The need for 'bad' players / characters


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wasn't too worried early last year, the punishment systems seemed fine. You kill someone in 'protected' territory, you could get major consequences. I want the game to have a heavy PvP focus, but the PvP punishments seem to be going to far.

I feel it is important to have a healthy population of 'bad' players, it keeps things interesting. The rewards for being bad or good, should carry the same magnitude, but be different things. If someone wants to go around killing people, they make easy money, but they have to pay more for things, but not so much that it is preferable to be one side or the other.

I would like to see alignments evenly spaced out, and each side should have a disadvantage for every advantage. LG and CE should be able to become equally powerful with similar effort, through different means. While a LG organization may thrive on exploration and discovery, a CE organization will thrive on banditry and raiding, each advancing at a similar rate.

A game of cops and robbers is no good if everyone wants to be cops, or even if 70% of people want to be cops, because the robbers won't have fun and will just give up because they are constantly getting teamed up on.

Goblin Squad Member

Have no fear... the game will be filled with scum and villainy.

Goblin Squad Member

It's not going to be just good players vs. evil players. If there were 50% players killing others just for the sake they are evil, the game would have no non-PVP players in short order. There will be a place for those who don't want to PVP. PVP will occur as a result of conflicts, settlements vying for resources or trade routes, etc. And within that context, players will not be punished for killing. Don't worry about the penalty flags.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valkenr wrote:
I feel it is important to have a healthy population of 'bad' players...

I've been trying to make this point, and I was very pleased to see Stephen Cheney say basically the same thing. You don't need to worry about creating incentives to attract people to play Evil. It will happen... in droves.

Scarab Sages Goblinworks Executive Founder

Nihimon wrote:
I've been trying to make this point, and I was very pleased to see Stephen Cheney say basically the same thing. You don't need to worry about creating incentives to attract people to play Evil. It will happen... in droves.

You don't need to create incentives because being evil is it's own incentive, but you also don't need to punish it so much that no one wants to play it, particularly the people who want to play a *good* villain not just a PKer.

Personally, where the system is and is going so far I think it fine for evil players, but some people going on about not having consequences for their *good* characters when killing players just because they are evil speaks to a system of punishment with no means of reprieve, which IMHO takes the incentive away from evil for those people who want to play a meaningful evil character.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Maybe a mater of semantics but, ...
I don't think we need any bad players. We do need some good players playing evil characters.
I also don't think that all PvP even hostilities needs to be good vs evil or law vs chaos. In fact I'd be surprised if there weren't few CG vs CG battles.

Goblin Squad Member

Foscadh wrote:

Maybe a mater of semantics but, ...

I don't think we need any bad players. We do need some good players playing evil characters.

You are right. I get what you are saying, and I think that is what V. is commenting on.

Foscadh wrote:


I also don't think that all PvP even hostilities needs to be good vs evil or law vs chaos. In fact I'd be surprised if there weren't few CG vs CG battles.

I believe the main hostilities will be wars, or probably should be. War gives the community something tangible to become involved in. I think we'll see plenty of LG vs LG, actually.

Goblin Squad Member

@valkenr

I don't really agree with you on this. I think there's gonna be a lot of PVP in this game no matter what or how serious the penalties are. Everyone wants to whack someones assets, that's just how it is. The only thing that keeps people whacking each other is the reputation, meaning that sometimes people maybe have to take a break from whacking each other to get some positive rep to keep playing.


Lets not forget the hordes of Wowkiddies, bored with Wow, that see "open PvP" and think it'll be some gankathon game. So they will flock here, roll evil characters and begin doing what they always do, being Wowkiddies. Oh they will quickly get smacked by the penalties put in place to curb that sort of behavior. They will also fall like chaff before the swords of CCs who have been building up their forces, training and preparing all through EE. So many of them will run back to Wow with their tails between their legs while some might moderate their behavior and come to enjoy the game.

But I don't think we will have trouble finding people who want to play the evil PK'er type. Even if they don't remain here long, they will provide content for those of us who aren't planning on being zerging PK'ers.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't want to see any major mechanic, such as PvP consequences, based around people roleplaying.

I'm worried about what the future holds, because every update we get about PvP, introduces new penalties and expands old ones.

I was fine with this game when the only 'safe' places were the NPC cities, and killing people outside of the cities gave you at most a CE shift.

