Goblin Squad Member
|
@Avena
That is entirely possible and I will be interested to see what they have to say in that regard. The difficulty I am having is reconciling what we know about PvP so far with the intial design statement that this will be a largely PvP focused game.
From a purely mechanical standpoint, here is what I see so far:
- "Evil" is at a mechanical disadvantage and a fairly significant one. So very few people will want to play it, from a pure gameplay standpoint.
- Initiating PvP outside the context of War generaly makes one "Evil" which places one at a mechanical disadvantage so very few people will want to do that from a pure gameplay standpoint.
- War requires mutual consent. Which means that no power which does not believe it has an overwhelming advantage against it's opponent will be willing to risk engaging in it...since War requires consent of said opponent.. no wars will occur.
What I'm seeing from the above is that the optimal game-play strategy is to trick/goad an opponent who you believe is at a disadvantage to you into engaging in PvP so that you can defeat them without negative consequence, take thier stuff and place them at a further mechanical disadvantage as a result of thier attack by shifting them toward Evil. As players are not generaly stupid, I believe this will be the primary element of gamelplay in the system currently described for PFO.
I think PvP under the currently proposed system will largely revolve around the few griefers who are actualy stupid enough to initiate it who will thereupon by jumped on by everyone else hungry for something to do. These griefers will probably give up and leave quite quickly. Smart griefers will probably play the goad/trick game like everyone else (and I expect will be quite skilled at it) or find ways to annoy people that don't fall under the PvP system. The other potential initiaters of PvP may be Alts that players sacrifice as "punching bags" so folks will have something to do in game.
This system would be entirely viable for a game that was focused primarly on PvE. I just don't see it working well for a PvP focused game.
I mean why would any player that isn't a complete moron or masochist do something that is purposefully designed to place them at a significant disadvantage and do it on a regular basis?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kryzbyn: Right but for you, how would you play your ideal evil character if you had the tools as you needed them?
Well, take a necromancer for example. I suppose he would have to adventure to a point where he could cast the necessary spells to summon and control undead. Up until that poin he would try ot pass himself off as any other wizard. Then over the course of time I expect he would find someplace suitable for a lair, and start amassing an army of undead. Then he would march them toward a settlement, and demand tribute. Or demand they allow him access for supplies, or he razes the settlement. He would probably have a couple higher end undead as body guards in case someone comes gunning for him. He certainly won't go hunting for folks to kill for no apparent reason. That would blow his cover.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- "Evil" is at a mechanical disadvantage and a fairly significant one. So very few people will want to play it, from a pure gameplay standpoint.
This statement is not supported by the information we have shared.
Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)
Lawful Good will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Keeping that alignment in the face of temptation to use force to solve problems will be hard)
Lawful Evil will get all the upside of being able to use force to solve problems, and will have awesome Settlements.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From a purely mechanical standpoint, here is what I see so far:
- "Evil" is at a mechanical disadvantage and a fairly significant one. So very few people will want to play it, from a pure gameplay standpoint.
- Initiating PvP outside the context of War generaly makes one "Evil" which places one at a mechanical disadvantage so very few people will want to do that from a pure gameplay standpoint.
- War requires mutual consent. Which means that no power which does not believe it has an overwhelming advantage against it's opponent will be willing to risk engaging in it...since War requires consent of said opponent.. no wars will occur.
What I'm seeing from the above is that the optimal game-play strategy is to trick/goad an opponent who you believe is at a disadvantage to you into engaging in PvP so that you can defeat them without negative consequence, take thier stuff and place them at a further mechanical disadvantage as a result of thier attack by shifting them toward Evil. As players are not generaly stupid, I believe this will be the primary element of gamelplay in the system currently described for PFO.
I think PvP under the currently proposed system will largely revolve around the few griefers who are actualy stupid enough to initiate it who will thereupon by jumped on by everyone else hungry for something to do. These griefers will probably give up and leave quite quickly. Smart griefers will probably play the goad/trick game like everyone else (and I expect will be quite skilled at it) or find ways to annoy people that don't fall under the PvP system. The other potential initiaters of PvP may be Alts that players sacrifice as "punching bags" so folks will have something to do in game.
This system would be entirely viable for a game that was focused primarly on PvE. I just don't see it working well for a PvP focused game.
