|
Any Settlement that isn't prepared to field a very good, very large combat force will be crushed. A Settlement that is full of rich economic assets and doesn't have a good army will have a very, very short life.
Realistically what is going to happen is that people who are good at organizing, good at communicating and good at social networking are going to have the most successful Settlements. Those people are not going to be the ones who are out seeking random "for the lulz" PvP. There will likely be a sizeable number of such Settlements, because the best of those organizers like to be "king". But they'll also have the social tools to network between each other and forge alliances that allow them to come to one another's aid rapidly when needed. Many of these Settlements will be "Good" aligned because the people who lead them and their immediate circles of friends like to think of themselves in that way, and the actions they engage in don't conflict with that self-view.
There will be one or two proportionately large "evil" groups, who will exist in a kind of protean soup, constantly changing names and leaders, but if you take a few steps back you'll recognize that it's basically the same people through all the permutations. The big "evil" groups will occasionally spark a big war, occasionally self-destruct (temporarily before they almost immediately reform), and are consumed internally with bickering and backstabbing like a bunch of teenage girls in a too-small highschool. (By the way, many of the people in these "evil" groups will operate under the philosophy that they are really the "good" group, and that the alignment system of the game is a joke, designed to highlight hypocrisy and designer stupidity, and when they're not out attempting to kill as many inexperienced and unprotected characters and destroy as many badly organized Settlements as possible, they'll expound on these "truths" at length in every forum available to them.)
[These "Evil" groups, by the way, create a ginormous amount of content for everyone else. They're the dynamo that drives the action in the game.]
In between will be a vast sea of constantly generating, growing, collapsing and reconfiguring Settlements that never seem to be able to make much headway or which focus on things like being high-end crafters or mercenaries. Whenever they get too big or too organized, they get stomped on, and they won't have leaders who are adept enough to hold the entity together under a concentrated assault. The territory they hold will often be associated with one of the larger good or evil groups - they will hold territory by permission, not by will, and in turn they'll owe fealty and obligations to their patrons. These groups will have alignments all over the map (as befits their various leader's opinions of who they are and what they are doing). Once in a very long while, a young upstart group will break out of the pack and grow large enough, fast enough, to stand as a peer to the other large entities, and that will force considerable reconfigurations in the balance of politics, diplomacy, war and economics throughout the whole game.
This, by the way, is pretty much how EVE developed over the years, I'm not just making this up out of my imagination.
*begins to slow clap*
See, this all sounds awesome. This is the game I am excited for. :DAlso, I just came to a realization and I can't believe I didn't see it before. The entire reason behind the shifts towards evil for 'hunting' players and such, one of the things a lot of people are arguing about, is to prevent 'lawful good' characters from griefing 'evil' characters.
I can totally imagine companies of Lawful Good characters sitting on Evil corpses or devastating Evil settlements in the name of 'good', but what they are really doing is griefing those other players. That might sound Stupid Good, but it does kind of make sense.
I hope that settlements can be taken over without totally destroying them, an evil guild taking over a good settlement may end up with many buildings that they can't really use, but some of the basic buildings would still be useful. and unless the evil guild spends the time/money/effort to destroy the good buildings, if the settlement is retaken by a good force, they will be immediately usable by the good guild.
Unfortunately this won't be possible. I asked the same question and someone posted where in a blog Ryan said that in order for 1 group to seize the hex of another group, they must first destroy all buildings, guard towers, everything from the former settlement. Only then can they take over the hex.
I had hoped that settlements could be taken over as well, but it's not to be.
Goblin Squad Member
|
@All
Why do some of you seem to equate "no alignment shift towards Evil" with "no consequences"? The two are not identical.
I would forward the arguement that the role of "Good" heroes in Pathfinder PnP PRIMARELY is to go out and "gank" Evil Characters...to even "GRIEF" them, in fact. I would hazard that's probably the core of what a good 85 percent of Pathfinder/D&D modules are all about.
Now, those Evil Characters getting "ganked" are NPC's not PC's. Cosmologicaly however there is no difference between an NPC Evil Elf and a PC Evil. That's an OUT OF GAME concern. The Pathfinder Cosmos is BLIND to the terms PC and NPC because those terms don't exist in universe.
I GET that Players of Evil Characters don't want to be ganked/griefed any more then Players of Good/Neutral characters do. No one is saying that there should NOT be sensible controls in place to deal with those issues, at least I'm not.
What I am saying is that the ALIGNMENT system is a very poor choice of control to use for those controls. The alignment system really is about measuring where the character stands in relation to the cosmology of the Universe...an in game concern. The Anti-Greifing system is about preventing PLAYERS from harming other PLAYERS of the game...an entirely OUT OF GAME concern.
Think about the ramifications moving forward. What if GW ever wanted to allow Evil players to have characters that became Vampires or Liches. Might be a cool/fun possibility for those players. Yet a Paladin would become CE for seeking out and killing PC Vampires and Liches? Well that would just make those players <Heinous> you might say? But is it really good for those players to be ganked/griefed any more then any other player of similar power?
What if GW wanted to allow Drow or Goblins as a PC race. So killing NPC Goblins and Drow is a Good act while killing PC ones is bad? Does that make sense?
Look, I'm not saying that they couldn't do these things and get them to work in some fashion. But I'm saying, honestly is the BEST, MOST EFFECTIVE, MOST SENSIBLE approach to be using? Because right now it costs ZERO dollars to consider that question and see if we can suggest an approach to them that actualy works better and makes the game more fun for everyone involved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ryan
Thanks for clearing that up.
