Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, this is not a thread about alignment philosophy, what is/is not Evil, etc. There's already a big thread for that...
I'm specifically interested in the actual game mechanics for tracking alignment actions.
Will these be on some sort of sliding scale, such that a character's slider starts (for example) at Neutral and slides back and forth on the axes of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos?
Will the mechanics be some sort of balanced scale, such that a character's balance starts (for example) at Neutral and acts add "weight" to Good/Evil and Law/Chaos sides?
I personally favor the latter, as I think it would afford more play opportunities while providing the same functionality as the slider. It means that Good and Evil acts have meaningful, lasting impacts on a character. It means that the character that kicks puppies all day one day doesn't erase that from ever mattering by planting flowers and trees the next day (and such a character might actually get more weight in the Chaos side from acting erratic).
For example, a Good fighter could be okay with having a few Evil items on his scale since he's got tons of Good. Mechanically the character still shows up as Good. But someone striving for a pure record (yes, I'm thinking of Paladins) would not want any Evil on the scale at all. Such a character would, when Evil acts occur, actually seek out some form of atonement whether it be from the spell of the same name, a quest, etc. This opens up options for play and I see that as a good thing.
Anyway, I'm interested in other folks' thoughts, any dev insight, etc. Do please try to keep to mechanics, as discussions on the "what is Evil" topic will just drag the original purpose of the thread into flaming ruin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm at a disadvantage because I agree in general that starting off as neutral and achieving non-neutrality and gaining reputation through deeds makes good sense.
It might be that players get to pick their alignment and then their reputation keys off how well/notably the perform in that alignment. This model would reward an LG very little reputation increase for NG behavior and perhaps accrue negative reputation for CG behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm all for allowing players to select their starting position--my example of starting at Neutral above is just for the sake of simplicity.
EDIT: And with a Balance approach, this could even be a visual in character creation. The player gets a set of weights and two scales, then applies the weights to the scales that represent the character's past actions. A Neutral person would balance all scales, while LG would put everything in Law and Good (and could perhaps favor one over the other).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, that's one mechanic I've seen used in games to great effect. It allows folks to have their background concept influence starting character values. I don't think it would be too much, i.e. you couldn't get Ultimate Lawful Good ratings (say, 100 for both on a scale of 100) starting out but could get Favors Lawful Good (say, 10 for both). The character still has a starting identity in-line with the player's desires, but also has something to work toward to be Ultimate Lawful Good Guy.
EDIT: Golarion has a lot of imagery that one could pull from for this: Varisian Harrow decks, Abadar's Balance, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really like the balance scale concept... one thing you could add is diminishing returns to the alignment shift.
Example:
Alku goes off and heniously murders some poor bloke for no good reason. The first time this happens, big old boost to the evil/chaotic side. However, after a long standing career of this, the same action causes a significant amount less alignment shift.
It's kind of the idea behind White Wolf's morality system. A certain action only really carries weight the first few times you do it, after that it simply becomes common place.
This could also work in reverse. Say one day, after countless murders, Alku has a change of heart (not gunna happen) and decides he's done with the evil life. So he goes out and does whatever this game deems a 'good' act. The first time he does it, it swings him pretty hard towards good, but after a while, the diminishing returns kick in and it gets harder and harder for him to reach the actual 'Good side of the scale' (he'd end up spending a long time in Neutral making up for all the terrible crap he did).
Same would go for the Good side, a LG good paladin, who's been all good and rightous his whole life, murders someone and random.. bam, big old alignment hit. Maybe not enough to cause him to switch alignments, but enough that he'll really think about the next time he does it.
Basically this would make it so someone who spends a career of evil would take even longer to swap sides. Same the other way around.
/end of really long idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that the concept of alignment has been collapsed into a single point and having a slider for the order/chaos and good/evil scales is a cleaner representation. It might help to view each scale as being related to a different aspect of character RP. One could consider that the order/chaos scale represents a character's external relationship to society while the good/evil scale represents a character's internal relationship to itself. Using this interpretation of alignment may make the mechanics clearer. An action may affect both scales, but with different affects, and for different reasons.
Examples:
A belief in Order(law) may indicate that a character finds the creation of Truth and Beauty (as Ryan put it) is best achieved within the bounds of society. In a sense they find it challenging and exciting to turn lemons into lemonade. A belief in Chaos may indicate that a character finds the creation of Truth and Beauty is best achieved by thinking outside the box. The character may find it more exciting to throw out the lemons to go find limes. Neither of these have anything to do with good/evil. Actions that change this scale would arise from interaction with the settlement/kingdom environment.
