Clarification Please: Is there an automatic shift towards Good in addition to the one towards Lawful?


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Dario wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
@Dario, I'm saying I think my example is more likely to actually occur in-game. I think it's going to be extremely unlikely that an "average Good" player is "accidentally" involved in killing 4 other average Good players.
If I'm not misunderstanding you, then you consider two groups meeting in the wilderness, and getting into a fight due to miscommunication or error so unlikely that you dismiss it from consideration? I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment. It happens in real life where the cost is a lot higher.

I think that will happen often. Those players will be neutral or CE.

Capricious, wrothful, or arbitrary Paladins won't stay Paladins for long.

Goblin Squad Member

@Dario,

I expect most players who want to be "Good" will work within the known confines of the system to try to maintain that alignment. That means they won't initiate an attack on someone who's not flagged unless they have a very compelling reason to.

In the real world, we don't have flags above our heads that let people know whether or not we're Criminals.

Goblin Squad Member

Dario wrote:
I'm only disagreeing with what is, to my perception, an argument that this issue isn't worth discussing.

I am not even remotely suggesting it's not worth discussing.

I think it's very common (I've seen myself do it often) to be opposed to a particular idea, and focus on edge cases where that idea fails. I think in this case GrumpyMel is focusing on an edge case that is virtually guaranteed to never occur.

That I think that way is in no way an assertion that you should not tell us how you think.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon,

I think it's extremely likely. I hazard that we'll even see it quite a bit, especialy among players not used to the dynamic at play.

Although I would qualify "accident" in this regard to include situations where a player mistook another players intentions and failed to maintain enough discipline to wait to be attacked first by the other party.

That isn't an "accident" in terms of slipped on a bananna peel....and there is negligence involved on the part of the attacker....but it's also not the same as intentionaly harming someone you believed was not intending to harm you.

What with no clear factions, corpse looting, hidden alignments, assasins in DISGUISE, Freindly Fire...just to name a few...it's going to be a very NERVOUS environment out there, especialy for folks not used to this type of game.... I have little doubt we'll see plenty of blue on blue incidents. There is certainly fault there and there should be consequences to it....but it's really not the same as someone going around and ganking newbies for chuckles.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Dario wrote:
I'm only disagreeing with what is, to my perception, an argument that this issue isn't worth discussing.

I am not even remotely suggesting it's not worth discussing.

I think it's very common (I've seen myself do it often) to be opposed to a particular idea, and focus on edge cases where that idea fails. I think in this case GrumpyMel is focusing on an edge case that is virtually guaranteed to never occur.

That I think that way is in no way an assertion that you should not tell us how you think.

Ah, I'll chalk it up to the poor communication inherent in internet forums. To my perception "That won't happen" is an end statement of discussion. You can't discuss the effects of an event if you can't entertain the idea of it happening. In my opinion, as I said before, the penalty for blue on blue/green on blue incidents between good parties are fairly severe. And I think they should be.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

@Nihimon,

I think it's extremely likely.

Fair enough. I'll bookmark this and we can come back to it once we have some idea which of us turned out to be right :)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
To my perception "That won't happen" is an end statement of discussion.

To be fair, I only said something remotely along the lines of "your example seems unlikely" after being told mine was a straw man.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

@Dario,

I expect most players who want to be "Good" will work within the known confines of the system to try to maintain that alignment. That means they won't initiate an attack on someone who's not flagged unless they have a very compelling reason to.

In the real world, we don't have flags above our heads that let people know whether or not we're Criminals.

- Criminal Flags don't apply in the Wilderness (no laws)

- Attacker Flags last for only 1 minute after a combat (i.e. not very long)
- Assassins and other characters have access to DISGUISES to mask thier identity, including hiding thier flags.

It takes alot of discipline to wait to be attacked first if you think you are about to be attacked, especialy if you are carrying something valuable.

Compounding that, many players will be coming here from games where such conditions are unfamilar and there is clear identification of hostiles (faction based PvP).

