The Religious Side

[turin]

The alignments are 'equal'. I don't see how advancing from a lawful unit into a neutral one is 'losing something'.

David

well, your losing the advantage/disadvantage of having night/day effect you. neutral does not have this.

Anyway, even if you have a point, it still makes little sense for a mage to be lawful.

[Dave]

The alignments are 'equal'. I don't see how advancing from a lawful unit into a neutral one is 'losing something'.

David

well, your losing the advantage/disadvantage of having night/day effect you. neutral does not have this.

Neutral units are better at fighting at night than lawful units are, and worse at fighting at day than lawful units are. The advantages and disadvantages of alignments are all relative to each other.

Anyway, even if you have a point, it still makes little sense for a mage to be lawful.

I'm really indifferent to whether mages should be lawful or neutral. Most human units are lawful though.

David

[BillG3]

You might explain the alignment change from lawful to neutral by saying the Mage "backslid" by deciding to use the "worldly" powers of the Red Mage over the "holy" ones of the White Mage.

[turin]

You might explain the alignment change from lawful to neutral by saying the Mage "backslid" by deciding to use the "worldly" powers of the Red Mage over the "holy" ones of the White Mage.

Yes, i guess you could.

but i think the discussion has moved from the theoretical to the practical, about whether it makes sense for the game to have any units that change allignment when they advance. does it?

[Dave]

but i think the discussion has moved from the theoretical to the practical, about whether it makes sense for the game to have any units that change allignment when they advance. does it?

I think it makes sense for mages -- different orders practice in different ways.

After all, these alignments are 'lawful/neutral/chaotic', not 'good/neutral/evil'.

David

[AT]

EDIT: Removed for opinion reversle.

I now agree with Dave; it would make sence for some mages to be chaotic....
But i think we should spend less time on making LVL 4 units for Humans, and make some LVL 1 units for Orcs and Dwarves...

[Dave]

But i think we should spend less time on making LVL 4 units for Humans, and make some LVL 1 units for Orcs and Dwarves...

Possibly, but the suggestion was to remove a unit that is already present.

Btw to provide an idea of how attached I am to the mage -> red mage -> arch mage -> great mage progression, let me say that these are some of the only units that were devised before even a single line of code was written

David

[turin]

lets put it this way. if the mage was neutral, it might make sense for there to be a chaotic upgrade of it. however, since it is lawful, it makes little sense for a unit to go from one extreme to the other. that is why it makes more sense for Mages to be neutral.

[Dave]

lets put it this way. if the mage was neutral, it might make sense for there to be a chaotic upgrade of it. however, since it is lawful, it makes little sense for a unit to go from one extreme to the other. that is why it makes more sense for Mages to be neutral.

Well, if we decide to introduce a chaotic upgrade, we'll probably makes mages neutral.

David

[turin]

lets put it this way. if the mage was neutral, it might make sense for there to be a chaotic upgrade of it. however, since it is lawful, it makes little sense for a unit to go from one extreme to the other. that is why it makes more sense for Mages to be neutral.

Well, if we decide to introduce a chaotic upgrade, we'll probably makes mages neutral.

David

i actually have an interesting proposal for this. if you control any chaotic units, you can advance a mage to a necromancer/black mage unit. if you control any lawful units, the mage can advance to a white mage. if you control any neutral units (which you have to, if the mage is neutral) the mage can advance to the red mage.

[quartex]

I could see having some neutral units in a mostly lawful race. Like the thieves. But I couldn't see having opposing alignments work together.

And I doubt think upgrade paths should be based on what other types of units you have, too restricting.

[Dave]

I could see having some neutral units in a mostly lawful race. Like the thieves. But I couldn't see having opposing alignments work together.

Thieves are chaotic.

David

[quartex]

Oh, whoops. Nevermind.

[Jetrel]

Yeah, despite the somewhat misleading names, I assumed in wesnoth that "alignment" simply had to do with what part of the day the unit was used to being outside in. Hence, they would perform better at such times.



Personally, I think we should change them to reflect what they really affect:

Lawful = Diurnal
Neutral = Neutral
Chaotic = Nocturnal

[turin]

Yeah, despite the somewhat misleading names, I assumed in wesnoth that "alignment" simply had to do with what part of the day the unit was used to being outside in. Hence, they would perform better at such times.



Personally, I think we should change them to reflect what they really affect:

Lawful = Diurnal
Neutral = Neutral
Chaotic = Nocturnal

this has been suggested many times. It makes sense, but it doesn't sound good, and the current system makes sense too. It is (or should be) obvious that lawful units prefer the day, chaotic units the night, and neutral units don't care.

BTW, chaotic actually IS an advantage, and lawful IS a disadvantage. This is because cave is always in night, where chaotic units get an advantage and lawful a disadvantage. (there is nothing like this that benefits lawful units, though). so it can be said lawful IS a disadvantage.