Goblin Squad Member
|
IMO, the above statement describes the difference between Neutral and True Neutral. Where neutral is apathetic to good/evil, law/chaos, and mainly self absorbed, or at least predominately concerned with its self. True Neutral on the other hand is very involved in the struggle of law/chaos, good/evil. It must be in order to maintain a balance and prevent one extreme from rising above the other.
This is exactly how I see the Northern Lights. We will be opportunists, but also diplomats... for hire. We will trade with anyone who doesn't try to bargain with a sword, and we will be happy to be go-between unbiased facilitators of negotiations or the like.
While some could see the opportunism as a LE or CE trait, I see it as TN. It is in our best interest to have two customers, not one. So, if "helping" a bit to maintain a balance between two opposing factions becomes possible, we will take that road as a matter of policy. Not publicly, of course.
"But of course we have you foremost in our thoughts and hopes for prosperity! You've been such an ally to us, and we are happy to support you in your time of need!" .... copy to all parties, double check the salutation on each to ensure no embarrassment comes of the wrong message reaching the opposite party. ;-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First I would differentiate between the merely wishy-washy from those who are actively for the game-world as a whole.
The active, or True, Neutral should not be ambivalent but instead activists promoting neutral skills like inter-settlement trade, would be characteristically pro-diplomacy, anti-escalatory, pro-environment.
I concur with your idea of a True Neutral, and if there were to be a defined dynamic for True Neutral then it would need to adhere to this idea.
But if True Neutral characters were the best at trade and diplomacy, how would that effect good vs evil background of settlement conflict? We want the main source of conflict to be not simply combat, but also trade "wars" and most certainly ongoing elements of diplomacy.
I suppose my worry is that if you emphasize True Neutral too much, then you dilute the foundational conflict.
A neutral with high reputation is clearly different from a new and unknown character.
A neutral who destroys an untended resource harvester (which I propose would be destructive to the environment, yet yielding higher immediate gain while exhausting the resource quickly) might acquire a 'vandal' flag which opens him or her to attack (defense of property) without alignment loss, but increasing local reputation.
If we are talking about more particular flags and other mechanical elements that foster a True Neutral, other than the Traveler flag, cool, though we would probably need more flags for the other alignments as well.
I have missed a part of the conversation, though, because you may be specifically talking about True Neutral settlements.
I have a question whther the 'reality' of the MMO experience is simply the consequence of perceptions. The struggle between good and evil, and to a lesser degree between order and chaos, does have neutral activities that only have not been recognized in themselves. Neutral activities such as exploring, crafting, and trade have been treated as auxiliary activities that fill time against the backdrop of the overarching plotlines between good/evil and chaos/order drama.
In fact these activities are something in themselves, and not just a few players focus on them. Myopia, even if traditional, is no less myopic.
We are obviously talking about generalities here. But what I mentioned seems to be the case from the last couple decades of MMO (including MUDs) with regards to player psychology. Again I am talking about the dynamic between players and meaningful in-game choices for their characters.
Now, if the point is to foster the "auxiliary" activities I am 100% behind that, and I am encouraged that we are seeing Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat, etc as actual Roles. In addition to the Traveler flag, and the Cartography ideas floating around.
I don't think these are alignment based activities, and I'm not sure that we want them to be alignment based.
If I am not understanding where you are coming from, please correct me. My eyes are open, though to be honest, I had to go to the eye doctor the other day and pick up reading glasses.
Well said Valandur.
I would like to create a meta-game feature, that of having a druid council for which all druids belong too, and can take part in, to work together and as individuals protecting the wilderness and maintaining natural balance.
I'm wondering if you couldn't achieve this by starting a CC, but instead of founding, or joining, a settlement, the members could be separate, doing their own thing for the most part. Coming together in times of crisis, when a region is threatened, say by large harvesting groups that won't moderate their activities, or who seek to cut down a grove etc..
I'm not sure how this would work, but I figure the players could form their own organization even if GW doesn't provide any tools to assist in creating such a organization.
