Revisiting alignment, core and active


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morbis wrote:
And here we see why the 9 grid alignment system is inherently flawed. Characters with any depth cannot be slotted into one of 9 different holes.

This quote is from the thread "Golgotha: An invitation of representation'.

Positing the nine core alignments in a grid is convenient for players wishing to target specifically their preferred end-state with respect to the principles of the deities of Golarion. Active alignment in comparison measures the expression of their actual alignment by correlating the player-character's behavior.

I contend that active alignment is a flexible system of Cartesian coordinates which increments with your character's actions. Many actions are to be tracked in the game, and what you cause your character to do will variously add or subtract good, evil, law, and chaotic values moving that character's cumulative average of historical actions toward these cardinal ideals. As such it is capable of adequately capturing the current alignment-state of any action that will be tracked in the game.

From this hypothesis I believe I can argue that the nine alignment grid is an adequate behavioral meter for PFO to use.

What is your thought?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that describing the alignment system as having only 9 locations is inaccurate; in the entire space of character actions, four lines have been drawn (law, chaos, good, evil) dividing that space into nine regions, which together cover the entire domain of possible character actions.

In other words, you can't fully determine what a character does from their alignment, but you can almost always tell what their alignment is from their actions.

Goblin Squad Member

Mathematically I tend to agree. Is it perfect? Not by any means. It's generally not horribly difficult for an individual to put an action in a certain spot on a Cartesian plot and make a best fit, but it wouldn't likely agree with someone else's plotted point.

Though you also may be ignoring the driving factor behind the action (eg. Killing someone). It gets a little subjective in just how evil or good and how lawful or chaotic something is. I wouldn't say it's an absolute - jaywalking is chaotic but much less chaotic than brutally murdering someone in a society that says killing is wrong. Why are you jaywalking, however? That factors into the equation. Maybe you're just that rebellious, but maybe you are avoiding a gang of thugs walking in your direction and an inevitable conflict.

It would be interesting to see such a system put into place and see where it places people against their chosen alignment. I'm not sure a robust system is going to be easily programmed and implemented.

Is the current proposed alignment system adequate given all that? I suppose that really depends on the goal. I would say yes from a gamesman standpoint. We are going to have a good idea of what skills are tied to which alignments (I assume) and which actions drive your alignment in the desired direction. So we can direct our actions toward the desired effect.

From a storytelling and roleplaying perspective it's probably not going to be very good. It all depends on how ingrained the game system is with storytelling and RP. If it's like the vast majority of games the intertwining will be minimal (in my opinion). Personally my RP and gameplay generally interact only on a superficial level.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that PFO is turning the alignment system on its head.

In the TT games, people decide what their alignment was and GMs sometimes prohibited behavior that the GM thought went against alignment. It's as if we just choosing our core alignment in PFO and the computer keeps us within that alignment. That's a huge task for a computer. I think it's a huge task for a lot of GMs. And a lot of people have taken the experience away from the tabletop that alignment can't really work.

Like Decius says, the alignment table in PFO isn't a 3x3 grid with 9 alignment states. It's a grid stretching from -7,500 to 7,500 on the law/chaos axis and from -7,500 to 7,500 on the good/evil axis. It has 9 'regions' corresponding to the familiar alignment system. It has a lot more resolution than a 3x3 grid.

The key change, which you address, is the tracking of actions to determine active alignment. Rather than check if your actions are permitted by your core alignment, the system will allow your character's alignment to change according to the decisions you make/the actions your character takes. If a player wants a CG character, it's up to the player to keep that character in that alignment box.

Now - as an aside, I think a lot of the alignments in D&D and PF that have been assigned to races or individuals are sort of arbitrary. They are a symptom of the old 3x3 grid, but also the idea that core alignment is driving everything. I think people in EE are going to reassess the alignment table - they will find that they really don't want to stay LG or CN or NE. Or rather, they don't want to limit their actions as much as it would require to remain in that alignment box.

Goblin Squad Member

The 3X3 grid was useful for PnP players to assert their alignment and it will be useful for players of PFO to identify their alignment goals.

