Why a classless system is best, and better without alignment too!


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

@Being,

Note I never said that PLAYERS should be free of any automated controls that are intended to influence behavior. I said an Alignment system is an extremely poor choice to use for such a system. I'm perfectly willing for controls and penalties to exist that shape player behavior and define clear rules of engagement....even when said controls are limited in capability.

However an Alignment system is a measure of a characters BELIEFS, OUTLOOK, and PERSPECTIVE of the Universe. No instrument so crude and fallible as an automated system CAN or SHOULD be used to measure that. It's a more fundemental part of the characters identity then thier hair or eye color or what they wear. Would you really like to surrender control of those as a player. Alignment defines a part of the characters identity, what thier belief system is....

To take that out of the hands of the player and put it under some sort of automated system that can easly make very fundemental mistakes is a VERY BIG DEAL. It's the equivalent of a GM saying "No you won't play this character that you like to play...you'll play this other character that I want you to play."

Remember this isn't just a Real-Time-Strategy Game with points allocated for doing this and that. It's also a ROLE-PLAYING GAME....and a FANTASY based one....meaning supposed to be a bit different then the burdens of reality. Alignment is NOT about whether YOU can determine whether I'm right or not. It's about what my characters internal belief system ACTUALY IS.

I'll tell you straight up. If GW makes it so I can't play a character I internaly identify with...I'm walking and why shouldn't I? Games are supposed to be about having FUN....an escape from reality..not reality.

It's one thing to say "Your character has to deal with 7 penalty points". It's another to say "Your character is Evil" or your character is "Chaotic"....when I know neither is an accurate description of how they approach the world. How is that FUN?

Goblin Squad Member

I think this hilights the main problem with your view of the PFO alignment system, GrumpyMel. You are arguing for subjective alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

@GrumpyMel the automated systems proposed for metering alignment don't control your alignment, you do. The automated systems meter your measurable actions and can do that very well.

If someone gets arrested for a violation they can argue all they want about motivations and reasoning but the fact is they broke the law. The officer will just recommend that you tell it to the judge.

Laws are guidelines that attempt to define the border between acceptible and unacceptible behavior. They don't control you except in the way that good advice does.

Break good laws and society will judge you. But good laws don't force people to break them, lawbreakers are the those responsible.

Paizo Employee Goblin Squad Member

That's... an interesting string of examples you have there, GrumpyMel. Some of them are valid annoyances, but I don't honestly even know where you're going with the others.

But even if there are ways around it, you're still forcing yourself to act far more lawfully and goodly than you would without the system in place. The fact that you have to put in all this work and jump through increasingly torturous hoops to "game the system" is the alignment system working.

GrumpyMel wrote:
Or I could simply taunt, goad, trick, decieve and otherwise make miserable the life of a character I wanted to target so that they would throw the first strike in frustration...so I could Lawfuly and Goodly kill them.

Calling out your enemies has a long and proud tradition. If I'm being a jerk and somebody tries to kill me, most cultures consider it reasonable for me to defend myself, even if they look down on what I've been saying.

And that's without the real world having an "ignore" feature.

GrumpyMel wrote:
I could run confidence games...I could conspire with all sorts of nefarious sorts and feed them information about hunting down innocent merchants..

This is actually your strongest argument: Goblinworks can't stop people from having out of character conversations.

I can't really hold it against them, though. I don't even try to prevent people from having out of character conversations in my home game.

GrumpyMel wrote:
I could openly prey to Rovagug..

Not if the prayer has any in-game effect, you couldn't. I mean, you could chat "Hail Rovagug!" or some equivalent, but it'd be trivial to make any game-relevant prayer to Rovagug chaotic and evil.

GrumpyMel wrote:
I could abuse women and children..

You can emote inappropriate things, surely, but attacking them would flag you.

GrumpyMel wrote:
Defile temples to Imodae...

Actually defiling (i.e. destroying or making unusable) a church would have a game effect and would be utterly trivial to flag as the appropriate alignment.

You could, of course, behave like an idiot and say nasty things in the church. Some people might take offense at that, but if your bar for evil is people behaving like idiots, I'd suggest some deep thought is in order.

GrumpyMel wrote:
Take bounties so I could kill in cold blood for pure proffit...

Actually, there's a lot of discussion in the bounty thread about the fact that paladins would have problems being bounty hunters. So, Goblinworks is way ahead of you.

And, if you're going through the bounties trying to find people who are evil enough that you won't take an alignment hit killing them... holy hell are you roleplaying a paladin.

GrumpyMel wrote:
I could provoke people in the meanest and hardhearted fashions imagionable...

Congratulations, you can troll people on the internet.

GrumpyMel wrote:
I could wear the skulls of the innocent as a necklace....

If Goblinworks programmers include a "skulls of the innocent" necklace and don't include alignment hits for gathering the components, crafting the item, and wearing the item... that's really on them.

I don't know why you're assuming they wouldn't, though. The entire point of having items like that is to include sweet alignment effects.