Note: I really love the idea Being had about having certain Druid/Ranger skills only available through NPCs that wander the land and must be sought out to train those skills. Also I would love to see crafting facilities for nature related skills, perhaps attached to groves. Obviously facilities used for fletching/bow creation/staff making would have to be available in settlements, but perhaps they can be mirrored for Druids/Rangers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
I concur with your idea of a True Neutral, and if there were to be a defined dynamic for True Neutral then it would need to adhere to this idea.But if True Neutral characters were the best at trade and diplomacy, how would that effect good vs evil background of settlement conflict? We want the main source of conflict to be not simply combat, but also trade "wars" and most certainly ongoing elements of diplomacy.
My view is that capitalizing on the potential of TN alignment is to create more opportunities for interplayer dynamics rather than less. Not only must the nascent extremist power factor for their opponent kingdom or settlement but also for the neutrals. Bolstering or risking the backing or even tacit acceptance of the true neutrals for the extreme alignment's influence opens more opportunities for intrigue, diplomacy, and negotiation. The danger of offending the protectors of Nature opens greater risks for the militant kingdom.
I suppose my worry is that if you emphasize True Neutral too much, then you dilute the foundational conflict.
The threat of finding your enemy has gained the support of the TN faction would provide new venues for interplayer drama. If it were well played it should enhance, rather than dilute the foundational conflict.
If we are talking about more particular flags and other mechanical elements that foster a True Neutral, other than the Traveler flag, cool, though we would probably need more flags for the other alignments as well.
The denial of resources for the enemy will surely be a factor of assymetric warfare preceding such things as invasion and assault. the Vandal flag would surely not only apply to True Neutrals, but to anyone who destroys property or goods even if they do not murder player characters or settlement NPCs.
We are obviously talking about generalities here. But what I mentioned seems to be the case from the last couple decades of MMO (including MUDs) with regards to player psychology. Again I am talking about the dynamic between players and meaningful in-game choices for their characters.
Your point is well taken, but at the same time I would point out that many game designs in the last decade or longer appear to have missed a few game system elements that were very successful in the days of MUDs. Perhaps it is significant that politics in those days were also more constructive and less polarized. Moderation in the conversation between thesis and antithesis found productive synthesis in the moderates. Now we find bipolarity that brings us to a standstill becoming more locked into a downward spiral the more strident to opposite sides grow. Possibly there is a link between how we approach the world and how we play. Possibly there is a very good reason to look more closely at what worked in those MUDs that led to Everquest and WoW and discover what those designs glossed over or missed altogether. What was it that was successful about DAoC, for example, if not the triadic dynamism or three powers rather than polarity? Was there something elementary to the human psyche that responds to such? Might it not be better for the whole of the game to include an established power base for the moderate? Might not that be best expressed with something that borrows from the Greens?
Now, if the point is to foster the "auxiliary" activities I am 100% behind that, and I am encouraged that we are seeing Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat, etc as actual Roles. In addition to the Traveler flag, and the Cartography ideas floating around.
Quite so, IMV. Plus if the Traveller flag is properly a function of the neutral, would it not make sense for that skill to be trained there? If that is to be the case, and other skills and feats are a natural fit wouldn't it make sense to invest True Neutrality to be fully fledged as a settlement alignment as well?
I don't think these are alignment based activities, and I'm not sure that we want them to be alignment based.
They are common to all alignments. Who better to host their highest expression than True Neutral? One NPC settlement will be Neutral aligned and surely there the basics are trained. Probably in the other starting settlements as well, to be sure. Now granted these skills should also be trained in LG and LE settlements, but what better test for a diplomacy feat than for an LG or LE aritocrat to successfully be able to enter into a TN kingdon and train the elite skills of Aristocratic diplomacy, since TN is TWO alignment steps for both? Such diplomacy surely desrves a featful reward.
...
If I am not understanding where you are coming from, please correct me. My eyes are open, though to be honest, I had to go to the eye doctor the other day and pick up reading glasses.
Welcome to the land of vision: we are remarkably more insightful than the cyclopean titans of extremism.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IMO, the above statement describes the difference between Neutral and True Neutral. Where neutral is apathetic to good/evil, law/chaos, and mainly self absorbed, or at least predominately concerned with its self. True Neutral on the other hand is very involved in the struggle of law/chaos, good/evil. It must be in order to maintain a balance and prevent one extreme from rising above the other.This is exactly how I see the Northern Lights. We will be opportunists, but also diplomats... for hire. We will trade with anyone who doesn't try to bargain with a sword, and we will be happy to be go-between unbiased facilitators of negotiations or the like.
