Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Kargstaad

Notmyrealname's page

Goblin Squad Member. 378 posts (379 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

That's not PVP. It's PVME.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did you negotiate any Hideout Rights if you are being chased by a posse, Xeen?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You dwarves sound like a cool bunch.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

More screen shots of the crafting please!!! I will beg if it helps, Please please please, PLEASE...

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I tried to join but she said I have to use my real name. Noooo...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:
As a gaming community, like anywhere else, we have our internal issues. So people within Pax Gaming that have issues with one another can't say, "Oh well Pax X has been around longer and done more than Pax Y!" It promotes equality among our guilds. It is a measure in place to quell and prevent internal drama and does not have any implication outside of the Pax Gaming Community.

To be fair, you might be 100% right in this. I have no idea. I am judging the content of the Pax Charter by what's on the page, not adding what I think it might be used for. What's on the page tells a story of Pax is Pax.

I'll also add that for me, the fact that I see Pax as Pax right now doesn't mean that I'd vote "no" on that poll, if I even vote at all. I don't like the idea of punishing the old Golgotha members for joining Pax. They were going to have a settlement before, and punishing them for joining a gaming community seems wrong to me. I say that because I don't want my previous post to be interpreted as a rallying cry against Pax or anything of the sort. It was an answer to a specific question regarding how I view the Pax companies.

I'll also add that I don't think any members of Pax are trying to game the system in any way or are trying to nefariously "get away" with something.

However, I do view Pax as Pax. And I further think someone having the opinion that Pax having 2 settlements is against the spirit of the rules or bad for the community, and who would vote no on that poll, has valid points to make and should not be shouted down, or be called fools & babies, or have their motives questioned.

I agree with what you say but one thing I would like to add. In any effort to bring about what is 'best' for the community we should never ignore what it will do any individual . We can't view even one person as expendable in our effort to have a good community , and many individuals would be hurt by this attempt to go back and undo things.

I am talking about trying to vote one settlement into oblivion or harass them into quitting.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
I'm not real interested in doing that.
Are you saying you won't engage in this conversation?..... Hmmm, that does sound vaguely familiar.... where did I read that?
You will just keep it up until you think you have won and beat me in a fight , won't you ? You need to act more mature in how you treat other people, God did not put them here for you to beat up on verbally .Go ahead and have the last word and declare victory.

Hey, check that mirror out.

You never did answer my question.

Who are you voting for in the land rush?

I will sell you my vote, you tell me who to vote for( don't say Pax ). The price is that you will become my forum bodyguard forever.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
So if I ask a question about if both Pax guilds decided to withdraw from this thread or was it just one that decided , I am trolling? maybe I want to know who thinks they don't need to answer questions about their conduct. Why are you against me asking a question about who was it that decided their guild won't engage in conversation?

By what relationship is Pax beholden to you, to answer your questions?

Do they not have the right to say, we have addressed this issue as far as we choose to, and leave it in the hands of GW?

To answer your question, I don't think they need to answer to you, me or anyone else other than GW.

I can tell you who decided their guild won't engage in conversation. It was the second shooter on the grassy knoll.... You see how silly this can get?

Ryan Dancey has already responded to this thread. As convoluted as his post was, there was still no affirmation that Pax did anything wrong. So why would Pax Golgotha continue arguing over a settled matter?

Sorry Bludd but you have all the appearance of someone who just wants to fight and argue on a personal level, what are you really mad about? You aren't able to follow how this thread evolved , you are stuck repeating Pax did nothing wrong . But I think you are just in the mood to fight it doesn't matter with who or about what, I'm not real interested in doing that.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FMS SirZac wrote:

Well said Dancey, exactly how I'd assess it. I'd furthermore like to say I believe the OP accomplished what he wanted to do: throw shade without blowback on himself. He is almost effectively 'whistleblowing' and stepping away after stirring the pot. I don't appreciate that underhanded maneuvering by the OP.

As for the current political climate, it is what it is. FMS has been brazenly clear that we understand the landscape and believe in unification of similar companies to create the vision we have as our path. We haven't signed any accord or joined any empire in hopes of beneficent votes.

We are very happy with the work we are accomplishing in creating a wholesome settlement and have no other opinion than to say we do not like the throwaway account tactic to stir this pot.