A belief in Good may indicate that a character feels that Truth and Beauty for themselves means having compassion for others and being of service to others. A belief in Evil may indicate that a character feels that the only Truth and Beauty is themselves, that others are irreverent to who they are. This has nothing to do with law/chaos but everything to do with how a character sees itself. Actions that change this scale would arise from interactions with other characters (and NPCs).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some personal thoughts / tentative preferences:
* I do like the balanced scale model where the total value of character's good/evil or lawful/chaotic actions are weighed against each other as in this model all actions and choices matter
* I also like the idea of (progressively) diminishing returns on repeated good/evil or lawful/chaotic acts, as this would help to avoid the potential problem (with the scale model) where someone would get so much weight on one side of the scales that further acts would become irrelevant
* titles could be unlocked when achieving exceptionally high/low ratings, which would give (for those who like such a thing) something to aim at while trying to become either the pinnacle of purity of the baddest man on the planet
* to discourage "gaming" the alignment system the actual balance of the scales (or slider status) could be kept hidden, though hints of a potential shift such as "Is something wrong Fruben, you been acting strangely chaoticly as of late?" should be available e.g. when visiting the temple of your deity
* finally to make the alignment shift meaningful you would have to significantly dip the scale / slider to the other side before your alingment actually changes, so there would be no alignment dancing but each change would be meaningful
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh okay, so basically the same, but you can see your total evil deeds good deeds etc. I think I prefer the slider. To me an alignment is kind of like the sum of persons deeds at the present moment. But if there are some evil items etc besides deeds that affect your alignment and you know about them, it would be nice to see how much they affect somewhere near the sliders. I guess there could be some added meaningful rp interaction to be gained from the balance system though...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I made this small chart inspired by all the alignment talk on the forums to see if I could present the alignment thought(all the different alignments in one picture) in a meaningful way.
* to discourage "gaming" the alignment system the actual balance of the scales (or slider status) could be kept hidden, though hints of a potential shift such as "Is something wrong Fruben, you been acting strangely chaoticly as of late?" should be available e.g. when visiting the temple of your deityl
I believe that one of the Devs mentioned that you would get warnings if your alignment were in danger of changing from one section to another. I guess it would be like the warning pop ups that appear in other games when your about to commit an act that would alter your alignment or impact your standing within the community?
I was thinking something like a compass shape with n/s being l/c and e/w being g/e. I think reputation should be a slider -1 to 0 to 1 type thing.
A Moral Compass. Always wanted one of those.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like your chart too Aeioun, Maybe they could display our alignment status graphycally with something similar to that chart you created. So ,a dot would show how close you are to change it. I would imagine some graphycal x - y axis included in that chart, and a dot showing where is your alignment so far.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was thinking something like a compass shape with n/s being l/c and e/w being g/e. I think reputation should be a slider -1 to 0 to 1 type thing.A Moral Compass. Always wanted one of those.
Actually I like this compass analogy, that could be a graphical solution too. They would display our "moral compass" and we could see how we are in the alignment scale.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe that one of the Devs mentioned that you would get warnings if your alignment were in danger of changing from one section to another. I guess it would be like the warning pop ups that appear in other games when your about to commit an act that would alter your alignment or impact your standing within the community?
* to discourage "gaming" the alignment system the actual balance of the scales (or slider status) could be kept hidden, though hints of a potential shift such as "Is something wrong Fruben, you been acting strangely chaoticly as of late?" should be available e.g. when visiting the temple of your deityl
The first thing I thought of when they said that was that the warning would have to be something that wouldn't interrupt game play. If you were under attack having a dialog box pop up that you had to click 'OK' to get past would be extremely annoying.
The moral compass with your 'dot' on a border might be enough. At most if it were to flash for a few moments until you made your move might be better.
Actually I like this compass analogy, that could be a graphical solution too. They would display our "moral compass" and we could see how we are in the alignment scale.
Yeah, me too. And it is a euphemism (sp?)many of us know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Harad, I'm unclear if you are saying you favor a slider versus a balance for alignment, or if that even plays into your post?...
...The primary difference is a balance system keeps track of the actions on either end while the slider adds/subtracts to give a single value.
