Goblin Squad Member
|
So I was kicking around an idea, spurred from another thread discussion about Casus Belli's and the declaration of non-consentual wars.
Basicaly a large aspect of gameplay is about is about kingdom building and territorial control. In a thread or blog (I forgot where actualy) GW mentioned that War's could only be declared "consentualy" (meaning both parties agreed). That struck me as rather discongrous given the "territorial control" aspect of the game mentioned.
I think part of the 10,000ft concern of GW is that by not having some sort of mutual consent it would cause large guilds/kingdoms to go around forcing out all the small settlements, allowing no room for them.
I have a counter-proposal that I think would actualy work better. I think offensive wars should be allowed but the behavior disincentivized based upon how large a kingdom grows and how much territory it controls (by one means or another), how many offensive wars it has engaged in (or joined on the attackers side), who the targets of said war have been (and whether they were "consented to") and what circumstances might have given cause to it ("causus belli").
Essentialy a kingdom gets assigned an "aggression factor". The idea is that the River Kingdoms is a relatively disorganized and fragmented area and as long as it remains so, there is no reason for any outside power to neccesarly pay much attention to what goes on within it. However once a Realm within the River Kingdoms starts growing in size (accumulating territories) and especialy if it's perceived to be acting agressively in nature....there would be reason for other outside powers to start to take notice and perhaps feel threatened about a change in the status quo.
This could take the form of "messing" with that Player Kingdom in a number of ways....perhaps significantly increasing hostile npc activities in that Kingdoms territories.
Essentialy this allows for a certain amount of offensive activity (through war) but makes it increasingly harder to be large, accumulate territory and act agressively.... to the point where beyond a certain size a Kingdom might become completely unmanagable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wars need to be consensual otherwise the whole game world could be dominated by just a handful of guilds, or even just one.
Furthermore, there needs to be a significant time and or activity sink involved with keeping a large kingdom intact. There should be opportunities for both internal and external conflicts.
The only time where war should not require consent is when a lesser opponent chooses to attack a more powerful opponent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of my biggest fear for PFO: that the promise of a complex "game of thrones" between settlements, kingdoms and allegiances can never be realized, because it either ends up in dominance of a single entity that everyone flocks to, or the political landscape ends up being regulated and thus predictable and artificial.
It is a huge challenge for GW. Is there room in the Eve landscape for new contenders and interesting shifts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about this: wars cost money. If your kingdom is at war, it must pay a sum of gold for each day it is at war. If you declared war, the fee is significantly higher. As the war goes on, the price goes up. The aggressor has a higher "war weariness" factor, and their rate goes up faster. The larger the company, the higher the price.
Wars of Aggression become increasingly costly. A company that has two or three Wars of Aggression going at once would suddenly find its coffers rapidly depleting.
Thoughts, ideas, critiques, torches and pitchforks?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
War also breeds discontent in a good aligned populace and greed/ambition in an evil one. War tends toward imbalance and division in neutrals.
Many mechanisms to disuade an abuse of war could be built in. Wouldn't even necessarily have to be made clear to players. Let them try, and find their carefully laid plans disolving to naught due to unexpected problems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about this: wars cost money. If your kingdom is at war, it must pay a sum of gold for each day it is at war. If you declared war, the fee is significantly higher. As the war goes on, the price goes up. The aggressor has a higher "war weariness" factor, and their rate goes up faster. The larger the company, the higher the price.
Wars of Aggression become increasingly costly. A company that has two or three Wars of Aggression going at once would suddenly find its coffers rapidly depleting.
Thoughts, ideas, critiques, torches and pitchforks?
That is exactly how EVE Online does it. It costs a lot to have a war, even more to have a war against an alliance. It cost more to wage a war against a smaller group than your own. As a result, I have seen and even heard of fewer wars than in the past.
Hopefully, wars are a rate thing. But, when they do happen their effects should have a ripple effect throughout the entire server. Although that is not the case in EvE, because EVE is massive in size. I expect PFO to be much smaller.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about this: wars cost money. If your kingdom is at war, it must pay a sum of gold for each day it is at war. If you declared war, the fee is significantly higher. As the war goes on, the price goes up. The aggressor has a higher "war weariness" factor, and their rate goes up faster. The larger the company, the higher the price.
Wars of Aggression become increasingly costly. A company that has two or three Wars of Aggression going at once would suddenly find its coffers rapidly depleting.