While some could see the opportunism as a LE or CE trait, I see it as TN. It is in our best interest to have two customers, not one. So, if "helping" a bit to maintain a balance between two opposing factions becomes possible, we will take that road as a matter of policy. Not publicly, of course.
I think you may be confusing political neutrality with Neutrality, the alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few of observations:
In PFO:
Good is defined as the absence of evil and
Lawful is defined as the absence of chaos.
There really is no definition of Good, Lawful and Neutral, only evil and chaos.
As the game is proposed now, trying to remain neutral in any respect will be harder than being at any extreme of either axis. This is a designed and very intentional feature.
In order to circumvent this dev's could allow players to switch off the automatic gain of Law/Good, this could be at a default 'zero' or potentially at any other level, this will enable people to cap their drift away from evil and chaos.
I see this as currently cutting across the current design goals of the game and impacting significantly on player and settlement interaction. If someone wants this to change they better rally the troops now because impacts it on many of the game design elements. I get the impression dev's current stated intentions won't be changing anytime soon.
Having said that conflict will (apparently) be largely settlement driven so conflict need not be derrived from alignment based considerations although alignment differences (particularly evil/good) will facilitate conflict.
Having a large and or powerful 'neutral' body will stabilise the region with respect to alignment based conflict. Is this what the dev's or the game want?
I don't see 'neutral' characters being better at diplomacy than anyone else, each alignment will have their own strengths to bring to the table in various diplomatic situations.
You can totally have a NN Settlement. Your members will be NN, CN, LN, NG, AND NE. That sounds awesome to me!
Heck yea it does :D.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being,
At this point I don't think it is necessary to get into a critique of each element we are discussing, because I think we are more closely aligned then it may seem. So I'll just offer a few quick comments:
- If fostering the alignment, True Neutral, involves meaningful "active" choices I am all for it.
- I would absolutely like to see GW work on the strengths and weaknesses of MUDs, but I also realize that they have to look at the modern MMOs, because the majority of the player base will probably come from them.
- I believe that if you foster the moderate position, you will see the overwhelming majority take that position, which will create a vanilla environment. Why? That is the nature of (most) people, especially those that play games (PnP, MMO, etc).
Note, I would love to see a game filled with people that are at least trying to roleplay, but we cannot bank on it. My hope is that GW and the community starts the education process as early as possible and continues it through a variety of areas (Community supported roleplayers, website dedicated to roleplaying, background development at character creation, in-game support, etc, etc).
I'm interested to see how your ideas develop in light of the various design elements that arise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the mix of alignments is at all balanced I would see the NN settlements as being the trading powerhouse of the PFO River Kingdoms. Keeping the right alignment mix in ones settlement could be a challenge.
I'm interested to see how how sponsored CC's and their members relate to the sponsoring settlement as regards membership and access.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In order to circumvent this dev's could allow players to switch off the automatic gain of Law/Good, this could be at a default 'zero' or potentially at any other level, this will enable people to cap their drift away from evil and chaos.
Stephen has already mentioned that there will be an option akin to this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few of observations:
In PFO:
Good is defined as the absence of evil and
Lawful is defined as the absence of chaos.
There really is no definition of Good, Lawful and Neutral, only evil and chaos.
This is really funny, I actually see it the other way:
Evil is defined by the absence of Good and
Chaos is defined by the absence of Order.
I came to that conclusion after reading a description of Asmodeus (LE) as pure Lawful, unfettered by the influence of Good. If LE means Pure Law, then Evil is actually the absence of Good. Neutrality would mean a balance, some Good influence but without an extreme.
I imagine Lawful and Chaotic to be similar, Chaos being the absence of order, Neutral being a balanced amount of order.
And I too support having TN as a faction, a faction that believes Good and Law need to pursued with a modicum of balance...everything in moderation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Elorebaen
I hope that as there will be little PvE content any interaction between players will essentially be rolepaying.
It seems like a lot of effort is going into ensuring interactions outside of ones own Kingdom/settlement/CC are not restricted to attacking on sight. (ala EVE?)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KitNyx
I was referring to the game mechanic as stated by the dev's (drift to good and Law) rather than PF or life in general. I see your point.
Although I view Law as one of the many facets of Chaos.
