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

RPG Superstar 2015

Naming Conventions


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Darkrunner wrote:

I've been keeping fairly quiet on this one, but I want to throw in my two cents: So, aside from immersion breaking - which has been thoroughly covered - a memory I have was that I was once in a party that consisted of (and I don't remember the exact names, its been a couple years) Arthur Strongbow, Drizzt something-or-other, bob jones, and imabarbarian. It was immediately obvious in under 5 minutes exactly who was playing the game seriously, and who was not.

A player who is too lazy to take 30 seconds and come up with a serious name, or at least capitalize it properly, isn't terribly likely to play it seriously for the rest of the time either. In almost every game I have played, the people who put effort into everything - including the character - are the ones who I enjoyed playing with.
imabarbarian was playing the world mostly for a "openworld halo match" and spammed the chatbox with "lol"

In short, throw me in with the elitists wholeheartedly, but if we need to exclude some people because they can't bother to come up with a serious name, we probably didn't want them in the game in the first place.

+1

Goblin Squad Member

Darkrunner wrote:

I've been keeping fairly quiet on this one, but I want to throw in my two cents: So, aside from immersion breaking - which has been thoroughly covered - a memory I have was that I was once in a party that consisted of (and I don't remember the exact names, its been a couple years) Arthur Strongbow, Drizzt something-or-other, bob jones, and imabarbarian. It was immediately obvious in under 5 minutes exactly who was playing the game seriously, and who was not.

I fully agree with the sentiment, but fully oppose the logical conclusion.

I think for a rule to be instated into the game, there are 2 prerequisits.

1. The devs must be able to actually determine if it is being done.
2. The rule must be clearly stated and non-subjective. If you can come up with a way to phrase the rule, so that without contacting eachother, if 20 DMs looked at the same 100 names, all 20 of them would flag the same names as appropriate, and the same names as inappropriate.

That means things like "based on a name of a fictional character", are pretty much off limits, simply by the grounds of every name anyone can ever think of is probably within 1-2 letters of some fictional character in some lore, in some language, and GMs responding to reports will all have completely different backgrounds of what fiction they have read.

Now well known real world historical names, current religious icons etc... on the other hand, I would say 99.99% of people are at least familiar enough with the main ones to be able to enforce this one pretty universally.

So basically instead of actual names etc... what we need to be focused on is an actual definition of what policies should exist for a name, and work on a way to actually have it defined to a point it can be enforced universally without depending on what the GM happens to be familiar with.

I know it when I see it rules just don't work, it sounds great in theory, but then when it actually comes time to enforce them, and we find out that the calls made are all across the board, one GM forces a namechange on gondolf thokray for being too close to the LOTR wizard, while a different GM is simultaniously giving Gandalf TheGrey a clear pass simply because he hadn't happened to have read LOTR. The net result is huge drama, and huge complaints as Jim gets away with something and Bob doesn't.

TL:DR
For any reasonable enforcement we need a clearly defined non-subjective definition of unreasonable names.


For reference: the WoW naming policy.

Subjectivity is unavoidable. The only way to deal with that is allow players to report naming violations. If the community is not complacent, it will enforce the policy. It's not going to get any better than that unless GMs go through everyone's names with a fine tooth comb, which would be a bad use of their time.

Goblin Squad Member

Allowing nicknames allows people to choose any name they want and those offended can remove it, those who cannot type a name can change it to something they can type...no subjectivity, no CSR time wasted, no arguments about whether a name is appropriate or not...or whether you honestly came up with a name that happens to be one from some fantasy story you have never read, etc.

It essentially lets every player have their own naming policy and enforce it. It also adds RP flair by allowing people to hide under "well met names"...Hey, yeah my name is Forencith Lai'than Ren-Aliav, you can call me Kit...all my friends do.

The concern about duplicate names is easily resolved...automatic default to nicknames is a checkbox in settings, doing so means you have to use an asterisks (or something similar) to tell the system to bypass the nicknames DB if you want/need to. Otherwise, if not checked, you just default to real names.

What other problems do people see with this?

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

Darkrunner wrote:

I've been keeping fairly quiet on this one, but I want to throw in my two cents: So, aside from immersion breaking - which has been thoroughly covered - a memory I have was that I was once in a party that consisted of (and I don't remember the exact names, its been a couple years) Arthur Strongbow, Drizzt something-or-other, bob jones, and imabarbarian. It was immediately obvious in under 5 minutes exactly who was playing the game seriously, and who was not.

A player who is too lazy to take 30 seconds and come up with a serious name, or at least capitalize it properly, isn't terribly likely to play it seriously for the rest of the time either. In almost every game I have played, the people who put effort into everything - including the character - are the ones who I enjoyed playing with.
imabarbarian was playing the world mostly for a "openworld halo match" and spammed the chatbox with "lol"

In short, throw me in with the elitists wholeheartedly, but if we need to exclude some people because they can't bother to come up with a serious name, we probably didn't want them in the game in the first place.

