Prisoners of War:


Pathfinder Online


I was thinking about how they said there may be a justice system, and really I think that the hardest part of that would be deciding what was wrong and how wrong, not so much the imprisonment of characters (assuming that could happen.)

The idea popped into my mind to allow the building of places (with a cap that is somehow relative to the game population) where characters could be housed during wars or, even, as ransom for a set period of time.

This would add an interesting dynamic to war. You win in a battle and can pick some of the people to take back by using a skill and clicking on their corpse (assuming you can make it to the structure.) It would make wars less of attrition, as you could strategically entrap a character for x amount of time, so they didn't just respawn and run back.

I would also not be against the imprisonment of people by bandit groups. Again, it would be pretty lame to have happen to you, but more challenge. More ability for them to say "If you want him back, ya gots to pay."

We will likely (and, more or less rightly,) never get permadeath, but I think this could work.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

For whom would such a system make the game more fun, and for whom would such a system make the game less fun?

Goblin Squad Member

No. Any mechanic that is going to stop a person from playing the game against their will is a horrible, horrible idea.


Kadere wrote:
No. Any mechanic that is going to stop a person from playing the game against their will is a horrible, horrible idea.

It'd be per character.

@ more fun/less fun. Hard to say. Seems like an essay worth and it's not always about fun. I was thinking more along the 'strategy' line.

edit: and 'hardcore.'

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
celestialiar wrote:
Kadere wrote:
No. Any mechanic that is going to stop a person from playing the game against their will is a horrible, horrible idea.
It'd be per character.

Which is entirely irrelevant if the person in question only has one character.

I know that you are taking a stab at bringing in a more strategic style of combat, but this is not a track on which you will ever get any traction. Allowing players to remove agency from one another is a very, very poor design.

Goblin Squad Member

Kadere wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
Kadere wrote:
No. Any mechanic that is going to stop a person from playing the game against their will is a horrible, horrible idea.
It'd be per character.

Which is entirely irrelevant if the person in question only has one character.

I know that you are taking a stab at bringing in a more strategic style of combat, but this is not a track on which you will ever get any traction. Allowing players to remove agency from one another is a very, very poor design.

I don't know, it works this way in PnP RPGs. As a matter of fact, in most cases when I had a character die in D&D my DM often made it takes weeks to find a cleric that could or would resurrect a character. It was usually permadeath.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Kadere wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
Kadere wrote:
No. Any mechanic that is going to stop a person from playing the game against their will is a horrible, horrible idea.
It'd be per character.

Which is entirely irrelevant if the person in question only has one character.

I know that you are taking a stab at bringing in a more strategic style of combat, but this is not a track on which you will ever get any traction. Allowing players to remove agency from one another is a very, very poor design.

I don't know, it works this way in PnP RPGs. As a matter of fact, in most cases when I had a character die in D&D my DM often made it takes weeks to find a cleric that could or would resurrect a character. It was usually permadeath.

Although in 3.5 Living Greyhawk which capped at 15 dieing on a regular basis was a good way of "getting above the gold curve" and building the cash reserves for esoterica like Vorpal Swords (assuming you had access).

Though personally I avoided death and would often take the random lottery of a reincarnation when coming back.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Kadere wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
Kadere wrote:
No. Any mechanic that is going to stop a person from playing the game against their will is a horrible, horrible idea.
It'd be per character.

Which is entirely irrelevant if the person in question only has one character.

I know that you are taking a stab at bringing in a more strategic style of combat, but this is not a track on which you will ever get any traction. Allowing players to remove agency from one another is a very, very poor design.

I don't know, it works this way in PnP RPGs. As a matter of fact, in most cases when I had a character die in D&D my DM often made it takes weeks to find a cleric that could or would resurrect a character. It was usually permadeath.

The design space for PnP games is quite different, but the same general concepts apply. After your character dies in PnP, you typically reroll. Thus, you have a new vehicle to interact with the game, and you retain your agency.