Thoughts, ideas, critiques, torches and pitchforks?
Based on Ryan's comments:
"Taking down a Settlement is a job for an army with siege engines, long logistics trains, a lot of soldiers and a lot of time."I think the cost of war is going to be direct--an expenditure of treasure and an opportunity cost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about this: wars cost money. If your kingdom is at war, it must pay a sum of gold for each day it is at war. If you declared war, the fee is significantly higher. As the war goes on, the price goes up. The aggressor has a higher "war weariness" factor, and their rate goes up faster. The larger the company, the higher the price.
Wars of Aggression become increasingly costly. A company that has two or three Wars of Aggression going at once would suddenly find its coffers rapidly depleting.
Thoughts, ideas, critiques, torches and pitchforks?
Based on Ryan's comments:
"Taking down a Settlement is a job for an army with siege engines, long logistics trains, a lot of soldiers and a lot of time."I think the cost of war is going to be direct--an expenditure of treasure and an opportunity cost.
War isn't only about taking down a settlement, however. If a war is declared, it lets people attack people with no repercussions. Why burn down the settlement when you can slaughter its crafters? If a war has a baseline cost, it may make people think twice about using it as a griefing mechanic.
Lets add in the idea that each war increases the cost of all wars of agression a company is in, by a decent amount such as 25-50%. Declare war on 3 companies? Cool...you're now paying for the cost of 6 wars. Hope your coffers can stand it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does anyone have an answer to this question: Does the War mechanic simply provide a means for opposing groups to combat each other without alignment consequences?
The whole point of territorial control is the possibility of losing and gaining territories, which at its very core can not operate on a consent only basis.
My impression was that attacking a settlement would be considered an unlawful act, that an entire neighboring settlement or even Kingdom could take part in. There's wars, and then there's Wars. Cost of siege engines, etc.. etc would be a material cost, cost of alignment impact on the individual settlements and the kingdom itself would be potentially far more damaging. It seems like chaotic organizations are supposed to be more difficult/costly to maintain.
Where our perception of war does not traditionally label an invader as evil and chaotic, these actions are deemed absolute in the PF world, so there would be a very tangible cost to simply annexing a neighbor.
I've obviously made some unfounded assumptions, and examining them really makes me wonder, what the hell is the point of a consensual war and what stands to be gained, and if war has to be consensual in all forms, why bother with territorial conquest, et al.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are two facets of wars that should be analyzed separately.
A. The ability to attack another Settlement/Nation.
B. The ability to freely attack Members of the Settlement/Nation even in "safe" areas.
I would like to see it possible to do A without automatically being able to do B.
So, in order for Settlement Alpha to be able to launch an attack against Settlement Beta, Alpha must first have declared (unilateral) war against Beta. This would not require Beta to consent.
However, if Beta did consent, and declare war on Alpha in return, then both sides would be able to freely attack each other even in lawful areas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, those are great distinctions to make.
Option A having alignment/criminal penalties for the attacker while providing some small recourse to hiding in a settlement, until said settlement has been successfully destroyed.
Option B leading to all out War.
This would certainly be deciding factor I think where 3rd parties are concerned on whether to get involved or not.
It may be important for terms of war to be declared however, what the goal is. And a way to call a truce, and cancel the war. Though once agreed to I guess it's possible it would last forever if the terms are never able to be fulfilled. Which, at first would seem like an oversight.. but really not a bad one, since the leaders should be able to call it off at any point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with you, Nihimon...We didn't just break physics, did we?
Of our many varying opinions, I believe we both want to see a game with a low level of griefing.
You tend to want to discuss game mechanics to handle it, whereas I want to handle it with a blood-soaked fist of iron driven by vindictive players.
That's all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with you, Nihimon...We didn't just break physics, did we?
Of our many varying opinions, I believe we both want to see a game with a low level of griefing.
You tend to want to discuss game mechanics to handle it, whereas I want to handle it with a blood-soaked fist of iron driven by vindictive players.
That's all.
I believe the solution lies somewhere in-between. Any anti-griefing mechanic needs to address problems in a simple black and white fashion. Overly complicated mechanics aimed at complex problems lead to loopholes and exploits. In the end they generally do more harm than good in combating griefing as the griefers find ways to grief people WITH the mechanics set up against them.
