Goblin Squad Member
|
If it's such a pain in the ass that you'll be constantly ganked, as you are unsafe anywhere even at home, then why bother?First, why wouldn't you be safe at home? Surely you're not living in a Settlement with other players who are going to kill you for doing whatever it is you're doing. If so, then you should consider finding a new home.... perhaps Shadow-Haven.
Second, that fear of being constantly ganked is the exact fear that generally Good-aligned Merchants and Crafters are already living with.
Finally, Evil has always had the advantage of being free to kill the Good guy and take all his stuff without worrying about their conscience. Good needs the Flags in order to justify their actions.
Really, all these Flags do is level the playing field so that Evil isn't the only threat.
A somewhat valid point Nihimon, I see where you are coming from. However not attacking first is something a 'roleplayer' would do. A 'griefer' has no such limitation. You will find plenty of good people attacking first, because they simply don't care about the alignment factor, or think they can go save some orphans afterwards to regain their lost alignment.
Which again draws us back to the mechanics of how alignment will actually work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it's such a pain in the ass that you'll be constantly ganked, as you are unsafe anywhere even at home, then why bother?First, why wouldn't you be safe at home? Surely you're not living in a Settlement with other players who are going to kill you for doing whatever it is you're doing. If so, then you should consider finding a new home.... perhaps Shadow-Haven.
Second, that fear of being constantly ganked is the exact fear that generally Good-aligned Merchants and Crafters are already living with.
Finally, Evil has always had the advantage of being free to kill the Good guy and take all his stuff without worrying about their conscience. Good needs the Flags in order to justify their actions.
Really, all these Flags do is level the playing field so that Evil isn't the only threat.
If you have a glaring "Kill me it costs you nothing" heinous flag waving over your head, it doesn't matter what settlemnt your living in. Someone will take advantage of it. If you don't think so your being naive. What we are protesting here is that role-playing actions that promote evil making you unsafe in your own evil home. Stop reducing the argument to bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it's such a pain in the ass that you'll be constantly ganked, as you are unsafe anywhere even at home, then why bother?First, why wouldn't you be safe at home? Surely you're not living in a Settlement with other players who are going to kill you for doing whatever it is you're doing. If so, then you should consider finding a new home.... perhaps Shadow-Haven.
Second, that fear of being constantly ganked is the exact fear that generally Good-aligned Merchants and Crafters are already living with.
Finally, Evil has always had the advantage of being free to kill the Good guy and take all his stuff without worrying about their conscience. Good needs the Flags in order to justify their actions.
Really, all these Flags do is level the playing field so that Evil isn't the only threat.
Evil player walks up to a good player and kills them.
Criminal FlagDeath Curse
Bounty on head.
I'm not seeing how they are free to kill anyone.
Evil Player walking around thier own settlement.
Other Evil players see him.
No law against murder.
Ganked.
Follower of Asmodeus enslaves a kobold tribe to do his mining out in the wilderness. Is now free kill for every player in the game without them suffering consequences Yay.
I'm still waiting to see why anyone would willingly put up with that...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well what if the heinous flag only removed the consequences when the algnment differs between the flagged and the potential crusader. Maybe go so far as to make it so only those with a good algnment get the "free kill". That would help keep the lawful evil communities from falling apart.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well what if the heinous flag only removed the consequences when the algnment differs between the flagged and the potential crusader. Maybe go so far as to make it so only those with a good algnment get the "free kill". That would help keep the lawful evil communities from falling apart.
I agree.
Though if a Lawful Evil community is played correctly it should be fine. Unfortunately many players tend to confuse chaotic with evil and play all evil as chaotic evil regardless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
True but those players should fall towards chaotic by the actions they take in game and any lawful evil settlement worth its salt would ban and authorize a kill on site for known chaotic players. Those players would also suffer all the consequences of an unlawful PK as long as evil their algnment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well what if the heinous flag only removed the consequences when the algnment differs between the flagged and the potential crusader. Maybe go so far as to make it so only those with a good algnment get the "free kill". That would help keep the lawful evil communities from falling apart.I agree.
Though if a Lawful Evil community is played correctly it should be fine. Unfortunately many players tend to confuse chaotic with evil and play all evil as chaotic evil regardless.
I've also seen people confuse lawful good with lawful evil before.
Lawful Evil communities should be the safest in the game even more so then Lawful Good, but people don't usually do well with alignments in mmos. Its more the Chaotic Evil and Neutral evil where you will have issues trying to survive for any extended period of time especially for new players without really big friends.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah this is why I want a strong lawful evil settlement right off the bat organized by players who know the difference between law/chaos. To show those who think that all who wish to play evil are griefers that evil can be something more constructive. This is not to say that all CE will be griefers but with strong LE it could really help people get that there should be a major difference between evil and griefing in a fantasy MMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it's such a pain in the ass that you'll be constantly ganked, as you are unsafe anywhere even at home, then why bother?First, why wouldn't you be safe at home? Surely you're not living in a Settlement with other players who are going to kill you for doing whatever it is you're doing. If so, then you should consider finding a new home.... perhaps Shadow-Haven.
