Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a title that will get people fired up if there ever was one! But bear with me.
When you report a player for griefing/macroing etc. and kill them within an hour of making that report or report them within an hour after kill them it registers it.
If during the next 72 hours a GM issues a warning against that player you get your rep back plus a boost. You get a bigger boost and even possibly reduced rep lost for a period of time if that player is punished or banned.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see a refund of rep and alignement lost for killing a character that is later banned or warned.
I don't see enough value in spending the effort required to close the loopholes that making the result rep-positive would open up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Add in a rep loss if the GM finds the player not guilty of griefing and I could buy this premise.
Done. You lose the rep you normally would when you make the kill. It's only if the GM finds the person to actually be violating TOS that anything gets negated.
Unless by found not guilty you mean found not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt instead of that they are not found guilty of griefing beyond all reasonable doubt.
If they are actually found to be abusing the system I think that shouldn't be a rep hit. It should constitute a TOS violation in itself and be subject to more serious punishment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Add in a rep loss if the GM finds the player not guilty of griefing and I could buy this premise.
Yeah, it seems like that's already baked into the system. If you're talking about an additional rep loss, then it would have to take into consideration the fact that no warning doesn't necessarily mean the reported player was doing "good" things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Add in a rep loss if the GM finds the player not guilty of griefing and I could buy this premise.
This would also create a perverse incentive not to report someone that you also killed. If you don't report them, then there's no possibility of additional rep loss if the GMs don't act on it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Add in a rep loss if the GM finds the player not guilty of griefing and I could buy this premise.This would also create a perverse incentive not to report someone that you also killed. If you don't report them, then there's no possibility of additional rep loss if the GMs don't act on it.
Unless you are so righteous and justified in your kill that you know you do not have to worry about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is to not promote killing anyone you generally don't like the play style of. The system as promoted has no penalty for ticketing everyone you kill aside from the initial rep loss you would have incurred anyway.
Additionally I would hope this would be tied into a tribual system in conjunction with the GM's. It is a lot of red tape, and it might mean you lose that rep for weeks or months before a resolution is found.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The system as promoted has no penalty for ticketing everyone you kill aside from the initial rep loss you would have incurred anyway.
The system as described by the devs so far has that exact same property. There is no penalty for ticketing everyone you kill aside from the initial rep loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you just ticket everyone you kill it would very quickly become apparent that you are abusing the system and thus violating the TOS. At that point the GM should have some very nasty options on the table ranging from lowering your rep to -7500 and temporarily removing your ability to submit tickets to a perma-ban.
If I am going reporting everyone I perceive to be griefing/afk macroing but the GM's aren't able to verify all those cases, or think that it falls a bit outside their definition of griefing, or determine the guy who I thought was afk macroing was just not responding to tells and acting kind of suspicious... then the normal rep loss is punishment enough for my overzealousness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, and the premise is to add a benefit for those tickets that could result in a refund of your reputation lost as well as a temporary increase or benefit.
That significantly advantages ticketing. Might as well ticket that person you just killed in the wild, you might hit the jackpot. If it turns out he is not breaking the EULA, then nothing is lost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you just ticket everyone you kill it would very quickly become apparent that you are abusing the system and thus violating the TOS. At that point the GM should have some very nasty options on the table ranging from lowering your rep to -7500 and temporarily removing your ability to submit tickets to a perma-ban.
If I am going reporting everyone I perceive to be griefing/afk macroing but the GM's aren't able to verify all those cases, or think that it falls a bit outside their definition of griefing, or determine the guy who I thought was afk macroing was just not responding to tells and acting kind of suspicious... then the normal rep loss is punishment enough for my overzealousness.
Then why not just promote a rep refund, and not the additional boons?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right, and the premise is to add a benefit for those tickets that could result in a refund of your reputation lost as well as a temporary increase or benefit.
That significantly advantages ticketing. Might as well ticket that person you just killed in the wild, you might hit the jackpot. If it turns out he is not breaking the EULA, then nothing is lost.
So, your concern is that the system would create a perverse incentive to flag everyone. That seems like a valid concern. However, if the refund were based on your victim's own Reputation decline, then that incentive is removed.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only if Goblinworks provides us with a clear and concise definition of what they consider griefing to be within the confines of their game.