So basically to sum it up (if i have it correctly)
1) A LG character will not be able to just go out and kill "evil" PCs, vigilanty style. Which makes sense as the characters are LG and not CG or LE
2) A LG character can say patrol an area where some others are in, and if those other people get attacked, they should be able to freely step in and help protect them (by attacking the attacker)
3)In general a LG character needs a FORMAL reason to kill someone. This formal reason can be the PC has the appropriate flags or you are at war with them.
That makes sense and I am glad I wont have to shelf my palading concept.
Overall i think thats a good thing. Part of bieng LG is that you cannot just go around chopping heads off. The upside is that LG is basically a perfect combo to build a strong settlement (people follow the laws and people treat each other well) and you get access to people like paladins who can smite evil. The downside is that it can be difficult to maintain the LG alignment and not be tempted to just go out and vigilante.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it kind of ironic that some of the people most upset over the flag / alignment system are the same who were so concerned about "Random Player Killing" and now what they are upset about is that if they RPK, they will drift towards CE.
There's a huge difference between RPK'ers who target newbies and the people who hunt them down. That you call the people who want to hunt them down "RPK'ers" doesn't make them so. There's nothing "random" about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Andius
Sounds like they may have a solution to present us next week, don't you think? A champion flag (if i'm imagining it right) looks like the mechanism people want, to have a way to fight evil proactivelly.Hey guys,
.
A few points I wanted to clarify:
*Next week we'll have a new blog post about long term alignment-oriented PvP flags players can set on themselves that let players better be assassins, champions of good, etc, but the price is being bigger PvP targets. Basically if you want to be a Champion, an Outlaw, an Assassin, etc you can flag yourself as one, announcing your intentions but giving yourself some bonuses to your chosen role and opening up your PvP options.
Excellent! Sticking our necks out on the line to protect the innocent! If they give these champions the rights the need to protect non-champion good/neutral characters that could be a good solution.
@Nihimon- Perfectly said. I was going to respond but I would only echo what you just said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To be honest, I genuinely believe the answer is staring us in the face on this. And indeed, Lee's excellent post on city reputations has kind of made it apparent to me.
Reputation should be the mechanic for attacking/griefing/being a jerk. This works well, is a meta-stat more for game policing and enforcement and hopefully 99% of the population will never really even know its there, as it will have little or no impact on them. Perhaps it is something that could start at 100% and then trend downwards as the reports flow in. It could also be something that 'very slowly' regenerates, allowing someone who started off being a ganking pain in the butt, a chance to redeem themselves and eventually re-join the community. It's essentially self-imposed jail-time. Oddly this means much less work for you guys, as the its the players own actions and interactions with others that lead to this.
Low reputation players get less access to resources and are gradually bled dry as they go lower and lower. This works just fine for me. Players should be able to nominate an attacker with a reputation hit as part of the 'death curse' mechanic. Someone killing noobs will have no rep real quick. Bounty options and death cursing would make this even less attractive.
Alignment itself should not have any mechanics associated with one way or another that directly affect players.
Law vs Chaos - It can be lowered to Chaotic through in-game actions, such as robbing, stealing, spying, trespassing, declaring war constantly with lawful entities or any other breaking of the rules set by a chartered company in their hex. It could be raised by joining a city guard, adhering to contracts, performing actions for Lawful dieties etc.
The outcome of this becomes how companies would then accept you or be willing to deal with you, but remains a) as a player role-playing opportunity and b) gives players with non-griefing chaotic tendencies a chance to play legitimately within the Out-Of-Game rules of Pathfinder Online.
Good vs Evil - Again you simply predetermine a list of legitimate in-game possibilities that can raise or lower the good/evil alignment axis. They can and should have different options as Lee pointed out when it comes to settlements but the important thing here is that both be viewed (in terms of the meta-game) as viable alternatives. Necromancy is evil, that's fine, you become more and more evil and good players can legitimately shun or try to attack you. Champions of good do the same. These actions by a player says "I invite the contest" and this leaves the decision in the players hands and remains a role-playing opportunity.
This means a genuine thieves guild of scum and villainy (and they do exist) could still actually function within the game as mercenaries, raging barbarian hordes can still work, and paladins can still go out and hunt their natural arch foes.
So what does this mean? You have two mechanics, alignment to generate role-playing and legitimate pvp systems between players, and reputation as a meta-mechanic to assist in controlling out-of-control player behaviour.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Good vs Evil - Again you simply predetermine a list of legitimate in-game possibilities that can raise or lower the good/evil alignment axis. They can and should have different options as Lee pointed out when it comes to settlements but the important thing here is that both be viewed (in terms of the meta-game) as viable alternatives. Necromancy is evil, that's fine, you become more and more evil and good players can legitimately shun or try to attack you. Champions of good do the same. These actions by a player says "I invite the contest" and this leaves the decision in the players hands and remains a role-playing opportunity.
Agree with your post except that you are first saying alignment shouldn't be affected by game mechanics but then go on to say it should be related to game mechanics. What I've been saying all along is killing another person is evil whether you do it for a good reason or not. It may be less evil evil because it is justified, but it is still evil.