I mean why would any player that isn't a complete moron or masochist do something that is purposefully designed to place them at a significant disadvantage and do it on a regular basis?
I have to agree. At this point they might as well drop the notion of playing evil as a type of gameplay. Remove pvp entirely and just make it a pve game. From the trend I have been seeing this is the direction the game is going. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just not what I had pledged for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For that matter, along Grumpy's point, who would actually fight over resources? If you need to remain good and have high rep to have the most benefit, who would risk doing the things people are supposed to do to have meaningful interactions? Who's gonna risk the rep/alignment dump?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Grumpy Mel
-This system would be entirely viable for a game that was focused primarly on PvE. I just don't see it working well for a PvP focused game.
Thats what I have been saying, might as well make it PvE at this rate.
-I mean why would any player that isn't a complete moron or masochist do something that is purposefully designed to place them at a significant disadvantage and do it on a regular basis?
If thats the case I sure as hell wont. I will either leave the game or possibly switch careers to being a "good" guy. On the whole risk vs reward pendallum, as far as Im concerned its like "what reward?". However, it would more likely be leave the game. I mean, it does seem to be part of the official startegy to chase players away....
"things that if you do them, you'll face increasingly stiff penalties to the point where we hope you'll quit and go play some other game."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Danneth Sky - There is no good reason to play a chaotic evil character except if you like being other people's content.
I think the strongest opposition that Lawful Good Settlements will face will come from Lawful Evil Settlements.
I think that many players will find that their choices often funnel them towards Chaotic Good social structures, thus those communities will often be the largest, most diverse, and most active.
I see most of the "neutral" positions on the alignment grid as either a delicate balancing point that you have to work hard to maintain so that you can be a bridge between other, larger social structures, or a temporary waypoint as your character's actions pull them towards one of the four corners.
RyanD
So, based on that post, I assume LE Sttlements will have balanced power and equivalent access to buildings in comparison to LG ones?
If yes, I believe I missunderstood the blog post that led me to think evil settlements were going to be weaker in relation to available buildings.
I'm glad to know things are going to be balanced in this aspect of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few scenarios to ponder:
1. A big evil group meets a small good group in the wilderness. They attack, of course they attack.
2 A small evil group meets a big good group in the wilderness. They might attack, but if there is no chance to win they probably won't. They call backup and whack the good guys.
3. A big good group meets a small evil group in the wilderness. The good guys issue a challenge. The evil group doesn't take it. The good group leaves them alone. The evil guys call backup and whack the good guys.
4. A small good group meets a big evil group in the wilderness. I don't have to tell you what is going to happen.
Who doesn't want to play evil. Good is seriously handicapped by being good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Paladins are heroic adventurers who use Good and Law to fight evil and chaos as expressed primarily by outsiders, undead, monstrous creatures, aberrations and magical beasts, placing themselves into extremely dangerous situations and using the powers gifted to them by their patron deities to confront and vanquish elemental evil and chaos.
Paladins should not be engaged in killing other characters except in defense of Lawful Good Settlements. They should not be taking revenge for harm caused to other characters by 3rd parties.
Paladins should be standing in ancient barrows fighting wights, or issuing challenges to ogres who are terrorizing the Common Folk, or hunting and killing demonic creatures that have infiltrated civilization.
Paladins should serve as an example to others of the power and the glory that comes from living a righteous life, adhering to a rigorous code of honor, and placing oneself - one's very soul - at risk to protect the weak, defend the Realm, and upholding the tenants of the Faith.
RyanD
I see where you're going here, but I'm not sure how the "protect the weak" part comes into play. Could you explain how that would work if a Paladin sees a criminal attacking a weak player who they aren't in a group/settlement with? I guess I mean, how loose would the "allies" part of the Attacker flag mechanic be?
Also, how long do you think the Heinous flag would last? Do I have to patiently wait until I catch a vile necromancer who serves Zon-Kuthon in the act of raising undead, or if they are doing it, can we go after him?
|
What exactly makes a settlement Lawful Good as compared to Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil? (Or any alignment, really) This is just my opinion, but I wouldn't consider the Roman Empire to be a Lawful Good kingdom, despite being considered one of the greatest civilizations by most historians. Lawful, yes (Romans loved their laws), but good? Not even a little. Slavery, warmongering, etc. The Mongol Empire, the largest Empire in the world, also wouldn't be Lawful Good by the standards we used for a lot of the same reasons (Warmongering, lots and lots and lots of murder and rape, etc.)
