Penalties for slavery


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Thus far I am pretty happy with the alignment penalties put in place and I do say this as a player intending to be evil or at least chaotic. I don't know how much the trainers will effect your impact on the game, but I do know that in a MMO you always max out eventually.

Even then from what I understand you can go into other players towns to talk to their trainers there, so it all seems fairly straight for me.

What did kind of jab at me was the lack of penalty towards slavery or at least from what I heard.

This is what I get from what I read.

So alright good players get the best trainers, there for they can build the best stuff.

Fair enough.

Evil players get slaves for cheap labour, allowing them to expand quicker and for less money.

Fair enough.

But what you might do and indeed I have seen TONS of people say they will do this. Is to play a good guy. Get the benefits. Enslave someone, do a few good deeds, enslave someone else, etc. Suddenly you end up with a force of good which has all benefits of either alignments.

So what I'd suggest is a even harsher alignment punishment for the act of slavery. After all you are hold someone captive against their will, robbing them of all their freedom and reducing them to little more than a beast of burden. Not to even get into the whole undead thing....

Sense you are essentially tormenting these poor souls on a daily basis, it only seems fitting your kingdom reflects this, putting more points towards evil for each day you force the people to do your bidding against their will.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My understanding is that all the while you have a slave you are flagged heinous, just like you would if you were using undead. That would rather quickly move them into evil alignment besides being hunted continuously in good territories (and probably neutral territories as well)

Goblin Squad Member

I did read that yes, but I couldn't find if it lasted past death.

Even then if I as e evil character gather up slaves for my good guild. Only my character would be flagged but the guild would have their slaves. They could adjust their laws so I don't get attacked or maybe I'll be immune to attacks by the sheer fact I am in the guild.

Either way it seems as on the whole of a guild this could be easily exploited.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are good and commit a heinous act, I would think that heinous flag would affect your alignment as heavily as killing a good character. Meaning one act will change you from good to neutral unless you were almost at the maximum good score. If you keep doing these acts then it will be harder and harder to stay good. The Heinous flag will be gone on death, but not the alignment points you incurred when you gained it.

Goblin Squad Member

Well you say that but slaves are something permanent from what I understand. If the guild as a whole decide to work together to slowly creep in one slave after another, while maintaining their overall alignment things could get very messy.

If lets say I have a guild of ten people and slavery takes away 45% of your alignment. At the start of the day you have ten new slaves and you spend the rest of the day being a kind and noble Paladin working your way back to 100%. Now lets assume you don't capture any more slaves than once per day. By the end of the month you'd still have 300 slaves as a force of good.

This is even assuming it would take a days work to recover your alignment. For all we know it could be obtained by about 20 minutes of farming.

Goblin Squad Member

My understanding is that the heinous flag only wears off if you stop using slaves or undead. So whoever keep slaves will be flagged all the time.


I don't believe the flag lingers if you use the undead, only for creating them. But I've seen contradictory implications on that. As for slaves, I've little idea, but it's a little different from undead summoning.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I don't believe the flag lingers if you use the undead, only for creating them. But I've seen contradictory implications on that. As for slaves, I've little idea, but it's a little different from undead summoning.

In the blog (pretty sure it's the latest one) they say that as long as you use the raised dead /slave, you keep the flag. So your time limit wouldn't start till after you are done with the raised dead/ slave.

Goblin Squad Member

I still feel this is to easy to abuse. Again lets say you have one guy, one guy wholly devoted to capture slaves for his guild. Again if he just captures five per day, by the end of the month they'd still have 150 slaves. That is assuming he'd not take more than five and no one else would help him in this effort.

Sure it may take a bit longer than for a evil guild, but anyone who ever played a MMO knows it is all about the long run. If one out of ten people from a good guild devoted themselves to slavery the guild would get their free labour and still remain good.

Hence why I'd suggest making each passing day stack a increasing amount of points towards evil for the settlement, maybe even have the skill trainers removed from the settlement, as their shocked and disgusted at your mistreatment of these poor souls.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except that so long as the slaves are enslaved they are accruing negatives. It isn't just the act of enslavement, but the use of enslavement that counts.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And if I were GW, I'd say one application of the heinous flag is enough to cause a paladin to fall even if it isn't enough of an alignment hit to change you to LN instead of LG. Also, the act of atonement should not be trivial. It should require a massive effort of time and resources to prove you are truly repentant.