To put my point on this subject another way - imprisonment is bad for the same reason that stunlocks are bad. Nothing is less fun or more disheartening that being in a situation where you have no ability to impact your situation (agency).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Kadere wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
Kadere wrote:
No. Any mechanic that is going to stop a person from playing the game against their will is a horrible, horrible idea.
It'd be per character.

Which is entirely irrelevant if the person in question only has one character.

I know that you are taking a stab at bringing in a more strategic style of combat, but this is not a track on which you will ever get any traction. Allowing players to remove agency from one another is a very, very poor design.

I don't know, it works this way in PnP RPGs. As a matter of fact, in most cases when I had a character die in D&D my DM often made it takes weeks to find a cleric that could or would resurrect a character. It was usually permadeath.

But how much were you paying your DM? A gamemaster who volunteers his or her time and labor to run a campaign automatically earns broad latitude in dealing with characters, even if that means sometimes things happen that make the players upset. A for-profit game enterprise may not be able to act with the same liberty, no matter how well it might fit the overall design objectives of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Shaibes wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Kadere wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
Kadere wrote:
No. Any mechanic that is going to stop a person from playing the game against their will is a horrible, horrible idea.
It'd be per character.

Which is entirely irrelevant if the person in question only has one character.

I know that you are taking a stab at bringing in a more strategic style of combat, but this is not a track on which you will ever get any traction. Allowing players to remove agency from one another is a very, very poor design.

I don't know, it works this way in PnP RPGs. As a matter of fact, in most cases when I had a character die in D&D my DM often made it takes weeks to find a cleric that could or would resurrect a character. It was usually permadeath.
But how much were you paying your DM? A gamemaster who volunteers his or her time and labor to run a campaign automatically earns broad latitude in dealing with characters, even if that means sometimes things happen that make the players upset. A for-profit game enterprise may not be able to act with the same liberty, no matter how well it might fit the overall design objectives of the game.

Respect for the customers is important and games fail if it is lacking.

However allowing a sense of entitlement and the resultant dumbing down of many games has also led to failure.

Moderation in all things.


Kadere wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Kadere wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
Kadere wrote:
No. Any mechanic that is going to stop a person from playing the game against their will is a horrible, horrible idea.
It'd be per character.

Which is entirely irrelevant if the person in question only has one character.

I know that you are taking a stab at bringing in a more strategic style of combat, but this is not a track on which you will ever get any traction. Allowing players to remove agency from one another is a very, very poor design.

I don't know, it works this way in PnP RPGs. As a matter of fact, in most cases when I had a character die in D&D my DM often made it takes weeks to find a cleric that could or would resurrect a character. It was usually permadeath.

The design space for PnP games is quite different, but the same general concepts apply. After your character dies in PnP, you typically reroll. Thus, you have a new vehicle to interact with the game, and you retain your agency.

To put my point on this subject another way - imprisonment is bad for the same reason that stunlocks are bad. Nothing is less fun or more disheartening that being in a situation where you have no ability to impact your situation (agency).

You can roll a new character if you get POW'd. I think having your whole settlement wiped out would be more disheartening than having to spend a day unable to use a char cuz you fought a battle and lost.

It makes war more serious. Like I said, it is kind of a lite permadeath.

Goblin Squad Member

I think (Exactly like every other mechanic in the game) there'd be people who love it, people who hate it, and people who are okay with it. I hope it never happens to me, but as long as it was for a pretty limited time, and didn't keep me from playing something else, I'd learn to live with it.

Maybe pow'd characters could continue to earn XP while you play another character? It could also grant an achievement: "Ransomed [1,2,3...]"

I'm sure there are ways it could be handled that wouldn't have to be player-negative. Maybe making the capturing settlement always consequence free to the captured player?

Goblin Squad Member

To add, Archeage has a prison system and it works great. Now, most penalties are pretty low, and only add up to the multi hour zone if your their alot. If you don't want to go to jail, don't do something that would put you their. It going back to the Meaningful Choices, And it's one of the only true penalties. Gear can be regained, death means nothing.