That's not to say there shouldn't be consequences for such negligence, but I really do think you are underestimating the degree to which to will occur.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
To my perception "That won't happen" is an end statement of discussion.
To be fair, I only said something remotely along the lines of "your example seems unlikely" after being told mine was a straw man.

A statement made in response to a hyperbolic argument. But we're all human here, mistakes are made and miscommunication happens on the internet. My comments weren't intended as a condemnation, merely an explaination of my viewpoint. =P

Goblin Squad Member

To my mind, the most important factor here is repetition of behavior. If someone is habitualy engaged in unwarranted kills (or other Chaotic or Evil behavior) then one must conclude such behavior accurately represents thier true nature.

If such behavior happens as a single incident or even just rarely, then one can't neccesarly judge that as accurately representing the characters behavior.

Given the fact that we DO want to have significant consequences for even single incidences...then ability to recover and atone becomes an important factor. Since it will allow the person who rarely falls to get back to something that represents thier usual behavior, while keeping the person who chonicaly fails at a level representing thiers.

I generaly think Dario's propsition is reasonable, a couple days work in atonement, perhaps a week at most. That's sufficient to attach a real consequence to ones actions without being unforgiving.

More then that, I would consider unreasonable....and frankly to the point where I personaly, would just not play the game. Games, are supposed to be about entertainment, which to me means they need to allow for the player to still achieve some success in thier play goals with less then perfect play.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
To my mind, the most important factor here is repetition of behavior.

I very much agree, and remember suggesting that a "permanent record" be kept, and that subsequent "bad behavior" have a greater impact on alignment.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

This is both a worthwhile discussion and also one that doesn't need to come to any firm conclusion (as if that was likely!).

It's worthwhile because it's defining the range of opinion and workable boundaries around alignment shifts. That's useful for the designers.

It's also not important because within the broad framework of 'actions have alignment consequences' the numerical impact of particular actions, and therefore the rate of shift, will be absurdly easy to tweak during EE. I am sure that there will be occasions when one unintended mass battle causes serious problems for LG players, but I'm also confident that the dev team will be able to resolve those problems, and improve the balance over time.

Goblin Squad Member

The beauty of being Good is that you get to make Evil guys look like the wimps they are when they fade into the shadows and go somewhere you're not because they know you'll wipe the floor with them if they do what they do in front of you.

I'm perfectly content to (almost always) wait until someone does something to flag themselves before pouncing and showing them the error of their ways.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Nihimon wrote:
I'm perfectly content to (almost always) wait until someone does something to flag themselves before pouncing and showing them the error of their ways.

This! I'm excited about playing in a world where I'm good because of my day to day choices, not because of a one-off decision made at character design.


No you will be good because you make choices that don't conflict with some artificial rules which have no bearing rp wise on whether your character would be perceived as good as evil.

Character does "real good" by killing the bandits that have been harassing his gatherers even though the bandits attacker flag has timed out a minute ago.

You come along kill that character because he is "system evil" which gives you a shift to "system good". Doesnt change the fact that rp wise you have done an evil act as far as I am concerned.

Goblin Squad Member

Gah, Zen is that good or lawful? Or both?? The alignment is more elusive than a... *suitable metaphor*.


you could argue it is both or neither. Sorry I am just getting increasingly frustrated the more I find out about the alignement system and how other people interpret it.

I have no idea if they are even right or wrong as I dont think gw have given us enough information.

Goblin Squad Member

GW have stated that taking a life is an evil act, as decreed by the pantheon. There is no argument when the gods say it is evil.

As for attacking a non-flagged character, that shifts you slightly chaotic. Why? Because you're attacking someone you don't know has done anything illegal or evil. How do you know it was them? They may have been framed or it may have been someone else in disguise. There are no flags up, so you know squat.

