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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Goblinworks Blog: Signed... in Blood


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Ya, I read that. Are you talking about the same post you made where you said I'm saying only assassins and mercs were meant by "they"? Because that's not what I said. The one where you say he meant "chartered companies"? Because I'm saying the same thing as you in that post.

I used the word "either":
Used before the first of two (or occasionally more) alternatives that are being specified (the other being introduced by “or”).

I did not say "only either of these", as seems to be the popular interpretation of what I said.

I was specifying a group for discussion, but not at the exclusion of others.

Goblin Squad Member

That portion of post was about chartered companies. What sense would it make to go into assassin guilds and explain them and what they might do if they are only a POSSIBILITY of what a DEFINITE could be. There will be charter companies. A possible route for a company to take is an assassins guild.

Stop. Take a breathe.

Now if I were heading up a very popular brand's MMO and I am writing a bi-weekly blog... I am going to talk about what we have pretty much set in stone as far as major game aspects. In order to do this I state a game feature (charter companies) and give examples of what they might consist of (assassins, mercs, knights, guards, fluffy bunny rabbits) for further clarification.

What I will not do is go great depths into the possibilities of the feature that is the subject of my blog. Understanding the WHOLE concept is more important than understanding one specific possibility.

Hence Ryan's constant... "I'll have to address that in it's own blog." when we start asking in-depth questions about specific parts of a given feature.

Goblin Squad Member

@Blaeringr- The definition of "either"

ei·ther
   [ee-ther, ahy-ther] Show IPA

adjective

1.one or the other of two: You may sit at either end of the table.

2.each of two; the one and the other: There are trees on either side of the river.

pronoun

3.one or the other: There are two roads into the town, and you can take either. Either will do.

If there is another definition of either that means more than two please quote and link it. Now...

Blaeringr wrote:
Quote:
They may enforce the law, tracking down criminals and bringing swift justice to the evildoers.
That was referring to assassins.

How else can you interpret that? Those were other examples of what companies can be... it was not referencing assassins in ANY way.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
I actually think using fear to cow people in any way is an evil act. It might be lawful and it might work...but the end does not justify the means.

Then you favor complete anarchy? Because fear of consequences has been the basis of lawful society since the invention of law. I would go so far as to say without fear effective law is not even possible.

There are always going to be people willing to act rationally within their own self interest even if you attempted to brainwash an entire society it won't work on everyone. There will be that person that says "I could go out and earn a living, or I could just take that person's coins." "That person makes me angry. I would really like to harm them." etc...

The fear of execution, ending up in a cell, having to pay a fine, or even just the fear of societal rejection is what stops a huge portion of people who might otherwise partake in that kind of behavior. Any form of consequence system no matter how reasonable is based on fear.

Goblin Squad Member

I misused the word either. If it's not clear by my subsequent posts though that I didn't mean to say it exclusively, then I'm not the only one who needs English classes.

And technically either can be for more than two options. You can say either this, or that, or the other, and so on. But that's not really important anymore.

Taldor Goblin Squad Member

@Obaka, I sincerely hope that it was the fact that my post appeared at the bottom of a page that is causing you to not respond to it, and not a conscious choice. Because if it's the latter, then you are not only insulting people's intelligence and understanding of the English language, you are then unable or unwilling to back up your assertions when asked for an explanation.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I merely fail to see where your rather supercilious explanation of English finds its beef with Blaeringr's interpretation that a guild of assassins is capable of punishing evildoers.

On the topic of either:
"each of two; the one and the other"

"Both a sword and a dagger are weapons. Either can kill a man."
turning into
"Both a mercenary group and a guild of assassins are examples of chartered companies. Either can punish evildoers."

Moving past that, I would like to say that many people in this thread have raised their numerous concerns about assassination and it's consequences, and while there is obvious disagreement about things, we know with certainty that this highly debated topic will be addressed in more specific detail by Ryan.

At this point, it's only fair to stop bickering about meanings and intent until further clarification is delivered to us via the blog.

(That is not to say stop asking questions and raising points, but in-fighting about what someone did or didn't mean or imply is counter-productive to the development of a game we can all enjoy)

Goblin Squad Member

Karthas077 wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
the previously named noun as the subject by default... in this case "companies" adjective "chartered".