Second, that fear of being constantly ganked is the exact fear that generally Good-aligned Merchants and Crafters are already living with.
Finally, Evil has always had the advantage of being free to kill the Good guy and take all his stuff without worrying about their conscience. Good needs the Flags in order to justify their actions.
Really, all these Flags do is level the playing field so that Evil isn't the only threat.
Evil player walks up to a good player and kills them.
Criminal Flag
Death Curse
Bounty on head.I'm not seeing how they are free to kill anyone.
Evil Player walking around thier own settlement.
Other Evil players see him.
No law against murder.
Ganked.Follower of Asmodeus enslaves a kobold tribe to do his mining out in the wilderness. Is now free kill for every player in the game without them suffering consequences Yay.
I'm still waiting to see why anyone would willingly put up with that...
More flags on Evil (or Chaotic) Characters, but bigger alignment shifts for Good (or Lawful/Order) Characters if they initiate and depending on the alignment/flag status of the other character. Mayeb that is some of the extra info? Still needs some more untangling, true.
Eg if settlement A laws are x and settlement A is of chaotic alignment, I guess most players of that settlement in that hex having flags or not makes less difference than the opposite to settlement A, settlement B with Lawful peeps in their own hex? There's a lot of factors we'll have to see at work?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well what if the heinous flag only removed the consequences when the algnment differs between the flagged and the potential crusader. Maybe go so far as to make it so only those with a good algnment get the "free kill". That would help keep the lawful evil communities from falling apart.
While I can agree with this I just want to point out that not all LE settlements are going to approve of slavery or raising the undead either. You can still be evil and have different limits on your settlement. That is part of the reason why I think the heinous flag need not exist. It should be up to the local settlement to decide what is heinous and what is not. If there is no settlement then no heinous flag.
Finally, Evil has always had the advantage of being free to kill the Good guy and take all his stuff without worrying about their conscience. Good needs the Flags in order to justify their actions.
Evil guy who commits murder gets flagged for murder. Good guy who commits murder goes free.
First, why wouldn't you be safe at home? Surely you're not living in a Settlement with other players who are going to kill you for doing whatever it is you're doing. If so, then you should consider finding a new home.... perhaps Shadow-Haven.
What about unexplored areas? Necromancers are restricted to their homes while the Paladin can go explore.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well what if the heinous flag only removed the consequences when the algnment differs between the flagged and the potential crusader. Maybe go so far as to make it so only those with a good algnment get the "free kill". That would help keep the lawful evil communities from falling apart.
I think this raises the question "Should the ability to see tags be filtered by the difference between the alignment of the viewer and the alignment of the tagged?"
If it's such a pain in the ass that you'll be constantly ganked, as you are unsafe anywhere even at home, then why bother?First, why wouldn't you be safe at home? Surely you're not living in a Settlement with other players who are going to kill you for doing whatever it is you're doing. If so, then you should consider finding a new home.... perhaps Shadow-Haven.
Second, that fear of being constantly ganked is the exact fear that generally Good-aligned Merchants and Crafters are already living with.
Finally, Evil has always had the advantage of being free to kill the Good guy and take all his stuff without worrying about their conscience. Good needs the Flags in order to justify their actions.
Really, all these Flags do is level the playing field so that Evil isn't the only threat.
I agree. "Evil" players should be flagged, and like it. Much like the Dread Lords of UO worked hard to become "Dreaded". Good aligned characters (or Neutral for that matter) should not be inclined to randomly attack other players or break the law, and should be protected in that endeavor by the Gods or the overall rules of PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20121121
So Fort Inevitable is LN, Fort Riverwatch is LG, and we know from the Thornkeep book that it is CN.Selection of Alliances
As play begins, we're going to have a limited number of alliances in the game, concentrating on a smaller number to make sure they get proper resources and attention rather than spread ourselves too thin on a wider number of alliances. For now, we think the initial spread will probably look something like this:
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
So dumb question on somewhat of a tangent and perhaps this is just due to my limited knowledge of the source material but...
Fort Inevitable which is run by Hellknights would flag a Chelaxian Priest/Noble for doing something which is common behavior (slavery) in thier home nation and ignore said individuals being cut down in the streets by an Andoran Paladan? Does that strike anyone as a bit off base?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20121121
So Fort Inevitable is LN, Fort Riverwatch is LG, and we know from the Thornkeep book that it is CN.Selection of Alliances
As play begins, we're going to have a limited number of alliances in the game, concentrating on a smaller number to make sure they get proper resources and attention rather than spread ourselves too thin on a wider number of alliances. For now, we think the initial spread will probably look something like this:
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 ThornkeepSo dumb question on somewhat of a tangent and perhaps this is just due to my limited knowledge of the source material but...
