Good and evil are also judgements. These are terms used by others for comparison.
However, good/evil is a human ting, don't you think? I realize we have no data on aliens or fantasy races to compare, but look at the animal world. Are there good or evil animals? Why or why not? Maybe because they are not human?
Sentient beings. That means self aware, right? From the link above (free dictionary): 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 2. characterized by sensation and consciousness. Are lions conscious? I think so.
Or maybe you're looking at a more religious aspect and the existence of souls?
You are correct in that I am missing your points. And you also enjoy picking one part of my posts for contention and do not answer the questions I pose to you for clarification.
I'll ask again. "If you can empathize with an "evil" person, does that mean they are not evil?" You use empathy a lot in your reasoning.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by AlBQuirky EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices.
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
But you can commit good/evil acts in EQ1. Once the character is created (and you be of sufficient level) you can then attack "factions" and change you faction standing. Killing guards was a popular way to raise a specific faction. Dark Elves were Kill On Sight (KOS) in many good aligned cities like Felwithe or Kaladim. Kill enough "evil aligned city guards" and your faction rose with the good aligned factions (subsequently dropping your "evil aligned factions). This was a big part of the "end game" many players partook of.There was a story about an Iksar (Monk I think his class was) that became "acceptable" (non-KOS) to every city. Ikasr were pretty much KOS anywhere but their own home.But... a player could not change their deity, as far as I recall. I do not know if Clerics lost their favor if they did such alignment swings. I do not think so.It is at character creation that the restriction is in place. Afterwards, the player may play that character however they desire. They just will never be able to be a Paladin of an evil race, no matter how good they become. Shadow Knight, Necromancer, and Shaman were really the only other good/neutral/evil restrictions. Monks, for some reason were Human only and later Iksar when Ruins of Kunark introduced them into the game. Otherwise, the restrictions were pretty much like "Dwarfs do not handle magic at all." Clerics were fine, since dwarfs did believe in Gods and could channel the divine power. Any race could be a fighter, cleric, or rogue. The specialty and hybrid classes were rather restricted. Some races were more attuned with magical use, or nature based abilities. Differences.Did that make sense?
Then Deity should also be mutable based on choices and desire :P and multiclassing/advanced classes.
To be honest, this always bugged me with EQ. A class based on their deity's granting of powers (Paladin, Cleric, Shaman, Druid) should have those powers wane if they stray from their deity's desires. But, that was EQ
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices.
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
Except in fantasy worlds like EQ, creatures are innately evil. A dark elf is a dark elf because elves were tortured by Innoruuk, the Prince of Hate.
EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices.
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
Except in fantasy worlds like EQ, creatures are innately evil. A dark elf is a dark elf because elves were tortured by Innoruuk, the Prince of Hate.
This is a good question OP and many have different opinions. For me, I think that certain races should have certain class limitations. I'll use an example someone had already mentioned. Take a look at the lore of the Dark Elves of Norrath. Created by the god of hate, Innoruuk. "Innoruuk warped, twisted, tortured, and corrupted the High Elves for hundreds of years before they finally no longer looked like the Elves they used to be. They no longer accepted who they used to be." Why do some players feel the need to change the story for their character's race and how does it work within the story? If Dark Elves are created by an evil God, who says there's a possibility to change? I would assume Innoruuk made sure he left no room in them for good, every fiber of their being filled with hatred.
I understand that some players feel somehow restricted and want to make up their own stories.. but personally I feel some things should follow the main lore of whatever world you're role playing in.
EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices.
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
Except in fantasy worlds like EQ, creatures are innately evil. A dark elf is a dark elf because elves were tortured by Innoruuk, the Prince of Hate.
EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices.
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
Except in fantasy worlds like EQ, creatures are innately evil. A dark elf is a dark elf because elves were tortured by Innoruuk, the Prince of Hate.
Because it's in the story of everquest. It's not your story to change. You can change it for yourself any way you want, but that doesn't change the actual story.
Originally posted by Dihoru @AlB: Is a lion self-aware?
I don't know. Have you asked them? Do they use words like "me, I, my, our?" Oh, wait... we seem to be not quite smart enough to communicate with them very effectively are we?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices.
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
Except in fantasy worlds like EQ, creatures are innately evil. A dark elf is a dark elf because elves were tortured by Innoruuk, the Prince of Hate.