It would be wonderful if we didn't need all these flags and if people could RP appropriately, but even without griefers and general internet idiocy, that is not possible. Some LG Paladin will still attack an unarmed newbie mage, simply because they had a bad day at work, or a fight with their spouse, or simply because the mage said something disparaging IC. Thus, artificial rules need to be put in place to counter that.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Jiminy wrote:

GW have stated that taking a life is an evil act, as decreed by the pantheon. There is no argument when the gods say it is evil.

As for attacking a non-flagged character, that shifts you slightly chaotic. Why? Because you're attacking someone you don't know has done anything illegal or evil. How do you know it was them? They may have been framed or it may have been someone else in disguise. There are no flags up, so you know squat.

It would be wonderful if we didn't need all these flags and if people could RP appropriately, but even without griefers and general internet idiocy, that is not possible.
...

In the TT game the GM and players are able to make fine-tuned decisions about what counts as evil or good behavior, and the impact of acts on the moral life of characters. They can make the alignment system align better (hah!) with their existing moral intuitions. Or handwave it altogether, as many do.

Translating to a persistent shared world is of course going to require some simplifications. But more-over it requires making concrete standardised decisions about things that can be, and are, treated differently in each TT campaign.

So far I haven't seen anything unreasonable in the way that GW is proposing to implement the standard D&D alignments. That doesn't mean that their implementation will perfectly accord with each player's pre-existing moral intuition. But then that would be an unreasonable standard to expect.

Goblin Squad Member

"Lawful Good" in PFO means someone who always adheres to the alignment rules. Whatever they may be.

"Chaotic Good" in PFO means someone who adheres to the Good/Evil rules, but not to Law/Chaos rules.

etc.

what we know so far is that killing other players is evil. Killing in self-defense (attacker flag) is permitted but revenge (1min later) is evil. Killing accidentally (AoE) is evil. Using undead or slaves is heinous.

Those that want to stay lawful good simply have to follow the rules. If you don't have the discipline to do that, you don't get to have the alignment. The reward of being CE is that you can play how you like and make your own judgements. The drawback of being LG is that you have to follow artificial constraints all the time.

In the example of LG parties starting a fight due to misunderstanding, the ultimate LG response is to surrender/die and lose equipment instead of alignment. The example also illustrates why paladins (at least in earlier editions) should never team up with chaotics.


@Jiminy

Yes you often do know it is them.

They may have attacked you before.

You may come on them two minutes after they have sacked your harvesting camp which means in a wilderness hex they will have only received the attacker flag which lasts 1 minute. RP wise the smoke is still rising, the blood on the ground is still fresh and the attackers are still tending wounds. The mere fact they are not flagged now is irrelevant.

You may have come on them with the flags still on. You are chasing them as they are running from your superior force. Oh hang on the minute long attacker flag has run out. Can't be them then can it?

The alignement system if as stated by several people means that I could change by a whole unit from either lawful or good by the mere act of killing two people(think it was Nihimon amongst others that came out with that) and that this in turn means that I may be flagged in my own settlement and attacked by npc guards is an inhibition to proper rp.

What it does not do however is stop griefers it just gives them even more ways to grief you. Congratulations you are arguing for a system that puts off legitimate players whilst giving griefers even more ways to enjoy ruining your day.

Goblin Squad Member

@Zen: If you leave a harvesting camp unguarded, then they're welcome to despoiling it, in all honesty. If your reaction time is not sufficient then I'm sure that can be RP'd as such?

Also the whole timers and points are subject to refinement come early enrollment, which extends to the number and the quality of players defeated in pvp, based off those parameters.

I still don't know what exactly displeases you about the alignment system? Either you define it in certain terms (aka a system which you are calling artificial) or you have ffa pvp or 2-faction pvp or only pve.

Are we agreed the artificial system has the most potential out of these options? If yes, how can we build it so that it conveys reliable information on player's pvp history that allows several important outcomes in human gatherings (online)?

ZenPagan wrote:
Congratulations you are arguing for a system that puts off legitimate players whilst giving griefers even more ways to enjoy ruining your day.

