Goblin Squad Member
|
P.S. No matter what I feel about green hats and reasons, switching the focus of "green hat" killing from "everyone" to a "CC or two" is pretty much the same as "we want to feud you because we like PVP". That is defined in the blog on Influence as valid.The point I was trying to make bringslite was this insistence that people want meaningful pvp and not meaningless pvp is actually baloney.
What they actually want is goblinworks approved pvp and that approval actually has no bearing on whether that killing is meaningful to your character, settlement or alliance.
I hearby move that from on it is referred to as GW Approved pvp as it definitely has no relation to the tags meaningful or meaningless
Thats why Nihimon went with Sanctioned and UnSanctioned.... Which Ryan said is wording they dont want to use.
Yes, GW Approved PVP or GWAPVP.
So are there any ways that spring to mind to help make wars and feuds more meaningful? I am sure that most people would prefer to be feuded/warred for meaningful reasons. Sometimes that will be a mutual want to just PVP, but not always.P.S. No matter what I feel about green hats and reasons, switching the focus of "green hat" killing from "everyone" to a "CC or two" is pretty much the same as "we want to feud you because we like PVP". That is defined in the blog on Influence as valid.The point I was trying to make bringslite was this insistence that people want meaningful pvp and not meaningless pvp is actually baloney.
What they actually want is goblinworks approved pvp and that approval actually has no bearing on whether that killing is meaningful to your character, settlement or alliance.
I hearby move that from on it is referred to as GW Approved pvp as it definitely has no relation to the tags meaningful or meaningless
There are no ways at all for a mechanical system to differentiate between the two. Putting in a mechanical system however does not help in the least because as I have pointed out it will end up making some perfectly meaningful pvp unapproved and some totally random player killing approved. There is nothing you can do to improve that situation without designing an AI that can divine user intent for their action and frankly if you can do that you would make a lot more money than you would programming mmo's. Indeed you note that everything I have proposed we would do as a group would fall under the heading of meaningful pvp as it is to benefit the settlement however I have still had people deciding they do not like the way we would play.
All mechanical systems such as described will do is give people a warm fuzzy feeling they are protected while jerks will just look at it and go "easy enough to get around". Indeed by the very nature of the jerk Goblinworks is in many way painting a big target on the game by declaring itself as having found a way around the jerk syndrome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hearby move that from on it is referred to as GW Approved pvp as it definitely has no relation to the tags meaningful or meaninglessThats why Nihimon went with Sanctioned and UnSanctioned.... Which Ryan said is wording they dont want to use.
I used the term "Sanctioned" because it had been used in the official blog as well as by designer Tork Shaw in the official blog discussion thread. When Ryan said he didn't think that was a good word for it, I stopped using it.
Players looking to minimize their PvP participation need only avoid entanglements in warlike factions, while players looking to maximize their opportunities for can seek out militant factions and focus on foes who have chosen to side with enemy organizations.
1) There will always be a cost to initiate .
You will be able to tell which players are at a glance...
The basic rule is if you meet someone with whom conflict is not you can decide whether you want to take the rep hit for doing it. Behave that way consistently and things will become problematic for you.
I hearby move that from on it is referred to as GW Approved pvp as it definitely has no relation to the tags meaningful or meaninglessThats why Nihimon went with Sanctioned and UnSanctioned.... Which Ryan said is wording they dont want to use.I used the term "Sanctioned" because it had been used in the official blog as well as by designer Tork Shaw in the official blog discussion thread. When Ryan said he didn't think that was a good word for it, I stopped using it.
While I do not often agree with Dancey I do feel he has a point on this one sanctioned/unsanctioned are pretty emotive words which have connotations attached to them.
This is why I am suggesting meaningful/unmeaningful should also not be used in this context as they certainly have connotations for a lot of people which the reality of what is meant does not match.
Are you happy with GW approved and its counterpart?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you happy with GW approved and its counterpart?
I don't know Ryan's mind. But my guess would be that "Sanctioned" is not a good term because it implies something about each specific case. That is, saying "that was not Sanctioned" implies that specific case was "bad". I don't think GW is interested in (and in fact I think they're trying to avoid) passing judgment on individual cases of PvP. Rather, I think they want the Reputation System to pass judgment on the totality of your PvP experiences.