Again quoting Pathfinders specific definitions of evil & good.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
I'm not saying a LG paladin should auto jump to CE for killing an evil character, I am saying that a LG paladin should become slightly less good and have to make up for killing someone by doing other good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good vs Evil - Again you simply predetermine a list of legitimate in-game possibilities that can raise or lower the good/evil alignment axis. They can and should have different options as Lee pointed out when it comes to settlements but the important thing here is that both be viewed (in terms of the meta-game) as viable alternatives. Necromancy is evil, that's fine, you become more and more evil and good players can legitimately shun or try to attack you. Champions of good do the same. These actions by a player says "I invite the contest" and this leaves the decision in the players hands and remains a role-playing opportunity.Agree with your post except that you are first saying alignment shouldn't be affected by game mechanics but then go on to say it should be related to game mechanics. What I've been saying all along is killing another person is evil whether you do it for a good reason or not. It may be less evil evil because it is justified, but it is still evil.
Again quoting Pathfinders specific definitions of evil & good.
I'm not saying a LG paladin should auto jump to CE for killing an evil character, I am saying that a LG paladin should become slightly less good and have to make up for killing someone by doing other good.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Actually pretty easy to fix I think. When an enemy is defeated you give an option, kill or subdue. Both mechanically have similar results. One is deemed a good action, the other evil and it becomes a player decision.
I should have clarified also, I tend to think of the mechanics of games as two types. Met-game mechanics (such as attempting to control player behaviour) should not directly affect a player unless they themselves break a rule.
In-game mechanics such as alignment do affect a character, but in a way that they choose to to supplement their character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In Classical High Fantasy there USUALY IS no other way to deal with EVIL then DESTROYING it. You, MAYBE, under VERY RARE circumstances be able to imprison it or drive it away...but that just risks it coming back in future to do more harm to the World ( ...Hi Sauron...).
Again that's kind of the core of the narrative of Classical High Fantasy.
I see you have been playing with groups that roleplay very differently that the ones I'm involved with...
I remmember that boring and righteous paladin trying to convince my CN fighter to spare the life of that thief who tried to pick pocket him, and bring him to justice instead...
Edit: just changed the alignment of the fighter to CN
Pickpocketing isn't EVIL...it's just unlawful (e.g. Chaotic).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With over 659 posts they definitely need to come out with clarification. Polar opposites are both saying this is not good and for different reasons.
I think I am going to pull back and let them come out with the blog. I'm willing to see how they are going to tie this all together. As it stands now my concerns are pretty simple.
1) I don't think any settlement should have a advantage based on alignment. If that happens than all you will see is the same settlement everywhere.
2) I don't see why they need to use alignment to prevent griefing. I think they can use reputation alone and use that completely. Let alignment be a RP tool. I AM NOT SAYING GOOD SHOULD HAVE FREE REIGN TO ATTACK EVIL. Keep all the mechanics for flagging, death curse,and bounties and let the victims, good or evil, use them for vengeance.
My hope is that they can ease my honest disappointment with the direction this is going.
@ryan
Thanks for clearing that up.
So basically to sum it up (if i have it correctly)
1) A LG character will not be able to just go out and kill "evil" PCs, vigilanty style. Which makes sense as the characters are LG and not CG or LE
2) A LG character can say patrol an area where some others are in, and if those other people get attacked, they should be able to freely step in and help protect them (by attacking the attacker)
3)In general a LG character needs a FORMAL reason to kill someone. This formal reason can be the PC has the appropriate flags or you are at war with them.
That makes sense and I am glad I wont have to shelf my palading concept.
Overall i think thats a good thing. Part of bieng LG is that you cannot just go around chopping heads off. The upside is that LG is basically a perfect combo to build a strong settlement (people follow the laws and people treat each other well) and you get access to people like paladins who can smite evil. The downside is that it can be difficult to maintain the LG alignment and not be tempted to just go out and vigilante.
There's actually no reason a Paladin can't go slay some evil player, even if they have no flags. It would just mean that they had to go perform some sort of LG act to ensure their alignment doesn't shift away from LG. by all indications the amount of "evil" shift you would get from killing an evil character will be quite minor, so keeping your alignment on LG won't be difficult.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I find it kind of ironic that some of the people most upset over the flag / alignment system are the same who were so concerned about "Random Player Killing" and now what they are upset about is that if they RPK, they will drift towards CE.There's a huge difference between RPK'ers who target newbies and the people who hunt them down. That you call the people who want to hunt them down "RPK'ers" doesn't make them so. There's nothing "random" about it.
But what being discussed here is not the ability to kill someone who is in the process of doing something evil without alignment hits. But the ability to kill someone who has committed evil acts in the past anytime anywhere without alignment hits. Conceptually this is nowhere near protecting the innocent and instead in the Red vs. Blue territory.
I am aware that this is maybe not accurate but it's the vibe i'm getting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes! Thank you so much Lee, this made a lot of things very clear.
I think Im finally on board with the system, and how it works. There are a couple of areas that could be tweaked, but nothing screams dealbreaker at me anymore.
I do have one question that I dont know if has been answered (assuming its known).
I know that characters can shift alingments, but can settlements? Or do they have a range?
For instance could I have a settlement that is TN, and then using the one alignment step away thinger, be able to cater to both Law and Chaos? And I dont mean just players. I mean training and such.
This assumes that there is either an alignment range for settlements facilities, or that my group could do chaotic or lawful acts to sway it from TN to CN and LN expressly for the purpose of gaining training access.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually pretty easy to fix I think. When an enemy is defeated you give an option, kill or subdue. Both mechanically have similar results. One is deemed a good action, the other evil and it becomes a player decision.
100% could agree with this, but there would have to be some mechanic where the subdue couldn't be re-done over and over IE. If you are subdued you basically still act like you died, ie you respawn back at your binding spot. I would even support you still loosing loot (although I think that a LG character would take a chaotic hit if they took the loot).