Caution is called for because that is putting words into others mouths: Sure you wish to emphasis a point, but in all honesty, discussion on alignment and in particular pvp are served better with logic and less expression of passion. At least any previous threads seem to bear that out, If I may be so bold. :)

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:
Congratulations you are arguing for a system that puts off legitimate players whilst giving griefers even more ways to enjoy ruining your day.

And you're arguing for a free for all system that has no checks and balances. This will not work unless every single player is a RPer and follows their alignment properly.

I played in a PvP RP game where PKing had no impact on alignment - a game that had a very mature player base. Your LG Paladins still every now and then walked up to newbies and unleashed hell on them simply for being in the wrong place at them wrong time. Their alignments were not impacted though, so they got to keep all their shiny paladin skills.

ZenPagan wrote:
The alignement system if as stated by several people means that I could change by a whole unit from either lawful or good by the mere act of killing two people...

Emphasis mine. I find it interesting you propose being LG, yet want to kill two people - people that may not be evil - and don't see how this is in itself an evil act nor see why your alignment should shift.

I have no issues with the premise of a good character defending themselves, their faith or their settlement, violently and harshly, but killing people is evil. If you however kill only evil characters, then your alignment will not slip anywhere near as fast. My understanding is that the major change is for killing good characters. It is less for evil. Kill the bandits or the settlement sackers, then go and seek atonement.

It may not be what you class as proper RP, but games need rules, and honestly, it is not that hard to modify your RP to work with this.


Free for all pvp is what we have.

What I am saying is the alignement system as described is not up to par and will penalise people for playing their character while not doing anything to deter griefers. Also I don't know why you keep banging on about paladins as I have never mentioned them.

My concern is simply this by playing my character as he would react I could find myself changing alignement so the system alignement doesn't match mine. I almost certainly won't be able to enter my guilds settlement at this point without being set upon by npc guards as I will be flagged as a trespasser apparently according to some.

If artificial systems make crap assessments which end up in me being unable to play with my friends then the system does not work for me. I had decided to ignore the alignement system up to now on the grounds I assumed that the penalties would not be so harsh that you could race from one corner to the other in a single group combat. As people have said this is indeed the case it cannot be ignored.

@Avena No one said the camp was unguarded and unless there is instant travel then I don't see how reaction time plays a part unless you think I should be able to get from the settlement to a remote camp in under the minute before the attacker flag disappears. The point remains you get there the attackers are still there but now unflagged, are you really suggesting people rp that they do not know these are the attackers.

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:


My concern is simply this by playing my character as he would react I could find myself changing alignement so the system alignement doesn't match mine. I almost certainly won't be able to enter my guilds settlement at this point without being set upon by npc guards as I will be flagged as a trespasser apparently according to some.

Then you are not playing the alignment you think you are. GW has already told us they're working closely with the folks at Paizo to make sure that what they're making is in line with the world of Golarion, specifically including alignment.


Mechanical rules do not work well in determining alignement shifts. This is a system based on mechanical rules. Hence why I say the alignement system is a matter of complete indifference to me. Also as an aside to Jiminy I have never claimed I was going to be lawful good and I have no idea where you got that idea. I am more likely to be along the lines of lawful neutral.

I do not intend to play anything alignement restricted anyway. However my concern is its impact on who I play with. If I cannot as has been stated by others enter my own guilds settlement then that is a big issue to me. Frankly if it wasn't for that you could have any damn alignement system you want.

Mechanical systems hinder rp this one is no different in my view. This is not because I wish to go round indulging wholesale slaughter in fact trade and crafting is most likely what I will be pursuing mostly. However you attack my guild mates and I will try and take you down regardless of whether you are flagged at that time.

If a game starts making it hard for people to play with friends then it is a game with serious issues as far as I am concerned. If I have been misled and I am free to wander around my own settlement without hindrance then the whole thing becomes a non issue and I am free to forget about the alignement system

Goblin Squad Member

Suffice to say I don't think there is a real problem with providing an incentive for players who care about their alignment to also be careful when they attack another player or group of players. It should be difficult to quickly regain lawful and good alignment if you were chaotic and committed an act of wanton violence, and take time to regain alignment otherwise.