So, killing someone that isn't Hostile to you is fine. But if you do it consistently, then you'll face fairly significant consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My take on it, is that it is a start. Hooligans that declare feud (for whatever reason) will be spending their Influence. There is a cost to feud that they won't be able to spend like it is unlimited. They won't be able to feud everyone all the time, so it is a limiting factor. Sure they can disguise any reason with a legitimate one, but remember that GW does want to allow penalty free PVP as long as there is a cost and thus some limits to it.
Things we can already expect to spend/obligate Influence on include:
And then there are the feuds:
Some companies may spend Influence frivolously; but it very much depends on how readily available the stuff is. I'd expect most to husband it and make every point of Influence spent count.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Steelwing
It seems like you have a pretty good grasp on what GW is trying to do with PfO (as good as any of us). I am not suggesting that you agree that it is all the best way to do it.
Knowing what they want and intend, do you think that it is wrong to put costs (of various sorts) on all PVP? Do you feel like complete lack of regulation is better? If the latter, I don't see any difference resulting from previous titles and PfO.
The only semi successful (and lasting) open PVP sandbox that I know of is EVE. It is clear that this game will be influenced by what Ryan feels are the best parts of it and attempting to eliminate the worst. Now it is true that those things are subject to opinion and this is the place for that.
I don't begrudge your opinions or even most of your strategies. I agree that the most dedicated settlements will be the most successful, by far. You are coming from the point of view of EVE (I am also sure that it is not your only MMO experience). This game will be different in many ways with consequential PVP and hard choices on what to spend resources on to be consequence free. Is it possible that some of what applies in EVE and some of the things that work there (even though great tactics/strategies therein) won't work as well in PfO because of some of PfO's unique checks and balances? Is it possible that your opinions are skewed by play in EVE?
In the end, I am not trying to make you drink the koolaid. I value what you have brought to us to think about and ponder. They are realities that we face and to some, are quite alarming. I think that is because they paint a grim picture that includes (or seems to) only play for one of the "pillars" (conquest)and makes some of the other "pillars" look very difficult or impossible. That is just my opinion of how I see what others feel, I can't really speak for them with authority.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you happy with GW approved and its counterpart?I don't know Ryan's mind.
Yup. At the time, I thought Ryan's objection to "Sanctioned" was along the lines that it implied "GW approved." I'm not sure that he'd see "GW approved" as a better term. Like you say, they aren't judging individual cases of PvP.
My take on it, is that it is a start. Hooligans that declare feud (for whatever reason) will be spending their Influence. There is a cost to feud that they won't be able to spend like it is unlimited. They won't be able to feud everyone all the time, so it is a limiting factor. Sure they can disguise any reason with a legitimate one, but remember that GW does want to allow penalty free PVP as long as there is a cost and thus some limits to it.Things we can already expect to spend/obligate Influence on include:
Forging alliances with other companies or settlements, usually to establish trade arrangements or provide mutual security.
Getting trading/crafting boons to help dominate an economy or profession.
Caravan defenses.
Don't think the devs have ever said any of that but willing to be proved wrong if you can provide quotes
Claiming rewards from escalation cycles.
I think it is the case that you get influence and rewards from completing escalation cycles not spend influence
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All companies may use influence to forge alliances with other companies or settlements, usually to establish trade arrangements or provide mutual security.
For empire-builders, influence is spent to claim territory in the Crusader Road region. When a company clears the dangerous inhabitants from wilderness hex, they may spend their influence to claim that location for their own.
For mercenaries, bandits, and agitators, influence can be used to declare a feud—a state of PvP hostilities like a war between settlements, but at shorter notice and for a shorter period—against another company or settlement.
For traders and crafters, influence can be spent on boons to help dominate an economy or profession, and on shoring up caravan defenses when transporting goods across the lands.
Finally, for adventuring companies, influence can be spent to claim great rewards from successful escalation cycles, either for the benefit of the company itself or for its sponsoring settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My take on it, is that it is a start. Hooligans that declare feud (for whatever reason) will be spending their Influence. There is a cost to feud that they won't be able to spend like it is unlimited. They won't be able to feud everyone all the time, so it is a limiting factor. Sure they can disguise any reason with a legitimate one, but remember that GW does want to allow penalty free PVP as long as there is a cost and thus some limits to it.Things we can already expect to spend/obligate Influence on include:
Forging alliances with other companies or settlements, usually to establish trade arrangements or provide mutual security.
Getting trading/crafting boons to help dominate an economy or profession.
