"Being under the patronage of Galvanos, the god of Knowledge, Neutral characters are now the only ones able to summon Legends and receive Lost Tales when defeating them."
I really like the idea of there being a game mechanic relating to the Legends; like the summoning and fighting of them is a real full on Endeavour; I'm picturing a party of adventurers making their way across the land with banners waving proclaiming to all that the seek battle with a Legend, and they have some sort of truce because of their quest (though a Legend hunting truce would have it's own problems) but I don't see this working, wouldn't it mean that evil players can't summon legends?
I understand that Galvanos is the god of knowledge, but considering how integral the knowledge system is to the game, for all players, not just neutral players, it doesn't seem quite right for him to have such an important role, and isn't Galvanos still technically 'Good'?
I can see Galvanos providing his devotees with some sort of knowledge related bonus, particularly for crafting and technology trees etc. but it would have to be something that the other gods could balance out, so that you don't have players who wouldn't normally be followers of that kind of deity choosing him because of the perks.
Maybe Galvanos does the magic side and tyros does the melee side?
Will the other axis of the alignment scale be implemented at some point? (Chaotic-Lawful as opposed to Good-Evil) I always though Galvanos was more Neutral Good than True Neutral
@Mirgannel12 The Neutral Alignment requirement for summoning Legends and Collecting Lost tales is to discourage Evil Aligned players. Obviously, once the implement the Demon World, things will probably be different there, but on Syndesia, they want to make sure that you have a Neutral party member with you when you go after a legend. As for getting awarded Lost Tales, I believe part of this is so that an Evil Band can't come in, kill-steal a Legend and reap the full reward for it.
Good players can't summon a Legend either. You must be Neutral to do so, so the game is encouraging people to ride the middle line if they want to attain all the knowledge they can, because the pursuit of knowledge is itself a neutral act.
With the 3 Planets, each one pretty much represents one of the 3 Alignments on the Axis, Tartarus is Evil, Syndesia is Neutral, and Arborea is Good. This being the case, you might have to be of the alignment of your planet to summon Legends there, who knows.
As to the other Alignment Axis, not all games want to borrow from the synergy of Alignments that Dungeons & Dragons started when they took the classic Good vs Evil and combined them with Michael Moorcock's Law vs Chaos. The 9 Alignments might be iconic right now, but that doesn't mean that they, as game developers, want to have people define their characters so exactly. Most people aren't purely any one alignment anyway, which is why even Dungeons & Dragons started to simplify and de-emphasize alignments in later editions.
@GamerSeuss fair enough, but the current hero profile on the forum does have the 9 alignments.
@GamerSeuss as to the second part, there are those who desire knowledge for good, and some for evil, so there is no inherent neutrality about it, except that it is usually easier to pursue 'good' knowledge if you are not 'evil', and 'evil' knowledge if you are not 'good; if you are no-ones enemy, you have access to knowledge that would be denied their enemies, not to mention scruples...
But my main point was that the Knowledge System specifically is equally important to all alignments, so...
Planet alignment would make some sense, but would still have problems: what about visitors? are all legends summonable on all planets? etc.
sorry, my first reply was to the second post, and the second to the first
I could be wrong, but I think that evil players CAN summon legends.
The restriction is in place to avoid blue players summoning legends. If you want to go after these endgame objectives, you must be willing to partecipate into the risk of it.
@Mirgannel12 As far as visitation to other planets go, since the visitation time window is soooo short, I don't really see any visitors participating in the steps it would take to summon, and defeat the Legends of another planet (if, as you so rightly asked, the other planets will even have Legends)
@spoletta actually, they specifically said ONLY neutral characters.
@Mirgannel12 as to previous remarks...Knowledge itself is inherently neutral. How you might need to acquire that knowledge and the use of that knowledge couled be typified as Good or Evil, but the actual knowledge itself is grey.
Example: Knowing how to kill something is neither good nor evil. Utilizing that knowledge may be evil, depending on the circumstances, or it could be good, but knowing how is neither. Same thing with Raising the Dead. Knowing how is not inherently evil. In most cultures and situations, however, using that knowledge is almost always considered moralistically Evil. That being said, there are situations where judicious use of the knowledge could be interpreted as Good or at least Neutral and Justified. For instance, if the last person to see a child alive was his/her kidnapper, and he is known for locking them away until they starve to death, if the only way you have to find the child is to question a corpse, you might need to raise that corpse sufficient for it to either tell you the child's location, or lead you there.