I was going to reply, but this sums up exactly what I was going to say, so....

+1

Goblin Squad Member

Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
Good points all, but what does that have to do with censoring/overtly dictating name generation? While it's true that Macroers (1), hackers (2), exploiters (3), and griefers (4) are a blight on any gaming community, you list folks unwilling to try world pvp (5) and those who disdain RP (6) in the same list as if they were on the same level?

No. Obviously hackers are a bigger deal than Galdalf Sparkpants. Your assertion that by putting them in the same list I am saying they are on the same level has absolutely no logic to back it up, and seriously makes me wonder if I am wasting my time debating with you.

The point is this game is not catered to anyone 1-6. It's based off a roleplay game, and raised 300k$ while promising Open World PVP. People have a right to enjoy different styles of gameplay but THIS should not the game for them if they disdain RP or Open-World PVP. The only way it could be catered to them is for Goblinworks to go back on some pretty major promises. The time for that would have been before a lot of us dropped 75$+ on this game.

Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
Well, barring active steps are taken to mitigate such 1-4(5-6?) behaviors, you are just going to have to accept the fact that 1-4(5-6?) will be there regardless of your wishes, because regardless of their name there will be those that exhibit those behaviors. Do I like it? No, but all you can really do is report 'em and ignore 'em, then move on and enjoy the game.

Sure they will be there, but certain decisions can highly encourage them to modify their behavior or find a more suitable environment. Just because people are going to take part in negative behavior doesn't mean no efforts should be made to contain it.

Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
Yes, I will call you elitist. Your approach to your utopia (game wise) is exclusionary. While none of us want those doing behaviors 1-4(5-6?), your solution is to dictate to everyone YOUR version of acceptability and anyone who doesn't comply isn't worth a toss... Seriously, you need to get over yourself...

That's the way good games are made. You don't try to cater everyone. You find an audience and you make a game that they are going to love. I personally think that "MY version of acceptability" is going to reflect the majority of people who really are excited about this game because it's just as much based on the features I see in the blog, as it is my own preferences. It's clear this game is going to be fairly bloody and "Wild Westish" with a lot of amazing roleplay catered content, and I see no reason for them to go half-way with those kind of things. I know you disagree. Oh well.

Goblin Squad Member

Hudax wrote:
The bots I've seen are far from "superhuman." They are obvious to the observant player. Bots have to account for getting stuck on objects, mobs not being in range, and other things. In operation, they actually behave like idiots. Tag a mob you know they are going for (ie: the closest one) and they will assist you even though a human would know there was no benefit. That sort of thing.

Actually, bots can be pretty superhuman. They usually accomplish this by using a broken version of the client or a piece of software that pretends to be the game client which can call functions not normally available to players and pull all sorts of nasty exploits.

There was one in WoW that used a teleport exploit in order to move characters vast distances in an instant. Connect this with a map of spawn points for resources and a bot and you've got the ability to gather massive amounts of resources and control the market on a particular type of commodity.

Bots are a bigger problem than you might think in certain games.

Goblin Squad Member

Gregg Reece wrote:
Hudax wrote:
The bots I've seen are far from "superhuman." They are obvious to the observant player. Bots have to account for getting stuck on objects, mobs not being in range, and other things. In operation, they actually behave like idiots. Tag a mob you know they are going for (ie: the closest one) and they will assist you even though a human would know there was no benefit. That sort of thing.

Actually, bots can be pretty superhuman. They usually accomplish this by using a broken version of the client or a piece of software that pretends to be the game client which can call functions not normally available to players and pull all sorts of nasty exploits.

There was one in WoW that used a teleport exploit in order to move characters vast distances in an instant. Connect this with a map of spawn points for resources and a bot and you've got the ability to gather massive amounts of resources and control the market on a particular type of commodity.

Bots are a bigger problem than you might think in certain games.

Bots can be well above superhuman, they can match 1/100th of a second timing on a regular basis, and can take advantage of every hole in the system. They cannot however react easilly to unpredictability. Making bots that can actually use any sort of teamwork or tactics with other bots, raises the difficulty factor 10 fold. Making a bot that a human who saw the bot would not be able to realize was a bot, is almost imposible.

Liberty's Edge

Andius wrote:
No. Obviously hackers are a bigger deal than Galdalf Sparkpants. Your assertion that by putting them in the same list I am saying they are on the same level has absolutely no logic to back it up, and seriously makes me wonder if I am wasting my time debating with you.

What do you mean, "no logic to back it up"? You put all six in the same list of undesirables so how could one NOT come to the conclusion that you put them on the same level? Besides, you make it quite clear you have nothing but disdain for such folks, further reinforcing the notion...

Quote:
The point is this game is not catered to anyone 1-6. It's based off a roleplay game, and raised 300k$ while promising Open World PVP. People have a right to enjoy different styles of gameplay but THIS should not the game for them if they disdain RP or Open-World PVP. The only way it could be catered to them is for Goblinworks to go back on some pretty major promises. The time for that would have been before a lot of us dropped 75$+ on this game.