There is. It is CLEARLY and CONCISELY stated that griefing is defined in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
Nothing suggested here would change what behavior is considered griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then why not just promote a rep refund, and not the additional boons?If you just ticket everyone you kill it would very quickly become apparent that you are abusing the system and thus violating the TOS. At that point the GM should have some very nasty options on the table ranging from lowering your rep to -7500 and temporarily removing your ability to submit tickets to a perma-ban.
If I am going reporting everyone I perceive to be griefing/afk macroing but the GM's aren't able to verify all those cases, or think that it falls a bit outside their definition of griefing, or determine the guy who I thought was afk macroing was just not responding to tells and acting kind of suspicious... then the normal rep loss is punishment enough for my overzealousness.
If 100% of your reports were found to be valid, then you have made a positive impact in the community and deserve the associated reward.
If 50% of your reports were found to be valid by admins, it's probably safe to assume that the other 50% were based upon reasonable conclusions and having your gains equal your losses isn't such a bad deal.
If 30% of your reports were found to be valid, you are probably getting a bit overzealous and deserve to lose a lot of that rep.
If 5% of your reports were found to be valid, they should probably pull your right to submit tickets and if given the time, investigate you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, if the refund were based on your victim's own Reputation decline, then that incentive is removed.
No it wouldn't. Any Reputation refund is a bonus so why would someone who just wanted to kill another ticket then kill in the off chance GW did find them doing something "wrong"?
The chance of for every kill is incentive enough. In the long run it will result in some rep bonus (assuming the rep hit was inevitable due to playstyle). The only solution is further penalizing false positives. An occasional accident for a "griefer hunter" will still be negligible, the impact on a griefer who tickets everyone will be huge.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, if the refund were based on your victim's own Reputation decline, then that incentive is removed.No it wouldn't. Any Reputation refund is a bonus so why would someone who just wanted to kill another ticket then kill in the off chance GW did find them doing something "wrong"?
The chance of for every kill is incentive enough. In the long run it will result in some rep bonus (assuming the rep hit was inevitable due to playstyle). The only solution is further penalizing false positives. An occasional accident for a "griefer hunter" will still be negligible, the impact on a griefer who tickets everyone will be huge.
I was suggesting the refund of Reputation Loss not be tied to the outcome of a ticket, but rather only be tied to whether or not that character went on to trash their Reputation.
If a player makes a character and goes on a Reputation-trashing murder spree, I think the first character that kills him should not suffer any more than the last.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, if the refund were based on your victim's own Reputation decline, then that incentive is removed.No it wouldn't. Any Reputation refund is a bonus so why would someone who just wanted to kill another ticket then kill in the off chance GW did find them doing something "wrong"?
The chance of for every kill is incentive enough. In the long run it will result in some rep bonus (assuming the rep hit was inevitable due to playstyle). The only solution is further penalizing false positives. An occasional accident for a "griefer hunter" will still be negligible, the impact on a griefer who tickets everyone will be huge.
I was suggesting the refund of Reputation Loss not be tied to the outcome of a ticket, but rather only be tied to whether or not that character went on to trash their Reputation.
If a player makes a character and goes on a Reputation-trashing murder spree, I think the first character that kills him should not suffer any more than the last.
Oh if we are talking about those conditions I could agree. Just a refund to the first character that killed a future low reputation character?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just a refund to the first character that killed a future low reputation character?
A refund to everyone that killed him if his Reputation significantly lowered within a relatively short time (24 hours?), and the refund should only retroactively adjust the Rep Loss to what it would have been if they had killed him at the end of that time period.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just a refund to the first character that killed a future low reputation character?A refund to everyone that killed him if his Reputation significantly lowered within a relatively short time (24 hours?), and the refund should only retroactively adjust the Rep Loss to what it would have been if they had killed him at the end of that time period.
Yeah, the important part for me was refund and not refund+
I am fine with that proposal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just because I may not feel like talking to someone doesn't mean I'm macroing. I'm more likely to be talking on Teamspeak than reading a chatbox anyway, or if not that, I might be listening to an audiobook, podcast, or music. Maybe a silent person is looking at some other screen that gets in the way of chat, or maybe they just have you on ignore.