OlivePit last edited by
I feel this is a great solution to potential pvp heavy syndesia. It even still gives pvp players the option of camping/stalking boss spawn points and kill stealing the boss when neutral players summon it.
So it's not like they -cant- get the kill and benefits, it just makes it more -challenging-
opposite of evil is holy.
opposite of good is bad.
dont mix them, mkay.
@GamerSeuss I suppose the Knowledge itself is neutral, though can you really apply an alignment to it? even if that alignment is no alignment? I was referring more to the pursuit of knowledge not being neutral.
I'm glad to have come across someone else who knows of Michael Moorcock, unfortunately I haven't read any of his works, I have Stormbringer and Mother London? I think it is? but neither are the first book, so I haven't read them yet. ( I found The Wyrd of the White Wolf, but I hadn't heard of him at the time and I thought is was some modern ripoff of The Witcher books, oh the foolishness of youth )
Does Moorcock also have Neutrality?
It's interesting that Neutrality is an alignment, because as I understand it, neutrality, rather than being a state between two extremes, is a state outside of the scale; as in a neutral country, rather than being part of the war and allied with neither side, is a country that is not a part of the war, rather than taking neither part, it is taking no part.
Neutral in a car is NO gear, not in any gear.
The word itself; Neut, as in not, nothing, suggests that Neutrality does not actually exist, but is merely a concept whereby the thing has no part in the issue, and given that, I would argue, having no part entirely is impossible, Neutrality does not exist.
If Neutrality is assumed to be something outside the scale, not in fact existing inside the 'system', and if knowledge itself is neutral, then, does knowledge intended for neither Good nor Evil, in fact exist?
Good would see Neutral as Evil, because it is not Good, and vice versa. Neutral is Lawful if it obeys any laws, and Chaotic if it disobeys any law, so if it cannot be neither, either it doesn't exist, or it is not taking no part, but rather taking both parts, to some degree.
Or at least this is the kind of 'Neutrality' I ascribe to, at least on the Law/Chaos scale; whereby I take some part in both.
Is there a word for a combination neutrality? as opposed to 'Neither' Neutrality.
Of course, I have a very poor understanding of the Law/Chaos scale, does it refer to legality or 'divine law'?
Disobeying a written law in pursuit of a higher law would be lawful or chaotic depending on which it is.
@Mirgannel12 As far as I can recall, Moorcock didn't have the concept of Neutrality in his books, but it has been awhile.
The thing is, with D&D, which started the 2 axis Alignment system, since you could exist focused on any one of the extremes, without regard for the other axis, they needed a centerpoint to link the 2 axis together. A 0,0 coordinate if you will, thus was born Neutrality.
All games that came after have pretty much utilized some version of the D&D alignment system (or none at all).
In D&D, Neutrality represents those things in life that are not inherently leaning towards one of the extremes of an axis. Knowledge is Neutral, how you use it, and how you attain it can be Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic, but the Knowledge itself is Neutral. Nature is Neutral, Balance is Neutral. Some might think that Balance is Lawful, however, Balance is also between Law and Chaos.
It's like a blade. It is a useful tool, and inherently neither good nor evil. Use it to build a shelter for the poor, it is Good, use it to murder someone, it's Evil. Use it with technique, like a Duelist, it is Lawful, and use it as a Brawler, it is Chaotic.
This is not to mention the fact that Good and Evil are considered based on the Morality of the individual. Different Moralities see these things differently. Law and Chaos, on the other hand, is based around Application. Is it Structured or Free-form. Is it Art or Science? Does a Lawful person always follow the Laws of the land, even if they disagree with them, and see the established government bodies as corrupt? Does a Chaotic person always ignore the laws of the land, and seek to supercede them, purely because they are laws?
Ultimately, everyone generally falls somewhere on the Spectrum between the 2 Axis. Not only that, but generally speaking, their point on the spectrum is generally not stagnant.