Let's play replace the pronouns:

Some chartered companies will become world renowned. Some chartered companies may be mercenaries called in to tip the balance of a fight, or a guild of assassins that strikes fear into any who are marked for death. Some chartered companies may enforce the law, tracking down criminals and bringing swift justice to the evildoers.

Now for some logic fun:

"Some chartered companies will be guilds of assassins".
and
"Some chartered companies may bring swift justice to evildoers"
Therefore, via transitivity,
"Some guilds of assassins may bring swift justice to evildoers"
and
"Some guilds of mercenaries may bring swift justice to evildoers"

Now could you kindly explain to me how this:

Blaeringr wrote:

They may be mercenaries.

They may be assassins.

Either may bring swift justice to evildoers.

Is not exactly the same as the union of the two logical statements

"Some guilds of assassins may bring swift justice to evildoers"
and
"Some guilds of mercenaries may bring swift justice to evildoers"

Can't res...ist...try...no...dam..n...I will bite...

No where is that union explicit and in fact other post suggest that the union you proposed is illogical. Assassins are evil doers, how can they bring justice short of seppuku?

Back to the fun with logic:

"Some chartered companies will be guilds of assassins".
and/or (hence my previous claim of lack of exclusivity)
"Some chartered companies may bring swift justice to evildoers"
Therefore, since "or" is the only semantically logical combination,
"Some guilds will be assassins or may bring swift justice to evildoers"
I make no claims about mercs, if I hire a merc group to assist in my war, they would be fighting in war and subject to the "acts of war" exclusion.
"Some guilds of mercenaries may bring swift justice to evildoers"

Forcing an "and" in there is just disingenuous. "Some" is a subset of possible companies, your claimed transitivity only works if "Some" refers to the entire set in both statements. They would both need to read "All companies".

Goblin Squad Member

Karthas wrote:

Now could you kindly explain to me how this:

Blaeringr wrote:

They may be mercenaries.

They may be assassins.

Either may bring swift justice to evildoers.

Is not exactly the same as the union of the two logical statements

"Some guilds of assassins may bring swift justice to evildoers"
and
"Some guilds of mercenaries may bring swift justice to evildoers"

That statement from Blaeringr in and of itself and nothing to do with the blog, is fundamentally correct in regards to the english language.

That was not my argument.

My argument was that he (Blaeringr) was incorrectly inferring that there was a change in the main subject of the paragraph. Companies. In order for that to happen, you would need to write a sentence where Assassins and Mercs were placed as the subject, not used to describe the subject.

The apple is a very diverse fruit. It could turn red. It could turn green. It could be plucked from a tree or fall to the ground. It is delicious.

What he stated, in essence, was that red and green could fall to the ground. Clearly, the intended subject was apple.

My point: He made an inference that the author of the post did not dictate through text. He then said that the author was changing his mind on what he said... when in fact, he just made a common mistake when reading the initial post.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
And technically either can be for more than two options. You can say either this, or that, or the other, and so on. But that's not really important anymore.

Please reference this, I really want to see where this is at in doctrine.

Goblin Squad Member

Karthas077 wrote:

At this point, it's only fair to stop bickering about meanings and intent until further clarification is delivered to us via the blog.

(That is not to say stop asking questions and raising points, but in-fighting about what someone did or didn't mean or imply is counter-productive to the development of a game we can all enjoy)

Totally agree with this though...sorry, I am done again. Thanks for the hearty debate.

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
And technically either can be for more than two options. You can say either this, or that, or the other, and so on. But that's not really important anymore.
Please reference this, I really want to see where this is at in doctrine.
From freedictionary.com
Quote:
The traditional rule holds that either should be used only to refer to one of two items and that any is required when more than two items are involved: Any (not either) of the three opposition candidates still in the race would make a better president than the incumbent. But reputable writers have often violated this rule.

What you are saying is a generalization. A good one. Even though some great writers break that rule, I admit I don't think I did so effectively. I should have used another word.

In any case, I did admit I misused it. Several times now. I also pointed out that my subsequent posts cleared up the confusion. Several times now. But you persist in fixating on that one mistakenly used word even after the mistake was pointed out and admitted.

"Take a breathe" (sic), and let's move on.

Taldor Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forencith wrote:


Can't res...ist...try...no...dam..n...I will bite...

No where is that union explicit and in fact other post suggest that the union you proposed is illogical. Assassins are evil doers, how can they bring justice short of seppuku?