[edit] (so in my view) paradoxically in order for something to be perfectly chaotic there must be an element of Lawfulness.
Why do almost all topics always turn into alignment discussions? /sigh
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KitNyx
I was referring to the game mechanic as stated by the dev's (drift to good and Law) rather than PF or life in general. I see your point.
Although I view Law as one of the many facits of Chaos
Oh, interesting point about how PfO is looking at it. I am still stuck in the PnP game I think.
@Elorebaen
I hope that as there will be little PvE content any interaction between players will essentially be rolepaying.
Not sure where your getting the thought that there will be few PvE encounters. We generally focus on PvP encounters on the forums because there are soo many factors to consider, as well as innovations by GW to PvP. But with the escalation system, standard NPC mob encounters, mobs drawn to building sites, harvesting locations and just the presence of players, I really see a LOT of PvE content occurring.
What you won't see are static groups of mobs that repop in the same spot over and over. Nor will you see dungeons who's entrance is in a set spot (dungeons change location as they are cleared). You also won't see NPC quest mobs. The quests will be player created as opposed to NPCs with !'s above their heads.
So I think you'll be surprised at the amount of PvE content that will be present in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you may be confusing political neutrality with Neutrality, the alignment.
Opportunism at a personal level may help define the individual alignment, but I guess I see it as a function of political "alignment", too.
From a political view, wouldn't "good" be a societal trend to care for all, and not cater to any one individual's benefit? While "evil" might be, at the extreme, a society where all profit goes to one individual (or even group) without regard to the effect on the masses.
Again, in an extreme view, a Politic of Good may find expression as a sort of socialism, where Politic of Evil would be a dictatorship, likely with slave labor and other oppressive features.
I would put forth that there is Individual Alignment, Political Alignment of a society to itself, and Political Alignment to other political entities. I may be one thing in my personal behavior and belief. My community may govern itself under another set of values which I may or may not endorse completely. In relating to other towns, kingdoms, peoples... well, my town may have yet another set of behaviors it uses in those situations. It isn't a given that a society will treat outsiders or other societies the same as they treat members of their own society.
It gets complicated... maybe we need other terms to use in the various roles. It's kind of like that old bug-a-boo "level". The 18th Level mage cast a 7th Level spell at the 8th Level monster on the 6th Level of the dungeon. Ick. Unfortunately, a lot of the words used for different concepts are the same.
**Edit: silly spell checker...**
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you may be confusing political neutrality with Neutrality, the alignment.Opportunism at a personal level may help define the individual alignment, but I guess I see it as a function of political "alignment", too.
From a political view, wouldn't "good" be a societal trend to care for all, and not cater to any one individual's benefit? While "evil" might be, at the extreme, a society where all profit goes to one individual (or even group) without regard to the effect on the masses.
Political alignment is defined by the poles of a conflict, regardless of the Alignment of those poles. If you choose to support two sides of a conflict equally with healing and supplies, that's politically neutral, but good in alignment. Similarly, ambushing caravans of both sides as the opportunity arises is evil in alignment, but still politically neutral.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You can totally have a NN Settlement. Your members will be NN, CN, LN, NG, AND NE. That sounds awesome to me!
Sounds like a change from a previous official position on NN settlements.
As I recall, the previous justification was that allowing 5 instead of 4 or 3 alignments would give TN settlements too much popularity. Has that been supplemented by giving aligned settlements or strongly aligned characters better benefits?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I would love to see a game filled with people that are at least trying to roleplay, but we cannot bank on it. My hope is that GW and the community starts the education process as early as possible and continues it through a variety of areas (Community supported roleplayers, website dedicated to roleplaying, background development at character creation, in-game support, etc, etc).
I think that if GW holds to their plan to admit new people a little at a time, and we can manage to build a strong RP example for them to try and fit into, then with exceptions the ranks of the role players will grow.
We cannot expect it to be easy. There will be many whose idea of RP has no basis in reality yet refuse the facts in favr of their beliefs. But the ranks of the RPs will grow.
...
I'm interested to see how your ideas develop in light of the various design elements that arise.
So am I, and I am also interested to see how yours play out as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can totally have a NN Settlement. Your members will be NN, CN, LN, NG, AND NE. That sounds awesome to me!Sounds like a change from a previous official position on NN settlements.
