Goblin Squad Member
|
Do we start with our core alignment or are we presented with a variety of steps to "earn" it during character creation?That has been asked several times by several of us, and the question sparked some interesting threads. The way that looks to me likely is that we will all begin neutral/neutral and unknown...
I think it more likely that we pick our core alignment at character generation, and start with an average reputation (near 0). If 'newbies' start with average rep, then killing unflagged newbies gives biggish rep hits (-500 rep per kill). If newbies at a low rep (at say -5000), then killing unflagged newbies has significantly less consequence (-16 rep per kill). I'd guess GW goes more towards the average rep start.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's actually the opposite--shield walls only work if you you drop self-preservation in favor of other-preservation. That's why in Spartan culture it was a forgivable sin to drop your sword, but unforgivable to drop your shield, because doing that makes you a Blue Falcon.
Shield walls--cohesion in general--functions to increase collective security to the degree that individuals are willing to sacrifice personal security. It's a kind of cultural paradox, where increased willingness to give one's life means saving it.
So CE characters by their very nature can't use cohesion-based TTPs--they're selfish #$%-&%^@s.
You are assuming that CE is Chaotic Stupid.
A shieldwall works because it is a united front with no weak spots. An individual in the shieldwall knows that he has to maintain his position to benefit. He is not really doing for his mates (some may be, but they would be rare), he is doing it because it is safer for him, personally.
To break the shieldwall is to become an isolated individual, also known as a corpse.
So CE/CN/CG will maintain the shieldwall because it is the safest option. To assume that, simply by nature of being Chaotic, a warrior decides that he is better off being isolated in battle is to assume that he has no sense of self-preservation and no idea of battle.
As I say, our classic image of the Viking warrior is Chaotic. Yet the Vikings were regular and effective proponents of shieldwalls.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its like they are trying to force the CE players(not the characters) to act like scumbags.
I'm under the very strong impression that they want the Chaotic-Evil-and-Low-Reputation experience to suck so very very badly that players finding themselves in it--*who are also unwilling to change*--will leave the game, thus increasing the mathematical average of expected enjoyment for the rest of us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I say, our classic image of the Viking warrior is Chaotic. Yet the Vikings were regular and effective proponents of shieldwalls.
Maybe that's a problem with some images of the Viking warrior. Maybe the normal Viking warrior is Neutral and the berserkers are Chaotic. Maybe the Huscarls or whatever the king's bodyguard are called tend towards Lawful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What are the ways that you would shift your active alignment the direction that you wanted? That is assuming that you started TN.
Not though PvP, not the way the flags currently work. For example, you can't flag as Champion unless you're already good. And Champions don't gain good from killing evil; they only get it from killing Heinous.
... you could shift your alignment and rep downwards, of course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What are the ways that you would shift your active alignment the direction that you wanted?
I'll have to postpone any detailed answer until we know more about the available pantheon, but they've told us several times that alignment is dictated by gods' rules, not peoples'. I hope to choose a god whose rules will tie with my desired playstyle (and yes, I expect we'll be following the rules of gods other than our own, too), and I'll learn more about what I mean by that later on :-).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's actually the opposite--shield walls only work if you you drop self-preservation in favor of other-preservation. That's why in Spartan culture it was a forgivable sin to drop your sword, but unforgivable to drop your shield, because doing that makes you a Blue Falcon.
Shield walls--cohesion in general--functions to increase collective security to the degree that individuals are willing to sacrifice personal security. It's a kind of cultural paradox, where increased willingness to give one's life means saving it.
So CE characters by their very nature can't use cohesion-based TTPs--they're selfish #$%-&%^@s.
You are assuming that CE is Chaotic Stupid.
A shieldwall works because it is a united front with no weak spots. An individual in the shieldwall knows that he has to maintain his position to benefit. He is not really doing for his mates (some may be, but they would be rare), he is doing it because it is safer for him, personally.
To break the shieldwall is to become an isolated individual, also known as a corpse.
So CE/CN/CG will maintain the shieldwall because it is the safest option. To assume that, simply by nature of being Chaotic, a warrior decides that he is better off being isolated in battle is to assume that he has no sense of self-preservation and no idea of battle.
As I say, our classic image of the Viking warrior is Chaotic. Yet the Vikings were regular and effective proponents of shieldwalls.