GrumpyMel wrote:
Sound very LG like to you?

If your character is actually doing a lot of those things, they'd be trivially flagged as chaotic and evil. If your character isn't actually doing anything, why are we even talking about it?

I'll grant we can't automate a system to prevent players from being annoying in chat, but I'm not going to accept the premise that a player being annoying in chat should flag a character as "evil."

Admins aren't going to respond to a harassment complaint, see your character's alignment is lawful good, and say "obviously the complaint was bogus because he's a paladin, he couldn't possibly be trolling." Just like a player will get kicked out of a group for being a jerk at the table, regardless of whether their character is LG or CE.

Cheers!
Landon

Goblin Squad Member

Dario wrote:
I think this hilights the main problem with your view of the PFO alignment system, GrumpyMel. You are arguing for subjective alignment.

Not even subjective, Dario...Accurate and uncomplicated by Meta-Game concerns.

An inaccurate system or limited system is worse then no system at all.

The "It's Evil to attack and kill Evil PC's but Good to attack and kill Evil NPC's" is, I assure you 100 percent a Meta-Game concern that has nothing to do with how the Alignment systems actualy work in the Pathfinder Universe but based out of a desire to limit the amount of PvP agression that occurs in PFO in order to deter "Griefing". A valid game concern but something that's clearly about the GAME and not the Universe.

Subjective would be "I believe that acting Randomly and Harming the Innocent is Lawful and Good"...that doesn't match the belief structure that Pathfinder defines as Lawful and Good.

PFO instead is "I can't understand context or motivation therefore I'm going to assign a judgement of Evil to this action even though your actual intent WAS to protect the innocent and the action DID, in point of fact, result in the protection of the innocent."

Goblin Squad Member

Reminds me of talking politics with my brother...

Goblin Squad Member

That's not what you said above, though.

GrumpyMel wrote:

However an Alignment system is a measure of a characters BELIEFS, OUTLOOK, and PERSPECTIVE of the Universe.

Alignment defines a part of the characters identity, what thier belief system is....

Alignment is NOT about whether YOU can determine whether I'm right or not. It's about what my characters internal belief system ACTUALY IS.

Alignment based on their beliefs, not their actions. That's subjective alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

Okay so the only really interesting argument I've heard from GrumpyMel in this matter is his point that it is thought good to kill evil NPCs and Evil to kill Evil PCs.

Maybe we can handle this part.

My bias: I don't think it should be good to kill neutral animals, but it can be not good (not evil, just not good).

Maybe we should recommend that it is not good to kill. Not good to kill evil characters, evil npcs, neutral animals. Killing good NPCs can be evil because it reduces the quantity of good. Killing Good players can also be evil. Killing neutral players might then have to be relegated to not good rather than evil. Evil killing evil... I guess that would bolster evilness, wouldn't it?

Paizo Employee Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Maybe we should recommend that it is not good to kill. Not good to kill evil characters, evil npcs, neutral animals. Killing good NPCs can be evil because it reduces the quantity of good. Killing Good players can also be evil. Killing neutral players might then have to be relegated to not good rather than evil. Evil killing evil... I guess that would bolster evilness, wouldn't it?

Well, this is what they have now:

Goblinworks wrote:
You slip toward evil whenever you kill someone while you have the Attacker flag or gain the Heinous flag. For killing, you move less if the target was also evil (in other words, it's more evil to kill a good character).

Basically, killing people without reason is evil. It's more evil if that person's good, but still evil regardless. So I think they basically agree with you, Being.

Not sure about their stance on animals, but I'd imagine hunting (killing neutral animals in the wilderness) isn't considered an evil act.

Cheers!
Landon

Goblin Squad Member

@Landon

I don't think you understand just how limited the system is...

- Is it "Good" behavior to taunt, deride and verbaly abuse people for the specific purposes of allowing you to take there life without penalty?

No way an automated system will be able to determine that. It can't understand context.

- Is it "Lawful" and "Good" to cheat, decieve and trick innocent people to purposefully steer them into harm or deprive them of thier property ?

Again, no way an automated system can deal with that.

- Is it "Lawful" and "Good" to profane your LG Gods name and Praise CE ones. To dump garbage or empty your bowels on your Gods shrine?

No way an automated system can deal with such.

- Is it "Lawful" and "Good" to abuse women and children.

No way an automated system can deal with that.

I can perform all those actions with just Chat and Emote.

- I can assure you that there will be hundreds if not thousands of items in game that are completely inappropriate for LG characters to wear...GW won't be programming any alignment shifts into them, too many resources involved in that....and they haven't anounced any such plans.

- According to the existing mechanics there would be nothing to prevent LG from bounty hunting...no shifts involved if the target has a bounty on them.

I could also, purposefully slaughter defenseless animals and let the carcasses go to waste by the thousands in front of a character who was a Druid...knowing that his choice is ignore me and watch it happen or attack so I can slaughter him....or let him attack and kill me so he shifts CE.

I assure you...NONE of these things would flag me CE...not even a game with a $300 million budget would have the resources to build the systems to handle that....and PFO won't have that budget.