Caravan defenses.
Don't think the devs have ever said any of that but willing to be proved wrong if you can provide quotes
Claiming rewards from escalation cycles.
I think it is the case that you get influence and rewards from completing escalation cycles not spend influence
These are direct quotes from here: Join Together with the Band. Sept 11, 2013
Influence
From the moment of its creation, each company begins earning influence—a measure of the ongoing deeds of its members, and a currency with which the company can claim territory, trophies, and various boons for its members. Each time a member player earns an achievement, his or her company also earns a small amount of influence. Ambitious companies are therefore encouraged to actively recruit low-level members, guiding them through their early development in order to benefit from the rapid achievement gains of new players. In addition, special company achievements and even some items and trophies provide influence boosts.
Influence has a number of varied uses to complement a company's chosen focus. We'll cover influence mechanics in more detail in a later blog post, but here's a quick overview:
•All companies may use influence to forge alliances with other companies or settlements, usually to establish trade arrangements or provide mutual security.
•For empire-builders, influence is spent to claim territory in the Crusader Road region. When a company clears the dangerous inhabitants from wilderness hex, they may spend their influence to claim that location for their own.
•For mercenaries, bandits, and agitators, influence can be used to declare a feud—a state of PvP hostilities like a war between settlements, but at shorter notice and for a shorter period—against another company or settlement.
•For traders and crafters, influence can be spent on boons to help dominate an economy or profession, and on shoring up caravan defenses when transporting goods across the lands.
•Finally, for adventuring companies, influence can be spent to claim great rewards from successful escalation cycles, either for the benefit of the company itself or for its sponsoring settlement.
All companies may use influence to forge alliances with other companies or settlements, usually to establish trade arrangements or provide mutual security.
For empire-builders, influence is spent to claim territory in the Crusader Road region. When a company clears the dangerous inhabitants from wilderness hex, they may spend their influence to claim that location for their own.
For mercenaries, bandits, and agitators, influence can be used to declare a feud—a state of PvP hostilities like a war between settlements, but at shorter notice and for a shorter period—against another company or settlement.
For traders and crafters, influence can be spent on boons to help dominate an economy or profession, and on shoring up caravan defenses when transporting goods across the lands.
Finally, for adventuring companies, influence can be spent to claim great rewards from successful escalation cycles, either for the benefit of the company itself or for its sponsoring settlement.
Thanks for the quotes obviously something I missed. I fail to see why anyone would bother spending influence on alliances though when you can just agree to trade outside of the system or to have a mutual defense pact and not have to spend any influence whatsoever
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would expect that if they want us to spend influence on alliances for trade or security, then they will have mechanics in place to make it worthwhile.
So just as an example - if two companies make a mutual defensive agreement, it costs/obligates some Influence. But now if someone is hostile to their official ally, perhaps he is also hostile to them and can be attacked without costs. Or perhaps the cost to feud your ally's enemy is reduced 10-20%. A meta-gamed mutual defense pact wouldn't have the same benefit - in fact, it can't have the same benefit, if GW wants us to spend influence on alliances.
edit: That's not to say there won't be meta-gamed agreements; I expect there will be a lot. But if companies A, B, and C hold POIs, and the settlement wants company D to be the ready-reaction force to help defend those hexes, official alliances might be cheaper than expending full cost on defensive feuds. It all depends on how often they get raided.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I hearby move that from on it is referred to as GW Approved pvp as it definitely has no relation to the tags meaningful or meaninglessThats why Nihimon went with Sanctioned and UnSanctioned.... Which Ryan said is wording they dont want to use.I used the term "Sanctioned" because it had been used in the official blog as well as by designer Tork Shaw in the official blog discussion thread. When Ryan said he didn't think that was a good word for it, I stopped using it.
While I do not often agree with Dancey I do feel he has a point on this one sanctioned/unsanctioned are pretty emotive words which have connotations attached to them.
This is why I am suggesting meaningful/unmeaningful should also not be used in this context as they certainly have connotations for a lot of people which the reality of what is meant does not match.
Are you happy with GW approved and its counterpart?
What's the current Official Jargon term for the distinction you're trying to make? If you're trying to make the distinction that used to be named, but is no longer, why is that distinction important?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that there's a disconnect in the analysis of the Reputation system.
It is not a failed or broken system if someone figures out how to get around it and be a jerk without taking rep hits. Indeed, I expect that will happen continuously from the start and never end.
