Two kinds of reputation

Looks good. I think that some factions would be more likely to ally with a Feared player, and others more likely to ally with a Popular player.

I like the ideas here.  I agree the two types of fame, though I'd rather not call the opposite of fear 'popularity' for a number of reasons.  It really should be called something else, like 'respect' or 'positive reputation' or something like that.     I mean if you're playing against a bunch of nasty, hating, nightmare AIs...  you're not going to be 'popular' with anybody (the enemies are not going to consider him popular, and a sovereign rulling his people without giving them any choice in the matter really shouldn't be rated in "popularity" by his subjects because the context makes no sense)

Not necessarily. If they consider him/her a "beneviolent dictator" they are going to go above and beyond the call of duty to serve him/her, and will be less likely to beray him/her or rebel.

Rather than have two linear systems that occasionally interact like you suggested above I think a triangular system of fame or reputation would be better suited for Elemental.

This would be an example of the system where every Channeler would start at the top of the triangle and then depending on decisions, events, actions, etc that were made the triangle would begin to fill up. The area filled would be proportional to the amount of fear / respect the Channeler has and their quantified power. So the closer you are to the base the more powerful your Channeler would be with skews left meaning you’re feared and skews right meaning you’re respected. 

nice, really good idea, like the good and evil in GalCiv.

I like the use of machiavelli, he is always good to quote in my book.

The whole polarized feel may be something that they could look into or justifiably make into something more gray.

I feel that the grayscale approach adds some realism.

Meaning the polatiry scale acts somewhat like a Ragnorok stat chart, different things influence your fame upon different acts of society as well as awknowlegment from your enemies. This may add a bit of depth and personality to the character, and also influence decisions much like what KOTOR and Mass Effect do.

As in SW:tOR polarized sides may have good and bad on both sides, but as the fallen v. human look its looks to be very "dark or light"-like.

I feel like there should be alots of archetypes that could be promoted, like your characters can be the typical hero, a villain, or the anti-hero.

To me old school fantasy is great, but adding your flavor to it, like what the book Paradise Lost does to the Christian Creation story truly makes a masterpiece.

Just wanted to repost from another thread -

I definitely want mechanics like this of some sort. I don't think they need to be a replacement for 'alignment,' but I do think the Machiavelli loved-feared dialectic is worth considering.

Let's start by putting slightly more fantasy-mode labels on them: Honor and Awe, with Honor being primarily about the consistency of a channeler's behavior, keeping promises, and respecting any major backstory value systems (e.g. building or destroying something like a temple), and Awe being about the public perception of the channeler's raw power and willingness to use it.

This could cross-cut nicely with the binary split between the 'normal' human factions and the Fallen, and perhaps help make sharper distinctions between the six factions on each side. Some AI players should care nothing for Honor, while others don't care if anyone is Awe of them, and still others could want both Honor and Awe. The latter aspiration would be the tricky one, at least for some factions, because hopefully backstory value parameters will mean that you do indeed need to consider just what your population and the rest of the known world will think of you razing Geoff's Swamp or saving Geoff from a channeler bent on killing him to complete a quest.

Did he suggest this should replace alignment? If so I agree 100% this shouldn't replace the tired but true good, neutral, evil alignment system. As I understood it he was just proposing a fame / reputation system for elemental that would let a Channeler be "popular" or "feared". With the interactions between different Channelers and entities shaped partially by your fame / reputation. The only problem I had with this was it didn't include power in the equation which is why I changed the relationships and wording in my triangle. Also I would hope any such system would have a quantified value of power opposed to just totally rating it based on Channeler essence which is definitely a power indicator but not the only one.  

Ideally, it would have some D&D type situations where certain choices would only be available for good / feared, evil / respected, etc, etc. Which could also tie into the types of legal systems available to the player. 