Whatever the case, just report and move on, or attack if you're willing to accept the consequences of appointing yourself the inquisitor of 'proper' play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about if you get killed by someone, and you feel you were griefed. You submit a ticket. If a GW employee reviews the circumstances and determines you were in fact griefed, you get:
1. Reputation Bonus
2. Kill Rights (1 Week) that is Transferable to another player of your choice and redeemable at the owner's choosing.
If however you report someone and GW determines they did not grief you, you get:
1. Reputation loss severe enough to discourage false accusations
2. Kill Rights (1 week) that is transferable to another player of your victim's choice and redeemable at the owner's choosing.
This strikes me as a fair system. No preemptive kills and then submissions, that is just Andius letting his Chaotic Evil tendencies sneak out.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about if you get killed by someone, and you feel you were griefed. You submit a ticket. If a GW employee reviews the circumstances and determines you were in fact griefed, you get:
1. Reputation Bonus
2. Kill Rights (1 Week) that is Transferable to another player of your choice and redeemable at the owner's choosing.
If however you report someone and GW determines they did not grief you, you get:
1. Reputation loss severe enough to discourage false accusations
2. Kill Rights (1 week) that is transferable to another player of your victim's choice and redeemable at the owner's choosing.
This strikes me as a fair system. No preemptive kills and then submissions, that is just Andius letting his Chaotic Evil tendencies sneak out.
1. Telling the person who submitted a ticket the final disposition is almost always bad customer service.
2. Kill rights over a banned account are useless.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing you just said is contrary to anything that has been suggested. If you weren't actually violating the TOS they take the rep hit.
No, having a mechanic for 'free kills' will promote the idea that everyone is supposed to report & attack random people who don't speak to them.
It would create a witch-hunt culture to give rewards to people who look for excuses to accuse and attack others.It would increase the reports dramatically, leaving less time for investigation of reports which have more basis, and that will generate more false positives.
If you're going to play vigilante you should take the hits just like anyone. If you firmly believe you're right, the report is enough and nothing is added by your interference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about if you get killed by someone, and you feel you were griefed. You submit a ticket. If a GW employee reviews the circumstances and determines you were in fact griefed, you get:
1. Reputation Bonus
2. Kill Rights (1 Week) that is Transferable to another player of your choice and redeemable at the owner's choosing.
If however you report someone and GW determines they did not grief you, you get:
1. Reputation loss severe enough to discourage false accusations
2. Kill Rights (1 week) that is transferable to another player of your victim's choice and redeemable at the owner's choosing.
This strikes me as a fair system. No preemptive kills and then submissions, that is just Andius letting his Chaotic Evil tendencies sneak out.
1. Telling the person who submitted a ticket the final disposition is almost always bad customer service.
2. Kill rights over a banned account are useless.
In Andius' idea, if you ended up with the bonus or you lost reputation for your kill, wouldn't that tell the person that submitted the ticket, the disposition??? Sorry for the rhetorical question.
What gave you the impression that griefing, whatever that will be defined as, will automatically lead to a banned account?
Just as Pax Keovar said above, but I'll add to it. Ryan has said many, many times, they will handle griefing. Alignment and Reputation are not counter griefing tools. They are tools to make you and or your settlement suck if you kill too often outside of the ways GW wants you to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would avoid this for the simple fact that most MMOs end up with long enough support queues for GM assistance helping with bugs, hacked accounts, and any number of other issues in addition to griefing reports. Incentivising people to submit grief reports would increase that workload on GMs either further delaying support times or forcing more funds to be diverted to more GM staff.
Could this be a place for player tribunals? Potentially. Personally, I would rather avoid such complexities as retroactively correcting Rep Loss/Gain.
Additionally, I think it would be a waste of resources to develop such a system. If griefing punishment is done right, then the opportunity to use this should be exceedingly rare. If the punishment is not done right and griefing becomes prevalent, the ability to murderport (new word: to Kill and Report) them is going to be insignificant to correcting the toxic atmosphere. They'll just grief naked because they can get away with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there's scope: The difference between the player who represents themselves in their avatar and the player who plays a character who is represented in their avatar.