Of course you could stick your hands in your ears and cover your eyes and pretend none of that is actualy happening in game....but hey why bother to even play a Role-Playing Game if you are unwilling to recognize EXACTLY the sort of actions that a reprehensible CE villian WOULD perform?

Or you can just have people choose alignments that are appropriate to the type of character they want to role-play without giving them reasons to do otherwise.

Goblin Squad Member

Dario wrote:

That's not what you said above, though.

GrumpyMel wrote:

However an Alignment system is a measure of a characters BELIEFS, OUTLOOK, and PERSPECTIVE of the Universe.

Alignment defines a part of the characters identity, what thier belief system is....

Alignment is NOT about whether YOU can determine whether I'm right or not. It's about what my characters internal belief system ACTUALY IS.

Alignment based on their beliefs, not their actions. That's subjective alignment.

Nope, that's the DEFINITION of Alignment....you might want to check the Pathfinder Core Rulebook... if you think I'm making stuff up here.

From the SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules)

The very first sentance:
"A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment"

Read that sentance again... Alignment = ATTITUDE not action.

Next paragraph....

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other"

I think I'm pretty clear about what Alignment means in the context of the Pathfinder Universe and what role it's SUPPOSED to play.

I believe you are the one that is morphing it to mean something completely different then how the source material defines it.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

@GrumpyMel the automated systems proposed for metering alignment don't control your alignment, you do. The automated systems meter your measurable actions and can do that very well.

If someone gets arrested for a violation they can argue all they want about motivations and reasoning but the fact is they broke the law. The officer will just recommend that you tell it to the judge.

Laws are guidelines that attempt to define the border between acceptible and unacceptible behavior. They don't control you except in the way that good advice does.

Break good laws and society will judge you. But good laws don't force people to break them, lawbreakers are the those responsible.

Again Being I invite you to read the post above I made about and how the Pathfinder source material (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules) defines alignment and the role it is intended to play.

It's not the law... It's not a parking meter...It's not even your characters ACTIONS....it's thier ATTITUDE....so yeah, forgive me for thinking that motivations and reasoning DO matter.

Words like ALIGNMENT have specific meanings within the Pathfinder Universe and specific roles they are intended to play within that Universe.

It's kind of like you said "Tire" doesn't really mean something that goes on your car...in NASCAR ONLINE it actualy means a type of fruit.

Anyone that's familiar with how the term is actualy used in NASCAR, the sport....is understandbly going to have problems with that statement.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

The very first sentance:

"A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment"

Read that sentance again... Alignment = ATTITUDE not action.

But can't you say actions are those^ in manifest form; ie (mutable) essence given form they then become functional/existent?

-

Idk, the old "don't listen to what people say, look at what they do" or "A man is defined by his actions" yadda yadda? :) So we then say alignment is a predictor of action: One prediction from repeating behavior, is that it only makes it more likely that it will be repeated again, not necessarily any better!


GrumpyMel wrote:


I'll tell you straight up. If GW makes it so I can't play a character I internaly identify with...I'm walking and why shouldn't I? Games are supposed to be about having FUN....an escape from reality..not reality.

Let me see if I understand your position. If your character detects alignment, or hears some rumor that a player is evil, or maybe you know the player is evil, you march up and begin whacking on them, and even kill them. If PFO gives you an alignment hit because of that, then your walking?


Being wrote:

Okay so the only really interesting argument I've heard from GrumpyMel in this matter is his point that it is thought good to kill evil NPCs and Evil to kill Evil PCs.

Maybe we can handle this part.

My bias: I don't think it should be good to kill neutral animals, but it can be not good (not evil, just not good).

Maybe we should recommend that it is not good to kill. Not good to kill evil characters, evil npcs, neutral animals. Killing good NPCs can be evil because it reduces the quantity of good. Killing Good players can also be evil. Killing neutral players might then have to be relegated to not good rather than evil. Evil killing evil... I guess that would bolster evilness, wouldn't it?

Easily solved! Just approach within range of an NPC, or player. If they draw weapons and move toward you, then slaughter them. Defending yourself is acceptable and I don't care what their alignment is, if they attack me I'm going to sink a dagger in their eye.

(They would have attacked first)

I don't see myself worrying about alignment much. If I had to I imagine the Devs won't make it overly arduous to do so.

Goblin Squad Member

Guys you keep thinking of this as a PnP game or real life. I do agree in many ways that intent and actions drive what I would judge someone in either of those situations.

Thing is this is an MMO. Balance needs to be king. If not the masses will take the easiest way to power. As I understand the rules so far I believe there will be an imbalance. People will go towards evil if they like to PvP. This means that most of the settlements will be evil.

The red vs' blue faction stuff may never happen but not for a worthwhile reason. If there is only red, blue never will have a chance.