DDO was based off of a roleplaying game too. While it's OK for short periods, it lacks much that make roleplay immersion viable. That is mainly a failing of format, in my opinion.

Quote:
Sure they will be there, but certain decisions can highly encourage them to modify their behavior or find a more suitable environment. Just because people are going to take part in negative behavior doesn't mean no efforts should be made to contain it.

If we are talking about curtailing behaviors 1-4, I'm in total agreement. When it comes to 5-6, it would appear you are suffering from the delusion that your way is the only right way to approach a game of this type. Basically what you are saying is, unless you are a hardcore roleplayer, don't even bother to pick up the game...it's just too good for the likes of you... Explain to me how that attitude contributes to a healthy community, please. In fact, I can promise you, there will be many folks that upon being subjected to such elitist behavior will actively grief you just for spites sake.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
Bots can be well above superhuman, they can match 1/100th of a second timing on a regular basis, and can take advantage of every hole in the system. They cannot however react easilly to unpredictability. Making bots that can actually use any sort of teamwork or tactics with other bots, raises the difficulty factor 10 fold. Making a bot that a human who saw the bot would not be able to realize was a bot, is almost imposible.

Oh...I have to ask out of facetiousness. If one could develop a "bot" that could pass a Turing Test (which is essentially what your final statement amounts too)...would it still be a bot? And if so, what then should be the necessary difference between a bot and player (especially considering the design philosophy that if it can be cheated and/or cannot be policed it should not be)?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Morally, I think that anything that can make a decision qualifies as a person. "Decision" is nebulously defined, but The Universal Turing Machine cannot make a decision.

Goblin Squad Member

Bots are relatively stupid. They can perform superhuman feats, but they're dumb. There was a game where gold farmers would set bots near easy monsters that dropped good loot. Players figured this out and would "tag" the monster first and thereby reserving the loot and then let the bots proceed to kill the monster. The player loots the corpse and waits for a respawn to repeat this nice little action. The bots were smart enough to kill these particular monsters, but not smart enough to realize that they weren't getting the loot.

Bots are only as smart as their programming makes them. Doing 1/100th of a second precision with tactical moves simply isn't something they'd do well because of latency of the connections, lag spikes, etc. They're generally not smart enough to see when something goes "wrong" with what they're being told to do unless they've been specifically setup with a mechanism to double-check.

Sure, you can make some complicated bots, but as soon as there is a new patch on the game, any loopholes you were using could suddenly be closed and you would need to start over looking for a new loophole to exploit.

It's much easier to steal player accounts, sell all of their stuff, and then pay the people who are buying gold off of you through the stolen accounts. Sometimes you use your gathering bots on these accounts to make some money off of the auction house before the account gets closed.

Stealing player accounts is the new gold farming. This is why buying gold via an outside resource is almost always a bad idea.

The EVE model of allowing you to buy/sell subscription time legitimately and within the game goes a long way to getting rid of that problem. Ryan would have to speak on how well it seems to work.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Morally, I think that anything that can make a decision qualifies as a person. "Decision" is nebulously defined, but The Universal Turing Machine cannot make a decision.

Thanks for the interesting response. Universality aside as it adds nothing to the conversation, are you making the claim humans are not Turing Machines, or that humans cannot make a decision?

Alan Turing wrote:
...At any moment there is one symbol in the machine; it is called the scanned symbol. The machine can alter the scanned symbol and its behavior is in part determined by that symbol, but the symbols on the tape elsewhere do not affect the behaviour of the machine.

Exchange symbol with neural engram and you do not think that describes the human system?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I do not think that the human brain is deterministic. Determinism is a required feature of a Turing machine.

Additionally, a Turing machine can only run programs that fit within countable space. That means, among other things, that no Turing machine can perform any operation on an arbitrary irrational number, since the irrational numbers are not countable.

Goblin Squad Member

Ah, well I have hijacked the thread enough...thanks for the responses.

Back to naming conventions...

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

PFO is not likely to be Castle Marrach with graphics. Not every player will be an RP purist. Some players will only recognize Pathfinder as "that movie with the Native Americans versus the Vikings." Some will never have played a tabletop roleplaying game in their lives. MMOs are a computer gaming genre, and MMO players tend to check out the new game on the block.

In addition to people who've never heard of Pathfinder, we might as well count on the Goons finding this game. They're going to play hardball, both economically and in PvP. They might even metagame. They're going to laugh their heads off every time someone tries to engage them in RP. They'll probably also become very, very good at playing the game.

One way or another, pure immersion will be broken. Even RP servers need an OOC channel. Player community members will use it to decide what (real world) day and time to get together to clear a nearby humanoid encampment. Teenagers will use it to let their parties know when Mom calls them to dinner, and it's time to log out. Husbands will use it to let their parties know when "wife aggro" is reaching critical levels, and it's time to log out. New players will use it to ask about rules, and game controls, and the best order to train skills if they want to achieve X, Y, or Z with their characters.

