I'm playing a monk and noticed "You have gravely abused your alignment."
(from #conduct), probably because of eating monsters instead of veggies?

Can I fix this again or is that now a given? I'm not quite sure about
the explanation in the Wiki (https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/EvilHack):
Abusing your alignment can have a direct effect on how your quest ends.
[...] Unlike your alignment record, which can be readjusted back into
positive standing, your alignment abuse record is permanent.

I suppose that "gravely abused" is referring to the permanent record?

Doh! - I spoiled the game without even having started the Quest... :-(

Janis

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 3:28:15 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> I'm playing a monk and noticed "You have gravely abused your alignment."
> (from #conduct), probably because of eating monsters instead of veggies?
>
> Can I fix this again or is that now a given? I'm not quite sure about
> the explanation in the Wiki (https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/EvilHack):
> Abusing your alignment can have a direct effect on how your quest ends.
> [...] Unlike your alignment record, which can be readjusted back into
> positive standing, your alignment abuse record is permanent.
>
> I suppose that "gravely abused" is referring to the permanent record?
>
> Doh! - I spoiled the game without even having started the Quest... :-(
>
> Janis

Yup, 'gravely absued' refers to your permanent alignment abuse record. That level of abuse, it's pretty much guaranteed that your quest leader will ask you to hand over the quest artifact once you finish your quest. You have two options at this point - hand it over, or decline. Handing it over flags the quest as complete. Declining will anger your quest leader - quest won't be flagged as complete until you kill your quest leader. You won't be able to use the Bell of Opening until the quest is flagged as being complete.

One strategy players have used in the past when their quest leader demands the return of the quest artifact - hand it over, then return at a later time when they're more capable of dealing with the quest leader and their minions. You could even steal it back, but to my knowledge no one has tried that.

Current game:
"You are a Fighter, a level 9 giant Valkyrie."
#conduct
"You have seriously abused your alignment."

What the hell did she do to abuse alignment?
I mean, Monks eating food, Knights attacking
sleeping monsters, attacking with poison, and
so on - okay.

But how can a giant Valkyrie abuse alignment?

This is really sick, especially since you don't
even seem to get in-game hints so that she has
a chance to adjust "abusive behavior".

Janis

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 11:38:00 PM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> Current game:
> "You are a Fighter, a level 9 giant Valkyrie."
> #conduct
> "You have seriously abused your alignment."
>
> What the hell did she do to abuse alignment?
> I mean, Monks eating food, Knights attacking
> sleeping monsters, attacking with poison, and
> so on - okay.
>
> But how can a giant Valkyrie abuse alignment?
>
> This is really sick, especially since you don't
> even seem to get in-game hints so that she has
> a chance to adjust "abusive behavior".
>
> Janis

You do actually - https://github.com/k21971/EvilHack/commit/618cee8f50558509258739b696d5025883c9fe8e

On 26.03.2023 21:39, Keith Simpson wrote:
> On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 11:38:00 PM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> Current game:
>> "You are a Fighter, a level 9 giant Valkyrie."
>> #conduct
>> "You have seriously abused your alignment."
>>[...]
>> But how can a giant Valkyrie abuse alignment?
>>
>> This is really sick, especially since you don't
>> even seem to get in-game hints so that she has
>> a chance to adjust "abusive behavior".
>
> You do actually - https://github.com/k21971/EvilHack/commit/618cee8f50558509258739b696d5025883c9fe8e

I see your link but don't recall to have seen any message!
What would a giant Valkyrie have to avoid?

In another game I've seen that killing a pet by accident
(while stunned) will also increase the _permanent_ record;
this has been changed compared to Vanilla, right?

Janis

On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 1:12:59 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> In another game I've seen that killing a pet by accident
> (while stunned) will also increase the _permanent_ record;
> this has been changed compared to Vanilla, right?
>
> Janis

The alignment hit for killing a pet is the same in EvilHack as it is in regular NetHack, -15 points. In EvilHack you'd then also gain the same amount of alignment _abuse_ points as part of your permanent record. So be careful around your pets if confused/stunned.

The only difference in alignment point adjustment between EvilHack and NetHack (and most other variants) is if playing as an Infidel (unaligned, considered true evil), you only take a -3 point hit vs other alignments.