So what you do is set up simple mechanics that reduce abuse but acknowledge they can't stop it entirely. GMs ban the most blatant cases that the mechanics can't stop, and players deal with the rest. Players can use discretion to decide what is appropriate or not and the have more freedom to do whatever they want. When Bad Dewds declares war on Golarion Academy for Newbs and shortly after The Empyrean Order burns all thier holdings to ashes, pees on the ashes, salts their fields, and hunts every last one of them down to the far corners of the map with the help of our allies; then they can scream through thier tears "We were allowed to do what we did by the game mechanics!" And we can reply "So were we!"
Anyway I've been one of the biggest opponents of a war mechanic because I've seen how badly they can be misused but I was brought around and came to a pretty simple solution in another topic:
1. Wars can be declared on any settlement holding organization. I think this is acceptable given that settlement holding organizations must be at least fairly well established.
2. If the target of the war declaration is good or neutral, the organization declaring war moves slightly toward the evil axis. It shouldn't effect the chaos axis because lawful good and lawful evil kingdoms war all the time.
3. War targets CANNOT be attacked safely in neutral towns. ESPECIALLY player towns unless those players choose to allow it. The guards will treat it as they would any other random act of violence in their peaceful streets.
4. If a good or neutral organization has a war declared on them, any organization can join the war on their side without taking alignment loss.
5. Wars last a week. They can be renewed before they expire or set to be automatically renewed, but the alignment loss is reapplied on each renewal.
I think this is best because it is simple. Can wars still be declared for corrupt reasons? Yes, but the defenders are heavily favored in this scenario as people can join the war on their side without penalty. It addresses the two biggest problems I have with most other war systems as well.
1. Wars can't be declared on incredibly small factions who have had no chance to establish themselves... Because groups like that have no business controlling their own territory.
2. Veteran griefers can't use this to attack newbs in starter towns that belong to clans they are at war with.
All these other systems I see just open up too many loopholes that make the system overly complicated and open to abuse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wars need to be consensual otherwise the whole game world could be dominated by just a handful of guilds, or even just one.
Furthermore, there needs to be a significant time and or activity sink involved with keeping a large kingdom intact. There should be opportunities for both internal and external conflicts.
The only time where war should not require consent is when a lesser opponent chooses to attack a more powerful opponent.
Players themselves are what solve the problems you are discussing. No one organization appeals to all players and players like action. I've seen powerful alliances tear themselves apart because they didn't have any opponents worth fighting. One powerful faction will not control everything for very long no matter what. It's been tried and failed in every sandbox I've played.
If small factions can hold on to their territory purely by not allowing other factions to war with them, then the game is not authentic and not run by meaningful player interaction. I know what I did in Freelancer when I felt we were being oppressed by the largest faction on our server. I gathered up all the other tiny factions that felt the same way, declared war, and won. THAT is meaningful player interaction.
Finally there will be internal conflicts whether game mechanics require it or not. Maintaining a large kingdom will be a large time sink whether there is a mechanic or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
I believe the solution lies somewhere in-between...<verbiage elided>
...Anyway I've been one of the biggest opponents of a war mechanic because I've seen how badly they can be misused but I was brought around and came to a pretty simple solution in another topic:
...1. Wars can be declared on any settlement holding organization. I think this is acceptable given that settlement holding organizations must be at least fairly well established.
2. If the target of the war declaration is good or neutral, the organization declaring war moves slightly toward the evil
This appears to be a fairly comprehensive solution to me, Andius. I support your thought as a good starting point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So I was kicking around an idea, spurred from another thread discussion about Casus Belli's and the declaration of non-consentual wars.Casus belli
is a Latin expression meaning the justification for acts of war. Casus means "incident", "rupture" or indeed "case", while belli means bellic ("of war"). It is usually distinguished from casus foederis, where casus belli refers to offenses or threats directly against a nation, and casus foederis refers to offenses or threats to a fellow allied nation with which the justifying nation is engaged in a mutual defense treaty, such as NATO.
I think this concept has it's uses with the effect of Alignment hits (eg change in alliances allowed for LG et al.) depending on the Alignment of the settlement and the 'article invoked' to form a "Casus Belli" or react to an "Act Of War" without breaking any of the "articles".
This is one of my biggest fear for PFO: that the promise of a complex "game of thrones" between settlements, kingdoms and allegiances can never be realized, because it either ends up in dominance of a single entity that everyone flocks to, or the political landscape ends up being regulated and thus predictable and artificial.
It is a huge challenge for GW. Is there room in the Eve landscape for new contenders and interesting shifts?