Fort Inevitable which is run by Hellknights would flag a Chelaxian Priest/Noble for doing something which is common behavior (slavery) in thier home nation and ignore said individuals being cut down in the streets by an Andoran Paladan? Does that strike anyone as a bit off base?
Yup!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well what if the heinous flag only removed the consequences when the algnment differs between the flagged and the potential crusader. Maybe go so far as to make it so only those with a good algnment get the "free kill". That would help keep the lawful evil communities from falling apart.I think this raises the question "Should the ability to see tags be filtered by the difference between the alignment of the viewer and the alignment of the tagged?"
I'd be for this if it can be implemented, but with regard to all flags, not just "heinous".
I am still at a loss why those who want to play an "evil" PC are so against this particular flag. The more I think about it, them I want to play an alt that is evil, as it simply makes things more interesting. Plus Nihimon has a point - any "good" character can't simply attack an "evil" one without getting the attacker flag, so using the logic I have seen here, any "good" PC that attacks an "evil" PC shouldn't get any flag because that "gimps" the "good" guys. The idea of flags give in-game reasons for open PvP, and keeps them from being unnecessary PvP, as defined by Ryan. So a Necromancer or a Cleric of Asmodeus does something evil, it has meaning AND consequences. Most playing an evil PC won't mind the attacker and killer flags if they kill another PC, since that is how they choose to RP an evil character. Good PC's don't have that choice, even if the lore supports attacking certain followers of a deity or people that do certain actions on sight. So it boils down to, don't flag me because I am evil doing evil things, but flag a good PC because they attacked me in keeping with their ethos.
Additionally, how many players are actually going to do the two examples listed under the heinous flag? It appears that it would only apply to those who wish to either raise undead or have play slavers. I'd venture to say unless either (or any other act deemed heinous, as yet not known) makes a lot of coin, few will do them. Most players tend to do things that make money, even if the RP well. Even in EvE, most players I have met are more interested/motivated by how much isk they can accumulate than, hey, this is what an evil character would do, so I am doing it! I can only use EvE as an example as it is the only sandbox MMO I have played.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well what if the heinous flag only removed the consequences when the algnment differs between the flagged and the potential crusader. Maybe go so far as to make it so only those with a good algnment get the "free kill". That would help keep the lawful evil communities from falling apart.I think this raises the question "Should the ability to see tags be filtered by the difference between the alignment of the viewer and the alignment of the tagged?"I'd be for this if it can be implemented, but with regard to all flags, not just "heinous".
I am still at a loss why those who want to play an "evil" PC are so against this particular flag. The more I think about it, them I want to play an alt that is evil, as it simply makes things more interesting. Plus Nihimon has a point - any "good" character can't simply attack an "evil" one without getting the attacker flag, so using the logic I have seen here, any "good" PC that attacks an "evil" PC shouldn't get any flag because that "gimps" the "good" guys. The idea of flags give in-game reasons for open PvP, and keeps them from being unnecessary PvP, as defined by Ryan. So a Necromancer or a Cleric of Asmodeus does something evil, it has meaning AND consequences. Most playing an evil PC won't mind the attacker and killer flags if they kill another PC, since that is how they choose to RP an evil character. Good PC's don't have that choice, even if the lore supports attacking certain followers of a deity or people that do certain actions on sight. So it boils down to, don't flag me because I am evil doing evil things, but flag a good PC because they attacked me in keeping with their ethos.
Additionally, how many players are actually going to do the two examples listed under the heinous flag? It appears that it would only apply to those who wish to either raise undead or have play slavers. I'd venture to say unless either (or any other act deemed heinous, as yet not known) makes a lot of...
As I most likely will be a Cheliaxan Priestess of Asmodeus, I can see myself regularly doing both of these activities. Evil players are against this flag because, as for example, my character will really be required to do these things on a regular basis to be true to my character. I don't want to be walking around with a flag that allows me to be freely killed even in my own evil cities. That is the point.
The pro Heinous flag players seem to think that all other evil players will ignore and respect the heinous flag, well they won't because they know that there is no consequence for attacking me while I'm under it. I shouldn't be subjected to this just for playing true to my character. I have no problem with being flagged as a criminal in good cities or any cities where these activities are against the law but not in my own lawful evil cities and lands, where these activities would be typical behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a glaring "Kill me it costs you nothing" heinous flag waving over your head, it doesn't matter what settlemnt your living in. Someone will take advantage of it.
I'm not sure if you saw it, but LordDaeron made a proposal in Goblinworks Blog: Blood on the Tracks:
IMO the heinous flag should just make you a target for good aligned players...