It succeeds if the system has the effect of inducing most players to play the game the way it is intended - by not engaging in meaningless PvP, and thus being less jerk-like. The fact that the system can be avoided or abused doesn't mean it's not working. It just means it's not working perfectly and nothing in an MMO works perfectly. No game design survives contact with real humans.
If such tactics remained unaddressed, the system would fail in the long term because the people who want to be jerks will learn how to use those exploits and then take advantage of them and the people who take their cues from the jerks about what is and is not acceptable would follow them and then the game would degenerate.
Ergo, we will have an endless arms race between the exploitive jerks and the developers who will find and address the exploits. Seeing the behavior is not tolerated by the developers, we believe the community will take that as a cue not to follow the jerks into a degenerate game condition and resist the temptation to do so. And the incremental successes the developers have in the arms race with the jerks will keep the number of jerks and jerk-like behavior to a minimum of some kind.
I have said before and said often that solving this problem will not require a magic bullet and there is no such bullet. It requires a multilayered, multidimensional approach with both in game and out of game feedback loops and reinforcements to promote and sustain a healthy community. We won't consider something "a failure" unless it actually fails - not because someone, somewhere, once in a while, avoids it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It requires a multilayered, multidimensional approach with both in game and out of game feedback loops and reinforcements to promote and sustain a healthy community.
Would you consider it a beneficial "feedback loop" if the players who found themselves Low Reputation also found themselves "other people's content"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good and evil are not relative in Pathfinder. They are defined by the gods. Since we're playing the roles of the gods, that means we define good and evil.
So you're Asmodeus and Lisa is Iomedae, or vice-versa, whatever. If Iomedae commands someone to kick baby unicorns, has that now become a good act?
The gods are characters, and as such they are defined by their alignments, they do not define them. The GM is indeed on the divine command side of Euthyphro's Dilemma, but the characters of the deities are on the divine relay side. In this case, the code is the GM, but since it's (mostly, barring bugs) under the control of the devs, you are. The daft misrepresentations of Chick Tracts and Mazes & Monsters aside, player =/= character, even for the GM.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is not a well thought out plan. If it works too well, you have no low rep characters and the "good guys" have no content, that = fail.
Where are you getting this ridiculous notion that low rep characters will be the only content or even primary content for any playstyle. Have you forgotten the war / feud system? Beyond that this was just announced:
But the answer is that getting flagged for trespassing will almost certainly work like Criminal normally works (and the same as most other PvP flags). That is, while you've got it, you have a non-reciprocal hostile state to pretty much everyone: they'll see you as hostile, you'll see them as neutral (unless they have some other reason that you'd see them as hostile without the flag, like they're in an enemy faction or have a flag themselves). Like all of those, once someone actually attacks you, they become hostile to you as well so you can defend yourself.
Non-settlement members will still see the flag and be able to attack you (except probably members of your settlement and certain other classes of allies, who will still see you as an ally).
In other words most flags have been consolidated under the criminal flag which now flags you to everyone.
And bounty hunting exists as it always has.
As unlikely as it is, this game will be far better off if low reputation characters and the type of players who would seek to play them don't even exist within PFO. And it will still have plenty of content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is not a well thought out plan. If it works too well, you have no low rep characters and the "good guys" have no content, that = fail.Where are you getting this ridiculous notion that low rep characters will be the only content or even primary content for any playstyle. Have you forgotten the war / feud system?
I can not recall more than 3 or 4 forum goers every saying that they will use the feud, or war mechanics as an aggressor / expansionist.
I had even written a thread, many months ago, Where are all of the warriors at? (or something like that). That thread was an informal poll looking to gauge the number of players actively looking to wage offensive wars or feuds.
I believe two people responded, other than myself (don't hold me to that, didn't search it).
Only Steelwing, in recent months, has stated his group will wage war as an aggressor.
Only the UNC has been open in admitting that we will raid outposts and use the feud mechanic extensively.
All other mentioning of the desire to PVP has been directed at anti-banditry and anti-low reputation characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is not a well thought out plan. If it works too well, you have no low rep characters and the "good guys" have no content, that = fail.Where are you getting this ridiculous notion that low rep characters will be the only content or even primary content for any playstyle. Have you forgotten the war / feud system?I can not recall more than 3 or 4 forum goers every saying that they will use the feud, or war mechanics as an aggressor / expansionist.
