|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
If you have any questions for us about who we are, what our goals are, etc., please feel free to ask, here or in our forums.
Ah but the "settlement" is just the geographical place you call home. If a group of druids learn to coexist and live within a specific plot of forest, I would call that their settlement. It might be made of shaped trees or mud huts...but that is still the piece of land they have claimed, developed, and will defend. I am defining a "living space" in PFO as a settlement, not the other way around.
But, my point was not really about druids, I have no intend of being druid. I was using their existence and tendency toward TN as an additional case to support my argument for supporting TN as a play option...at all levels of social organization.
@Pax Shane Gifford
I understand and agree with you. I am not arguing it should be allowed as is. I am entirely prepared to face less than optimal consequences for my decisions. The exploration of what can be done to make it viable is what I am asking for. I think simply disallowing it is a poor way to prevent everyone from doing it. I think a better option would be to find a way to remove the inherent benefit, or create a counter/balancing benefit for not choosing it.
And, I think I must have been confused (or missed the latest iteration of dev ideas). TN Settlements are currently allowed and Nations get 2 steps? If so, I guess I withdraw my concern. I have no qualms with being part of a NG or LG Kingdom as long as each settlement then gets at least 1 step from that.
Druid have to live somewhere too. The only reason I am not also asking for the ability to make giant tree house/nature settlements (like the elves in LotR) is because we are talking about a MVP at the moment...and because that is only a skinning issue.
Our ability to make TN social groups is a general mechanic.
So, if my TN settlement grows to the point where we have the power to expand and build/conquer another, we cannot why?
Oh wait, we can. We just cannot be considered in the same social association at the multi-settlement level. I guess I am just not seeing what is perceived as the horrid repercussions of allowing this. Surely, if the fear is that "everyone will do it", why allow one level of social organization but not another? And surely, if that is truly the concern, we can think of some incentives for those who do not...that balance the apparent incentive for those who would.
Or, another solution, I would happily accept negative consequences (such as a slightly slower DI) for each instance of cross/opposite alignment. This would give NN the slowest DI rate...and the corners of the alignment plane the best DI rate (no opposite alignments). This is actually logical because they would be more "pure of intent". Even CG and LG have differences in methodology - in how Good should be realized.
I am not against there being consequences for my decisions.
I really don't know about Forencith's take there, or his claim to not be trying to convince one of his validity (while then arguing why it is valid... OK)
Oops, sorry...half IC, half not...and arguing two different things. One, I was arguing for the validity of TN as a faction/playable alignment. What I was not arguing was the validity of my RP rationale, my cause. Sorry for the confusion.
Opposition to tyranny sounds more Chaos, not Neutral. Not saying that Neutral can not have some opposition to tyranny. Moderate opposition. But dedicated focused opposition to all tyranny sounds CN (or NC).
Well, the way I specifically defined tyranny was someone who would/could censure the material you have access too. Were demons able, they would destroy all LE creatures and their ideas/literature, were devils able, they would destroy all CE creatures and their ideas/literature. Pure Law vs Pure Chaos, untempered by an iota of compassion, and they can both be tyrants...as I defined the term. Again, my apologies for the half IC/half OOC confusion.
I withdraw my previous claim about Ryan's position.
Here is where I previously raised the issue of scams and con men being a legitimate gameplay option. I thought he responded in a "less than agreeing" manner, I do not see a response by him now so I withdraw my previous statements about his position.
I am not trying to convince you of the validity of my cause, you are welcome to think it as irrational as you want. I am just trying to argue that it is a valid cause, one that should be supported (there is afterall a whole class, druid, that is inclined toward it). We have motive, and the resources we have are only a matter of how much work we are willing to put into recruiting, harvesting, building, and otherwise profiting. How we utilize or intend to utilize those resources to pursue our motive...is beside the point.
I am still a fan of just letting associations choose any contiguous area 4/9 of the alignment plane using a simple geometric shape tool to center and manipulate on the plane. For example, (for a MVP) imagine a circle 4/9 the size of the square it is inscribed upon. That square is the alignment plane. When setting your associations alignment, you select the center of the circle and the rest is done for you. You can drag the circle to place it exactly where you want it. Any part of the circle that falls off the edge of the square increases the arc everywhere else to insure the area inside the circle and on the square is always 4/9 of the square.
