Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's time we put down in writing, our full visions for how we view the subject of alignment. In this post I'm going to cover
• Alignment as a measure of behavior vs. alignment as faction.
• Alignment vs. reputation.
• How I view the alignments.
• The inherent disadvantage of good against evil, and law against chaos.
• The upside and downsides I would like to see alignments carry.
Often I get the feeling from reading people's posts that they want their alignment as a flag with opposing alignments being almost identical in most aspects but opposed to each other. Much like horde vs. alliance. That a chaotic evil should be able to interact with other players in a lawful good manner, and then enjoy the same benefits as a lawful good player minus some flavor abilities associated with their alignment.
Horde vs. Alliance can be called many things. One thing I think almost all of us can agree on is that Horde vs. Alliance is not meaningful player interaction. So why would we ask the developers to spend a great deal of time and effort on a system that does not promote meaningful player interaction?
What I would rather see is alignments meant to reflect our behavior toward other players and not just NPCs. Where evil players achieve their goals at the expense of others and good players seek to protect the weak. Where lawful players concern themselves with what is within the bounds of the law, and chaotic players laugh at such ideas. This promotes interactions with true meaning as it sets up ideals and a way for players to distinguish between those who adhere to those ideals and those who oppose them. When the inevitable conflicts ensue your alignment won't just be a flag over your head, it's who you are and what you believe in. That's real PVP.
There are forms of PvP that we consider inherently unacceptable behavior. If you are engaged in killing characters without an in-game rationale, just "for the lulz", that's not ok.
...there are things you can do that we'll support, and things you can do that we won't, and things that if you do them, you'll face increasingly stiff penalties to the point where we hope you'll quit and go play some other game. You will not have unrestricted freedom to do whatever you wish, whenever you wish, to whomever you wish, for any reason.
Reputation should measure how much you partake in behaviors that "aren't ok" and low reputation should come with still penalties intended to force the player to correct their behavior or "go play some other game."
Alignment should balance the advantages of the freedoms inherent in certain alignments by giving mechanical advantages to alignments that are forced to follow heavy restrictions. Not to the point that one side is at a disadvantage overall, but to where both sides are competitive.
Good- Good does things for the benefits of others rather than personal gain. Altruism is the defining characteristic of someone who is good, along with an aversion to doing evil. A good player should almost never do physical harm to another good or neutral player except to defend themselves and others.
-Fighting defensive wars or joining allies in defensive wars is acceptable as a good group.*
-Killing combatants** and fighting for objectives during a war is acceptable as a good player.
-Protecting others by engaging in combat with attackers, murderers, and other violent individuals/groups is acceptable as a good group.
- Having reasonable tolls or stealing from evil groups / warring factions is acceptable for good players.
- Controlling the access and resource extraction of your territory is acceptable for a good group.***
Evil- Evil selfishly seeks their own ends at the expense of others. They declare wars on those who have what they want. They commit human sacrifices and cause suffering in the name of dark gods who promise them power. They defile the souls of the dead and curse the land to gain minions.
- Waging an aggressive war should move a faction toward evil based on the good-evil alignment of the group they are fighting.
-Killing non-combatants during a war is an evil action.
-Killing players who are not flagged as an attacker, murder, or posing a clear an serious threat in any other fashion should push you toward evil based off their good-evil alignment.
-Issuing unreasonably harsh taxes on those passing through your territory, or robbing neutral parties for ridiculous sums of money is an evil action.
Law- Law seeks to preserve order and follow a code of honor. They care about borders and what they have the authority to do.
-Taxing passage and operations within territory you own based on clearly established rules is lawful.
-Killing and robbing members of warring nations in your territory, the territory of hostile nations, and unclaimed territory is lawful.
-Settling your disputes on the field of battle is lawful.
Chaos- Chaos doesn't give a damn about your hollow laws and meaningless order. Chaos has a job to do and it isn't going to let that crap get in it's way.
-Robbing people of whatever you want wherever you feel like it is chaotic.
-Bringing your conflict with an enemy inside a neutral nation is chaotic.
-Robbing enemy non-combatants of their goods is chaotic.
-Sabotaging your enemies and their facilities is chaotic.
In Mortal online there are lawful and unlawful towns. Unlawful players can't enter lawful towns, lawful players can enter both. There is a small ammount of stat loss that unlawful players take each time they die, but lawful players suffer no such penalty. Guess which alignment most veterans go with? Unlawful. Overwhelmingly so.
But that system clearly favors lawful players! Why would most veterans go unlawful?
Because unlawful players are free to kill whomever they choose. They have more freedom. Freedom is an advantage.
A system where good and lawful players are restricted in their behavior and have no advantages to balance that out is not a balanced system. It's a system that penalizes good and law. This has been proven in every game with anything even resembling an alignment system.
Advantages for Good- The good dieties bestow powerful blessings on their followers (more powerful than the blessings of evil dieties) and their population rejoices under their benevolent rule (raising certain development indexes.) The champions of good are granted great power against the forces of evil by binding themselves with vows to never harm the innocent and exposing theirselves to the full wrath of evil.