I had even written a thread, many months ago, Where are all of the warriors at? (or something like that). That thread was an informal poll looking to gauge the number of players actively looking to wage offensive wars or feuds.
I believe two people responded, other than myself (don't hold me to that, didn't search it).
Only Steelwing, in recent months, has stated his group will wage war as an aggressor.
Only the UNC has been open in admitting that we will raid outposts and use the feud mechanic extensively.
All other mentioning of the desire to PVP has been directed at anti-banditry and anti-low reputation characters.
As far as I am aware, Golgotha as a whole has plans to cater to the large scale and small scale pvp enthusiasts. That is one LE, pro war entity at least.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lawful, because this should mean that we are playing within the rules and mechanics of the game. Meaning we should have high rep for our settlement and be able to build it up.
Playing within the rules and systems of the game is a measure of the player, not the character's alignment. However, pushing those rules or mechanics is not necessarily going to result in low reputation.
Lawful Alignment = / = High Reputation automatically.
As for the UNC's company alignment, we originally went with LN, and as a company we may very well go to that. As far as individual character alignments, Bluddwolf is clearly CN. But we then run into the issue of the one-step alignment rule, so we will likely pick an alignment that is meaningless in the role playing / traditional sense.
Whatever alignment gives the greatest benefits will be just fine. Then we will play however we planned on, and grind or let shifts take care of the rest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as I am aware, Golgotha as a whole has plans to cater to the large scale and small scale pvp enthusiasts. That is one LE, pro war entity at least.
I wasn't going to comment or mention Golgotha, because I didn't know what changes matey have taken place since they joined Pax.
So you are saying, Golgotha is still sticking to their plans of being an aggressor / expansionist settlement?
That would be an interesting balancing act between one settlement being the major trading hub,, and the other looking to rule the world through conquest and fear,
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd, I didn't think it needed to be said that people will be competing and fighting in a game of this nature. You know how it goes, someone will find that someone else has something they want and they'll try to take it. I can scarcely imagine a scenario where 10,000+ people are given a game where they can fight and they all choose not to.
Remember that these forums are a tiny fraction of the playerbase we will have. I don't personally recall this thread you mention, maybe it was quite some time ago.
I myself am not a warrior at heart, but it seems impossible to avoid that there are going to be people who will be waging war on each other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lurker here, but spending loads of time reading.
I am certainly interested in joining a LE settlement.
Lawful, because this should mean that we are playing within the rules and mechanics of the game.
Meaning we should have high rep for our settlement and be able to build it up.Evil, because this is where most pvp players will end up anyways.
I am not looking to join a band of thieves or people looking for ways to get around consequences.
I am not looking to join a group of jerkwards, that acts like other people are idiots and can't figure out the lines between a game and RL.I am not very interested in crafting, so most settlements based on this is out (good settlements).
As a matter of fact, I do not see the LG settlements, being the ones taking care of companies like UNC.
This will most likely fall on the LE settlements.I am glad that there are such a representation of the extreemes on these boards, but I think there is plenty of people that will naturally end up in my prefered playstyle
They just haven't realized that they will end up being LE yet.On that note, if UNC are serious about being hired swords, I think they should consider going LE instead of CN.
But, all this will sort itself out once we get to play the game and see how the alignment system actually works
Actually the majority of us will be LE. We only chose CN for the SAD mechanic, which is now a feat and may or may not require us to be Chaotic. If it is ever even implemented.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we have ben told that killing always will pull us towards evil (correct me if I am wrong)
I believe under current plans that neither wars nor feuds have an impact on alignment
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since we have ben told that killing always will pull us towards evil (correct me if I am wrong)I believe under current plans that neither wars nor feuds have an impact on alignment
Indeed.
The following can change a character's Active Alignment:
- Committing acts that are crimes in territory controlled by a settlement gets you the Criminal flag and decreases your Law vs. Chaos rating. Settlements can set a number of laws based on their Settlement Alignment.
- Committing acts that are outright evil, like raising undead, gets you the Heinous flag and decreases your Good vs. Evil rating.
- Killing random NPCs, like farmers or merchants, reduces your Good vs. Evil.
- Attacking players who are reduces your Good vs. Evil by a small but fixed amount (essentially, if you lose Rep, you also become more Evil).
- Certain quests or other activities may reward Alignment points, both positive and negative.