Back to the fun with logic:

"Some chartered companies will be guilds of assassins".
and/or (hence my previous claim of lack of exclusivity)
"Some chartered companies may bring swift justice to evildoers"
Therefore, since "or" is the only semantically logical combination,
"Some guilds will be assassins or may bring swift justice to evildoers"
I make no claims about mercs, if I hire a merc group to assist in my war, they would be fighting in war and subject to the "acts of war" exclusion.
"Some guilds of mercenaries may bring swift justice to evildoers"

Forcing an "and" in there is just disingenuous.

Thank you for biting. :p

I agree with your assessment of the semantically logical combination of the two statements.

I believe part of the reason a "Some guilds of assassins may bring swift justice to evildoers" is being met with such scorn is that while it is logically sound, one of the premises it is built upon is flawed.

Namely that anything an assassin can do could ever be considered 'justice'.

Whether or not the target the assassin was hired to kill is evil, the assassination can't in any way be considered 'justice'. (Especially not in the eyes of Iomedae)

Goblin Squad Member

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5sao&page=4?Goblinworks-Blog-Signed-in-Bloo d#161
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5sao&page=4?Goblinworks-Blog-Signed-in-Bloo d#155
Not an admission strictly, but clarifying what I meant: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5sao&page=4?Goblinworks-Blog-Signed-in-Bloo d#151
Also clarifying I didn't mean exclusivity http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5sao&page=3?Goblinworks-Blog-Signed-in-Bloo d#142

Fair enough, only two times (before now) admitting misuse. Let's add to that misuse of the word several.

Look, if you want to go on a grammar nazi rampage, then perhaps it's time to bring in the mods and clean up this thread.

One last time: if my mistaken use of "either" has got you so devastated, then I sincerely apologize. I'm not at all trying to say you were wrong for pointing out the mistake. But after it was clarified and admitted (however many times), then what are you still struggling with?

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:
I guess you'll be joining us the next time we have a frolicing berry harvest excursion. =)

Oh, that goes without saying! You might not know it's me though, picking berries beside you.

Taldor Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:


On a serious note, Asmodeus has contracts in his portfolio. How is establishing a contract, by either party, not inherintly evil?

Because that's not how portfolios work.

Asmodeus' obsession with contracts is because he's lawful, and is completely separate from the fact that he is evil.

It's the portfolios of Tyranny, Slavery, and Pride that make him evil.

If you'll notice, he also has the Law domain, which he shares with Iomedae because both are Lawful deities.

Goblin Squad Member

I grasp that, but what other deity has contracts in their portfolio? I *could* see it as the negotiation and subsequent contract are manipulation to further your own ends... which is greed... which is evil.

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps, but some fundamental assumptions have to be made to make the game work. One of them is that contracts aren't inherently evil.

Goblin Squad Member

Neither is assassination =)

Goblin Squad Member

In a setting that includes such notions as absolute good and absolute evil, assassination is assumed to be inherently evil.

In regards to morality in Golarion, the means are always more significant than the ends.

Goblin Squad Member

Depends on your DM. A lot depends on how versatile a DM you have. Computer servers make admittedly not so versatile DMs.

Goblin Squad Member

Exactly.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Murder isn't defined as "killing someone when in a Settlement". It's killing someone without a right to do so(*). Murder is considered an evil act even when it's not an unlawful act.

So I don't exactly get why you're quoting me saying Assassins make people fearful in response to my question about why assassinating people doesn't make you evil. Doing fearful things is pretty much the root of doing evil things.

(*) Like "in self defense" or "as an act of war"

I'm a little bit late to the party, but you seem to be making the claim that completing an assassination contract by killing the target is exactly as evil as killing the target with no contract.

It has already been established that killing need not be murder; if killing is sufficient to complete an assassination, then assassination need not be murder, either. The assassin could be in a declared war with the target, or could enter a situation where the target was an aggressor and the assassin could act in self defense, such as taking out a bandit leader by arranging to be ambushed by the target.

A lot hinges on killing the target being a sufficient condition to assassinate the target. I'm unwilling to quote dictionary definitions for game jargon.

Goblin Squad Member

Since assassinations are really a Kill-on-sight bounty contract the following will be used to describe the two:
Bounty Contract: No Evil Shift(possibly good/lawful shift), game mechanic controlled justification.
Assassination Contract: Evil Shift(Possibly +chaotic), no game-mechanic controlled justification.