I don't believe the computer will keep our characters within the selected core alignment so much as tend our alignment over time toward that core goal in the absence of actions that contradict that tendency.

I do not believe the game client will prevent an LG Paladin from committing a CE act. Instead it will record, as part of the consequences of such a decision, a quantification of the severity of the aberrant behavior using complex factors.

Alignment consequences result from the player's decisions for their character. A Paladin could commit an act so alien to his sponsoring deity that his powers are removed in the actual, though his intentions remain pure in his core.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:

I think that describing the alignment system as having only 9 locations is inaccurate; in the entire space of character actions, four lines have been drawn (law, chaos, good, evil) dividing that space into nine regions, which together cover the entire domain of possible character actions.

In other words, you can't fully determine what a character does from their alignment, but you can almost always tell what their alignment is from their actions.

Agreed. I find the alignment system very useful, especially for the most in depth characters. There are times when a character is confronted with something and you, the creator of the character, really aren't sure what the reaction should be. The alignment is a go to for those instances and helps give the character consistency.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope the system is not so easily exploited as to allow a player to choose, for example, Chaotic Good as their Alignment, consistently behave in a Chaotic Evil manner, and simply wait out their return to Chaotic Good.

I've made this argument before, but I think it would be best if the amount of Evil you shifted increased based on how much Evil you've ever shifted. After a lifetime of Evil acts, someone would have to really be dedicated to "do no Evil" in order to shift back to Good.

Goblin Squad Member

We've all seen where the 3x3 alignment matrix can be stifling, but I've never yet understood why, after GW announced the 15000x15000 matrix for PFO, some people here've continued to think the character will be stifled into behaving against the player's will.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Nihimon, an interesting concept. My immediate offer was that core alignment could shift fractionally, maybe just 1%. So with a NG core, your core good might start at 5000g/e. When you lose 500g/e to your active alignment in a killing, maybe your core alignment slips 5g/e to 4995. The next murder slips it again. Eventually your core is barely above the point you're NN, and you might not be recovering good points like you used to.

edit: I'm not sure it's needed; the disconnect between what feats a character can train (core alignment) and what feats a character can slot (active alignment) is going to already add a challenge to people juggling two alignments.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
The 3X3 grid was useful for PnP players to assert their alignment and it will be useful for players of PFO to identify their alignment goals.

I think this is true. People work with easy to remember labels when they can; even in a skill based system they'll talk of levels. It gives a (somewhat) even basis to discussions between players.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO the alignment system is the most ambitious undertaking by GW's for PFO. They are incorporating an RP system into the core design of the game. They are really, really gonna need our help with this. I'd say it's the one place where crowdforging will be absolutely crucial. I applaud the effort and I really hope the community can move past the age old debates about the flaws of the alignment grid and get on board to be constructive towards its implementation.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
edit: I'm not sure it's needed; the disconnect between what feats a character can train (core alignment) and what feats a character can slot (active alignment) is going to already add a challenge to people juggling two alignments.

The problem I'm trying to solve is the problem of the Character whose actions are consistently Evil, even though his Core and Active Alignments remain Good (or Good and Neutral). The undesired player behavior is to set their Core Alignment to Good, perform Evil actions right up to the point where they're about to shift their Active Alignment from Good to Neutral (or from Neutral to Evil), then wait until the natural shift back to Good has had time to work. My solution addresses that problem by making subsequent Evil acts have a greater impact, until they get to the point that a single Evil act is enough to move them from Good to Evil, where they belong.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
avari3 wrote:
IMO the alignment system is the most ambitious undertaking by GW's for PFO. They are incorporating an RP system into the core design of the game. They are really, really gonna need our help with this. I'd say it's the one place where crowdforging will be absolutely crucial. I applaud the effort and I really hope the community can move past the age old debates about the flaws of the alignment grid and get on board to be constructive towards its implementation.