Advantages of Evil- Evil is free to pursue their selfish goals through violence and destruction. They can exploit slavery and the defiled souls of the undead to see their bidding done.
Advantages of Law- The well organized forces of law have a distinct advantage in wars due to their supreme discipline in formation combat. Their orderly societies are smooth running granting positive effects to some of their development indexes.
Advantages of Chaos- Chaotic forces are able to ignore the borders of nations and boundaries of society. Through they can sabotage, rob, and even smuggle addictive drugs to their enemy's workers in order to devastate their economy and development indexes.
How Lawful Good is Balanced- Lawful good has amazingly good development indexes, their armies are well organized and blessed by their benevolent deities, and their champions and enforcers help hold the forces of evil and chaos at bay. However waging aggressive campaigns can quickly lead to their fall from grace, and they can only engage their enemies on the field of battle as taking the war into neutral nations and robbery/sabotage threaten to drive them toward chaos, and killing enemy non-combatants threatens to drive them toward evil. Lawful good nations excell at building and defending powerful nations that expand through peaceful means and upholding righteousness within it's borders.
How Chaotic Good is Balanced- Chaotic good has powerful vigilantes blessed by their benevolent dieties and capable of robbing and sabotaging their enemies and the forces of evil anywhere they are found. They create disorderly but lively towns who thrive in the freedom of their societies. Aggressive campaigns, or robbing harsh sums from neutral parties will both push them down the path toward evil. Chaotic good nations are a thorn in the side of anyone who tangles with them or their allies, and there is nowhere you can hide from the justice they bring.
How Lawful Evil is Balanced- The well trained and organized ranks of lawful evil nations march to war in order to seize any lands they find desireable. Already being evil they have no need to fear corrupting themselves through excessive wars. In war they slaughter combatants and non-combatants alike, and their dread enforcers root out those who would subvert their iron grip on the lands they hold. However, they draw a line at pressing their engagements into neutral territory or using dishonorable tactics like robbery and sabotage. There is no honor in those tactics, and honor is everything to them. That and power. Lawful evil is the perfect alignment for building a dark empire and enforcing your absolute will within it's borders.
How Chaotic Evil is Balanced- You have something shiny? Chaotic evil will take it. You have territory they want? They'll go to war for it. In that war they will do as they please. They'll kill any of your people wherever they find them. They'll sabotage your cities and rob/slaughter across your lands, then hunt you down wherever you try to flee. There is nowhere you're safe from chaotic evil. Chaotic evil is the faction to play if you want to take off the gloves and pursue your goals completly free from any notion of morality or honor. You may still take reputation hits if you kill people "for the lulz" but you are provided all the tools to take what you want, and to crush your enemies and see them driven before you.
These are mechanics I support that are crucial to things working as I described.
* - Any company can declare war on a settlement. When the aggressor or joining an ally who is the aggressor during a war your group's alignment moves closer to evil for each day the war is maintained. When the defender or joining an ally who is the defender there is no alignment penalty. Wars grant the power to seize territory from the enemy and attack their members without reputation loss.
**- Combatant is a flag you can don if your settlement is at war. This flag enables you to engage enemy players and enter enemy territory. While wearing a combatant flag you can be killed by any enemy player without alignment loss. If not wearing this flag you are considered a non-combatant. Killing you is considered evil and robbing you is chaotic, but if you initiate conflict with the enemy or enter into their territory you take a large reputation hit. This flag has a waiting period before you can take advantage of it, and it lasts for awhile after you turn those advantages off.
***- Any territory holding group can exile other players and groups from that territory. From then on those players and groups can be killed in that territory without reputation or alignment loss. They also have a right to demand taxes on resource extraction within their lands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am going to write each concept, in a separate post, so that they can be responded to in their entirety without becoming muddled.
I will start first with a flaw that I see in your concept of what it is to be "Good". I do not mean for this to be taken as a personal attack, and I'm assuming this is your character's concept of "Good"
Good- Good does things for the benefits of others rather than personal gain. Altruism is the defining characteristic of someone who is good, along with an aversion to doing evil. A good player should almost never do physical harm to another good or neutral player except to defend themselves and others.
-Fighting defensive wars or joining allies in defensive wars is acceptable as a good group.*
-Killing combatants** and fighting for objectives during a war is acceptable as a good player.
-Protecting others by engaging in combat with attackers, murderers, and other violent individuals/groups is acceptable as a good group.
- Having reasonable tolls or stealing from evil groups / warring factions is acceptable for good players.
- Controlling the access and resource extraction of your territory is acceptable for a good group.***
What Major Tenant(s) of Good are Missing?
The first major tenant of good that you are missing is "The Golden Rule". "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself".
In all of your writings and in your Gobbocast Interview, there is no sense of an attempt to:
Convert the wicked, through demonstrating: compassion, forgiveness, or allowance for redemption. Show them the "Better Path".
If they accept it, you have truly lived up to the tenants of what is is to be good.