Contrary to the moral compass idea by @Provos and shown by @Aeioun Plainsweed, I do not believe that alignment is a single point on an x-y graph. I think it is better to consider the axes separately. The concept of a slider for each axis does have a neutral at the center, but the numerical value of maximums at either end may be irreverent from the point of view of the player. While I believe that a slider effect for each alignment axis is more appropriate, my reasoning for that I tried to portray in my post is based on how the two scales are role played by the character.
@Erian, I can see there are magnitudes of difference between "kicking puppies all day" and saving several hundreds of innocents from destruction or slavery. However, I think the same effect of your balance system can be accounted for (as @Fruben implied) by a non-linear application of actions impact on alignment. An example would be an exponential function where the ideal maximum of either GOOD of EVIL can only be asymptotically approached. Alternately it could be like a traditional bell-shaped normal curve where an additional sigma of change does not increase the actual value by a large amount. In that example a 1 sigma change from the center (neutral) would make a large change (34.1% roughly). But the second sigma of change would not be as great, a change of only an additional 13.6%. The third sigma of change would only be an additional 2.1%, and so on. Please correct me if I have misunderstood but I think that this was what you implied regarding an alignment balance scale.
I do not believe that alignment is a single point on an x-y graph. I think it is better to consider the axes separately. The concept of a slider for each axis does have a neutral at the center, but the numerical value of maximums at either end may be irreverent from the point of view of the player. While I believe that a slider effect for each alignment axis is more appropriate, my reasoning for that I tried to portray in my post is based on how the two scales are role played by the character.
With due respect, this doesn't make sense... An x/y axis is just two sliders placed perpendicularly to each other. So, it actually is the sliders that you are supporting, just represented graphically together rather than separately. Each axis or slider is still calculated separately before plotting the measurements on the graph.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not believe that alignment is a single point on an x-y graph. I think it is better to consider the axes separately. The concept of a slider for each axis does have a neutral at the center, but the numerical value of maximums at either end may be irreverent from the point of view of the player. While I believe that a slider effect for each alignment axis is more appropriate, my reasoning for that I tried to portray in my post is based on how the two scales are role played by the character.With due respect, this doesn't make sense... An x/y axis is just two sliders placed perpendicularly to each other. So, it actually is the sliders that you are supporting, just represented graphically together rather than separately. Each axis or slider is still calculated separately before plotting the measurements on the graph.
Ya, good point, we just need draw a line and the intersection will show us the dot that represents the alingment status...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a mechanical calculation, if you will, you are correct. And, yes, the center of each is Neutral. I was trying, maybe poorly, to reexamine the concept of alignment. Ryan intimated that it may be reasonable to roll back our thinking on alignment to a blank sheet. My focus has been on "what other ways can we talk about alignment as practical roll playing strategies?"
In particular I was proposing breaking out alignment into two related but separate mechanisms. The approach I began looking at was having both an external alignment and an internal alignment. In my original post in this thread I suggested that the law/chaos axis could be treated as an external alignment linked to how a character relates to the society. In a sense it is a measure of the context of the character within chartered company, or settlement, or nation. If we look at it from that viewpoint, treating it as a separate slider makes some sense.
Respectively the good/evil axis could be considered an internal alignment. In particular what context does the character have to itself? Does the character feel that the others in their life matter (good) or does the character feel that nothing is more important than itself (evil)? Or are they indifferent to either position (neutral).
If we separate the two aspects of alignment I believe that it makes the resolution of how actions affect alignment easier. I think it is wholly possible to have different effects on the two alignment mechanisms for the same action. Asking how does the action affect the context of the character with itself (internal good/evil) and then ask how does the action affect the context of the character with society (external law/chaos). Two measures for each action. This may be splitting hairs, but if we only have to resolve alignment shift one axis at a time calculation of impact on alignment would be simplified.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, while I'm not trying to get down into the weeds of alignment calculation, my favored approach does indeed separate out the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil calculations. I also agree both that repeated actions carry smaller and smaller weight and that approaching the end of either scale becomes progressively harder; perhaps not asymptotic however as, for example, a "Paladin 20" equivalent from merit badges might truly be the most Lawful and Good possible.