This could effectively allow LG characters to not take any hits, and still seek out justice and NG/CG have a differentiation that they can actually loot people they subdue.
Edit** added chaotic hit
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not saying a LG paladin should auto jump to CE for killing an evil character, I am saying that a LG paladin should become slightly less good and have to make up for killing someone by doing other good.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
When you go out and risk your life to fight to defend the weak this is an altruistic act. A personal sacrifice for the sake of others. The good of this act justifies the otherwise evil act of killing and it doesn't mean you don't respect life.
The existence of good aligned deities who's portfolios include war, battle, vengeance, and hunting evil conclusively proves that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But what being discussed here is not the ability to kill someone who is in the process of doing something evil without alignment hits. But the ability to kill someone who has committed evil acts in the past anytime anywhere without alignment hits. Conceptually this is nowhere near protecting the innocent and instead in the Red vs. Blue territory.
I am aware that this is maybe not accurate but it's the vibe i'm getting.
I agree and that is the slippery slope I mentioned I the Treaty thread. Some of the players of good would never be content to just anti griefing. We have now seen that some don't want to wait for someone to be currently flagged as a criminal either. They don't want to limit their pvp to the open pvp zones. They want to be able to attack anyone and anywhere that they feel, may have committed a crime in the past.
You are absolutely right, it is Red vs Blue. It was never about just anti griefing, it was also about a to anything we disagree with. That does not just apply towards evil characters. It will extend towards Chaotic Neutral characters as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pickpocketing isn't EVIL...it's just unlawful (e.g. Chaotic).
So no reason for a paladin go after and kill someone who just stole from a husk as it is a chaotic but not evil action?
I may have chosen a poor example but I believe you is quite inteligent to understand my point.
But let have some other examples:
This very paladin asked a criminal to surrender and only attacked him after he reffused to give up the fight.
This very paladin healed a criminal and took him as prisoner when she noticed he still alive after a big fight.
This very paladin refused to kill a man that was caught rapping a woman and just brought him to justice. The judge issued a death penalty against him though, but she argued that was not her right to kill a man before he gets a fair judgment.
Need I to come up with new examples or have you figured out how my friend used to play a paladin? So there are ways to play a paladin without being a fanatic evil beings killer, its up to the player and to the GM to allow that to happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Champions thing could be ok depending upon how it is designed but honestly it seems to me like a kludge to an awkard system that hasn't even been built yet.
I know as a Developer it's sometimes difficult to let go of certain concepts you had a liking for but honestly alot of times it's better (especialy when you haven't invested alot of resources built yet) to just scrap the whole thing and try to start out with a fresh, clean and elegant system from scratch.
I still think a more elegant solution is to simply divorce the Anti-Griefer mechanics from the Alignment system. Greifing and excessive PKing is an Out of Game/Out of Cosmos concern.....and a very valid one. Alignment is very much an In Game/In Cosmos concern. There is absolutely no neccesity in using the same system/mechanic to address both. It's your choice to do so of course...but I am surprised that you guys seem so invested in that choice at this stage of the game.
When you go out and risk your life to fight to defend the weak this is an altruistic act. A personal sacrifice for the sake of others. The good of this act justifies the otherwise evil act of killing and it doesn't mean you don't respect life.
.
But your not defending the weak in the situation you and Grumpy are putting forth. In that situation the weak have already been victimized by the evil player, so your just out for revenge in this instance. While you can twist logic around to justify this, it doesn't change the fact that killing is an evil act. Evil acts should have some sort of consequence.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Testing is going to get interesting when all of the systems currently in discussion get hit by live players trying to pervert them in glorious ways.
"Hey buddy, got change for a silver piece?"
"Sure"
"Thanks, have a reputation boost for being such an upstanding trader."
"Thanks. Got change for a silver piece?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pickpocketing isn't EVIL...it's just unlawful (e.g. Chaotic).
So no reason for a paladin go after and kill someone who just stole from a husk as it is a chaotic but not evil action?
You are deliberately confusing the issue by making the example corpse robbing ... naughty ...
My view:
Robbing = chaotic
Killing (regardless of motive) = evil
Corpse Robbing = Chaotic and Potentially Evil depend how you see it
No way I could read all of these posts, what a thread!
I did read all of Ryan's posts, and I am impressed with his explanations. Not worried at all about PvP in PFO. It looks ike they have a vision that will steadily develop into a great plan.
One thing I am not convinced of - the Gary Gygax idea of alignment making it into the game, realistically. I disagree that anyone is divided into those boxes, or dimensions, as they are "defined" by the rpg world. This website "Real" Alignments?
has a clever interpretation (based on research) that could work. It's worth a look. If you declare yourself to be Lawful Good (Conformity and Benevolence), and then immerse yourself in the context of the game, you may find your motivations and values reflect more of a Lawful Evil (Power and Security) point of view.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No way I could read all of these posts, what a thread!
I did read all of Ryan's posts, and I am impressed with his explanations. Not worried at all about PvP in PFO. It looks ike they have a vision that will steadily develop into a great plan.
One thing I am not convinced of - the Gary Gygax idea of alignment making it into the game, realistically. I disagree that anyone is divided into those boxes, or dimensions, as they are "defined" by the rpg world. This website "Real" Alignments?
has a clever interpretation (based on research) that could work. It's worth a look. If you declare yourself to be Lawful Good (Conformity and Benevolence), and then immerse yourself in the context of the game, you may find your motivations and values reflect more of a Lawful Evil (Power and Security) point of view.