That seems like a fantastic idea to me. Would something like that work for you? Knowing that your Evil compatriots wouldn't have a "Kill Fiendish Free" card?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon
I think the better response would be whether the flag applies or not depends upon the settlement itself...
So a LG walking into a hex controled by a LE settlement (and I really think Fort Inevitable should be LE) and attacking a character with the heinous flag gets flagged as a criminal by that settlement....since the LE settlement doesn't regard what the target did as "heinous" attacking them would be a criminal act there (i.e. murder)...but in a neutral or good controled hex..the heinous character is essentialy a free target.
This still allows for conflict between Good and Evil characters without placing the Evil character at such a huge disadvantage - they are never safe from attack anywhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel,
Currently, if I kill you while you have any Flag, I won't get any Flag at all. I wonder if it fits the devs' vision to allow Settlements to define a law against killing in such a way that I would at least get the Criminal Flag.
I think that's basically what you said, and I think that's a good idea.
[Edit] I still think it's appropriate to make the Heinous Flag something that only Good characters can freely attack you for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nihimon
Yes, I want limits on the heinous flag or even removing it as I feel it could be handled by individual territory laws. I just want the developers to know that those of us who want to play a more sophisticated evil above and beyond just a bandit are against a universal heinous flag that makes us a target for every player in the game.
Slavery can't be considered universally wrong if it's a major practice in Cheliax, one of the most powerful nations in Golarion. As GrumpyMel has stated, places like Fort Inevitable and territories allied with them should not see that as a crime.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slavery can't be considered universally wrong if it's a major practice in Cheliax, one of the most powerful nations in Golarion. As GrumpyMel has stated, places like Fort Inevitable and territories allied with them should not see that as a crime.
An anti-slavery stance is a core tenant of the River Kingdoms, where the game is set. Whatever they may do in their own homeland, if the Hellknights practiced or permitted slavery here, they would be run out by the collective might of the rest of the River Kingdoms. Or provoke open war. If they wish to maintain their outpost here, they would have to disallow it locally.
That said, I think the heinous flag could be limited to only protecting against alignment shift for the attacker, such that if you cut down someone with the heinous tag in an area where they do not also have another flag (criminal, thief, etc) and where murder is illegal, they would still have to deal with that. They wouldn't end up more evil, but they might get in trouble with the town watch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slavery can't be considered universally wrong if it's a major practice in Cheliax, one of the most powerful nations in Golarion. As GrumpyMel has stated, places like Fort Inevitable and territories allied with them should not see that as a crime.
Slavery is considered universally wrong in the River Kingdoms. It is against the River Freedoms. Yes, the HellKinghts may be ok with slavery in Cheliax, but it's so univerally abhorrent to all of the River Kingdoms that if a city-kingdom were to employ it in the River Kingdoms, everyone in the region would band together to wipe out the settlement. It has happened before.
The Hellknights are trying to gain a foothold in the River Kingdoms, so if they are smart, they will be making slavery illegal in Fort Inevitable. At least until they are in control of the entire region.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can certainly understand why it would make sense to do away with the Heinous Flag completely, and simply allow Settlements to make laws against Slavery or Raising Undead.
However, I can also see good reasons why the devs might want those things to be considered universally heinous throughout the River Kingdoms.
Ultimately, I find myself siding with the devs and wanting to give them a lot of leeway to set the tone.
If the Heinous Flag remains, and it has a chilling effect to the degree you're worried about, I'm confident the devs will find some way to moderate it so that it's not so significant.
I think we all agree that it should be possible to play meaningfully Evil characters without making yourself a punching bag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The true advantage of any evil character is that until you do something overtly evil, no one knows your alignment. To quote the movie Constantine, "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exists." A system that leaves any lasting tag on a character for past acts disallows the evil person the ability to blend back into the woodwork. Should the victim or people in the victim's party be allowed to retaliate without gaining some sort of flag, certainly. Death curses, bounties, and in-game word-of-mouth can all add to the realistic cost of playing an evil character, but if the system of consequences is so overwhelming as to make the playing of an evil character simply too restrictive or costly to even contemplate, then the role-played community will lose an incredibly important component.
I have stated in other threads that there is no nemesis half so entertaining as a player-run nemesis. Well played evil characters add a level of danger, cat-and-mouse intrigue, and competition that no AI code can ever duplicate. Long ago, on the Catskills shard of Ultima Online, there were several role-played guilds, most notably the Crimson Alliance and and Undead based in Necropolis, The Shadowclan Orcs, the Drow, and the United Pirates (though their piracy was often balanced with their comic relief antics). In-game and in-character, they were a constant hazard, but their actions were based on role-played reactions, not random ganking. Out-of-character, their players were viewed as vital members of the RP community. I would hate to see any game mechanic restrict the actions of similar groups or individuals in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Slavery can't be considered universally wrong if it's a major practice in Cheliax, one of the most powerful nations in Golarion. As GrumpyMel has stated, places like Fort Inevitable and territories allied with them should not see that as a crime.Slavery is considered universally wrong in the River Kingdoms. It is against the River Freedoms. Yes, the HellKinghts may be ok with slavery in Cheliax, but it's so univerally abhorrent to all of the River Kingdoms that if a city-kingdom were to employ it in the River Kingdoms, everyone in the region would band together to wipe out the settlement. It has happened before.