Would it be worthwhile to maintain a separate RP server? Maybe. Would it be worthwhile for GW to monitor every aspect of the game (names, chat channels, etc.) to make sure nothing breaks anyone's immersion? Nope.

Spoiler:
For those who've never heard of it, Castle Marrach is a text-based MMO (a.k.a. a MUD) that caters extensively to the RP crowd. The only graphical element is the map. Combat is rare and deadly. Most of the player base cares more about elaborate descriptions of the way characters lift wine glasses to their lips than about DPS and hit points. "PvP" is more about malicious rumors and character assassination than ambushes and blood-spilling.


Another important thing, I think, is give the option to display guild/company/nation tags or whatever. Instead of having players rename (or remake) characters (ie if Johnny Blaze joins The First File, he shouldn't have to make a new account or manually changes his name to [TFF] Johnny Blaze), give us an option to a) attach a three-letter tag to our guild and then b) choose to display (or not) our guild tag


KarlBob wrote:

PFO is not likely to be Castle Marrach with graphics. Not every player will be an RP purist. Some players will only recognize Pathfinder as "that movie with the Native Americans versus the Vikings." Some will never have played a tabletop roleplaying game in their lives. MMOs are a computer gaming genre, and MMO players tend to check out the new game on the block.

In addition to people who've never heard of Pathfinder, we might as well count on the Goons finding this game. They're going to play hardball, both economically and in PvP. They might even metagame. They're going to laugh their heads off every time someone tries to engage them in RP. They'll probably also become very, very good at playing the game.

One way or another, pure immersion will be broken. Even RP servers need an OOC channel. Player community members will use it to decide what (real world) day and time to get together to clear a nearby humanoid encampment. Teenagers will use it to let their parties know when Mom calls them to dinner, and it's time to log out. Husbands will use it to let their parties know when "wife aggro" is reaching critical levels, and it's time to log out. New players will use it to ask about rules, and game controls, and the best order to train skills if they want to achieve X, Y, or Z with their characters.

Would it be worthwhile to maintain a separate RP server? Maybe. Would it be worthwhile for GW to monitor every aspect of the game (names, chat channels, etc.) to make sure nothing breaks anyone's immersion? Nope.

** spoiler omitted **

P.S., I think you really hit this nail on the head.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Reliken wrote:


P.S., I think you really hit this nail on the head.

Thanks. I'm sure some will strongly disagree. All I know is that MMOs are video games, video games attract video gamers, and video gamers as a group will tend to include some people who scorn RP.

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:
Would it be worthwhile for GW to monitor every aspect of the game (names, chat channels, etc.) to make sure nothing breaks anyone's immersion? Nope.

I don't think anyone's actually suggesting that.

What I generally expect from PFO is that there will be a naming policy, and that the players will be able to report names to the moderators, and then the moderators will use their judgment to determine whether or not to force a name change. I generally expect the same kind of flow for non-Naming Policy reports, such as for general harassment.

I don't expect anyone at PFO to be actively monitoring anything related to RP. I just expect them to take a closer look if one of the players points something out to them. That seems reasonable to me.


Hypothetical question, with non-hypothetical basis.

Being that I've skirted naming conventions on WoW by making a character to deflate the stupidity involving the Worgen race's name, and some of the loot that said beings carried (TL;DR Worgen spelled backwards, snapvine watermelons, and haunches of meat that look like fried chicken), I went with a silly but understated analog by making one named Eikrad. I actually play the character, and most people don't even catch the reference - the ones who do find it clever, and are surprised that such a name could be played seriously. Similarly, I'd made a bank alt, at the time a sort of character known conventionally as a mule. I named him after a smaller creature that is related to another, larger version used as a beast of burden in South America because he was a gnome, and by extension too small to be a mule.

Are those immersion-breakers? There's plenty of people who are named after animals or as anagrams. Is there something inherently wrong with turning naming convention on its ear if the player then proceeds to play it absolutely straight, instead of as a mere source of laughs?

If I want to make a Garundian adventurer of the young, brash, and inordinately 'not clever' variety, and wanted to have some mirth to go with it, would it be a mortal sin to have him saddled with a plausible quasi-regional name like Nublar Wantutu?

Granted, it's not like I would want to make a Hwanggot monk named Pōk Mi Nao. That's just crass.

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:

PFO is not likely to be Castle Marrach with graphics. Not every player will be an RP purist. Some players will only recognize Pathfinder as "that movie with the Native Americans versus the Vikings." Some will never have played a tabletop roleplaying game in their lives. MMOs are a computer gaming genre, and MMO players tend to check out the new game on the block.

In addition to people who've never heard of Pathfinder, we might as well count on the Goons finding this game. They're going to play hardball, both economically and in PvP. They might even metagame. They're going to laugh their heads off every time someone tries to engage them in RP. They'll probably also become very, very good at playing the game.