Lawful Good is supposed to be hard. Even non palidins should not be able to game the system in the way you describe and stay Lawful Good.


This is a little unrelated, but I know a guy who played a hobgoblin paladin who saw no problem with slavery. Of course, his idea of slavery was more "indentured servitude" for crimes committed. "Crimes" generally meant horrid things like lying, though...

Goblin Squad Member

Moridian wrote:

Thus far I am pretty happy with the alignment penalties put in place and I do say this as a player intending to be evil or at least chaotic. I don't know how much the trainers will effect your impact on the game, but I do know that in a MMO you always max out eventually.

you might not ever "max out", though you'll come to a point where diminishing returns are so small that starting a new path is much more tempting than continuing an old one.

Quote:


Even then from what I understand you can go into other players towns to talk to their trainers there, so it all seems fairly straight for me.

not at all sure about that. maybe in same kingdom/alliance, maybe the settlement can make laws to allow/forbid. I would not plan on training in a settlement i couldn't join (due to alignment).

Quote:

What did kind of jab at me was the lack of penalty towards slavery or at least from what I heard.

yet potential necromancers complain that the heinous flag is too harsh.

Quote:


Evil players get slaves for cheap labour, allowing them to expand quicker and for less money.

This sounds reasonable but is pure speculation. I didn't see any information on slavery being in the game except that (if existing) it would be considered heinous.

Quote:


Enslave someone, do a few good deeds, enslave someone else, etc. Suddenly you end up with a force of good which has all benefits of either alignments.

i don't think so, see below. Taking and keeping slaves (if possible) outweighs "a few good deeds", and probably is enough to drop you to neutral on first offense.

Quote:


Sense you are essentially tormenting these poor souls on a daily basis, it only seems fitting your kingdom reflects this, putting more points towards evil for each day you force the people to do your bidding against their will.

You get the heinous flag for taking slaves, and most likely also again for using slaves. If you keep you slaves after your death you either keep the heinous flag or you regain it first time you force your slaves to do anything. My guess is that regular slavers quickly will max out on evil scale (-7500 or whatever it will be), but this I think is trivial/flavour; the punishment is the heinous/villain flag that will be up every time you are benefiting from the slaves.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

The problem with the Heinous flag is anyone can kill you without penalty as long as you have the flag. In other words you could be walking around town and anyone who sees you gets a free pass to murder you in the street.

Instant griefing of a permanent nature as long as you have the flag with the game designer's blessing.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
This is a little unrelated, but I know a guy who played a hobgoblin paladin who saw no problem with slavery. Of course, his idea of slavery was more "indentured servitude" for crimes committed. "Crimes" generally meant horrid things like lying, though...

Yep, know a valley girl paladin who regarded bad fashion sense as a heinous crime.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Decorus wrote:

The problem with the Heinous flag is anyone can kill you without penalty as long as you have the flag. In other words you could be walking around town and anyone who sees you gets a free pass to murder you in the street.

Instant griefing of a permanent nature as long as you have the flag with the game designer's blessing.

knee-jerk response: it would still be a crime, so that the Enforcers get a free pass to kill your killers. Hardly a 'free pass' to me.

2nd thought: would it solve the problem if only flagged Champions were exempted from the penalty? ("oh noes, a paladin, quick hide the skeletons in the closet!").

Ideological basis: assassins, slavers and necros killing each other smells more like backstabbing betrayers than fighting evil. Lawful Neutral enforcers stomping down on heinous non-crimes may or may not be regarded as good officers. Chaotic neutrals fighting freeing slaves may be seen as doing good but may as well be seen as violent and dangerous. The champions of good OTOH are expected to strike out against evil and will be seen as better for doing it.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

How many champions do you know who walk up to people and murder them without provocation for actions they can't see?

Goblin Squad Member

Decorus wrote:
The problem with the Heinous flag is anyone can kill you without penalty as long as you have the flag.

People keep mentioning this but I fail to see how that would keep people from abusing it. Currently in games like wow/swtor I have killed plenty of people in neutral ground. Likewise I also walk around those areas without people bothering to kill me most of the time, even though there is no penalty. Just because there will not be a penalty for being killed, doesn't remove the problem.

And even if it did, people could still have a small percentage of their guild carrying out this task, leaving the over all community to do good deeds and once more have all the benefits.