- Each hour you do not act contrary to your Core Alignment (i.e., do not gain any points that move you away from your Core), you slowly move back towards your Core Alignment. If you do not act contrary to their Core Alignment, you will eventually return to it. This does mean if you have 7000 in Good, it will slowly trend down towards 5000 Good.
Killing someone who is PvP-Flagged doesn't impact your Alignment, regardless of what the Flag is for.
I believe under current plans that neither wars nor feuds have an impact on alignment
Since we have ben told that killing always will pull us towards evil (correct me if I am wrong)
Must have missed that somewhere.
That makes a LN settlement more attractive.But as Bluud mentioned, I think RP reasons isn't the best way to choose an alignment.
It should be chosen from how mechanics works with your playstyle.
Indeed if we join the game we will choose an alignment based purely on what is mechanically best for what we want to do. While we do have a few rp'ers in our ranks they would be the first to say rp comes second to success
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as I am aware, Golgotha as a whole has plans to cater to the large scale and small scale pvp enthusiasts. That is one LE, pro war entity at least.I wasn't going to comment or mention Golgotha, because I didn't know what changes matey have taken place since they joined Pax.
So you are saying, Golgotha is still sticking to their plans of being an aggressor / expansionist settlement?
That would be an interesting balancing act between one settlement being the major trading hub,, and the other looking to rule the world through conquest and fear,
Golgotha represents a vote on our nation council. That was the buy in for them allying with us in game as well as joining the meta gaming group.
I think conquest and fear might be taking a roleplay descriptor for what could be more easily defined as a meta concern. Golgotha as I understand it is simply the more proactive pvp group. I would be a little shocked if they didn't take advantage of feuds or push for pro war votes.
Aeternum also has a vote, but it would be inaccurate to say we will always vote against war. We bill ourselves as pragmatic, not pacifists.
That is just accounting for encounters we vote on. We don't have enough information on what pvp settlements can get into without support from other settlements.
TLDR. Golgotha joining Pax did not neuter Golgotha's aims.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Indeed if we join the game we will choose an alignment based purely on what is mechanically best for what we want to do. While we do have a few rp'ers in our ranks they would be the first to say rp comes second to successI believe under current plans that neither wars nor feuds have an impact on alignment
Since we have ben told that killing always will pull us towards evil (correct me if I am wrong)
Must have missed that somewhere.
That makes a LN settlement more attractive.But as Bluud mentioned, I think RP reasons isn't the best way to choose an alignment.
It should be chosen from how mechanics works with your playstyle.
So much this
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am certainly interested in joining a LE settlement.
Lawful, because this should mean that we are playing within the rules and mechanics of the game.
Meaning we should have high rep for our settlement and be able to build it up.Evil, because this is where most pvp players will end up anyways.
I am not looking to join a band of thieves or people looking for ways to get around consequences.
I am not looking to join a group of jerkwards, that acts like other people are idiots and can't figure out the lines between a game and RL.I am not very interested in crafting, so most settlements based on this is out (good settlements).
Oh look someone new thinking of the Alignment mechanic as a mechanical indicator of one's combat/crafter/griefer/etc. role in the game instead of their... alignment. If only someone could have predicted this.
@Cirolle A couple of clarifying points for your planning:
- Chaotic measures if you break in-game settlement laws, not GWs framework for guiding players (that's reputation). The only exception being when you attack a character not flagged hostile to you. So to maintain your lawful you'd have to follow all the Settlement laws.
- The Evil shifts happen in pvp only when you attack characters not flagged hostile to you. Everyone acknowledges that will happen sometimes, but if you mostly stick to your plan of staying within GWs structures that pvp will be against hostiles and therefore have no affect on your alignment or rep.
- We haven't gotten word about anything in crafting that will shift you towards good or evil. But I ironically love that someone thought only Good towns get crafters and Evils won't.
Edit: I now see all the posts since I loaded the page but I'm leaving this anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't LE and CN more than one step apart?Actually the majority of us will be LE. We only chose CN for the SAD mechanic, which is now a feat and may or may not require us to be Chaotic. If it is ever even implemented.Lurker here, but spending loads of time reading.
I am certainly interested in joining a LE settlement.
Lawful, because this should mean that we are playing within the rules and mechanics of the game.
Meaning we should have high rep for our settlement and be able to build it up.Evil, because this is where most pvp players will end up anyways.