What I had in mind is a cumulative system. Something that you gain or lose over time and with your actions, and preferably not mutually exclusive. With a simple alignment system, you could probably say I'm neutral, at least in traditional fantasy-style meaning. What this fame system would do is distinguish between me and someone like Hannibal. For the sake of argument let's say Machiavelli was 100% right and Hannibal was both feared and loved. In a classical alignment system, he'd be more less in the same place than me - neutral. But I'm nowhere as famous as Hannibal is !

Note that this system is not Good or Evil ! It enables various levels of 'loved' independently of  'feared'. Machiavelli said that sometimes a more kind approach results in more harm in the long run than being harsh, and he has a point. It is said that good politicians should make the decisions which are beneficial, not those that are popular. The public sometimes can't distinguish between the two, not without some amount of research. A classic example of populistic behaviour would be giving away money to some group just because they want and need it. That's money eaten, not invested. Interestingly, modern Ireland went out of poor economy by reducing the welfare system and reducing various taxes and costs of conducting business. On first glance it may look counterproducitve - unemployed people getting less money makes their living harder. Lower taxes mean lower tax income and less money to spend on important projects. But it worked, by creating incentives and removing barriers to start business. Machiavelli was a proponent of 'the ends justify the means'.

And I think it would be more interesting if you could manage to be both feared and loved, but it would be more difficult. It would be fun if you could sometimes get away with doing terrible things without strengthening 'feared' tag, or be actually kind and compassionate while keeping your 'dark lord' mask for some gain. To be respected by some nations, for example. Both Fear and Love would have some advantages, player would want to have either one of them, or both. Some idealistic heroes wouldn't show up if you're feared even a little bit, no matter how high your 'Loved' rating is. Some most demented characters would consider any amount of 'loved' as a sign of weakness and refuse to join you.

This system is not mutually exclusive with others. Alpha Centauri has two separate choices for Politics(Police State, Democratic, Fundamentalist) and Economy(Free Market, Planned, Green). You can have any combination of the two, so a total of 9 combinations. Of course, not all of them are very useful, but the flexibility is there should the need arise.

By the way, Master of Magic had an imitation of something like this. There were certain strong champions which would join only if you had both high Fame an knowledge of Death magic. And those who would join if you were famous and used Life magic.

GW Swicord:

A fantasy setting doesn't imply sounding pompous. Just because a lot of fantasy was inspired by Tolkien, which was largely black&white, doesn't mean that some can't be inspired by Machiavelli. In fact, I really enjoy Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin . It's so morally ambiguous it's refreshing.

Pompous was not at all my intent, just looking for more, um, flavorful language I guess. Plus I'm still really hung up on having *some* sort of 'honor' mechanics that will tie to storylines/faction identities and apply legitimate, interesting carrots and sticks to discourage players from grinding the color out of the game and turning the boards into a bunch of scoremonster tip-fests.

A guy making 500 word posts and referencing Machiavelli that doesn't want a fantasy game to sound pompous? That's kind of like snow calling milk white. At any rate I like the general idea but the actual system is up for debate. Also, Honor / Awe would be more grayish than love / hate or fear / popularity since you could be in awe of an arch-nemesis and still have some level of respect for him. 

I'm all for the rep dynamics (as I posted a long time ago) I also want a vice & virture system as well.

I like Fear and Love because they're very descriptive and tell you why people are following your orders. That can't be said about Honor. Some knights may think it's a good idea to be like you, but follow your orders because of that ? Why ?

I quote Machiavelli because he makes good points, not because he's Machiavelli. I've actually read the entire book, and one of things you immediately notice is that it's quite short. Not quite a book, more like a long essay. While you may not agree with his morals, his reasoning is very logical, his style very clear and minimalistic. The book is peppered with references and examples. It's simply a pleasure  to read, he uses just enough words. Do you know the quote "I wrote a long repply because I didn't have time for a short one" ?