On 27.03.2023 23:20, Keith Simpson wrote:
> On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 1:12:59 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou
> wrote:
>> In another game I've seen that killing a pet by accident (while
>> stunned) will also increase the _permanent_ record; this has been
>> changed compared to Vanilla, right?
>
> The alignment hit for killing a pet is the same in EvilHack as it is
> in regular NetHack, -15 points. In EvilHack you'd then also gain the
> same amount of alignment _abuse_ points as part of your permanent
> record. So be careful around your pets if confused/stunned.

Yes, I know that now that it is permanent in EvilHack. Thanks.

Nonetheless I think this is not a good concept if such effects can
not be compensated by any means (either by active "work" for "good
behavior" brownie points, or by timeouts/reductions over time).
In case it is desired (for whatever reason or mindset) to make it
a permanent factor the value should (IMO) be in a more reasonable
magnitude. Things that severely _and_ irreversibly change a game
at some point are rarely a good design. YMMV.

Janis

On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 9:26:50 PM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 27.03.2023 23:20, Keith Simpson wrote:
> > On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 1:12:59 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou
> > wrote:
> >> In another game I've seen that killing a pet by accident (while
> >> stunned) will also increase the _permanent_ record; this has been
> >> changed compared to Vanilla, right?
> >
> > The alignment hit for killing a pet is the same in EvilHack as it is
> > in regular NetHack, -15 points. In EvilHack you'd then also gain the
> > same amount of alignment _abuse_ points as part of your permanent
> > record. So be careful around your pets if confused/stunned.
> Yes, I know that now that it is permanent in EvilHack. Thanks.
>
> Nonetheless I think this is not a good concept if such effects can
> not be compensated by any means (either by active "work" for "good
> behavior" brownie points, or by timeouts/reductions over time).
> In case it is desired (for whatever reason or mindset) to make it
> a permanent factor the value should (IMO) be in a more reasonable
> magnitude. Things that severely _and_ irreversibly change a game
> at some point are rarely a good design. YMMV.
>
> Janis

I know it is supposed to be be a percentage, but I also find how often the
quest leader wants to take back the artifact is far too often. I only
have slightly abused, or whatever the least amount is, and he nearly
always wants it back. Out of *several* games he has not wanted
back only a couple/few times. Way too harsh. It is my real-world luck,
I get it, but still too harsh.

I also agree that it cannot be fixed is bad. Why not have an additional
quest that opens up, *only* if it needs repaired? Have it be a bit tougher
than the quest itself. The more abused your alignment is, the harder
the recovery quest is. And the only reward is fixing alignment. No
artifacts or major treasure. Have the quest something minor like
retrieving medicine for an ailing brother/sister or killing the pesky
"do-gooder" in this location who is threatening our cause.

Talk to the quest leader. "I see you have strayed from your path."
"Do you wish to put yourself in good graces once more?" Answer yes
and you are given the entrance and must enter it at that time. Answer
no and: "Very well, mortal!"

--

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 5:17:49 PM UTC-4, RecRanger wrote:
> I know it is supposed to be be a percentage, but I also find how often the
> quest leader wants to take back the artifact is far too often. I only
> have slightly abused, or whatever the least amount is, and he nearly
> always wants it back. Out of *several* games he has not wanted
> back only a couple/few times. Way too harsh. It is my real-world luck,
> I get it, but still too harsh.
>
> I also agree that it cannot be fixed is bad. Why not have an additional
> quest that opens up, *only* if it needs repaired? Have it be a bit tougher
> than the quest itself. The more abused your alignment is, the harder
> the recovery quest is. And the only reward is fixing alignment. No
> artifacts or major treasure. Have the quest something minor like
> retrieving medicine for an ailing brother/sister or killing the pesky
> "do-gooder" in this location who is threatening our cause.
>
> Talk to the quest leader. "I see you have strayed from your path."
> "Do you wish to put yourself in good graces once more?" Answer yes
> and you are given the entrance and must enter it at that time. Answer
> no and: "Very well, mortal!"
>
> --

RecRanger:

For information's sake - the odds are n in 50 of your quest leader asking for your quest artifact back, n being how many points of alignment abuse have been racked up. A more in-depth explanation can be found here - https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/EvilHack#The_Quest

If you've only slightly abused your alignment, and your quest leader still asks for the quest artifact back... that's just dumb luck. It's happened to me as well. On the flip side, I've also severely abused my alignment and made it through without incident. One strategy players have used in the past - return the quest artifact when requested to avoid conflict, then come back at a later time and take it back, either by force or some other ingenious method. There is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat 🙂

Last bit - thank you for the constructive feedback. It's fine to have misgivings about <insert aspect of the game here>, but putting forth an idea or a potential solution is great. This kind of back and forth dialogue is responsible for many changes that have occurred to EvilHack over the years. Your recovery quest idea is interesting, I guarantee this will generate quite a bit of conversation in the #evilhack IRC channel tomorrow morning. Thanks!

On 28.03.2023 23:17, RecRanger wrote:
>> [ having to pass back the retrieved quest prize to the leader ]
>
> I know it is supposed to be be a percentage, but I also find how often the
> quest leader wants to take back the artifact is far too often. I only
> have slightly abused, or whatever the least amount is, and he nearly
> always wants it back. Out of *several* games he has not wanted
> back only a couple/few times. Way too harsh. It is my real-world luck,
> I get it, but still too harsh.

I've not played enough games to reach the quest leader with the
retrieved prize, so I have no own experience on the percentages.
For my taste the restriction doesn't really add anything to the
playing experience and is as feature, as implemented unnecessary.

I am aware that in earlier versions alignment was not perfectly
valued. Folks said it is effectively meaningless, and they were
right. So it's good to give alignment more value. But as it has
been designed in EvilHack it appears to me that this is far too
drastic a measure as implemented.

>
> I also agree that it cannot be fixed is bad. Why not have an additional
> quest that opens up, *only* if it needs repaired? Have it be a bit tougher
> than the quest itself. The more abused your alignment is, the harder
> the recovery quest is. And the only reward is fixing alignment. No
> artifacts or major treasure. Have the quest something minor like
> retrieving medicine for an ailing brother/sister or killing the pesky
> "do-gooder" in this location who is threatening our cause.

The point is that it's not a permanent one-way degradation but
fixable in some ways. Neither the penalty should result in too
complex processes - we saw some suggestions, how to work around
the effect -, nor should (IMO) any alignment-fixing process be
too complicated - here I have in mind what you suggested with
sub-quests, which appears to me to be unnecessary complex for
the desired effect.

It may already be a factor to get admittance to the quest, as
opposed to some irreversible effect when returning from the
quest. Why do all the quest for nothing? First fix your issues
then do the quest.

Janis

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 6:50:17 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 28.03.2023 23:17, RecRanger wrote:
> >> [ having to pass back the retrieved quest prize to the leader ]
> >
> > I also agree that it cannot be fixed is bad. Why not have an additional
> > quest that opens up, *only* if it needs repaired? Have it be a bit tougher
> > than the quest itself. The more abused your alignment is, the harder
> > the recovery quest is. And the only reward is fixing alignment. No
> > artifacts or major treasure. Have the quest something minor like
> > retrieving medicine for an ailing brother/sister or killing the pesky
> > "do-gooder" in this location who is threatening our cause.
> The point is that it's not a permanent one-way degradation but
> fixable in some ways. Neither the penalty should result in too
> complex processes - we saw some suggestions, how to work around
> the effect -, nor should (IMO) any alignment-fixing process be
> too complicated - here I have in mind what you suggested with
> sub-quests, which appears to me to be unnecessary complex for
> the desired effect.
>
> It may already be a factor to get admittance to the quest, as
> opposed to some irreversible effect when returning from the
> quest. Why do all the quest for nothing? First fix your issues
> then do the quest.
>
> Janis

I guess I was not entirely clear. Any sort of fixing would have to be done
prior to the quest. Maybe the quest leader approaches you before
entering the quest or does not let you gain access to the quest as they do
before you reach the proper level. They ask you if you want fix your sins.
That way, you are given a bit of a hint. You have sinned — correct it or
there may be consequences. Instead of a "gotcha" moment with quest
leader demanding artifact.