Don't be so quick to judge the OP, maybe it is a Pax member who is concerned about their guilds ethics. People who try to uphold high ethical standards get personal attacks from all the ones who think they don't answer to anyone.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
Can metagame guilds grab two or more settlements, yes or no?
Yes
I concur. However if a member of a company did not vote in the first landrush they should still apply their vote to their own company and not an affiliate, even if their own company has a settlement assured.

I don't care if they have two settlements , I care that they are now on public record as refusing to do what Ryan asked them to do for the sake of a good community, it is wrong.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Morbis wrote:
Quote:
So Pax not doing what they are asked to do has set a new and horrible standard for the community, they don't even care what we think because they are gone.

We aren't responding. That doesn't mean we aren't reading.

You refuse to comment on your refusal to do what Ryan asked your guild to do for the purpose of building a better community, then you don't care about what Ryan says or about what is best for the community. So you have set that as a standard of behavior, it is wrong.

Is the official position of Pax that you can refuse to do what a CEO asks you to do for the best interests of the game and do whatever you want, or are you breaking from the official Pax policy?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the thing, it's not just about Pax getting two settlements, it is about Ryan leading us in building a better PVP game community. Ryan will not tell everyone what to do , he asks us to do things. If we do what he asks then we support his leadership and vision of making PFO different from what is out there. If we refuse to do what he asks we undermine the entire effort to make PFO different and encourage others to also ignore the higher community standards that are essential to make PFO different.

If Pax ignores what Ryan asked them to do then they are replacing Ryan's leadership for the community with their own and in effect telling us all to ignore what Ryan says and do what you want. So you end up with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes and the vision of a PVP game that will be different fails. Ryan has to be our leader in community standards , we cant all just decide for ourselves what is good because people will put self interest ahead of the vision for a better game and it will ruin PFO as a better PVP mmo.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well it looks bad if you ignore what Ryan says about setting good standards for community behavior. Some people don't give a rats arse what Ryan says about having high standards for PVP gameplay ,they just want to know what they can get away with without any GM action.

The story at this point looks like Ryan asked , but did not tell you , to not go for two settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Proxima Sin , So you are asking do people want to try to help others that seem hard to help or kill, kill , kill them. I think wanting to help them to be 'beneficial participants of the community' fits right in with what Ryan has been saying about how to change the toxic perception of PVP mmos. It isn't just kill them or help them but some of both that will change things. It will take time for some people to adjust to a new kind of PVP gameplay that isn't a FFA but allows you to kill anyone anyway. People are going to experiment with the game systems.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.
My comment was admittedly a mild divergence from the topic at hand but not totally unrelated I feel
So if you can get hired as a merc because you are low rep and kill players that go where someone doesn't want them to it is different than griefing, it's all about the why and not the what. That would be one way to help griefers to be more useful to the community, turn them into a mercenary company.
But all people with low rep got there by being jerks. Did you not receive the memo?

They are only a jerk or griefer if they waste their talent for doing dirty deeds on selfish pleasure, they can fit in with expected and sanctioned gameplay with minimal change required , join the evil military. They can play the goon squad and kill people and the righteous can find them all in one place to smite them more easily.

So I would say forming merc companies of low rep characters is what the OP could be looking for, seriously.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.
My comment was admittedly a mild divergence from the topic at hand but not totally unrelated I feel

So if you can get hired as a merc because you are low rep and kill players that go where someone doesn't want them to it is different than griefing, it's all about the why and not the what. That would be one way to help griefers to be more useful to the community, turn them into a mercenary company.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we can all agree that the first thing to do to change a griefer is to stop them from griefing. If they are content with what happens to them if they grief then they wont stop, so killing them a lot will help them, maybe. If they never wanted to play the game as intended then they will quit, if they are interested in non-griefing gameplay then some one can help them get involved . But it all starts after they give up griefing behavior, so getting killed a lot is what they seem to think ruins the game , that is why they do it to others, when it happens to them they will be ready for something different.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Ah, but Proxima is arguing that we don't KNOW that he was newbie hunting. What if he's guilty of a hundred other heinous crimes instead?