The Hellknights are trying to gain a foothold in the River Kingdoms, so if they are smart, they will be making slavery illegal in Fort Inevitable. At least until they are in control of the entire region.
Even if that's the case, remember they are making a game system that has general application to the Pathfinder setting. They may even want to expand at some point outside of the River Kingdoms (they've kind of hinted as much) or expand what the flag is used for.
It's kind of a bad practice, IMO, to hard code things in that are region specific. It's also a bad practice, IMO, to impose regionaly mores on player controlled settlements, once they exist, in a sandbox game. What if Fiendish and a group of like minded individuals become strong enough someday to forge thier own settlement. Can they not wave thier middle finger at the general more's of the River Kingdoms within thier OWN territory. Can they not create laws that make it illegal for someone to kill them for the practice of slavery within thier OWN settlement which is controled by thier OWN forces?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The true advantage of any evil character is that until you do something overtly evil, no one knows your alignment. To quote the movie Constantine, "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exists." A system that leaves any lasting tag on a character for past acts disallows the evil person the ability to blend back into the woodwork. Should the victim or people in the victim's party be allowed to retaliate without gaining some sort of flag, certainly. Death curses, bounties, and in-game word-of-mouth can all add to the realistic cost of playing an evil character, but if the system of consequences is so overwhelming as to make the playing of an evil character simply too restrictive or costly to even contemplate, then the role-played community will lose an incredibly important component.
I have stated in other threads that there is no nemesis half so entertaining as a player-run nemesis. Well played evil characters add a level of danger, cat-and-mouse intrigue, and competition that no AI code can ever duplicate. Long ago, on the Catskills shard of Ultima Online, there were several role-played guilds, most notably the Crimson Alliance and and Undead based in Necropolis, The Shadowclan Orcs, the Drow, and the United Pirates (though their piracy was often balanced with their comic relief antics). In-game and in-character, they were a constant hazard, but their actions were based on role-played reactions, not random ganking. Out-of-character, their players were viewed as vital members of the RP community. I would hate to see any game mechanic restrict the actions of similar groups or individuals in PFO.
Agree 100%
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The true advantage of any evil character is that until you do something overtly evil, no one knows your alignment. To quote the movie Constantine, "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exists." A system that leaves any lasting tag on a character for past acts disallows the evil person the ability to blend back into the woodwork. Should the victim or people in the victim's party be allowed to retaliate without gaining some sort of flag, certainly. Death curses, bounties, and in-game word-of-mouth can all add to the realistic cost of playing an evil character, but if the system of consequences is so overwhelming as to make the playing of an evil character simply too restrictive or costly to even contemplate, then the role-played community will lose an incredibly important component.
I have stated in other threads that there is no nemesis half so entertaining as a player-run nemesis. Well played evil characters add a level of danger, cat-and-mouse intrigue, and competition that no AI code can ever duplicate. Long ago, on the Catskills shard of Ultima Online, there were several role-played guilds, most notably the Crimson Alliance and and Undead based in Necropolis, The Shadowclan Orcs, the Drow, and the United Pirates (though their piracy was often balanced with their comic relief antics). In-game and in-character, they were a constant hazard, but their actions were based on role-played reactions, not random ganking. Out-of-character, their players were viewed as vital members of the RP community. I would hate to see any game mechanic restrict the actions of similar groups or individuals in PFO.
I also agree.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general, we're pretty sure that MMOs are a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior. Keep in mind that we're quite likely to have a large contingent of players that wound up Evil not due to a principled roleplaying decision, but because they like killing dudes and think evil has the best clothes.
So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums. We suspect that these will be necessary to keep some kind of balance in the alignments, given the overall tendency of most player bases. If it turns out that we were overly cynical about human behavior, and it does indeed result in a chilling effect on players willing to play down at the other end of the spectrums, we'll happily relax or remove some of these rules. But it seems like it'd be more agreeable to start strict and ease off than to try to patch in a bunch of new penalties later.
Heinous itself was added to the design recently in response to players a month or so ago specifically worried that the general alignment systems meant their paladins would have to stand by and watch evil characters do horrible things that they couldn't stop without major penalties. Making it a general system seems better, as that means we're not putting in something that only paladins get to use, but as the discussion above has noted we may eventually want to make it more directed if it does result in weird evil-on-evil dynamics.