This is just a major problem with the alignment system, really. I am not saying abandon it, especially since it has so long been a part of the DnD/PF game, but it is confusing.
What real life nations would be considered lawful good? (This may have been addressed in an actual PF book, but not one I have read. XD )
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
- "Evil" is at a mechanical disadvantage and a fairly significant one. So very few people will want to play it, from a pure gameplay standpoint.
This statement is not supported by the information we have shared.
Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)
Lawful Good will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Keeping that alignment in the face of temptation to use force to solve problems will be hard)
Lawful Evil will get all the upside of being able to use force to solve problems, and will have awesome Settlements.
RyanD
Minus the lawful good part, this is exactly what I was understanding from everything I have read. Good to see a definitive statement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ryan
Could you please answer one thing for me?
What comes to mind, or what type of plans do you have in place for the proposed training limitations?
Does this only apply to obvious things like a bandit not being able to train paladin skills?
Or is this more like an enforced cap of say 70% to any type of training so long as you are following the "Dark" side?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Greedalox, my understanding was that the training limitation would come from being chaotic, not evil. Such that a chaotic settlement may not be organized enough to build the facilities required for training in some branches, like paladins or monks. Conversely, they may be the only place you could train barbarian skills.
|
|
Hasn't the alignment system already been done in Eve Online and it works fine? Considering how one of the big important folks (forget which one) came from CCP, wouldn't they know it works just fine and not have to worry about it?
From my limited knowledge of that game, players that act like criminals have a low (negative?) 'law' score or whatever and they can only go into certain places in the galaxy without getting attacked by players or NPC soldiers. The criminals therefore hang out in low or no law sectors and do their bandit stuffs there while those with high law (seriously have no clue what its called) are generally safe in high law sectors.
The blog really just sounds like they are using the same system, but with different names for how it all works.
That being said, I don't want to be punished for being a bounty hunter by having my score lowered and forced to hang out with those bandits I am hunting. XD
Edit: I did just have a thought that maybe a bounty hunter wouldn't be welcomed by high society because of their frequent work with the criminal element, so maybe it does kind of make sense... *ponders*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)
That makes sense - a settlement of CE characters wouldn't be able to work together well enough to prosper over the long run. They'd keep turning on each other.
They also would probably be willing to go to extremes that other players wouldn't - and should gain some kind of benefit for that, even if it's one that doesn't result in a long-term, kingdom building sort of advantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If this has been clarified, I apologize. But what if you “don’t” take a bounty to go after someone? Can a LG character then ‘go after’ an evil group….let’s use Andius’ example in the group of ‘Evil Murderdudes’ who just rode into town the previous day and killed five people.
As a LG character, without taking out a bounty, you can’t go after them without gaining an alignment hit and/or Attacker flag? And I mean after their Attacker flag has expired.
And if you cannot, then who exactly ‘can’ be sheriff? Don’t tell me law enforcement take hits in being aggressors/evil for doing their job. And finally, I’m not even talking about being a Paladin here, but just a normal LG character who wants to do justice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If this has been clarified, I apologize. But what if you “don’t” take a bounty to go after someone? Can a LG character then ‘go after’ an evil group….let’s use Andius’ example in the group of ‘Evil Murderdudes’ who just rode into town the previous day and killed five people.
As a LG character, without taking out a bounty, you can’t go after them without gaining an alignment hit and/or Attacker flag? And I mean after their Attacker flag has expired.
And if you cannot, then who exactly ‘can’ be sheriff? Don’t tell me law enforcement take hits in being aggressors/evil for doing their job. And finally, I’m not even talking about being a Paladin here, but just a normal LG character who wants to do justice.
Well, assuming murderduding is unlawful in that settlement, they will also have the criminal flag (in addition to the attacker flag) for the act. The criminal flag should last much longer than attacker (which ends shortly after the fight). We don't know how much longer, but I would think it should last a while. Preferably, at least 24 hours (the length of a bounty). Perhaps settlements could set the flag shorter if they feel a particular crime is less severe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An LG fighter could, but an LG Paladin would more likely weigh the consequences and decide to leave it for the CG/NG.