Ahh , well then we need a game mechanic that puts a 'joker' maniacal grin on newb killers so we will know what they did.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't kill characters that are flagged as hostile(because of low rep)? Who we gonna kill then, some other player who is flagged hostile, I don't get it. Do you feel sorry for the griefers who become game content, like a goblin that we see.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In an mmo you have to make up your own story to go with what happens, but what if there were official player-storytellers who gave us a kind of history and background flavor to what goes on in the game. Something you can read and it makes the mmo feel like a Pathfinder campaign, it would all be after the fact but would make the world have a recorded history that sounds like a Pathfinder story. Some kind of recorded history of the world would be cool to look back at after a year or two. It could also keep us up to speed on what's going on around the game world.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well its a good thing we have so many role-players , they can lead us in doing something that only requires imagination to work.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

PVE is a boring grind because you know what will happen before you engage . You know the mobs hitpoints and its level and its class , the info is all given to you but with less info on the mobs it is different gameplay. What if the mobs have generic names instead of names that tell you their class and no hitpoint number and no con system to tell you the level of the mob. Now its not going to be boring because the risk of death increases.

Maybe there are enough people who are tired of the easy mode PVE gameplay to do it differently.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Faith can't be proven wrong ,it is hope for something better ,you can only choose to lose your hopes and dreams and live day to day as a cynic.

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It would be funny if the goblins could loot your gear and equip it. When you came back the goblin would be wearing your helmet. In EQ NPC's could pick up items and equip them so it might be possible.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well then we will just have to make all cars crash proof, or give everyone a crashed car to start with, or pave everything and it will be unlikely that you will ever get close to another car. Cars crashing problem solved.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Some type of world progression that is a result of player actions. I know the world and gameplay will change as new features get patched in, but it might be fun if some of it needed to be unlocked first. Like an epic battle that needs to be won against mobs to open up a new map area, or research needed to allow new spells into the game, something everyone can contribute to if they want. Even better would be a competition between two or more progression choices based on player actions , it might fit in well with crowdforging new features into the game.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would love to hear from the folks at Paizo about how the Pathfinder IP is being used so far to make PFO. Things like how is the Pathfinder world coming alive in PFO and what you like about it, what would you like to see happen in the future?

Before I heard of PFO I knew nothing about Pathfinder but I am liking what I see and have great expectation and hope that the IP will make for a rich game world environment with a very unique feel to it.

I understand some things are hard to put in an mmo and the rest is even harder, but I have seen what I would call 'using' an IP in other mmo's and it seemed more of a marketing tactic than a love for the IP.

Of course any input from GW is welcome too, what kind of things do you actually do to make PFO feel like it is uniquely Pathfinder. My understanding is that Paizo owns the IP that GW is using to make PFO. I'm not sure how involved Paizo is in making the game.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Frankly, I think I'd be a little put out if folks are getting into Alpha without forking over $1,000 or more...

If GW lets the Alpha level backers pick any new testers to invite that would seem like a good way for your kickstarter reward to keep its value. Oh the power you will have....

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A couple years ago I wanted to play an online fantasy strategy wargame ,so I decided on one ane tried it. It turns out that the community decided that they don't like conquest ,so they built up huge armies and didn't allow anyone to attack a weaker opponent. It was a war game without much war because they would wipe you out if you were perceived as a bully. I think it was called Illyriad. The developers didn't see that one coming, they designed it as a war game but the community was more social and too nice to play it that way.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So you join together and fight some big group that tries to dominate the game world in a way you find unacceptable, sounds fine so far, but then what? The big group wont go away , they will still be there , so you have put yourselves in the position of using force to dominate the game. One big battle wont settle it or even one war, it will be an ongoing fight. If you start out on the path to dictate to 'troublemakers' what they can't do, even for 'good' reasons , you are stuck in that position. If you don't want to police the world your defense alliance will break up when it becomes your new role.

You cant just form an army and smite them good and then everything will be different, they will remain and do what they have done again that caused you to go to war with them. Once you have used force , you put all settlements in the position of needing your permission to do something. Nothing wrong with wanting to dominate the world and make it a better place , except it never works out that way. The only way you can make this work is to destroy them over and over or become their ruler and tell them how to behave , or else.

Unless all members are in one piece of the map and you defend it, and the rest of the world can do what they want.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Being ,good points. All the recent forum talk about settlement warfare is not very relevant to what we will be doing as players in EE. I mean there will be about 18 months of gameplay before settlement warfare is implemented, so the realty of settlement conflict will be built on top of what we all will do for 18 months in the game. In 18 months the community will develop based on what we do with the tools we have and PFO will have its own established community standards way before settlement conflict begins.

