Exult Forum

I've never played UO, though when it first came out I really wanted to, so I do read up a lot about it, and watch a few friends who play it.

Anyways, in addition to the 8 virtues, UO added the "Order vs Chaos" (from) thing into Britianna. Somehow LB got aligned with the side of Order, and Blackthorne got Chaos. I'd like to promote discussion on how things should be the other way around.

First of all, look at the ancient literature in SI on the various princilpes of Order and Chaos. Well, even if you don't, it shouldn't be hard to draw the association of the duality of Order vs Chaos as that parallel of Mind/Intellect vs Heart. We can also consider Chaos as "freedom" to have less of a negative biase.

Now we consider the regime of Blackthorn during U5. Granted, he was influenced by the Shadowlords. But the Shadowlords merely augmented what's already in Blackthorn, and twist it to evil. We see a society that is very Orderly, with strict rules and little tolerance. Isn't this just like the Imbalance when Order goes wild?

And if you look at the Imbalance of Chaos going wild, it really looks nothing like anything Blackthorn would want.


I think technically I'd align LB with "Balance" as opposed to Chaos, but when you have to assign Order and Chaos to the two men, there should no question that LB's way lies much closer to Chaos (with his compassion and understanding and kindness) then Blackthorne does.


I think EA got Blackthorn signed up for Chaos simply because both have a negative connotation (and it'd be "politically incorrect" to call either negative).

*************************************************

Besides the LB/Blackthorn contrast, there's another group that can be aligned with Order -- the Gargoyles.

This time we compare the 8 virtues of Lord British and the Gargoyles. While it's not a absolute strong connection, I do feel that there's more Order/Control/Mind in the Gargoyle values, and more Chaos/Freedom/Heart in that of Lord British's.


these are teh thoughts I have of the moment. I'm eager to hear feedbacks and comments as well as disagreements (with supporting arguments of course!)

- Pan Sola

Isn't Tolerance part of Chaos in SI? That's where I'd expect L.B. to be.

Well UO is an absolute disaster now and is nothing like it used to be, the chaos/order wars were just an excuse for a bigger guildwar and nothing more, theres no story behind it, no plotline, nothing, just EA squeezeing the life out of UO and the Ultima series itself.

Technically UO is suppose to take place after ultima 3 and before ultima 4 and then they just kinda winged it from there. There used to be a book in UO that discussed LB and BT's viewpoints of chaos and order, but all the books were erased from the game a very long time ago. LB and BT themselves never particpated in any kind of war, its everyone else (the players) that picked up the shields and started killing each other which honestly makes zero sense to me. Balance would be everyone else who isn't apart of chaos or order or so I think.

There's holes big enough to drive a mad truck thru, as I said before it was mostly an excuse for players to kill one another on a grander scale, everyone joined chaos, their shields give more AC!

Now blackthorn is some kind of cyborg bent on destorying britannia for reasons unknown and, uhhh, he ummm is bad? I quit playing UO a while ago and the reasons should be obvious.

I absolutely agree with Tweed. I played UO when it first came out, and stayed with it hoping that many of the issues ie. bugs, plot holes, etc. would be fixed. Unfortunately, it just continued to go downhill so I finally quit playing. Its now just another EA money making machine. If you want to play a true role playing game, UO isnt it.

plot holes? what plot? Honestly in the three months I spent on UO I never encountered anything remotely looking like a plot (well the intro with the different shards had something resembling a plot). And because of this I can't even seriously begin to talk about the chaos/orde/balance nonsense....

I don't see why anyone is surprised. This sounds like EA all the way. They really have no clue how to do long ranging stories and complete plots.

Example: The so called Majestic vs the AI Promo-game (A.K.A. The Beast)

Majestic's claim to fame:

1. Simplistic story.
2. Spoon feeding clues and passwords.
3. Set update times, which where always directly tied to the last "clue".
4. Mini-communities built into the game (if you can call them that).
5. Artificial restrictions on those mini-communities.
6. Only one month free, then you had to pay an arm and a leg.

Result - They developed probably 20-30 times as many players as the AI Promo, but most never lasted past the first month and paid the subscription price to continue playing. EA's spin - "The players just didn't get it."

The Beast:

1. Several communities sprang up aroud the game spontaniously.
2. Some common update times, but occationally things surprised players.
3. Updates where not spoon fed and in many cases a new website could only be accessed more deeply after an even later update.
4. Detailed and complex story and characters.
5. Players often forced or suggested by their actions a direction for the story, instead of being led around on a leash.
6. Anything went, including one nasty brute force attack that nearly shut down one of the main servers it ran on. (It was suggested that we avoid such a method in the future if we wanted the game to continue..) It later turned out the password that got hacked was hidden in some part of a site that hadn't been made available yet. Or maybe it was one we simply flat out missed, I can't remember. lol
7. Puzzles where detailed and complex, actually requiring a community with a wide range of interests and skills to solve. No simplistic spoon feeding of passwords or other cases of being led around like the player was too stupid to actually solve anything themselves.

Result - When it was all over, everyone went into withdrawals. Serious though, both players and designers where simultaniously glad that the ride was over and annoyed that it had to end. Though perhaps the designers, who often struggled to update and worked right to the wire to keep up with player demand where a 'bit' happier it was actually over. While the total number of players never got over maybe 9,000 (including other groups that didn't do quite so well as the core Cloudmakers), that core group stuck around as a community, played through a second, entirely player made game and founded http://www.collectivedetective.org/, a website devoted to online games that demand the time and patience of puzzle solvers and communities to do well in.