That's their backstory. That is why they are evil. Do you want some kind of made up scientific answer in a fantasy world?
No, I want something more believable than "100% of race X is evil because some god went trolololo on them". Considering it's also a evil aligned god (I assume) why would they then align with it? I mean I get some, maybe even most, going insane and becoming evil but everyone?
The only time I've seen a believable backstory for evil elf-like creatures was with the Dark Eldar from Warhammer 40.000 lore though granted I haven't read most of them.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky
Originally posted by Dihoru @AlB: Is a lion self-aware?
I don't know. Have you asked them? Do they use words like "me, I, my, our?" Oh, wait... we seem to be not quite smart enough to communicate with them very effectively are we?
EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices.
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
Except in fantasy worlds like EQ, creatures are innately evil. A dark elf is a dark elf because elves were tortured by Innoruuk, the Prince of Hate.
That's their backstory. That is why they are evil. Do you want some kind of made up scientific answer in a fantasy world?
No, I want something more believable than "100% of race X is evil because some god went trolololo on them". Considering it's also a evil aligned god (I assume) why would they then align with it? I mean I get some, maybe even most, going insane and becoming evil but everyone?
The only time I've seen a believable backstory for evil elf-like creatures was with the Dark Eldar from Warhammer 40.000 lore though granted I haven't read most of them.
Innoruk was jealous he wasn't able to have his own creation, so he stole and transformed another's. In EQ, and a lot of other fantasy settings, the creation is very much the same nature of the the creator. Innoruuk tortured two elves for 300 years and created a whole race of evil elves.
EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices.
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
Except in fantasy worlds like EQ, creatures are innately evil. A dark elf is a dark elf because elves were tortured by Innoruuk, the Prince of Hate.
I fully agree - as i've stated - with certain races having to start out evil due to their "most likely" upbringing. (It probably got lost early in the thread) but one of my greatest experiences in Norrath has been starting out as an "evil" Ratonga, working hard to change my nature, earning the trust of Qeynos and eventually becoming "good".
Also, "creatures that are innately" anything shouldn't be playable at all. Only races with free will should be playable unless you design a special sub-system like Monster Play in LoTRO.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Because it's in the story of everquest. It's not your story to change.
Well, it's also the story of Everquest that according to most recent history - (as per EQ2) - all playable races can change their alignment by performing certain actions.
It's already been hinted at though, that EQN will not be following the EQ/EQ2 timeline, so we can throw all that stuff out the window.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Originally posted by Dihoru @AlB: Is a lion self-aware?
I don't know. Have you asked them? Do they use words like "me, I, my, our?" Oh, wait... we seem to be not quite smart enough to communicate with them very effectively are we?
Ever hear of the mirror test?
Are ALL life forms carbon based?
The reason I ask is that "the mirror test" is what we humans consider a test. Who says it is the only way to determine self awareness? Oh right, we humans say so.
Do lions fight when another pride comes into "their territory?" When they look at their paws on the ground, do they think it is theirs? Do old dogs know when their time is up and go lay down somewhere to die?
It is the "we know everything and that's that" attitude that gets us humans into so much trouble. All of your arguments have this "finality" to them with no acceptance of deviations. You seem incapable of thinking outside the human made box.
I'll ask one more time: "Do you think that having empathy for an evil person (humanizing them) makes them not evil anymore?"
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Dihoru @AlB: Is a lion self-aware?
I don't know. Have you asked them? Do they use words like "me, I, my, our?" Oh, wait... we seem to be not quite smart enough to communicate with them very effectively are we?
Ever hear of the mirror test?
Are ALL life forms carbon based?
The reason I ask is that "the mirror test" is what we humans consider a test. Who says it is the only way to determine self awareness? Oh right, we humans say so.
Do lions fight when another pride comes into "their territory?" When they look at their paws on the ground, do they think it is theirs? Do old dogs know when their time is up and go lay down somewhere to die?
It is the "we know everything and that's that" attitude that gets us humans into so much trouble. All of your arguments have this "finality" to them with no acceptance of deviations. You seem incapable of thinking outside the human made box.
I'll ask one more time: "Do you think that having empathy for an evil person (humanizing them) makes them not evil anymore?"