I'd like to, but I'm highly skeptical that an AI system can substitute for a living GM in this function. Any AI system can and will be gamed by those who figure out how to do it. I've seen this done to brutal effect in Lineage 2.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The funny thing about the alignment system, especially programatically, is that it's fairly easy to identify and quantify Chaotic and Evil acts, while it's much, much more difficult to do the same with Lawful and Good acts. This is why the active and core alignments are a good idea. Instead of attempting to identify and quantify every Lawful and Good act, the player states that they are 'Normally a Lawful and Good person', so when they are not out murdering and pillaging (because of peer pressure naturally) they trend back to their natural state. Generally speaking, Law and Good are passive, gradually but constantly accumulating (if that is your nature). Chaos and Evil are active, moving the meter significantly but sporadically based on specific actions.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Urman wrote:
edit: I'm not sure it's needed; the disconnect between what feats a character can train (core alignment) and what feats a character can slot (active alignment) is going to already add a challenge to people juggling two alignments.
The problem I'm trying to solve is the problem of the Character whose actions are consistently Evil, even though his Core and Active Alignments remain Good (or Good and Neutral). The undesired player behavior is to set their Core Alignment to Good, perform Evil actions right up to the point where they're about to shift their Active Alignment from Good to Neutral (or from Neutral to Evil), then wait until the natural shift back to Good has had time to work. My solution addresses that problem by making subsequent Evil acts have a greater impact, until they get to the point that a single Evil act is enough to move them from Good to Evil, where they belong.

Why can't a person be Neutral with Evil tendencies? They are still nominally neutral, they are moderating their evil ways in order to maintain their neutrality. It's just that instead of going off and performing a quest to 'Babysit orphaned puppies' to boost their Good stat, they are refraining from committing an evil act for a period of time. There's not much difference there, except the former is a much bigger pain and more resource intensive.

For the record, I plan on being Chaotic Neutral with Good(ish) tendencies.

Goblin Squad Member

@Sintaqx Agreed. I think the refresh rates - how fast a character is pulled back to core alignment - will really affect how often someone can go out with the boys for a night of killing and looting and still claim it as a youthful indiscretion. I think it's wise for GW to keep that refresh rate subject to change; that's one of the big ways they can tweak the system's mechanisms.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
avari3 wrote:
IMO the alignment system is the most ambitious undertaking by GW's for PFO. They are incorporating an RP system into the core design of the game. They are really, really gonna need our help with this. I'd say it's the one place where crowdforging will be absolutely crucial. I applaud the effort and I really hope the community can move past the age old debates about the flaws of the alignment grid and get on board to be constructive towards its implementation.
I'd like to, but I'm highly skeptical that an AI system can substitute for a living GM in this function. Any AI system can and will be gamed by those who figure out how to do it. I've seen this done to brutal effect in Lineage 2.

My sense is that even a human GM wouldn't be able to adequately judge the alignment-significant actions of a Player Character to the Player's satisfaction.

Sintaqx makes a very good point. Rather than trying to judge the Alignment significance of every action the Character takes, PFO will simply be declaring "this easily identifiable action is Evil". Will people struggle to understand it? Yes. Welcome to Theodicy.

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx wrote:
Why can't a person be Neutral with Evil tendencies?

I don't mean to suggest they can't be. I'm just suggesting that if they're actually Evil, the game systems shouldn't allow them to pretend they're just Neutral with Evil tendencies.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've played a lot of pen and papers as many others here probably have but to me alignment in them has always been this kind of small curiosity that no-one keeps track of. I think it's fascinating to pick an alignment that gives certain guidelines to character behavior or not in case of some alignments in the grid.

The state of alignment in PFO is different in my opinion. The alignment system will blossom in a computer game in my opinion. Especially in the way GW is trying to implement it. I know it doesn't go hand in hand with the pen and paper, but the fact that a computer keeps track of a characters actions in the light of the gameplay rules is the middle way I think. It's not factional but it's not truly free either in terms of player interaction. Most certainly a paladin walking into a wretched hive of scum and villainy would find trouble at the door and that in my opinion is something that makes a fantasy world tick.

