Is there room for social evolution?

[Medena]

In order to maintain the integrity of the world originally envisioned by the makers of Arm, do we have to rigidly adhere to the same social mores and customs as existed 80 IG years ago?

Or, because Zalanthas is a living, dynamic society, is there room for the customs and social interactions to evolve and change?

I get into thinking on this question lots of times when I read debates on topics like:  magickers aren't feared enough, there is too much/not enough/wrongly done racial prejudice, Tulukis are bunny-huggers, templars are too harsh/not harsh enough, etc.

Often those arguing the most passionately for a position are those old-timers who have seen the world change a lot over the years.  And, no, this is not a castigation of old-timers for their opinions based on years of playing.  For I believe that the great number of folks who have played 5+ years is one of the reasons that makes Armageddon such a wonderful game and has kept Zalanthas such a unique and rich world.

On the other hand, there are a lot of new players too. They don't know how things were six years ago.  They only know what they see now.  And this isn't necessarily a bad thing because the changes aren't always as a direct result of an influx of new players (ie. who don't know what they are doing), they may be the result of an organic change that has arisen over time.  For example (and this is a wild, hypothetical example), if newer players in Tuluk see a lot of racial prejudice against dwarves, they will play that way too, even though it may not be something clearly spelled out in the docs.

Myself, I'd go for a bit of both, I guess.  In order to maintain the gritty and harsh nature of Zalanthas, we can't let the original concept get too diluted.  However, there's got to be room for change too, if Zalanthas is to be a real world.

I only made this a poll because polls tend to focus people on the issue. But I am less interested in the poll results than in the ensuing amicable (am I expecting too much?) discussion of the issue.

--Medena

[adgohan]

An intelligent post on the GDB, figured I'd respond.

I think the world of Zalanthas is inherently dynamic because the world that the players live in outside of it is inherently dynamic. These personalities transfer to some extent into the game, and creating a new world leaves other forces at work. That is to say, there is a lot going on all of the time to change the way the Zalanthian population evolves.

I'd like to think if you left the game for two years and came back, there would a lot to get used to. A returning player that meets the aforementioned prequisites could probably comment on this, but at least somethings would be different, if not for the literal code changes that indirectly effect gameplay. Additions to code, RPTs, and player-run events add to the "evolving" atmosphere that Zalanthas possesses, and create new social evolution in the simple light of things to talk about, things to pursue, and different ways to pursue them.

As far as moving an entire player population towards a goal such as, overtime fearing magickers more or less, I would say that is nearly impossible because of the diverse personalities of each player. You will have the RPer who plays humans that fear magickers so much to the point that they will run from gemmed in the Barrel, and you will have the RPer that plays a dwarf 30 day warrior who has a focus to be Witch Hunter Robin and kills absolutely everyone they come across that weaves spells. The personalities players develop for their characters are too strongly diversified to adhere to what is not considered "What You Know" knowledge, these days. And even that knowledge and those rules are stretched a bit. A good example of this would be the nobility. There is a clear difference between the documentation's "nobility should be viewed" and Armageddon's "nobility is actually viewed."

I think I would vote for a changing world when things would erupt that cause change. An HRPT like the last one was one of those "Zalanthian Evolving" circumstances, in my opinion. The game was not the same, in many respects, after that, and social evolution shifted as well as the general consensus and philosophies of many players. That is what makes Zalanthas a unique and rich world, these changes. The rest of the changes can be considered to be made subtly. That is, over time, the world will naturally evolve because players and the MUD as a whole do.

New players enter an environment that they have the opportunity to change with their new ideas, old players always have innovative and creative abilities based on their past experience with the MUD and will always contribute that in some way to the World. Even if it wasn't their intent to do it at all. I think you've got to let time pass, and things naturally progress as they do. Ideally, I would like to see a world that flows naturally with the balance that this one does, and because we have no radical changes in thinking without extreme IC reasoning, this flow is currently in progress and good health, I'd say.

[crymerci]

I voted no, not so much because of keeping the culture's integrity, but because low-tech civilizations only change culturally very slowly.  It really takes a major war or a leap in technology to noticeably change a culture.

Consider the countryside peasants of Europe circa 1200 A.D.  Consider the countryside peasants of Europe circa 1600 A.D.  You wouldn't see much difference.  Now consider the nobility and rich merchant class of the same periods.  You would see a tremendous change in music, art, fashion, etc.  But the basic beliefs and cultures would not be so greatly changed.