That way, TN can take TN...and a little bit from the inner most of each alignment. It would exclude all extremes and not get the advantage of being all inclusive.
Likewise, we specifically (TSV) could even choose the LG corner of TN, specifically to exclude CE...for which we will probably have little tolerance.
It also means every group automatically gets the same plane coverage.
Or, to simplify, I am not against simply allowing 4 contiguous alignments to be selected.
With the renewed talk of creating good vs evil settlements and societies, I would like to take a moment to reinforce my hope that True Neutral remains/becomes a viable play option for social groups of any size (CC/Settlement/Nation). My fear is artificial limitation.
I understand some of the objections previously raised (including those by the Devs), but would love to hear some perspectives on those objections. Including those objections which might not have been previously raised but seem to be an emergent factor, such as Neutral really being a balance of doing Good act and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic...as opposed to what I am looking for, a lack of pursuing the extreme in any (for instance, I will probably never violate a Contract...does that necessarily make me Lawful?, I will probably never kill outside of need or sanctioned mechanics...does that necessarily make me Good?). Perhaps we can explore some options that had not been previously considered.
With this plea, comes a reminder that there are two sides of every alignment, Good means you would act with Compassion, even if you never get the opportunity; one cannot hide their heart from the gods. There are those who fight for the side of Good...there are those who simply live their lives with Compassion, helping their fellows. Evil is not just the deeds of acting Evilly, it is a lack of Compassion. The most Evil person might not ever do Evil or actively fight against Good...but all that they do do is for themselves only. They might never get the need or opportunity to murder others, but they would have no compunction about doing so. Likewise, Neutral has two sides. There is the position of tolerance, often viewed distastefully by other non-Neutral parties as the inability to take a side. This does not necessarily have to be the case, sometimes they are just more pragmatic than their Good kin, and less willing to do anything to accomplish their goals than Evil; others, they see a need to combine the rationalism of society with the chaos of nature.
But, there is a flip side to Neutrality, a desire to fight tyranny in any form...for make no mistake, all extremes are a form of tyranny. No one can say those who pursue this philosophy have not chosen a side, clearly they have. We fight to maintain this balance as fervently as those who fight for Good, Evil, Order or Chaos. For example, We of TSV seek knowledge and wisdom in all their forms. Our lore teaches us that all reality is a mutable illusion...if only we can find the cracks in the perceivable reality, we can disbelieve and find the more true one beneath. This is why we focus on the collection of knowledge. We know not what form these cracks will take, nor what pieces of wisdom will reveal them it, but one thing I do know...the destruction and censorship of knowledge, as each extreme alignment would do to the wisdom of their diametric opposite, is counter to our cause.
I do not speak for TSV, and I am sure not all within our leatherbound halls would agree with me...but I intend to stand...as I am able, fighting against that side which grows too strong. A balance can only be maintained by force of arms, strength of whit, and blood on the battlefield.
Do not misunderstand me, I am not recruiting for TSV. I am not even advocating our position. What I am trying to do is show, through example, that True Neutral can be a "side" - a side with valid reasons to participate in the various battles that will range across the River Kingdoms...a side, I hope I am able to take, build, and defend.
So, lets discuss why Neutral is not a viable in game option, the specific problems that can be predicted, and ways to remedy those issues. (Of course, I realize my table top ideas of alignment might have to be revised in PFO, I accept that as a possibility too...in which case, where, for example, would a TN druid stand and why?)
I 100% agree with this.
Problems that arise in the metagame need to be solved in the metagame.
I do not agree with this at all. when I play the game, I tend to be 100% in the game. Why hang out in forums when I could be in-game? So, to me, every system/mechanical failure is an in-game issue. If my settlement leader disappears...and "we the people" can make no decisions on our own, I do not see what that failure in the system has anything to do with metagame.
Perhaps something in the charter about a a way for residents to wrestle power from a leader? When the Charter is created this option can be selected or not...then I can make the choice to join a settlement that has the option...or not. The failure then falls on my shoulders.
EDIT: But, to clarify, as long as there is some way, metagame hoops or whatever...it is better than no way.