Anyway I find it a bit odd that a lot of forum talk seems to imply settlement warfare is relevant to what we will be doing but we wont be doing settlement warfare for a long time after EE begins. All the rules and influences from settlement vs settlement war are really a long way into the future and don't matter at all for day one of EE until about a year later. So what we think about it will be quite different when it gets close to the time for it.

It would help if we had a better idea of what we will be able to do on day one of EE and some idea of what and when things will be added, but we do know settlement war is way in the future and crowdforging shouldn't skip ahead of one years worth of game development, what we know after a year of EE will make a huge difference.

So we have about 18 months of game time where settlement warfare has no influence on what we will do, other than competition that doesn't include all out war.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Wexel, you brought up the idea of something neutral and I am going to assume you mean some way for players to play the game without settlement vs settlement loyalties deciding how we are going to react to each other . No way for that to happen in hexes that are claimed by a settlement but if the entire map is designed so that every hex can be claimed by some settlement that would be a huge mistake as I see it.

It is possible to limit how much land a settlement can claim so there would be buffer zones of no-mans land in between settlements where you wont be attacked rep free for trespassing. Now the POI in these no-mans land hexes will be neutral to the direct influence of settlement conflict. The type of gameplay you want could take place there , I would like part of the map to be available for gameplay that is not directly related to settlement pvp conflict but is open to other possibilities .

The whole game does not have to revolve around just settlement war but can include other reasons to have the choice to pvp or work together with people . GW could create new types of POIs that make cooperation a priority in a no-mans land hex , like a Trade Fair POI where players set up trade shops to sell things.

So depending on the map design and the placement of settlements and how much land they are allowed to own, plus the inclusion of permanent 'neutral' hexes with POIs that have reasons to use beyond
just PVP , you could see what you want without any changes to the basic game design.

I don't want to see the entire map being able to become no-trespassing. Some of the map or a lot of it being like a permanent semi-wilderness would be very cool.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Also, Steelwing brings up some good points that need to be payed attention to. Whether anyone likes the way he writes them or not.

You didn't pay any attention to what the CEO said about Steelwing and called the CEO toxic, as if you decide what is toxic instead of GW.

Ryan did not mince words, he explained what is toxic for the community and what they will do about it. Are you trying to crowdforge who has authority over PFO to decide what is toxic? That is like sailing your ship at the lighthouse and telling it ,you need to move because you are in my way.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Steelwing ,Steelwing wrote: "As to you, I think it is obvious and has always been obvious that I share the same views as many Eve players on the subject of Ryan Dancey. Your opinion of me is of therefore of little import and certainly something I am unlikely to be losing sleep over."

I have tried to stay out of your personal vendetta against the CEO of GW but at this point I am sick of you going after Ryan and you need to stop it. You make it a point to be disrespectful to Ryan while trying to sound like you are some important person whose opinion can effect PFO's success, because of the mystery group you claim will listen to you, it is nonsense.

Your attitude toward Ryan Dancey is wrong and it needs to stop. It amazes me that you came here and act like you are the CEO's judge and probation officer, it all looks like some sort of petty revenge on your part. You do not rank above the CEO of GW ,but you act like you do. If we are going to score importance Ryan is a 1000 and you are a .001 .

I really am sick of your obvious contempt for the CEO of a game I care about, makes me think you don't care about PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you train your main for a year could you let your DT gain all that xp and spend it all at once after a year or two? Useful if you want to wait for more classes before playing the DT.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
We don't need a world full of policemen who kill on site, some kind of law enforcement flag that allows you to order the bandit to drop the SAD ,or else you get to attack ,would be better.

A "Cease and Desist" ability was suggested that would do just that. As Stephen Cheney stated, when we suggest an ability, skill or feat, we need to make a case for it functionality and make sure it is not a mirror of something else already. There also needs to be offsets or tradeoffs (COSTS).

I like the idea of a C.A.D. or the Apprehend mechanics. But, they have to be trained, slotted and have a meaningful function for their use. If they do nothing more than the SAD, then just SAD.