EDIT: This statemet is more on the law system, and prisons. IDK about PoW going to prison though. Would make wars/PvP even more rare...


While we are at it, can we revisit the topic of permanent death in PFO? j/k

I appreciate your thought, Celest, but I think this is a legitimately bad idea. This game already faces enough fears from people about its PvP nature. Adding in a POW system would seal PFO's fate in a bad way. Not everybody wants to PvP and those that don't REALLY don't want to have to sit in timeout for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Goblin Squad Member

sspitfire1 wrote:

While we are at it, can we revisit the topic of permanent death in PFO? j/k

It will exist.

Its called perma-ban for breaking the EULA :D


KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:
sspitfire1 wrote:

While we are at it, can we revisit the topic of permanent death in PFO? j/k

It will exist.

Its called perma-ban for breaking the EULA :D

lol See, I told yall it would be great for some players :P

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, seriously. As someone who's in this because he's a huge Pathfinder fan, but is already worried that the enjoyability of the game will die to the PVPness of it, this would probably be a death knell for me.

Before trying to add in even MORE penalty than losing all your gear and getting really ruined by dying, let's see how bad it already is. Personally, death is already a huge penalty if you ask me, more harsh than even the crazy naked corpse-run/xp loss days of Everquest 1 which are far harsher penalties than have been seen in a long time in an MMO.


it's almost like nobody sees that I am wanting this to be a war mechanic, not something where you'd just randomly capture someone. And it wouldn't be just that they grabbed everyone who died.

@ Kaeros, depends on how much gear you have. Once you have enough gear, dying means nothing; the wars will be won by who has the most stockpiled gear, moreso than who wins the battles.

But yea, let's see how it goes. Fair enough. I am just looking into the future.

Silver Crusade

celestialiar wrote:
it's almost like nobody sees that I am wanting this to be a war mechanic, not something where you'd just randomly capture someone. And it wouldn't be just that they grabbed everyone who died.

The point of war/feuds is to let pvp players fight, why introduce a system that prevents them?

Goblin Squad Member

celestialiar wrote:
it's almost like nobody sees that I am wanting this to be a war mechanic, not something where you'd just randomly capture someone. And it wouldn't be just that they grabbed everyone who died.

This was apparent to me. (or at least, rather than war, to settlement v settlement or company v company activity. It might help if it was tied to an expenditure of influence. If the perpetrators had to spend influence in order to take a prisoner, it would stop it from happening to all but a tiny fraction of the players. I don't like PvP either, but as long as the kidnapping is meaningful on all sides, with plenty of reputation and flag consequences, I think it would be a good addition to the game.


I know what you mean, Celest. I had the same issue with my perma death idea and it only being meant for certain rare boss fights for PVE. But this, like perma death, has a lot of issues that basically add up to people not wanting to pay to not play.

Goblin Squad Member

If I were to accept a war prisoner system I would want it to require the expenditure of influence and increased corruption for the settlement using it. I'd also say there should be a guarded facility that can be raided to free the prisoners which has a 24 hour pvp window.

Oh and I would want some kind of alternate game-play that I could use while captured to cause trouble for my captors. Bribing guards to attempt escape, adding corruption to the settlement, negotiating my release through back-alley methods. It would be good for role play, certainly.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

An imprisonment system, exactly like a perma-death system, is always available to those who want it. Imprisonment = log out of your character for a while, perma-death = re-roll your character.

It's only when people want to make *others* do these things that there's a problem. If you like the idea, by all means, act on it on your own; anything else is imposition, and that's impolite :-).

Goblin Squad Member

Keign wrote:

If I were to accept a war prisoner system I would want it to require the expenditure of influence and increased corruption for the settlement using it. I'd also say there should be a guarded facility that can be raided to free the prisoners which has a 24 hour pvp window.