If they reject it, would you hunt them down and kill them in their sleep? Or, would you try to change their views again?
I am not saying that you do not defend yourself or other with force if necessary, unless you are claiming that you are RPing a pacifist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Second point of discussion:
Any territory holding group can exile other players and groups from that territory. From then on those players and groups can be killed in that territory without reputation or alignment loss. They also have a right to demand taxes on resource extraction within their lands.
Do the "Exiled" have the same, consequence free killing, of your company and your settlement's citizens?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good write-up, Andius - thanks. I do wish They would consider renaming "reputation" as "karma", or some related word. That would free up reputation to be used either for player's views of other players, or a player's standing with respect to a settlement.
I think that your explanation of your views on alignment doesn't address motivation, just acts. Which is the way I think it has to be - the game cannot detect motivation, so one's actions must determine how one is measured.
Thanks for the balanced writing. When you say "Having reasonable tolls or stealing from evil groups / warring factions is acceptable for good players," you could have used "confiscate" instead of "steal" if you chose to bias towards the good alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf This isn't our world, this is a fantasy world where there is an on-going struggle against real evil shtuff. Does one try to convert drow or goblins? People who have chosen to be evil or have chosen acts that make them evil - they made their choice.
As far as I have read, there is no requirement in PF to be an evangelist about one's faith or alignment. There is no hint that good should give evil a second chance to stab them in the back. It's like war - when a "good/upright/close to his God" soldier faces an enemy on a battlefield in our world, does he let the other guy take a first shot? No - that would be moronic. Good characters shouldn't need to act stupid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Urman,
However, in a game where alignment is not permanently locked in place, there will be the chance for a player to change their character's alignment, potentially because of how they are positively or negatively treated by other characters. Though I suspect a player who chooses to make their character evil won't likely change their actions, and thereby their alignment, just because a good character shows them compassion, there is that possibility. Showing compassion and giving second chances are the hallmarks of good. It's one of the things that make playing good characters more challenging.
Though I personally am not interested in an alignment system, the one thing I do like about it is that players are not forever locked into their set alignment. If they decide that their character should be changing their alignment (for whatever IC reasons), they can do so, instead of having to create a new character to play that new alignment. This feels far more "real" than other systems where "born" evil (chosen at character creation) = evil for life.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hobs, That's fine. If a player decides his evil character wants to change his ways and shift his alignment, ok. I'd suggest that he stop killing flagged characters, move to the other end of the map, and reform his reputation there. If you're evil and want to change alignment, it's on you to demonstrate this by your actions*. Any plea for battlefield mercy should be viewed as a typical evil ruse; a set-up for betrayal.
*The game does need to provide mechanisms for this - though it might be a hard road. The flag system as we know it will not allow an evil character to become good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flags...that's a whole different story. Personally, I think quite a few of the current flags could apply to far more alignments than they currently do, but perhaps this will be addressed in the flag revisions.
As for a game mechanic "forcing" you to act more good/compassionate, no...I think it has more to do with how you role-play good, but I tend not to like game mechanics controlling my character's actions anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, I don't mean a game mechanic to force someone to be good. I mean a game mechanic that recognizes some action as good and shifts the player's alignment as a reward. I don't think we've seen many mechanics whereby an evil character can shift his good-evil rating towards good. For example, a character with a core evil alignment will drift back to evil. A player would have to have a good alignment at some point to normally drift back to good, but how does one get to good if they aren't there already?
Quests? Maybe. But I don't think the quest givers in the evil towns will have a lot of "save the orphans" quests. They'll likely have more "kill this random evil PC because the rumor is he disrespected you".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good point. Seeing as Hobs (in-game) will be a follower of Sarenrae ( more on the redeeming/compassion side than the swift justice side), I'll need to think on this. Perhaps there could be a compassion mechanic that allows a good character to offer an evil character some means to begin sliding their alignment to the good side. Hmm...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, I don't mean a game mechanic to force someone to be good. I mean a game mechanic that recognizes some action as good and shifts the player's alignment as a reward. I don't think we've seen many mechanics whereby an evil character can shift his good-evil rating towards good. For example, a character with a core evil alignment will drift back to evil. A player would have to have a good alignment at some point to normally drift back to good, but how does one get to good if they aren't there already?
Quests? Maybe. But I don't think the quest givers in the evil towns will have a lot of "save the orphans" quests. They'll likely have more "kill this random evil PC because the rumor is he disrespected you".
How about through a player to player interaction?
Lets say my LG Monk comes across a Chaotic Evil Thief, who is about to land the killing blow on another player (Gank Kill). I stop him, and suggest that the Thief lets the person go. I even offer the thief a small token if he would consider it.
The Thief, sizes me up, it makes no difference if he feels he can beat me or not, but he decides to let the player live. The player runs off.
I then offer the Thief a token, a bit of Good Alignment. He can choose to turn down, but it is there for the taking. If he takes it, he may be on his road to redemption.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bludd,
I had thought the same for Paladins, perhaps. Having to so strictly follow their own good alignment, a nice trade-off ability might be to use some kind of atonement ability on others and trigger the slow slide to good. I like the character interaction of it. Rather than interacting with NPC trainers and the like, character must look to one another for this kind of change.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What Major Tenant(s) of Good are Missing?