A shieldwall also takes discipline and control. Nobody here is suggesting that chaotic characters not be able to form and maintain a shield wall, rather they are suggesting that lawful characters be able to do it better. Nobody is suggesting chaotic characters be unable to cooperate in a fight, and until you see that they are actually just suggesting that lawful characters be able to do it better, you'll not connect.
Unless of course somebody begins arguing for chaotic characters not being able to use any formation tactics at all. If and when somebody does actually make that point then you'll have your talking points all ready to go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What are the ways that you would shift your active alignment the direction that you wanted? That is assuming that you started TN.Not though PvP, not the way the flags currently work. For example, you can't flag as Champion unless you're already good. And Champions don't gain good from killing evil; they only get it from killing Heinous.
... you could shift your alignment and rep downwards, of course.
Apart from the RP-reason,
That is why i don´t think we will start out as TN.i can´t believe that gw puts that much work into the flaging system just to wait till characters mature towards the alignments needed to use the different flags.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf and Jazzlvraz
What are the ways that you would shift your active alignment the direction that you wanted? That is assuming that you started TN.
Interesting question... If I start at Neutral.
Well the first thing I'm going to do when I log into the game, for the first time, is randomly select the first PC I see and attack him / her.
I'm hoping I can just punch him/her in the face, but I'll stab him/her in the neck if I have to.
I'm sure before long, and I will be timing it, the wardens / town guard will arrive and kill me. This will probably happen before I ever had a chance to kill the person I attacked.
I should get enough chaotic, just from the attacker flag, to be Chaotic Neutral. I would not be Evil or have a low Reputation yet, because I did not kill my victim. They won't have me on enemies list (I don't think) because I did not kill them.
Now that I am Chaotic Neutral (my desired Core Alignment) I can lock that in as my core.
I can then begin to train my Rogue based skills (Chaotic) and my basic combat and survival skills (Neutral).
I will then look for small ways that I can gain evil, if I need it, or good, if I want to bring myself back to CN. Always trying to maintain a decent Reputation, always acting within the flagging rules, if it is of benefit to me.
I hope you notice, that every time I say "within the flagging rules" that is where the game mechanics, the alignment system and the reputation systems fail to mesh well.
If I want to play a chaotic character, but I follow the rules like a good player (lawful), than my alignment and my adherence to the reputation system are counter to each other. This is why I say that Alignment and Reputation need to be completely separate. But that is an extensive rant, and I have had a few of those already.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What are the ways that you would shift your active alignment the direction that you wanted? That is assuming that you started TN.Not though PvP, not the way the flags currently work. For example, you can't flag as Champion unless you're already good. And Champions don't gain good from killing evil; they only get it from killing Heinous.
... you could shift your alignment and rep downwards, of course.
Apart from the RP-reason,
That is why i don´t think we will start out as TN.
i can´t believe that gw puts that much work into the flaging system just to wait till characters mature towards the alignments needed to use the different flags.
Exactly my point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf and Jazzlvraz
What are the ways that you would shift your active alignment the direction that you wanted? That is assuming that you started TN.
Interesting question... If I start at Neutral.
Well the first thing I'm going to do when I log into the game, for the first time, is randomly select the first PC I see and attack him / her.
I'm hoping I can just punch him/her in the face, but I'll stab him/her in the neck if I have to.
I'm sure before long, and I will be timing it, the wardens / town guard will arrive and kill me. This will probably happen before I ever had a chance to kill the person I attacked.
I should get enough chaotic, just from the attacker flag, to be Chaotic Neutral. I would not be Evil or have a low Reputation yet, because I did not kill my victim. They won't have me on enemies list (I don't think) because I did not kill them.
Now that I am Chaotic Neutral (my desired Core Alignment) I can lock that in as my core.
I can then begin to train my Rogue based skills (Chaotic) and my basic combat and survival skills (Neutral).
I will then look for small ways that I can gain evil, if I need it, or good, if I want to bring myself back to CN. Always trying to maintain a decent Reputation, always acting within the flagging rules, if it is of benefit to me.
I hope you notice, that every time I say "within the flagging rules" that is where the game mechanics, the alignment system and the reputation systems fail to mesh well.
If I want to play a chaotic character, but I follow the rules like a good player (lawful), than my alignment and my adherence to the reputation system are counter to each other. This is why I say that Alignment and Reputation need to be complete separate. But that is an extensive rant, and I have a few of those already.