I answered that question before, now could you try not to sound like your grasping at straws? The mirror test is quite simple: If an animal can recognize its own reflection then it has the basis of self-awareness. Primates such as chimps and gorillas have passed this test, animals such as cats have not.
Also if we're going into SF with geodic and energy-based lifeforms let me know, I have been waiting for someone to talk to on that subject ^^.
Comments
A male lion takes over a pride. He kills the young cubs of the former leader so that makes the female ready to mate again, to carry his own cubs to birth. Was he "evil?" Do you "empathize" with him? Is he human?
An orphan boy steals a loaf of bread for him and his little sister. Because they are hungry, does that justify the end? Is he less "evil" because you "empathize" with him? Did he ask for help from others? Did he try to find work? Did he ask the bakery owner if he could have it? No. He decided stealing was right. Because you "empathize" with him, is he right? Should anyone be able to steal if they are hungry?
What does "empathy" have to do with humanistic characteristics? I am seeing that you cannot drop your real world expectations and accept differing views. You project your own real world beliefs on a fantasy system.
EQ was based on choices by players. Having everyone able to be everything throws away those choices. It makes everyone "the same" instead of very different. Why even have different races if all they are is eye candy?
All that being said, I am actually FOR a system of "be anything." EQ is just not a game based in that system. If they wanted to make a game with this type of game play, by all means make it. Do NOT call it EQ. TES:O has the same problem. Attach the IP and expectations arise. Did you ever play EQ? Or is this just another, "I want every MMO made to be the way *I* it, regardless of what they want to present." type of comment?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Being evil is a choice, just like being good is a choice, the fact you even used the lion example proves you're not grasping the difference between sentient beings and either animals or fantasy cardboard cutouts.
You miss the point completely btw... you cannot empathize with that which is not even in the least sense human (can you empathize with a virus? a tornado? rust?).I am surprised you didn't try to go with the only genre where human characteristics aren't known in the antagonists: horror (pure horror btw, not hybrids or anything else). That is the only genre where the inability to empathize with something makes it more effective.
If the game is a sandbox a "be anything but with consequences" system is what is needed and considering this is a reboot (something that TES:O is not I might add, it is classed as a prequel if I am not mistaken) then your IP argument falls apart (lest we compare other reboots which ended up being better than the original by leaps and bounds, not saying it is always the case but still).
What do you mean "throws away choices"? If you're born into a race that can never commit an evil act, that forever takesa whole universe of choices away from that character. Leading a good or righteous life isn't something people should do "by default". It should be done by actions and earned - earned by CHOICES made.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
As much as I would like to argue against this one, I just can not.
I very much believe in class/race locking but your argument is very strong.
In the absence of free choice for a character (shall I do the honorable thing of what is in my immediate interest) how can there be good or evil?
Let me just say I would be happier with races that have an initial bias towards one deity or another and leave it at that.
I hate when rpgs restrict your choices, especially a major thing like class selection.
It takes away the choice from the player, what if they want to play an Ogre who isn't like other ogre's and took up an interest in magic and the arcane arts for some reason?
HAving class restrictions leads to less choices from the players and less ability to play what they want. It leads to less variety in teh game world (IE that race = mage race, that race = warrior race, etc).
Now I am not saying you can't make the classes "different" for each race, it'd be entirely possible to have an ogre "mage" act/play different then a "human" mage in some ways. So each has their own "flavor."
However to restrict classes to me is just a cheap and easy way out to get players to roll alts.
Also to me it always seems the equivalent of racial stereotyping in games.
"Ogres/barbarians" have to be big dumb brutes, elves gotta be super smart mages, humans get jack of all.
I hate playing stereotypical race/class combinations, I like playing underdogs, the "odd" man out, people that are different.
Then there's the "Alignment" crap, I'm sorry but that is imo just as bad. Why do they have to be "Evil" or good based on RACE? These are things that for TRUE rp fans should be made based on the PLAYERS CHOICE, not the game making it for you based on what bloody race you choose.
If you want to be good or bad, it should be your choice through what you do in game, taking bad/good choices and affecting your alignment, not by merely picking some developers point of view of an "evil" race.
If someone wants to roll a race with "x" class does that AFFECT your game or play? no, so what''s the point? Oh it gives you a reason to re-roll or play an alt? You can do that any way.
