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).
IMO this is a recipe for being real irritating.
I would suggest a different set of optics. They are something of the Technocracy; they stand for a particular vision.
This vision (in broad terms, rendered to zone appropriate details) involves order, stability, a certain degree of political freedom or meritocracy, and an aggressive stance against monsters and other menaces. The downsides are that they are hostile to nuanced and long-term solutions (what if killing all the dragons means that magic dies? acceptable). There is also a certain mechanistic brutality to their actions, and they may take steps to reshape areas in rather brutal and un-nature-friendly way. (There could be economic exploitation angles but ZZZZZ I FELL ASLEEP ALREADY SALLY IF I WANTED TO READ ABOUT THE ECONOMIC EXPLOITATION OF THE IGNORANT SHEEPLE I WOULD PICK UP THE PAPER). They clear cut the sections of the overworld for lumber and excavate pit mines to facilitate getting at resources. Then they kill the elven diplomats.
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.
However, it is also entirely possible I'd say yes. But you wouldn't magically get to remove people from the faction setup. If Michael Thorton, Solid Snake, and Michael Wilson all had players, and they all agreed to make this faction for whatever reason, and you managed to sell it to the staff - and I stress that I really dislike overlapping factions so you would need to give me a *point* behind this faction besides 'because we think your faction setup is dumb' - then yes, they would get to leave their faction.
You don't get to put unapped people into your faction. That's a very big thing; a faction creation requires a group of players who agree on a goal, and then their characters and only their characters are put into that faction. Others may app or defect into it, but ultimately, you don't get to take people who aren't played; that's not your call, it's the call of future players.
One of the big ones that somebody put forward the other night on staff when we were talking about this was the idea of Andrew Ryan gathering a group of like-minded capitalists and building /an entire faction/ out of those players, making his base in Rapture, and generally being a crazy capitalistic dude trying to war profiteer off the existing conflict.
What you want to look for, and what you will need to do to get a player-based faction approved, we are still toying with. However, I encourage you not to think, "where would these characters who've already been placed go better"; that's how your faction becomes redundant. Instead, think, "what is the goal of this faction, and what does it add to the MUSH"? That's what we want to encourage you and your factions to do.
Again, not that we wouldn't allow defection or such, but not of unapped characters. Those we already place are probably staying where they are until they hit the grid and have an IC reason to leave.
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.
"what is the goal of this faction, and what does it add to the MUSH"
OK, hypothetically:
The goal of this faction is to be the United States of America. It's lawful, but not evil. It is a lawful good faction from the top-down. It's not fascist because it's an elected government chosen by the people, for the people, at least in theory and practice. That doesn't mean that an individual person within the system cannot be corrupt, but, rather, that the principles behind the idea are not corrupt. (This is the opposite of the DRM as presented, where the people may be good, but the system is more or less stated bad or at least "LAW ABOVE ALL ELSE.") It is founded on the principle of freedom over tyranny, but is run by a governmental force.
The rationale for this is that it makes sense to have a faction that is both lawful and good. It makes sense to have America-based characters join up in a faction based on America as opposed to working for an Australian.
The DRM isn't the place for certain characters because in your own words they disapprove of heroic methods. Whereas many characters who work for the government act as lone wolves and do heroic things when doing that is what they feel is best to do. Alternately, however, since they work for a government, working for the pure good faction is dodgy.
'The DRM isn't the place for certain characters because in your own words they disapprove of heroic methods.'
Heroic methods does not mean "not being explosive as hell". Heroic methods, in this specific case, means saying "completely screw the law, I'm doing what I think is right". The Palace of Power is technically a lawful organization, and the Protectors of Videoland work under the PoP; they are *technically* lawful good.
Let's liken it to this. In a situation in which there are hostages to save, and the moral choice is to choose between the two hostages, /by and large/ the Protectors Of Videoland will try to save both hostages.
By contrast, the DRM's objective is punishing the criminal. Saving the hostages comes second to them; it is certainly not unimportant (at least to most of them), but it is not /the central focus of the faction/.
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. The system is not good.
The system is the system; if you think it is bad, it is because the players perceive the system to be bad. It is, ultimately, impossible for a System to be good or bad.
I can see that this is a presentation issue more than anything else; we'll work on the DRM's news file, you'll probably see something fairly different when the game hits.