As I recall, the previous justification was that allowing 5 instead of 4 or 3 alignments would give TN settlements too much popularity. Has that been supplemented by giving aligned settlements or strongly aligned characters better benefits?
I think we will find tha CG and NG will still be the most populous alignments.
When I recall my earliest days in d20 games almost all my characters were CG because while I had an idealistic will-to-good, I also had an opinion of Law that it is oppressive and confining.
I think most people want to see themselves as good, and I doubt they will tend to artificially limit their goodness. If most escalating mobs threatening towns are CE, then players clearing those CE mobs around their settlements and at resource sites will naturally compel their alignments into the Good alignments.'
Lawful good, besides seeming oppressive to some, will probably also be hard to attain. I imagine it will take active decisions to be lawful good, just as it will require active decisions to attain lawful evil.
It will likely prove to be challenging to hold TN (or now NN) alignment and also gain high reputation as an NN.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can totally have a NN Settlement. Your members will be NN, CN, LN, NG, AND NE. That sounds awesome to me!Sounds like a change from a previous official position on NN settlements.
As I recall, the previous justification was that allowing 5 instead of 4 or 3 alignments would give TN settlements too much popularity. Has that been supplemented by giving aligned settlements or strongly aligned characters better benefits?
I remember this being discussed (the steps inclusive or exclusive of NN) and being put to further deliberation for the time-being.
My immediate (happy) response is this sounds in keeping with "Neutral": Like sticking members of different political parties altogether in a room at once.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can totally have a NN Settlement. Your members will be NN, CN, LN, NG, AND NE. That sounds awesome to me!Sounds like a change from a previous official position on NN settlements.
As I recall, the previous justification was that allowing 5 instead of 4 or 3 alignments would give TN settlements too much popularity. Has that been supplemented by giving aligned settlements or strongly aligned characters better benefits?
It potentially makes them the more popular option, but wouldn't it be neat if people RPed out there alignments in such a settlement? A NE guy sitting in a bar surrounded by NG guys, or a LN shop frequented by CN patrons. Oh the fun that could be had!
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like a change from a previous official position on NN settlements.
I don't believe this is a change. I think the previous discussion was about the question of diagonal alignments being within1 step of the corners. We disallowed that because it would have meant that any rational Settlement would be NN.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Political alignment is defined by the poles of a conflict, regardless of the Alignment of those poles. If you choose to support two sides of a conflict equally with healing and supplies, that's politically neutral, but good in alignment. Similarly, ambushing caravans of both sides as the opportunity arises is evil in alignment, but still politically neutral.
Huh. Okay, I *am* confused. What about in the absence of a conflict? Or if there are more than two sides? Say, a disputed territory, and three, or even more, groups are trying to assume control of it?
I'll go back and read more, I'm missing something. (which isn't surprising. I tend to get in ruts with my thinking.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In that case (multiple parties contesting ownership) the neutral might just stay out of the way unless one or more of the combattents gave a reason to get involved. Other hand, the neutral might see if there was a way to get the three forces to wear themselves out on one another before deciding on any further course of action. The neutral might just keep an eye on them to ensure they are only hurting each other and not the forest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can totally have a NN Settlement. Your members will be NN, CN, LN, NG, AND NE. That sounds awesome to me!YIPPEE! Wahoooo!
<It is odd to see an old man's happy dance!>
Well I always knew there was a possibility that there would be a neutral settlement. That was a given. Neutral settlement based skills and abilities training would easily exit in these settlements. The issue I have is the non-settlement (wilderness) based skills and abilities training, that currently has no support structure in place for these, as the wilderness spans the entire world, and not tied to a single settlement hex. Currently the game does not support druids in it's current form, requiring a settlement to have specialized training structures. For the druids their "settlement" is the entire wilderness (unclaimed settlement hexes).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really happy to hear that NN settlements are possible. I fully agree with the previous comments that it will probably add a lot to the game.
With respect to the limited alignments of members of the settlements, Im wondering how some of the mechanics work (apologies if this has been covered previously):
1. Will we be wearing our alignments on our sleeves (i.e. big glowing letters saying LAWFUL GOOD, etc)?
2. Assuming that we wont (else spells like Detect Evil would become pointless and others like Protection From Evil/Good/Law/Chaos would be much easier and prevalent), then how does this interact with players entering settlements? E.g. a LG character entering a CE settlement. Does the character immediately draw aggro, does he gain negative rep over time for being in a den of evil, or is he allowed to enter until other factors/triggers come into play?