Goblin Squad Member

If they are actually evil, and if the drift rate is too slow to keep up with their sociopathic tendencies, then they can't pretend. Their actions won't allow them too. If they use drift to skate the line, the time required to 'drift back' to neutral should not be insignificant. The Hits to C/E for various actions and the drift rate are two things that GW will have direct and absolute control over, and can be tuned as necessary to achieve the appropriate balance.

I aim to help with that tuning in any way I can :evilgrin:

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx wrote:

The funny thing about the alignment system, especially programatically, is that it's fairly easy to identify and quantify Chaotic and Evil acts, while it's much, much more difficult to do the same with Lawful and Good acts. This is why the active and core alignments are a good idea. Instead of attempting to identify and quantify every Lawful and Good act, the player states that they are 'Normally a Lawful and Good person', so when they are not out murdering and pillaging (because of peer pressure naturally) they trend back to their natural state. Generally speaking, Law and Good are passive, gradually but constantly accumulating (if that is your nature). Chaos and Evil are active, moving the meter significantly but sporadically based on specific actions.

Yeah and philosophically there is nothing wrong with that. What is good, if not merely the absence of evil?

Goblin Squad Member

I also wanted to add that many people i think look at the alignment system in a wrong way. The behavior of a character is determined by the player, so the alignment shouldn't be a hindrance to anyone, only the game labels a character in a similar fashion it labels the amount of money a character has.

The alignment shifts. So no one character is tied to any one alignment. To compare the freedom of a pen and paper and a computer game is flawed. Both have rules, but in pen and paper all rules can be abandoned when it comes to human relations, but in a computer game this is not the case.

The only incongruity that stands out in my opinion is if your friend wants to play a bad guy and you want to play a good guy i guess, but that could be called maximizing meaningful human interaction in a computer game.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sintaqx wrote:
... the time required to 'drift back' to neutral should not be insignificant.

That's one way to accomplish the goal, but it's a very broad solution that impacts everyone rather than mostly impacting players who are trying to exploit the system.

I don't want the game mechanics to punish the player who comes into PFO expecting it to be more like Darkfall, sees his Alignment bottom out in Evil, and decides to change his ways.

Think of it like a Drug Addict. The first few times he gets through Rehab, he might be able to convince his parents or boss that he's better now. But each backslide is going to erode that trust. Eventually, no one's going to believe that he's actually stopped using. I'd like to see that reality factored into the model for PFO's Alignment System.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:

I've played a lot of pen and papers as many others here probably have but to me alignment in them has always been this kind of small curiosity that no-one keeps track of. I think it's fascinating to pick an alignment that gives certain guidelines to character behavior or not in case of some alignments in the grid.

The state of alignment in PFO is different in my opinion. The alignment system will blossom in a computer game in my opinion. Especially in the way GW is trying to implement it. I know it doesn't go hand in hand with the pen and paper, but the fact that a computer keeps track of a characters actions in the light of the gameplay rules is the middle way I think. It's not factional but it's not truly free either in terms of player interaction. Most certainly a paladin walking into a wretched hive of scum and villainy would find trouble at the door and that in my opinion is something that makes a fantasy world tick.

Agreed Aeioun. I've mentioned before the history of alignment in D&D. It was basically a tool to teach us how to Roleplay back when Roleplay was a novice idea. It was a basic system for basic needs. Time went on, we got very good at roleplaying and alignment became a system derided for its antiquity. Unfairly, I might add. Only a fool would search for deeper human philosophies in the convenient musings of Gary Gygax or George Lucas (Tolkien and Hebert they are not).

So it's completely fitting for alignment to be resurrected as a tool to introduce the concept of actually roleplaying into online RPG. It's going to be a basic system for basic needs and just like when Gygax invented it some 35+ years ago, it can be a huge step forward in the quality of our gaming.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
avari3 wrote:
Yeah and philosophically there is nothing wrong with that. What is good, if not merely the absence of evil?

Depends on your cosmology, or theology if a believer.

There is an authoritative school of thought in the Western cultures, notably Roman Catholicism, that your suggestion is the opposite of the case: Good exists in itself, but evil is only a condition absent Goodness.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:

I hope the system is not so easily exploited as to allow a player to choose, for example, Chaotic Good as their Alignment, consistently behave in a Chaotic Evil manner, and simply wait out their return to Chaotic Good.