What Ryan Dancey has said about EVE Online, is quote-unquote that a winning large alliance once deprived of a major force acting externally against it - the internal forces that hold the conglomeration start to weaken as different interests start "bubbling to the surface".
So in regards to what GrumpyMel is suggesting, there's already this possibility, but it is interesting if there is some further complication to the most successful kingdom in terms of territorial control: Whether that be an external power or otherwise: I'm undecided. But the consideration is definitely worthwhile.
Ideally: War costs money, are risky but reward is land which is very big reward! But again leads to enemies. Whereas alliances shares power but is less risky. And any breaking of a just war leads to alliance changes which change alliance patterns and settlement options depending on how severe they are. (always enjoyed Powermonger for choosing to slaughter (less risk) or try to co-op and recruit new members (more risk).
So what you do is set up simple mechanics that reduce abuse but acknowledge they can't stop it entirely. GMs ban the most blatant cases that the mechanics can't stop, and players deal with the rest. Players can use discretion to decide what is appropriate or not and the have more freedom to do whatever they want.
I think this mixture is the most workable. Some sort of "Treaty Of Potsdam" for eg where players can shape agreements more specifically about a context... equally decide to rip it up in favor of a new one or otherwise later on?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are two facets of wars that should be analyzed separately.
A. The ability to attack another Settlement/Nation.
B. The ability to freely attack Members of the Settlement/Nation even in "safe" areas.I would like to see it possible to do A without automatically being able to do B.
So, in order for Settlement Alpha to be able to launch an attack against Settlement Beta, Alpha must first have declared (unilateral) war against Beta. This would not require Beta to consent.
However, if Beta did consent, and declare war on Alpha in return, then both sides would be able to freely attack each other even in lawful areas.
1. Wars can be declared on any settlement holding organization. I think this is acceptable given that settlement holding organizations must be at least fairly well established.
2. If the target of the war declaration is good or neutral, the organization declaring war moves slightly toward the evil axis. It shouldn't effect the chaos axis because lawful good and lawful evil kingdoms war all the time.
3. War targets CANNOT be attacked safely in neutral towns. ESPECIALLY player towns unless those players choose to allow it. The guards will treat it as they would any other random act of violence in their peaceful streets.
4. If a good or neutral organization has a war declared on them, any organization can join the war on their side without taking alignment loss.
5. Wars last a week. They can be renewed before they expire or set to be automatically renewed, but the alignment loss is reapplied on each renewal.
Regarding #1, if you are at war with an organization/kingdom, and you attack their settlement, you are also in effect at war with all of the organizations bound to that settlement. This is fine, just worth pointing out that it's probably better to select the scope of your declaration by settlements/hexes, perhaps offering the option to list war targets by organization instead to quickly select your targets.
#2, if they're Evil do you move slightly towards Good? Consensual war should not effect LC shifts, non-consensual war should. See Nihimon's proposal.
#3 See Nihimon's proposal.
#4 See Nihimon's proposal and my own clarification.
Overall Andius, that's a great proposal, and combining the two together can create a very strong starting point I think. I particularly like #5, I think that's better than lasting forever. It gives a sort of 'go or get off the pot' incentive to not leave affairs in turmoil.
As long as penalties (Criminal and/or alignment) are handed out except in the case of Nihimon's option B, it should be good. Invading forces are for all intents and purposes at that point the bad guys after all.
I don't know if the distinction has been made, but while a Good attacking an Evil shouldn't result in a GE alignment shift, if done unlawfully it should result in a LC shift, and the Criminal flag should still apply. Killing someone you don't morally agree with is still a crime. If they're really THAT bad, they'll be Criminals anyhow and it won't matter.
Regarding siege engines and the like, should these be unusable (but not unbuildable/movable) until war is declared? Like you have to actually declare war before you can start pounding on a settlement? Or should that automatically be a declaration of war in and of itself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe we both want to see a game with a low level of griefing.
I actually believe you're being sincere about that, which is why I put Tony's anti-bounty-griefing post in the Suggested Reading list, rather than joined the call to have you banned for daring to speak such blasphemy.
5. Wars last a week. They can be renewed before they expire or set to be automatically renewed, but the alignment loss is reapplied on each renewal.
This is the one I'm a little unsure of. I expect there will be Nations who both very much want a permanent state of war, and making them officially redeclare it every week will be a nuisance.