A major part of OPvP is self policing, and as with copyright laws, PFO seems to be moving towards a system that punishes 'good' people more than 'evil' people, who either shrug off the consequences because they are so deep, or find loopholes.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:

I don't want to see any major mechanic, such as PvP consequences, based around people roleplaying.

I'm worried about what the future holds, because every update we get about PvP, introduces new penalties and expands old ones.

I was fine with this game when the only 'safe' places were the NPC cities, and killing people outside of the cities gave you at most a CE shift.

A major part of OPvP is self policing, and as with copyright laws, PFO seems to be moving towards a system that punishes 'good' people more than 'evil' people, who either shrug off the consequences because they are so deep, or find loopholes.

I don't see how they are punishing good people, can you just elaborate a bit more?

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:

I don't want to see any major mechanic, such as PvP consequences, based around people roleplaying.

I'm worried about what the future holds, because every update we get about PvP, introduces new penalties and expands old ones.

I was fine with this game when the only 'safe' places were the NPC cities, and killing people outside of the cities gave you at most a CE shift.

A major part of OPvP is self policing, and as with copyright laws, PFO seems to be moving towards a system that punishes 'good' people more than 'evil' people, who either shrug off the consequences because they are so deep, or find loopholes.

My initial suspicion is that over-caution is warranted. Because "Good/Law" may have to watch their alignment more than "opposite/bad", does not mean they have no upside albeit in other ways eg settlement training.

Where I think things will be is the settled hexes will be where regulated pvp occurs and the unsettled/wilderness will be much more amenable to everyone challenging for dominance more loosely and skirmishes and the like.

As said, by Ryan, each settlement will need a standing army, so the Hexes will be (if good-lawful with extra upgrades) fairly defensive powerhouses??).

Edit: I think I misanswered this one. ^_^

Possibly reversing the above, it'll be easier/faster for evil/chaos (which ever is applicable) to attack and be aggressive in wilderness hexes but with their low laws and other considerations they may not defend so well their gains? But sounds fun sniping the main prospectors free of too many alignment checks and balances?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hopefully, I am misinformed or not properly understanding the Devs approach to flagging, bounties, alignment, etc.

Specifically, I am scratching my head trying to figure out how to be a "good" Lawful Evil type. My view of LE is that it is not necessary so bad, just effecient... kinda like that corporation many people work for - it's not a bad place to work, just don't expect to be treated kindly and oh lordy help you if you step outta line!

Er, ahyhoo... Here's hoping that evil types can be evil without constantly flagging themselves for curse-nuking from carebears.

I'm not interested in griefing, trolling, whatever. Evil should be done with a bit of style, a bit of panache, and a mailed fist raised toward you goody-goody freaks who probably molest stuffed bears in the privacy of your own homes!

"facere quod vis" , dawg =p

Goblin Squad Member

The main PvP arena in PFO seems to be wars between settlements, which are free of consequences for the players (aside from the actual declaration of war, which may have *settlement* consequences). All of the PvP penalties described are for PvP outside of that arena. The game is not about "cops and robbers" as you put it, it's about warring settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valandur wrote:
Lets not forget the hordes of Wowkiddies, bored with Wow, that see "open PvP" and think it'll be some gankathon game..

Speaking generally here Val, not pointing at you.

I hope we can get away from the habit of categorizing people.

I do it myself, and many do. It is part of the way people think to categorize and then describe that catagory with the characteristics that we think distinguishes it from another category.

But I really do think that many who play WoW don't really fit into some of the categories that have been popularized about them.

It is as bad as the way players in PvP games will often talk about role players.

It is just one way I think we could all improve as a subculture if we could be more careful about thinking of whole populations as a 'type' of person.

Goblin Squad Member

@Being

Well said, I will try to no inccur in this wrong way myself...


Being wrote:
Valandur wrote:
Lets not forget the hordes of Wowkiddies, bored with Wow, that see "open PvP" and think it'll be some gankathon game..

Speaking generally here Val, not pointing at you.

I hope we can get away from the habit of categorizing people.

I do it myself, and many do. It is part of the way people think to categorize and then describe that catagory with the characteristics that we think distinguishes it from another category.

But I really do think that many who play WoW don't really fit into some of the categories that have been popularized about them.

It is as bad as the way players in PvP games will often talk about role players.

It is just one way I think we could all improve as a subculture if we could be more careful about thinking of whole populations as a 'type' of person.