It can work in the real world.
One example is that real world research has shown successful business people and politicians often have all the clinical signs of a psychopath, they just for reasons of their own conform to social norms.
Assuming we deem:
psychopath = evil
We hence would find psychopathic serial killers are Chaotic Evil and successful politicians are Lawful Evil. I have no issues with this, it fits my worldview well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pickpocketing isn't EVIL...it's just unlawful (e.g. Chaotic).
So no reason for a paladin go after and kill someone who just stole from a husk as it is a chaotic but not evil action?
I may have chosen a poor example but I believe you is quite inteligent to understand my point.
But let have some other examples:
This very paladin asked a criminal to surrender and only attacked him after he reffused to give up the fight.
This very paladin healed a criminal and took him as prisoner when she noticed he still alive after a big fight.
This very paladin refused to kill a man that was caught rapping a woman and just brought him to justice. The judge issued a death penalty against him though, but she argued that was not her right to kill a man before he gets a fair judgment.
Need I to come up with new examples or have you figured out how my friend used to play a paladin? So there are ways to play a paladin without being a fanatic evil beings killer, its up to the player and to the GM to allow that to happen.
Look, I'm certainly not trying to define how your freind should/should not play her Paladin. I'm not even actualy planning on playing a Paladin in PFO (strange how some folks seem to be assuming that)...just a LG Fighter...I'd be making the same arguements if I were planning to go CN.
In the examples you gave you friend had the OPTION to stop the villian by doing something other then killing but if that option disappeared and it was either use lethal force or be defeated and let the villian continue to do harm to others...it would be a very strange GM that shifted your friends alignment toward Evil for taking the lethal force option.
What I've been saying all along is killing another person is evil whether you do it for a good reason or not. It may be less evil evil because it is justified, but it is still evil.
That is directly contradicted by what Ryan Dancy is saying:
Will participating in warfare, specifically killing enemy combatants, move my alignment towards evil?No, it shouldn't.
This is what I mean by Good being subsumed to Law, if it's OK by the Law it's not Evil, but if it's against the Law, then it is Evil. CG is the red-headed stepchild.
Should only Evil MURDERERS be valid (Good-compatable) targets for vigilante CG types to pursue?
Other non-violent sources of Evil* NOT justify CG vindication? Sure.
* We don't know any yet, Necromancy and Slavery seem just as bad as Murder.
Would mere theft be something that doesn't 'deserve' death by CG hands? OK.
But this is getting into things that haven't been revealed yet, we don't know what other things MIGHT have alignment consequences, so when we discuss alignment we can only base it on things that have been associated with it for PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I've been saying all along is killing another person is evil whether you do it for a good reason or not. It may be less evil evil because it is justified, but it is still evil.That is directly contradicted by what Ryan Dancy is saying:
This is what I mean by Good being subsumed to Law, if it's OK by the Law it's not Evil, but if it's against the Law, then it is Evil. CG is the red-headed stepchild.Will participating in warfare, specifically killing enemy combatants, move my alignment towards evil?No, it shouldn't.
Yeah, I think what is going on is some idea that in WAR the moral responsibility is somehow removed from the individual and assumed by the society (war crimes excepted).
Something like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But your not defending the weak in the situation you and Grumpy are putting forth. In that situation the weak have already been victimized by the evil player, so your just out for revenge in this instance. While you can twist logic around to justify this, it doesn't change the fact that killing is an evil act. Evil acts should have some sort of consequence.
When you go out and risk your life to fight to defend the weak this is an altruistic act. A personal sacrifice for the sake of others. The good of this act justifies the otherwise evil act of killing and it doesn't mean you don't respect life.
.
Your argument falls flat on it's face when you include the part of my post you left out.
Beyond the existence of good aligned gods of vengeance, there are plenty of other good gods that support battle and war. Battles between good and evil aren't generally fought because good catches evil in the act of an atrocity. They are fought because good knows evil if left to itself will continue to harm others.
Good often fights evil because they know that by weakening or destroying it they can prevent further harm from being done. The lore is FILLED with support for this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But your not defending the weak in the situation you and Grumpy are putting forth. In that situation the weak have already been victimized by the evil player, so your just out for revenge in this instance. While you can twist logic around to justify this, it doesn't change the fact that killing is an evil act. Evil acts should have some sort of consequence.
When you go out and risk your life to fight to defend the weak this is an altruistic act. A personal sacrifice for the sake of others. The good of this act justifies the otherwise evil act of killing and it doesn't mean you don't respect life.
.Your argument falls flat on it's face when you include the part of my post you left out.
Beyond the existence of good aligned gods of vengeance, there are plenty of other good gods that support battle and war. Battles between good and evil aren't generally fought because good catches evil in the act of an atrocity. They are fought because good knows evil if left to itself will continue to harm others.
Good often fights evil because they know that by weakening or destroying it they can prevent further harm from being done. The lore is FILLED with support for this.
Even in a D&D world there is a perceived difference between righteous battle and vigilante vengeance.
There is a huge difference between fighting in an army of (insert god here)and randomly wandering about killing in that god's name.
In the real world wandering around shooting shoplifters, under-aged hookers and drug addicts in the head is unlikely to go well for you.
There is definitely a difference between LG and CG (NG in-between).
I'm just not seeing any proactive action that CG would do but LG wouldn't. (in PFO as described)
(or actions that a CG character would have no problem with, and a LG character would ONLY need to atone for the Law/Chaos aspect of things)
The input from Paizo and GW looks like we can expect some changes though. [/crossfingers]
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is definitely a difference between LG and CG (NG in-between).