No, I mean going after an evil group ‘without’ taking any kind of hits. Why would a LG Fighter be able to do that over a Paladin?
I guess what I am getting at is the way the system sounds like it is set up right now is even if there was law enforcement, they would take alignment/reputation hits, unless the evildoers Attacker flag is still up. Just doesn’t make sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This statement is not supported by the information we have shared.
Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)
Lawful Good will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Keeping that alignment in the face of temptation to use force to solve problems will be hard)
Lawful Evil will get all the upside of being able to use force to solve problems, and will have awesome Settlements.
RyanD
Ok, perfect no arguments on that anymore. That is exactly the way I see it.
How about the neutral ones? Especially LN and TN (as a CN settlement would be a total mess LOL)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ryan
As far as I can see, LG is under no mechanical disadvantage since they have access to the best training facilities.
There may be some disadvantage in terms of PLAYER TEMPRAMENT in staying LG. Since the optimal game-play strategy is to be a clever, patient, annoying, jerk...in fact as annoying annoying and jerky as you possibly can....since goading/tricking/annoying another player into initiating PvP so you can respond without consequence and take thier stuff and then place them at a further disadvantage by shifting them Evil. There certainly will be a temptation for PLAYERS not to go hostile out of game frustration.
However, I posit the real response to that will not be the player slipping from LG due to those pressures...but simply hitting the "I quit" button. I know I would. Very few people want to play a game where the optimal game-play is to be as annoying, jerky and putting with frustration as you can while waiting for someone to attack you.
That's certainly not my definition of FUN. My definition of FUN is playing a game with other fun, decent human being whether they are allies or opponents where there is lots of conflict and Good can have fun being Good and Evil have fun being Evil and there is lots of good clean conflict between the two. Initialy that's what I thought PFO actualy was.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
- "Evil" is at a mechanical disadvantage and a fairly significant one. So very few people will want to play it, from a pure gameplay standpoint.
This statement is not supported by the information we have shared.
Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)
Lawful Good will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Keeping that alignment in the face of temptation to use force to solve problems will be hard)
Lawful Evil will get all the upside of being able to use force to solve problems, and will have awesome Settlements.
RyanD
What about Lawful Neutral?
Heh LordDaeron, beat me to it :p
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I find this blog extremely disappointing. Good is meant to oppose evil. How is *stopping evil actually evil*?! "Sorry, little orphans, but I can't stop them from burning down your orphanage. You see, they aren't devils, so me helping you would be wrong. And if I catch them later, then making sure they pay for their crimes would be even more wrong."
I am *thoroughly* disgusted with this blog. This makes a mockery of the alignment system and makes me embarrassed that I convinced people to support the kickstarter.
Shame on you, Goblin Works. Shame.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, assuming murderduding is unlawful in that settlement, they will also have the criminal flag (in addition to the attacker flag) for the act. The criminal flag should last much longer than attacker (which ends shortly after the fight). We don't know how much longer, but I would think it should last a while. Preferably, at least 24 hours (the length of a bounty). Perhaps settlements could set the flag shorter if they feel a particular crime is less severe.
Well, I’m making the assumption murdering is unlawful in my example. If you are talking about an evil settlement, ok sure, anything is possible.
I really think the criminal flag should last longer for murder. What if a group of players wipe out a couple of other players in off-peak times and there really isn’t anyone to go after them? So because it’s a day later, then they cannot be brought to justice?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An LG fighter could, but an LG Paladin would more likely weigh the consequences and decide to leave it for the CG/NG.
No, I mean going after an evil group ‘without’ taking any kind of hits. Why would a LG Fighter be able to do that over a Paladin?
I guess what I am getting at is the way the system sounds like it is set up right now is even if there was law enforcement, they would take alignment/reputation hits, unless the evildoers Attacker flag is still up. Just doesn’t make sense.
I believe that can be solved through the contract system. Maybe if the settlement governor (or someone designed to be a sherif) issues a special contrat asking people to hunt the evil criminals, any good char could accept this special contract w/o being penalized after attacking the evil group. What do you think of this idea?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, how long do you think the Heinous flag would last? Do I have to patiently wait until I catch a vile necromancer who serves Zon-Kuthon in the act of raising undead, or if they are doing it, can we go after him?
