MKV: Ive just noticed that you seem to be focusing on PC''s, whereas my arguments are based more on the point of view of NPC character design.

I think that PC''s should either be alignment-less, or their alignment should be determined from their actions in the game. In either case, the layer should not be exposed to the alignment system.

quote: Original post by Sandman
I think that PC's should either be alignment-less, or their alignment should be determined from their actions in the game. In either case, the layer should not be exposed to the alignment system.

And why would this not be applicable to NPCs? They simply have motivations and needs, and try to satisfy them. Let the player decide if they like the NPC or not, whether they'd call him/her evil, good, lawful, a bastard, or a saint...
there's no real need for classification if there is motivation.


Shameless plug for Dwarfsoft:
NPCs are people too!

People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

Edited by - MadKeithV on November 13, 2000 10:58:51 AM

The answer is simple. NPC''s arent people, they are a bunch of ones and zeros. Now if you were to write an AI that could develop a personality from nothing and behave in an appropriate manner (and repeat this for EVERY npc in the game - in realtime) then fine, but that simply isnt going to happen. Not for a while anyway.

In the meantime we have to make do with approximations. How does the computer know how an NPC is to behave? If it has no guidance then you either end up with hundreds of identical NPC''s or your NPC''s end up acting in a random and inconsistent manner. Neither of which is terribly desirable. If you have an alignment or some other kind of general personality description for the NPC then the ccomputer will know how to make the character act in a beleivable way.

quote: Original post by paulkp

Ultima VII: Serpent Isle had traitors among good townspeople, and I didn''t like it. You sort of trust that these are good guys, and the goblins or whatever are evil and must be destroyed.

*Wavinator prepares to be barbequed*

Um, I have labored under the impression for years that the entire reason __MOST__ folks escape into fantasy (science fantasy, or medieval) is that they want simplicity. Simple classifications are at the heart of "good and evil." Luke is good, the Emperor is evil. The Elves are good, the Drow Elves are evil. Light is good, Darkness is evil.

You don''t have to think about it.

I mean, c''mon! Isn''t that the reason why most CRPGs are medieval fantasy? Simpler times carried simpler rules, and a much less complicated world, right? The scientific modern or future world implies __FAR TOO MANY__ moral quandries, complexity, and shades of gray!

Isn''t this a turn off to lovers of fantasy? (seriously, not a value judgement, just a *possibly incorrect* observation)


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Well in Fiests medieval fantasy, Jimmy is a theif - yet he is a good guy. In one book Guy du Bas Tyra was a powerlusting madman, in the next he was a hero of war. It all depends on PERSPECTIVE... That is what is needed. Perspective

Thanks MKV for the plug: NPC''s are people too!
You do realise that it is Ingenu that is pretty much heading up our IOL/NPCAI project though?

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

I have been working on am rpg for a while (I have too many projects, and never finish any of them) where the main story is not good vs evil, or even man vs self, its sort of the player makes a mistake and has to live with it. Kind of a new realm that games haven''t really gone to.

Saluk... I like that idea, would you care to elaborate more on that?

I like the realms of man vs cliche. Definitely an area which games don''t tread (or not that I have seen )

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

quote: Original post by Sandman
In the meantime we have to make do with approximations. How does the computer know how an NPC is to behave? If it has no guidance then you either end up with hundreds of identical NPC''s or your NPC''s end up acting in a random and inconsistent manner. Neither of which is terribly desirable. If you have an alignment or some other kind of general personality description for the NPC then the ccomputer will know how to make the character act in a beleivable way.

I really can''t believe you make a great argument like this, and then call it advocacy of an alignment???

Alignment is SO generalised that it does not work to choose a proper reaction of an NPC towards the player''s action. You just chopped down a tree in the forest. The NPC is evil. What does the NPC do? I don''t know! I could make it up, but then I''d make up a motivation for the reaction. The computer doesn''t make up a motivation, it can only decide: the NPC is evil, must do something bad to player. Why? Who cares, it''s an evil NPC.

Now, if this was an agressive forester NPC with a special thing for that tree you chopped down ( motivation: must protect forest ), you get a reaction that makes sense: must kick players ass for chopping down MY christmas tree.

Consistency and believability in AI is much easier to achieve with motivations than with a catch-all, mean-nothing notation like alignment.




People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

I think what MKV is trying to say is that you can have motivation and event handling for NPC''s. They can each have their own motivations and desires (needs and wants) and these can be handled in a priority queue. All up, it is an ad for IOL/NPCAI (thanks to many, including Ingenu and myself ) which is trying to prioritise what an NPC chooses to do.

Anyway... Back on topic (after a worthwhile plug ), instead of having alignment, have needs and wants. These can be for self advancement or whatever. Basically, this will give the NPC the option of how to act based on how easy or needy a current task is. From this, an NPC has no alignment, just a set of needs in its priority queue. Then, the NPC will provide consistent reactions to events, but unaligned responses. Whatever suits its purpose better... Easy enough eh? Now try and code the beast

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

MKV.

1. Your alignment axample is slightly unfair, since you denied the 'Evil PC' a career. Now an evil forester NPC would probably jealously guard his forest, but he wouldnt put his life in too much danger. He would probably shoot the PC in the back with a poisoned arrow, and remain in hiding. A lawful evil NPC might not attack the pc's at all, he might walk out and demand an extortionate amount of money for damages to his property. If they refuse, he would take it to the authorities.

2.

quote:
Now, if this was an agressive forester NPC with a special thing for that tree you chopped down ( motivation: must protect forest ), you get a reaction that makes sense: must kick players ass for chopping down MY christmas tree.

In any case, this is an admission that motivations alone are not enough either. Since when was aggression a motivation? My argument that you need some form of personality description holds.

Edited by - Sandman on November 14, 2000 6:33:47 AM

Edited by - Sandman on November 14, 2000 6:36:58 AM