I've made this argument before, but I think it would be best if the amount of Evil you shifted increased based on how much Evil you've ever shifted. After a lifetime of Evil acts, someone would have to really be dedicated to "do no Evil" in order to shift back to Good.

I don't think having disparate alignments for Core and Active is exploitive at all. This argument I have made often, and I believe it is an unarguable truth.

If I were to play a Paladin, and his powers were set to his active alignment, then I would set his core alignment to CE. So his core alignment would be CE and his active alignment would be LG.

This I believe would be the purest form of being a Paladin. Every action he takes would have to be both lawful and good, or he will

begin to slide back towards his corrupted soul of CE. He would have to fight this internal struggle at every moment of his activity.

That to me is meaningful alignment consequences. It is also meaningful role playing as well.

Looking at the opposite. I set my core to Lawful Good and I actively behave Lawful Good. I will remain Lawful Good whether I'm active or not. I can even indulge is a bit of chaos or evil and the mechanic will absolve my brief transgression. It's a lazy person's Paladin.

I really hope GW will provide the flexibility for such role playing ideas. It is supposed to be a sand box, so let us play how we wish with the RP elements.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I very much like your grasp of what it would be to live as a real Paladin, Bludd.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I don't think having disparate alignments for Core and Active is exploitive at all.

I don't either.

Goblin Squad Member

I truly love the spirit of your post Bludd. But as Nihimon says, the most important thing this system can do is give the proper boons and penalties to the proper players and their play styles.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
avari3 wrote:
Yeah and philosophically there is nothing wrong with that. What is good, if not merely the absence of evil?

Depends on your cosmology, or theology if a believer.

There is an authoritative school of thought in the Western cultures, notably Roman Catholicism, that your suggestion is the opposite of the case: Good exists in itself, but evil is only a condition absent Goodness.

The Pathfinder cosmology would probably be described as both good and evil having actual presence with neutrality being the absence of the two. No matter what philosophy we believe in, I think PFO will end up using whatever is easiest to codify :p

Goblin Squad Member

Good luck with the character, Bluddwolf.

One role-playing question, though. This character, who is in their heart and soul an evil stain on humanity? What role playing reason do you envision she has to achieve a transcendent nearness to the ideals of a LG god? The question isn't if you want her to be a paladin. The question is why would she want to be a paladin?

Goblin Squad Member

Ideally, Bludd, I would agree. However, the categorization of what is Lawful and Good is difficult. I think that the quandary was best stated in Calvin and Hobbs.

Hobbs: Why do we always play 'War' and never 'Peace'
Calvin: Too few role models.

Typically being 'Lawful' involves nothing more than not doing things that are against the law. In a digital system this is difficult to quantify. How do you score what basically amounts to inaction? Do you award points for crossing the street at a crosswalk? For not shoplifting in the market? For not running around the pool?

Similarly, would you gain Good points for not punching a kitten? For not pushing an old lady in front of a carriage?

Truly Lawful and Good actions are exceptional events that, in a game, are fairly unique circumstances that are typically not particularly repeatable, and if they are it's a potential exploit that the less savory folk could use to better their alignment situation at little to no cost to themselves. If enabling a paladin to go out and randomly murder someone on occasion is an issue, either make the penalty for the action larger or make the threshold between L/G and N/N smaller. It may be that it's easy to maintain a neutral alignment, but to really stay lawful or good takes dedication. There's really nothing saying that the thresholds along +7500 and -7500 need to be strictly even.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

Good luck with the character, Bluddwolf.

One role-playing question, though. This character, who is in their heart and soul an evil stain on humanity? What role playing reason do you envision she has to achieve a transcendent nearness to the ideals of a LG god? The question isn't if you want her to be a paladin. The question is why would she want to be a paladin?

Bludd's character sounds like your typical Christian to me. Inherently evil just for being flesh and blood and struggling with inner temptations on a daily basis in order to be good like God.