A outlaw can not have the good benefits because the trainers have to be worked hard for. But slaves you can just pick off the street and be done with it.


Decorus wrote:
How many champions do you know who walk up to people and murder them without provocation for actions they can't see?

Well, let's see...most of them charge (Lancelot, Miko, etc)...yeah, that's tricky.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Decorus wrote:
How many champions do you know who walk up to people and murder them without provocation for actions they can't see?

Well, let's see...most of them charge (Lancelot, Miko, etc)...yeah, that's tricky.

Well, since Lancelot and Miko both ended up fallen, not really the best role models.

Goblin Squad Member

Here is a picture I took today in Illum. For those who do not know, it is a all vs all PVP area in SWTOR. As you can see it is crawling with enemies who would suffer no penatly for killing me. Yet we all are kind enough to sit by and wait as each of us to finish the quest were on.

[img]http://s7.postimage.org/mnw6473tz/Screenshot_2013_02_12_19_36_45_224806.jpg [/img]

So the whole notion that this system would not be abused because it would allow people a free pass to kill your character is ridiculous.


Imbicatus wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Decorus wrote:
How many champions do you know who walk up to people and murder them without provocation for actions they can't see?

Well, let's see...most of them charge (Lancelot, Miko, etc)...yeah, that's tricky.

Well, since Lancelot and Miko both ended up fallen, not really the best role models.

What are you talking about? Lancelot didn't fall, he answered all three questions correctly!

;D

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Decorus wrote:
How many champions do you know who walk up to people and murder them without provocation for actions they can't see?

Well, let's see...most of them charge (Lancelot, Miko, etc)...yeah, that's tricky.

Well, since Lancelot and Miko both ended up fallen, not really the best role models.

What are you talking about? Lancelot didn't fall, he answered all three questions correctly!

;D

True, but he WAS arrested on murder charges. :)

Goblin Squad Member

@All,

I don't think it would make for good fantasy or be true to the setting for Champions to need to clear it with Johnny Cochrane and a room full of lawyers before they have permission to smite someone THEY KNOW is Heinous. That's a very modern concept, not congruent with classical fantasy.

Heck, if you look at real world history...the concept of Trial by Combat which was an accepted belief for a VERY long time...You didn't need ANY evidence....you simply handed the accuser and the accuse a pair of swords and insured it was a fair fight and the winner would AUTOMATICALY be the person with truth on thier side...as God always protected the innocent and the ungodly or the false could not, by definition, win in a fair fight.

So I don't think it's "Champion needs to follow rules of evidence"....but I do think it's an open question as to why the Champion (IC) comes by the knowledge they do. I mean one of Evil's classic strengths is the ability to decieve and hide itself in plain sight.

As a player, I (personaly) certainly wouldn't see justification for my character striking down an ordinary looking fellow with a Heinous flag floating over thier heads. On the other hand, a guy wearing the robes of a High Priest of Orcus, with a necklace of fresh skulls, commanding a zombie and with a human slave on a leash...... yeah, I wouldn't think there would be any need to check with an attorney before taking action.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

On the other hand, a guy wearing the robes of a High Priest of Orcus, with a necklace of fresh skulls, commanding a zombie and with a human slave on a leash...... yeah, I wouldn't think there would be any need to check with an attorney before taking action.

If you were in Orcusville at the time, then yeah you may need to check with a lawyer first before attacking. By the laws of the settlement, you may be committing destruction of property by destroying his undead, theft by freeing the slave, murder by killing the priest, and trespassing for being there in the first place. Those are the laws of the land, and you would be criminal for breaking them.

So if you find out about Orcusville, then just declare war before going there, problem solved.


I concur with grumpy mel. If you do not have a good reason to check it is more or less OOC. Yes palidens can detect evil people but I do not remeber any rule in their book to go killing us on sight without provocation....

It did happen in NVN2 a free to play privet server and I was Part of the evil community. on more than one occasion someone would flat out refuse to work with me or would try to knock me out to drag me to jail whiel the only crime I made was hand placing my alignment to LE.

personally the heinus flag is more than a huge red target for goodly players it is also a HUGE OOC concept. unless I have my wispering way cub scout badge stapled to my nose you should have no idea that I have undead in my basement. Or that I have done anything wrong at all. As far as anyone in concerned No one should know what my char is up to because that is half the game when you are playing a bad guy. If someone really wants to stop me and put an end to my evil they ned to do some leg work just like in TT rules. not just run in the street and say Oh I see you have this flag over your head. Follow me down this ally we need to ki.. I mean talk about something.