Now consider the peasants and nobility in Europe circa 2000 A.D.  A lot more has changed.  But then, there've been incredible inventions (steam engines, electricity, telegraph/telephone, air travel, etc.) and two major, major wars.  Culture has been altered considerably, now.  In fact, we see it alter from generation to generation.  So it's my opinion that perhaps we don't really understand how stagnant and unchanged life was in other ages.

Anyway, culture does change, in game.  Look at the changes in Tuluk caused by a major war and occupation.  I just wouldn't expect the culture to change much from generation to generation, except by world or citystate-altering events (i.e. if Tek started allowing spice in Allanak, or one of the city-states overtook the other again).

[X-D]

Had to vote no, but for the same reasons Crymerci did.

Hey, look, I agreed with ya on something Crymerci:)

[Anonymous]

No, because the actions/mindsets of over a million people shouldn't be determined by a couple hundred players except for in the most extreme of circumstances.  (A player becomes the next Tek)

[Lazloth]

Voted yes, see adgohan's post.
A butterfly flaps its wings in Japan..

[spawnloser]

I had to vote no, for similar reasons to crymerci.  Culture with this technology level just don't change that fast...especially when there are so few other cultures to interact with.

[John]

I voted yes because it has already changed an amazing amount.

Two places that have changed are the D-Elf Outpost and Tuluk. I won't say how, but both places have changed a lot. Numerous organisations have also changed a fair amount, from a newly created player clan which should change the game a fair bit to old clans that changed ages ago

[EvilRoeSlade]

I think that two things need to be kept in mind.  The first thing is, only major, world-spanning events have any hope of changing the society of Zalanthas.  The second thing is, any given individual player has no hope of changing society, unless she is the cause of such an event!

Changes should always be one of two things:  Gradual, or with a good, obvious reason.  I don't think enough time has passed IG for any gradual changes to occur.  The social situation of Allanak is as it has been for millenia, and is not a dynamic environment.  

When there is a good, obvious reason however, things DO change and I have witnessed such changes.  My only complaint is that the direction the change occurs is invariably in the hands of the staff.  When the world changes, it presents opportunities for many to make their mark.  The staff should be willing to present these opportunities, and players should be willing to take them.

[Vox]

I like many of the things Adgohan spoke of in his post but I find myself voting 'no' for the reasons crymerci has listed.

[rant]
Ultimately, change is inevitable and our like or dislike of it superfluous. The key to this issue then is focusing on the fundamentals and deciding what we as players and staff find as acceptable and unacceptable change.

Maintaining racism and conflict between the classes(poor and rich that is) is key to sustaining the hard pulse of Zalanthan society. To reach a point where slavery is abolished throughout the world and a tribe of city elves is granted the status of a Noble House would be a tragedy to the essence of this drama. So by that token we cannot allow the natural evolution of the civilized mind to occur. We must suppress the natural urge of acceptance and tolerance and learn blind and bitter hatred for other races and cultures in this game depending upon the character you choose to play. For some, this comes rather easily.... :twisted: For some it is more difficult. Regardless, we must foster conflict in Zalanthas not strive to end it.

We live through our characters in this world, yes, but make no mistake, we are all acting in a large-scale, improvizational play. There are rules we must follow and paths we must not take if we are to maintain the reality of this fantastical world. If we are to sustain the high-level and high-quality of roleplaying Armageddon is known for.

There is room for growth and improvement between the lines.  If we break free and turn Zalanthas into a microcosm of Earth we might as well turn off the computers and spend our time 'roleplaying' our own lives.  This is fantasy, people. We cannot force the square peg of reality into this round hole completely, to do so is to sacrifice the brutal scenes conflict which makes playing this game so much fun.
[/rant] :shock:

[ShaLeah]

Change is inevitable but one very important thing we seem to be forgetting is the following:
The known powers of the world are ruled by, dare we say, evil sorceror kings who haven't been seen in God knows how long and yet still manage to oppress us all enough to stay in power.
I for one am glad, very glad.



-She who voted no...

[spawnloser]

Indeed, I must say that the sorcerer kings are indeed our friends.  In fact, I do believe hearing my local one's name makes me feel like I'm home, sweet home.

[Carnage]

I voted yes.

If there's another war and Allanak becomes under Tuluki control and Allanaki nobles need to be hidden in the homes of commoners, then I'd like to see Allanaki nobles become friendlier with commoners, or at least start to view them as people. Not as good as them, but people none the less.

The more realistic the change, the better. It wouldn't be realistic for the T'zai Byn to suddenly become a rigorous school of morals because a leiutenant was a paladin type.

In short, some changes are good and some are bad. If you make gigantic changes that transform the world, not good. Smaller ones that shape things and are realistic are better.