Goblin Squad Member

Valandur wrote:


Easily solved! Just approach within range of an NPC, or player. If they draw weapons and move toward you, then slaughter them. Defending yourself is acceptable and I don't care what their alignment is, if they attack me I'm going to sink a dagger in their eye.
(They would have attacked first)

I don't see myself worrying about alignment much. If I had to I imagine the Devs won't make it overly arduous to do so.

Actually you gave an interesting idea: What if DEVs create a draw weapons command? You won't attack but is in alert status, So you will be prepared just in case someone attacks you. You would not be able to perform nothing but just walk in this state, but you will have better defenses and a chance to react with an extra attack in response to the agression.

Also, if someones targets you and comes straight toward you, planning to attack, the first move of his char sould be drawing weapon(s) as well, so you could recognize he are comming to attack. At least for melee combat it could work. Ranged attacks normally won't let you strike first anyway.

So you would be able to identify if a char is due to attack you by his movement + drawn weapon and could, in this case, strike first with no (or lesser) penalties.


LordDaeron wrote:
Valandur wrote:


Easily solved! Just approach within range of an NPC, or player. If they draw weapons and move toward you, then slaughter them. Defending yourself is acceptable and I don't care what their alignment is, if they attack me I'm going to sink a dagger in their eye.
(They would have attacked first)

I don't see myself worrying about alignment much. If I had to I imagine the Devs won't make it overly arduous to do so.

Actually you gave an interesting idea: What if DEVs create a draw weapons command? You won't attack but is in alert status, So you will be prepared just in case someone attacks you. You would not be able to perform nothing but just walk in this state, but you will have better defenses and a chance to react with an extra attack in response to the agression.

Also, if someones targets you and comes straight toward you, planning to attack, the first move of his char sould be drawing weapon(s) as well, so you could recognize he are comming to attack. At least for melee combat it could work. Ranged attacks normally won't let you strike first anyway.

So you would be able to identify if a char is due to attack you by his movement + drawn weapon and could, in this case, strike first with no (or lesser) penalties.

Huh, that's a good idea! I would help against those people that try to talk their way right up n you before attacking. It would be great for a number of situations and be a cool thing to use in unit combat... Draw Weapons!! Charrrrge! :)

Actually if you refine the idea to make sure there aren't obvious holes, the Devs might go for it. Unless they already thought of it :p

Goblin Squad Member

@AvenaOats,

It is clear in the source that Alignment is a measure of Attitude. As human beings who have an extremely nuanced understanding of context, emotion and intent we can BEGIN to make some intelligible inferences about attitude based on those but that's because we have the sophistication to understand our fellow human beings. But it IS the attituide we are trying to ascertain not the actions themselves. It's why a human GM can look at what a player is doing and say "Hey Bob, you seem to displaying more X personality traits then Y, whats up with that?"

How can an extremely crude and limited AI even begin to do so? It's like asking a stopwatch to render judgements about someones morality. It just doesn't have the capacity to do so.

It also doesn't have the capacity to understand a characters personal philosophy, how that philosophy manifests itself in the world or how to account for 2 very different philosophies both falling under the same Alignment (again straight from the source). It can just make crude binary decisions.

Take a good read of that first paragraph from the source that defines what Alignment is and how it's intended to be used within Pathfinder.

It reads in direct opposition to how folks want to see it used here...and frankly how GW seeks to use it in PFO.

The very sentence "Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character."
should be a clear indication it's not about rewarding or penalizing or attempting to control behavior.

Paizo Employee Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GrumpyMel wrote:
I don't think you understand just how limited the system is...

Then you're wrong.

I completely understand that computers can't catch all negative behavior. I think everyone who frequents the internet has figured that out, but I work with this stuff everyday and might be giving people too much credit.

I just don't think your suggested solution is a good one. You've spent a lot of time in this thread criticizing Goblinworks' alignment system because lawful good people can still be jerks in chat, but suggest an alternative where they can be jerks in chat and slaughter countless innocents with impunity.

Just because a computer can't perfectly implement my tabletop vision of the alignment system doesn't mean that there isn't a one it can understand. And that alignment system, based on actions, will be closer to my vision of alignment than a dropdown "for roleplaying purposes only" could ever be.

Cheers!
Landon

Goblin Squad Member

@Landon,

I've suggested a system where they have NO REASON to be LG and be jerks and slaughter people with impunity.

Put a big Honkin Diamond behind a security system and you'll have a ton of people trying to figure out ways to exploit that system to get at the Diamond.

Put nothing behind that security system and 99 percent of those exploiters will stop because there is nothing in it for them. You'll still have a few that do it for the LoL's but those will be the exception not the rule.

If a person actualy WANTS to play a CE character...and you don't penalize them for putting CE in thier alignment field...then what motivation do most people have for putting LG there?

Goblin Squad Member

Ludy wrote:

...

Thing is this is an MMO. Balance needs to be king.
...

I don't believe balance should be king. Imbalance is necessary to gain a dynamic system.

Balance gives you stasis, where nothing is happening.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

Again Being I invite you to read the post above I made about and how the Pathfinder source material (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules) defines alignment and the role it is intended to play.

