While I think you can keep these flavors alright, you may want to consider the DRM people a little. In a sense they're the guys who are Not Good, but say they're in favor of Good, because They're Doing Something You Aren't (because it is irrelevant to the way things usually go on these games, namely, sticking up for the civilians
( ... )
They are not in favor of Good; Good is not just the protection of people and the defeating of Evil. Good is about doing things that are right; it is about taking the moral high ground, at least in the abstract philosophical sense I am utilizing for the specifics of this MUSH.
To say that Law = Good is inaccurate. To say that 'protecting the people' is Good is inaccurate.
In a broad sense, you are correct; that is what they are in favor of. But more than anything else, what the DRM wants more than anything else, is Control. Because Control means bad things don't happen to the people who deserve protecting.
Good doesn't make that distinction; everybody deserves protecting, even if they break the law once in a while to make it happen.
But yes, in a broad sense, you are correct, they have a lot of shades of the Technocracy. Kill the wonder, make it safe.
"The moral high ground" is not my favorite thing on a MUSH. Everyone claims to have it anyway, except for maybe the "we revel in evil" people whom not many people will play.
I slept on this, and I have a question.
What if I wanted to create a faction called, say, "the legitimate government of the United States." It's lead by President Michael Wilson and is a better place to put characters like Solid Snake and Sam Fisher and Charlie Nash and all the spies and solider characters, of which there are many, who work not for lawful neo-fascists but for a legitimate government of the United States.
I can do this, right? Even if it means pulling Michael Thorton out of a faction you put him in, because that's what you're here to facilitate.
How many of these guys do I have to have app with me to make this happen? Can we put non-apped people in the faction as a result of "because they make more sense there"? Nobody wants to app the President, though, is that okay?
I would, probably, say no to that, ultimately because "the law" is already represented. Saying, "I want to make a better faction for these people" is not really the point of the player-based faction system, because remember that these people are not neo-fascists who do terrible evil things, they are a government that is attempting to bring order to a very very lawless world
( ... )
Also belatedly, we had wanted to use the Brotherhood of Steel as an example player-run faction, and we may still, but hell if we can all agree on how to make it look without pigeonholing players of those FCs.
Belatedly, I can't see Michael Wilson creating his own faction anyway. We've more or less sort of as a staff kind of decided that, if he's appable, he's in the Protectors of Videoland as an example character anyway. He's in a weird situation, which I'll talk more about when appability rules come up.
I mean, let's be honest here, his priority is /freedom/ over /law/, even if he is the president.
I would therefore turn down "the US Government" as a faction because your argument hinges on the idea that the system is "bad". The system is not bad.
I would definitely suggest that it needs a little work as written then, because right now I would not like to play a US government-allied character (and that's a character I'm primarily looking at here) in a faction that seems inherently restrictive of personal freedoms. As written, DRM comes across as more bad than good.
Even the name seems evil. DRM is considered a restrictive force.
To be clear, I believe a dictatorship cyberdistopian faction is fine, and a perfect place for say G Man, but some of these characters as suggested don't seem to belong to that faction, as written.
Also belatedly, and once again I curse the lack of editable comments, I generally agree with you about the moral high ground; everybody thinks they have it and most of them are wrong.
The government, the U.S. government, is not totalitarian. And yet it is acknowledged, in nearly every genre of fiction imaginable, that it is not clean; it does some very unpleasant actions to keep its citizens safe from harm, especially in video games. Alpha Protocol is one of my favorite examples of this, since it pretty much says right up at the front 'we are not nasty people, but we will do nasty things, for the sake of our country,' then proceeds to send you off to assassinate a terrorist. It just gets more explosive from there, and I won't spoil it here, but you at least already know what I'm talking about.
I liken the DRM to this more than anything else. 'We are not nasty people, but we will do nasty things, but it is to keep you safe and that is why we do them.'
Reply
To say that Law = Good is inaccurate. To say that 'protecting the people' is Good is inaccurate.
In a broad sense, you are correct; that is what they are in favor of. But more than anything else, what the DRM wants more than anything else, is Control. Because Control means bad things don't happen to the people who deserve protecting.
Good doesn't make that distinction; everybody deserves protecting, even if they break the law once in a while to make it happen.
But yes, in a broad sense, you are correct, they have a lot of shades of the Technocracy. Kill the wonder, make it safe.
Reply
I slept on this, and I have a question.
What if I wanted to create a faction called, say, "the legitimate government of the United States." It's lead by President Michael Wilson and is a better place to put characters like Solid Snake and Sam Fisher and Charlie Nash and all the spies and solider characters, of which there are many, who work not for lawful neo-fascists but for a legitimate government of the United States.
I can do this, right? Even if it means pulling Michael Thorton out of a faction you put him in, because that's what you're here to facilitate.
How many of these guys do I have to have app with me to make this happen? Can we put non-apped people in the faction as a result of "because they make more sense there"? Nobody wants to app the President, though, is that okay?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I mean, let's be honest here, his priority is /freedom/ over /law/, even if he is the president.
Reply
I would definitely suggest that it needs a little work as written then, because right now I would not like to play a US government-allied character (and that's a character I'm primarily looking at here) in a faction that seems inherently restrictive of personal freedoms. As written, DRM comes across as more bad than good.
Even the name seems evil. DRM is considered a restrictive force.
To be clear, I believe a dictatorship cyberdistopian faction is fine, and a perfect place for say G Man, but some of these characters as suggested don't seem to belong to that faction, as written.
Reply
The government, the U.S. government, is not totalitarian. And yet it is acknowledged, in nearly every genre of fiction imaginable, that it is not clean; it does some very unpleasant actions to keep its citizens safe from harm, especially in video games. Alpha Protocol is one of my favorite examples of this, since it pretty much says right up at the front 'we are not nasty people, but we will do nasty things, for the sake of our country,' then proceeds to send you off to assassinate a terrorist. It just gets more explosive from there, and I won't spoil it here, but you at least already know what I'm talking about.
I liken the DRM to this more than anything else. 'We are not nasty people, but we will do nasty things, but it is to keep you safe and that is why we do them.'
Reply
I know, I played it, but you'll probably have to be cool about spoilers running a game like this.
Reply
Leave a comment