For assassins to not shift evil, they shouldn't be assassins, they should be bounty hunters, OR they should stick to war-time assassination contracts, that would not result in alignment shifting. I can't see how 'Good' players would be offering up enough player assassination contracts to sustain an assassin. This means that the game needs to expand the bounty system. Keep what is there, but I propose adding a further bounty trigger mechanic that is not associated with a criminal flag. When a player has an evil act committed against them(theft/murder/french taunts) they have the ability to create a one time bounty contract against the offending player(s). This does not need to be immediate, and has no expiration, but can only be done once.

One addition I would add to these bounty flags, since they would only be triggered by evil actions, is full body looting of the contract target in the form of a single item called "________'s belongings". When creating a bounty contract, the player can decide to make the belongings part of the reward, make their return required for payment. Opening the belongings, if they are not part of the reward, would result in a chaotic shift, and a permanent black mark on your bounty hunter record(which should be public knowledge).

I suggest this addition because the death penalty in PFO is so tame. Also Players with low wealth can use the option to fully loot a body as incentive to take the bounty.

Goblin Squad Member

7 people marked this as a favorite.

@DeciusBrutus: If you had a right to kill someone, and you did it for hire, that would not be an evil act. However, the system I am envisioning for "Assasination" would involve some supernatural component (thus the "worse than death" aspect). The use of that component will be an inherently evil act.

Could I imagine a thousand "what if's" to get around that? Sure I could. But it's much, much easier to imagine abuse of those exceptions for the purpose of grief, so I'd rather have a simple, clear system that some people don't like, then a complex system full of loopholes being abused to the detriment of the quality of the experience of most of my customers.

Goblin Squad Member

We know that in Golarion, evil is not relative but rather it is absolute due to the nine point alignment system. This means that 'evildoers' will commit evil acts, which means that the bounty contract system will be invoked in order to place a bounty on their head.

Why place an assassination instead of a bounty? The likelihood is that the contracts will be roughly equivalent in cost but the bounty contract will not have the drawbacks of the assassination contract.

I think we're getting caught up in semantics and using our world as an example is flawed because of the absolute nature of alignment in Pathfinder. Due to the fact that it's a video game, we'll be dealing even more in absolutes as a system can't make subjective calls without some intensive programming.

I think we need to accept that the assassination contracts are for acts of murder, whereas the other examples such as political machination, revenge against bandits and the like shall be covered by other systems such as being at war, bounty contracts, etc.

Edit: On the topic of the use of assassination and wealth; this is a video game. While it might not be realistic, measures must be in place to prevent the assassination contract system becoming another avenue of griefing. Eventually some mega-rich gamer will use the system to hound a group of lowbies, simply because they can.

Taldor Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
@DeciusBrutus: If you had a right to kill someone, and you did it for hire, that would not be an evil act. However, the system I am envisioning for "Assasination" would involve some supernatural component (thus the "worse than death" aspect). The use of that component will be an inherently evil act.

So we're talking "Angel of Death(Su)" (from the Assassin archetype) or something similar then?

Because if assassination isn't just 'kill the target', then that makes sense.

It also adds some meaning to 'killing' someone in a world where dying leaves you with your equipped gear and you just respawn.

However, I did have a question about 'non-lethal' weapons and their potential appearance in the game.

Is there going to be any way to knock someone unconscious (0 hp) without killing them?

For example, if a bandit ambushes a caravan, knocks everyone out, steals their supplies, and leaves them on the road, he still will have committed a crime, but not murder.

Could bandits guilty of thievery but not murder have bounties placed on their head (with the stipulation that the bandit be left alive, and merely require a return of either the goods or some coin equivalent?)

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

@DeciusBrutus: If you had a right to kill someone, and you did it for hire, that would not be an evil act. However, the system I am envisioning for "Assasination" would involve some supernatural component (thus the "worse than death" aspect). The use of that component will be an inherently evil act.

Could I imagine a thousand "what if's" to get around that? Sure I could. But it's much, much easier to imagine abuse of those exceptions for the purpose of grief, so I'd rather have a simple, clear system that some people don't like, then a complex system full of loopholes being abused to the detriment of the quality of the experience of most of my customers.

So we have to partake in an act that, by use of a component such as the blood of the innocent, will be made an evil act 100% of the time. Sort of negating the possibility of a useful good aligned assassin.

Please tell me there will be a good-aligned balance to this linked to use of the bounty system or something else.