It is likely that we'd let your LE settlement make it a crime to attack a character just for being Heinous, and this would be true in Fort Inevitable. Choosing whether to break a law that protects evil is just the kind of moral quandary a paladin in Fort Inevitable or similar environs should have to face. And the oncoming Criminal flag might cut down on the number of your evil peers that are interested in jumping you just because they can.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In general, we're pretty sure that MMOs are a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior. Keep in mind that we're quite likely to have a large contingent of players that wound up Evil not due to a principled roleplaying decision, but because they like killing dudes and think evil has the best clothes.
So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums. We suspect that these will be necessary to keep some kind of balance in the alignments, given the overall tendency of most player bases. If it turns out that we were overly cynical about human behavior, and it does indeed result in a chilling effect on players willing to play down at the other end of the spectrums, we'll happily relax or remove some of these rules. But it seems like it'd be more agreeable to start strict and ease off than to try to patch in a bunch of new penalties later.
Heinous itself was added to the design recently in response to players a month or so ago specifically worried that the general alignment systems meant their paladins would have to stand by and watch evil characters do horrible things that they couldn't stop without major penalties. Making it a general system seems better, as that means we're not putting in something that only paladins get to use, but as the discussion above has noted we may eventually want to make it more directed if it does result in weird evil-on-evil dynamics.
It is likely that we'd let your LE settlement make it a crime to attack a character just for being Heinous, and this would be true in Fort Inevitable. Choosing whether to break a law that protects evil is just the kind of moral quandary a paladin in Fort Inevitable or similar environs should have to face. And the oncoming Criminal flag might cut down on the number of your evil peers that are interested in jumping you just because they can.
Thank you, Stephen! I knew you Devs would already have been thinking about this :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, we're pretty sure that MMOs are a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior. Keep in mind that we're quite likely to have a large contingent of players that wound up Evil not due to a principled roleplaying decision, but because they like killing dudes and think evil has the best clothes.
So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums. We suspect that these will be necessary to keep some kind of balance in the alignments, given the overall tendency of most player bases. If it turns out that we were overly cynical about human behavior, and it does indeed result in a chilling effect on players willing to play down at the other end of the spectrums, we'll happily relax or remove some of these rules. But it seems like it'd be more agreeable to start strict and ease off than to try to patch in a bunch of new penalties later.
Heinous itself was added to the design recently in response to players a month or so ago specifically worried that the general alignment systems meant their paladins would have to stand by and watch evil characters do horrible things that they couldn't stop without major penalties. Making it a general system seems better, as that means we're not putting in something that only paladins get to use, but as the discussion above has noted we may eventually want to make it more directed if it does result in weird evil-on-evil dynamics.
It is likely that we'd let your LE settlement make it a crime to attack a character just for being Heinous, and this would be true in Fort Inevitable. Choosing whether to break a law that protects evil is just the kind of moral quandary a paladin in Fort Inevitable or similar environs should have to face. And the oncoming Criminal flag might cut down on the number of your evil peers that are interested in jumping you just because they can.
Ahhh, it is refreshing to see common-sense rationality. Carry on!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, we're pretty sure that MMOs are a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior. Keep in mind that we're quite likely to have a large contingent of players that wound up Evil not due to a principled roleplaying decision, but because they like killing dudes and think evil has the best clothes.
So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums. We suspect that these will be necessary to keep some kind of balance in the alignments, given the overall tendency of most player bases. If it turns out that we were overly cynical about human behavior, and it does indeed result in a chilling effect on players willing to play down at the other end of the spectrums, we'll happily relax or remove some of these rules. But it seems like it'd be more agreeable to start strict and ease off than to try to patch in a bunch of new penalties later.
Heinous itself was added to the design recently in response to players a month or so ago specifically worried that the general alignment systems meant their paladins would have to stand by and watch evil characters do horrible things that they couldn't stop without major penalties. Making it a general system seems better, as that means we're not putting in something that only paladins get to use, but as the discussion above has noted we may eventually want to make it more directed if it does result in weird evil-on-evil dynamics.
It is likely that we'd let your LE settlement make it a crime to attack a character just for being Heinous, and this would be true in Fort Inevitable. Choosing whether to break a law that protects evil is just the kind of moral quandary a paladin in Fort Inevitable or similar environs should have to face. And the oncoming Criminal flag might cut down on the number of your evil peers that are interested in jumping you just because they can.
Ok I can live with that as long as your last paragraph is implemented; then I don't see any problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the Heinous Flag remains, and it has a chilling effect to the degree you're worried about, I'm confident the devs will find some way to moderate it so that it's not so significant.
I think we have very good reason to trust that the devs aren't going to screw this up :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope there is a way to hide your alignment (other than detect evil and such spells)
The most fun I ever had with a character was a LE wizard. He was weak and grew up being picked on and even though he was smarter than everyone else he got passed over all the time. He realized that these inferior people should not be in charage, because he knew better than them.