Im trying to understand the rationale behind the 'rules', even if the rationale is 'its for game balance'. From an RP perspective I can see a LG character having to enter a LE/NE settlement for various reasons (e.g. hostage negotiation, common cause ala Rovagug, etc). I can see even more reasons for an evil character to enter a good settlement. Unless there's some 'insta-alignment-detector' at work, they should be able to do it too. I think having masked alignments would allow for some great RP opportunities including espionage, sabotage, PC guards, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really happy to hear that NN settlements are possible. I fully agree with the previous comments that it will probably add a lot to the game.
With respect to the limited alignments of members of the settlements, Im wondering how some of the mechanics work (apologies if this has been covered previously):
1. Will we be wearing our alignments on our sleeves (i.e. big glowing letters saying LAWFUL GOOD, etc)?
2. Assuming that we wont (else spells like Detect Evil would become pointless and others like Protection From Evil/Good/Law/Chaos would be much easier and prevalent), then how does this interact with players entering settlements? E.g. a LG character entering a CE settlement. Does the character immediately draw aggro, does he gain negative rep over time for being in a den of evil, or is he allowed to enter until other factors/triggers come into play?Im trying to understand the rationale behind the 'rules', even if the rationale is 'its for game balance'. From an RP perspective I can see a LG character having to enter a LE/NE settlement for various reasons (e.g. hostage negotiation, common cause ala Rovagug, etc). I can see even more reasons for an evil character to enter a good settlement. Unless there's some 'insta-alignment-detector' at work, they should be able to do it too. I think having masked alignments would allow for some great RP opportunities including espionage, sabotage, PC guards, etc.
I believe that they have said that your rep will be "on your sleeve" your alignment would not be. how ever unless they change the way the
Protection From Evil/Good/Law/Chaos spells work they don't protect you from people only outsiders and spell with alignments like some cleric spells.But I could see people handing out rings of Detect Evil like candy
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am thinking the Diplomacy feat that will probably be available to Aristocrats may blur the lines to allow PCs to peacefully enter a settlement two steps away in the alignment. Without a high diplomacy check (in my envisioning anyway) NPC guards would aggro, just the same as if you were seen pickpocketing or attacking a citizen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can totally have a NN Settlement. Your members will be NN, CN, LN, NG, AND NE. That sounds awesome to me!Sounds like a change from a previous official position on NN settlements.
As I recall, the previous justification was that allowing 5 instead of 4 or 3 alignments would give TN settlements too much popularity. Has that been supplemented by giving aligned settlements or strongly aligned characters better benefits?
That very strength (being open to five alignments rather than only three or four) is also a significant weakness.
If I start an NN settlement (with others of course) I also have increased vulnerability to takeover.
Currently if a Chaotic Good settlement can be infiltrated with either NG or CN settlers the alignment can shift from CG to either of the allied alignments, at which point it can be infiltrated by LG, NN, or CE settlers shifting the settlements alignment away from the original settlers, and they would suddenly be unable to be in what started out as their own settlement.
NN settlements have greater exposure to this sort of take-over mechanic from all four quadrants.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Druids in Pathfinder are not (exclusively) loners who live in the land.One of the most powerful kingdoms in the River Kingdoms is Sevenarches, a kingdom ruled entirely by Druids.
Lisa
Thanx Lisa for this information. Seems Sevenarches was once elven, now run by human druids. Located in the south of River Kingdoms, a far distance from west side of Echo Wood, where PFO begins it's life. Guess it would be a very long for PFO to reach Sevenarches. See it also has big forest Wilewood in it's territory.
Though I wonder how this is going to help the druids by Echo Wood.
So is Sevenarches a city? I did a bit of searching and keep getting bogged down by the Nissan Pathfinder, as well as some hotel called Sevenarches lol. Was trying to get some general info on the place so that I would have context to add to the discussion. It seems that Ryan is suggesting that Druids aren't limited to the wilderness, which makes sense. No reason their powers wouldn't be just as effective in a hex with a settlement as in a wilderness hex. And although they might not want to live there, I see no reason they couldn't visit any sort of hex no matter how industrialized.