Can't deny the truth here. It's a bad habit, one I have to guard against least I post something like I did above :/

Thanks Being, well said.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

The need for "Villains" is part of the driving force of player interaction in PFO. Not the griefers and gankers so many are worried about (some far too worried about IMHO). It is what will give meaning to a living persistent world/game. Without Good and Evil, Chaotic and Lawful, and yes even Neutral PC's, this game will fail at its stated goals of making meaningful player driven content. So far the Devs and Lisa appear to get this and are taking positive steps to see that players can do all that is necessary to have meaningful interactions without the harassment typical of so many MMO's.

Right now, I am looking forward to seeing the latest Blog to learn what the meetings and discussions Lisa said would occur yield. Pathfinder, be it the RPG or PFO, would not be Pathfinder without some means for everyone to do what will be in-character in-game motivations, while still keeping things fun for all. Speaking for myself, I will enjoy the RP experience of dealing with well RP'ed "evil" villains and Neutral/Chaotic Bandits, as well as Good and/or Lawful PC's. This is what will bring PFO alive for me, and so many others. This will, in turn, lead to more player interaction not only with other players, but the whole game. What you do matters, and effects the game world. I believe in my heart that this is what most, possibly all, of us pledged out money to see happen. A living, persistent game world where our PC's actually have an impact, rather than the current theme-park styles where things are instanced and raids can be run over and over, ad nauseum, and the "Boss" never truly gets defeated, thus there is an "end game". Ryan has said there is no end game for PFO, and I like that very much. But in order to achieve this, we need those who will play not only champions of good, but villains, and those who pay little attention to Law & Order, or Selfishness & Chaos. Villains give Champions a reason for fighting the good fight, and so I am in agreement that they are as important as the "Good" guys. I just hope GW doesn't loose sight that the people in the middle, the "Independents" if you will, are also needed to make this truly a Pathfinder experience for all.

So +1 for pointing out the need for villains.

@The Shameless One - I expect your settlement, now, to be called Mos Eisley ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Somebody famous, I think they are or were Hollywood or Broadway, or it may have been vaudeville, said:

"There are no bad characters, there are only bad actors."

A well played villain can make a masterpiece out of a poor story.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"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

When the CEO of a company comes out and admits he feels that there should be an imbalance between alignments and it seems to favor LE, I don't think you need to worry about LE. I think you do need to worry about LG and CE by the above statements.

We all know that many gamers want the easy path. Give them that and a mechanical advantage for being evil and I will bet you will have plenty of villains.

Goblin Squad Member

I believe the neutral aligned settlers will be a key. Most CE will need to relly on NE and maibe TN settlements to advance skills etc. The same way CG people will need the NG and TN, but I believe the always can have acces to LG ones too.

Actually I have a doubt: People will be allowed to train in building of city other than the ones they are linked to?

Goblin Squad Member

This post by Ryan sorta hovers over some of these points: Is worth a look if anyone missed it: Realistically what is going to happen...


LordDaeron wrote:


Actually I have a doubt: People will be allowed to train in building of city other than the ones they are linked to?

In one of the blogs on crafting Ryan mentioned that in order to train more advanced crafting skills, players would have to seek out training facilities in other settlements, more advanced then their own. So I think people can go train in other settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Ty guys that solved my doubts :)

Goblin Squad Member

Valandur wrote:
LordDaeron wrote:


Actually I have a doubt: People will be allowed to train in building of city other than the ones they are linked to?

In one of the blogs on crafting Ryan mentioned that in order to train more advanced crafting skills, players would have to seek out training facilities in other settlements, more advanced then their own. So I think people can go train in other settlements.

I believe that was specifically in reference to the NPC settlements (i.e. only player settlements will have training for the more advanced skills). I do think you will be able to seek training at other settlements, if they allow you access. It's not clear if the 1-step away alignment restriction applies only to joining a settlement or it it applies to any access at all. If the latter, then CG players would not be able to access a LG settlement for training.


Kallan wrote:
Valandur wrote:
LordDaeron wrote:


Actually I have a doubt: People will be allowed to train in building of city other than the ones they are linked to?