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.'
IMO this is a recipe for being real irritating.
I would suggest a different set of optics. They are something of the Technocracy; they stand for a particular vision.
This vision (in broad terms, rendered to zone appropriate details) involves order, stability, a certain degree of political freedom or meritocracy, and an aggressive stance against monsters and other menaces.
The downsides are that they are hostile to nuanced and long-term solutions (what if killing all the dragons means that magic dies? acceptable). There is also a certain mechanistic brutality to their actions, and they may take steps to reshape areas in rather brutal and un-nature-friendly way. (There could be economic exploitation angles but ZZZZZ I FELL ASLEEP ALREADY SALLY IF I WANTED TO READ ABOUT THE ECONOMIC EXPLOITATION OF THE IGNORANT SHEEPLE I WOULD PICK UP THE PAPER). They clear cut the sections of the overworld for lumber and excavate pit mines to facilitate getting at resources. Then they kill the elven diplomats.
etc.
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
However, it is also entirely possible I'd say yes. But you wouldn't magically get to remove people from the faction setup. If Michael Thorton, Solid Snake, and Michael Wilson all had players, and they all agreed to make this faction for whatever reason, and you managed to sell it to the staff - and I stress that I really dislike overlapping factions so you would need to give me a *point* behind this faction besides 'because we think your faction setup is dumb' - then yes, they would get to leave their faction.
You don't get to put unapped people into your faction. That's a very big thing; a faction creation requires a group of players who agree on a goal, and then their characters and only their characters are put into that faction. Others may app or defect into it, but ultimately, you don't get to take people who aren't played; that's not your call, it's the call of future players.
One of the big ones that somebody put forward the other night on staff when we were talking about this was the idea of Andrew Ryan gathering a group of like-minded capitalists and building /an entire faction/ out of those players, making his base in Rapture, and generally being a crazy capitalistic dude trying to war profiteer off the existing conflict.
What you want to look for, and what you will need to do to get a player-based faction approved, we are still toying with. However, I encourage you not to think, "where would these characters who've already been placed go better"; that's how your faction becomes redundant. Instead, think, "what is the goal of this faction, and what does it add to the MUSH"? That's what we want to encourage you and your factions to do.
Again, not that we wouldn't allow defection or such, but not of unapped characters. Those we already place are probably staying where they are until they hit the grid and have an IC reason to leave.
Reply
Reply
OK, hypothetically:
The goal of this faction is to be the United States of America. It's lawful, but not evil. It is a lawful good faction from the top-down. It's not fascist because it's an elected government chosen by the people, for the people, at least in theory and practice. That doesn't mean that an individual person within the system cannot be corrupt, but, rather, that the principles behind the idea are not corrupt. (This is the opposite of the DRM as presented, where the people may be good, but the system is more or less stated bad or at least "LAW ABOVE ALL ELSE.") It is founded on the principle of freedom over tyranny, but is run by a governmental force.
The rationale for this is that it makes sense to have a faction that is both lawful and good. It makes sense to have America-based characters join up in a faction based on America as opposed to working for an Australian.
The DRM isn't the place for certain characters because in your own words they disapprove of heroic methods. Whereas many characters who work for the government act as lone wolves and do heroic things when doing that is what they feel is best to do. Alternately, however, since they work for a government, working for the pure good faction is dodgy.
Reply
Heroic methods does not mean "not being explosive as hell". Heroic methods, in this specific case, means saying "completely screw the law, I'm doing what I think is right". The Palace of Power is technically a lawful organization, and the Protectors of Videoland work under the PoP; they are *technically* lawful good.
Let's liken it to this. In a situation in which there are hostages to save, and the moral choice is to choose between the two hostages, /by and large/ the Protectors Of Videoland will try to save both hostages.
By contrast, the DRM's objective is punishing the criminal. Saving the hostages comes second to them; it is certainly not unimportant (at least to most of them), but it is not /the central focus of the faction/.
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. The system is not good.
The system is the system; if you think it is bad, it is because the players perceive the system to be bad. It is, ultimately, impossible for a System to be good or bad.
I can see that this is a presentation issue more than anything else; we'll work on the DRM's news file, you'll probably see something fairly different when the game hits.
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