The first major tenant of good that you are missing is "The Golden Rule". "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself".
In all of your writings and in your Gobbocast Interview, there is no sense of an attempt to:
Convert the wicked, through demonstrating: compassion, forgiveness, or allowance for redemption. Show them the "Better Path".
If they accept it, you have truly lived up to the tenants of what is is to be good.
If they reject it, would you hunt them down and kill them in their sleep? Or, would you try to change their views again?
I am not saying that you do not defend yourself or other with force if necessary, unless you are claiming that you are RPing a pacifist.
The main mechanic protecting evil players is nowhere in Goblinworks suggestions or mine does it say good players will not lose reputation for attacking unflagged evil players outside wars / if they are trespassing. This motivates good players to leave evil players be unless they are low reputation, flagged, etc.
Beyond that.... fun > realism.
Maybe if there were some "seeking redemption" style flag you could stick on yourself that gave you massive reputation loss for violating it, that could work, but most anything that forces good players to spare evil players will be abused.
Good vs. evil conflict is game content. It's meaningful player interaction, and I think it should be left to the players whether they seek to pursue that conflict through their words, or the sword, because while the ultimate goal of in character is to redeem everyone and only slay those we absolutely have to, in-game... fighting is fun.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Second point of discussion:
Any territory holding group can exile other players and groups from that territory. From then on those players and groups can be killed in that territory without reputation or alignment loss. They also have a right to demand taxes on resource extraction within their lands.Do the "Exiled" have the same, consequence free killing, of your company and your settlement's citizens?
Why should trespassers not suffer alignment and reputation effects?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Second point of discussion:
Any territory holding group can exile other players and groups from that territory. From then on those players and groups can be killed in that territory without reputation or alignment loss. They also have a right to demand taxes on resource extraction within their lands.Do the "Exiled" have the same, consequence free killing, of your company and your settlement's citizens?
Sure, if they exile you from their territory and you cross into that. Otherwise I would think the mere act of crossing into your territory would be considered chaotic at least.
You're territory is your "lawn." If you come out on your porch with a shotgun and tell someone to "Get off my lawn!" does that justify them sneaking into your house and killing you in the night?
I don't think that if a grove of druids or order of monks closes off their hex to the outside world that it should justify anyone who wants to getting to kill them consequence free. If they don't like it, they are free to declare war and take the hex for the usual alignment hit.
That being said, at the point you actually go to kill someone who's exiled from your territory you should get flagged to them so they can defend themselves. Like any other time you initiate combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why should trespassers not suffer alignment and reputation effects?Second point of discussion:
Any territory holding group can exile other players and groups from that territory. From then on those players and groups can be killed in that territory without reputation or alignment loss. They also have a right to demand taxes on resource extraction within their lands.Do the "Exiled" have the same, consequence free killing, of your company and your settlement's citizens?
So what you are suggesting is that any settlement can set a group to be Trespassing, and then that settlement's citizens can freely kill the Trespassers without Alignment or Reputation consequences.
I would assume that while those Trespassers are being attacked, even close to or within your settlement hex, the NPC Wardens will not come to their aid. But, rather, the NPC wardens would attack the Trespassers as well.
I REALLY, REALLY... Like this idea!!!
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Wait, trespassing can only happen within the territory you control, not outside of that territory.
The wardens of NPC cities won't stand by while you try to enforce a no-trespassing decree, nor will they help you- because the area you can control is never inside the area that they patrol.
NPC guards in player settlements are as yet undetermined; they could be, or could not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wait, trespassing can only happen within the territory you control, not outside of that territory.
The wardens of NPC cities won't stand by while you try to enforce a no-trespassing decree, nor will they help you- because the area you can control is never inside the area that they patrol.
NPC guards in player settlements are as yet undetermined; they could be, or could not.
1. Yes, I understand that
2. You are incorrect on both parts. First, we are not speaking of NPC towns, we are talking about Player Settlements setting up anti trespasser mechanics. Secondly, You can enforce anti trespassing laws, otherwise what are your patrols for? Third, the wardens will respond outside of your immediate settlement hex (as long as you control it) it might just take them a bit longer to get there. Fourth, the wardens will attack the Trespasser not the character attacking the trespasser.
3. They have said that NPC wardens will appear to enforce the laws set by the settlement leaders. Within the actually settlement the warden response will obviously be much more swift and perhaps stronger.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're territory is your "lawn." If you come out on your porch with a shotgun and tell someone to "Get off my lawn!"
That being said, at the point you actually go to kill someone who's exiled from your territory you should get flagged to them so they can defend themselves. Like any other time you initiate combat.
Well, at least you give them the right to defend themselves.
Sorry, I was unaware that the "Get Off My Lawn, or Die" was a tenant of the Good Alignments.