One way or another, pure immersion will be broken. Even RP servers need an OOC channel. Player community members will use it to decide what (real world) day and time to get together to clear a nearby humanoid encampment. Teenagers will use it to let their parties know when Mom calls them to dinner, and it's time to log out. Husbands will use it to let their parties know when "wife aggro" is reaching critical levels, and it's time to log out. New players will use it to ask about rules, and game controls, and the best order to train skills if they want to achieve X, Y, or Z with their characters.

Would it be worthwhile to maintain a separate RP server? Maybe. Would it be worthwhile for GW to monitor every aspect of the game (names, chat channels, etc.) to make sure nothing breaks anyone's immersion? Nope.

** spoiler omitted **

You say this as if anyone expects, or even wants that extreme. There is a difference between saying we don't wan't people named SephirothSkywalker69 and that we expect everyone to operate in-character all the time.

It's sort of like the difference between asking people not to spit on your floor, and asking them to mop the floor behind them as they walk and wipe off any surface they happen to touch.

Not very many people wan't this game to be so RP centered that you are not permitted to play the game casually. Asking people to have RP style names really is not as big of a request as some people are making it out to be. Coming into a game with a strong RP community with a name like Sephiroth or Skywalker or Iteabagnewbs is really equivalent to spitting on someone's floor to me. It takes 10 seconds to wipe it off. It also only takes you 10 seconds to find a trashcan if you really need to spit that bad. It's not a huge deal either way, but it's just friggin rude as hell.

PS. I think even considering how anything will effect the experience of a group such as Goon's on this community is a waste of time. Goons are a cancer on any community they are a part of, who gives a hell what they think? I know members of the Pathfinder community who quite EVE as a direct result of things that the Goons did. We don't need them here, we don't want them here.

Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
Andius wrote:
No. Obviously hackers are a bigger deal than Galdalf Sparkpants. Your assertion that by putting them in the same list I am saying they are on the same level has absolutely no logic to back it up, and seriously makes me wonder if I am wasting my time debating with you.
What do you mean, "no logic to back it up"? You put all six in the same list of undesirables so how could one NOT come to the conclusion that you put them on the same level? Besides, you make it quite clear you have nothing but disdain for such folks, further reinforcing the notion...

Then if I make a list of people I consider criminals, I am putting shoplifters, and mass murderers on the same level then yes? I'm done arguing with you, clearly it IS a waste of time. You are obviously less interested in rational debate than hysterics.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

love the ideas on Naming conventions posted in the blog

thanks for listening GW!

Goblin Squad Member

I'm really against a play-on-words and immersion-breaking-names-rule. Not because I want to play a chaaracter named Ben Dover or dRizZt. It's because there are very different understandings of immersion-breaking.
While most people in a P&P group may agree with their own policies, it's a hell of a lot more difficult to apply that to a wider range of players.

An example: I LARP frequently with different groups. One group is a group inspired by 18th/19th century British navy.
Almost ALL names have a play-on-words in them. My character, a simple sailor was named Max Plank (after physicist Max Planck) or we had a sailor named Ruderfort (after Rutherford) which is "row away" in German. We had a Mille Sievert (mille = 1000, sievert = radiation dosage) and we generally play in a not-uber-serious way, a lot of tongue-in-cheek, because we are all huge Gaiman/Pratchett/etc fans. So we basically had names that contain play-on-words, we had "immersion breaking real names" - nevertheless our naming policy was to sound like northern german sailors - and we did!

The only players that complained about our names were ultraserious and really uninspired people. (Gra'Khri'Gnojrtusk of the folk of Bri'Gnrahfg sduhf - that kind of serious) I always think we should not take ourselves TOO seriously and that's simply part of some of my characters. I think to exclude certain playerstyles is a really bad idea because of all the people I've met there were so many different conception of what immersion means, of what "good roleplaying" is. The solution always is: don't play with people that don't agree with your playstyle.

Of course - I'm not for Ben Dover or DarkDrizZt and whatever - but I think you get what I mean.

Goblin Squad Member

Heh, I was just about to necro this thread when I noticed it had already been done :)

One data point in favor of allowing non-unique names right from the start: If you're forced by technical limitations to section the player-base into separate servers, it will be much less painful to reintegrate them later into a single server if you don't have to then deal with the unique constraint on character names.

Caedryan wrote:
I'm really against a play-on-words and immersion-breaking-names-rule.

Keep in mind that reasonable people will be judging this based on their estimation of the reasonable effect the name will have on others. It's not like every play on words will be disallowed...

Goblin Squad Member

I'm in favor of restrictions provided they aren't over the top. There's a difference between immersion breaking and 100% authentic elvish. If a half orc wants to go by Knuckles or Rusty Jim, that sounds fine to me.

Goblin Squad Member

With at least access to spaces in character names, that hopefully will cut down on a lot of the really stupid names one might encounter because they're only allowed letters. In playing GW2, I tend to see a significantly less number of names I want to stab someone other than, say, some people's names in WoW.