I totally agree with your last point. I think in order for the world to exist that reasonably matches whatever world SOE is trying to create, there need to be "tendencies" for certain races to go a certain way. So if trolls can only start out as evil, that's perfectly fine and would result in most trolls remaining evil. So long as there is no artificial restriction for them to always stay there. If I start out as an evil troll and spend 8 years helping people and saving the world from monsters.. well, i'm no longer evil.
I firmly believe there needs to be the opportunity to forge your own path and overcome your starting circumstances. That doesn't mean that i don't want those "starting circumstances" to exist. I just don't want them to be set in stone.
And I certainly am not implying that I should be able to click a button at creation and become an Innorruk Worshipping, evil-aligned Troll Paladin. That's completely ridiculous and by the very definition of "Paladin" not possible. That being said, if i start out as an evil Troll, i want to be able to do some good deeds, eventually change my religion and then, by following a righteous path to become a Paladin. It's the same with "good" races too. If you're born an elf, but spend your childhood skinning puppies and stealing potions, you shouldn't be able to become a paladin "just because you're an elf".
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
Well according to the original EQ2 lore the Dark Elves and the Arasai where deliberately created to be evil by an evil god. So that kind of locked them into being evil. The same for the Fae, created good by a good god. It did not matter much with the Fae/Arasai: want an evil fairy roll an Arasai want a good fairy roll a Fae. This was the thing some races were created evil, some good, and some (like humans) neutral and could play either way.
If it makes sense and is consistent in the lore I like it that way, particularly where there is an evil counterpart for a good race. But it is something that fades away with time and patches. I suppose the time for this has past, and I will not miss it greatly.
It locked them into starting out as evil. And just like every other race, through a lengthy and complicated series of actions, they were able to become good.
Mind you, as much as I love EQ2 (it's my main MMO), the good/evil setup of the game is really stupid. You have all these "Evil" characters and what are they doing? The exact same thing as the "good" characters - they're going around the world helping people and saving the world from monsters. Out of the game's 6000+ quests, there are maybe 20 that let you do evil things, the rest are about you doing good things to help people out. All the major end-game stuff is "good" also. You're always saving this and freeing that. "Defeat rallos zek, free the world!". There isn't single zone where you "attack totally innocent village, pillage, rape and enslave everyone". I mean, wtf is even the point of having an evil alignment if there are no evil actions to take in the game?
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
There was a story about an Iksar (Monk I think his class was) that became "acceptable" (non-KOS) to every city. Ikasr were pretty much KOS anywhere but their own home.
But... a player could not change their deity, as far as I recall. I do not know if Clerics lost their favor if they did such alignment swings. I do not think so.
It is at character creation that the restriction is in place. Afterwards, the player may play that character however they desire. They just will never be able to be a Paladin of an evil race, no matter how good they become. Shadow Knight, Necromancer, and Shaman were really the only other good/neutral/evil restrictions. Monks, for some reason were Human only and later Iksar when Ruins of Kunark introduced them into the game. Otherwise, the restrictions were pretty much like "Dwarfs do not handle magic at all." Clerics were fine, since dwarfs did believe in Gods and could channel the divine power. Any race could be a fighter, cleric, or rogue. The specialty and hybrid classes were rather restricted. Some races were more attuned with magical use, or nature based abilities. Differences.
Did that make sense?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Oh i understand the restrictions that were in EQ1 and EQ2 (in EQ2 btw, you could work to change your alignment and depending on the class it required a class change. A wizard could be good but become evil and remain a wizard, but a Paladin would need to become a Shadowknight, you couldn't be an evil Paladin).
To me, it makes no sense though that if a Paladin is a mass-murderer (of friendly city guards as your example) that they would remain a Paladin. By definition, they shouldn't be a paladin anymore.
I really don't want my entire life and career to be defined by the choice I made at character creation. I don't want to click the "good" button and know that no matter what i do for eternity in the game, I will remain a "good" person. If i choose "good + paladin" and I mass murder "good" people, i want to be kicked out of the Paladin order and forced to become something else (i.e. SK).
Many of those other arbitrary restrictions just seem random. Only humans could be Monks? Dwarves can be granted magical powers by one god but not another? I'm sure there were reasons and things back in the day, but it just doesn't make much sense. I can certainly understand limitations like this existing for STARTING out your character. But all these races and deities end up intermingling, so it makes most sense that once they mingle, some of them drift away from being what they started out as.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
Then Deity should also be mutable based on choices and desire :P and multiclassing/advanced classes.