Goblin Squad Member

Imbicatus wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

On the other hand, a guy wearing the robes of a High Priest of Orcus, with a necklace of fresh skulls, commanding a zombie and with a human slave on a leash...... yeah, I wouldn't think there would be any need to check with an attorney before taking action.

If you were in Orcusville at the time, then yeah you may need to check with a lawyer first before attacking. By the laws of the settlement, you may be committing destruction of property by destroying his undead, theft by freeing the slave, murder by killing the priest, and trespassing for being there in the first place. Those are the laws of the land, and you would be criminal for breaking them.

So if you find out about Orcusville, then just declare war before going there, problem solved.

Yeah but I don't think Iomedae or Torag or frankly much of anyone outside of Orcusville is going to put much stock behind the laws of Orcusville.

That's one of the limitations of the game as opposed to a GM (which I accept by the way)....logicaly (in a Campaign sense) Iomedae (for example) is probably NOT going to be terribly upset with one of her Champions for going to Orcusville and striking down a High Priest of Orcus there....even though the game would label it a CRIMINAL and therefore CHAOTIC act. It might even be a feat that was rewarded..... and the people of Orcusville-Has-Been-Stealing-and-Enslaving-our-Kids town would probably regard such an action as laudable and heroic (high-reputation) rather then disreputable (poor reputation).

But it's really not the High Priest of Orcus in Orcusville that's a big issue....as you said Orcusville is an entity that War can be declared upon...problem solved. It's the High Priest of Orcus hanging out in the Wilderness that would be the problem....since ATTACKING and KILLING is universaly described as both Chaotic and Evil regardless of the participants. That's what the Champion flag effectively solved.

So I'm actualy all good with those concerns now....just expressing the opinion that Classical High Fantasy would not be congruent with LawyerVille Online.

But I personaly won't attack a person just because they are sporting the Heinous flag....my character would want to be able to establish a pretty sound basis for knowing thier nature.

I do understand why people would be upset over getting flagged Heinous...it kinda defeats one of Evil's primary modus operandi...disguising it's true nature. It'd be nice to see if there was some method for allowing for that. I mean I don't really have any reason to believe that this completely plain ordinary looking guy has got 20 skeletons he summoned hiding in his basement. It'd be pretty OOC knowledge as far as I was concerned.

Goblin Squad Member

But in some fantasy settings you do have to clear it with the law of the land before striking down supposed evil-doers. An example were made earlier by GrumpyMel about Trial by Combat in our own world's history (which I don't consider a very valid argument to begin with, but will reply to none the less). Yes, trial by combat have occured and still do, even if it's more of a criminal offense now a days, but there is a key-diffrence here. Almost all trials by combat have had one very strong rule: You DO NOT kill your opponent, but leave them to be dealt with by the law of the land. It's also a more formal process than "here have a sword lets go" in most (western and eastern, since those are the ones I know the most about) throughout time. Actually, all throughout our world's history, killing is an act that has been largely frowned upon when it can be avoided. This is why even gladiatorial combat got a rather low death rate for what it is.

I would also like to bring up another example that I think relate to the topic. In Neverwinter Nights 2 (SPOILERS for that game to follow, if you do mind) you find yourself in the city of Neverwinter where you try to twart the plans of the evil Garius and his lackeys, Torio and Lorne. Now, these individuals commit crime like murder, goading of the local orc tribe, raising of the dead, worshipping of evil deities, etc. etc. as well as framing you, the main character for murder. Instead of killing them all out for their henious ways, you go to court, and only through a series of long quests (and high diplomacy rolls) can you clear your name. No matter if you do clear your name or not, a trial by combat will take place, either on the suggestion of your "lawyer" Sand, or Torio, depending on who won the diplomacy rolls. This trial is to the death, however, as it's fine to do that in a fantasy setting. We're playing in a setting where "evil" and "good" are objective truths after all!

Now, to bring my rather longwinded argument to a close, I'd also like to mention that most cultures in our own history have employed slave work in one way or another (and we can argue that we still do with economical slavery, though that is a whole other can of worms we don't need to open!). We can either do the simple thing here, and say that slavery, no matter what, is always considered an evil act, and should really, REALLY count as such, if it will even be in the game. The only real solution I would see to this problem is that any settlement which allow slavery inside their walls should be considered to be evil, no matter what good they do other than that.

