Evil team concept

[Octavius]

Awesome! And great answers! I understand with what you are saying, but there's a lot more to it than that.

 

Historically speaking, a civil war (or revolution) is fought to overthrow a government system or institution. A tyranny (which is the case here) or slavery are easy examples. If the tyrant king himself was the problem, however, then what typically occurs is a coup or coup d'état.

 

So now let's take a step back. The situation was that this tyrant king was bad enough that his people staged a revolution to depose of him. The people, however, are not universally opposed to the idea of a monarchy in general. They simply hate the king and want to be rid of him. Enter the tyrant's son, the prince. This prince is not hated by the people. In fact, quite a large portion of the public just want to see him be king instead of the current tyrant. The other portion of the public, though, only view him as another potential tyrant and would rather be done with the whole monarchical system as a whole. Therein lies the problem: the 'sins of the father' concept unfortunately doesn't apply because the prince is simply a byproduct of a larger set of circumstances. Even though both factions (pro-monarchy and pro-new system) want to get rid of the tyrant king, the prince will still be caught in one camp or the other. Because if tensions on both sides escalated to the point of civil war, then the prince would have to side with one of those camps: either pro-monarchy or pro-new system.

 

And if these circumstances are all correct, the civil war then wasn't even between the tyrant king and his rebellious subjects. It was between the pro-monarchy and the pro-new system camps. Because the question isn't if the tyrant king is evil, it's if the monarchy is. So ultimately, this isn't about 'sins of the father'. It's about sins of the individuals within differing systems. THAT is where you find the gray area. Therefore, the prince is simply a byproduct of a larger set of circumstances. Whether he is good or evil is not at stake; the quandary is that he is a monarch. It's not about the sins of the father, it's about the presupposed sins of the system to which the prince inseparably belongs. If the prince participated in this civil war, he would've either had to be pro-monarchy and lost (because the king was overthrown and deposed of) or he would've been pro-new system and been on the winning side, but be forced to forfeit his claim as prince (because the monarchy would be overthrown for a new system). Since he is currently alive, he must therefore be either 1. having lost the war, on the run from the new system (or already a prisoner, because that is how war works) or 2. having won the war, a member of the new system of government or at the very least a citizen within the new system.

 

But apparently this is not the case. The case you have described says there is a new order as a ~somewhat~ stable government entity that some people are in favor of while others would be in favor of the prince assuming his father's role as monarch. In this case, the only way that happens is if there was no war (I already described what happens in that case--see above) and instead there was only a coup d'état. To reach your described situation, everyone--both sides--wanted the tyrant king dead, so a coup was staged and he was assassinated. Afterwards, a power vacuum occurred with the pro-monarchy faction supporting the prince and the pro-new system faction (which is apparently the side currently holding power, if only barely) being the major players. This power vacuum is the situation you are describing, but it sounds more like a society about to enter civil war, not a society that just finished one. 

 

Again, not trying to debate or argue or anything like that! Just offering my opinions and hopefully everyone involved here is the beneficiary!

[Commander]

I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes with the discussion here, but you guys aren't writing the plot or shouldn't be writing the plot at least. One of the biggest things that irritates me in a game project is if I'd be the lead writer and people would be debating or trying to write the plot behind my back. Fun fact: when I left the writing team for one project, I did say I'd look back to make sure the game project was still on the right track but...it was such a big mess I rejoined the group to fix it. Point is to not deviate too far into this mess that you forget the original vision or you'd have an "absolute train wreck." (Probably guess what the idea was about).

 

There's a lot of information missing such as the whole biography of the Prince (his father does not define him, but is does define how people view him). I'd also need a brief on the world and history to get an idea how people would feel and act on political issues. Yes, this game needs a focus on politics so I would need a briefing on that stuff as well and who all holds government positions and how they act and feel regarding issues. These aren't my creations so I can't make any assumptions to the writing as well...I didn't create it. Also add to the fact I've only seen about 5% of what I'd need to really judge the game.

 

If you want to make a plot surrounded by grey, you really need to take everything you know about writing and throw it out the window. You need to write the main storyline in a way that you get an opportunity to really understand and are forced to help both sides in ways that are both good and bad. You can't spend time writing one side as the superior good then switch perspectives to make the other side the superior good as it doesn't work like that. That way players have an opportunity to have a deep understanding of both sides to realize somebody is going to get screwed and it should be Team Royal. Sorry, but if both sides are right, then it is the side in order that should be preserved for the sake of the people.