Generally, I agree with your premise. Most evil people I have met can be good when they wish or want something. They know the difference. There are others that just cannot do this.
Good and evil are also judgements. These are terms used by others for comparison.
However, good/evil is a human ting, don't you think? I realize we have no data on aliens or fantasy races to compare, but look at the animal world. Are there good or evil animals? Why or why not? Maybe because they are not human?
Sentient beings. That means self aware, right? From the link above (free dictionary):
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
Are lions conscious? I think so.
Or maybe you're looking at a more religious aspect and the existence of souls?
You are correct in that I am missing your points. And you also enjoy picking one part of my posts for contention and do not answer the questions I pose to you for clarification.
I'll ask again. "If you can empathize with an "evil" person, does that mean they are not evil?" You use empathy a lot in your reasoning.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Except in fantasy worlds like EQ, creatures are innately evil. A dark elf is a dark elf because elves were tortured by Innoruuk, the Prince of Hate.
And that makes them evil how?...
@AlB: Is a lion self-aware?
This is a good question OP and many have different opinions. For me, I think that certain races should have certain class limitations. I'll use an example someone had already mentioned. Take a look at the lore of the Dark Elves of Norrath. Created by the god of hate, Innoruuk. "Innoruuk warped, twisted, tortured, and corrupted the High Elves for hundreds of years before they finally no longer looked like the Elves they used to be. They no longer accepted who they used to be." Why do some players feel the need to change the story for their character's race and how does it work within the story? If Dark Elves are created by an evil God, who says there's a possibility to change? I would assume Innoruuk made sure he left no room in them for good, every fiber of their being filled with hatred.
I understand that some players feel somehow restricted and want to make up their own stories.. but personally I feel some things should follow the main lore of whatever world you're role playing in.
That's their backstory. That is why they are evil. Do you want some kind of made up scientific answer in a fantasy world?
Because it's in the story of everquest. It's not your story to change. You can change it for yourself any way you want, but that doesn't change the actual story.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
No, I want something more believable than "100% of race X is evil because some god went trolololo on them". Considering it's also a evil aligned god (I assume) why would they then align with it? I mean I get some, maybe even most, going insane and becoming evil but everyone?
The only time I've seen a believable backstory for evil elf-like creatures was with the Dark Eldar from Warhammer 40.000 lore though granted I haven't read most of them.
Ever hear of the mirror test?
Innoruk was jealous he wasn't able to have his own creation, so he stole and transformed another's. In EQ, and a lot of other fantasy settings, the creation is very much the same nature of the the creator. Innoruuk tortured two elves for 300 years and created a whole race of evil elves.
I fully agree - as i've stated - with certain races having to start out evil due to their "most likely" upbringing. (It probably got lost early in the thread) but one of my greatest experiences in Norrath has been starting out as an "evil" Ratonga, working hard to change my nature, earning the trust of Qeynos and eventually becoming "good".
Also, "creatures that are innately" anything shouldn't be playable at all. Only races with free will should be playable unless you design a special sub-system like Monster Play in LoTRO.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
Well, it's also the story of Everquest that according to most recent history - (as per EQ2) - all playable races can change their alignment by performing certain actions.
It's already been hinted at though, that EQN will not be following the EQ/EQ2 timeline, so we can throw all that stuff out the window.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
The reason I ask is that "the mirror test" is what we humans consider a test. Who says it is the only way to determine self awareness? Oh right, we humans say so.
Do lions fight when another pride comes into "their territory?" When they look at their paws on the ground, do they think it is theirs? Do old dogs know when their time is up and go lay down somewhere to die?
It is the "we know everything and that's that" attitude that gets us humans into so much trouble. All of your arguments have this "finality" to them with no acceptance of deviations. You seem incapable of thinking outside the human made box.
I'll ask one more time: "Do you think that having empathy for an evil person (humanizing them) makes them not evil anymore?"
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I answered that question before, now could you try not to sound like your grasping at straws? The mirror test is quite simple: If an animal can recognize its own reflection then it has the basis of self-awareness. Primates such as chimps and gorillas have passed this test, animals such as cats have not.
Also if we're going into SF with geodic and energy-based lifeforms let me know, I have been waiting for someone to talk to on that subject ^^.