There is no problem with providing reasons to be conscientious in my way of thinking, beyond the complaints of those who do not want to bother with behaving lawful and good in order to be lawful and good.

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:

Mechanical rules do not work well in determining alignement shifts. This is a system based on mechanical rules. Hence why I say the alignement system is a matter of complete indifference to me. Also as an aside to Jiminy I have never claimed I was going to be lawful good and I have no idea where you got that idea. I am more likely to be along the lines of lawful neutral.

I do not intend to play anything alignement restricted anyway. However my concern is its impact on who I play with. If I cannot as has been stated by others enter my own guilds settlement then that is a big issue to me. Frankly if it wasn't for that you could have any damn alignement system you want.

Mechanical systems hinder rp this one is no different in my view. This is not because I wish to go round indulging wholesale slaughter in fact trade and crafting is most likely what I will be pursuing mostly. However you attack my guild mates and I will try and take you down regardless of whether you are flagged at that time.

If a game starts making it hard for people to play with friends then it is a game with serious issues as far as I am concerned. If I have been misled and I am free to wander around my own settlement without hindrance then the whole thing becomes a non issue and I am free to forget about the alignement system

Games by their nature have rules. Just because a player might feel like their pawns should all have the powers of the Queen it does not mean there is a problem with the rules of Chess.


The rules of chess aren't as arbitrary though Being.

If I kill that player now I get no penalty. If I kill him in one minutes time its an evil act.

As I said though I really don't care about the alignement system except in as much as it may prevent me playing with my friends by entering the settlement I am part of.

I am not saying this because I want free range to kill all that cross my path I merely want to rp my character without having to think "I would really kill this person as he ambushed my friend yesterday and he is known to me so I am sure I have the right person rp wise, however if I do that I will be locked out of my settlement because he has done some grinding of pve missions and is now lawful good".

Goblin Squad Member

1/ I prefer to nominally call it: Graduated open-world pvp. FFA pvp implies to me a full world where anytime, any place pvp occurs and it's a contest with two measurements: Cost (economic) and Contest (win/reward). I think the idea with Alignment is, including a social dimension and I think it's suitably game-changing to use a different categorisation than FFA pvp as in evidence in other games?

It's open-world in that pvp can happen anywhere but graduated in that different types of pvp occur with different consequences socially. Yes, it sounds like mincing of words, but it's an important distinction to make. Players can choose how exposed to pvp risk they are and what social information is transmitted by their pvp actions. That's the idea and I believe it's suitably different experience to name it separately.

2/ Ok, you are saying:

Alignment = my IC concept
Alignment =/= OOC pvp consequences

hence your disconnect?

So I think you have to CHOOSE actions that conspire with your goals and your group's goals. If raiding other groups' hexes and breaking their laws is fun but contrary to your group's LG status then you have a choice to make between what you do and what your friends are doing and coordinating?

Again you may have your own ideas but socially you have a common set of rules.

3/ As said, I'm sure the parameter will be iterated on via feedback live. Which is a great opportunity for us players.

Goblin Squad Member

@Zenpagan I understand you don't like restriction. My point is that this will not be single player, so your wants have to be balanced with the wants of your fellow players, and that requires compromise. Those compromises have to be planned and balanced: they are not arbitrary they are necessary even if you cannot grasp that your rights in-game are no greater nor lesser than those of other players. They are game rules.


@Being

You are talking past my concern.

Once are for all I do not care if the system brands me lawful good or chaotic evil. I care about the games designation of me slightly less than I care about whether martians taste of chicken.