 

I'm not a fan of story branched paths because it means missing out on content. My firm belief is that it should split the story once (twice at the most) then converge before the ending. Those still require planning based on factors such as the duration, alteration of events, and the purpose of the split. Reborn's are kind of mostly a normal version and an extended version with its branches so I don't really count them as much. For a game like this, it kind of sounds like a "shot heard around the world" situation where one action would basically change how the entire story played out. That's not something I'm even capable of handling as it requires a keen eye and basically mastery of your own world unless it's a small game such as Fire Emblem where events can and should be planned out for character deaths.

[ssbCasper]

To avoid turning this into a short essay, I have the history of the region and all major events of the war written down as well as why the king is the way he is and the information on his son. I didn't publicize all of that since I'm walking a line between wanting to hear people's opinions but not giving people the entire plot before they play the game which I know isn't optimal. If anyone wants the entire scope of the world lore just pm and we could discuss it sometime. As always thanks for the input. 

 

Edit: The king was not known to have any children as he was fairly young, thus the members of the evil team and a few others are 1. the only ones to know about his existence and 2. the only ones who support him. In terms of plot splits I had 2-3 major splits written. Most of this is just in response to what @Octavius posted. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by ssbCasper

[Oni]

On 9/30/2017 at 6:11 PM, ssbCasper said:

@Combat Concern 1: It was originally Team Mythic before I made the chess theme. If I or someone else can think of a better name I'll change it. 

I've been reading alot of these posts today and I'm gonna finally start seeing if maybe I can contribute to some ideas. Idk I think a name like Team Dominion, or Team Ascension would go great but that's just me :3

 

• On 9/30/2017 at 7:52 PM, ssbCasper said:

  @Noctelis I think I'll end up going with something that doesn't start with "Team" as you suggested.

  And about this I'm not to sure about that, Idk it's like the name to have "Team" has just always been a thing in Pokemon and it just wouldn't feel right to me to just not have it. But that's just me.

[Majora42861]

An idea for a team that i have been making is called Team crimson. The bosses name would be Carnelian which is a shade of red. It would have three commanders similar to team galatic. The three commanders names would carmine, scarlet, and velvet. Eventually scarlet would betray team crimson then becoming part of the elite four.

Also carnelian's team would be Darkrai, Gengar with gengarite so it could mega evolve, Zoroark, Salamence, A shiny Golem, and Giratina non origin form and dont ask why he has a giratina he just does.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Majora42861

[Noctelis]

1 hour ago, Majora42861 said:

An idea for a team that i have been making is called Team crimson. The bosses name would be Carnelian which is a shade of red. It would have three commanders similar to team galatic. The three commanders names would carmine, scarlet, and velvet. Eventually scarlet would betray team crimson then becoming part of the elite four.

Also carnelian's team would be Darkrai, Gengar with gengarite so it could mega evolve, Zoroark, Salamence, A shiny Golem, and Giratina non origin form and dont ask why he has a giratina he just does.

If there ever were a game with a evil team leader like that, I'd never even try to play that game.

1 mega, 1 pseudo and 2 actual legendaries would make it a crap game right away.

[Octavius]

@Noctelis Not necessarily. If the game is balanced properly and the player has access to similar pokemon or pokemon with capabilities/items/moves, etc., that can compete with a mega, a pseudo, and 2 legendaries, then that would not be a "crap game". It would absolutely be beatable. And besides, if this 'Carnelian' guy is literally the game's final boss, which he appears to be, then he should theoretically pose a greater challenge than any other opponent in the game.

[Noctelis]

5 hours ago, Octavius said:

@Noctelis Not necessarily. If the game is balanced properly and the player has access to similar pokemon or pokemon with capabilities/items/moves, etc., that can compete with a mega, a pseudo, and 2 legendaries, then that would not be a "crap game". It would absolutely be beatable. And besides, if this 'Carnelian' guy is literally the game's final boss, which he appears to be, then he should theoretically pose a greater challenge than any other opponent in the game.

Take a look at Rejuvenation, any fight against a legendary would take out at least half your team, considering this "last boss" would have 2 of them, you would have to center your team around legendaries, otherwise you wouldn't stand a single chance.

[ssbCasper]

Lets not keep bringing up old post please, any relevant info on this topic can either be pm'd to me or one of the other devs or posted in the main thread. Note: our "evil" (not really evil but you know) team leader will not have a silly team. But if you aren't going to fight them until say your team is in the 70's I have no problem with them having a legendary, mega and a psuedo. As an example if team boss X had Darkrai and mega garchomp with some other strong mons I fail to see how that challenge is too much, the entire late and post game of insurgence has many fights where the ai's team is bonkers and no one complains because their team is equally if not more OP.