Let's just say it's extremely concerning to me that my evil aligned opponents will be able to send assassins at me. Or really anyone including other evil-aligned players. And on the good side all we have is the ability to set bounties on someone who has directly killed us, with no word about extra-harsh deaths on bounty targets yet.

Also I would point out that an assassin is just a instrument used to carry out the will of the one who hired them. Even if you make it an act of evil to make an assassination contract, I can still make an alt to pay them, or if I have good relations with an assassin. Say I know and trust Blaeringr. Not that he would be, or know any assassins as he's just part of a simple bread baking company. But I could always give him a handsome tip for his bread, and my problems might just disappear. Even if a contract were required he could use an alt to write it himself.

With that in mind, I can see significant downside to making assassinations alignment based (The need to counter-balance it with something favoring good-aligned players.) and a significant bonus to good aligned meta-gamers over good aligned non-meta gamers in that the meta-gamers can still abuse the system to hire assassins. And something tells me that Tony won't not accept tips on his bread from good aligned players.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:

@DeciusBrutus: If you had a right to kill someone, and you did it for hire, that would not be an evil act. However, the system I am envisioning for "Assasination" would involve some supernatural component (thus the "worse than death" aspect). The use of that component will be an inherently evil act.

Could I imagine a thousand "what if's" to get around that? Sure I could. But it's much, much easier to imagine abuse of those exceptions for the purpose of grief, so I'd rather have a simple, clear system that some people don't like, then a complex system full of loopholes being abused to the detriment of the quality of the experience of most of my customers.

So, completing an assassination is significantly more than just killing the target. Is that also true in a parallel way for bounty hunting, making the hunted suffer a fate worse than death? Obviously the bounty hunter would need access to a nonevil way of completing the contract, but the game effects could be similar if used on a qualifying target.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
Quote:
They may enforce the law, tracking down criminals and bringing swift justice to the evildoers.

That was referring to assassins. If you're focusing on the making people fearful part, then you're rightly confused. Read forward a little more.

(*)also like in punishing evildoers.

Actually, that was not referring to assassins. That was referring to Chartered Companies. But it looks like this was already pointed out.

I guess you were misunderstood.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Could I imagine a thousand "what if's" to get around that? Sure I could. But it's much, much easier to imagine abuse of those exceptions for the purpose of grief, so I'd rather have a simple, clear system that some people don't like, then a complex system full of loopholes being abused to the detriment of the quality of the experience of most of my customers.

Right on the money. Once a solid, simple, and clear system is in place, it makes it much easier to deal with the corner cases.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:


Let's just say it's extremely concerning to me that my evil aligned opponents will be able to send assassins at me. Or really anyone including other evil-aligned players. And on the good side all we have is the ability to set bounties on someone who has directly killed us, with no word about extra-harsh deaths on bounty targets yet.

Such is life, my Prince. Beset on all sides by the threats of evil. It would be easy to lay down the burden, and walk away from honor, duty, service and righteousness.

That's why it's awesome.

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

Those are brave men knocking at our door... let's go kill them!!

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Let's just say it's extremely concerning to me that my evil aligned opponents will be able to send assassins at me. Or really anyone including other evil-aligned players. And on the good side all we have is the ability to set bounties on someone who has directly killed us, with no word about extra-harsh deaths on bounty targets yet.

This is also what makes Batman such a compelling figure. Sure, he could just up and kill the Joker, Riddler, Penguin etc. But the thing that makes Batman unique is he has a code he lives by. He NEVER kills.

In The Killing Joke, the Joker does some absolutely devastating things to Commissioner Gordon. Despite all that he has suffered, he yells at Batman that the Joker MUST be brought in by the book.

Evil is evil. Good is good. Each side has tricks that it can use. Each side has codes they live by.

In LOTRO you will never be able to use poison. Simply put, poison is evil. Hence, the goodly folk will never use it. Black and white.

In gameplay terms assassinations are tools of evil aligned folk. Good aligned will never be able to use them without eventually suffering the consequences. No justification will ever change that.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Andius wrote:


Let's just say it's extremely concerning to me that my evil aligned opponents will be able to send assassins at me. Or really anyone including other evil-aligned players. And on the good side all we have is the ability to set bounties on someone who has directly killed us, with no word about extra-harsh deaths on bounty targets yet.