It's not the law... It's not a parking meter...It's not even your characters ACTIONS....it's thier ATTITUDE....so yeah, forgive me for thinking that motivations and reasoning DO matter.

Yet you don't believe the authors of those additional rules intended as a resource for PnP roleplaying know what they are talking about? I mean, the people advising Goblinworks, Paizo?

GrumpyMel wrote:
Words like ALIGNMENT have specific meanings within the Pathfinder Universe and specific roles they are intended to play within that Universe.

I'll go with Goblinworks' interpretations, thanks, as advised by Paizo. You can cite chapter and verse all day long but when I look at what your interpretations will result in it is a destructive mess.

Your actions are what are measurable. Your actions, rather than your qualitative subjectivism is what the rules will key off of. Whatever those mechanical rules cannot handle, that need to be handled, the DMs/GMs will.

tl;dr: You're wrong.


I was going to point out that GW said that anytime they deviate from PFRPG that they sit down with the Paizo people and go over it, to make sure they are ok with the change. If the people who wrote the rule books are ok with it, that's good enough for me!

Paizo Employee Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

GrumpyMel, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there's going to be some system to discourage random ganking. If it's not alignment, it'll be reputation; if it's not reputation, it'll be flagging; if it's not flagging, it'll be something else.

I understand your argument that it'll encourage gankers to just find some way to gank while maintaining the goodies for not ganking. But I don't think that's a winning argument.

And, in any case, it doesn't really have anything to do with alignment. There's going to be a system to discourage ganking, even if you win a thousand arguments on alignment.

If that's the real heart of your complaint, I'd suggest just dropping it. Alignment is a fine fit and whatever replaced it as the new anti-ganking method wouldn't have the same connection to Pathfinder.

Cheers!
Landon

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

@Landon,

I've suggested a system where they have NO REASON to be LG and be jerks and slaughter people with impunity.

Your examples show where they can be jerks with impunity from the alignment system. If someone were to harass players with abuse until they attack simply to shut him up, that falls under the "know it when I see it" description of griefing, and I would highly expect someone who used such tactics to have a short stay in PFO because the devs have made clear that anyone who is a jerk will be give a time out ranging from minutes to forever without warning.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Ludy wrote:

...

Thing is this is an MMO. Balance needs to be king.
...

I don't believe balance should be king. Imbalance is necessary to gain a dynamic system.

Balance gives you stasis, where nothing is happening.

I am going to disagree with you Being. Balance allows tactics, politics, stratagy, and recruitment be more important. Without balance the side that has an advantage will have more people on top of whatever makes them more powerful or easier.

You see this in multiple games with FOTM classes, factions, and servers. This is even more true in sandbox games that have strong PvP elements. I do not believe that PFO will be different and coming out of the gate accepting imbalance I don't think will work.

Goblin Squad Member

@Landon,

I ggree that there has to be some system in place to discourage griefing.

I disagree that Alignment is a good fit for that system.

Griefing is an OOC behavior of one player toward another.

Alignment is an IC measurement of a characters moral attitudes.

The two really have nothing to do with one another. Lumping the 2 together indicates a basic inability to understand the seperation between IC and OOC which I find surprising in anyone familiar with RPG's.

It leads to results like hitting "Evil" players that aren't griefers with the same penalties griefers get hit with...simply for choosing to play a character of the "Evil" flavor...even if that player has never caused a single moment of distress for another player....and making absurd leaps of logic like adjucating that it's Evil for Good players to be agressive toward Evil players while at the same time it's Good for Good players to be agressive toward Evil NPC's.

PC and NPC are entirely OOC constructs. They don't exist from an IC perspective.

GW is trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole and pretend it fits...because they need SOMETHING to fit in there.

Goblin Squad Member

@Being,

Appeals to authority are valueless in determining the quality of an arguement...

EG. "2 + 2 must equal 5 because a Ph.D. in Mathematics claims that it is so."

Either an arguement has a basis to stand on it's own merits or it does not.

At this point I believe I've provided ample evidence to support my position. We'll simply have to agree to disagree if you are unable to find it persuasive.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm hoping that whatever system GW puts in place, its first priority is to be open to player interaction. Secondly, that it allows for more nuance and or flexibility and not less. Finally, that it strikes a balance between what is lore and what is possible in a sandbox MMO.

If we are playing our characters for years, they will likely change in many aspects, several times. This is especially true with a system without classes, where at some point you could actually be nearly all things.

I draw upon my experience with EVE. I started out as a Miner. Then A PVE Combat Pilot. The a PVP Pilot. Then a Pirate, eventually earning a -10 standing. The slowly (18 months), regaining my standing to reenter High security space. The I became a manufacturer, a researcher, a marketeer. Now I'm a multi-billionaire CEO, completely self sufficient, and looking for the next endeavor to embark on.

This is the kind of character development / progression I expect to see in PFO. If over the years, our alignment is constantly shifting , and then being forced (artificially and or deliberately) back to where we want to keep it, isn't that the very definition of chaotic?