My only real concern is people trying to take the names of iconic characters. Names with Valeros or Seioni in them shouldn't be allowed.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I could see the iconic names being reserved for the "theme park elements".

Or conversely, being made available to people who are trusted to play them according to their lore. I'm not sure what people could be trusted withou spending expensive time monitoring them.

Goblin Squad Member

Harrison wrote:
Names with Valeros or Seioni in them shouldn't be allowed.

If they do this, they need to be careful. My wife has been using the name Terevanya for ages. She wasn't allowed to use it in SWTOR because it contains "revan", which is apparently some bigwig in the lore. That really upset her.

Goblin Squad Member

I am not for unique name rules, There is a person with the exact name, birthday and age, in my zip code, that used the same allergist as I did.

I want there to be a unique global ID(allows all symbols and numbers), and unique character ID(allows all symbols ans numbers) for every character, these are used for friends lists, and guild rosters. I want it to work kind of like City of Heroes, when you have someone's global ID you can see when they are one and which character they are on, if you only have their character ID, you only see that character.

I'm also against this idea of disallowing immersion breaking names, the only naming rules needed:
1. No symbols/numbers aside from hyphens and accents
2. No distasteful/vulgar names
3. No trademarked names(outside of the PF universe)

English, especially Americanized English, is great, in that you can take any word and pronounce it how ever you want. Take the show '30 Rock' the doctor's name is Dr. Spaceman, pronounced: 'Spa-shemen'. It seems that the only people in america that pronounce things correctly are first graders learning to sound out words, before they hit the ones that don't follow those rules.

I could really care less if someone shares the same name as some iconic character in the PFRPG universe, how many iconic characters in Real Life Lore have hundreds of thousands of people who give that name to their children.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GW Blog wrote:

Character Name Control

A lot of folks choose to grief others right from the start, through the selection of their character names. This griefing can come in the form of simple anachronisms—using names that are wildly out of scope for the game in question. But there are also more overt uses of this tactic, like naming a character "Jesus" or "Hitler"—names designed to really anger some segment of the player population. And there is the issue of character names owned by someone else—names from popular fiction or movies, or well-known celebrities, or even pseudonyms with well-known personalities behind them, like CmdrTaco or Gabe and Tycho.

All of these problems fall into a bucket I call "bad names." A bad name is a name that makes our game less fun, angers someone else, breaks immersion, is a copyright or trademark infringement, or identity theft.

We're going to have a very tough policy on bad names. We reserve the right, at any time, for any reason, to make you choose a new name.

If you wish to name your character yourself, that name will be probationary. From time to time, as resources permit, we will likely audit character names and convert them from probationary to approved, at which time you won't have to worry (much) about having to change that name... unless we later discover that you've snuck a bad name past us, in which case we'll make you change it anyway. We'll have to triage this process, so what will likely happen is that characters that are played a lot will be reviewed before characters that rarely log in. And we're not going to have a process where you can ask to have your name audited, because there's no way we could possibly keep up with the requests; failing to respond to those requests would be worse customer service than simply letting the name hang in probationary status until we have the time to take a look at it.

On the other hand, we'll have a robust name generator. If you choose to use the name generator, the name you get will be automatically approved. And if we have to change a generated name because something causes us to re-evaluate it, we'll work with you to get you a new name that is as close to your old one as possible. (An example of this could be a person or group that happens to correspond to your generated name becoming infamous for an act of terror. Bad luck, but these things can happen.)

You'll have access to in-game tools to report characters for having bad names. We won't promise to act on those notifications—our ability to do so will be based on resources available—but we will make a reasonable effort to keep on top of those reviews. And the more people who report the same character for having a bad name, the more likely we'll be to take a look at it. These reports will be kept anonymous—the only time you'll know there is a problem is when we tell you you have to change it.

This all sucks to some degree because many of us have beloved character names we've used in many worlds. Nobody likes to think that their online persona could be stripped away due to arbitrary rules handed down by system administrators. I wish there were a better way to handle it, and of course we'd love your feedback and suggestions. But in the end I think that having a really strong bad name policy pays itself back in terms of a better and more immersive world for everyone.

I fully support this policy. This quote justifies itself well, plus it's late... or early... so I'll just leave it at that.

Goblin Squad Member

I didn't see in the blog where names were confirmed as unique or non-unique, or whether there would be a single or two-name system.

Did I miss something?

With Ryan saying that they plan on recycling unused names, I would guess that they plan on a unique name system.

Special characters I am okay with as long as there is at least a click to report function.

If someone is willing to risk alienating some other players in order to get their character name just the way that they want it (or to make the best out of a name thatthey wanted but someone else already had) then that is one thing.
If someone wants to try and use them as a way to discourage or avoid being reported for their bad behavior, that is another.

Goblin Squad Member

Sparrow wrote:

I didn't see in the blog where names were confirmed as unique or non-unique, or whether there would be a single or two-name system.

Did I miss something?