He worked out the plan on how he could come to power and decided he would make the people love him. He put on the act of being a good guy while in the background anything that got in his way he quietly had taken care of. It took close to 10 levels before some of my play group (other than the GM) started to figure out what I was doing.
I had more fun with that character than I have ever had with any other one. I really hope our alignment will not be displayed like as some sort of faction like WoW does with alliance/hord.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just hope there is a way to hide your alignment (other than detect evil and such spells)
The most fun I ever had with a character was a LE wizard. He was weak and grew up being picked on and even though he was smarter than everyone else he got passed over all the time. He realized that these inferior people should not be in charage, because he knew better than them.
He worked out the plan on how he could come to power and decided he would make the people love him. He put on the act of being a good guy while in the background anything that got in his way he quietly had taken care of. It took close to 10 levels before some of my play group (other than the GM) started to figure out what I was doing.
I had more fun with that character than I have ever had with any other one. I really hope our alignment will not be displayed like as some sort of faction like WoW does with alliance/hord.
Nice, I had a similar character who was my favorite. She was officially a Chaotic Neutral wizard but she seriously crossed into Chaotic Evil territory on several occasions. However she was very charismatic and kept her image clean as far as her group and the public was concerned. It was delicious. The party kept wondering why they had such bad luck, well it was usually the result of things I had done behind their backs. Eventually they started to put it together, then it became "Gabrielle what did you do?!!!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The true advantage of any evil character is that until you do something overtly evil, no one knows your alignment. To quote the movie Constantine, "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exists."
I agree totally, but stress the part above. None of these flags affect someone who hasn't actually done anything.
A system that leaves any lasting tag on a character for past acts disallows the evil person the ability to blend back into the woodwork. Should the victim or people in the victim's party be allowed to retaliate without gaining some sort of flag, certainly. Death curses, bounties, and in-game word-of-mouth can all add to the realistic cost of playing an evil character, but if the system of consequences is so overwhelming as to make the playing of an evil character simply too restrictive or costly to even contemplate, then the role-played community will lose an incredibly important component.
Once someone's done something worthy of it, they are marked because people will know that they might do it again. There's no hiding of your personal history in a game with magical divination and resurrection where your victims come back from the dead to tell their tales.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Banecrow
I had a character who was the exact opposite of yours. Her action to many were evil cannibalism,extreme violence, no moral compass what so ever. But the gm and I had her as c/n since she did not know any better. She did evil acts the same way an animal would kill because no one ever taught her is was wrong to do certain things. Neither did the group try to teach her. Once pc slept up a tree cause he was so afraid of her.
Then one day they came across a intelligent evil sword and when she finally got her hands on it and her alignment switched to evil the whole group yelled what you mean she not been evil up to now?
I loved player her even though it was only a matter of time before the group put her down like a rapid cur.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In general, we're pretty sure that MMOs are a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior. Keep in mind that we're quite likely to have a large contingent of players that wound up Evil not due to a principled roleplaying decision, but because they like killing dudes and think evil has the best clothes.
So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums. We suspect that these will be necessary to keep some kind of balance in the alignments, given the overall tendency of most player bases. If it turns out that we were overly cynical about human behavior, and it does indeed result in a chilling effect on players willing to play down at the other end of the spectrums, we'll happily relax or remove some of these rules. But it seems like it'd be more agreeable to start strict and ease off than to try to patch in a bunch of new penalties later.
Heinous itself was added to the design recently in response to players a month or so ago specifically worried that the general alignment systems meant their paladins would have to stand by and watch evil characters do horrible things that they couldn't stop without major penalties. Making it a general system seems better, as that means we're not putting in something that only paladins get to use, but as the discussion above has noted we may eventually want to make it more directed if it does result in weird evil-on-evil dynamics.
It is likely that we'd let your LE settlement make it a crime to attack a character just for being Heinous, and this would be true in Fort Inevitable. Choosing whether to break a law that protects evil is just the kind of moral quandary a paladin in Fort Inevitable or similar environs should have to face. And the oncoming Criminal flag might cut down on the number of your evil peers that are interested in jumping you just because they can.
Paladin sees a person with a heinous tag walks up kills them.
Congratulations alignment violation.Murder is still murder its not a lawful or good act.
I still don't see how the heinous tag is anything more then a tool for so called "good" player to grief evil players with little to no penalty for thier behavior.
The concept behind the tag itself creates an environment where griefing is not only encouraged its rewarded.
It would be beneficial for us to know how long the Heinous flag lasts provided no further heinous actions are committed. If nothing else, just a general idea would help.
If its just something that will drop off after 15 mins, or if it persists for days will make a big difference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe a matching "self-righteous" tag to also allow you to smack down Paladins that become insufferably goody-goody?