To give a more solid example of why the balance is my favored image vs. the slider* I would consider a fighter that is Lawful and Good. I'm not using Paladin because they have extra baggage/considerations...If that fighter were to kill an innocent person, whether by accident, mistaken identity, or whatever, such an action could impact both the Lawful and Good aspects of that character. He may go out and do much good, confess to the killing and accept lawful punishment, etc. Such actions would help to maintain his Lawful and Good status, but these things do not erase the fact that he killed an innocent. The only way to erase it entirely, to "lift the weight" so to speak of the action would be through some great atonement (again, whether spell or quest, etc.) that truly frees the character from the burden. If the mechanic is simply a process of adding and subtracting value from some total without retaining the "why" of the action, it loses some possible opportunities for RP and character development.
*Not to exclude the moral compass imagery--I do think that might be a very intuitive GUI element to give players more immediate feedback on alignment impacts of actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To work well in game its important that if a character is at one of the extremes actions moving you back to neutral have more effect than if the same charcter were already almost neutral.
Avoiding the controversial Good/Evil Axis and looking at Chaos/Law:
Example 1. A ludicrously lawful character commits a minor chaotic act, perhaps tresspasses into a forbidden hex briefly. This should have a much larger effect on his lawful status than if he just does yet another lawful act. One chaotic act for the super-lawful should require several similar low level lawful acts to counter
Example 2. A slightly lawful (but actually almost neutral) character commits the same minor chaotic act, this should only move him a smidgeon towards neutral and only require a similiar level evil act to counter.
JUSTIFICATION: In real life a percieved lawful person (judge?) breaking a minor law is far more significant than a percieved unlawful person (vagrant?) breaking same law.
Note this all assumes that without an atonement, making alignment changes will take a sustained effort over a long period of time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Erian, I have been thinking more about your alignment balance mechanism. Suppose that all actions that had an impact on alignment made by a character were stored in a database and that the impacts of these actions were not all equal. The database could be queried to determine the mean of the impact values. That might generate an alignment coordinate on (+0.8, -0.2) which would be interpreted as heavenly lawful and slightly evil. Using @Aeioun's graphic plotting that alignment coordinate might look like this.
If there were only a few large impacts, or many small impacts, it would take many small or a few large counter impacts to shift the +0.8 value of lawful. Am I getting closer to your idea?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Erian, I have been thinking more about your alignment balance mechanism. Suppose that all actions that had an impact on alignment made by a character were stored in a database and that the impacts of these actions were not all equal. The database could be queried to determine the mean of the impact values. That might generate an alignment coordinate on (+0.8, -0.2) which would be interpreted as heavenly lawful and slightly evil. Using @Aeioun's graphic plotting that alignment coordinate might look like this.
If there were only a few large impacts, or many small impacts, it would take many small or a few large counter impacts to shift the +0.8 value of lawful. Am I getting closer to your idea?
I like your proposition.
I've been considering different ways that alignment could be tracked via actions. Short of having some NWN, SWKOTOR system with questions and answers that lead to alignment choices, I've not come up with a good way to do this.
The system your describing Harad, would work. I'm not seeing any obvious problems so far aside from programming considerations which only the Devs can answer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've been considering different ways that alignment could be tracked via actions. Short of having some NWN, SWKOTOR system with questions and answers that lead to alignment choices, I've not come up with a good way to do this.
The system your describing Harad, would work. I'm not seeing any obvious problems so far aside from programming considerations which only the Devs can answer.
Have you looked at this thread?
[EDIT} I see that you have.
I just went back through it. Whew! Trying to keep from getting dizzy with everyone going in all different directions :p
I've got a few thoughts about the survey, would like to get our opinion on them..
I like the idea of a survey. Depending on how GW does their tutorial, it might be possible to work the survey into the dialog of the tutorial. Beings suggestion for a beginning tutorial mission that would show people the results of choices they make during the game might also be worked into the beginning tutorial.
No matter what form the survey takes, I think that while its being taken, a graphical representation of the alignment system should be on the screen to show people how their answers track within the alignment system as a whole.
I think that if someone chooses to forgo the alignment survey, a note with a link to the survey should be added to the alignment page within the help system. That way the option to go and take it will be there in case they can't understand the system or are being obstinate about their actions effect on their alignment.
I think the Devs would be open to this idea unless they have already worked out a way to introduce alignment to new players. Alignment in PFO will be totally different then in most MMOs. Your actions will have a direct impact on your alignment, most people will not be used to this, and as has been suggested, people's view on what's 'evil' what's good and neutral are often very different then what we might consider those actions to be. So it would be in everyone's best interest to have a very informative easy to understand system to explain how the alignment system is effected by their actions and decisions. If they choose to skip the survey they need to be told that they can take it at any time from the Help>Alignment section of the help menu.