Sorry for the wall of text!

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:


Yeah but I don't think Iomedae or Torag or frankly much of anyone outside of Orcusville is going to put much stock behind the laws of Orcusville.

Thats the part that I think has alot of debate on. My own opinion on the matter is that any Lawful person that walks into a city should follow their laws. Doesnt matter if the city is Good, Neutral or Evil. This is their own 'moral compass'. Its in how they apply the law that this differs.

Lawful Good: Follow the law including the positive spirit of it
Lawful Neutral: Follow the letter of the law without regard for the spirit
Lawful Evil: Follow the letter of the law and twist the spirit of it for gain

So if a Paladin of Iomedae walks into a city run by Asmodeus, he should actually follow the the laws of that city. The character may end up breaking those laws in order to follow the cause of 'Good' by smiting Asmodeans, but he has still broken the law. Whether or not this has an impact with respect to atonement and such is tricky.

All of this is moot if the character in question has declared war on the city and this is all my own opinion on the matter obviously. :)

As far as the slave discussion, I agree that any community that use slaves should reap the appropriate negatives and loss of rep. That includes businesses within the community uses slaves. The knowledge should be available to the community leaders to be able to make an informed decision.

Goblin Squad Member

@All,

Death in Trial by Combat was quite common. In fact, in virtualy all capital cases it was how the Trial was adjucated concluded (since capital crimes would generaly carry a death sentance anyway). An opponent could "yield"...essentialy forfeiting the Trial but this was only usefull in noble trials where the individuals fighting weren't neccesarly the accused or the accusers but champions standing in thier place. The utility there is that the loosing champion didn't neccesarly have to die along with the person he was representing. The function of the "Court" was to ensure that the combat was fought by the established rules.

Trial by Combat (and Trial by Ordeal) were EXTREMELY common in Europe throughout the Middle Ages. Modern rules of jurris prudence and evidence were a forgien concept during the Middle Ages and only STARTED coming into usage at the End of the Rennisance (example the Salem Witch Trials were a combination of Trial by Jury and Trial by Ordeal). For a literary example of Trial by Combat you can look to Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott but there are plenty of examples in the historical record as well.

This was all placed upon the principle that in an equal contest Good would always triumph over Evil and God would always protect the innocent. In fact, there are some noteable incidents of conversion of pagan peoples by early Christian Missionaries that were a result of a successfull Trial by Ordeal by the Missionary against the pagan priest (i.e. "My God is stronger then Your God"). This was a VERY common concept in pre-modern socities.

The other thing to remember was that in Feudal Society, Knights generaly WERE the Law (especialy landed Knights) or at the very least agents of it. They typicaly were granted the authority to dispense summary justice. There really wasn't the kind of seperation between law enforcement, judiciary and corrections that people are used to seeing today. In fact, in most places in Europe the maximum common law penalty a noble could face for killing someone elses serf without cause was simply paying the landholder a fine representing the serfs value.

I know alot of this shocks and grates against modern sensabilties but that WAS the way things were.....and that is the society that Classical High Fantasy drew off of as it's inspiration.

...

In terms of Lawfulness. I think the salient factor that many people are missing is that a Lawful person respects thier own codes of personal conduct, oath's, obligations, etc ....and the laws of any LEGITIMATE authority RECKOGNIZED by them. Just because someone can raise a banner on a piece of dirt, doesn't mean they are going to be universaly reckognized by them as a legitimate government. We see examples of this even in the modern era. For example the U.S. doesn't reckognize North Korea's laws even in North Korea's own territory because the U.S. doesn't reckognize the legitimacy of North Korea's government. It's why the Korean War was officialy termed a "Police Action". It's why some countries won't extradite to others. Same was true historicaly, as monarchs often argued that any law or treaty made by an illegitimate monarch had no force, since they had no right to rule.

Same would likely be true, in a Campaign sense in Pathfinder as likely most Good Dieties and Good Realms wouldn't recognize the LEGITIMACY of the government of Orcusville and by extension ANY Laws it created...and vice versa.