In one of the blogs on crafting Ryan mentioned that in order to train more advanced crafting skills, players would have to seek out training facilities in other settlements, more advanced then their own. So I think people can go train in other settlements.
I believe that was specifically in reference to the NPC settlements (i.e. only player settlements will have training for the more advanced skills). I do think you will be able to seek training at other settlements, if they allow you access. It's not clear if the 1-step away alignment restriction applies only to joining a settlement or it it applies to any access at all. If the latter, then CG players would not be able to access a LG settlement for training.

Quite possible. I wonder if someone could sneak in and train if they aren't 'supposed' to have access to the settlement?

For reference, alignment is mentioned in the First and second question in this Transcript


Just looking at how those questions are answered it seems like 1 step away from a settlements alignment to join that settlement. I imagine access would be a lot more broad, after all it would be turning down trade from alignments that aren't totally opposed to the settlements alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

I Wonder if TN settlements will allow everybody to access all their stuff... That would be the way I would do, though.


I believe that in PFRPG a diagonal move is considered 2 steps. Check out this Chart to see what I'm saying.

That would be for joining a settlement. Just looking at access I think all alignments could enter freely.

Goblin Squad Member

I must admit to being rather disappointed that the current crop of "evil" players cannot seem to come up with anything truly diabolic to challenge the good side and seem to have become obsessed with the mechanics of petty chaotic banditry and serial killing.

One can only hope they secretly have some truly evil plots of an impressive nature in mind and are just rambling on about piracy and banditry just to divert our attention from their dastardly plans.

Goblin Squad Member

Neadenil Edam wrote:

I must admit to being rather disappointed that the current crop of "evil" players cannot seem to come up with anything truly diabolic to challenge the good side and seem to have become obsessed with the mechanics of petty chaotic banditry and serial killing.

One can only hope they secretly have some truly evil plots of an impressive nature in mind and are just rambling on about piracy and banditry just to divert our attention from their dastardly plans.

Chaotic murdering, I haven't really heard of anyone in favor of it, short of killing for the purpose of taking things. Now I am all in favor of evil summoning legions of unleashing demons into the world etc... but we don't even know the beginnings of possibilities there to even have a half way decent discussion. We know so far...

1. It might be possible to create one or more undead, doing so will generate the heinous tag for a short time
2. Assassins will be a potential player role, that will allow one to kill very evilly and induce a penalty worse than normal death. Both the assasain and the person who hired him, will be considered as having done an evil act.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
Neadenil Edam wrote:

I must admit to being rather disappointed that the current crop of "evil" players cannot seem to come up with anything truly diabolic to challenge the good side and seem to have become obsessed with the mechanics of petty chaotic banditry and serial killing.

One can only hope they secretly have some truly evil plots of an impressive nature in mind and are just rambling on about piracy and banditry just to divert our attention from their dastardly plans.

Chaotic murdering, I haven't really heard of anyone in favor of it, short of killing for the purpose of taking things. Now I am all in favor of evil summoning legions of unleashing demons into the world etc... but we don't even know the beginnings of possibilities there to even have a half way decent discussion. We know so far...

1. It might be possible to create one or more undead, doing so will generate the heinous tag for a short time
2. Assassins will be a potential player role, that will allow one to kill very evilly and induce a penalty worse than normal death. Both the assasain and the person who hired him, will be considered as having done an evil act.

Yes killing again.

What about good old stand over tactics, blackmail, sabotage, outright blatant bribery, market manipulation, pwower mongering - not to mention taking over the world - all the stuff real world evil is good at.

Everyone evil on here seems obsessed with low end henchmen level killing things.

Goblin Squad Member

We are not, we're just... working on the organizing.
Or picking a name.

Goblin Squad Member

Neadenil Edam wrote:

Yes killing again.

What about good old stand over tactics, blackmail, sabotage, outright blatant bribery, market manipulation, pwower mongering - not to mention taking over the world - all the stuff real world evil is good at.

Everyone evil on here seems obsessed with low end henchmen level killing things.

Of which most do not solely belong in the domain of 'evil'. Hopefully most of the playerbase is thinking along these lines.

I've mentioned multiple 'crimes' or dubious actions in other threads that do not involve murder, with respect to flags and the like. It's hard to plan things in advance if we don't know how mechanics are going to work.

For example, if I pick a pocket, forge a document, destroy/sabotage infrastructure, blackmail somone, etc etc, will I get the criminal flag at all? If so, it does make it really hard to perform such acts and act in a stealthy/insidious manner. I am sure there will be ways, but we need a better picture of the mechanics to get an idea of this. Likewise, we need a better picture of the mechanics to get an idea of how to combat such things also.