Such is life, my Prince. Beset on all sides by the threats of evil. It would be easy to lay down the burden, and walk away from honor, duty, service and righteousness.

That's why it's awesome.

RyanD

Well I've seen this play out in Darkfall before. You HAVE to balance the two sides really. If you give too many incentives to go evil, and few to go good, 99% of the game's veterans will just accept the fact they can't go into starter towns and go evil.

Even games that roleplay good-aligned will go OOC evil because of the mechanical advantages it gives. If my good-evil alignment is just something telling me "You can't assassinate anyone, you can go into starter towns etc." and in the end I feel like I can't effectively combat griefers because of my good alignment... I'm going to take it to the meta-game. As much as I love RP if the most effective ways to stop "NewbTownCamper Lol" are with-held from me for being good, that is going to take priority. It's not like an evil in-game alignment will force me to kill newbs.

I really WANT to do everything in character. I think giving good players incentive to remain good, is pretty essential.

Goblin Squad Member

Quote:
And on the good side all we have is the ability to set bounties on someone who has directly killed us

From what I've read, you don't even get that. A kill that isn't murder and in a lawful settlement doesn't trigger the bounty system at all. On the other hand it only takes a grudge to trigger the assassination system.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:


Well I've seen this play out in Darkfall before. You HAVE to balance the two sides really. If you give too many incentives to go evil, and few to go good, 99% of the game's veterans will just accept the fact they can't go into starter towns and go evil.

The balance comes from the fact that goodly societies will be able to develop further, faster and more powerfully than evil ones. Evil societies will constantly be tearing themselves apart from within - such is the nature of evil. To advance their goals they'll be at each others throats.

The goodly societies can work together on goals & objectives. Advancing their goals will require them to do so. Acting against the best interests of the community will do more harm than good.

In the Wilderness, there will be much more gray than black & white. Gray is what you get when hard choices must be made and compromises must be found. Rigid ethics are the luxury of the settled and tamed lands. In the Wilderness, those luxuries are hard to afford.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
In the Wilderness, there will be much more gray than black & white. Gray is what you get when hard choices must be made and compromises must be found. Rigid ethics are the luxury of the settled and tamed lands. In the Wilderness, those luxuries are hard to afford.

I'm very interested in seeing how you plan to have this manifest in-game. =)

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:
Those are brave men knocking at our door... let's go kill them!!

Midget Lord Lanister

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some posts. Please refrain from talking down to each other.

Taldor Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Andius wrote:


Let's just say it's extremely concerning to me that my evil aligned opponents will be able to send assassins at me. Or really anyone including other evil-aligned players. And on the good side all we have is the ability to set bounties on someone who has directly killed us, with no word about extra-harsh deaths on bounty targets yet.

Such is life, my Prince. Beset on all sides by the threats of evil. It would be easy to lay down the burden, and walk away from honor, duty, service and righteousness.

That's why it's awesome.

RyanD

Man. . . this is going to be EPIC!

I got excited when I read this. Almost enough to play a good guy.

Taldor Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:


Evil societies will constantly be tearing themselves apart from within - such is the nature of evil. To advance their goals they'll be at each others throats.

Ryan, you seem to be forgetting that the concept of "evil tearing itself apart from within" is a cliche that only applies to the real world, not to the world of Golarion.

You are also making the common mistake of associating 'evil' with 'chaos'. Something that just isn't the case in this universe.

In a world of absolutes, it doesn't matter how evil you are, if you're lawful, you're not going to be backstabbing your allies.

No lawful evil character would ever go back on their word. If they did, they wouldn't be lawful. And with detect alignment spells abounding, it's childsplay for a guild of assassins to refuse chaotic members, and therefore maintain a degree of trust and loyalty to rival that of the paladins.

As an example proving my point, the Red Mantis Assasssins are required to be Lawful Evil in order to join. This faction, which Paizo placed in Golarion, contains absolutely no in-fighting despite being evil.

Goblin Squad Member

Karthas077 wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:


Evil societies will constantly be tearing themselves apart from within - such is the nature of evil. To advance their goals they'll be at each others throats.
Ryan, you seem to be forgetting that the concept of "evil tearing itself apart from within" is a cliche that only applies to the real world, not to the world of Golarion.

Unless they actually work out a mechanic, that more or less keeps evil at eachothers throats, an intentional drastic shortage of something or another of which they absolutely need.