Having thought about it some more ,I think just adding the bystander group into the SAD would be easier to put in the game .So if Group A does an SAD to group B and group C is in range(whatever that is)then group C gets their own SAD pop up window with their own choices to pick. Group A and B have the standard SAD going on as developed, group c gets choices like

1. tell bandits to leave and a free attack if they don't drop the SAD
2.tell merchant you will assist if he attacks and you auto join the combat on his side.
3.order bandits to hand over their weapons or you will attack
The bandits get the new option to attack group C if they are threatened with choice 1 or 3.
No new flag or system needs to be developed just an addition to the SAD that they are already working on , make the SAD include any group close by as a third party, they can just ignore it all too.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JDNYC wrote:
Having a hidden category for Goblin Squad Members to communicate in would alleviate some of this issue.

I wasn't thinking of doing anything hidden, but some kind of separation between the usual forum talk and crowdforging discussion . With special rules for what is not allowed in crowdforging discussion , rules that would be too strict for normal mmo forum talk . It is the mixing of the two things together that I believe will cause many to not participate in crowdforging , because they are unwilling to put up with the abuse that is typical in conversations about changing an mmo. If people want to fling mud they can do it in the normal section of the forum but serious crowdforgers will have a separate section with rules that keep things focused and not personal, but about ideas.

How many people really want to read the personal war between players while they are trying to discuss game changes, it is typical on mmo forums but crowdforging should be moderated differently . We don't want the usual bullying to drive out people interested in crowdforging. The personal conflicts should be kept out of it, by enforcing a stricter set of rules on what can be said.

Or am I the only one who thinks discussions on changing a game degenerate into personal conflict and there should be a higher standard for crowdforging.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
4. More Than A Gankfest- Unlike other Open World PVP MMO's currently on the market, Pathfinder Online actively discourages meaningless PVP.
That was Andius' statements, and not binding in any way for GW to hold to that.

That is from the kickstarter page ,it is not a quote from Andius. Or did you mean GW may change their minds about what they want to do?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It ought to be clear that the devs consider bandits who SAD healthy gameplay, so making them hostile to everyone is like turning them into griefers. There have to be specific conditions for them to be hostile during an SAD, like if you are in a CC hired by the merchants CC to guard them. Making a bandit hostile to everyone is the same condition of a griefer killer and that just doesn't fit. There are lots of roleplaying ways to get involved without taking it to an extreme ,just so it is easy to jump in.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your flag system is the very thing that has earned PVP a well deserved bad rep with most MMOers, why stick it in the middle of a game that wants to go a different direction and be all about meaningful pvp? You propose having a flag for meaningless pvp , that will ruin the core of what PFO is. So what is really the problem with having an in-game reason for killing, you want to take that away for some reason.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe the PVE crowd need some skills they can train to help avoid PVP, like FeetsDontFailMeNow , or the classic RUNAWAYYY skill.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back to the OP , so you decide player X is a griefer and kill him , then in the next hour, 50 others kill him too for the same alleged event. The GM decides that he wasn't griefing but the players who killed him 50 times ( or 10 or whatever) fits the definition of griefing and you all get banned . Cops arrest vigilantes they don't give them a reward.

If GW wants our help punishing them they could flag them as a free kill for the next 24 hrs of gameplay. But the whole method seems like out griefing the griefer to me. Anyway if you want a rep boost they could have a special flag that gives you a boost for killing the convicted griefer.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

“In the highest heaven, glory to God!
And on earth, peace among people of good will!”

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I expect EE will be a gradual introduction of formation combat and we will be testing the system , then later we will see settlement vs settlement warfare introduced. Myself , I am more interested in seeing squad to company sized formation engagements ,so a limit of 200 in each army is fine , but what if there are 4 armies from 4 settlements? We will have to wait to see. A dev blog would be nice, but the system wont be in place when EE begins so we may be waiting awhile to find out what GW has done.

@ Bluddwulf , being in an army and fighting battles is not playing a role? I think it will be a major source of roleplaying. I am very interested to know if battles will feel like a fantasy war.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people are objecting to the rule of being one step away in alignment to join a settlement, and giving reasons that I suspect are not the only reason they don't like it. Is the problem that the groups that have formed to start settlements will have to tell their members what alignments they can have ? So the problem isn't so much the one step rule but the disruption to what you have accomplished in forming groups. You don't want to lose anybody that has joined because of the new lack of alignment choices. That is understandable but we should not try to change core game mechanics that we haven't even play tested.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If GW doesn't force people to play their alignment then most will act in such a way as to make alignment a joke, like in every other mmo I can think of.

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.