I see that this doesn't directly address either of the two biggest problems you see with other war systems. Would you mind going into a little more detail on why you think it's important?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... This is the one I'm a little unsure of. I expect there will be Nations who both very much want a permanent state of war, and making them officially redeclare it every week will be a nuisance. ...
I think that if you go to war you need to really mean it. If "redeclaring" is to much trouble I question why they went to war in the first place.
I also agree with the Andius solution.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is the one I'm a little unsure of. I expect there will be Nations who both very much want a permanent state of war, and making them officially redeclare it every week will be a nuisance.
I see that this doesn't directly address either of the two biggest problems you see with other war systems. Would you mind going into a little more detail on why you think it's important?
Well as I said it can be set to automatically re-apply each week. You just automatically take the alignment hit each week. If its a mutual war then there is no alignment hit so no biggie.
The point of it is this. I only want a "good" player faction to be able to maintain so many wars at once. Not a hard limit mind you, just a limit of how fast you are gaining good alignment vs. how fast you are spending it on war declarations.
If you only pay the cost once, then it is possible for a good aligned kingdom to drop a war declaration every time they have the spare points. Imagine a "good" organization that is large and filled with veterans doing this to all the other good organizations. That would allow them to act nearly identically to chaotic-evil factions while being "good" aligned.
With an upkeep the costs of wars are persistent. If you want to maintain three non-mutual aggressive wars with non-evil factions, you pay the cost of that every week.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With an upkeep the costs of wars are persistent. If you want to maintain three non-mutual aggressive wars with non-evil factions, you pay the cost of that every week.
This was what jumped to mind on reading #5. If a war is pushed on forever, so be it. But it's probably best if the world is not subjected to constant wars that are effortless to maintain. Wars should be a taxing ordeal, and perhaps taxes will solve the monetary portion, pursuing a continued conflict just seems chaotic in nature which is an entirely more difficult cost to uphold.
If wars had to be accepted by both parties, wouldn't this invalidate the whole siege camp idea?
I mean if I, leading a army, set up a siege camp outside a town who commands a force of similar size and declare war on them, but they refuse to accept the declaration.... What happens then?
I don't believe this has been addressed yet. If it has please enlighten me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Addressed by GW? Not that I am aware of. We've come up with a pretty solid approach, with minor variations, on how to handle that I think. The ball is in their court so to speak.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with you, Nihimon...We didn't just break physics, did we?
Of our many varying opinions, I believe we both want to see a game with a low level of griefing.
You tend to want to discuss game mechanics to handle it, whereas I want to handle it with a blood-soaked fist of iron driven by vindictive players.
That's all.
I believe the solution lies somewhere in-between. Any anti-griefing mechanic needs to address problems in a simple black and white fashion. Overly complicated mechanics aimed at complex problems lead to loopholes and exploits. In the end they generally do more harm than good in combating griefing as the griefers find ways to grief people WITH the mechanics set up against them.
So what you do is set up simple mechanics that reduce abuse but acknowledge they can't stop it entirely. GMs ban the most blatant cases that the mechanics can't stop, and players deal with the rest. Players can use discretion to decide what is appropriate or not and the have more freedom to do whatever they want. When Bad Dewds declares war on Golarion Academy for Newbs and shortly after The Empyrean Order burns all thier holdings to ashes, pees on the ashes, salts their fields, and hunts every last one of them down to the far corners of the map with the help of our allies; then they can scream through thier tears "We were allowed to do what we did by the game mechanics!" And we can reply "So were we!"
Anyway I've been one of the biggest opponents of a war mechanic because I've seen how badly they can be misused but I was brought around and came to a pretty simple solution in another topic:
...1. Wars can be declared on any settlement holding organization. I think this is acceptable given that settlement holding organizations must be at least fairly well established.
2. If the target of the war declaration is good or neutral, the organization declaring war moves slightly toward the evil
I think this is good enough since it allows good and evil to fight each other without repurcussion (which fits the setting). I would like to see some sort of a Casus Belli system setup to represent real-politic and the actions that allows where supposedly good/neutral nations are taking provocations against another nation that would normaly be considered justification for conflict....but that may simply be too tough for the mechanics to handle. I think the suggestion you've outlined is a good starting place and it could be elaborated on from there. I would like to add an additional step which may or may not be appropriate here.