I am not looking to join a band of thieves or people looking for ways to get around consequences.
I am not looking to join a group of jerkwards, that acts like other people are idiots and can't figure out the lines between a game and RL.I am not very interested in crafting, so most settlements based on this is out (good settlements).
As a matter of fact, I do not see the LG settlements, being the ones taking care of companies like UNC.
This will most likely fall on the LE settlements.I am glad that there are such a representation of the extreemes on these boards, but I think there is plenty of people that will naturally end up in my prefered playstyle
They just haven't realized that they will end up being LE yet.On that note, if UNC are serious about being hired swords, I think they should consider going LE instead of CN.
But, all this will sort itself out once we get to play the game and see how the alignment system actually works
We may not be CN at all... its all up in the air at this point really.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh look someone new thinking of the Alignment mechanic as a mechanical indicator of one's combat/crafter/griefer/etc. role in the game instead of their... alignment. If only someone could have predicted this.
Not only predicted, but pre-dictated.
I have observed many times the syndrome of people acting badly then being surprised with negative consequences because they think that everything that is not forbidden is permitted. Ensuring that people know that This should help transparently communicate that things which are bad are not always forbidden, and give the player some feedback to moderate their behavior.
That the Alignment system doesn't work the way you think it should doesn't mean it's wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which means, you will have to find ways around that, either gaving alts, or spending a good amount of time finding loopholes OR having to grind rep up regulary.
This seems to be a whole lot of bother to me, when there is plenty of ways to pvp without losing rep.
I think the idea of UNC is a great one. After spending a month on the boards, I think that the execution of the idea seems to lean towards "griefers" and internet tough guys. Not very attractive.
The only kinds of griefing somewhat eluded to in PFO, by the Devs, are excessive killing if new players in the starter areas and chat channel griefing.
Neither of these activities are something we plan to do. We also do not practice corpse or respawn camping or repeatedly killing the same character over and over again, unless he or she is a feud, faction or war target.
The UNC has also clearly stated that we will use the mechanics of the game to maintain a high reputation. But, we will use whatever advantages those same systems allow for, even if not exactly to the spirit of their intent. We will push the envelope, and perhaps that is what makes us chaotic leaning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My reasoning was simply, that a settlement mostly interested in pvp, would fall towards evil...
They'll only fall towards Evil if they consistently PvP in a way that lowers their Reputation and Alignment. There should be plenty of opportunities for PvP without having to suffer those consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To be fair, we have not thus far been told that evil equals low reputation (and indicative of negative behavior). We have been told that both chaotic and evil is.
Developers have stated they expect LE mercenaries, and that LE settlements will be competitive and productive within PfO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
the alignment system serves two purposes. The first is to force a social choice on players. It does not matter if your primary intention is flat out mechanics or RP, your alignment determines what settlements you can belong to, thus a choice is forced on the players.
If you want to be a paladin and your buddy wants to be an assassin there are two choices IF you want to be in the same settlement. You both can play that and be part of a LN settlement, OR if you want to be in either a LG or LE settlement you have one of the players change what they want to do.
In the first choice sacrifices have to be made by the characters. Paladins requires training in high DI LG settlements and assassins require evil settlements so the players are sacrificing some effectiveness for being in the same settlement. In the second option one of the players decides they dont want to play their first choice.
Now if they dont care about being in the same settlement then they can just group up in game and have fun while avoiding all of that mess, although the assassin needs to make sure they dont do anything that would cause the paladin to get too much alignment lose.
The second is to act as a funnel for undesirables. it is clear that CE is being designed to be where the folks who dont engage in meaningful pvp (for the most part) will end up and suffer as a result. This isnt inherent to the fact that CE couldnt be played well enough to not suck, but that GW is/will implement systems so that it does. the result is that people at that alignment will be there due to making choices that negatively impact the overall game as defined by GW. So that is where the toxic players will end up (or are supposed to).
The result of this is that good/evil requires specific definitions since a computer cannot judge intent. If the system says that kicking baby unicorns is a good act, then kicking baby unicorns is a good act. if it says that mining copper is an evil act, well now mining copper is an evil act. Good/Evil are absolute because they HAVE to be, there is no way to have anything else in the game.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good and evil are not relative in Pathfinder. They are defined by the gods. Since we're playing the roles of the gods, that means we define good and evil.So you're Asmodeus and Lisa is Iomedae, or vice-versa, whatever. If Iomedae commands someone to kick baby unicorns, has that now become a good act?