I'm starting to rethink my alignment choice. I could be a Chaotic Good Outlaw / Champion and basically do whatever I want, and have all kinds of exemptions and mechanics that will recover my Reputation (if we end up with all of your ideas).
LOL... "Chaotic Good, is the New Chaotic Evil, just without the negative consequences".... that just hit me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius
"There is nowhere you're safe from chaotic evil."
I would argue that if this is true for CE then it is true for all alignments.
Any alignment can attack any alignment at any time. Just because it is not in the best interest of LG to RPK people does not negate the fact that at any moment they can. I would say it is less likely to occur from players of the LG alignment vs CE alignment... regardless. If the quoted statement is true about CE then it is also true about every other alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your guards would kills the trespassers, within your territory.
Let's explore two scenarios.
1. So there is Goody-Guys and Empire-Builders. Goody-Guys keeps hunting the group Robber-Dudes. Empire-Builders and Robber-Dudes have an understanding, and Robber-Dudes are welcome in Empire-Builders' territory. Goody-Guy's doesn't care, takes the chaotic hit, and continues to hunt Robber-Dudes in Empire-Builder's territory.
The exile mechanic allows Empire-Builders to ban Goody-Guys from their territory. Without that mechanic they could not engage Goody-Guys without the usual alignment/reputation hits outside war declaration, which would move them toward evil. If this was a two way street they would have just authorized Goody-Guys to hunt them in their own territory, consequence free, simply for banning trouble makers from territory they own.
2. Robber-Dudes have an untagged good aligned character that hangs around the Goody-Guys settlement reporting the movements of the traders moving in and out to the rest of the group. Goody-Guys knows that's what is going on. The exile mechanic allows them to ban that informant from their territory. If that allows them to kill them then Robber-Dude's gets a lawful good character who can then rampage through Goody-Guys land enjoying the full benefits of the alignment he obviously does not follow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius
"you are provided all the tools to take what you want, and to crush your enemies and see them driven before you."
I would argue that it has been stated by the developers in the past that CE will be at a developmental disadvantage due to their nature. If Good has the advantage, how is CE provided "all the tools to take what you want"?
What tools do you see CE as having that are superior to those that the other alignments have?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I then offer the Thief a token, a bit of Good Alignment. He can choose to turn down, but it is there for the taking. If he takes it, he may be on his road to redemption.
This sounds like the reputation boosts that GW had outlined, and which some have been adamantly against. Isn't it prone to the same amount of exploits?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Andius
"you are provided all the tools to take what you want, and to crush your enemies and see them driven before you."
I would argue that it has been stated by the developers in the past that CE will be at a developmental disadvantage due to their nature. If Good has the advantage, how is CE provided "all the tools to take what you want"?
What tools do you see CE as having that are superior to those that the other alignments have?
Freedom. Every action you take that moves you toward chaos and evil is generally one that gives you an advantage. Robbing someone, killing a non-combatant, declaring war, sabotaging the enemy, being an assassin etc.
If a LG faction acts in this manner with any regularity at all, they will slide toward CE and probably lose their bonuses. Yes, LG can do these things in extremely limited quantities and remain LG.
CE can do those things all day long, as much as they want. That's the tool unavailable to other alignments.
Ideally the bonuses provided to LG would be proportionate to the power lost by not having that freedom.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius - What good is freedom when it is inherently handicapped. You are free to do all these things, but they will be less effective than if someone else does them.
War is something that is perceived to not be commonplace as it again is perceived to be highly taxing on settlement resources.
"Yes, LG can do these things in extremely limited quantities and remain LG."
So when it counts, LG will be able to endure the alignment blow of these unsavory tactics, thus negating the only tool you have listed for CE.
In the meantime, "Lawful good has amazingly good development indexes, their armies are well organized and blessed by their benevolent deities, and their champions and enforcers help hold the forces of evil and chaos at bay." is still in place.
Since CE cannot up their development indexes and better organize their armies in extremely limited quantities and remain CE, I would argue the score is LG - 1, CE - 0, leaving CE still disadvantaged.
EDIT- "Ideally the bonuses provided to LG would be proportionate to the power lost by not having that freedom."
That still leaves LG being able to use unsavory tactics sparingly a key times for an advantage, with no way for CE to replicate the advantages held by LG sparingly at key times for an equal advantage. LG still has the edge.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"CE can do those things all day long, as much as they want. That's the tool unavailable to other alignments."
This is frequently stated and false. If CE could do whatever they wanted, without reputation loss, that would be an advantage.
If CE settlements did not suffer for having low Reputation affects on their DI, that would be an advantage.
What you are saying is the equivent of, you have the freedom to cut off your fingers but you still have to use the same key board as everyone else, not an advantage and not an option.
So what players will do is game the alliance system. They will set their core to one alignment, actively do another and use whatever flags they need to recover reputation along the way.
The Alignment System and perhaps the Reputation System will be rendered meaningless by their own designs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good dialog going on here in response to the OP, but I wish to point out that once again the role of the Neutral is completely missing. The game should not be an expression of bipolar cultural illness any more than our politics should. The rhetoric that you have to stand for something defined by what it is against is reactionary.