I do have to agree with the general point though, especially in MMO's. I have seen no shortage of times in which guilds that are absolute jerks to everyone outside of the guild, are more well knit than the guilds that are generally seen as good guys, and no shortage of times in which guilds of generally nice/good people, are completely shattered by a single conflict of internal fighting.

Simply assuming that one style of players is going to on their own free will become more prone to in fighting than another, is a poor assumption. Just because one group kills everyone outside of their circle on sight, does not guarantee that they treat their own members any better or worse than the group of kind helpful players.

In fact in some ways jerks are more resistant to inner conflict than others. You take a guild of good guys, who are generally nice and helpful to everyone they meet, they recruit one person who turns out to be more grey, half the time he's great half the time he's a jerk. Fearing for their reputation, half of the group wants to kick the sometimes jerk, the other half want to give him more chances... We have a large internal conflict now that can split the guild in 2 very easilly.

A group of self centered jerks on the other hand, won't really care one way or another what happens to a new member that dosn't quite fit in, boot laugh and move on. In a way it is more cohesive and more unified than a group that actually posseses empathy.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Andius wrote:


Well I've seen this play out in Darkfall before. You HAVE to balance the two sides really. If you give too many incentives to go evil, and few to go good, 99% of the game's veterans will just accept the fact they can't go into starter towns and go evil.

The balance comes from the fact that goodly societies will be able to develop further, faster and more powerfully than evil ones. Evil societies will constantly be tearing themselves apart from within - such is the nature of evil. To advance their goals they'll be at each others throats.

The goodly societies can work together on goals & objectives. Advancing their goals will require them to do so. Acting against the best interests of the community will do more harm than good.

In the Wilderness, there will be much more gray than black & white. Gray is what you get when hard choices must be made and compromises must be found. Rigid ethics are the luxury of the settled and tamed lands. In the Wilderness, those luxuries are hard to afford.

You're associating player mentalities with game mechanics. You can't balance the game mechanic of good vs. evil alignment with the player mentality of good vs. evil.

A system that will turn me evil if I use "evil" items to commit an "evil" act which is purely killing someone with an extra penalty. That is a game mechanic.

Running an organization that aims to oppose griefers and newb-abusers. Filling it full of trustworthy and honorable players who have a genuine desire to help people. That is a player mentality.

Unless you are saying that it is going to be cheaper to advance settlements, and that commoners will work for less if we are good aligned, I fail to see how this is going to balance things.

Because from where I am standing I am very tempted to do the exact same thing I did in Darkfall.

"Here are our rules. No backstabbing or going back on your word. No killing random people unless they belong to clans known to grief new players or have hostilities with us etc. You can be evil aligned as long as you adhere to our rules. You can kill good aligned players if they are doing things we consider evil."

It worked very well in Darkfall and I want to know why it isn't going to work here. Because quite frankly I WANT you to give me a reason to say "We only accept good and neutral aligned players." instead of just another game where we are evil via mechanics and good via the way we interact with other players. I was literally so bad in Darkfall that I told my members to ignore red/blue status because Honor Guard was red, and Fallen Lords were blue. I really can't see that being your vision for PFO.

I don't want to be the evil aligned clan with evil aligned assassins that plays the good role. But that is what I will be if I feel good is too gimped, because I am NOT going to let this game be over-run by griefers like every other major sandbox MMO with open world PVP.

I would really like to see you approach the game mechanic of good vs. evil from the aspect of "Lets give griefers and random PKers a REASON to be evil, and lets give anti-griefers and carebears a REASON to stay good." If rational self interest drives us toward our actual alignment, then the system is good. Any other system is counter-productive to roleplay.

If we unify people who want to RP good with people who want to win the fight for good, that will help us against griefers, and I understand that you don't want newbtown to be a gankfest any more than I do. It will also make me happy because I really do love RP. I just love helping REAL people more.


Karthas077 wrote:
Ryan, you seem to be forgetting that the concept of "evil tearing itself apart from within" is a cliche that only applies to the real world, not to the world of Golarion.

Uh... Sure.

Karthas077 wrote:

You are also making the common mistake of associating 'evil' with 'chaos'. Something that just isn't the case in this universe.

In a world of absolutes, it doesn't matter how evil you are, if you're lawful, you're not going to be backstabbing your allies.
No lawful evil character would ever go back on their word. If they did, they wouldn't be lawful.

Aligment is a measurement of your over-all values.