Of course, PFO's automated system would have a tough time modeling all these complexities and it probably wouldn't make for very good game-play given the TYPE of game they want to make. However move this into a PnP Campaign with a human GM and the model would fit PERFECTLY and it would be PFO's model that would come out looking pretty ABSURD there.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a quick follow up. The low death rate in gladitorial matches really had very little to do with some sort of universal respect for human life in the Roman Empire and more to do with the financial investment a skilled and trained gladiator represented. If you want proof of that simply look at what happaned in the unequal gladitorial contests that became popular later on where skilled gladiators were matched up against non-combatants...where they were common prisoners, non-combatant captives in war or early christains (or other unfavored religions)...or even where such untrained combatants were pitted (usualy unarmed) against dangerous animals.

Goblin Squad Member

Oberyn deLorenzo wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:


Yeah but I don't think Iomedae or Torag or frankly much of anyone outside of Orcusville is going to put much stock behind the laws of Orcusville.

Thats the part that I think has alot of debate on. My own opinion on the matter is that any Lawful person that walks into a city should follow their laws. Doesnt matter if the city is Good, Neutral or Evil. This is their own 'moral compass'. Its in how they apply the law that this differs.

Lawful Good: Follow the law including the positive spirit of it
Lawful Neutral: Follow the letter of the law without regard for the spirit
Lawful Evil: Follow the letter of the law and twist the spirit of it for gain

So if a Paladin of Iomedae walks into a city run by Asmodeus, he should actually follow the the laws of that city. The character may end up breaking those laws in order to follow the cause of 'Good' by smiting Asmodeans, but he has still broken the law. Whether or not this has an impact with respect to atonement and such is tricky.

All of this is moot if the character in question has declared war on the city and this is all my own opinion on the matter obviously. :)

As far as the slave discussion, I agree that any community that use slaves should reap the appropriate negatives and loss of rep. That includes businesses within the community uses slaves. The knowledge should be available to the community leaders to be able to make an informed decision.

Yeah but does a Paladin follow the laws of the land or the laws of his god? I would expect a LG fighter to follow the laws of the land, but a Paladin I would expect to follow the laws of his god.

Goblin Squad Member

Discussion about the common or uncommon Trials by Combat none with standing, I would still like to stress the example from Neverwinter Nights 2 made in my post. In the game it's stated that it's a long dead tradition that they don't really do anymore, and the only reason why they let you do it is because it's still, technically, in the "lawbook".

You would be lying to yourself if you stated that Fantasy RPG, especially Dungeongs & Dragons / Pathfinder are based on the midieval times of our own history. To begin with, slavery is considered an act of Evil, which, if we look as history, doesn't really seem to go all that well with the view on morals from this time in our own history. Serves and slaves were a rather common occurance, one could say, part of the norm.

Secondly, many parts of the D&D / PF universes frown upon torture and public executions. Again, not really matching all that well with our historical society, where people went out to watch people getting pulled apart by horses, gotten limbs choped off, etcetera, etcetera.

As a closing statement, we can't forget that D&D / PF adds a whole new class of citizens to the mix, that of the Adventurer. It's not that it's a particularly common class in these systems, but it's common enough, so to the point that almost every community, no matter how small, have at least one individual within itself who have belong to this rather odd little class. This, in combination with the fact that magic is real in this setting, and good and evil is a force of nature, makes it almost impossible to properly compare this to our own medieval society.

To round this off and move back on topic, either you have the cake or you don't. You allow slavery, you are considered evil. No matter. It's the only conventient and logical way to do it.

On a whole other topic, I find the idea of the hienous flag redundant.

Goblin Squad Member

The alternative of course is to return to the original vision of totally open PvP (assuming that was what was intended for the wilds).

That way Paladins can whack anyone that looks at them funny or maybe litters or was seen talking to an evil guy, meanwhile bandits are free to kill whoever walks by regardless of who the victim is.

Because - otherwise it is just deteriorating into red versus blue with one group wanting restrictions on the other lot whilst retaining the total freedom to do as they please for themselves.

Though to be honest, given we have no knowledge of how slavery will work in-game (aside from you likely have to train the skills, can only enslave npcs and will probably have to steal those npcs from a settlement) the whole heinous issue is a non event.

Goblin Squad Member

Neadenil Edam wrote:
The alternative of course is to return to the original vision of totally open PvP (assuming that was what was intended for the wilds).

I'm almost completely positive this was never the original vision.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Neadenil Edam wrote:
The alternative of course is to return to the original vision of totally open PvP (assuming that was what was intended for the wilds).
I'm almost completely positive this was never the original vision.