Neutrality stands for something (dynamic balance between the four extremes).
Any alignment system that ignores the neutral is incomplete.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good dialog going on here in response to the OP, but I wish to point out that once again the role of the Neutral is completely missing. The game should not be an expression of bipolar cultural illness any more than our politics should. The rhetoric that you have to stand for something defined by what it is against is reactionary.
Neutrality stands for something (dynamic balance between the four extremes).
Any alignment system that ignores the neutral is incomplete.
I agree. However, no one is suppressing neutrality, the are suppressing CE and currently that is the point I am arguing.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Wait, trespassing can only happen within the territory you control, not outside of that territory.
The wardens of NPC cities won't stand by while you try to enforce a no-trespassing decree, nor will they help you- because the area you can control is never inside the area that they patrol.
NPC guards in player settlements are as yet undetermined; they could be, or could not.
1. Yes, I understand that
2. You are incorrect on both parts. First, we are not speaking of NPC towns, we are talking about Player Settlements setting up anti trespasser mechanics. Secondly, You can enforce anti trespassing laws, otherwise what are your patrols for? Third, the wardens will respond outside of your immediate settlement hex (as long as you control it) it might just take them a bit longer to get there. Fourth, the wardens will attack the Trespasser not the character attacking the trespasser.
3. They have said that NPC wardens will appear to enforce the laws set by the settlement leaders. Within the actually settlement the warden response will obviously be much more swift and perhaps stronger.
Source? I might have missed the discussion about player cities having automated enforcement of laws (in addition to and seperate from the supplemental defense against conquest that I do recall), but that seems like something I would have noticed and remember.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Andius - What good is freedom when it is inherently handicapped. You are free to do all these things, but they will be less effective than if someone else does them.
War is something that is perceived to not be commonplace as it again is perceived to be highly taxing on settlement resources.
"Yes, LG can do these things in extremely limited quantities and remain LG."
So when it counts, LG will be able to endure the alignment blow of these unsavory tactics, thus negating the only tool you have listed for CE.
After which they are no longer LG, and lose all of the benefits. Now they have to struggle upwards with neither the advantages of freedom to take any action nor the advantages provided for righteousness. If they can use evil tactics as often as they need or want to, than there has been a failure to create meaningful choices.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What Major Tenant(s) of Good are Missing?
The first major tenant of good that you are missing is "The Golden Rule". "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself".
I've never bought this particular concept. I've known too many masochists.
Good means following the Platinum Rule also known as "DBAD". Don't be a ... jerk. (Hrm, I'm not sure if I can espouse the exact terminology on here, so we'll go with "jerk")
Treat others fairly. Why? Because not doing so is being a jerk.
Tip your waitress. Why? Because not doing so is being a jerk.
Don't steal from your friends. Why? Because not doing so is being a jerk.
We all know what being a jerk is. Just don't be one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"CE can do those things all day long, as much as they want. That's the tool unavailable to other alignments."
This is frequently stated and false.
'
Everything listed in that list are things that per the mechanics we know about or the suggestions I have made, would not cause any reputation loss, so yeah... you're wrong. Undeniably so.
I have already stated, without a mechanical advantage good/law are at an inherent disadvantage because of the things they are prohibited from doing that evil/law aren't. The advantages they get should be proportionate to those disadvantages. A system where chaotic evil has effectively "cut off their fingers" is obviously not proportionate. One where they've taped their pinky and ring finger together might be.
The only way you can assume this is imbalanced is if you assume it will be developed that way. That being said, I would be very interested to read a write up on the full system you believe we should use.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good dialog going on here in response to the OP, but I wish to point out that once again the role of the Neutral is completely missing. The game should not be an expression of bipolar cultural illness any more than our politics should. The rhetoric that you have to stand for something defined by what it is against is reactionary.
Neutrality stands for something (dynamic balance between the four extremes).
Any alignment system that ignores the neutral is incomplete.
I left out the neutral alignments (including my own alignment of neutral good) because I think their role in this system is fairly obvious.
Obviously you can do more chaotic and/or evil things and stay neutral than if you were trying to maintain a fully lawful and/or good alignment. Because of the lesser limitation you enjoy a lesser bonus.
For instance as neutral-good I would have access to formation skills a chaotic character would not, and could sabotage enemies/rob their non-combatants a fair bit.
Lawful good would enjoy the full benefits of being lawful and have more powerful formations, and chaotic good would be able to rob/sabotage more frequently and possibly even have skills that assist in that.
Finally there are the lore based skills specific to the neutral alignment like druids.
So I have a foot and both worlds but am denied the full benefits of either. If neutral ended up being underpowered you could perk either neutral specific skills / give them more of the benefits from each alignment, and if they were overpowered you nerf their benefits from each alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have already stated, without a mechanical advantage good/law are at an inherent disadvantage because of the things they are prohibited from doing that evil/law aren't.