What concerns me is that by just playing my character as he would react that I may suddenly find myself not able to play and interact with my friends in a settlement I helped create. Up till the last few days I had assumed it would take 10 or 15 kills before this would even be an issue which wouldnt affect me in the least as it is unlikely in my estimation that I am going to make more than 20 pvp kills in a year. HOWEVER if as has been claimed by Nihimon it could be as little as 2 kills if you are at the very pinnacle of lawful good then it implies someone of say lawful neutral alignement could easily become neutral evil or even chaotic evil in one kill.

One kill may bar me from my settlement, and thus from playing with my friends this to me is the issue. This is that you are not addressing

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:

I am not saying this because I want free range to kill all that cross my path I merely want to rp my character without having to think "I would really kill this person as he ambushed my friend yesterday and he is known to me so I am sure I have the right person rp wise, however if I do that I will be locked out of my settlement because he has done some grinding of pve missions and is now lawful good".

Revenge is a good-aligned action now?


Is putting someone in prison for a crime a good action? after all it is merely revenge. We do not have that option if PfO it is either let them get away scot free or kill them.

If a known bandit crosses your path then yes it is for the greater good if they are taken out of circulation.

Take a more extreme example but probably not uncommon

You come across someone just as he kills someone in a wilderness hex so he has the attacker flag but no criminal flag.

you
a) fight and kill him (according to the system not an evil action)
b) he runs and you chase him and kill him (according to the system not an evil action)
c) as per b) but the chase before you catch and kill him lasts long enough for the 1 minute attacker flag to wear off (now an evil action according to the system)

Explain why you percieve C to be an evil action and A and B not. As I said the system is far to arbitrary hence why it is not worth bothering about from my point of view.

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:

If a known bandit crosses your path then yes it is for the greater good if they are taken out of circulation.

This statement, right here, is your error. You are not taking them out of circulation. This is a point Ryan, himself, has made on several occasions. You are not balancing the evil of killing with the good of preventing current or future evil.


You are probably removing him from this hex, killing marauders and killing them often persuades them to move to a hex with less opposition and to stop harassing your people. Therefore as far as your people are concerned "out of circulation".

The other option is to sit there wringing your hands and crying about the harassment of your friends but you are powerless because the attacker flag has always worn off by the time you find him.

Remember according to the quote from mr Burke

"all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"

This appears to me to be your favoured option.

You are also assuming from an RP perspective I know that the bandit won't stay dead. Unless I can tell rp wise that the pc bandit is different to an npc bandit and is marked from Pharasma then I rp wise have no reason to think he is not being taken out of circulation.

This though is largely beside the point as my concern is not the alignement system per se, but the fact it may mean I can't enter the settlement I belong to as I said to Being.


ZenPagan wrote:
The other option is to sit there wringing your hands and crying about the harassment of your friends but you are powerless because the attacker flag has always worn off by the time you find him.

This is certainly not true.

Your friend just go murdered by the bandit. Your friend can now put a bounty on the bandit. Your friend can make you and your allies as the only people able to hunt down and destroy said bandit.

Enjoy your hunting trip.

Problem solved.

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:

You are probably removing him from this hex, killing marauders and killing them often persuades them to move to a hex with less opposition and to stop harassing your people. Therefore as far as your people are concerned "out of circulation".

The other option is to sit there wringing your hands and crying about the harassment of your friends but you are powerless because the attacker flag has always worn off by the time you find him.

Remember according to the quote from mr Burke

"all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"

This appears to me to be your favoured option.

When the alternative is FFA, yes. This is not FFA, if it were, you wouldn't be worried about the consequences of your actions. Or you could try things like stepping up guards to deter them from attacking, or set an ambush for them to catch them in the act, or put bounties on them so that you can send your in-settlement bounty hunters after them, or....

ZenPagan wrote:


You are also assuming from an RP perspective I know that the bandit won't stay dead. Unless I can tell rp wise that the pc bandit is different to an npc bandit and is marked from Pharasma then I rp wise have no reason to think he is not being taken out of circulation.

This is irrelevant. PFO is an objective morality system. Your perception of your actions has no bearing on the alignment consequences.