Goblin Squad Member

Here I came across this enjoyable poem recently, so for fun:

The following dialog between an eagle and a crow, translated by Iraj Bashiri, is an example. In it the King of Poets, Unsuri, compares his own status vis-a-vis that of a young poet who has joined the court recently.

The Eagle and The Crow: A Dialogue

A dialogue occurred, I happen to know,
Betwixt the white eagle and the crow.
Birds we are, said the crow, in the main,
Friends we are, and thus we shall remain.
Birds we are, agreed the eagle, only in name,
Our temperaments, alas, are not the same.
My leftovers are a king's feast,
Carrion you devour, to say the least.
My perch's the king's arm, his palace my bed,
You haunt the ruins, mingle with the dead.
My color is heavenly, as everyone can tell,
Your color inflicts pain, like news from hell.
Kings tend to choose me rather than you,
Good attracts good, that goes for evil too.

Goblin Squad Member

Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:

I've played a lot of pen and papers as many others here probably have but to me alignment in them has always been this kind of small curiosity that no-one keeps track of. I think it's fascinating to pick an alignment that gives certain guidelines to character behavior or not in case of some alignments in the grid.

In systems with an alignment, I tend to enjoy paying a lot of attention to it. Whether I am running a game with devils vying for mortal souls and how to effectively stop them without forsaking your own, or trying to determine what a 'Heroic Character' with an Evil alignment might look like. "So, you are saying we sacrifice that one baby and it saves those twenty people over there? Fetch my ritual book, let's get this under way!" Or... "Don't worry about the rampaging barbarians! I just recruited an army out of your graveyards! No need for Little Billy to go to war. Uncle Bob died once, I'm sure he won't mind a second time. Probably."

Alignment has always been a fun aspect for me in PnP.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Especially if the deities can occasionally pay a visit. Big time.

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx wrote:
If enabling a paladin to go out and randomly murder someone on occasion is an issue, either make the penalty for the action larger or make the threshold between L/G and N/N smaller. It may be that it's easy to maintain a neutral alignment, but to really stay lawful or good takes dedication. There's really nothing saying that the thresholds along +7500 and -7500 need to be strictly even.

I'd offer that we can probably wait until Beta or EE to see if paladins who hold forth during angst-filled play sessions about their desperate yearnings to murder orphans and rob caravans is really going to be a widespread problem.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Poor Percival, the pontificating paladin with a penchant for punching puppies.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

I believe I can argue that the nine alignment grid is an adequate behavioral meter for PFO to use.

What is your thought?

Thinking more about this basic question... I think that there could be methods to make an alignment grid that better captured the nuances of well developed characters. I think there's at least two problems with this.

First, anything much more complex than the system already described (15k x 15k resolution with core and active alignments) will cost resources to design and manage. So while I like Nihimon's idea of small shifts to core alignment as a character goes along - that takes effort to design, test, tweak, and monitor. And it might not add a huge amount to the alignment picture; not enough to justify the costs.

Second, if many/most players are coming from general gaming backgrounds and not from a tabletop games (which I think is Ryan Dancey's expectation and hope), then any amount of alignment limitation is a new thing and even more alignment complexity and limitations risk turning a new player off from the game.

To be true to PF, the game should have alignment. It needs to be solid enough to encourage some forms of game play and discourage others. It needs to be understandable, not some philosophical mystery. Having alignment shifts for clear-to-understand reasons is best. ("Attacking unflagged people is usually bad." "Completing contracts will give you the option to shift your character's alignment towards Law.")

Will some people game it? Sure. Will some people be upset to be held accountable for their actions? Sure. Can people have fun if they just play the way they want to and work within the resulting alignment limits? Sure. It might actually be the best way to play the game - we'll find out.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
So while I like Nihimon's idea of small shifts to core alignment as a character goes along...

That's not really my idea, though. My idea is that Evil actions carry a more significant shift towards Evil if you've done a lot of them. We know that "Killing other player characters reduces your Good-Evil score by 500". What I'm suggesting is something like each time you kill a player character, that reduction is increased by 10%, so that the second player character you kill reduces your Good-Evil by (500 + 50 = 550), the third by (550 + 55 = 605), the fourth by (605 + 60.5 = 666), the fifth by (666 + 66.6 = 733), etc. It doesn't have to be that implementation; I'd just like to see some model that makes repeated Evil acts carry a greater penalty.