I think the origional vision, possibly even the current one, is that CE would largely be confined to "griefers" who represented the "content" for everyone else to play against.

My personal problem with that is that it's only marginaly less distastefull to interact with "griefers" by beating them then by getting beaten up by them. Interacting with them in any manner whatsoever is simply not fun at all.

I want the antagonists that I play against to be fun, decent human beings where we can all enjoy the interaction.

I guess to some extent that is a "Red" vs "Blue" situation...and I really don't see anything wrong with that. I don't want either side to be significantly disadvantaged just enjoy different sets of advantages. It's entirely possible that PFO won't be the game for me...Honestly, I'm still in the, lets give it a shot and see how it works out column.

@MrSavarius

The slave thing, I think is entirely due to PFO being set in the River Kingdoms, I think. You are correct in that some modern sensabilties have started creeping into Pathfinder and later versions of D&D, but the base of inspiration for classical High Fantasy was Midieval Europe...or rather a very idealized version of it.

One thing that I personaly don't want to see is that Fantasy based games become too similar to the modern world and all it's restrictiveness. The point (IMO) to utilizing a Fantasy setting is to present the player with something VERY DIFFERENT from the modern world and all it's complexities, to allow for a sense of escapism.... otherwise we might be better served by playing Cops, Lawyers and CPA's Online.

So (IMO) we have to allow some room for the "Bad Guys" and the "Good Guys" to fight each other without an overly restrictive set of rules, regulations and red tape getting in the way. I think that's what the PvP flags are intended to allow for.

Note: If the game were intended to be something like 80 percent PvE and 20 percent PvP then I might think differently but I believe the focus of the game is going to be very much the other way around.

If I were looking for a mostly PvE game, I wouldn't look to PFO....PvE takes a TON of resources to produce enough content to keep players interested for long...GW doesn't have it, they (as far as MMO's) have very limited resources....which means they are looking to PvP to really carry the load of producing content for players. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

Zyric wrote:
...Yeah but does a Paladin follow the laws of the land or the laws of his god? I would expect a LG fighter to follow the laws of the land, but a Paladin I would expect to follow the laws of his god.

Excellent question.

GrumpyMel should pounce on this. I don't have an effective argument against it unless the Devs provide guidance..

Goblin Squad Member

I always viewed the Law-Chaos axis as more about the general idea of stable societies rather than any particular set of laws.

Goblin Squad Member

Yet many visions of Utopia proposed enlightened independence rather than violent anarchy. Both are forms of chaos.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
Zyric wrote:
...Yeah but does a Paladin follow the laws of the land or the laws of his god? I would expect a LG fighter to follow the laws of the land, but a Paladin I would expect to follow the laws of his god.

Excellent question.

GrumpyMel should pounce on this. I don't have an effective argument against it unless the Devs provide guidance..

Actualy (IMO) Lawful...regardless of class...follows a hierarchy of rules that origionate from sources they reckognize as LEGITIMATE...and giving precedence to rules higher in that hierarchy over ones lower when they conflict.

Some of those rules may origionate from internal sources such as Codes of Honor, Oaths, etc

Others may origionate from external sources such as ones Diety, ones Nation, the Captain of ones Company, etc.

What's included in that Heiarchy and what the order of precedence is set within it is going to vary between EACH INDIVIDUAL Lawful character.

Therefore just because some Brigand has gotten strong enough to plant his flag over a piece of dirt and pronounce himself King over it, does NOT mean that I would have ANY obligation or inclination to follow his "laws"...because I don't recognize his LEGITIMACY as an authority. However, one of said Brigands men who pledged to serve him certainly would if they were Lawful.

The point with Lawful characters is that they DO each have a Hierarchy and a strong inclination to follow it in a CONSISTANT manner even in cases when they don't neccessarly agree with it.

Chaotic characters are more "shoot from the hip" kinda guys. They approach each situation individualy and do what they feel is right or best or what suits them in each one. They don't feel the need to be consistant or constrained by any set of rules either internal or external....and they certainly are not inclined to subjugate thier own judgement to some external source.

Anyway, that's the way I see it...speaking from a philisophical standpoint, of course.... not a "how the heck could we impliment this mechanicaly in a game" standpoint.

Edit: So a LG Fighter probably has the laws of HIS OWN land within his Hiearchy....open question whether the laws of any other is there, or whether or not a Diety is there. A LG Paladin (or Cleric) would almost assuredly place the Laws of thier Diety at the top of thier Hierarchy.