ZenPagan wrote:
This though is largely beside the point as my concern is not the alignement system per se, but the fact it may mean I can't enter the settlement I belong to as I said to Being.

I know alignment can prevent membership in a settlement. I remain unconvinced it can prevent access to a settlement, though you would be operating as a non-member at that point. Either way, go get your alignment back in tune, atone for your evil, and rejoin your settlement. If you're convinced it's so easy for the criminals to get their alignment to good, it should be just as easy for you to do so.

Of course, all this assumes that the people you're after aren't using the voluntary flags that let you attack them without shifting.


So you are indeed confirming that alignement means the inability to play with my friends as part of their settlement.Have you a dev quote for this as it is what I am trying to determine. This is a complete dealbreaker for me if true.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ZenPagan wrote:

@Being

...Once are for all I do not care if the system brands me lawful good or chaotic evil. I care about the games designation of me slightly less than I care about whether martians taste of chicken.

What concerns me is that by just playing my character as he would react that I may suddenly find myself not able to play and interact with my friends in a settlement I helped create...

I'm not really talking past your concern, I am involving in it what you would rather weren't there.

The game must convince you to bother with your alignment even when you don't care about alignment. Players who do not care about the impact their actions have on others tend to project their 'play' on others to the detriment of their enjoyment, a.k.a. 'griefing'. This objective is accomplished by having your alignment also affect something that you probably do care about, namely being able to enter the settlement and interact with your friends in it.

It is deemed necessary by the game that you attend to playing your character in a way that is good for the game in general, and that means your interaction with other players should be meaningful. It is already understood you care about being able to play with your friends in the settlement you helped build. Therefore your ability to do that is affected by how you play your character.

So the solution is to play as if you cared about your alignment even though you don't because you want something that requires that alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:
So you are indeed confirming that alignement means the inability to play with my friends as part of their settlement...

Alignment doesn't mean the inability to play with your friends but your behavior can cause your alignment to change rendering it more difficult to play with your friends. You control your alignment. It isn't the alignment that might affect your ability to play with your friends, your choices do. You make your choices, you pay the price.

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:
So you are indeed confirming that alignement means the inability to play with my friends as part of their settlement.Have you a dev quote for this as it is what I am trying to determine. This is a complete dealbreaker for me if true.

Your behavior may leave you unable to be a member of your friends' settlement. I'm not sure what matter you're looking for a dev quote on. I don't think I've seen Ryan giggling madly anywhere shouting that players can't have friends. I think I'd remember that.


@Being Griefers will not be deterred by these alignement rules, indeed they will use these alignement rules to grief if anything (and yes I can already think of several ways to ruin peoples day using them and I am not a griefer who tend to be a lot more inventive than me) so the rules will do nothing whatsoever to curb that and may increase it.

The choice I can make then if I wish to play is compromise the rp of my character or choose to accept that I may end up not being in the same settlement as my friends. Neither of which is acceptable from my point of view.

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:

@Being Griefers will not be deterred by these alignement rules, indeed they will use these alignement rules to grief if anything (and yes I can already think of several ways to ruin peoples day using them and I am not a griefer who tend to be a lot more inventive than me) so the rules will do nothing whatsoever to curb that and may increase it.

The choice I can make then if I wish to play is compromise the rp of my character or choose to accept that I may end up not being in the same settlement as my friends. Neither of which is acceptable from my point of view.

I want to play a NG crafter. If my friends wanted to play LE assassins, I would have to compromise the RP of my character, or accept not being in the same settlement as my friends. You're predicating that you should be able to ignore having incompatible character concepts because they're your friends?

Goblin Squad Member

Will Cooper wrote:
They can make the alignment system align better (hah!) with their existing moral intuitions.

I like your sense of humor :)

ZenPagan wrote:
I could change by a whole unit from either lawful or good by the mere act of killing two people(think it was Nihimon amongst others that came out with that)...

Credit goes to Dario and GrumpyMel for pointing that out to me.