I had a friend that played one of the most unbearably Paladin like Paladins in 3.5. He regarded any sort of tactics other than upfront combat dishonourable. The party would be trying to sneak past a camp of villians or ambush some bandits in a hide-out and he would march up bang loudly on the door and shout "Wake up heinious fiends, gather your weapons and prepare to recieve your just desserts in fair and rightous mortal combat with the faithful servants of almighty Pelor!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe a matching "self-righteous" tag to also allow you to smack down Paladins that become insufferably goody-goody?
I had a friend that played one of the most unbearably Paladin like Paladins in 3.5. He regarded any sort of tactics other than upfront combat dishonourable. The party would be trying to sneak past a camp of villians or ambush some bandits in a hide-out and he would march up bang loudly on the door and shout "Wake up heinious fiends, gather your weapons and prepare to recieve your just desserts in fair and rightous mortal combat with the faithful servants of almighty Pelor!"
This particular alignment is known as "Lawful Stupid."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin sees a person with a heinous tag walks up kills them.
Congratulations alignment violation.
Murder is still murder its not a lawful or good act.I still don't see how the heinous tag is anything more then a tool for so called "good" player to grief evil players with little to no penalty for thier behavior.
The concept behind the tag itself creates an environment where griefing is not only encouraged its rewarded.
They have the heinous tag, meaning they have done or are in the process of doing something truly evil. No alignment violation for the Paladin, since it is not murder. A Paladin is *meant* to stand up against Evil, in all its forms.
Good is meant to oppose Evil in this game. Good fighting Evil is not griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe a matching "self-righteous" tag to also allow you to smack down Paladins that become insufferably goody-goody?
I had a friend that played one of the most unbearably Paladin like Paladins in 3.5. He regarded any sort of tactics other than upfront combat dishonourable. The party would be trying to sneak past a camp of villians or ambush some bandits in a hide-out and he would march up bang loudly on the door and shout "Wake up heinious fiends, gather your weapons and prepare to recieve your just desserts in fair and rightous mortal combat with the faithful servants of almighty Pelor!"
Ah, lawful stupid. On the plus side, he is valiantly making himself the target of any alpha strike spells, and serving as a great distraction while everyone else is free to hit the flanks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe a matching "self-righteous" tag to also allow you to smack down Paladins that become insufferably goody-goody?
I had a friend that played one of the most unbearably Paladin like Paladins in 3.5. He regarded any sort of tactics other than upfront combat dishonourable. The party would be trying to sneak past a camp of villians or ambush some bandits in a hide-out and he would march up bang loudly on the door and shout "Wake up heinious fiends, gather your weapons and prepare to recieve your just desserts in fair and rightous mortal combat with the faithful servants of almighty Pelor!"
OMG, he would have had a short career if I was in the party. Nothing worse than a sanctimonious Paladin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Paladin sees a person with a heinous tag walks up kills them.
Congratulations alignment violation.
Murder is still murder its not a lawful or good act.I still don't see how the heinous tag is anything more then a tool for so called "good" player to grief evil players with little to no penalty for thier behavior.
The concept behind the tag itself creates an environment where griefing is not only encouraged its rewarded.
They have the heinous tag, meaning they have done or are in the process of doing something truly evil. No alignment violation for the Paladin, since it is not murder. A Paladin is *meant* to stand up against Evil, in all its forms.
Good is meant to oppose Evil in this game. Good fighting Evil is not griefing.
I agree with this: Good is in contention with Evil. As to Decorus: "Congratulations alignment violation. Murder is still murder its not a lawful or good act."
If you are flagged: That is meaning open to attack by others with no alignment cost. Second murder in game means just respawn - it's not permadeath and in fact dying is something all characters experience plenty I imagine in mmorpgs?
Flagging is indication forbidden actions ie evil can manifest in "the end justifies the means", I think disturbing the dead's silent slumber or slave labour to earn a quick buck sounds exactly how an evil person would resort to in Golarion? A Good person would forbid themselves such temptation and profit and in fact their gods might reward them for smiting such evil actors??
Sounds good to me if I am a necromancer or a paladin. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would be beneficial for us to know how long the Heinous flag lasts provided no further heinous actions are committed. If nothing else, just a general idea would help.
If its just something that will drop off after 15 mins, or if it persists for days will make a big difference.
From the Blog:
Heinous: Certain incredibly evil actions (like raising undead or using slaves in a construction project) may briefly flag a character with the Heinous flag.
It appears by the wording (emphasis mine) that some of the time you may not get flagged at all, especially when combined with Stephen's post above, and if you are, it will only last a brief while. As to what is brief, it could be 15 mins or an hour, perhaps? Doesn't sound like it lasts that long in any case, certainly not days I should think, as that isn't what most people would consider brief.