With Ryan saying that they plan on recycling unused names, I would guess that they plan on a unique name system.

Special characters I am okay with as long as there is at least a click to report function.

If someone is willing to risk alienating some other players in order to get their character name just the way that they want it (or to make the best out of a name thatthey wanted but someone else already had) then that is one thing.
If someone wants to try and use them as a way to discourage or avoid being reported for their bad behavior, that is another.

It's in the September 12, 2012 blog entry under Character Name Control

Andius posted it at length in the post above yours Sparrow. As Andius stated after the quote, I too agree and approve of the current GW policy on character naming.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Harrison wrote:
Names with Valeros or Seioni in them shouldn't be allowed.
If they do this, they need to be careful. My wife has been using the name Terevanya for ages. She wasn't allowed to use it in SWTOR because it contains "revan", which is apparently some bigwig in the lore. That really upset her.

Admittedly, I've never programmed an MMO, but I don't think it would be too hard to give the computer the distinction of "Revan" and "Terevanya". It would, again speaking from someone who has near 0 programming experience, simply be the computer determining if the sequence of characters is the only characters in the string or if there are others.

Sure, you could then so damned easily do "Xxvalerosxx" (or "XX Valeros XX" or something else like that if the game allowed spaces and multiple capital letters), but in those cases, the GMs pop in and force you to change it.

Goblin Squad Member

People always find ways to trip the detection software. And it is cheaper to have a reporting system in-game and have people occasionally look at the hot targets, than it is to make a program of that complexity.

Lantern Lodge

My question is whether parody names count as "bad" names I.E. Mindiana Bones, a parody character if Indiana Jones.

As a parody rather then a straight copy, it seems alright to me and is so far my chosen name, but would like to now if I will need to change it.

Goblin Squad Member

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

My question is whether parody names count as "bad" names I.E. Mindiana Bones, a parody character if Indiana Jones.

As a parody rather then a straight copy, it seems alright to me and is so far my chosen name, but would like to now if I will need to change it.

We will see, but I would guess they would be considered bad names as they are parodies and 9 times out of 10 the person would associate who the name goes with. Using your example if you dropped the "ana" and went with Mindi Bones then hardly anyone that didn't know you would associate it with Indiana Jones and thus not a "bad name".

My 2 coppers anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

My question is whether parody names count as "bad" names I.E. Mindiana Bones, a parody character if Indiana Jones.

As a parody rather then a straight copy, it seems alright to me and is so far my chosen name, but would like to now if I will need to change it.

The rule-based question is whether it is IC or not, and I suppose it is. The question of enriching the game environment, there are a gazillion naming options that are much more in the realm of IC. You can get plenty of examples of IC names on the Pathfinder Wiki, also the naming generator on d20PFsrd.

Goblin Squad Member

There is more thought and creativity put into some of these parody names than there is into the "serious" names. As long as it's not vulgar (ben dover) completely off the charts (asdf/Drizzt), let them have it.

I'm an Rp'er but I have never had any problem playing characters that had names like Lazaro Pajaro (Larry Bird in sp.) or Khariokimahn (get it?). These characters even Rp'ed sometimes, they just had a dare i say "post modern" style to it.

Lantern Lodge

I wonder who will get Noname. Maybe if I make a second character.

I guess it partly depends on the kind of rp as well, some like humorous rp filled with references and "inside" jokes while others go for serious rp and absolutly refuse to indulge in anything remotely like referencing outside the IC world.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

One thing to note is that a lot of people will judge the player by the character's name. Getting to know you is expensive, but deciding that "sugarplum bubbleyum" is or is not the name of a character you want to play with is cheap.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
One thing to note is that a lot of people will judge the player by the character's name. Getting to know you is expensive, but deciding that "sugarplum bubbleyum" is or is not the name of a character you want to play with is cheap.

Very true. In your typical themepark game, maybe not so much as those games the players don't really have a vested interest.

In sandbox games where players can hold/own land, establish Nations/kingdoms and there is meaningful politics backed up by non consensual PvP...reputation matters a tad bit more and your character name heavily colors that first impression that begins defining your reputation.

Players who are drawn to this type of environment generally care more than those in a themepark in my experience. Names usually, not always, but usually give some insight as to how seriously a player takes their involvement in the world these developers have created. You can create a lore/setting appropriate name and still play a character that is a joker and likes to have fun.

Lantern Lodge

Perhaps but the name must be appealing to me, and I find that more important then it appealing to others, not that I am the norm in that sense, but I am one of those few who care little about what others think, though I do try to not insult or hurt however.

Goblin Squad Member

Not sure if this has been mentioned before in this thread, but I think it would be interesting to be able to have multiple names (as mentioned before in some other thread).

Perhaps your character is actually named "Jenerick Gettanam"

But perhaps he is known by your allies under an alias as "Seriph Murdikame"

Your enemies you infiltrate may know you as "Morris Dreszford"

Or people strangely fear this man known as the "Black Dark"

--

Also be interesting to be able to choose which name to display to which people. And then also be able to give others names ("Oh yes, that Black Dark guy? I know he's actually Seriph Murdikame. Morris Dreszford? Can't say I've heard of him.")