ZenPagan wrote:
If I kill that player now I get no penalty. If I kill him in one minutes time its an evil act.

I think this is a very valid concern. Many of us were extremely concerned about the impact of a computer-controlled Alignment system for reasons just like this; the system will make capricious decisions that we know all the way down to our bones are wrong.

How to deal with it?

First, I think characters should have to do something to "let the heat die down" before their flags fade. This will avoid the most blatant situations where a murderer is gloating over his victim's corpse but can't be touched (without Rep/Alignment hits) because his flag has already worn off. It would also avoid the situation where a flag drops while the criminal is being pursued.

Second, I think we ought to be able to personally mark flagged characters. We could only mark them once for that particular flag, but those marks would be permanent (or very slowly decay), and a certain number of marks should allow us to attack them on sight as if they were flagged. Obviously, this would need some more design work.


I am talking about the day to day rp causing alignement shifts causing you suddenly to become not welcome. If you design a character obviously incompatible that is something you have chosen to do.

Killing a bandit harassing our merchants can make me unwelcome alignement wise in my settlement type rp. I view your example as much the same using for example wow terms as deciding to go horde when all your friends are alliance.

We all get together as friends and agree what we as a settlement are aiming towards and create characters accordingly. That I don't see as limiting. However if everyday things can come up whereby playing your character as he should be played rp wise means you suddenly find the settlement kicks you out then that is unacceptable to me as a player. I suspect I am probably not alone in that either.

However my question appears to be answered so there is no need to keep replying to me and I wish you and the game well

Goblin Squad Member

@ZenPagan, I would point out one other factor that I would ask you to consider with respect to being able to kill someone that you "know" is an evil murdered. That is, the perceptions of the rest of the community you're in. If the rest of the community isn't aware that your target is an evil murderer, all they see is you randomly killing someone out of the blue. Given that NPC common folk will be almost everywhere, even when they're not rendered, I think this is very important to maintaining Good alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

@Zen, if you can flesh out what your saying with egs, it certainly helps, we may be talking past each other on details that are in flux?

egs of griefing
egs of RP
egs of PvP

etc. If we do know the details or can make a "strong" guess or dig up a dev quote, then that is at least some agreed common picture.

I honestly think we might be talking past each other. Give the game time to develop: This is all still pre-alpha and the design blogs will iterate and evolve. It's been a pleasure chatting, and if any game warrants atmosphere and background live action and lore for RP purposes in a mmorpg, I'm hazard putting PFO up for consideration. It's tricky as Raph Koster says:

Koster's Law (Mike Sellers was actually the one to dub it thus)
The quality of roleplaying is inversely proportional to the number of people playing.

Hyrup's Counter-observation
The higher the fee, the better the roleplayers. (And of course, the smaller the playerbase.)

Enforcing roleplaying
A roleplay-mandated world is essentially going to have to be a fascist state. Whether or not this accords with your goals in making such a world is a decision you yourself will have to make.

Storytelling versus simulation
If you write a static story (or indeed include any static element) in your game, everyone in the world will know how it ends in a matter of days. Mathematically, it is not possible for a design team to create stories fast enough to supply everyone playing. This is the traditional approach to this sort of game nonetheless. You can try a sim-style game which doesn't supply stories but instead supplies freedom to make them. This is a lot harder and arguably has never been done successfully.

Players have higher expectations of the virtual world
The expectations are higher than of similar actions in the real world. For example: players will expect all labor to result in profit; they will expect life to be fair; they will expect to be protected from aggression before the fact, and not just to seek redress after the fact; they will expect problems to be resolved quickly; they will expect that their integrity will be assumed to be beyond reproach; in other words, they will expect too much, and you will not be able to supply it all. The trick is to manage the expectations.


Are we all forgetting about the Bounty system and the Champion flag?

Goblin Squad Member

I think that fifth rule is the key one here.

101 to 150 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Clarification Please: Is there an automatic shift towards Good in addition to the one towards Lawful? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.