The gods are characters, and as such they are defined by their alignments, they do not define them. The GM is indeed on the divine command side of Euthyphro's Dilemma, but the characters of the deities are on the divine relay side. In this case, the code is the GM, but since it's (mostly, barring bugs) under the control of the devs, you are. The daft misrepresentations of Chick Tracts and Mazes & Monsters aside, player =/= character, even for the GM.
If Iomedae commands an act, it is because the act furthers Iomedae's portfolio. She does not command actions that are Evil. That is as much a description of what Evil is as it is a description of what Iomedae does; there's no way to distinguish which causes the other.
Yeah, gods get a little bit of a pass regarding moral causality, specifically on if they command things because they are Good, or of things are Good because they command them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good and evil are not relative in Pathfinder. They are defined by the gods. Since we're playing the roles of the gods, that means we define good and evil.So you're Asmodeus and Lisa is Iomedae, or vice-versa, whatever. If Iomedae commands someone to kick baby unicorns, has that now become a good act?
The gods are characters, and as such they are defined by their alignments, they do not define them. The GM is indeed on the divine command side of Euthyphro's Dilemma, but the characters of the deities are on the divine relay side. In this case, the code is the GM, but since it's (mostly, barring bugs) under the control of the devs, you are. The daft misrepresentations of Chick Tracts and Mazes & Monsters aside, player =/= character, even for the GM.If Iomedae commands an act, it is because the act furthers Iomedae's portfolio. She does not command actions that are Evil. That is as much a description of what Evil is as it is a description of what Iomedae does; there's no way to distinguish which causes the other.
Yeah, gods get a little bit of a pass regarding moral causality, specifically on if they command things because they are Good, or of things are Good because they command them.
Saying that their alignment and their character are the same thing only puts a layer of paint over the issue. Where did their character come from? Was it chosen (and therefore another version of the divine command horn of the dilemma), or did it arise from something external (and therefore falls under the divine relay side)? The fact that they can die (as Aroden did) shows that they are not the masters of reality, but dwellers within it.
I hearby move that from on it is referred to as GW Approved pvp as it definitely has no relation to the tags meaningful or meaninglesssanctioned and unsanctioned worked quite well.
sanctioned is a very emotive term which had implications that Dancey was not happy with so no it didnt work quite well
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that their alignment and their character are the same thing only puts a layer of paint over the issue. Where did their character come from? Was it chosen (and therefore another version of the divine command horn of the dilemma), or did it arise from something external (and therefore falls under the divine relay side)? The fact that they can die (as Aroden did) shows that they are not the masters of reality, but dwellers within it.Good and evil are not relative in Pathfinder. They are defined by the gods. Since we're playing the roles of the gods, that means we define good and evil.So you're Asmodeus and Lisa is Iomedae, or vice-versa, whatever. If Iomedae commands someone to kick baby unicorns, has that now become a good act?
The gods are characters, and as such they are defined by their alignments, they do not define them. The GM is indeed on the divine command side of Euthyphro's Dilemma, but the characters of the deities are on the divine relay side. In this case, the code is the GM, but since it's (mostly, barring bugs) under the control of the devs, you are. The daft misrepresentations of Chick Tracts and Mazes & Monsters aside, player =/= character, even for the GM.If Iomedae commands an act, it is because the act furthers Iomedae's portfolio. She does not command actions that are Evil. That is as much a description of what Evil is as it is a description of what Iomedae does; there's no way to distinguish which causes the other.
Yeah, gods get a little bit of a pass regarding moral causality, specifically on if they command things because they are Good, or of things are Good because they command them.
The gods never choose to take an action which is against their alignment, just like the rain on Galorian does not fall up, and trees do not grow down from the sky (except when they do).
Trees live and die; is the ground nature of the tree a choice of the tree, or does it arise from something external?
Gods and alignment interact in a manner similar to trees and the ground- gods do not choose alignment, nor does alignment dictate their actions, any more than the ground chooses trees.
There is indeed an outside force which causes both gods and alignment. It is discussed in whispered tones in three-walled taverns, so it is no surprise that most characters, even the gods themselves, have never heard of it. I may destroy your mind by telling you the name of that which made the gods and which made alignment, but I think you can handle it.
Author Intent is the name of that power.