Yes. My point is that it would not be easy to go towards evil or chaos and not drag your rep down with your alignment. That would not be fair to the Bad Guys.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can be a CE crafter that never sets foot outside of his shop, and has never griefed or ganked anyone. He just sets his Core Alignment to CE and he will be CE. Since he will only interact with others via local chat or within a trade window, no shift of alignment or reputation loss or gain.
Actually, we don't know that part. We only have some ideas of alignment change through PvP combat, and none at all through non-PvP interactions. I know it's been hinted at in places by the devs that merely "associating with" (whatever that means) people of particular alignments can shift your alignment towards theirs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can be a CE crafter that never sets foot outside of his shop, and has never griefed or ganked anyone. He just sets his Core Alignment to CE and he will be CE. Since he will only interact with others via local chat or within a trade window, no shift of alignment or reputation loss or gain.Actually, we don't know that part. We only have some ideas of alignment change through PvP combat, and none at all through non-PvP interactions. I know it's been hinted at in places by the devs that merely "associating with" (whatever that means) people of particular alignments can shift your alignment towards theirs.
You believe that chat in local chat or making a person to person trade will impact alignment and reputation? How could that possibly be tracked?
I think that would be one of those interactions that the devs had mentioned, they can not track and that is what they used to justify the automatic shift towards your core alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[How could] making a person to person trade [...] possibly be tracked?
Um... I think it would be rather trivial, actually?
EDIT: Ah, I realized perhaps you didn't mean tracked by the game, but "tracked" in roleplaying terms... Alignment is integral to a person, one doesn't need witnesses to change alignments. I only mentioned alignment in my post (sorry, I realize I bolded the word 'reputation' as well in what I was replying to).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You believe that chat in local chat or making a person to person trade will impact alignment and reputation? How could that possibly be tracked?
Player A and Player B open a trade window. If they complete a trade then they've had an interaction. Their alignment/rep could receive a small adjustment immediately towards the other's alignment.
I've no idea if GW is considering this (it seems pretty prone to abuse), but it could make using mule alts with very divergent alignments more difficult. So as the LG mule trades 27 times with low-rep CE types his alignment slowly creeps towards low-rep and CE.
If there was such a system, it should only consider completed trades where both sides accepted the results; not just opening a trade window since that could be used to mess with alignment. And people could avoid being contaminated by doing their trades only through the village market.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You believe that chat in local chat or making a person to person trade will impact alignment and reputation? How could that possibly be tracked?
People who want to be anonymous jerks will not get much pleasure out of being quickly and unceremoniously silenced, booted, or banned.
Emphasis mine. Sounds as if they'll have folks watching, and controlling, chat.
Trading directly with CE characters could be considered a chaotic and evil act. So doing a direct character-to-character transfer could rapidly degrade the alignment of your non-CE character.
They're discussing tracking it somehow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...it could make using mule alts with very divergent alignments more difficult.
More from the Ryan-quote above, discussing mule-alts:
Your good PC has to go to somewhere your CE PC can meet them to transfer items for sale. That means your good PC is going to have to go into dangerous places. How do you ensure that your good PC doesn't get ganked by the kinds of a!+@@~&s who live in the places your CE character lives?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are assuming that CE is Chaotic Stupid.A shieldwall works because it is a united front with no weak spots. An individual in the shieldwall knows that he has to maintain his position to benefit. He is not really doing for his mates (some may be, but they would be rare), he is doing it because it is safer for him, personally.
No. Cohesion-dependent TTPs are only effective if a force is cohesive--if the members live a culture of self-sacrifice. It's why the Spartans went through the agōgē, and why US Marines go through the modern equivalent--that tremendous effort and time would be an incredibly stupid waste otherwise. Anyone can form a shield wall (or some other cohesion-dependent TTP), but it only works if the members are committed, through their culture, to each other. You do understand one shield wall breaks, right? :)
I think the issue is that you misunderstand alignment. In Golarion, CE groups can't act in social, cohesive ways:
A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
You're thinking of Lawful Evil, who can have cohesive, very social organizations.
(Of course, the Devs can arbitrarily change this to try and improve gameplay).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is an amazingly complex system, if they manage to do it. Basically, it would impact every person-to-person trade as far as alignment / reputation shifts.