You can be sure that the former is engaged/immersed and trying to yoke that to the game is probably a good basis for successful implementation of "playing a role" vs the latter which is much more ambiguous on how successful that is.
At least with being able to have carte blanche on griefers/bots/speed-bots /golf-farmers etc you have real justice being dished out.
To fabricate justice being dished out might make a nice story but did it change anyone's sense of fairness? At least we know with these mmorpg parasites that they are deleterious to the game particularly when the burden of their numbers becomes too high or the effect of their actions becomes too consequential - themselves, by comparison.
Perhaps a secondary player-run court of law for any of the above mistaken and go to in game for appeal?
I notice World of Darkness was considering the Blood Hunt for perhaps this reason (as well as being part of it's law): Where a political decision to instigate perma-death on a quarry is dolled out. It's appeal is it's real impact on the player-base albeit tightly controlled by a single prince's edict.
Note: All the above is somewhat theoretical musings. It's not at a stage of "I have a well-developed system that will be successfully implemented that support Andius' controversial title." Though there is exploration of the themes arising from this topic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a deeply flawed suggestion.
1) What is this meant to incentivize--more killing? It can't be to incentivize community involvement in policing griefing, as a a reporting mechanism can do that.
2) There's a huge problem in trying to mix precise human interpretations with inexact mechanical systems. Mechanical systems (like rep and alignment) work alright at the level of aggregates, where the high level of error is smoothed out over time. They don't need human interpretation for individual data points (like griefing), because protection is built in to aggregation system. Griefers (in general) are going to be low rep anyway. So unless your goal is to get an exploit to be able to kill more, there's no need for this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this is a deeply flawed suggestion.
1) What is this meant to incentivize--more killing?.
It was meant to give moral justification for Good aligned characters to preemptively kill anyone they suspected may lose reputation themselves in the next 72 hours. If the original victim did so, then this bloodthirsty avenger would be restored lost rep and receive a bonus of reputation.
You may be having difficulty to understand it, because you are viewing it from a Lawful Good perspective, and this suggestion apparently represents a Neutral Good belief system.
As for anti griefing, you are quite correct, reporting is the best way to deal with them. Let GW receive, interpret, and then judge the reported incidents. If found to be a griefers I hope an out right ban is levied. No short term slap on the wrist, no 1 week or month long ban.... Perma-ban.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's essentially the difference between waiting for the cops to come and keeping a gun in your home.
As one of the only people who's ever actually played an anti-griefer role before, I can say that there are some circumstances of griefing that require immediate action, and sitting there waiting for the GM's to show up won't always be an option.
A good example was in the original Darkfall when people would use a mount called a "fun-hulk" meant for racing and such to push someone out to an NPC spawn where they would die and the griefer would loot them the moment they stepped away from keyboard. They could successfully get away with this several times before the GM's would have time to deal with it.
In this system, the anti-griefer could blow up their fun-hulk and kill them. Then if a GM comes along and says "Yes, that was in-fact griefing" they get the penalty removed and a rep bonus. If they say "No, that wasn't griefing" then they take the regular penalty. It allows the community to actively get involved and deal with problems, and be rewarded for it if the admin team decides they made the right call.
This allows someone who is confident that they are dealing with a legitimate case of griefing to deal with the situation immediately, and then wait on admin verification. Someone who abuses the system will still end up with a trashed rep.
--------------
Edit: Another great example is the blue blockers many of the nay-sayers in this topic were freaking out about. With this system you could kill them and then report them for blue-blocking afterward (rendering the act of blue-blocking useless). If an admin then goes on to ban them for blue-blocking, you take no penalty and get a bit of a boost for reporting them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the game is going to have a criminal system. Then make it after so many kills on the same player. The offender automatically teleports to jail immediately and awaits trial. A system could be created to curb the ganking :)
Ponix
This suggestion isn't about anti griefing. Andius clearly stated, he wants to kill whomever he wishes, and then he will report them to GW, so that GW will track his recent victim's actions. If Andius' recent victim takes a rep hit, regardless of why, then Andius gets his reputation restored and a bonus of reputation.
Forget about the fact that Ryan Dancey has stated that losing reputation is not a clear indication that you are griefing. He even stated that losing rep may be what us needed for the good of your settlement, "take one for the team".