@ Andius - This is false. Good/Law is not in anyway prohibited from doing what Evil/Chaos can. If this statement were true, then this entire argument would be folly because there would be no alignment shift.
It is the player's choice not to perform actions that lead to Chaos/Evil that are player imposed "disadvantages" that you are referring to. The mechanics should not have to compensate because you chose to play LG instead of CE.
How will CE be compensated for these advantages possessed by LG? The problem I see with the argument is player choice. Because you choose to follow a specific path someone else has to be disadvantaged to make it more fair for you? You should choose a different path.
The developers have already stated that it is Chaos that has the disadvantage... not law. I cannot see any logical argument for giving law MORE of an advantage as opposed to leveling it out for chaos, but I believe this lies in making CE vs CE a key proponent to it's own advancment. This is in keeping with the CE mindset.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
How will CE be compensated for these advantages possessed by LG? The problem I see with the argument is player choice. Because you choose to follow a specific path someone else has to be disadvantaged to make it more fair for you? You should choose a different path.
That applies to every disadvantage of each alignment; if you think that a different alignment is overpowered, you should choose a different alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks
1. That will simply end up with everyone going CE and metagaming their alignment. I can point to numerous titles which attempted weak alignment systems and ran into that issue. Nobody will accept mechanical limitations in place of their own judgement if they aren't compensated for it.
2. These are how I would like to see the disadvantages for chaotic and evil realized. Not something that we'll see in addition to the unspecified promises of GW.
3. What alternative to my system do you think we should use?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That applies to every disadvantage of each alignment; if you think that a different alignment is overpowered, you should choose a different alignment.How will CE be compensated for these advantages possessed by LG? The problem I see with the argument is player choice. Because you choose to follow a specific path someone else has to be disadvantaged to make it more fair for you? You should choose a different path.
That would be a wouldn't be a problem, if CE were not disadvantaged more so than the other alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks
1. That will simply end up with everyone going CE and metagaming their alignment. I can point to numerous titles which attempted weak alignment systems and ran into that issue. Nobody will accept mechanical limitations in place of their own judgement if they aren't compensated for it.
2. These are how I would like to see the disadvantages for chaotic and evil realized. Not something that we'll see in addition to the unspecified promises of GW.
3. What alternative to my system do you think we should use?
1. No it won't.
2. For how I would like to see CE's disadvantages handled, please see #3.
3. I'm fine with the current PfO alignment system in place with the modifications to CE that I mentioned in this thread here that have still yet to be addressed .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is ever going to be happy with the alignment mechanics. If one side has an advantage the other will complain. It isnt going to matter anyway. The side with more dedicated and organized members will win out in a conflict regardless of if they are LG CE or anywhere in between.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one is ever going to be happy with the alignment mechanics. If one side has an advantage the other will complain. It isnt going to matter anyway. The side with more dedicated and organized members will win out in a conflict regardless of if they are LG CE or anywhere in between.
It is when organizations of matched caliber face off against each other that these debates will prove fruitful and significant, no matter how insignificant they seem now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. No it won't.
That's not a valid argument. Here is how you make a valid argument:
In Mortal online there are lawful and unlawful towns. Unlawful players can't enter lawful towns, lawful players can enter both. There is a small amount of stat loss that unlawful players take each time they die, but lawful players suffer no such penalty. Guess which alignment most veterans go with? Unlawful. Overwhelmingly so.
But that system clearly favors lawful players! Why would most veterans go unlawful?
Because unlawful players are free to kill whomever they choose. They have more freedom. Freedom is an advantage.
Now you try.
3. I'm fine with the current PfO alignment system in place with the modifications to CE that I mentioned in this thread here that have still yet to be addressed .
I'm not sifting through an 8 page thread to see what posts you're talking about and I don't think it's fair to expect every reader of this topic to do so as well. Please either provide quotes, link the specific posts, or both.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks
1. That will simply end up with everyone going CE and metagaming their alignment. I can point to numerous titles which attempted weak alignment systems and ran into that issue. Nobody will accept mechanical limitations in place of their own judgement if they aren't compensated for it....
That's not a valid argument. Here is how you make a valid argument:
In Mortal online there are lawful and unlawful towns. Unlawful players can't enter lawful towns, lawful players can enter both. There is a small amount of stat loss that unlawful players take each time they die, but lawful players suffer no such penalty. Guess which alignment most veterans go with? Unlawful. Overwhelmingly so.But that system clearly favors lawful players! Why would most veterans go unlawful?
Because unlawful players are free to kill whomever they choose. They have more freedom. Freedom is an advantage.
Now you try.
Mortal Online - Final Score
6.2
Pros
Beautifully crafted & rendered world
Sandbox system offers complete freedom
Unique progression
Cons
A lot of bugs & glitches even now
Combat system needs a lot of work
Very vague introduction
So you are seriously going to try and use a game that didn't even score 7.5 to claim that I am not making a valid argument. This when we are discussing things about how unbalanced systems will lead to unfair advantages and you choose to use a game that has glitches and a poor combat system? To me that isn't a valid argument. Use EVE or even Darkfall to make your point next time. At least those are credible games.