I'm assuming that you would get positive alignment and reputation for trading with your own alignment, and negative for dealing with your opposite?
How would they prevent "daisy-chain trades"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Trading directly with CE characters could be considered a chaotic and evil act. So doing a direct character-to-character transfer could rapidly degrade the alignment of your non-CE character.They're discussing tracking it somehow.
I'd think the effects might only run one way. So the good or neutral trader takes a hit for trading with evil (the good more than the neutral, of course), but the evil guy gains no alignment for trading with good. Likewise law-chaos axis. Would make abuse more difficult when it's one way leakage. Trading within your own alignment might have no effect at all. There could possibly be (neutral?) fence skills to trade outside your alignment with reduced penalties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd think the effects might only run one way. So the good or neutral trader takes a hit for trading with evil (the good more than the neutral, of course), but the evil guy gains no alignment for trading with good. Likewise law-chaos axis. Would make abuse more difficult when it's one way leakage. Trading within your own alignment might have no effect at all. There could possibly be (neutral?) fence skills to trade outside your alignment with reduced penalties.
I'm all for fence skills, like the idea, hope for smuggling as well.
I would hope that each alignment gains a shift for trading with their own, has no change when trading with neutrals, and has a negative hit when trading with their opposite. Neutrals, being neutral, will gain positive shift no matter whom they trade with (making them natural merchants).
It is kind of strange if you think about a lawful. If a lawful person enters a trade, you would think that he/she is bound by that trade no matter whom they are trading with, so perhaps lawful would gain regardless of whom they trade with.
Chaotics who successfully go through with a trade, have committed a lawful act and would therefore suffer a lawful shift to their alignment.
If you consider G, N. E and L, C you would come to the conclusion that Lawful Neutral characters make ideal merchants, which sounds about right to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah, good point Bringslight. Maybe it only works on the rep axis, if rep is known. Maybe it works on other axes if you know the other's rep is wrong (a paly trading with someone when he's detected evil; any good or neutral trading with heinous, etc.) I still think fence skill would be useful thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic does not mean that they will always break their word. They just see no reason to keep it if their circumstances change. Especially if they change in their own head and they forget to tell anyone. They are self justified in their actions. They simply need a greater level of motivation to do what they say they will regardless of circumstance. Think lawful evil leader who will kill them faster than the enemy if they break a shield wall formation.
Evil needs no self justification. The well being of the one always out ways the well being of others. They don't have to explain anything. The end always justifies the means.
Chaotic Evil can never be safely trusted. But they may be the most difficult to fight. They will take every opportunity to twist circumstance to their advantage regardless of what they have to sacrifice, even their supposed allies. "If they couldn't see the double cross coming that saved my life, they didn't deserve my consideration or mercy in the first place."
Your opinion may vary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So...you have to check the alignment of every person that you trade with somehow?
Only if you trade with them regularly. The changes would be small.
Of course if you trade with each person only once but everyone you trade with is evil, the impact would be the same. Know your neighbourhood.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I had planned to be CE...I want to be LE for RP purposes.Could you be satisfied with Neutral Evil, then? Nothing says you have to behave one way all the time; you can mix-and-match to avoid the snakepit...or a@#$%^&-pit...of Chaotic Evil.
I'm betting if Chaotic Evil sucks as bad as Ryan's said, and he's part of the team that's setting up just how bad it'll be, so he oughta know, then I see Neutral Evil settlements on the horizon. They'll be bad, but not hopeless.
But being NE won't allow for me to fly the outlaw flag (requires chaotic) if my company needs me to..... That is the issue. To do both without changing my alignment, I have to be CE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not accept every belief that Ryan Dancey says as gospel. I disagree with his view of what alignment means. He is no better an authority on meaning than any of us.
Does he ultimately have the power to include the mechanics that gimp an alignment, yes he does. Does that legitimize his beliefs, not one bit!
If GW is designing an aspect of the game to suck, that is poor gaming design.
You will pobably tell me i got this wrong, but anyway.
What i got from the dev blog´s and even before from Rians KS-post is,
- the devs have the impression that any game so far that had non consequential pvp turned into lord of the flies online.
- they don´t want a new lord of the flies online.
- so they designed it so that all the unwanted pvp actions force you into the CE-low rep corner.
- because that is so, CE-low rep will acumulate all the players showing unwanted pvp behaviour will.
