Okay, there's almost a flood of information here - and in some ways it's rather unstructured.
Let's start with the basics:
Now, I know the basics, your MC is a Revenant (Zombie that can think and act for him/herself) and is one of the only 8 revenants in the Realm.
MC is Revenant, one of 8.
Your first gap is to hash out balance of power. You've got an idea on power structure for the MC (1 overlord, 8 revenant, then the general army they're commanding). But, what did the MC do to apply or get selected to become a Revenant? What's his or her driving purpose to lead an army against humanity? Was there an event in their former life or current state that best such a strong prejudice and does it factor into the status of Revenant where they can think freely?
Braumzir (just a placeholder until i think up a better "Dark Lord" name) wants you to go through several trials to see if you're fit to lead the over 500000 undead into battle against the humans, but while you're up in the overworld, you find that you're able to communicate with humans, and that doing so doesn't rot you, like it would any other zombie.
Braumzir (apparently an overlord of sorts) is testing the MC for worthiness, loyalty, etc.
Here's where you have a pretty large gap - if what makes a Revenant special is the ability to think and act of their own volition, then you're faced with three big questions to answer:
- if normal zombies cant think or act on their own, by whos will do they act?
- if they act on the will of the Revenant, what gives an Overlord power over a Revenant that would impede or stop Revenant's from in-fighting and just taking out the Overlord directly? In short, what's the unifying cause underneath the simpler motive, "killing humans."
- The 'rot' that happens to any other zombie as the result of interacting with humans - is it propaganda for control or is it fact and the MC is 'that' special he or she somehow is free from that effect while others aren't (either make for interesting lore, in my opinion - but each also has their own deeper question to answer)
You're lacking, obviously, a middle - but you'll find that if you can broaden the lore you've established in the beginning, the middle typically magically appears.
Let's look at the ending:
The ending is basically that you can either side with Braumzir or with the Humans of Ello'Shin (realm name placeholder) if you side with Braumzir, you end up destroying the human civilization, and depending on how good you do, Braumzir will either end up wiping out the entire undead horde (you didn't get all the special hidden items) and has Ello'Shin to himself to start over...or you and your party get to stay as his right-hand men/women as he starts over.
So, if the player decides to be 'evil' and wipe out the humans he or she will be the strongest among 8, but not the strongest there is - at best the player is #2 and still takes orders from the Overlord in the end.
This is good for a loyal soldier archetype - one who follows orders and executes without hesitation. However, it's bad as a main character being given a choice. By default, choosing to refrain from destruction makes the main character a traitor and
SUGGESTION:
Establish a strong MC sense of commitment to their mindset. Give the player 3 distinct opportunities to choose a set path. For example, in the beginning, have three instances of introspection and drive the point of Revenant's having autonomy.
- Point 1 - Overlord charged MC with eradication of a small dusty town with a handful of people. Orders are to mercilessly kill all humans by any and everymeans available.
Most players will simply accept this is how it is. Orders given to attain a goal are typically fulfilled and currently, no consequence exists but it's a setup for the next choice.
- Point 2 - MC enteres toewn, kills most inhabitants and upon leaving hears a child cry out. MC sends two underlings to investigate. Two parents and 3 small children are found hiding under a floor in a house. Because they're not autonomous, one of the underlings kills one of the parents. The MC does nothing about it but stops the underling from killing the second parent. MC questions the parent as to whether any other people are hiding (set that up how you want). Finally, the MC is asked by the parent to at least kill the children in a way they do not feel pain. - this is where the player chooses as they want without much guilt. MC can kill swiftly and let the parent watch to show integrity with proof. MC can kill parent and then kill kids swiftly and have no proof. MC can kill parent and leave kids to die of starvation and exposure (lied to parent), or finally the MC can just be brutal all around.
This lets the player choose to which degree they follow orders without letting them go completely rogue yet. It builds to a point where people find it horrific and shy away from that kind of thing or really get morbid and go head first. Basically, it should establish whether your player wants to actually be good or whether they will be the lapdog and follow orders without question. It also affords you the opportunity to give the MC some hint at realization his or her interaction with humans didn't damage them. It also may give an opportunity to drive irrational brutality over confusion as to why or the attempt to inflict 'rot' by talking to the MC.
Lots of paths in there I think.
- Point 3 - Upon returning from the mission, the MC is rewarded and the Overlord makes a few statements commending the actions. These can be generic as in every outcme from Point 2, the mission is completed as instructed. As the MC is commended by his or her peers, he or she has moments of dialog where they get introspective and face the moral consequences. You should allow the player to choose their internal dialog - do they regret their actions and feel there's a better way to go about this, maybe peacefully or do they live for this kind of thing and wish only to serve the Overlord as the smiting right hand of undead?
This sets up a position where the player has full responsibility for the final choice, their first encounter with the human resistence (as I think of them at this point). When the MC meets the human nemsis, there should be a point of interaction where a discussion occurs and some kind of plea is made from one side or the other (does the MC express their desire or regret and seek power or forgiveness?)
Point 4 - FINAL POINT - script the dialog to make any choice final. Have the event be a strong enough interaction where the MC commits internally to their cause with no return, have them think about the potential outcome and what it means to them - afterall, most motivations are selfish anyway. What will the MC sacrifice if they help humans, what will they sacrifice if they kill humans. You can add subplot goals andrewards down the line, but this should be a solid base to build from.
If you side with the humans, you help several warring states to stop fighting each other, and attempt to divert their attention at Braumzir. At the end, if you kill Braumzir, the Humans have to decide what to do with you and your party. if you collected all the special hidden items, you get to stay in the humans world, and become the masters of a new civilization, a pure civilization of Undead, where the Undead can be free, and live alongside the other races in peace. If you don't collect all the special hidden items, you are hunted by the humans for the rest of eternity, never to have peace again in your un-life. .
I dig the multiple outcomes, but this also feels like the MC (and player) is punished for a lack of absolute perfection I feel like this system here sets the player up to focus less on story and enjoying the game and more on being forced to involve themselves in every aspect of what you're working on for the sake of collecting all items to get an ideal outcome. While this is something I can personally identify with ( I hate when I work on something nd no one takes the time to really appreciate it's depth), it loses sight of the objective in gaming - to have fun and escape the day to day.
Having a few items that turn the tide of battle and politics is great and often adds to the fun, but requiring them all to be there just makes it a really involved and detracts from replay value. I you feel its' essential - by all means, but if it isn't essential then I'll impart to you the wisest thing my college professor told me in Art:
It isn't complete because there's nothing left to add, it's complete because there's nothing left to take away.
I need help with the story and Lore of this game, I have got the first 10 maps of around 7 to 9 thousand maps finished, but i would like some help with the lore and story. so suggest as you see fit.
In the spirit of my last paragraph, 7-9000 maps? Bruh, c'mon. Final Fantasy III (XI) had over 100. I played it for 198 hours on my first play through just getting all of what I could in a single run. Maps don't make a game good or complex - your story, the battle mechanics, and how well you use available assets will go much farther than hashing out thousands of maps.
I hope this helps give some ideas.