Something like that... (Although I'm unsure, could be a lot of work server side. Maybe start with a blank text file or something, and as they figure out the names of others, it would add entries to this file.)

P.S. I made up all these names.

Goblin Squad Member

I think Forencith was the one who was pushing for there to not be any displayed name, so that you had to introduce yourself, and you could introduce yourself with whatever name you wanted. If they go with my suggestion of not requiring unique names, then they'll already have implemented an easy way for someone to send you a Private Message without necessarily having to use your "true" name.

Goblin Squad Member

coach wrote:

with such a small playerbase, and with that small playerbase being grown in small increments...

would it be too much to ask to have naming conventions for characters (and guilds)?

such as

1) Capital first letter followed by lowercase letters for both first and last name
2) No special characters (only ' and -)
3) No immersion breaking names
4) No vulgur (or implied vulgur) names
5) No names with a play on words
etc
etc

these could be moderated (whether by human or by AI) naming with accepted/declined upon character creation with a fantasy name generator for a guide

and guild names moderated also

I for one would love to log on and not see:

"PLAYERS ONLINE: Yo_Momma, ManBeast, Da$#!+, Ben Dover, U-my-%&*%# , etc

And I would also not want to have to hire the OneDayKillaz for an assassination contract.

I agree with the idea of have some level of name control, just to prevent abuse. No especial characters just ' and - sounds good for example.

The only problem with "no immersion braking names" is just that what is immersion breaking to me may not be for other and vice-versa. We do have, for example people with funny and/or unusual nicknames. So why should not someone be allowed to adopt a name such as "Gideon FunnyFace" or "Roy SmellyFinger" or "Allya FatBelly" ?

Depending of the background the player decides to have this kind of name could just make sense, especially as second names. It was quite usual in some medieval comunities such kind of "funny titles" being used to distinghuish people. Poor people didn't have surnames or familly names. So they used to point someones characteristic, or profession, or trait to distinguish peoples with the same name. So how distinguish wich John you are speaking about? Simple, point some unique characteristic of the person. So "John the Fat" is different from "John carpenter" and "John Brokenteeth" or "John DirtyHands". So we must be very carefull in this name control to avoid misunderstandings and too much "police control"

I would like to see a system with names and surnames that allow people to have a meaningfull name (Acceptable in Golarion reality) and some flexibility in the surname (always subjet to GM review, of course). So a friend of mine who always plays using the name Avalanche, could just use "Roy Avalanche" or "Thorghar Avalanche" and work in a background explanation for that name. IMO a name like that would not be in no sense immersion breaker. His brother uses commonly names with Iron in it. So, when he played a monk his name was IronFist, when he played a fighter his name was Ironblade, whe he played a debuffer he picked the name IronSoul. So I see no problem if he picks a name such as "Aron IronHands" for a monk if he decides to play PFO.

If a player builds a char that looks like someone fat (if the system allow such buildings , as I hope it will do) what the problem if he decides to adopt a name like "Lucien FatPig", that could be just a nickname people used to call him when his was a boy, and he just got used to it and decided to adopt it in adulthood, good material to a backgrouns story actually.

So lets be carefull in relation to restricitions, and if necessary work in a case by case way.

Just my two copper pieces.

Goblin Squad Member

Waruko wrote:
I can tell you this, being named Drizzt will be a death sentence.

How about Drizzle his banjo playing cousin?

And, and, and I want to have three word names like mine... yeeees that would be goooood.

Goblin Squad Member

Indee a three or eve four words name option is a very nice idea, as it would allow names using "the", "of", "Son of", and several other interesting names.

"Gustaff The Strong", "Aline of Blackmount", "Grunch son of Gregg", "Lanna beautifull eyes" , and stuff like that, would provide interesting names!

Goblin Squad Member

LordDaeron wrote:

Indee a three or eve four words name option is a very nice idea, as it would allow names using "the", "of", "Son of", and several other interesting names.

"Gustaff The Strong", "Aline of Blackmount", "Grunch son of Gregg", "Lanna beautifull eyes" , and stuff like that, would provide interesting names!

Yes if I could have this name in the game I bet that some people would wrinkle their noses but I have a story for the name.

Half-crazy elven rogue probably cast out or running from the law but with his heart in the right place most of the time lost most of his memory due to a blow to the head so he doesn't remember his real name or where he is originally from.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

Ya...getting a bit authoritarian wanting to control how other people play the game down to a level like this.

Play the game how you want to. Form a guild and enforce your own naming rules if you want to. But don`t go too far overboard with telling other people how they should be having fun.

This...

..though you Drizzzzzzzzt and Seppphirrrroth clones, beware - lest my watchful eye find you flagged like a jucy young peach, ripe for the plucking...

151 to 200 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Naming Conventions 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.