- becasue they show unwanted pvp behaviour they get punished by the system, as long as they don´t change their ways.
- if they don´t change their ways, that is their decision.i don´t think that is poor game design, i think it is brilliant.
And I agree. The issue I am having is that the LOW REP part seams to not be consistent.
- Being CE AND having low rep = sucks to be you. This I like and agree with.
- Being CE AND having HIGH rep should not have penalties attached to it. Difficulties such as finding cities to train in and such are fine, but no limit to training or other "disadvantages."
It would be the same as a LG character with a low rep. He couldn't enter towns and train because his rep is low. Granted, it is hard to have a low rep and still maintain LG, but the concept is there. Why aren't they being gimped but CE is? Yes CE is where you get sent as you attack and kill unflagged and otherwise unprovoked players. But it is the rep issue that should be the final "nail in the coffin" not simply the CE part.
Side note: As a CE, you are "free" from the alignment hits for mindlessly PVPing and ganking and all that, but the rep hit is the issue. If I provide meaningful interactions as a CE character, and maintain a high rep, there should be no additional "problems or disadvantages" that any other high rep character would have, regardless of their alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats: Regarding torture - rather than making it so explicit, evil settlements could have the ability to upgrade their fortress/command post with a torture chamber to increase their intelligence gathering capabilities. Assume that commoner prisoners from other settlements are being questioned, rather than PCs. Maybe it generates grab-a-commoner missions as well - grab a commoner from settlement X to get a snapshot of settlement X's status.
This is actually a great idea and sticks with the "bad guy" theme. I also agree the NPC snatch would be better than PC, for reaons that no one likes to lose control of the characters no matter the reason. Especially since we are "paying to play" the game. NPC characters would make a better option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think they expect that LGh* will have more limited options than LEh and CGh, and CEh will have the fewest limitations on character actions.
I think they will build it so you can succeed and prosper as a CEh, if only to serve as an example for others.
* If we're going to have a 3-axis alignment: law-chaos; good-evil; and rep, then we need to start abbreviating the rep part sometime, somehow. LGh is a possibility to show Lawful Good with high reputation. Average rep can be 'a'. Maybe low rep is 'p'oor rep, so we don't confuse Law and low.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
sorry to do a seeming rapidfire or posts but I have been gone all day and I missed almost 100 posts, so I can catching up on the ones that I felt needed responded to.
Moral of the story from my point of view, as supported by the clarifying done from Ryan and Steven (thanx BTW), CE alone shouldn't be gimped. The reputation along with the CE alignment is what determins the issue. Low rep = life sucks, high rep = not so bad, difficult but doable. That is all I have been asking for. I WANT to be other people's content, because they are mine and that is only fair.
I noticed Ryan's post concerning "changing settlements." I would ask for better clarifying in that we HAVE to be tied to a settlement to get training? I was under the impression that we COULD, though harder and more expensive, me a free roamer and not tie down to a settlement, but still train there. If this is the case, requiring EVERYONE to join a settlement to do training, then I must redo my whole concept. Does NPC settlements count for that? I ask because I remember reading the assassins will need to join one of the guilds to train in those skills. Will this be a "building" option in a settlement to have a "branch" for the guild there? So I would then join that settlement that has a Branch of the guild I joined in it? This changes, or at least requires reevaluating of my concept and intended play-style.
Please either do a blog (soonish preferred :-) ) or a post here to clear this up. Thank you for your time. Good night.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think they expect that LGh* will have more limited options than LEh and CGh, and CEh will have the fewest limitations on character actions.
I think they will build it so you can succeed and prosper as a CEh, if only to serve as an example for others.
* If we're going to have a 3-axis alignment: law-chaos; good-evil; and rep, then we need to start abbreviating the rep part sometime, somehow. LGh is a possibility to show Lawful Good with high reputation. Average rep can be 'a'. Maybe low rep is 'p'oor rep, so we don't confuse Law and low.
Sounds good to me. I like short hand as long as it can still be understood. GJ!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats: Regarding torture - rather than making it so explicit, evil settlements could have the ability to upgrade their fortress/command post with a torture chamber to increase their intelligence gathering capabilities. Assume that commoner prisoners from other settlements are being questioned, rather than PCs. Maybe it generates grab-a-commoner missions as well - grab a commoner from settlement X to get a snapshot of settlement X's status.This is actually a great idea and sticks with the "bad guy" theme. I also agree the NPC snatch would be better than PC, for reaons that no one likes to lose control of the characters no matter the reason. Especially since we are "paying to play" the game. NPC characters would make a better option.