If this is how alignment and reputation are going to work in the game, I'm not a bit surprised most MMOs that have tried it didn't succeed. For the rest, they didn't bother trying.
Pax Ponix,
GW has said they will take care of griefers. The players, through their companies and settlements, will take care of the rest. If you feel you were briefed, report it, let your buddies know and be in the look out for the person.
You can also hire Bounty Hunters, Assassins and place a Death Curse on anyone that appears on your enemies list.
Hey....is that is Andius? If you murder someone and they take out a Death Curse on you, they will spend reputation to use the Death Curse, and then you will get a rep bonus for your victim avenging their own death...... Dude, that is freaking brilliant!!!!
Anti Death Curse mechanic, brought to us from the Neutral Good perspective.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This suggestion isn't about anti griefing. Andius clearly stated, he wants to kill whomever he wishes, and then he will report them to GW, so that GW will track his recent victim's actions.
Really. Go ahead and please show to me where I "clearly stated" I will report people who I don't think were violating TOS, or that everyone I kill will be a TOS violator. Because otherwise you're just spouting crap.
Hey....is that is Andius? If you murder someone and they take out a Death Curse on you, they will spend reputation to use the Death Curse, and then you will get a rep bonus for your victim avenging their own death...... Dude, that is freaking brilliant!!!!
Please go ahead and point out where I suggested a rep bonus for future rep loss. I see other people suggesting it, but I only see me suggesting rep bonus if GMs determine the player to be TOS violator. Again. No substance, just spouting off crap.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are correct Andius, it was Nihimon's suggestion, but your OP includes the ambiguous term "or punished", which could be considered reputation loss.
My apology for attributing that specific detail to you, however the Death Curse problem is still present.
Why are you not confident that GW will be able to handle griefing?
Why do you feel the need to preemptively kill, and then hope that your action is later justified?
The Report function is meant to report those that have broken some rule, and victimized you. Never have I seen the suggestion to kill someone and then report them.
I honestly don't think there is another forum poster that comes up with more ways to kill on sight than you do. I might cone up with more ways to steal than anyone, I'll freely admit that, and that is why I clearly declare my intentions and my stated alignment of CN.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why are you not confident that GW will be able to handle griefing?
Because I've played these kind of games before.
I would hope that they can deal with a lot more of it than the game companies that don't even try, but I also can see the value of allowing us to act in our own defense and then await their judgement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might cone up with more ways to steal than anyone, I'll freely admit that, and that is why I clearly declare my intentions and my stated alignment of CN.
The problem is that you want all those ways to be consequence free and anyone who might stop you to have rep and alignment hits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I might cone up with more ways to steal than anyone, I'll freely admit that, and that is why I clearly declare my intentions and my stated alignment of CN.The problem is that you want all those ways to be consequence free and anyone who might stop you to have rep and alignment hits.
I have stated numerous times, I wish there was still the Outlaw Flag (a PVP flag). I wish there was still the Enforcer Flag (a PVP flag).
But if I'm engaged in PVP and some neutral passerby is not involved with our dispute, and he interjects, he should have to take the same consequences as I do if I attack someone though ambush.
How do you expect bandits to ignore the supposed "random player", trying to "mind his own business", and has "no desire to PVP", when at the same time this very same person can pose a threat at the drop of a (green) hat?
With the SAD, not being a hostile act (open to anyone interfering) I might have just ignored a solo character gathering in the wilderness. I may have SAD'd him for a blade of grass (seriously, I would do that) just to have an interaction, if it were a boring day.
I couldn't do that with your proposal. I always have to assume, there is al least equal my groups number ready to interfere. Would I give up surprise for even odds? "No way".
So there are no SADs outside of prearranged deals. There is more loot in it for me in the long run, if I just ambush. I run the same risk anyway.
I already know this to be true, I will be approached by merchant companies, to make deals to ensure SADs rather than ambush. Many of my PMs are just that type of request.
As I stated in another thread. I will contract with a SAD. Take one copper in exchange for escorting the merchant. In return I get reputation bonus for accepted SAD. He gets safer passage.
Oh, did you think SADs were only going to be useful for banditry?
How will Brighthaven stop slave traders from running across your path? That slave trader won't be marked a criminal in the wilderness. You will ignore slavery but not banditry?