Don't we risk playing an alignment, and not role playing our character?

I'm not worried about me, and my game play, my character will almost certainly be Chaotic Neutral. But I don't care what he actually ends up, because I won't let alignment factor into the way I play him.

But, if I were looking to play a Lawful N, G. E character, I'd have some concerns.

Goblin Squad Member

@GrumpyMel

What, in your opinion, should alignment do, then? Because it seems like you're suggesting that a computer can't adjudicate it perfectly, so it should have no mechanical impact In which case, what you're actually suggesting is removing alignment.

If you're suggesting alignment should matter, and that players should just pick their characters alignment and that's that, then there's nothing actually encouraging people to match their alignment to their character's behavior, but instead to pick whatever alignment is most advantageous for them.

If you're suggesting alignment should matter, and their characters beliefs as demonstrated through their actions should also matter, then you're suggesting the system GW has proposed, and just arguing over where lines should be drawn within it.

And before you respond with another bit about how it's their beliefs, not their actions that matter, even a tabletop GM can't judge what your character believes except through how you play and present them. You can say your character believes in justice and light and should be lawful good, but if you go around committing unprovoked murder, any GM who's actually using the alignment system (and as Ryan pointed out, a lot don't, whether they say so or not) will say your character is not demonstrating that he or she actually holds to LG beliefs.

Goblin Squad Member

For consideration:
1) PCs are not NPCs or Monsters: If an NPC or Monster is evil, they will be compelled to do evil. In fact that can only do evil because their choices of action are generated by the game server and the server makes them evil. PC choices of action are driven by people not the game server. They have every right to choose to be evil and yet still not do evil actions any time there is an action with a possible evil outcome.
2) @GrumpyMel, by your statement alignment is an attitude: You would kill a character just because of their attitude?
3) The alignment system described by the devs so far allows all PCs, regardless of alignment, to be able to choose to do evil acts: After you kill all the evil PCs are you going after neutral PCs next because they might do an evil act? After that kill all CG PC's because they might do an evil act?
Oh, the Humanity! Will these atrocities ever end?!!!*humor emoticon*

Goblin Squad Member

@Dario,

I'm suggesting that Alignment be treated no differently then selection of Race. Each Alignment may have certain mechanical advantages and disadvantages that are reflective of that Alignments nature but overall no alignment is better or more desirous then one another. People will naturaly self-select an Alignment the characters nature that they want to play and the advantages/disadvantages that mechanicaly favor that nature.

We don't see anyone clamouring to adjucate shifts towards Elf because an automated system has determined they are not playing thier character in a fashion that is "Dwarf-like" enough. Nor do we see a system that forces players to play Dwarves because it adjucates they are being too agressive toward other players...and then makes Dwarves a mechanicaly undesirable race to play.

I do not believe that Races are removed from the game, nor rendered meaningless simply because selection of them is based entirely upon the players choice nor do I believe the game is damaged by allowing players to play them as they interpret the races dominant personality traits from the IP. I don't see why the game would suffer more from handling Alignments in the same fashion.

Goblin Squad Member

Harad Navar wrote:

For consideration:

1) PCs are not NPCs or Monsters: If an NPC or Monster is evil, they will be compelled to do evil. In fact that can only do evil because their choices of action are generated by the game server and the server makes them evil. PC choices of action are driven by people not the game server. They have every right to choose to be evil and yet still not do evil actions any time there is an action with a possible evil outcome.
2) @GrumpyMel, by your statement alignment is an attitude: You would kill a character just because of their attitude?
3) The alignment system described by the devs so far allows all PCs, regardless of alignment, to be able to choose to do evil acts: After you kill all the evil PCs are you going after neutral PCs next because they might do an evil act? After that kill all CG PC's because they might do an evil act?
Oh, the Humanity! Will these atrocities ever end?!!!*humor emoticon*

From an IC perspective NPC's are no more or less compelled to do Evil then PC's. There is no differentiation between the two because PC and NPC are not concepts that exist within the game world. They are entirely OOC concepts. My character doesn't look at Bob the Necromancer and see that he is a PC and then look at Charlie the Necromancer and see that he is an NPC. To my character they are equivalent, both sentient beings.

I find the difficulty in seperating the OOC from the IC staggering in what clearly are many experienced Role-Players.

Note: That is NOT to say that I the player will treat Bob the player the same as I would treat a bunch of unfeeling data bits. I'm actualy remarkably respectfull of other players play experience. If Bob doesn't feel like a fight all he would need do is give a simple whisper "Hey, I don't feel like combat right now" and RP some sort of remotely plausible out that my character can take. What Bob CAN'T do is take advantage of that to ONLY prey on weak and inexperienced characters and then try to hide behind a shield of innocence whenever someone actualy capable of fighting him shows....Nor can he make it blindingly and obnoxiously obvious that he is someone I should fight...we're talking pressing a necklace made of bloody orphan heads in my face...and then hide behind the technicality that the system hasn't flagged him yet because it is too stupid to understand what a human gm would in an instant.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

@Landon,

I've suggested a system where they have NO REASON to be LG and be jerks and slaughter people with impunity.