Very true, considering it is a settlement conquest game (as stated by GW), there will be lots of PvP, but...as you say, there are many facets to PvP. Someone has to supply the weapons and armor, grow the food, mix healing pots, etc. Some races, small ones for example, probably would be less naturally influential in warfare. The balance does not necessarily have to be in combat.
Very good point, thank you for reminding me there was more than PvP to the game.
To those saying "no one will play it if it is not good in PvP" I do not think the difference needs to be insurmountable for those who want to put the effort in. But, even were it, there are many people interested in PFO who are only marginally interested (or even outright uninterested) in PvP. Effectiveness in PvP would be the last consideration on their mind.
Make gnomes a bit slower, give them a racial 'run' skill which...if you put in the training time, gives them a fraction more speed per rank...up to Medium speed for those who want to participate in formations and the like.
EDIT: In fact, I am not convinced there needs to be "balance" at all.
Ordinarily I would have argued for this, and suggested GW do 10000 battles between an equally geared medium vs small character. Everything else equal, the small hit box of the small character should allow it to win more often. So, to compensate, adjust the small characters speed so to return the win ratio to as close to 50% as possible.
But...then I remembered this is tab targeting...and decided to argue against.
EDIT: And of course, I also understand that everything else would not have necessarily been equal, for instance, small weapons to less damage. Perhaps that difference alone would have negated my balancing methodology.
<placing the book, between his teeth and rummaging for a few moments in the satchel with his now free hand>
'shangobez?...mo...mo...ah, hej wago...'
<cocking his head, and grinning around the book>
'...wa ken i shej, uma bod'
<pulling what appears to be a bottle from another satchel on his other hip Forencith suddenly stops and looks embarrassed>
'shawy...ashk da bikguj...dish ish hishow.'
<slowly...trying not to draw Fult's notice, Forencith slips a pot helm many sizes too large from under his tunic and onto his head>
'Hmmm, well such are my discussions with Fult.
To clarify, TSV sub-communities are our early stages of building special interest Companies within TSV community. However, since we think there will be optimal sizes to Companies (of approximately 50), we will keep them internal, to the benefit of the whole, until is to the greatest beneficial for them to...bud off.
As Fult has so eloquently expressed, he is building a special interest group based roughly on Kellid culture...here's a book if you are not familiar...'
<Forencith, with the hand not trying to hold the helm from engulfing the top half of his body, pulls a small brown leather bound book from a satchel>
'...although he...Fult...ummm...is obviously Kellid, I believe he once told me he would fight beside any warrior who had honour, but anyone with questions can ask him. I recommend wearing a helmet.
Anyways, I have only been assisting Fult with the paperwork. Like most Kellid, he cares less for that which can be accomplished with the pen and seemingly...more for who the spikes on his gauntlet might silence when the need arises.'
Since making judgements by looks is a bad policy in reality...
You keep claiming this...I guess I don't see this as the truism you do. All we have is sensory input to make judgements...and judging by the size of our visual cortex in relation to the other sensory processing centers...we as humans are specialized in using our vision. So, are you claiming we should not be making judgements at all? If so, should we just abandon any semblance of meaningful behaviour since we are not allowed to make conclusions about our environments?
But those things should also effect people on the ground. My non-flying bard should have to worry about "Wind, air currents, creatures in the air, other players, traps, skill/ability based" in addition to the ground -based content..so you are still bypassing all the things limited to the ground.
The other two, "time limits, range limits" are not content or challenges, they are simply limitations to your content defeating abilities.
Yes, I am asking for some stereotypes to be used to communicate information about that character. I want a high-STR character to have an above average muscle tone/mass. I want a high-DEX character to have a smooth rolling gait and perhaps some distinctive static actions. Likewise, perhaps high-IQ characters, when not being actively controlled by their characters make bend down and appear to sample the ground/wall. Etc...I see nothing wrong with this.
Speaking of which, I would have no problem compromising with these static emotes. Let you look like what you want (although I much prefer characters only have options available that are reasonable for their "stats"), and give me what I want through these static emotes. As I said, I am open to other solutions, I had not yet thought of any.
Well, I am a huge fan of a consistent and logical world (with reasonable causality) as opposed to realism for realisms sake. However, our ideas of reality are drawn from our understandings of the consistency and logic of the world.