Telling one lie or back-stabbing one 'ally' isn't necessarily going to change your alignment... (unless you were already borderline)
Though such actions aren't contributing towards a Lawful alignment, if you are otherwise sufficiently Lawful, your Alignment will probably not change.
Claiming that Lawful Evil allies would never turn on each other (to claim the throne, etc.) because that's 'un-Lawful' is not something I believe anybody at Paizo would endorse. Sure, a character repeatedly doing so, i.e. not being able to exist with semi-stability within a Lawful order, would be grounds for being Chaotic, but one occasion isn't really enough to shift in most cases. Lawful societies do shift leaders somietimes, by violent means not specifically allowed by law.

-------------------

Anyways, I got the impression that there would be unique capabilities available to Good/Neutral Alignments as well... Whether to all characters of those Alignments, or just certain Classes. Assuming that's true, I'd guess that groups of mixed alignment would be somewhat incentivized (to have access to full range of abilities). Perhaps a reasonable counter-balance to that dynamic would be having certain abilities that exlusively work only on allies of the same alignment as you, or that have a stronger affect on them. Maybe Good could have a Super Resurrection that works vs. Assassinatin, but it only works on Good targets... Or not, but that sort of thing. And that can apply both to Characters as well as Guilds... all the way up to Kingdoms, to allow X benefits/penalties to Alignment X and Y benefits/penalties to Alignment Y.

-----------------------

Honestly, completely apart from the Alignment thing, I'm not sure why Assassination needs to be in the game. If the consequences of Death were designed to make players happy, why make something that goes beyond that? Just not seeing the point there...

Also, I'd be interested to hear what are the ideas for ways to more broadly measure Alignment. Chaotic Good seems like a hard alignment to measure for, given the 'measurement tools' we've heard about. If you don't like Contracts (too Lawful if you're Chaotic... or insufficiently 'pure' Law, if you're ultra-cosmic-Law fundamentalist), then there's no way to tranform killings into Good (based on what I've seen so far). Obviously, whatever system exists to 'transactionalize'/objectify Alignment is going to miss alot of nuance that people would normally ascribe to Alignment, but it seems like if it's not much more than what's been described, the result will just clash too much with people's normal expectations of Alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

Karthas summed it up well. Confusing chaos and evil is a mistake.

Goblin Squad Member

Karthas077 wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:


Evil societies will constantly be tearing themselves apart from within - such is the nature of evil. To advance their goals they'll be at each others throats.

Ryan, you seem to be forgetting that the concept of "evil tearing itself apart from within" is a cliche that only applies to the real world, not to the world of Golarion.

You are also making the common mistake of associating 'evil' with 'chaos'. Something that just isn't the case in this universe.

In a world of absolutes, it doesn't matter how evil you are, if you're lawful, you're not going to be backstabbing your allies.

No lawful evil character would ever go back on their word. If they did, they wouldn't be lawful. And with detect alignment spells abounding, it's childsplay for a guild of assassins to refuse chaotic members, and therefore maintain a degree of trust and loyalty to rival that of the paladins.

As an example proving my point, the Red Mantis Assasssins are required to be Lawful Evil in order to join. This faction, which Paizo placed in Golarion, contains absolutely no in-fighting despite being evil.

I have to ask, what do you consider The Galactic Empire / The Sith Empire to be?

They have laws, order, codes of honor etc. I consider them almost the most perfect personification of lawful evil. Sure they murder eachother but they have laws about when and where that is appropriate.

Yet they are also the most infamous source of tearing each-other apart from within.

I would agree, evil does tear itself apart, it's why one of my greatest focuses is unifying good. Because I know evil can't unify itself effectively.

I just think it is important to make the distinction between game alignment / and player mentality. Because when I am seeking to build an alliance and unify the "good aligned" companies... I'm primarily going to work off of the latter unless the alignment system actually connects the two well.

Goblin Squad Member

The Sith lawful? Not at all. Chaotic kingdoms have laws, but they are frequently changing, and more importantly only followed when convenient for the powerful. The Sith empire has always been one where power trumps law. Their laws have only ever been to oppress the weakest and at the same time egg on the strong to reach for more power. Their "laws" encourage them to kill each other so that the strong rise to greater heights, and even then only til someone stabs them in the back.

Having laws doesn't make you lawful; caring about your laws, and caring about order does.

151 to 200 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: Signed... in Blood All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.