I'm just not seeing any proactive action that CG would do but LG wouldn't. (in PFO as described)
The input from Paizo and GW looks like we can expect some changes though. [/crossfingers]
As i said before, Robin Hood style banditry, directed against evil groups only, would be one example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But your not defending the weak in the situation you and Grumpy are putting forth. In that situation the weak have already been victimized by the evil player, so your just out for revenge in this instance. While you can twist logic around to justify this, it doesn't change the fact that killing is an evil act. Evil acts should have some sort of consequence.
When you go out and risk your life to fight to defend the weak this is an altruistic act. A personal sacrifice for the sake of others. The good of this act justifies the otherwise evil act of killing and it doesn't mean you don't respect life.
.
Uhm no, from an IC perspective it's protecting the weak by preventing the evil character from going out and killing the weak again tomorrow. The same thing that LG adventurers do when they go out slay a band of drow, or orcs, ogres, etc.
It's revenge if the players character were doing it out of a desire to pay the Evil character back for PAST actions performed to harm the player character NOT out of a desire to prevent FUTURE harm to individuals the player character doesn't even have a personal connection with.
Past behavior is predictive of future events. Kind of an axiom for the genre.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lets wait the whole flag stuff and the ways you can balance your alignment through good and/or lawful to be explained next week, to have a real picture of all this system. For now, I just have a feeling that the champion flag will come to solve most of the problems that are being argued here. [/crossfingers]
As i said before, Robin Hood style banditry, directed against evil groups only, would be one example.There is definitely a difference between LG and CG (NG in-between).
I'm just not seeing any proactive action that CG would do but LG wouldn't. (in PFO as described)
Right on, exactly what I mean/intend.
Robin Hood style banditry is more than reasonable to push you towards a Chaotic alignment.But currently, attacking and killing an Evil target who doesn't have current active flags is an Evil act.
Doing the same within the context of a 'legal' war, or possibly (?) responding to a Criminal flag, is not Evil.
Believe me, I would be glad to have a CG Robin Hood style option be viable.
The consequences of Law vs. Chaos on it's own should be sufficient to cover Law/Chaos issues,
Good shouldn't be subsumed to only exist within a Lawful framework, or else Robin Hood doesn't work.
(The Reputation rating also exists as an arena of consequence, parallel to Good/Evil and Law/Chaos,
if some 'crusaders of Good' end up with low Reputations, that seems a plausible outcome of the system...)
If the CG Robin Hood vigilantes end up attacking/killing non-Evil people, I would expect that to have alignment consequences for the Good/Evil axis.
Many 'Evil' groups will end up having signifigant numbers of Neutral characters within their ranks, so that will be a factor.
Lets wait the whole flag stuff and the ways you can balance your alignment through good and/or lawful to be explained next week...
Agreed, I am optimistic, especially after the feedback from Lisa and Lee, apparently after a Paizo/Goblinworks pow-wow took place.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Andius If you are going to cite domains at least stick to the actual core dieties.
Cayden Cailean - CG - Chaos, Charm, Good, Strength, Travel
Desna - CG - Chaos, Good, Liberation, Luck, Travel
Erastil - LG - Animal, Community, Good, Law, Plant
Iomedae - LG - Glory, Good, Law, Sun, War
Sarenrae - NG - Fire, Glory, Good, Healing, Sun
Shelyn - NG - Air, Charm, Good, Luck, Protection
Torag - LG -Artifice, Earth, Good, Law, Protection
1 of those has war for a domain. And you know what the war domain gets you? Better abilities to fight. Fighting != killing (see subduel)
No way I could read all of these posts, what a thread!
I did read all of Ryan's posts, and I am impressed with his explanations. Not worried at all about PvP in PFO. It looks ike they have a vision that will steadily develop into a great plan.
One thing I am not convinced of - the Gary Gygax idea of alignment making it into the game, realistically. I disagree that anyone is divided into those boxes, or dimensions, as they are "defined" by the rpg world. This website "Real" Alignments?
has a clever interpretation (based on research) that could work. It's worth a look. If you declare yourself to be Lawful Good (Conformity and Benevolence), and then immerse yourself in the context of the game, you may find your motivations and values reflect more of a Lawful Evil (Power and Security) point of view.It can work in the real world.
One example is that real world research has shown successful business people and politicians often have all the clinical signs of a psychopath, they just for reasons of their own conform to social norms.
Assuming we deem:
psychopath = evil
We hence would find psychopathic serial killers are Chaotic Evil and successful politicians are Lawful Evil. I have no issues with this, it fits my worldview well.
Yes, what you point out is correct, the alignments show themseles in the real world - Just not in the rpg defined way. I take issue with good vs evil and law vs chaos as the dimensions. I would not say that a successful politician is "evil" or even "lawful", it's just that they might be very concerned with power and security (their own or even others'). There are probably more than 2 dimensions happening.
Anyway, trying to force "law vs chaos" and "good vs evil" on the world might back fire, or it could correct itself. Adding "reputation" might bring things in line, who knows.
But your not defending the weak in the situation you and Grumpy are putting forth. In that situation the weak have already been victimized by the evil player, so your just out for revenge in this instance. While you can twist logic around to justify this, it doesn't change the fact that killing is an evil act. Evil acts should have some sort of consequence.