- A settlement/kingdom can declare that members of any other organization, regardless of that organizations size, are OUTLAWS in the territory the settlement/kingdom controls. This allows members of said settlement/kingdom or anyone else lawfully there to attack said outlaws on site without consequences. The OUTLAWS are warned about such status before entering the territory and therefore have the opportunity to avoid entering it.
What this does is avoid the loophole where raiders, spies or other individuals who the settlement knows are upto no good, to enter the territory and be untouchable until they have setup perfect conditions for a strike/attack. This would only apply to the territory which the settlement controls and nowhere else...and the individual is warned of the condition before entry, so I don't see it as very exploitable by griefers/gankers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If wars had to be accepted by both parties, wouldn't this invalidate the whole siege camp idea?
I expect that the descriptions we've gotten so far are all very early work, and that a lot of this will get hashed out by the time it starts getting coded.
That said, the way the devs have described it so far, the mutual acceptance of war is required for attacking each other in "safe" areas. I don't think a Declaration of War is currently required to attack a Settlement.
Addressed by GW? Not that I am aware of. We've come up with a pretty solid approach, with minor variations, on how to handle that I think. The ball is in their court so to speak.
No, sorry I didn't mean has GW addressed this, I more meant if it was addressed by another's post in this thread.
Nihimon wrote:
There are two facets of wars that should be analyzed separately.A. The ability to attack another Settlement/Nation.
B. The ability to freely attack Members of the Settlement/Nation even in "safe" areas.I would like to see it possible to do A without automatically being able to do B.
So, in order for Settlement Alpha to be able to launch an attack against Settlement Beta, Alpha must first have declared (unilateral) war against Beta. This would not require Beta to consent.
However, if Beta did consent, and declare war on Alpha in return, then both sides would be able to freely attack each other even in lawful areas.
But what happens if Beta just sits there and does not accept the war declaration? In relation to Alpha having marched in, built a siege camp and is all set to go to war. Are they just stuck waiting or what?
I'm curious as to what the other posters think about this. Should there be a timer that when it runs down allows Alpha to just attack, perhaps with an alignment hit but no criminal flagging? Or does the siege camp just poof and Alpha has no choice but to return to their hex?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If wars had to be accepted by both parties, wouldn't this invalidate the whole siege camp idea?I expect that the descriptions we've gotten so far are all very early work, and that a lot of this will get hashed out by the time it starts getting coded.
That said, the way the devs have described it so far, the mutual acceptance of war is required for attacking each other in "safe" areas. I don't think a Declaration of War is currently required to attack a Settlement.
Honestly, I don't think ANYONE (war or not) should be able to attack each other openly in SAFE areas (e.g. NPC territory) of the game...
- It's a bad idea from a gameplay sense, as PvP creates a certain environment of havoc and chaos that can be very disruptive to other forms of play (e.g. role-play, learning the basic functions of the game, teaching the game, PvE) even if the parties aren't directly involved in the PvP. There should be a few areas that are havens which are completely free of PvP where players can perform said functions without the disruption of PvP. Now, we should be talking about something that's less then 1 percent of the game area, so I'm not talking about changing the basic nature of the game or anything like that.
- It's a bad idea from a world-logic sense. I know of virtualy no instance where a country has voluntarly suspended it's own laws to allow 2 other parties to beat up on each other within it's OWN terrtitory. Britain and Grermany weren't shooting at each other in Switzerland, Sweden, Spain or Portugal. From a World-Logic sense that would cause all the disruption, devastation and negative sides of warfare within that territory with the 3rd party gaining nothing from it, so why would they allow it?
I'd say that if 2 parties are going to start fighting each other in neutral NPC territory...they should be getting "criminal" tags....as there is no good reason (game-play or world-logic) for the NPC to suspend it's laws to allow it. There is plenty of room for those sort of hostilities in the wilderness (uncontroled territory) or player controled territory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But what happens if Beta just sits there and does not accept the war declaration? In relation to Alpha having marched in, built a siege camp and is all set to go to war. Are they just stuck waiting or what?
In my scenario, Beta's refusal to accept the Declaration of War, or rather their refusal to Declare War on Alpha in return, only means one thing: Alpha can't attack Beta's characters in "safe" areas. Alpha will still be able to attack Beta's Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know if the distinction has been made, but while a Good attacking an Evil shouldn't result in a GE alignment shift, if done unlawfully it should result in a LC shift, and the Criminal flag should still apply. Killing someone you don't morally agree with is still a crime. If they're really THAT bad, they'll be Criminals anyhow and it won't matter.