Since when do people need a reason to be jerks? They would be LG and do that stuff because they can, even if YOU wouldn't.

Goblin Squad Member

The fact that people's alignments can change gives so much freshness to this game. If you can't change your alignment, you can't be a fallen paladin or a fallen anything. The fact that you can be good and then if something happens to your character he can change sides. That is a richness you don't see in many games. And to give that up would be just plain stupid.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


I like the idea that the intent or the context of the attack should be taken into account. Think of it this way:

If you hit your child in anger, that is abuse. If you hit them with love, that is discipline.

whoa!! If you hit your child with "love", you will still be charged with abuse.

I agree killing someone in self-defense or defense of you country is very different from killing them for their money. But in PFO terms, that distinction is taken care of by warfare and flags.

Goblin Squad Member

Tuoweit wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

@Landon,

I've suggested a system where they have NO REASON to be LG and be jerks and slaughter people with impunity.

Since when do people need a reason to be jerks? They would be LG and do that stuff because they can, even if YOU wouldn't.

hence the reputation system. Even if able to game the system and stay LG, they would likely take rep losses from being jerks. Also, even if he nominally qualifies for LG, would you keep him in your settlement?

(i'm sure settlements full of jerks can find ways to game the rep system too, but that is a very different problem - possibly solved by warfare).

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

...

From an IC perspective NPC's are no more or less compelled to do Evil then PC's. There is no differentiation between the two because PC and NPC are not concepts that exist within the game world...

Untrue. The PC can choose to not attack. The NPC cannot choose to not attack if that is what they are programmed to do.

If you are running around pre-emptively attacking evil aligned players you are taking from them their ability to choose whether to attack or not.

There are certainly therefore differences IC between the PC and the NPC and your premise is false.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

...

From an IC perspective NPC's are no more or less compelled to do Evil then PC's. There is no differentiation between the two because PC and NPC are not concepts that exist within the game world...

Untrue. The PC can choose to not attack. The NPC cannot choose to not attack if that is what they are programmed to do.

If you are running around pre-emptively attacking evil aligned players you are taking from them their ability to choose whether to attack or not.

There are certainly therefore differences IC between the PC and the NPC and your premise is false.

Um...ok lets be clear about what IC actualy means...since it seems to me you are a bit fuzzy on the definition to be making that kind of assertion.

IC = IN CHARACTER... what your character knows of the world, not what you the player knows of the world.

In Character both a PC and an NPC elf are sentient free willed beings who can chose to do whatever they want to do. There is no programming, there is no computer, there is no glowing sign over one elf's head saying "Hi, I'm a PC."

I can't believe I'm having to explain a concept this basic.

Goblin Squad Member

Tuoweit wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

@Landon,

I've suggested a system where they have NO REASON to be LG and be jerks and slaughter people with impunity.

Since when do people need a reason to be jerks? They would be LG and do that stuff because they can, even if YOU wouldn't.

No they'd likely be CE and act that way....because most people that really want to act like villians would voluntarly chose a CE alignment if there was no penalty for doing so...it would suit thier play style.

In thier mindset LG is boring and "wussy" and means you run around wearing white then looking cool in black, like the "Evil Dudes"....But people will definately chose LG if there is a mechanical bonus for doing so and then try like heck to game/scam thier way around the mechanics so they can behave the way they wanted to do in the first place.

At least if you use some system not tied to Alignment...then Alignment doesn't become a casualty to the Anti-Griefing system...and you don't have a horde of folks with no real interest or intent in trying to behave in a LG fashion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to make this super easy on myself, and maybe the rest of you might want to consider this:

Instead of pre-defining what your character's alignment is, and then being restricted to what you can/can't do in the game (and subsequently being upset over those restrictions); I'm going to do everything I want to do in the game, and let my alignment slide all over the place. If I want to PvP, I will. Will it make me "evil" or "unlawful"? Who cares, I'm doing it because I want to, not because my alignment says I'm allowed to. If I want to act charitable towards, or mentor newer players starting out, I'll do that too.

The alignment to me will just be a 'system I game' when I need something. If you need a pure alignment to get/use something, I'll shift my character over to that alignment as a prereq to gain that access.

To me, alignment is no different than "classes". In D&D, you chose all those things upfront and then play accordingly. In a sandbox MMO, those things are subject to change over time - which is not a bad or flawed thing. My character in PFO isn't going to be a class. My skills will be purely selected by what I want to do in the game. Again, if it happens to be beneficial to take 1 archetypal set of skills, I'm simply gaming the system to have access to those beneficial skills - NOT because I've decided for myself that I'm 'x' class. And as time goes on, everyone here will have more skills/training that would qualify them to complete several archetypal classes, so what good would it do to identify yourself as just 1 of them.