Length of the post can be an indication of it's value, but it does not define it's value. I used as many words as I thought necessary to make sure I'm well understood. By the way, one method I use to quickly find interesting posts is to look at the overall visual structure of each post. If a post is very short, it's rarely interesting or thoughtful. If it's longer and has a couple of paragraphs, it may be good. It's easier to filter out bad posts. The telling signs are seemingly random, irregular paragraph division and newlines, overall messiness and especially frequent multidot, whatever it's called in english (...). A person who often ends sentences this way likely can't form coherent sentences. Very long, verbose paragraphs also often indicate poor quality. More often than not a 'wall of text' post could be summarised in a much shorter post.

oh, its so true.   But one feels better after vomiting out a wall of text.  More satisfaction = better post in some eyes.

I feel that "love" does explain 'why' somebody might follow orders, though at the same time I am not sure if 'why' is really nessicary considering the guy giving orders is like hundreds of years old and able to throw fireballs, lightning bolts, and possibly bears half way around the world.   (spell idea "Bear strike" )

I guess the real rub here is that language has more 'taste' factors to its interpretation than does math. I can very easily imagining both fearing and loving someone, yet wanting very much not to obey that person because he or she had no honor.

But that's maybe because I've been thinking 'personal integrity' most of the time when I've typed 'honor' in this context, and I'm only now wondering if some folks have been thinking 'prestige' first. In the real world, I've had to take orders from a fair range of folks, and I was much happier obeying when I respected the integrity of the authority figure than when I thought them basically unworthy of the status they held. It's kind of a spoiled-villain prince vs. virtuous-heroine princess thing. The royalty part is the background detail.

so the two sliders you are suggesting is:

fear/love

and

chivalry/knavery

then?

or are you guys referring to renown/fame instead? because to be honest, i feel that maybe Elemental could do with all three

Hmm...I like the ideas here. Although I'm not so sure about what exactly feared and loved should entail.

For example someone who is feared will likely have plots against them. But if there is no plots, then someone looking for them through sheer paranoia will start finding lots of them. Secret police, citizens vanishing, etc.

Some people just plain follow orders, no matter how deranged. Some people do things differently.

But I don't think you really need to be feared or loved. Just... vital. Everyone is better off with you still upright.

Kudos (and karma) to those who get the references.

Correction: most people follow orders. link: Milgram experiment

Interpretations

Professor Milgram elaborated two theories explaining his results:

• The first is the theory of conformism, based on Solomon Asch's work, describing the fundamental relationship between the group of reference and the individual person. A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. The group is the person's behavioral model.
• The second is the agentic state theory, wherein, per Milgram, the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow.

If you're still unconviced, try one of the links in the end of that article, like this one Strip search prank call scam

Isn't "evil" army more likely to plunder and rape than "good" army? And "evil" commanders are more likely to overlook it.

I'm absolutely sure it's the opposite. Good luck infiltrating North Korea. In comparision, USA is known to post classified documents in internet (like, the case when they posted documents about Iran nuclear program with details about atomic bomb development).

Yes, and from an 'Evil' POV, that plundering is a 'Good' thing. That's part of why I'm interested in seeing major axes of an alignment system use somewhat more abstract labels. Whether being feared is good or bad for a channeler should depend on the channeler's character, not on whether the game assumes fear is good or bad, period.

This is going to be low: how about American soldiers in Iraq ? The treatment of prisoners etc ? American soldiers were supposedly the good guys. It's certainly possible for a 'good leader' like G.W. Bush to not be able to keep army disciplined. Would things be different if there was harsh punishment for breaking human rights (prisoners)?

Can you define evil ? There's no absolute evil unless you're religious. I'm not. There are very few acts which are universally considered evil. Murder is evil, right ? But mass killing done by soldier is ok, you even get catholic priests to follow and bless you (here in Poland - hipocrisy and double moral standards). Would you be happy if the assasination attempt of Hitler was a success ? He only lost his eardrums. There's no official rape, yet, but certain people try to cure lesbians in Africa by raping them. Pedophilia ? Muhammad had sex with his favourite wife, Aisha, when she was 9 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha Muhammad is an example all Muslims are supposed to follow.