Well, I agree NPC > PC due to "capture" for humans not being a good game play idea. But I think the other issue is graphic torture might be out of bounds. So to address these problems:-
1. To circumvent the PC captive problem: Instead, of the player being captive, the "Capture Skill" < Torture Building + Skill Training is initiated and if the victim is killed, the player's soul is released, but the now old body is still animated/alive ie a penalty for the player rezing elsewhere and the body is taken back to torture and extract info.
2. The reason you might want a PC is to increase interaction. Secondly the reason you'd want to have their body "tortured" is to drive home CE are fairly scary/unpleasant. It's distinct from LG and that is part of the essence of Alignment and different experiences. So that's the reason to have "torture" but atst it is controversial to represent it with howls of anguish and misery. So perhaps just string up the body all emaciated and leave it at that - as only a visual sign.
3. The output or function however is the information on the other settlement.
4. It still might be better to NPC, but atst, CE snatching PCs is very Morlock-esque... and to have their enemy avatar strung up, quite powerful message that "your evil work" has potency (with the knowledge the other player knows their old body is being desecrated/penalizing them for being captured using some dark arts). Perhaps even leaving the bodies strung up for a good while, building a nice collection of them... with the player's name and all? Ghoulish.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No. Cohesion-dependent TTPs are only effective if a force is cohesive--if the members live a culture of self-sacrifice.
That is very much missing what an early medieval shieldwall is all about. It is not about self-sacrifice at all. You do not sacrifice yourself for your companions, you rely on them to protect your flanks (and head) while you concentrate on protecting your front. You have brought up the Spartans twice but they are not medieval warriors. I am happy to put Sparta firmly in a Lawful Society category. The Spartan phalanx, however, is not the medieval shieldwall. Anglo-Saxon warriors are not Spartans raised and drilled in a militaristic society, where conformity is everything.
I have absolutely no idea why you bring up the US Marines - I have never seen a Marine shieldwall.
I think the issue is that you misunderstand alignment. In Golarion, CE groups can't act in social, cohesive ways:
On the contrary, I think you misunderstand. You seem to suggest that a Chaotic character cannot cooperate with others, and will not join a formation even when it is in his own best interests. You apparently have the idea that a Chaotic character must at all time act with no regard to anyone around him.
Chaotics act in concert with others in just about every game played. A Chaotic character becomes part of an adventuring party and acts with them. He doesn't run off by himself to adventure alone (unless it is a solo adventure). He works in conjunction with the spellcasters, warriors, and support roles, contributing his own skills and abilities to the group as a whole and relying on the others to do likewise. Why is this different to acting in a simple battlefield formation?
You are hung up on CE being a malevolent loner, and forgetting that, unless incredible stupid, a character of Chaotic alignment will happily cooperate when it suits him. Being part of a shieldwall in battle is one of those situations. Whether Evil, Good or Neutral, a Chaotic is not so stupid as to ignore the benefits of teamwork where necessary.
In settlement terms, it should also be remembered that innovation, invention and trying different things is essentially Chaotic. The brilliant but eccentric mind is Chaotic, refusing to be bound by existing doctrine. That makes Chaotic settlements at the cutting edge of new technology.
By contrast, a Lawful settlement would emphasise the rules. The method of making an item has been handed down generation to generation, and following the dogmatic but proven methods would be the Lawful way. A Lawful settlement would therefore struggle to innovate.
Now realistically, of course, the Lawful settlement would have just enough Chaotic and 'out-of-the-box' thinkers to make some technological headway, just as a Chaotic settlement would have enough Lawful crafters willing to get down and produce items according to the plans.