Also, your two previous excerpts... the one about people meta-gaming their alignment and the one about Mortal Online are baseless claims as you provide no real point of reference besides your own opinion. The first time I replied... "No they won't." was as credible an argument as your first... a baseless opinion. Just food for thought.
The gist of my stance. Ripped from previous posts in the other thread... for the second time. Also, keep in mind most of this was aimed at Nihimon who has yet to respond.
What I am suggesting is actual mechanics that replicate the so called disadvantages that CE "should" have within a successful CE society. If CE is the most appealing target for CE in-fighting and betrayal among players is "likely" to ensue. Those that do work together for a short time will be disadvantaged individually and easier targets for those out for themselves. If they can coexist then their settlement won't be a mess of shanties, but if they go to war, every character that gives bonuses to their DI should have an appetizing reward for betrayal tagged to them. Their training facilities should have the same type of rewards for sabotage.
The lowest CE players that are only out for themselves will go for these some of the time and handicap the force as a whole leading to the disadvantage you all talk about.
You miss my intent completely as I truthfully want nothing to do with CE. What I do want is for CE to be accurately represented in game. You do this by devising and including mechanics that make the acquisition significant skills and advancement that are tied to CE also tied to betrayal, in-fighting, and backstabbing.
If CE wants the highest level of training building to be available to them... fine. They have to destroy their competition to get and have to take out another CE settlement. I don't see that as coddling, I see that as making CE a meaningful play style.
One of those deficiencies is "Chaotic evil is going to be $^#%$&#". Ryan does the game a disservice there because he is selling the potential of CE short, and thus selling the game short. I would much rather see exploration into how to make CE less like "&^%^*&%" and more of a viable playing style.
The problem is while I do see standing in ancient barrows fighting wights, or issuing challenges to ogres who are terrorizing the Common Folk, or hunting and killing demonic creatures that have infiltrated civilization, I see CE players rolling Wizards and warlords controlling those elements in an attempt to destroy a PC settlement and the Paladin having meaningful pvp interaction with CE to prevent that. I don't think that is out of line at all with the vision of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment and combat are separate issues. What the heck does the fact the combat was choppy have to do with the topic at hand? I used Mortal because it was the only one with even semi-meaningful consequences and it STILL had a higher population of reds. Darkfall's consequences were meaningless, and the problem was even MORE pronounced. You can call that opinion but if I had to count the % of veterans who weren't dedicated crafters (We'll say anyone who's played more than a year is a vet) that went red in both Mortal and Darkfall I would ride a lot of money on the fact it's 60%+ in Mortal and 80%+ in the 2nd alignment system on Darkfall. That's an estimation, not an opinion. Whatever the hard number is, is a fact.
In the first system all players constantly switched between red and blue because it was easy to do so. In the second system nearly all veterans went red except, funnily enough, the griefers, who remained blue so that they could continue to harass newbs in lawful towns via war declarations. I did a detailed write up on all three systems here.
EVE is a terrible game for discussing the alignment system as you cannot lose security status in either null sec or wormhole space, rendering it nearly meaningless. I've never run into non-high sec corps that really give a crap about your security status regardless of their outlook on PVP, and the high sec corps only care because if your security status is low you can't live there.
I would have to see your system implemented before I could support or oppose it. Balancing it sounds incredibly difficult based on the number of different factors required to make it do it's job, but not do it too well. Those factors being both mechanical and player driven. If it actually did it's job of causing division among CE groups without utterly ruining all the CE settlements I could possibly support it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have already stated, without a mechanical advantage good/law are at an inherent disadvantage because of the things they are prohibited from doing that evil/law aren't.
Only if the Good / Lawful aligned PCs actually care about playing their character's alignment. Min / Maxers and Alignment / Reputation gamers will use the systems (as currently described) and have more freedom to do whatever they want, with limited or no consequences at all. They will play CE most of the time actively, and then let the mechanics restore or bolster their alignment "Label".
As I wrote earlier, I think the CG Outlaw / Champion is the perfect bandit example. Loot and kill all day, and just before I lose the Good, switch to the Champion Flag and recover Reputation every hour. Then I rely on the shift to core alignment to bring back up my Good alignment while I'm logged off.
"Good" or "Neutral" players can play CE more so than CE can, and with a built in mechanic to recover from it. That is not something CE has at its disposal. This is what makes this statement
"CE have the freedom to do whatever they want"
to be completely false.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That all depends on the recovery rates, Bludd.
You seem to be assuming that I can be LG, play like a CE for 2 hours, recover rep over the next 6 hours, the log off to drift back to LG in the next 16 hours.
I assume the drift rates are nowhere near that fast. The paladin Champion who plays CE (killing unflagged people*) for 15 minutes will get halfway to neutral and need to stop or he will lose his paladin abilities for the rest of the day. It might take 2 or 5 days to recover from that transgression.
* Yes, the Champion can attack unflagged evils in wilderness with no alignment shift. That isn't exactly the target set that the CE has available, is it?