Goblin Squad Member

Ah, you're right - that core shift was my counter-offer up thread in response to your initial suggestion. Sorry about that.

I'll stick with my position that making the alignment system more complex than it currently is, will take more resources and will risk being more confusing/off-putting. To use Being's word, the current system is probably an adequate way to track alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

avari3 wrote:
Urman wrote:

Good luck with the character, Bluddwolf.

One role-playing question, though. This character, who is in their heart and soul an evil stain on humanity? What role playing reason do you envision she has to achieve a transcendent nearness to the ideals of a LG god? The question isn't if you want her to be a paladin. The question is why would she want to be a paladin?

Bludd's character sounds like your typical Christian to me. Inherently evil just for being flesh and blood and struggling with inner temptations on a daily basis in order to be good like God.

To answer you both (Urman and Avari):

The evolution of the idea came to me while thinking about several different sources, although I can't remember the exact order.

* Obviously the idea of Core and Active alignment was an integral part.

* Harad Navar's writings on the Life Internal and External.

* Dante's Inferno Animated Move: Dante's Inferno

* Inferno, Novel Inferno by Niven, Pournelle

As for the concept of a crusader with a tortured (corrupted) soul, it is hardly a new literary device. It certainly is steeped in Christian beliefs, but is greatly debated.

As for how my character would have ended up with this corrupted soul, that I have not decided on. Many of the possibilities are cliche at best.

1. Made a deal with a fiend

2. Cursed by the Gods

3. Started out CE and is walking the road of redemption

4. Family slaughtered and driven insane, killing all who played a hand in it and now is trying to wash the blood from his soul.

Do any of those sound familiar? Yeah, that is what I'm struggling with.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

Ah, you're right - that core shift was my counter-offer up thread in response to your initial suggestion. Sorry about that.

I'll stick with my position that making the alignment system more complex than it currently is, will take more resources and will risk being more confusing/off-putting. To use Being's word, the current system is probably an adequate way to track alignment.

I disbelieve that it will make the system more complex than it already is, and whether it is off-putting to console gamers used to call of duty may actually be more desirable than alarming.

It isn't difficult to display any number of graphic representations of data, and it is also not difficult to accumulate data. These things are is done all the time, every day, in business and education, in marketing and in research. Not only in video games are behaviors tracked, and the tech is mature.

Beyond that GW designed the game from the get-go to factor alignment, reputation, faction standing, and now even organizational influence. Relatively speaking building the tech for such data collection into a multiplayer role playing game should be child's play.

The objection that a comprehensive alignment metric system will occupy too much development resources is without merit.

Regarding the 'risk' of an alignment system being "off-putting": Will it be off putting to the target demographic, or to a population who will not be interested in the first place?

Isn't there a market well populated by the intelligent, thoughtful, and by the way, economically comfortable? Does every game have to be mindless to succeed?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

I think that describing the alignment system as having only 9 locations is inaccurate; in the entire space of character actions, four lines have been drawn (law, chaos, good, evil) dividing that space into nine regions, which together cover the entire domain of possible character actions.

In other words, you can't fully determine what a character does from their alignment, but you can almost always tell what their alignment is from their actions.

Agreed. I think the problem of people who think the alignment system isn't sufficient is they keep fixating on individual actions and ideas people have when what they need to focus on is the character as a whole.

That's why you get people saying things like "Lawful good can do everything chaotic evil can do!" Yes, it can. But what makes lawful good is a lifestyle where chaotic and evil actions are an extreme rarity, while they are a regularity for a chaotic evil character. When you look at the whole picture, law and good are pretty heavily restricted if they want to maintain their alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

I think that describing the alignment system as having only 9 locations is inaccurate; in the entire space of character actions, four lines have been drawn (law, chaos, good, evil) dividing that space into nine regions, which together cover the entire domain of possible character actions.