Paladins are heroic adventurers who use Good and Law to fight evil and chaos as expressed primarily by outsiders, undead, monstrous creatures, aberrations and magical beasts, placing themselves into extremely dangerous situations and using the powers gifted to them by their patron deities to confront and vanquish elemental evil and chaos.
Paladins should not be engaged in killing other characters except in defense of Lawful Good Settlements. They should not be taking revenge for harm caused to other characters by 3rd parties.
Paladins should be standing in ancient barrows fighting wights, or issuing challenges to ogres who are terrorizing the Common Folk, or hunting and killing demonic creatures that have infiltrated civilization.
Paladins should serve as an example to others of the power and the glory that comes from living a righteous life, adhering to a rigorous code of honor, and placing oneself - one's very soul - at risk to protect the weak, defend the Realm, and upholding the tenants of the Faith.
RyanD
If the necromancer is "vile" then killing him/her is not going to negatively affect you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe that can be solved through the contract system. Maybe if the settlement governor (or someone designed to be a sherif) issues a special contrat asking people to hunt the evil criminals, any good char could accept this special contract w/o being penalized after attacking the evil group. What do you think of this idea?An LG fighter could, but an LG Paladin would more likely weigh the consequences and decide to leave it for the CG/NG.
No, I mean going after an evil group ‘without’ taking any kind of hits. Why would a LG Fighter be able to do that over a Paladin?
I guess what I am getting at is the way the system sounds like it is set up right now is even if there was law enforcement, they would take alignment/reputation hits, unless the evildoers Attacker flag is still up. Just doesn’t make sense.
Nope. Killing people is evil. No ifs ands or buts, killing them is wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I find this blog extremely disappointing. Good is meant to oppose evil. How is *stopping evil actually evil*?! "Sorry, little orphans, but I can't stop them from burning down your orphanage. You see, they aren't devils, so me helping you would be wrong. And if I catch them later, then making sure they pay for their crimes would be even more wrong."
I am *thoroughly* disgusted with this blog. This makes a mockery of the alignment system and makes me embarrassed that I convinced people to support the kickstarter.
Shame on you, Goblin Works. Shame.
AD, I don't see them trying or wanting to create a system that supports what you are saying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*goes to be lawful evil*I know, Right?
Some of us are just going to have to.
I would be fine with that if I actually felt this had any resemblance to the game's take on good and evil and not just having a pacifistic world view shoved down our throats.
I know how good works in the P&P. And it uses violence to solve problems all the time. If they provide us with functional ways to resolve things without violence and allow us violence without penalty only if those fail than that is fine.
But lets do a quick poll.
How many of you have played good aligned characters in Pathfinder?
How many of you who said yes to that never killed an intelligent being with any of those characters?
How many of you killed many of them, and frequently?
I rest my case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would be fine with that if I actually felt this had any resemblance to the game's take on good and evil and not just having a pacifistic world view shoved down our throats.
I know how good works in the P&P. And it uses violence to solve problems all the time. If they provide us with functional ways to resolve things without violence and allow us violence without penalty only if those fail than that is fine.
But lets do a quick poll.
How many of you have played good aligned characters in Pathfinder?
How many of you who said yes to that never killed an intelligent being with any of those characters?
How many of you killed many of them, and frequently?
I rest my case.
I think should be added:
And how many of us took an alignment hit from our DM for killing that known evil Sorcerer/Fighter/Wizard/etc?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*goes to be lawful evil*I know, Right?
Some of us are just going to have to.
I would be fine with that if I actually felt this had any resemblance to the game's take on good and evil and not just having a pacifistic world view shoved down our throats.
I know how good works in the P&P. And it uses violence to solve problems all the time. If they provide us with functional ways to resolve things without violence and allow us violence without penalty only if those fail than that is fine.
But lets do a quick poll.
How many of you have played good aligned characters in Pathfinder?
How many of you who said yes to that never killed an intelligent being with any of those characters?
How many of you killed many of them, and frequently?
I rest my case.
They were (most of time) always attacking first. This is very annoying when you are a rogue. :)
But don't return to the alignement discussion. The description of alignement are vague to the subject of the DM. In my sense, GW respect the alignement description.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
How many of you have played good aligned characters in Pathfinder?
How many of you who said yes to that never killed an intelligent being with any of those characters?
How many of you killed many of them, and frequently?
I rest my case.