Goblin Squad Member

If the designers have a vision about what would make their system epic they could 'say it' to the evil aligned in-game, in the person of an evil god.

Goblin Squad Member

Considering forum anti-pvp activity I believe that the situation is much more pitiable.

Most likely the bad guys will live on-reserve, or the bad guys will be mercenaries who will be paid for being bad guys. =/

Goblin Squad Member

I don't believe we have seen everything. As central as warfare is intended to be it is very doubtful we yet have a good grasp on the viability of Evil.

The vocal critics of PvP on the forum do not have design control, have influence only where their wishes do not conflict with the necessities of the design.

What we will crowdforge will likely be focused narrowly on specific topics where the overall design finds a conundrum or dilemma where the designers find a decision between viable options must be made. At that point we will get to weigh in on our preferences.

Goblin Squad Member

nanacano wrote:

Considering forum anti-pvp activity I believe that the situation is much more pitiable.

Most likely the bad guys will live on-reserve, or the bad guys will be mercenaries who will be paid for being bad guys. =/

I think the bad guys will have a riot(fun) combating each other: And some very strong, stable associations will be forged from such a position. There's also the situation where a whole settlement may see an opportunity to break all it's laws and destroy another organisation happily paying the cost of alignment and possibly attempting to hold it's position by promising rich pickings for "new members" to hold off any reprisals etc.

If I was "bad", I'd start "good". :)

Goblin Squad Member

Bad girls gets a roll in the hay and bad boys gets the axe or noose... that is at least to my knowledge what usually happens. /grins

Goblin Squad Member

I still think we should all start as TN and our acts would determine our alignment. That would pose some problems, I know, but solve another: Most players that are not from RPGer background may not understand correctly the alignment system, to be able to pickup an alignment that will fit them correctly.

Goblin Squad Member

LordDaeron wrote:
I still think we should all start as TN and our acts would determine our alignment. That would pose some problems, I know, but solve another: Most players that are not from RPGer background may not understand correctly the alignment system, to be able to pickup an alignment that will fit them correctly.

Good idea you got there, old chap.

Goblin Squad Member

nanacano wrote:

Considering forum anti-pvp activity I believe that the situation is much more pitiable.

Most likely the bad guys will live on-reserve, or the bad guys will be mercenaries who will be paid for being bad guys. =/

Just because GW is exceptionally good at listening to their fan base, does not mean they are going to throw their vision out the window when a wave of 50,000 people come in and tell them their vision is completely wrong. Goblinworks has specifically stated, they are looking to fill in a niche, they aren't trying to steal WoW's X million subscribers, or to do what most people think will work. Instead they look at what we say, compare it to their experience, market research etc... and ones that are good are then compared with their current vision of the game, and they see if it is compatible.

If 5 million people came in, and asked for the game to be changed to a my little pony first person shooter, GW would most likely not listen, as is the same if they were told to make it a pure PVE game. Ryan and the gang have made it very clear, some things are not on the table.

Quote:
What about good old stand over tactics, blackmail, sabotage, outright blatant bribery, market manipulation, pwower mongering - not to mention taking over the world - all the stuff real world evil is good at.

Well for starters, most of that dosn't fall into pure evil, many are gateways to corruption of course, but not explicitly black and white evil, and no game engine will ever be able to determine them, thus they won't have any impact on your characters alignment or reputation.

Market manipulation: buy low sell high, Yeah lots of people can and will do this, I've done it in just about every game I play, however it's far from evil, it's on the whole pretty neutral. For every consumer of X item that I doubled the price of who got mad at me, there were 3 much lower level harvesters of that item that were thrilled to see thier own earnings shoot through the roof.

Blackmail: Also debatable, just as usable against evil as for them. "does your evil ally know you've been cutting the share you are supposed to give them, well then you better not burn down our orphanage or else they will find out"

Power mongering: Sure, but again hard to define, hard to know, not necessarily evil to go after power, now the addiction to power can drive you to do evil in the process but the process itself is not inherantly evil.

But just pretending that these things were inherantly evil, none are tracable via any AI systems. There is no stopping a LG paladin from giving money to an evil force to have them do something he wants done (or to not do something he dosn't want done) etc... There is no clear cut definition to fairly asses when someone is doing something, beyond very strict monitoring of all of their communications, and sometimes reading their mind for intent.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nanaco

I second onishi in his comment.