Pretty much, I see the treehugger Druid as bt one type of the Druid role. There might not be "city" Druids, but there could be Druids that dwell on mountainous hexes and revere stone like other Druids revere trees.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Druids in Pathfinder are not (exclusively) loners who live in the land.One of the most powerful kingdoms in the River Kingdoms is Sevenarches, a kingdom ruled entirely by Druids.
Lisa
Fascinating! Intriguing possibilities are leaping from my creative underbrush!
~~edit~~
IT'S A TRAP! My intriguing possibilities are trying to S.A.D. me!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Back to my idea about settlement interaction, and more specifically regarding the morale of the NPC population.
I would hope that the NPC population does have a morale rating, that would grant either positive or negative (buffs and rebuff) for the settlement.
Settlement managers will not only have to be concerned with keeping PC adventurers happy, but also the NPC population. This morale rating could then be manipulated through the actions of PCs, the settement's leaders, its members or outsiders.
As I suggested above, the example of smuggling and how it could impact a settlement in preparation of war or even under siege of war. Smuggling in goods that support the settlement, would boost its morale. There could also be those that smuggle in goods that support internal opposition, eroding support for the settlement's government, applying a rebuff for its defenses versus a siege.
NPC morale does not have to be a factor in just warfare. It could have effects on its markets, its law and order, its ability to build advancements, etc
Yes I anticipate the argument that this runs the risk of becoming "Settlement Management Online", but many of the modifications and decisions could be done through the use of passive skills and or community toggles that can be adjusted when needed. The manager than can create preset combinations and hit key them for specific situations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the settlement Sevenarches is just seat of power in the kingdom, having many from all walks of life there. You probably won't see many druids in the capital itself, except for the ruling council. The rest would be living in the wilderness of the kingdom and else where.
I highly doubt that.
Sevenarches is a town in the southwestern River Kingdoms built around seven stone arches which are scattered around the settlement. These are an ancient site, sacred to the elves. Sevenarches has not been in elven hands for millennia, ever since they left Golarion for the safety of Sovyrian; since then, Sevenarches has been under the rule of the Oakstewards. The Oakstewards are very selective about whom they let approach the community, banning elves and outsiders from approaching, as Sevenarches guards a rift to the First World of the fey. As a result of the rift, followers of the Green Faith are extremely common. Sevenarches is also home to a wide variety of fey and many treants, some of whom live in the city, while others are simply passing through. Rumor has it that the arches for which the town is named once served as portals to other worlds, perhaps functioning like more powerful elf gates. Kyonin has shown great interest in reclaiming this ancient site, but the Oakstewards refuse any elf entry into Sevenarches. While this problem has yet to come to a head, there are rumours that some elves have been considering radical solutions to get rid of the human rulers of the town.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That "druid who hates towns and refuses to enter them" is largely a way of messing with the rest of an in-person gaming group. It's not as bad as the "thief who pockets valuables before anyone sees them", the "assassin who murders the party in their sleep" or the "antipaladin who turns on you after a tough battle", but it's still trolling.
Humans (and humanoids) build structures and cultivate land, that's just what they do. Being human(oid) for longer than they've been a druid, the average druid probably understands that. The misanthropic hermit druid is the exception.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sounds like a change from a previous official position on NN settlements.I don't believe this is a change. I think the previous discussion was about the question of diagonal alignments being within1 step of the corners. We disallowed that because it would have meant that any rational Settlement would be NN.
RyanD
I think those of us who are thinking this is a change are remembering this quote.
From Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing:
Well won't true neutral settlements still end up with the most people anyways?For that reason I think we'll have to exclude true neutral from the alignment options for the organizations.
Looking back, you may very well have intended a different meaning, but I think we all read this to mean there wouldn't be true neutral Settlements. Or is there a difference between "true neutral" and "NN" that I'm missing?
You can totally have a NN Settlement. Your members will be NN, CN, LN, NG, AND NE. That sounds awesome to me!Definitely need to bookmark this, since it's a clear change from what was stated in one of the blog threads. Although, I have to say I'm pleased :)
Nihimon, how was it different before? Honestly this is the way I've always interpreted the 1 step alignment thing...?