Closed CrowdfordBot closed 11 months ago
mctsts: yea
shapechange: because even if there's an epistemological difference, we should try to limit metaphysical differences
captainluffy: Well oracle checks role alignment
captainluffy: But cupid has to be Unaligned still, because if it wasn't then its alignment wouldn't be synchronized with lover
e_thsn: I mean if we really wanted to flatten cupid then when a cupid or their lover changes alignment they both do
shapechange:
But cupid has to be Unaligned still, because if it wasn't then its alignment wouldn't be synchronized with lover
this seems to be a complete contradiction to me, but i think it depends on how you are defining synchronise
e_thsn: But that also seams strong 2 for 1 conversion
mctsts:
But that also seams strong 2 for 1 conversion
this is what we did here
captainluffy: As in the win_condition updates alongside the lover
mctsts: convert lover, get both
mctsts: convert cupid, get neither
e_thsn: Oh
e_thsn: That's fair
mctsts: this makes sense with what we're currently formalizing
shapechange: luffy
mctsts: lover as an EM role cant affect alignment
shapechange: here is what you are going to do
mctsts: so the alignmenting changes is 100% on the cupid side
shapechange: you are going to navigate to your web browser of choice
shapechange: you are going to click on the search bar
shapechange: and you are going to look up the following phrase
shapechange: "classes on how to communicate effectively"
shapechange: you're going to scroll down to the first option that's not an ad
shapechange: you're going to click on it
mctsts: "how can cupid change alignment if its not unaligned"
shapechange: and you're going to take those classes
shapechange: and then we can continue this conversation
mctsts: the answer is: it can because alignment changing is its role ability
mctsts: its ability to change alignment can persist even if it is no longer Unaligned
mctsts: Does that answer the question luffy?
e_thsn: Ok so if a demonised cupid was attacked and their lover was demonised too would they both convert?
mctsts:
Ok so if a demonised cupid was attacked and their lover was demonised too would they both convert?
no
e_thsn: Oh I thought demonised worked against kills as well as attacks
captainluffy: Ok so I'm saying, if cupid is not Unaligned, lets say its town. it can't continuously update its alignment with lover in a simple to define way
mctsts:
Oh I thought demonised worked against kills as well as attacks
yea so demonized cupid becomes undead cupid
mctsts:
Ok so I'm saying, if cupid is not Unaligned, lets say its town. it can't continuously update its alignment with lover in a simple to define way
thats what I just answered
mctsts:
its ability to change alignment can persist even if it is no longer Unaligned
this
mctsts: its a role ability
mctsts: not an alignment ability
captainluffy: That'd be role changing itself
captainluffy: Into itself
mctsts: it does something similiar to hags
e_thsn:
yea so demonized cupid becomes undead cupid
Ohhh I misunderstood I thought we were making it immune to role changes to get rid of all the extra cupid roles
mctsts: it updates its own alignment
mctsts: if thats not an ability type, we'll need it
captainluffy: Yeah but hags are technically Unaligned while doing so
mctsts:
Ohhh I misunderstood I thought we were making it immune to role changes to get rid of all the extra cupid roles
undead cupid in the PR is now just cupid with a different icon, name and membership of underworld
mctsts: and no other changes
mctsts:
Yeah but hags are technically Unaligned while doing so
Well the Hags message does state they have the same "alignment"
mctsts: I believe Hags also gain an alignment once they get wronged for the first time
mctsts: Simplify Cupid further: It always takes its lover alignment. If Cupid is demonized and turned Undead it still turns into an Undead Cupid etc, but that's still just an UAA role that takes the exact alignment of the lover, meaning lover will never change alignment. This would allow us to completely remove the concept of "current alignment"