![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Go and feel the new functions and things!
Sep. 8th, 2005 04:50 pmI'm not one to usually mock "Engrish." I feel that most translators do their very best to translate from one difficult language into another difficult language and that it's not easy, especially when the translator is unfamiliar with the target culture and idioms.
Despite this, it's fascinating and more often than not humorous ("AYBABTU!") to see just what comes out of translations. It goes both ways, too: I still get a kick that in China Coco-Cola "Brings your dead relatives back to life." It's a danger that is run by anyone who uses foreign languages that they're not 100% familiar with. I can only imagine the linguistic destruction I've wrought over the years. A lexicon website is a dangerous thing in my hands.
Anyway! I'd almost forgotten that I'd been testing d.o. Online for a bit, when I got the following e-mail:
Actually, d.o. has a pretty intriguing system of alignment and class. You start out as a typical neutral adventurer, then apparently choices you make start to make your orientation go towards law and good, or chaos and evil. And at that point the class trees diverge. So it's like those old martial arts films (I'm looking at you, Tiger and Crane Kung Fu....) where you have the good guys and the bad guys flying all over the landscape, exchanging mortal blows.
I used to scoff at alignment in RPGs. I mean, what good was it? It was just a pigeonhole. Everyone is different. The more complex systems still couldn't, in essence, get away from a black and white morality. (A few bad experiences with "paladins" cemented this.) I'm starting to feel that alignment can be an important part of a game and that it can be quite applicable, at least in cementing what a character's beliefs are. In addition, it's helpful as a role-playing tool in that the player has some idea of what's expected of his character.
The problem in the past is that D&D (for example) was pretty reluctant to say what defined GOOD and what defined EVIL. After decades of asking if a paladin was supposed to show mercy to evil creatures or should smite them outright, we still don't have a definite answer from the people who write the damn game, and it's left to individual DM's discretions. This causes problems when you have a lot of players and one of the players decides that, yes, it's perfectly fine for their paladin to suddenly walk into a town, cast 'Detect Evil,' and SMITE the first "evil" person walking by. (Oh, yeah, and if you tried to set up a situation where doing that would get the character in trouble, you get accused of favoring the 'evil' characters. But that's a rant of a time long past.) Seriously. What makes a paladin the paragon of all that is goodness and light? What makes a blackguard an unholy SOB who must be Smote At All Costs?
So maybe, for any aspiring game-designers and world-crafters out there, it's an idea to play with, to not turn one's nose up at some sort of system of alignment, but to consider embracing it (at least implicitly) and defining for your world what, in a metaphysical sense, is Right and Wrong, and just what transcendant entity (or entities, or if any) cares about that sort of thing. This is most important in a game setting where you have character types whose abilities rely on some sort of objective morality.
Despite this, it's fascinating and more often than not humorous ("AYBABTU!") to see just what comes out of translations. It goes both ways, too: I still get a kick that in China Coco-Cola "Brings your dead relatives back to life." It's a danger that is run by anyone who uses foreign languages that they're not 100% familiar with. I can only imagine the linguistic destruction I've wrought over the years. A lexicon website is a dangerous thing in my hands.
Anyway! I'd almost forgotten that I'd been testing d.o. Online for a bit, when I got the following e-mail:
A thousand years ago, all land had been stained by waters of blood. When the Lawful and the Evil struggled within each other by the Mados' (Mados are party of evil) conspiracy. The land could not sing a song for tomorrow at that time. Moreover, the Gimuls(Gimuls are odd subjects which look like pillars) came out quickly from ground everywhere, and the Gimuls summoned Asura¡¯s monsters. However, the group suddenly appeared, and put the seal on Monsters. The land was slowly kept in stability by the group of justice heroes which gave new instruction to prevent attacks by the Mado, and the instruction would be helpful to others.Justice heroes! The party of evil! The land could not sing a song for tomorrow! Go and feel the new... things!!
Justice heroes prevented collapses for a thousand years, by Amazing spells, and predicted the Mado will be appeared after a thousand years again, and then they disappeared by blowing the north wind of a plateau. Once more, Mystery land, Tibet is opening through the promise of thousand years ago. Because of this, a lot of skills recently have been appearing in the continent of Ancient.
Tibet map is divided into three virtual parts and first part is from Western North alley to Fighter¡¯s Inn. With first patch of Tibet at 9th September, you can only find monsters from the first part of the map. Other parts are still empty with monsters.
But, This patch brings you new map and great new monsters. And also next patch will bring you new monsters. Tibet will be updated with 2 more patches
And you know? ¡°The empire of Martial Heroes¡± is second edition of D.O Online. Go and feel the new functions and things!!
Actually, d.o. has a pretty intriguing system of alignment and class. You start out as a typical neutral adventurer, then apparently choices you make start to make your orientation go towards law and good, or chaos and evil. And at that point the class trees diverge. So it's like those old martial arts films (I'm looking at you, Tiger and Crane Kung Fu....) where you have the good guys and the bad guys flying all over the landscape, exchanging mortal blows.
I used to scoff at alignment in RPGs. I mean, what good was it? It was just a pigeonhole. Everyone is different. The more complex systems still couldn't, in essence, get away from a black and white morality. (A few bad experiences with "paladins" cemented this.) I'm starting to feel that alignment can be an important part of a game and that it can be quite applicable, at least in cementing what a character's beliefs are. In addition, it's helpful as a role-playing tool in that the player has some idea of what's expected of his character.
The problem in the past is that D&D (for example) was pretty reluctant to say what defined GOOD and what defined EVIL. After decades of asking if a paladin was supposed to show mercy to evil creatures or should smite them outright, we still don't have a definite answer from the people who write the damn game, and it's left to individual DM's discretions. This causes problems when you have a lot of players and one of the players decides that, yes, it's perfectly fine for their paladin to suddenly walk into a town, cast 'Detect Evil,' and SMITE the first "evil" person walking by. (Oh, yeah, and if you tried to set up a situation where doing that would get the character in trouble, you get accused of favoring the 'evil' characters. But that's a rant of a time long past.) Seriously. What makes a paladin the paragon of all that is goodness and light? What makes a blackguard an unholy SOB who must be Smote At All Costs?
So maybe, for any aspiring game-designers and world-crafters out there, it's an idea to play with, to not turn one's nose up at some sort of system of alignment, but to consider embracing it (at least implicitly) and defining for your world what, in a metaphysical sense, is Right and Wrong, and just what transcendant entity (or entities, or if any) cares about that sort of thing. This is most important in a game setting where you have character types whose abilities rely on some sort of objective morality.