When you go out and risk your life to fight to defend the weak this is an altruistic act. A personal sacrifice for the sake of others. The good of this act justifies the otherwise evil act of killing and it doesn't mean you don't respect life.
.Your argument falls flat on it's face when you include the part of my post you left out.
Beyond the existence of good aligned gods of vengeance, there are plenty of other good gods that support battle and war. Battles between good and evil aren't generally fought because good catches evil in the act of an atrocity. They are fought because good knows evil if left to itself will continue to harm others.
Good often fights evil because they know that by weakening or destroying it they can prevent further harm from being done. The lore is FILLED with support for this.
I left the part about he deities out because although PFO is being made with as much lore and systems from PFRPG as possible, it's a MMO so it'll have to differ from the RPG game in ways that allow the mechanics to function the way the Devs wish them to.
I think it's come down to just two of you trying to get out of any penalties from killing an evil, unflaged player. Even then there's a simple way to reverse the alignment hit that your not willing to acknowledge, a simple LG act. Something that a LG character should want to do anyway. I could see your point, and I would stand with you if killing 1 player that was evil knocked you off of a LG standing. But it's likely to take quite a number of kills before that happens so honestly I just can't understand why it's such a problem.
Would you explain why it's such an issue? I'm not deliberately being obtuse, I really don't understand..
@Andius If you are going to cite domains at least stick to the actual core dieties.
??? Ragathiel is no less part of Golarion than those Gods.
What Domains they have is just one clue, how they or their followers ACT is what is ultimately important.I left the part about he deities out because although PFO is being made with as much lore and systems from PFRPG as possible, it's a MMO so it'll have to differ from the RPG game in ways that allow the mechanics to function the way the Devs wish them to.
I don't see why we need to start removing Gods from Golarion before the game has even been created.
It's pretty simple, killing Evil characters doesn't need to push your Alignment towards Evil, that or Attacker flags never have to expire, which is functionally the same thing. That can be done, and doesn't break the game. People who do the 3 Evil things that we know about will know that they may be attacked without Good/Evil alignment consequences - Chaos/Law consequences still apply. How does that create a fundamental conflict with a MMO?|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Andius If you are going to cite domains at least stick to the actual core dieties.??? Ragathiel is no less part of Golarion than those Gods.
What Domains they have is just one clue, how they or their followers ACT is what is ultimately important.
Except that Ragathiel is not a god, but an angel.
From the Inner Sea Guide
OUTSIDER DEMIGODS
A number of powerful, unique outsiders exist who, while not true gods, still have the capacity to grant spells and are served on Golarion by cults of devoted worshipers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But your not defending the weak in the situation you and Grumpy are putting forth. In that situation the weak have already been victimized by the evil player, so your just out for revenge in this instance. While you can twist logic around to justify this, it doesn't change the fact that killing is an evil act. Evil acts should have some sort of consequence.
When you go out and risk your life to fight to defend the weak this is an altruistic act. A personal sacrifice for the sake of others. The good of this act justifies the otherwise evil act of killing and it doesn't mean you don't respect life.
.Your argument falls flat on it's face when you include the part of my post you left out.
Beyond the existence of good aligned gods of vengeance, there are plenty of other good gods that support battle and war. Battles between good and evil aren't generally fought because good catches evil in the act of an atrocity. They are fought because good knows evil if left to itself will continue to harm others.
Good often fights evil because they know that by weakening or destroying it they can prevent further harm from being done. The lore is FILLED with support for this.
Even in a D&D world there is a perceived difference between righteous battle and vigilante vengeance.
There is a huge difference between fighting in an army of (insert god here)and randomly wandering about killing in that god's name.
In the real world wandering around shooting shoplifters, under-aged hookers and drug addicts in the head is unlikely to go well for you.
Vengeance = Doing something as retribution for past offense to ones person.
Where was that in what Andius has put forward?
All I saw is X's nature as indicated by past history is an accurate predictor that X will continue to do harm to others in future. X must be sought out and defeated in order to prevent said future harm.
Vigilante = A person that has no lawful authority to act and is acting in contravention to the law\lawful authority.
In unclaimed territory thier is neither law nor lawful authority, therefore by defintion no one can be considered a vigilante there.
Furthermore since Andius is a Head of State, by definition he IS a lawful authority and neither he nor anyone acting under his direction could be considered a vigilante while operating in ANY territory that other then that held by a power who's Soveriegnty has been recognized by him and where he was not invited to act.
Essentialy you are doing the equivalent of claiming that the US Marines are acting as vengefull vigilante's when conducting a raid to disrupt the operations of a muderous pirate on the orders of the President where said Pirate is operating on an uncharted island somewhere that no power has claimed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius If you are going to cite domains at least stick to the actual core dieties.
Cayden Cailean - CG - Chaos, Charm, Good, Strength, Travel
Desna - CG - Chaos, Good, Liberation, Luck, Travel
Erastil - LG - Animal, Community, Good, Law, Plant
Iomedae - LG - Glory, Good, Law, Sun, War
Sarenrae - NG - Fire, Glory, Good, Healing, Sun
Shelyn - NG - Air, Charm, Good, Luck, Protection
Torag - LG -Artifice, Earth, Good, Law, Protection1 of those has war for a domain. And you know what the war domain gets you? Better abilities to fight. Fighting != killing (see subduel)
Off topic warning:
Well from a power gaming perspective, taking from that list Cayden Cailean with strength and travel (good strength stuff like enlarge plus fly and teleport wizardy stuff) has the best domains though the rapier is not the weapon of choice for a battle cleric. Odd a god with the strength domain having rapier as favored weapon.