It's a sandbox MMO. What you want to do in the game on day 5 might not be what you want to be doing on Day 50. The guild/company you start out with might change their goals over time. You might even change companies or merge with others. Outside forces like bigger alliances and their politics might radically influence the region you're in and interrupt what you had planned back on day 1. Everything is completely open-ended and subject to change, including myself and everyone here. At the most, the alignment system might influence what I do, but will never define what I do.

Goblin Squad Member

clynx wrote:
I'm going to do everything I want to do in the game, and let my alignment slide all over the place. If I want to PvP, I will.

Except you won't be able to, because of game mechanics. You won't be able to initiate PvP X many times AND lay on hands. You won't be able to gank X number of people AND enter a lawful/hi-rep settlement.

You can say all kinds of stuff on the boards, but that doesn't match the reality of mechanics where options close off/open up other options.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
clynx wrote:
I'm going to do everything I want to do in the game, and let my alignment slide all over the place. If I want to PvP, I will.

Except you won't be able to, because of game mechanics. You won't be able to initiate PvP X many times AND lay on hands. You won't be able to gank X number of people AND enter a lawful/hi-rep settlement.

You can say all kinds of stuff on the boards, but that doesn't match the reality of mechanics where options close off/open up other options.

Then you will need to enter the settlements where your past behavior is accepted. Even if you have the freedom to do what you want, there are consequences to those actions.

If you want to be able to lay on hands after you start down a killers path, then maybe you'll have to atone and change gods before you get the ability. By the time you have done enough lawful and good things to gain the ability you will be again welcomed in a Lawful Good settlement. Although it would be much easier to simply learn how to cast Cure Light Wounds instead and play the way you want without worrying about going though hoops to qualify for alignment for paladin abilities.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

...

Um...ok lets be clear about what IC actualy means...since it seems to me you are a bit fuzzy on the definition to be making that kind of assertion.

IC = IN CHARACTER... what your character knows of the world, not what you the player knows of the world.

In Character both a PC and an NPC elf are sentient free willed beings who can chose to do whatever they want to do. There is no programming, there is no computer, there is no glowing sign over one elf's head saying "Hi, I'm a PC."

I can't believe I'm having to explain a concept this basic.

I'm having difficulty believing your in-character will argue against the gods that your motivations override your deeds and protect your alignment pretenses.

We are not in character, and are discussing world design.

If the computer cannot factor your avowed intent then your character's heart-of-hearts is an invalid measure of your alignment.

Alignment can be computationally identified by measuring the incidence of key behaviors.

If you prove yourself to be of a different alignment than you pretend you are, your alignment can be changed by the agent of the DM, namely the computer.

It is fully effective and absolutely more fair than listening to your rhetoric for six hundred posts.


Mbando wrote:


Except you won't be able to, because of game mechanics. You won't be able to initiate PvP X many times AND lay on hands. You won't be able to gank X number of people AND enter a lawful/hi-rep settlement.

You can say all kinds of stuff on the boards, but that doesn't match the reality of mechanics where options close off/open up other options.

Sure it does. Alignment is not a fixed thing. You can do things in PFO that cause your alignment to change. It doesn't matter that I might be LG and locked out of CE abilities, because I can kill people and shift out of LG and eventually open up the CE skills.

If people are going to play this game for years (as I imagine the devs want us to), then you better believe that actions you take in this game won't lock you out indefinitely from certain branches of training/skills you might take up later down the road.

'Not being able to use LoH as a non-paladin aligned character' had nothing to do with my entire post. I even said that if a skill is beneficial to have, I will game the alignment system to achieve access to that skill set. The point was that I will be choosing for myself the things I want to do in this game, and have that dictate my alignment - as opposed to choosing my alignment and having that dictate what I can and can't do.

I'm all for consequences of choice. But I don't see anything so far that is permanent. I see people talk about their "class/alignment" in a game where that won't be a permanent distinction, so I'm just offering up another way to view this whole situation.

Goblin Squad Member

That is the problem for me clynx, gaming the alignment.

Because people can ,and be sure they will, use this mechanism to exploit the game. We will have hundreds of "good aligned" jerks who game the alignment system to still good but, from times to times randon kill, robb etc etc etc. and just go game the system to reset their alignments.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

LordDaeron wrote:

That is the problem for me clynx, gaming the alignment.

Because people can ,and be sure they will, use this mechanism to exploit the game. We will have hundreds of "good aligned" jerks who game the alignment system to still good but, from times to times randon kill, robb etc etc etc. and just go game the system to reset their alignments.

And that is what reputation will be for. Even if it is possible to maintain a good alignment while RPKing(doubtful if they do it full time), the reputation hit will be harder to ignore than the alignment one.

Goblin Squad Member

If they do it ocasionally lets say twice a week ?

And will reputation prevent someone from training in a LG city? For what I read I don't think so.

And the worse for me : see people posing as good but expoiting the alignment system may be the most imersion breaking thing ever IMO.

"see that paladin? last week he killed a noob just for fun. He attoned and now is LG again, he does it frequently"

No TY, don't wanna witness stuff like that

101 to 150 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Why a classless system is best, and better without alignment too! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.