Oh and I would want some kind of alternate game-play that I could use while captured to cause trouble for my captors. Bribing guards to attempt escape, adding corruption to the settlement, negotiating my release through back-alley methods. It would be good for role play, certainly.

Now that would be an interesting mechanic. If you're going to throw me in your dungeon, you'd better make sure your dungeon can hold me.

Goblin Squad Member

OK, IF say this is ADDED.

1) needs to cost influence, enough that it only gets used seldom.

2) Needs to have options for prisoner to break out -- What traits are involved. HTose proposing need to propose how to break out and what to train. Devs may chose otherwise, but give them a target.

3) THere needs to be a way for out siders to free prisoners. Again this needs to be part of proposal; not something expecting devs to invent.
4) Capture is time limited OR the influence cost increases exponential on captors. Proposed maximum without an alternate escalation from proposers is 20 hours. Log out and come back tomorrow.
5) XP accumulate as normal.
6) Achievement for being captured and for breaking out/being rescues.
7) NO achievement for captures.

If someone want to capture you; the advancement you receive defeats them

7) Observe how this is used and defeat exploits.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gol Tigari wrote:

To add, Archeage has a prison system and it works great. Now, most penalties are pretty low, and only add up to the multi hour zone if your their alot. If you don't want to go to jail, don't do something that would put you their. It going back to the Meaningful Choices, And it's one of the only true penalties. Gear can be regained, death means nothing.

EDIT: This statemet is more on the law system, and prisons. IDK about PoW going to prison though. Would make wars/PvP even more rare...

I'm sorry, I don't normally correct grammar like this, but that was extremely painful to read.

Your = possessive (Is that your house?)
You're = You Are (You're going to do what?)

Their = possessive (That is their car.)
There = a place (Look over there.)

Goblin Squad Member

Drake Brimstone wrote:
Gol Tigari wrote:

To add, Archeage has a prison system and it works great. Now, most penalties are pretty low, and only add up to the multi hour zone if your their alot. If you don't want to go to jail, don't do something that would put you their. It going back to the Meaningful Choices, And it's one of the only true penalties. Gear can be regained, death means nothing.

EDIT: This statemet is more on the law system, and prisons. IDK about PoW going to prison though. Would make wars/PvP even more rare...

I'm sorry, I don't normally correct grammar like this, but that was extremely painful to read.

Your = possessive (Is that your house?)
You're = You Are (You're going to do what?)

Their = possessive (That is their car.)
There = a place (Look over there.)

For the win!

Goblin Squad Member

How about:

Development of a "controlled" flag that prevents resurrection for (xx time: 1, 2 hours? One "day" in game?) allowing them to control the body for a period. Flag can normally be applied only by an ally with your consent (similar to an offer of trade)

Spending influence allows slapping a "controlled" flag on a recently dead/captured/whatever character who is not an ally.

Within that time limit, the character's bind-point could be reset, by the controller, to one of the their choosing if they can get the body physically to that point. By having created a bind-point within-in controlled area, they have a form of control over the character, including the ability to make it hostile to their faction/NPC guards. [edit: perhaps if they (but not others) kill the character while in their control, the ransom is considered met and the bind point is reset?]

A ransom, commensurate with the influence expenditure, may be demanded. As soon as it is paid, the bind point is reset to previous and the character must be safely returned to their territory.

The character's allies can set it free by overcoming the guards long enough to get it away from that bind-point without being killed. As part of this process, an ally in physical contact may apply the "controlled" flag again, preventing resurrection for a set period. Leading to:

A mechanism to unlock the "capture" bind-point, for which the character must be present at any other bind-point.

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm unclear what benefit the power to control other players' characters bestows on the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
I'm unclear what benefit the power to control other players' characters bestows on the game.

It feels as if the various proposals for doing something involuntary to another player's character have the primary "benefit" of not killing that character, with the accompanying invocation of the wrath of the Reputation system. I'd prefer my only loss of agency be death, because the cost to both parties may, occasionally, keep me alive.