1) Not me (I am always on the neutral spectrum)
2) This is why I don't play good3) See #2
for reference from the Pathfinder PRD
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
I am assuming there is a way to change your alignment the other way around? Clearing hexes of critters and such?
All bandits just start with a LG character, do their thing untill it is time for the reversal and then clean up a bunch in the hexes.
Rinse and repeat. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
There is a strong difference between respect for life and being unwilling to end one. It is because I respect life that I am willing to end one to save the lives of random innocents. Otherwise I would simply hole up in TEO's hexes and only fight to defend myself.
|
|
Thought: Police Officers are Lawful Good (Not counting any crooked cops or whatever. The core concept of being a cop. TV Show cop. ) Cops are suppose to find non-lethal ways of subduing a criminal and are suppose to resort to lethal violence as a last resort. Even SWAT try to defuse a situation before they go in guns abalzing.
Maybe we are just looking at this all wrong and we actually are all crazy psychopaths. XD
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There is a strong difference between respect for life and being unwilling to end one. It is because I respect life that I am willing to end one to save the lives of random innocents. Otherwise I would simply hole up in TEO's hexes and only fight to defend myself.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
From the same PRD (read Pathfinder's definition of good/evil)
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thought: Police Officers are Lawful Good (Not counting any crooked cops or whatever. The core concept of being a cop. TV Show cop. ) Cops are suppose to find non-lethal ways of subduing a criminal and are suppose to resort to lethal violence as a last resort. Even SWAT try to defuse a situation before they go in guns abalzing.
Maybe we are just looking at this all wrong and we actually are all crazy psychopaths. XD
We also put criminals in jail. I’m sure you can see why that wouldn’t work here.
The only means of repercussion/punishment for criminals that makes sense for PFO, and other online games, is to kill/smite them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few scenarios to ponder:
1. A big evil group meets a small good group in the wilderness. They attack, of course they attack.
2 A small evil group meets a big good group in the wilderness. They might attack, but if there is no chance to win they probably won't. They call backup and whack the good guys.
3. A big good group meets a small evil group in the wilderness. The good guys issue a challenge. The evil group doesn't take it. The good group leaves them alone. The evil guys call backup and whack the good guys.
4. A small good group meets a big evil group in the wilderness. I don't have to tell you what is going to happen.
Who doesn't want to play evil. Good is seriously handicapped by being good.
The real hose is being Evil (worse training facilities) AND being the Attacker (subject to death curse, bounty, etc).
So optimaly what you want to do is be Lawful Good and get the other guy to attack you. By being Lawful Good you suffer none of the training issues associated with Evil and none of the kill penalties (death curse, bounty) for being the attacker. It's essentialy a free shot at your target. Additionaly by getting the other guy to Attack, you shift THEM toward Chaos and Evil which puts training penalties on them on top of it.
So the benefit isn't really from being Evil but from being ANNOYING enough that the opponent wants to initiate the PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I find this blog extremely disappointing. Good is meant to oppose evil. How is *stopping evil actually evil*?
Whoa, hold your horses, my friend. Remember the blog states: "Don't Panic!" This stuff all needs to go through live testing AND crowdforging/feedback and population response feedback.
That, said, I'd replace "exremely disappointing" with "confusing". I struggle to distinguish the 2 axis L-C, G-E, still. Also the balance to all this via settlements, what boosts our alignments eg penance was mentioned iirc etc.
Those are all a big deal. Period.
As to the question: Stopping evil is not evil, in fact doing nothing to stop evil is itself evil. So I agree on that principle of thinking. But I think the shift is all about how the numebers cumulate in relation to actions taken and the frequency of all this across individuals and populations. It's a huge system. EVE's flag system in tables is fairly large and impressive so I'm sure this is just the beginning.
Definitely don't prejudge so soon if I may say so. ;)
This is likely why most good aligned will end up chaotic good. It isn't going to be easy to play a Paladin well.
I think I might have a problem with authority in RL, so CG sounds possibly a fair reflection of my character... <.< , >.>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that while we could certainly get into a philosophical discussion of the evil inherent in taking another's life, despite what the PRD says, it's an understood concept in both D&D and PFRPG that some killing is justified and in fact, a good act.
I think you're applying a much stricter measure of alignment than was intended, and that even Paizo or WotC's own authors/designers use.