The problem with many of you is that you believe the only PVP in PFO is banditry and anti banditry. For me it is, because I'm a bandit. But for you, you are protectors of a settlement. You will have many other threats than just my small band of bandits.
Unfortunately, for all of us, the settlement vs. settlement game really won't happen until last few weeks of EE, if it doesn't wait until OE. That is when the game will get real interesting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you expect bandits to ignore the supposed "random player", trying to "mind his own business", and has "no desire to PVP", when at the same time this very same person can pose a threat at the drop of a (green) hat?
That right there is the most important part. The merchant already has to always be on the lookout for potential threats to him while transporting goods. Why should the bandit not be subject to the same need of risk assessment while doing his thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, you could talk to people on a boring day instead of demanding things from them at pain of death. Just saying. :P
I always have to assume, there is al least equal my groups number ready to interfere. Would I give up surprise for even odds? "No way".
Why must you always assume there's always people ready to interfere? If you get a little recon in the area before you SAD (which you should do in either case, or you might SAD a guy who's grouped with a huge number of other people nearby), you'll know how many people are nearby. Even if there's even numbers of your bandits vs. other people in the area, I highly doubt everyone's going to jump at the opportunity to interfere; in fact, I'd expect that only people who make a career of interfering would do so unless the numbers are staggeringly against you (i.e. SAD'ing gatherers in an area where there's 10x as many gatherers/guards as your bandits).
Let's do an example. You have 10 bandits, and you stroll into an area with 4 groups of 3 people, all independent of each other. You SAD the first group right in front of the others. How do you think they would react? Because I think they would say, "Sh*t, we're 3 guys against their 10, let's scram while they're busy with that group!" Despite being 10 vs 12, you could probably win if it came to a fight as well, as you're seeking out targets who are not centered on PvP by the nature of your playstyle. As I said before, I think you would only run into trouble if career interlopers show up or if you go up against stupidly uneven odds and the gatherers realize how disadvantaged you are.
PS, because I would love to hear your ideas on this: do you think a character should be able to make a career of being a dispenser of vigilante justice without rep penalty (not consequence free, as they may lose Lawful or Good, but not rep)? If you think it could be done with some other system, what else would you have in mind? My personal feeling is that someone who steals other's stuff without consequence (indeed, actually gaining reputation in the act) should need to actively watch for the Batmen of our little sandbox.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PS, because I would love to hear your ideas on this: do you think a character should be able to make a career of being a dispenser of vigilante justice without rep penalty (not consequence free, as they may lose Lawful or Good, but not rep)? If you think it could be done with some other system, what else would you have in mind? My personal feeling is that someone who steals other's stuff...
A vigilante in my opinion is usually Chaotic Good or perhaps Chaotic Neutral. So you won't have to worry about a shift to Chaos, you are probably already there.
First I would set your core alignment to Chaotic Good, even if you plan on playing CN, your start point and drift will keep you around the CG / CN line.
Next roleplaying is key factor here because your target selection is going to be based on roleplaying alignment and not based on other considerations. If you are Chaotic Good, your natural alignment based enemy is Lawful Evil.
Your best setting based actions would be against Slavers (Hellknights for PVE) or the Hellknight faction (PVP) if there is one.
* Raid Lawful Evil Outposts and POIs (these have NPC guards but could trigger PVP). Based on Blogs "Going A - Viking and Hostility" raiding outposts do not cost Rep or alignment. Unless raiding is a crime, in which case you will get Chaos shift, not sure about Evil shift for killing NPCs??
Potential PVP: You will be flagged for PVP with owner of Outpost or POI. If a crime, you will also be flagged as criminal to all settlement citizens.
Raiding is the most common form of PVP according to the Blog.
* Raid Caravans (Slavers). The details for raiding caravans have not been released yet. I hope they use same system as outposts / pois.
* Feud with known slave trading companies. You may get this for free if there are slavery based factions, and anti slavery based factions. If not, save up your influence for frequent feuds.
* War. If you can convince your settlement to go to war versus a settlement that supports slave traders or is a slave trade hub itself.
The UNC is an anti slave trade company. We abhor slavery because it violates the River Freedoms. We will gladly assist if you choose to follow this path.