So.. EA "doesn't get it." They are very good at small scale games that require minimal interaction, but can't even build something with the depth and consistency of most text based Muds, let alone a real multiplayer "insert type of game here". Well, maybe first person shooters, but a brain dead monkey could manage a playable one of those..

I do agree with Dominus. Actually, I played the Beta, and there was a hint of a plot, but never really materialized. ( Plot hole was probably inaccurate ). It continually evolved into a game filled with Player Killers, and monster bashers that were only interested in accumulating an exuberant amount of virtual wealth. And the sad part was that EA catered to those types of players rather than encouraging true roleplaying.

th e worst part of it was that I was still hooked to the game. Really, I had nothing else to do than making the skills of a virtual character better and better. In the end I really needed some reality check and decided I'd rather play offline games and spent hous finishing them instead of paying for a game without plot and a character that does nothing else than wander around and escape those player-killers....

(the really really sad part was that instead of playing lots of new games I replayed the beginning of U7-BG endlessly and actually finished SI with the alpha version of Exult...)

To Dominus: I can relate to your experiences. Before I quit playing UO, I started getting into some of the emulators out there, mainly UOX. I did get involved a little with the project back in 98, as many others did. There are some great servers out there put together by some dedicated players who wanted to make this game what it was originally intended to be: A multiplayer roleplaying game with well thought out quests rather than EAs concept of what a quest is supposed to be. I believe that if Richard Garriot had created UO under the Origin Systems banner ( minus EA ), it would have been a completely different game. Im looking forward to Richards latest project.

The UO Order/Chaos has nothing to do with Ophidian Order/Chaos and should not be treated as such.

"Anyways, in addition to the 8 virtues, UO added the "Order vs Chaos" (from) thing into Britianna. Somehow LB got aligned with the side of Order, and Blackthorne got Chaos. I'd like to promote discussion on how things should be the other way around."

It shouldn't be either way. Both order and chaos are equally as evil and destructive when applied the wrong way. Order becomes oppression and Chaos becomes anarchy. It's really not appropriate to align any group with one or the other, since any fair and healthy organization and society needs a delicate balance of both in order to thrive. People need freedom, which comes from chaos, and they also need routines and basic laws to keep them in check, which is order. The group that would most closely resemble order in Brittania would be the judicial council of Yew, but even that is stretching it, since once again, the people of Yew also believe in allowing personal freedoms and such.

Balance fiend!

I prefer orderly chaos. Or is it chaotic orderliness?

I'm not sure what kind of a plot there could be, in a game like UO. Certainly Chaos versus Order seemed more quantifiable than trying to regulate the virtues. Not that it would be impossible, it would just be fairly limited for some virtues, like Humility or Honesty. First, there would have to be trackable ways to be non-Virtuous in-game, preferably with regard to other players, and there would likewise have to be rewards for not being virtuous, or else everyone would just macro up karma.

Personally, if I was doing a game based on Chaos versus Order, I would go all out. While belonging to the side of Order would let you have access to more social benefits (free education for newbies, welfare for poor players, protection from criminals and monsters, subsidies for crafts, etc) you also have more social responsibilities -- high taxes, a wider variety of criminalized behaviors (say, no inscribing copyrighted scrolls, no running around in your undies, possession of poison potions or silver serpent venom is illegal), more and very powerful guards, compulsory military service for a certain period, orcs and gargoyles killed on sight, restricted weapons privileges, etc.. There is also a very clear social ladder, with peasants and various ranks of nobility, each in turn owing fealty to a higher ranking noble. Pilgrimmages and quests of virtue are required for advancement. Blackthorn's society (I agree that Blackthorn should represent Order) would be based on Laws that strength society at the expense of the individual's will (though these Laws are not nearly as harsh as those of U5.)


British's society, on the other hand, would have fewer guards, that were killable, by PCs or by monsters. People could pretty much own whichever weapons or spells they want, provided they don't use them for evil. Violent crimes brings swift and deadly punishment. Nonviolent crime results in fines or imprisonment. There are charges for government services, and very few services that exist. The needy (NPCs and PCs alike) are allowed to beg at the shrines of Compassion and Sacrifice. British's Virtues are intended to improve the spiritual well-being of the seeker, by leading the seeker to improve his world. British's society forbids what is clearly wrong, encourages what is right, but otherwise lets people do as they wish, whether pursuing lives based around accumulation of treasure and skills, or chatting with friends, or whatever.

But would Order or Chaos get the better shields? That is the question.

Order shields would be of consistant quality.
Chaos shields would be less consistant, and hence some would be better and some would be worse. But you can't just discard the crappy chaos shields and only keep the good ones, since there are a finite number floating around, and there are more people who want chaos shields than the number of good shields available (besides, you can't really tell just by looking at it whether it's good or not. you can only deduce its quality be personally trying it, or trusting someone else who is trying to *cough* sell you the shield).

hope that makes sense (-:

Oh people, people...
I'm an UDIC, I make the claim to know most of the Ages of (at least) u5-u9. UO NEVER HAS HAD ANYTHING to do with Ultima. And since EA grabbed it...

Seriously, if you would simply give UO another map for only Trammel and Felucca (Britannia), then you would comfortly wind up with a game that has very little to do with Ultima. Virtues have almost 0 gameplay relevance; LB (both of them) are gone. And the monester of Ultima (sorry people) have to the greatest part been nabbed from other games ;D

Hell, the Gragies aren't even their own RACE! They are just dumb NPCs

No. EA is a soul-eater. I will in future support every small gaming corp who won't let EA buy them out :\