And quest is meant to be quick but more difficult. Have it be a cavernous
level and the quest goal on the other side of the level. Have monsters
slightly more leveled, depending on degree of abuse. Also, maybe a time
limit and have hints as to time running out.

I have always wanted that in a roguelike. A prize in the center, or end, that
you must get before the monsters do. A race. A wand of death in the
center of a big room or cavernous level. Monsters are spawned on the
other side of the dungeon. Who gets there first . . . ? As you enter the
level: "You feel a sense of urgency."

--

On 29.03.2023 17:22, RecRanger wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 6:50:17 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 28.03.2023 23:17, RecRanger wrote:
>>>> [ having to pass back the retrieved quest prize to the leader ]
>
> I guess I was not entirely clear. [...]

No, you were completely clear. (One of my paragraphs was about
complexity of changes; from design and implementation point of
view: "we need an effect; we define goals, compare solutions
with their implications, but keep it as simple as possible". My
criticisms was about the design/implementation-means to reach
the functional goal. The other paragraph just extended on one
deficiency of one current EvilHack "implementation detail".)

I think your quest proposals - which I always find interesting
to discuss - is worth an _independent_ consideration. For the
current "fix" I'd consider it just a [complex] overkill. YMMV.

One aspect I yet haven't elaborated on is the amount of penalty
you get. I already mentioned that the magnitude is far too high
for such an irreversible penalty. To make that more concrete I
want to make a comparison with [real life] "murder". Hereabouts
(and I suppose similar valuations can be found worldwide) we
distinguish killing of humans by various degrees; deliberate
murder with bad motives is typically punished a lot harder than
murder on impulse, and this still more if you had been impaired.
We need not but we can learn from sensible Real Life achievements
(as oppose to magic (or other) explanations for arbitrarities).
With respect to the roguelikes; if you are stunned or confused
you could get less punishment points than if you deliberately
kill peacefuls. (This is just a thought and certainly needs more
refinement and detailed consideration - e.g. got the player
confused by intent (there's a similar challenge in real life
judgement) - but you got the point.) But this is just another
additional aspect which doesn't address the irreversibility issue
in the first place.

>
> And quest is meant to be quick but more difficult. Have it be a cavernous
> level and the quest goal on the other side of the level. Have monsters
> slightly more leveled, depending on degree of abuse. Also, maybe a time
> limit and have hints as to time running out.
>
> I have always wanted that in a roguelike. A prize in the center, or end, that
> you must get before the monsters do. A race. A wand of death in the
> center of a big room or cavernous level. Monsters are spawned on the
> other side of the dungeon. Who gets there first . . . ? As you enter the
> level: "You feel a sense of urgency."

I not a big fan of real (even real-time based) race conditions
in roguelikes (to say the least).

But EvilHack already has this (as an interesting design change)
implemented. I you have anywhere on a level a wand of death, or
such a wand even in some [open] container, intelligent monsters
passing will get and use them. The same with boxed armor/weapons.
So this is already present in that variant as base design concept.

With respect to the mentioned cavernous levels; I consider those
level types generally a good base dungeon territory type. Also
for the main dungeon and for Gehennom. From style and tactical
considerations from their random amorphous shape they'd add IMO
to playing fun. (I had in a private project played around with
different dungeon level types, but that would lead too far here,
and worth an own discussion thread.)

Janis

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 4:53:36 PM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 29.03.2023 17:22, RecRanger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 6:50:17 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> >> On 28.03.2023 23:17, RecRanger wrote:
> >>>> [ having to pass back the retrieved quest prize to the leader ]
> >
> > I guess I was not entirely clear. [...]
>
> No, you were completely clear. (One of my paragraphs was about
> complexity of changes; from design and implementation point of
> view: "we need an effect; we define goals, compare solutions
> with their implications, but keep it as simple as possible". My
> criticisms was about the design/implementation-means to reach
> the functional goal. The other paragraph just extended on one
> deficiency of one current EvilHack "implementation detail".)
>

No. I was not clear. Tougher, or harder, does not always equal "complex."
I was thinking something short and simple, but failed to mention it.

--