Goblin Squad Member

I resist character imprisonment just as I resist the ability of a company to remove my smallholding just by claiming the hex it is in. It is an arrogant assertion of corporate privilege over individual rights.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Being wrote:
I'm unclear what benefit the power to control other players' characters bestows on the game.
It feels as if the various proposals for doing something involuntary to another player's character have the primary "benefit" of not killing that character, with the accompanying invocation of the wrath of the Reputation system. I'd prefer my only loss of agency be death, because the cost to both parties may, occasionally, keep me alive.

It also removes that piece (character) from the board for the duration of the fight, which would allow the captor to achieve their objectives more quickly.

For PvP in feuds and wars, how does one side succeed?
- In the War of Towers it's simple enough, the side with the most combatants in the box will eventually get enough points to own the tower for another day.
- In a raid (or other attack on a location), the aggressor wins if he can get the loot or destroy the structure. The defender wins if he can field enough people to prevent the attacker from gaining those objectives. The fight goes on until one side dominates by numbers. (This might happen because the other side is out of gear, has accumulated injury points and is out of healing power, or people had to log off - or gave up.)

I'm not keen on characters losing agency. I can see the usefulness of PvP fights having win conditions beyond total attrition - or of mechanics like broken threads, injury points, or whatever possibly taking a character out of a fight. Maybe non-lethal trapping/imprisonment is the "good" counterpart to assassination.

Goblin Squad Member

Gaining a hex should not be purely mechanical where all parties in the contest have agency.
All players should have agency, even if they are outnumbered and out of supply.
It should be the players who decide for themselves whether the fight is worth the effort.
Win conditions apply where there is a time limitation. Where there is no mechanical end state, there are also no mechanical win conditions.
Attrition is not the only instrument toward victory, there are also diplomatic and economic theaters. Destroying the siege-camp bind point, interdicting rations and material supply (charges for wizard and cleric, arrows for bowmen).

In fact, what if rations work for fighters as charges/arrows for the others?

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
I'm unclear what benefit the power to control other players' characters bestows on the game.

The controlled flag is not a "benefit," it is a mean of controlling the way in which the action occurs, just as reputation is not a "benefit," but a means of putting a control on player killing.

I'm not saying that we should do any of this, I'm saying that there are ways of doing this that make it difficult and expensive for the "kidnapper." Permitting an ally to control resurrections temporarily allows the victim's side to stop the kidnapper from preventing a rescue by killing the character before the allies can sever the character from the imprisonment bind-point.

It could even be implemented as a voluntary flag, such that being able to apply the controlled flag requires that you open yourself up to the flag, so that only those willing to be taken hostage would be able to take others hostage.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

... Destroying the siege-camp bind point, interdicting rations and material supply (charges for wizard and cleric, arrows for bowmen).

In fact, what if rations work for fighters as charges/arrows for the others?

I assume supply (campfire stacks, arrows, spell charges) and exhaustion (injury points from criticals, power use) may end up being pretty significant.

I'm not sure fighters need some specific counter like arrows or spell charges. In my gut I think we're going to be using our arrows and spells in PvP and conserving those resources in PvE - we're all going to get pretty adept at melee.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It looks like every non-griefing reason for wanting a POW mechanic can be satisfied by a mechanism that prevents a character killed as part of a war or feud from reentering the disputed hex(es) for a time.

It's nontrivial to identify which hexes are disputed and which war/feud is relevant, but probably less work than adding a prison building that nobody will build.


Man, I need to start paying more attention to this subforum again. Except I'm leaving in eight days, so... :L

Incidentally, Brutus, that might be an intriguing alternate assassin ability. Maybe when factions for Zon-Kuthon or Lamashtu are added in—the death causes the victim such terror that they can't bring themselves to go near the site of their demise for a while (probably only an hour or so) without taking a debuff.

Also, I can't roll up a new character in PFO. Sorry, I don't have the money to subscribe a new account whenever some joker uses his warhammer to ban me from the server for a day or so.

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Prisoners of War: All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online