In a world where Paladin's are trained for combat and given the ability to detect and smite Evil and where one of thier guiding principles is to destroy Evil where-ever they find it, I don't think that really applies.
I think we have to make a distinction between what game-rules would consider a lawfully created settlement (e.g. established within the context of the game mechanics) and what Lawful Good Diety such as Torag or Iomedae might consider a "legitimate" settlement. While a settlement full of demons, undead and necormancers might be a lawfully created settlement within the game rules...it's doubtfull that LG characters that went on a Crusade (e.g. War) to destroy said settlement would be viewed as acting "chaoticaly" for the absolute alignments present in the game. In terms of LG, such a settlement should NOT be allowed to exist on the face of Golarion because it's mere existance is a crime against humanity, etc.
Good and Evil and especialy LG and CE are in absolute oposition to one another. Conflict with each other is kind of thier natural state. LG really can't abide by the existance of CE within the world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel Law and Chaos don't exactly care about Good and Evil's little spat. You can move independently on one axis from the other. When dealing with questions of alignment they should not be lumped together, as the actions taken to shift alignments ought to be distinctly different (if occasionally overlapping). Good and Evil have nothing to do with this following scenario. As far as they're concerned a Good killing an Evil is a desirably Good act, and an Evil killing a Good is a desirably Evil act. As in they are Evil by design, not by accident (an understanding I had to come to grips with as I desire to be neither.)
If players can make laws, players that don't abide by those laws are not being Lawful.
As it currently stands, I believe this is how things work now:
If a law exists about not murdering, and someone commits a murder, they go Criminal. Killing a Criminal makes you a tiny bit more Lawful.
It stands to reason that breaking the law and the punishment thereof has bearing on absolute alignment. So why wouldn't player laws impact this?
If they do not, there will need to be a distinction made between...
lawful: following laws
and
Lawful: the alignment (has nothing to do with laws and merely exists to oppose Chaos).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hm. Darcnes maybe I am missing it but aren't there gods in the game world who have something to say about what Law or Chaos, etc. are?
If humans pass really wonky laws, and at times we really do, those laws have little to do with Truth, Justice, and the Paizo Way after all.
To be lawful following wonky human laws is distinct from Lawful, the avatar of Justice, and living in accord with the Lawful gods.
But I'm neutral on the issue, really.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think some of this is covered.
I could have swore I read something about settlements needing to have 'Open PVP Windows' in order to support advancing to and maintaining higher levels. During these windows, NPC guards for settelements drop drastically. Theoretically, your 'Non-Consent Wars' could happen during those periods. The defender bonus is in being able to pick the times of this window. If I can find it, I'll share the link.
Larger Settlements require bigger windows - which is more time to organize and launch each day's worth of battle.
Smaller Settlements have smaller windows to protect from griefers while they develop. In order to grow, a settlement has to open itself to more risk. A settlement that stays small will probably lose economic advantage, which will reduce tax collection and member donation, and eventually downward spiral to where it cannot pay it's upkeep and move into inactive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel Law and Chaos don't exactly care about Good and Evil's little spat. You can move independently on one axis from the other. When dealing with questions of alignment they should not be lumped together, as the actions taken to shift alignments ought to be distinctly different (if occasionally overlapping). Good and Evil have nothing to do with this following scenario. As far as they're concerned a Good killing an Evil is a desirably Good act, and an Evil killing a Good is a desirably Evil act. As in they are Evil by design, not by accident (an understanding I had to come to grips with as I desire to be neither.)
If players can make laws, players that don't abide by those laws are not being Lawful.
As it currently stands, I believe this is how things work now:
If a law exists about not murdering, and someone commits a murder, they go Criminal. Killing a Criminal makes you a tiny bit more Lawful.It stands to reason that breaking the law and the punishment thereof has bearing on absolute alignment. So why wouldn't player laws impact this?
If they do not, there will need to be a distinction made between...
lawful: following laws
and
Lawful: the alignment (has nothing to do with laws and merely exists to oppose Chaos).
Lawful characters are bound by thier own commitments and obligations and by those who they recognize as having authority over them.
To use an in-game example A character from Mendev is being lawful if they follow thier own oaths and obligations and the laws of Mendev (the nation of who'm they are a part). If they go out into the Worldwound and start attacking demons in some demon settlement there because Mendev doesn't recognize the lawfull existence of demons or demon settlements. In fact, it may be an expected duty/obligation for citizens of Mendev to kill demons where-ever they find them. There would be no law (in game) binding a settlement in Mendev from going to war against a demon settlement. Therefore that action is not unlawfull.