Most of the things you pointed are difficult to track (maybe sabotage could be tracked though) and some are more a chaotic than an evil action.

Goblin Squad Member

Hm. I dunno: 5 million people asking for my little pony fps might lead to some reconsideration.


Im very interested in hearing how the Devs plan on tracking/assigning an alignment to actions taken by players. Aside from core actions, player attacks another player, player heals a wounded player or NPC, player gives coin to X, it seems like it will be difficult to have a system that accurately monitors player alignment based on their actions.

But to the point of the topic. It would be the height of foolishness for any alignment to post their intent in such an open forum, having such a long time before players can set those plans into action. So I think we will be facing some fairly organized purpose driven groups of evil CCs and alliances. Even if its just chaotic zerges set in motion by a carefully planned strategic individual or group that uses them as probes to spot weakness or cohesive breakdowns prior to the big invasion.

Goblin Squad Member

Valandur wrote:

Im very interested in hearing how the Devs plan on tracking/assigning an alignment to actions taken by players. Aside from core actions, player attacks another player, player heals a wounded player or NPC, player gives coin to X, it seems like it will be difficult to have a system that accurately monitors player alignment based on their actions.

...

They will have their to-be-renamed merit badge system.

One method might be to give the player choices as to how they wish to earn their achievement. The way they choose to earn the achievement could indicate that character's alignment.


Being wrote:
Valandur wrote:

Im very interested in hearing how the Devs plan on tracking/assigning an alignment to actions taken by players. Aside from core actions, player attacks another player, player heals a wounded player or NPC, player gives coin to X, it seems like it will be difficult to have a system that accurately monitors player alignment based on their actions.

...

They will have their to-be-renamed merit badge system.

One method might be to give the player choices as to how they wish to earn their achievement. The way they choose to earn the achievement could indicate that character's alignment.

Can you give an example? I think I see what you mean, but would rather be sure ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Well, let's make it painfully obvious. Lets imagine you go to a trainer NPC for your training once your XP bar is filled and he says to gain the woodcraft skill you must perform one of the following:

  • bring the wood of three trees from your lumber camp
  • bring three sticks of down (foraged) wood
  • bring three wood from another player

That gives lawful, neutral, and chaotic.


Being wrote:

Well, let's make it painfully obvious. Lets imagine you go to a trainer NPC for your training once your XP bar is filled and he says to gain the woodcraft skill you must perform one of the following:

  • bring the wood of three trees from your lumber camp
  • bring three sticks of down (foraged) wood
  • bring three wood from another player

That gives lawful, neutral, and chaotic.

Ah, that would work. It would be a way for the player to sway their alignment in the direction they wish it to move, useful if their actions have been moving them in a different direction. (Ultimately futile I know).


no a system that merits change aglinment would have to many long term goals for true alignment players. most likely as other threads have seen, when we make a character it will be TN then as we make desisions like to cast spells with certin descripters or kill X aglinment creature our aglinment will shift marginally. my best guess would be a 2 polar double axis scale, X by Y for example so it can place us on a 2D grid granting us our view of an alignment as we play. one very cool aspect that I once read was a moral compass that points to your aglinment and it was a circular grid and one person sugested it to be a wayfinder. upper left portion of the grid will be for LG upper right LE lower left CG lower right CE. whiel the main grid bars represent the N status. Now heres the tricky part the grid nubering will probably not be shown but guess is it wil be based on a 1000 point marker where as if you are 200 or less or -200 or more you are neutral, any further and you are a changed alignment such as a person with 300 (good/evil) and -500 (law/chaos) would be in the lower left grid. but a person with 5 (law/chaos) -300 (good/evil) would be on or near the line just down from the the grid central point.

this is just speculation but here is what we know.

1 law and chaos is being refered to as reputation where we as players will grant you a positive (lawful) or negative (chaos) review after playing with you (team member or transaction).
2 good and evil action so far have not been to well explained but if they incorperate creature aglinments and spells descripters we can assume killing evil things will make you good and vice versa. on the other hand casting good spells wil make you good and casting evil spells will make you evil.

props to people pointing out how important evil players are in a game like this. we are just under valued and misunderstood. I cannot wait to open my hall of horrors to the public so many delicious ideas to give. so litle time.

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / The need for 'bad' players / characters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.