I didn't call it 'good and evil'.  A dictator may rule by fear, yet still avoid doing anything that would seriously offend the populace. A person lacking morals may still do things considered good if the price is good, or there's some kind of gain. Machiavelli writes about ruling by fear, but makes a point that one should avoid attracting hatred (mostly by staying away from people's property, women. And no killing should be done without a loudly proclaimed reason.).

An altruist may want to help everyone and make world a better place. That approach will work as long as you're not too naive and people won't abuse your goodwill. The opposite of altruist - some kind of madman who wants to harm literally everyone for the sake of it - is not strictly possible, not sustainable. He would need tools (other people !), supplies, or even food. If an 'evil person' goes around trying to stab everyone in sight, he won't get far. Just like someone like Hitler needed people to follow his orders, a fantasy world dictator may have perfectly good reasons to keep his army disciplined. An attempt to rule by love could be: "Soldiers, don't rape or plunder because it's a wicked thing to do.". By fear: "Anyone who rapes or plunders will have his innards wrapped around a tree, slowly.". There are various shades of grey, of course, I purposedly gave extreme examples.

You’ve apparently never heard of the Geneva Convention which banned inhumane treatment of prisoners and has punishments for crimes against humanity such as death or life in prison. That being said not every offense can be caught and you can only try to carry out justice as best you can.

I feel sorry for you if you’re incapable of defining absolute evil regardless of religious affiliation.

Once again you have apparently never heard of the Geneva Convention which punishes war crimes. Did you ever hear of the Nuremburg trials for Nazi war criminals? That being said war by its very nature is a violent and self-serving manifestation of humanity. There never has been and never will be a war where the innocent don’t suffer or sacrifice is demanded of those not involved. In my opinion a soldier regardless of orders is evil if he guns down unarmed civilians or surrendering enemy combatants.

Once again you’re commenting on cultures and events I don’t think you are capable of understanding. Rape is a contemptuous act regardless of what guise it assumes.

The motives and the results are what determines good or evil in my opinion. Of course, results are much easier to see than someone’s motives and with that you also need to factor in someone’s perception of reality. All of these abstracts are lost through out your examples even in your alleged shades of gray. I would close however with a quote from the Bible that you may want to familiarize yourself with.

“What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but lose his soul?”

                                        King James Bible

 Another more agnostic way of looking at this quote would be a pyrrhic victory: A victory that’s price came at too high a cost. 

Since when a bloody militarist like Bush become a 'good leader'? Maybe i missed something? USA is relatively ok (not that good either, but good enough for an empire) but, for example, since WW2 it USA participared in more offensive wars than any other country. You should have chosen a beter country for your example, the one with unambiguous morale standing.

Well, personal evil is easy to define. But i agree with your point. 'Evil' is an external definition and it may ultimately contradict the "greater good" for the spices as a whole or for your community (that historically shared similar genes, even if it may not be so now). Hovewer, 'good' virtues also serve the greater good. Some balance is nessesary, just like between predators and the prey in the wild.

I think you completely missed the point that all what you mention is in no way universal. Geneva Convention is new by historical standarts, rape was legal at least until slavery was legal. "Pedophilia" is legal for sure right now in some parts of the world (in democratic countries too).

P.S. And that stupid forum doesn't work well if you format the quotes for your liking... I'm sure i didn't make any mistakes there, and now i can't even edit it. Preview option should have been nice to have as well.

Universal, you apparently missed the point of what I was trying to say so let me clarify for you, there are certain universal rights I believe every man, woman, and child are entitled to. Now just because something is "universal" doesn't mean it is always accepted or respected by everyone. You could argue that is impossible. So you thinking what i've mentioned isn't universal doesn't prove me wrong but rather proves a difference of opinion. I would also add I believe in absolute evil and good although like anything they both adapt to the time and situation they are in. 

Edit: I won't tolerate nation bashing either Ellestar. Nothing ran by humans can be perfect.