Likewise, in the natural order of things in the Pathfinder Cosmos (as I understand it) Good is SUPPOSED to be in a state of conflict with Evil....therefore doing so is not a Chaotic act....because you are actualy doing what is EXPECTED of you when you do so. Doing what is EXPECTED of you is Lawfull, not Chaotic.
Now if it was a more Pacafistic Cosmology where one was NEVER expected to resort to violence under any circumstances or Good was NOT expected to be in conflict with Evil only with those who acted in a criminal manner.... then you might have more of a point....however that is not my impression of how the Pathfinder Cosmology actualy works.
Now when good players INDIVIDUALY are going out and attacking EVIL players when no state of war exists between thier settlements/kingdoms....then yes, that would equate to a Chaotic act because even though Good and Evil being in conflict is EXPECTED being in conflict without the express authorization of your Kingdom/Settlement is not. However, we are not talking about that in this thread. We are talking about the shift that happens when Good Kingdom declares war on Evil Kingdom. Why, under the Pathfinder Cosmology, would independant Good Kingdom become chaotic for declaring War on independant Evil Kingdom?
Why would Mendev become chaotic for declaring war against the Demons of the World-Wound?
But what happens if Beta just sits there and does not accept the war declaration? In relation to Alpha having marched in, built a siege camp and is all set to go to war. Are they just stuck waiting or what?In my scenario, Beta's refusal to accept the Declaration of War, or rather their refusal to Declare War on Alpha in return, only means one thing: Alpha can't attack Beta's characters in "safe" areas. Alpha will still be able to attack Beta's Settlement.
Ah, thanks for clarifying that point, I was unsure how you meant it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being So then alignment Lawful is of the state in opposition to Chaos and does not relate to legality. This does create an unexplained link between punishing those who flout legality being an inherently Lawful act (which supposedly has nothing to do with legality). It's a fine but important distinction we should get clear, since law and Law will not be symmetric.
@Lifedragn I don't believe the "Open PvP" time periods you're referring to were meant to cover when a settlement can lawfully attack one another, just when it would be substantially more likely to succeed. And so discussion of one and two sided war declarations continues. ;)
@GrumpyMel Good presentation, I can definitely get behind the ideas laid out from the perspective of someone fulfilling their ambition as a player doing their God's work.
But I've also seen it explicitly stated that matters of alignment will be absolute rather than perspective based.
The example you gave of killing an Evil player unlawfully would have to kick in full force given scenario A from Nihimon's proposal. Which is to say a potentially one sided war in which the entire settlement is given a cloud for unlawfully attacking another. Of course if scenario B were played out then your example would hold true.
I think my reasoning is logically sound under Nihimon's WarDec proposal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a very interseting topic and one that I feel should be a significant aspect of the game. Afterall, it does take place in the River Kingdoms right and the concpet IS about building a kingdom. However, I dont want to play in a game that is nothing but war either. I wonder if a mechanic can be built into the game where nations/settlements can earn some kind of WAR token and they then can make use of them. Im thinking kind of like the CHALLANGES in the NFL. Each team gets so many to use. If you go to war and win you get to keep your token. If you lose its gone. Also, maybe there are only so many tokens available. This would limit the number of wars and help controll who is warring with whom. I also think that costs should be a major factor in war and think that alignment should impact the cost of doing war. I could see a way that a good aligned settlement gains a number of war tokens and therefore is able to establish a region that is reasonably peaceful. At the same time an evil settlement would adversly affect a region making it chotic and wartorn. I suppose these tokens could even become a commodity something that is tradeable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being: Exactly what I was thinking. Lets face it there war should not be rampant in the game but it should definitely should be an option. Maybe in order to wage war each party must hold a war token. Its kind of like saying by holding this token I agree to be willing to have someone wage war on me "consent".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
More thoughts... maybe you could have different levels of war tokens. One for skirmishes or raids etc. There could be costs associated with these tokens too that would replicate the costs of doing those actions. But maybe these tokens can be combined to "upgrade" the token. Im not sure what the levels are but lets say several smaller guilds want to go against a large guild but they cant have a war token due to being too small or just cant afford one. So, instead they form an alliance of small guilds that can combine their tokens to match a war token and then declare war.