Sorry this is such a book. Wen I read the thread the first time most of these thoughts occurred to me but I didn't post them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Erian, I have been thinking more about your alignment balance mechanism. Suppose that all actions that had an impact on alignment made by a character were stored in a database and that the impacts of these actions were not all equal. The database could be queried to determine the mean of the impact values. That might generate an alignment coordinate on (+0.8, -0.2) which would be interpreted as heavenly lawful and slightly evil. Using @Aeioun's graphic plotting that alignment coordinate might look like this.
If there were only a few large impacts, or many small impacts, it would take many small or a few large counter impacts to shift the +0.8 value of lawful. Am I getting closer to your idea?
Yes, that would work as it keeps a record of the actual actions and thus the character may latter work to remove the actions entirely (rather than just trying to balance things out). I would like to see action interactions such that (for example) someone who tries to do a bunch of Good and and less, but consistent, Evil to stay Good also drives toward Chaotic. What I would consider "normal" is that Good people would do Good and Neutral actions generally, rather than try to game the system to stay mechanically Good while slipping in Evil from time to time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, that would work as it keeps a record of the actual actions and thus the character may latter work to remove the actions entirely (rather than just trying to balance things out). I would like to see action interactions such that (for example) someone who tries to do a bunch of Good and and less, but consistent, Evil to stay Good also drives toward Chaotic. What I would consider "normal" is that Good people would do Good and Neutral actions generally, rather than try to game the system to stay mechanically Good while slipping in Evil from time to time.@Erian, I have been thinking more about your alignment balance mechanism. Suppose that all actions that had an impact on alignment made by a character were stored in a database and that the impacts of these actions were not all equal. The database could be queried to determine the mean of the impact values. That might generate an alignment coordinate on (+0.8, -0.2) which would be interpreted as heavenly lawful and slightly evil. Using @Aeioun's graphic plotting that alignment coordinate might look like this.
If there were only a few large impacts, or many small impacts, it would take many small or a few large counter impacts to shift the +0.8 value of lawful. Am I getting closer to your idea?
Well there is another in-game alternative:
From SRD:
Atonement
School abjuration; Level cleric 5, druid 5
Casting Time 1 hour
Components V, S, M (burning incense), F (a set of prayer beads or other prayer device worth at least 500 gp), DF
Range touch
Target living creature touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
This spell removes the burden of misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 2,500 gp in rare incense and offerings). Atonement may be cast for one of several purposes, depending on the version selected.
Reverse Magical Alignment Change: If a creature has had its alignment magically changed, atonement returns its alignment to its original status at no additional cost.
Restore Class: A paladin, or other class, who has lost her class features due to violating the alignment restrictions of her class may have her class features restored by this spell.
Restore Cleric or Druid Spell Powers: A cleric or druid who has lost the ability to cast spells by incurring the anger of her deity may regain that ability by seeking atonement from another cleric of the same deity or another druid. If the transgression was intentional, the casting cleric must expend 2,500 gp in rare incense and offerings for her god's intercession.
Redemption or Temptation: You may cast this spell upon a creature of an opposing alignment in order to offer it a chance to change its alignment to match yours. The prospective subject must be present for the entire casting process. Upon completion of the spell, the subject freely chooses whether it retains its original alignment or acquiesces to your offer and changes to your alignment. No duress, compulsion, or magical influence can force the subject to take advantage of the opportunity offered if it is unwilling to abandon its old alignment. This use of the spell does not work on outsiders or any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally.
Though the spell description refers to evil acts, atonement can be used on any creature that has performed acts against its alignment, regardless of the actual alignment in question.
Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement offers a method for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well there is another in-game alternative:
From SRD:
Atonement
School abjuration; Level cleric 5, druid 5
...
If such a spell was allowed, I think it should be cast by an NPC cleric under control by GW. This would be a major hack of the game if allowed by player characters, even if the components and materials were of exorbitant cost and difficulty to obtain. In-game this spell could be cast as a result of an out-of-game appeal to GW to correct a single major alignment shift.
Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement offers a method for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively.
Wow, talk about a money making opportunity Lol! I can see this spell getting a LOT of use.