Goblin Squad Member

Sounds Lawful Chaotic.


I agree with Grumpy. A bandit with a very firm code of conduct could still be Lawful (especially if he's acting against a corrupt regime).

Goblin Squad Member

Yet th definition of chaotic behavior is operating on your own sensibilities. If your very firm code of conduct is internal sourced rather than external, then unless your internal code of conduct happens to coincide with an external authority then you are chaotic, even if you are consistently operting on your personal code of honor. But if you control your internal dives and impulses to conform to an external authority then that is lawful.

The problem for my way of looking at it comes from the question whether a code of conduct or set of recognized Laws issues from a Chaotic deity or town?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
Sounds Lawful Chaotic.

Let me try to put it in more practical terms that might make sense to you. If, as US millitary, you get sent into North Korea on a clandestine mission (say recon an enemy facility) during peace time....

- Do you feel any compulsion to follow Kim Jong-un's laws even though your orders directly contradict them ?

- Have you suddenly lost your respect for authority, order and discipline because you ignored North Korea's laws?

- Is the fact that you broke North Korea's laws mean that you are unlikely to follow US Law, maintain discipline or follow the orders of your commander?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:

Yet th definition of chaotic behavior is operating on your own sensibilities. If your very firm code of conduct is internal sourced rather than external, then unless your internal code of conduct happens to coincide with an external authority then you are chaotic, even if you are consistently operting on your personal code of honor. But if you control your internal dives and impulses to conform to an external authority then that is lawful.

The problem for my way of looking at it comes from the question whether a code of conduct or set of recognized Laws issues from a Chaotic deity or town?

As I see it...internal codes are more about CONSISTANCY in conduct, Being.

Example: You set yourself an internal code that you will "Always Hold Open the Door for Females". You encounter a female that is the worst kind of shrew imaginable. She has just robbed you, called you names and slapped you in the face.

The Lawful character will hold open the door for her, even though he REALLY, REALLY wants to slam it in her face.

The Chaotic character will slam the door in her face without a second though, because it's what he WANTS to do in the given situation.

Goblin Squad Member

US Law isn't internally sourced but pronounced by external authority. Therefore I am lawful to follow US Law.

However if I have a code of conduct that I follow based not on external authority but instead based on my sense of right and wrong, then while I might be good it is no thanks to Law, but to chaos and my liberty to choose rightly.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

...

As I see it...internal codes are more about CONSISTANCY in conduct, Being.
...

We disagree, if by consistency you mean lawful. A chaotic good character can be very consistent in discerning between right and wrong. He could be the wisest man alive. That doesn't make him obedient to law, but rather to his personal conscience... and that is chaotic.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

RE: Laws that are issued from Chaotic Dieties or Town

For Chaotic characters they are really more like a set of "Guidelines". They may follow them, the may not. It really depends on what they WANT to do in any given situation. They really look at it more as advice from a friend...perhaps even a VERY, VERY wise and knoweldgable friend. They don't feel a firm obligation to follow it...but they very well MAY do so, if they think it's a SMART choice.


Being wrote:


The problem for my way of looking at it comes from the question whether a code of conduct or set of recognized Laws issues from a Chaotic deity or town?

This leads to a situation I've observed being played out in the US since I began paying attention to such things (around the mid to late 1970's). I won't get into a big discussion of RW politics vs. faith, but I've been observing a government sponsored indoctrination program introduced when children start school and continuing throughout their lives in television, the media and music. Is main intent is to ensure that people obey the government over and above any religious considerations while still paying lip service to those religious principles as a way to bind the people to the laws and traditions they believe will allow them to maintain control. (This is my personal observation based on decades of consideration, I don't expect many to support such a theory, thus my statement about not starting a discussion about it). "Why did you write it? you might ask" because I'm an opinionated sob that's why :p

Such a thing can't translate into the games political system, nor would it be beneficial. I'm VERY interested in how settlement laws will be implemented though. Some will be easy, like "is slavery against the law?" Others won't be so easy, like "ore can only have a maximum markup of 100%". (I tried to come up with a question that the computer will have a difficult time recognizing and enforcing, but I'm drawing a blank ATM :p )

Goblin Squad Member

But if Chaos is the ability to choose freely, what is neutral?

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Penalties for slavery All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.