One-step is correct, but I do not think you should see that as a major issue. Why? Because, if your members believe in a similar creed, and act based on that creed, then you will all be fairly close in alignment (whatever that alignment may be).
I think it is useful to flip your approach to alignment. Instead of writing in stone what your alignment will be before entering the game, allow your actions in-game to dictate the alignment of your settlement. I suggest have a somewhat loose idea of your settlement's alignment prior to launch, and then settling on an alignment through your members actions.
Dario explained it nicely. Basically the reason for the PvP Window is the problem you describe.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Not trying to be a pain, but just to be clear ..
A) the Add-Ons (e.g. regional trait, medal of honor, twice marked, etc) I purchased for my Buddy through the fulfillment system will be able to be transferred to my Buddy's PFO account?
B) should I ask for a refund on the Add-Ons I purchased for my Buddy, and inform my Buddy that they will be able to purchase the Add-Ons through the fulfillment system at a different(later) date?
Thank you. My apologies for the beating of what I am sure is probably a dead horse.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Add-Ons are not available to your Buddy, even after they accept. It is my understanding that those with the Crowdforger Buddy pledge should purchase the add-ons that both you and your Buddy would like, and at a later date one will be able to transfer the Buddy Add-Ons to the Buddy account.
New buttons look good. Is there anyway to make the hover-over slightly more different? It can be difficult to know if I have actually clicked on the button or not. THanks!
Using Firefox 20.0.1
Wow, just wow. There will always be a-holes. You've stated your case, just move on.
The proof is in the puddin' RS has been producing high-quality, and highly-useable products since its inception, regardless of whatever reviewers are saying (good or bad).
I would happily pay for Portcullises, and I appreciate the offer.
Keep up the great work Creighton!
Ernest Mueller wrote:
Question, are we pre-orderers supposed to get the PDF too? I preordered RC back in the day and pledged some to get other stuff but haven't gotten the actual RC PDF on my page yet...
Same situation here. I believe Blonde Frog said she was working on this.
Generally speaking I dig all of this.
I would like to see a process for PCs to devote themselves to a deity. In fact, I think it would be ultra-cool if a PC priest of the particular was required as a kind of sponsor. I would like to see rituals that involved a PC devoting themselves to a deity at a service where other PCs could witness the act, etc, etc.
I like this approach.
Hobs the Short wrote:
I really like this idea.
I really like that idea
Thanks DaveMage, brvheart and Elorebaen. I'm not satisfied with those god conversions. I think I'll just go with them being lost and forgotten.
You are welcome. I think that is fine as well. Again, I think it is fairly self-contained. Just need to figure out a way to connect with characters that come from the Inner Sea.
I would imagine they will have a grid overlay that you can adjust to whatever you want, at least the should.
re Golarion: I used Thy=Aroden and Muir=Iomedae, and have had no problem. The battle took place 1000 years ago for me. I don't think it is a big deal that Iomedae wasn't a deity yet. The area is fairly self-containted.
Kthulhu, I tend to agree with you, but it is actually fairly easy to port ST with just a flavor tweaks.
Also, ST starts at 7.
The NPE needs to connect new players with existing players asap. Social interaction should be there from the beginning. Some MUDs I've experienced have done this pretty well. If I remember correctly Dragonrealms had a guild dedicated to new players, along with a guildhouse where new players could go and ask questions. There were also reglar seminars about aspects of the game. All of these involved actual interaction with other players.
Maybe a short tutorial, but then get the new players interacting with existing players quickly.
Personally, I'd like to see full rule support. System agnostic VTTs are already pretty common, after all. If Paizo wants us to spend money on their support material for their VTT, its better if it offers some advantage of just going with another already established VTT.
I 100% agree. At the very least "practical" rules support.
I think this is an important nuance of this discussion that can get lost.
There is a huge gulf between "full" rules support and "practical" rules support. "Full" rules support we have never seen in a VTT, and nor do I think it is actually necessary. "Practical" rules support covers all of the most typical rolls you will deal with on a regular basis, so skills, combat, saves, etc, etc. A character sheet that takes care of the math. A way to add and save macros. "Practical" is a far cry from "Full" rules support. You do not need "Full" support.
An example of a feature rich "practical" approach is what LM's Pathfinder framework has done for Maptool. It covers all of the typical elements in most typical games, with ways to extend it for more customized campaigns.
I think when experienced users say that they desire rules support they are thinking along the lines of "practical" rules support, and others think they are saying "full" rules support. You do not need "full," and nor could you probably ever reach that. But there is a whole lot that you can integrate that a computer can do really well, and used every game session.
If it made sense for that part of the world, then they would just alter how the flag works in those areas. Simple.
The Heinous flag is an extremely subjective thing at the current time its just the developers inflicting thier morality or more likely worry about being condemned by groups who would find the behavior offensive.
It seems as if by "extremely subjective" you are saying that GW has a weak argument for why the Heinous flag applies to what it does in the Crusader Road. If so, I wish you just say that, instead of this objective/subjective language, which just muddies the water.
Anywho, if that is what you are saying I think you are incorrect because the Riverlands have specific mores against slavery, and there is lore backing up this particular view. Which doesn't mean slavery is magically not present, as the lore also shows, it just means there is a general distaste for it, if you will.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I think this makes sense as well, as it makes it easier to track unwanted behavior.
I realize there will be alts. There is a difference between having alts and fostering them. What I don't want to see are systems that foster alts. For example, if the game systems end up creating a system whereby the only "crafters" are characters that we never really interact with because players see them as "alts," then I think this is bad for the community, and in turn bad for a game based on community.
The issue is not identifying what is an alt, the issue is whether the design supports a deep community based in character interaction. If it does, then it is most likely not fostering alt creation. PFO has already gone a long way to address this by supporting various design elements that support community and player-interaction.
I am in 100% agreement, though social-engineering is precisely what we are doing in creating cool tools for meaningful human interaction. We certainly want to engineer the most fertile ground for meaningful human interaction.