Questions in regards to KS2 Update 2 Video

[Areks]

When Lee and Steven were speaking about settlements, alignments, reputation, and "classes" I got the underlying feel that Lawful Good is some sort of objective.

Lawful good will be harder to achieve and maintain but will have benefits to it. I know this is in regards to settlements, but I don't see how it doesn't bleed over into the character realm.

If I am seeking "barbarian" skill sets, the last place I would look is a lawful good settlement, as barbarians are non-lawful. Would I be able to train these skills in a lawful good settlement?

While sticking to a code of conduct and achieving lawful good as a settlement would be the road and the objective, are their going to be any wild card aspects of chaotic evil? Or chaos in general? I get the feeling it will be the inferior of the alignment poles.

Will there be an equally justifiable reason to work towards chaos and/or evil like there is a reason to work towards lawful good or is chaos and evil the default for those that aren't lawful good.

I get that it doesn't make sense if I were to be training in necromancy that my training is tolerated or accommodated in a Lawful Good settlement, just as a paladin wouldn't be welcomed in a chaotic evil settlement.

Would the non-lawful aspect of barbarian traits be hindered in advancement in a lawful good settlement and would their be an "ideally" aligned settlement for me to train in?

Would my presence or training within a lawfully aligned city hinder or otherwise affect it at all?

I'm sure that reputation plays a significant role at least some of these questions... how exactly do these pieces fit together?

-Areks

[Stephen Cheney]

Lawful Good settlement with high Reputation will be very hard to maintain in that state (because they require a large number of citizens also maintaining that state), so we feel that they should gain a number of bonuses. However, those are bonuses from all three of the axes: Law vs. Chaos, Good vs. Evil, and Reputation. A settlement with two of them high will not be far behind in capabilities, it's only when you let all three drop that you become a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

And, as you note, choosing to make your settlement non-LG will create more options for the types of characters that can be hosted there, both because you can offer chaotic or evil training (like Barbarian) and because it will be easier for players to maintain that alignment. This should hopefully create an equilibrium where there are a few settlements that can maintain high-Rep LG, and lots of others that are competitive because what they don't have in bonuses they make up for in a wider player selection.

Also, while actions that lose Reputation are related to actions that reduce alignment, they're not locked to one another. It should be possible to go all the way Chaotic Evil while still maintaining a high Reputation. You'd have to be fun to game with (so other players give you a Reputation salute more often than a rebuke) and try to focus most of your PvP attention on low-Rep targets. Challenging people to "stand and deliver" and pay a toll* rather than jumping them without warning is probably a good way to maintain that (so if you do kill them, they're less likely to feel it was unfair), and there may be others. If you gathered enough players doing that, you could put together a highly functional CE settlement as well.

I believe we'll have a blog post soon outlining more specifics on the various axes of alignment and how they work than what I was able to convey in my ramble on the video :) .

* Honestly, if you can convince travelers to pay a toll greater than what you'd get by looting their corpses, everyone wins, so the more organized bandits may gravitate that way anyway.

[AvenaOats]

Stephen Cheney wrote:

And, as you note, choosing to make your settlement non-LG will create more options for the types of characters that can be hosted there, both because you can offer chaotic or evil training (like Barbarian) and because it will be easier for players to maintain that alignment.

I did not take on board that those 3 factors may lead to more diversity of player types in settlements other than LG, eg neutral. That's adds another angle. Unity balanced by diversity?

Areks wrote:

Will there be an equally justifiable reason to work towards chaos and/or evil like there is a reason to work towards lawful good or is chaos and evil the default for those that aren't lawful good.

There's also Alliance options if you have not seen this blog already: Live Through This

Goblin Works Blog wrote:

eg

• Hellknights (Major Alliance—LN—controls Fort Inevitable)
  
• Knights of Iomedae (Major Alliance—LG—controls Fort Riverwatch)
  
• Pathfinder Society (Major Alliance—N)
  
• Denizens of the Echo Wood (Local Group—CN)
  
• Various Local Groups in Thornkeep

[Areks]

That's actually exactly what I was looking for. It makes much more sense now. Thanks!

[Elorebaen]

AvenaOats wrote:

Stephen Cheney wrote:

And, as you note, choosing to make your settlement non-LG will create more options for the types of characters that can be hosted there, both because you can offer chaotic or evil training (like Barbarian) and because it will be easier for players to maintain that alignment.

I did not take on board that those 3 factors may lead to more diversity of player types in settlements other than LG, eg neutral. That's adds another angle. Unity balanced by diversity?

Same here, very interesting and good to hear.

[DeciusBrutus]

Should collecting a toll under circumstances as described be a chaotic and evil action?

[Drakhan Valane]

I would think it to be chaotic at worst, but I don't think it even needs a mechanical punishment. You will probably lose reputation for doing it. It really depends on how it is presented. If you're threatening to kill someone for the toll, you're going to be treated differently than if you're a high reputation member of the kingdom presenting it as a guard patrol upkeep.