What I am actually asking for is for the consequences of ones decisions and state of being to have some effect on an avatars visage. I am not asking for this as a means of stereotyping or pigeonholing people...I want visual ques that represent all the things we are able to perceive in RL...that makes RL so much richer, for the sole goal of making the virtual world more rich. If it were possible to have my computer replicate pheromones, smells, voices, and all the other identifying features real people have, then I would be arguing to let everyone look like whatever they want....and just have those things logically bound to stats. Since they are not in game, I still want those clues albeit in the only way we have possible, visually via the avatar.
Actually, (for non-cleric abilities/spells) I think Björn had it right...at least as far as PfO goes.
My only concern with removing flying is that it removes a huge portion of those obstacles...and those obstacles are the content. All the things I have read that suggest new obstacles for flying are all obstacles that should also be there for people not flying as well...so the end result of flying, nullifying content.
So, amusingly we have illustrated that half of the people in this debate believes nature trumps nurture and the other half the opposite. Personally, after reading how goblins were created, I tend to support the nature > nurture position and that Evil behaviour (destruction and mayhem) is inherent to being a goblin. I think their brains are wired such. These behaviours activate the pleasure centers of their brains, reinforcing that behaviour. I agree a Good deity could probably rewire a goblin or few, but then they would no longer be goblins, imo.
And then, as Ryan says, if you make something available to the players, everyone will do it...it will no longer be the rare creature that all the nurture > nature people are asking for.
GW/Paizo, please do not cheapen your iconic beasties.
I agree with you totally. All problems should have a variety of solutions...but if you do not have a solution (or cannot think of one) you do not get past that point. Also, I agree someone should be able to go get a solution if possible, but here is where we need to remember that most dungeons will be temporary affairs created when found.
I was using climbing as an example case.
SOrry, I think most of you are missing the point. No, CHA (as an example) does not necessarily tie to appearance...but it does tie to something(s) that makes you more able to influence people. These somethings might be pheromones, voice quality, posture, demeanor, body language, color of tie, or even appearance...whatever this something is, the most efficient way to replicate it (or the lack of it) is through visual markers on your avatar. Your appearance/gait/posture/body type/musculature/etc is a marker for these things. If someone has a better way, I am excited to read it.
For the record, I have always argued that there should be customization within the ranges set by those conditions. I have not (and nor has anyone that I have seen) argued that these features should be the sole determiner of one's appearance. A
Yeah, it is called consequences of your choices. I don't see the problem illustrated by your sarcasm, I would call that a feature that enables everyone to be good at something.
Opps, thanks for the correction...point still stands.
I have two problems with this, one) lighting is handled client-side with all current games...there is no reason it must be this way, and two) the point was the ability to utilize branches (hence z-axis), the dark and gloomy was only atmosphere.
When it comes to negating the huge effort to make the ground game work as intended....yes.
I am obviously not against a very limited flight/levitation as illustrated here. Do I want to see Golarion look like Aseroth with flying mounts everywhere...no.
I was only illustrating a point, in the specific case given, those spells would also have the desired results, an open portcullis. Either way, the effect is still that certain challenges have to be met of you do not get past.
But also creatures. It annoys me seeing a harpy that flies 3ft of the ground, a harpy would fly up and swoop down, not come charging at you hovering just above the ground.
Very good point, I agree that flying creatures should have a vertical pathing.
This makes one wonder where the goblin was able to receive training for his/her Paladin skills.
Awesome point, I would much rather see time spent making climbing and swimming available to all characters (to varying degrees based on skill/badges and encumbrance) than flying. Likewise, I would like to see non-combat and non-flight uses of magic, such as teleport, within visual range.
This plays into much earlier discussions about the types of non-combat challenges we would like to see in dungeons. I hope cave systems are not 2-dimensional, I hope dark, gloomy forests have trees with branches...I hope progression is not linear, here is the beginning of the dungeon, here is the end...instead let us explore the dungeon as we are able. Did not bring either a grappling hook or wizard with teleport (or other similar effects), well you do not get to see what is down the wing of the cavern with the entrance 30ft off the cavern floor. Don't bring a rogue who can pick locks? Well you do not get to get past the part with the ancient portcullis. Etc...Etc...
Good call Randomdays.