On the other hand Iomedae (your war god) with the longsword as favored is a better choice for weapon. I am not a fan of the war domain but he also has Glory which can be pretty impressive.
However I was under the impression PFO was not giving us the core god list but some other selection of deities ? Does anyone have access to a list?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Furthermore since Andius is a Head of State, by definition he IS a lawful authority...
Whenever the GoblinWorks forums come out I'm putting this in my signature.
Would you explain why it's such an issue? I'm not deliberately being obtuse, I really don't understand.
I'm not going to repost the whole thing so just go back a page or two. It's a huge post of mine with a lot of bolded text. Hard to miss.
Anyway at this point I think the champion mechanic will very likely solve my concerns. I'm just here because I'm enjoying the debate.
while not true gods
The discussion isn't about what is a true God in Golarion, it is about how Good functions in Golarion, Gods ('true' or not) are only examples of alignment functionality, in this case Ragathiel is a given example of Good alignment who nonetheless seeks out Evil to destroy. Ragathiel could be a mundane rogue posing as a God, but if he is Good that is all we need to know here. He DOES grant Domains though, so including him in a list of entities granting Domains doesn't seem out of the ordinary, that they are Gods is irrelevant, their associated Domains in combo with their Alignment is what's relevant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
while not true godsThe discussion isn't about what is a true God in Golarion, it is about how CG functions in Golarion, Gods ('true' or not) are only examples of alignment functionality, in this case Ragathiel is a given example of CG alignment. Ragathiel could be a mundane rogue posing as a God, but if he is CG that is all we need to know here.
LG, I'm afraid. But he is a valid point that Good Gods do, in fact, promote vengeance and directly combating evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But your not defending the weak in the situation you and Grumpy are putting forth. In that situation the weak have already been victimized by the evil player, so your just out for revenge in this instance. While you can twist logic around to justify this, it doesn't change the fact that killing is an evil act. Evil acts should have some sort of consequence.
When you go out and risk your life to fight to defend the weak this is an altruistic act. A personal sacrifice for the sake of others. The good of this act justifies the otherwise evil act of killing and it doesn't mean you don't respect life.
.Your argument falls flat on it's face when you include the part of my post you left out.
Beyond the existence of good aligned gods of vengeance, there are plenty of other good gods that support battle and war. Battles between good and evil aren't generally fought because good catches evil in the act of an atrocity. They are fought because good knows evil if left to itself will continue to harm others.
Good often fights evil because they know that by weakening or destroying it they can prevent further harm from being done. The lore is FILLED with support for this.
I left the part about he deities out because although PFO is being made with as much lore and systems from PFRPG as possible, it's a MMO so it'll have to differ from the RPG game in ways that allow the mechanics to function the way the Devs wish them to.
I think it's come down to just two of you trying to get out of any penalties from killing an evil, unflaged player. Even then there's a simple way to reverse the alignment hit that your not willing to acknowledge, a simple LG act. Something that a LG character should want to do anyway. I could see your point, and I would stand with you if killing 1 player that was evil knocked you off of a LG standing. But it's likely to take quite a number of...
Firstly, I'm NOT trying to get out of penalties for killing an Evil, unflagged player. I welcome penalties. I'm saying that the SPECIFIC penalty of an Evil Alignment shift makes absolutely no sense. Certainly not in regards the actual cosmology of what High Fantasy is about...and would be counter-intuitive to what most people expect of High Fantasy.
I'm sure I could probably work around it... but (IMO) it's a poor clunky design...and it's completely uneccesary for PFO to have poor, clunky designs that people have to work around at this stage. When they could have more effective designs that accomplish the same goals. I care enough about the game to try to argue against poor designs when I see them.
I also see many people (mostly those not intending to play Good characters) making arguements that good characters have to be pacifistic and passive and basicaly sit around and let Evil romp all over everything until they get a permission letter from a lawyer allowing them to go out and politely ask the Evil-Doers to attend sensitivity training. Frankly it really gets my goat that people are trying to pass of the idea that the definition of Good in a High Fantasy setting is Hans Blix.
I also see alot of people jump to all kinds of absurd rationalizations in order to cover up the fact that they want to play Evil characters and don't want to face being attacked by the Good Guys while not flagged. I understand the desire not want to be attacked while unflagged....but c'mon drop the rationalizations. I get that Bobby the Arch-Fiend doesn't want to get ganked....but lets not try to pretend that it's actualy Evil for a Good character to go out and attack or kill an Arch-Fiend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LG, I'm afraid. But he is a valid point that Good Gods do, in fact, promote vengeance and directly combating evil.
I know how disappointing! If he was a NG I would switch my character concept to NG inquisitor Ragathiel immediately. I still could actually...
I would like to see people challenge my right to doll out justice as an inquisitor of the LG god of vengeance. Especially given my new favorite quote from Grumpy Mel. XD
Furthermore since Andius is a Head of State, by definition he IS a lawful authority...Whenever the GoblinWorks forums come out I'm putting this in my signature.
Would you explain why it's such an issue? I'm not deliberately being obtuse, I really don't understand.I'm not going to repost the whole thing so just go back a page or two. It's a huge post of mine with a lot of bolded text. Hard to miss.
Anyway at this point I think the champion mechanic will very likely solve my concerns. I'm just here because I'm enjoying the debate.
Well hopefully the Devs will go over this again and change, or add some things to settle this part of the topic. I don't think the changes to the death curse have been talked about much. I've a feeling that people will have some opinions on that change.