If GW decide to punish Chaotic settlements for not being organised enough to have efficient production, then surely they must likewise punish Lawful settlements for not having innovative thinkers?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Sadurian That is a perfect example of what I was talking about (I think in a different thread) concerning a equal but opposite balance. Both are mechanically "hindered" but differently based on good reason for it. As you described with innovations vs. efficiency. I have been thinking more and more that if CE is going to be punished so harshly because it is the "least desired alignment" then why does LG act as the "most preferred alignment?" What can't there be opposite but equal pros and cons for each alignment? LE vs CG should be similar. If LE is the "Best Bad Guy" then CG should be the "Best Good Guy" and CE/LG will both be limited because of the strictness and difficulty of playing those alignments. All of the neutrals would be like a happy medium for each, not hindered but nothing special either. Of balance them the same way, LN vs CN, NG vs NE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Sadurian That is a perfect example of what I was talking about (I think in a different thread) concerning a equal but opposite balance. Both are mechanically "hindered" but differently based on good reason for it. As you described with innovations vs. efficiency. I have been thinking more and more that if CE is going to be punished so harshly because it is the "least desired alignment" then why does LG act as the "most preferred alignment?" What can't there be opposite but equal pros and cons for each alignment? LE vs CG should be similar. If LE is the "Best Bad Guy" then CG should be the "Best Good Guy" and CE/LG will both be limited because of the strictness and difficulty of playing those alignments. All of the neutrals would be like a happy medium for each, not hindered but nothing special either. Of balance them the same way, LN vs CN, NG vs NE.
Oh,no,no.no! LG should be the Uber Best, and get cookies and punch everyday. Don't wreck my playpen!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I agree. The issue I am having is that the LOW REP part seams to not be consistent.- Being CE AND having low rep = sucks to be you. This I like and agree with.
- Being CE AND having HIGH rep should not have penalties attached to it. Difficulties such as finding cities to train in and such are fine, but no limit to training or other "disadvantages."It would be the same as a LG character with a low rep. He couldn't enter towns and train because his rep is low. Granted, it is hard to have a low rep and still maintain LG, but the concept is there. Why aren't they being gimped but CE is? Yes CE is where you get sent as you attack and kill unflagged and otherwise unprovoked players. But it is the rep issue that should be the final "nail in the coffin" not simply the CE part.
Side note: As a...
Actually i think the LG+ character is even worse off.
For example: lets look at a Paladin, that goes on a killing spree.his Alignemt will change toward CE his Rep will drop.
he will lose the ability to keep his Paladin(or any lawful&good&highrep) skills.
so he will be left with low rep-requirement skills that are neither good nor lawful, for at least the time till his alignment goes back to LG, and then he will still have the low rep, making him an outcast in most settlements.
-that is actually one thing i´m really interessted in the flag-overhaul.
i think, a paladin should even face this fate when he goes on a killing spree in an evil town (possible exception could be an all low rep town or all targets are pvp flaged).
i intentionaly left the pvp flags out of that example, because of the possible changes that still might come.
And i also know that a lg fighter or mage might not be as bad off, but they also would have to face the low rep repercussions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a point I've made several times, Gedichtewicht.
Play CE and your settlement is below par because NPCs just don't want to operate out of such wretched hives of scum and villainy.
Play LG and your individual actions are harder to maintain in a game of conflict. You need to monitor flags very carefully, otherwise your alignment will change with your actions and you will find your settlement will not even allow you in any longer.
LE and CG are the more interesting alignments in my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually i think the LG+ character is even worse off.
For example: lets look at a Paladin, that goes on a killing spree.
his Alignemt will change toward CE his Rep will drop.
he will lose the ability to keep his Paladin(or any lawful&good&highrep) skills.
so he will be left with low rep-requirement skills that are neither good nor lawful, for at least the time till his alignment goes back to LG, and then he will still have the low rep, making him an outcast in most settlements.
And this is why it's a bad idea to offer to LG characters consequence-free PVP areas, a lot hinges on the player's ability to maintain that alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And this is why it's a bad idea to offer to LG characters consequence-free PVP areas, a lot hinges on the player's ability to maintain that alignment.
If the LG Player-character feels that as part of proper RP of their character, that they should not venture into this kind of area, no one is saying they have to.
If a LG PC can't resist the temptation of having such a place, then maybe they are not really Lawful Good.
Besides, "consequence free" is not wholly accurate of what the FFA zone that Ryan Dancey described. He said that the would be free of concerns for Alignment and Reputation, but the consequences of death would still apply.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Every character belongs to a Settlement, Not all Settlements are run by player characters.How long can characters remain attached to the NPC starter settlements?
I would hope for as long as they wish. Again, most won't, given the advantages/perks/etc. of player settlement membership, but I would hope the incentive to leave NPC settlements would be a naturally arrived at decision, rather than an imposed time limit.