In other words, you can't fully determine what a character does from their alignment, but you can almost always tell what their alignment is from their actions.

You can not do either.

"you can almost always tell what their alignment is from the totality of their actions."

Since we mere mortals can't see the totality of one's actions, alignment is the purview of the "Gods" or the "GMs", in both PnP and supposedly in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
The objection that a comprehensive alignment metric system will occupy too much development resources is without merit.

I'd rather have druids and monks sooner with a less perfect alignment system, than have a perfect alignment system and a delay on druids and monks, for starters.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

I think that describing the alignment system as having only 9 locations is inaccurate; in the entire space of character actions, four lines have been drawn (law, chaos, good, evil) dividing that space into nine regions, which together cover the entire domain of possible character actions.

In other words, you can't fully determine what a character does from their alignment, but you can almost always tell what their alignment is from their actions.

You can not do either.

"you can almost always tell what their alignment is from the totality of their actions."

Since we mere mortals can't see the totality of one's actions, alignment is the purview of the "Gods" or the "GMs", in both PnP and supposedly in PFO.

Members of the Bayesian Conspiracy can make predictions that are exactly as accurate as their meta-predictions say they are.

P(A|B)=P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B)

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

I think that describing the alignment system as having only 9 locations is inaccurate; in the entire space of character actions, four lines have been drawn (law, chaos, good, evil) dividing that space into nine regions, which together cover the entire domain of possible character actions.

In other words, you can't fully determine what a character does from their alignment, but you can almost always tell what their alignment is from their actions.

You can not do either.

"you can almost always tell what their alignment is from the totality of their actions."

Since we mere mortals can't see the totality of one's actions, alignment is the purview of the "Gods" or the "GMs", in both PnP and supposedly in PFO.

Members of the Bayesian Conspiracy can make predictions that are exactly as accurate as their meta-predictions say they are.

P(A|B)=P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B)

I can appreciate the fact that you wish to avoid discussing the inaccuracy of your previous statement, with your transparently non sequitur response.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

I think that describing the alignment system as having only 9 locations is inaccurate; in the entire space of character actions, four lines have been drawn (law, chaos, good, evil) dividing that space into nine regions, which together cover the entire domain of possible character actions.

In other words, you can't fully determine what a character does from their alignment, but you can almost always tell what their alignment is from their actions.

You can not do either.

"you can almost always tell what their alignment is from the totality of their actions."

Since we mere mortals can't see the totality of one's actions, alignment is the purview of the "Gods" or the "GMs", in both PnP and supposedly in PFO.

Members of the Bayesian Conspiracy can make predictions that are exactly as accurate as their meta-predictions say they are.

P(A|B)=P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B)

I can appreciate the fact that you wish to avoid discussing the inaccuracy of your previous statement, with your transparently non sequitur response.

Wait, what? I acknowledged that there were things that some people could do (draw probabalistic conclusions based on incomplete data) that not everyone could do,

Just because you can come to a conclusion without omniscience doesn't mean I can't. I'll keep that tidbit in mind the next time a mention something which is obviously very likely.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:


In other words, you can't fully determine what a character does from their alignment, but you can almost always tell what their alignment is from their actions.

You can not do either.

"you can almost always tell what their alignment is from the totality of their actions."

Since we mere mortals can't see the totality of one's actions, alignment is the purview of the "Gods" or the "GMs", in both PnP and supposedly in PFO.

I can appreciate the fact that you wish to avoid discussing the inaccuracy of your previous statement, with your transparently non sequitur response.

If we knew the totality of a character's actions, then we would know with god-like certainty the character's alignment. It wouldn't be almost always, would it?* It would be always, without question. Or as gods say, in booming voices, ALWAYS.

If I know less than the totality of the character's actions, then my certainty of the character's alignment would diminish. At some point less than totality, I still have enough information to truthfully say you can almost always tell what their alignment is from their actions.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and killed 20 unflagged people in the last hour, it is almost always a CE duck. See? There's exceptions, but "almost always" is wonderfully vague.

* rhetorical question.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Revisiting alignment, core and active All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.