Areks's page

I wouldn't say it is limitless PvP. You'd probably start taking REP hits if you SAD the same person numerous times in a 24 hour period in different hexes, ie following them around to SAD them. Probably take REP hits for SADs over 75%. You still take the evil hit for killing if the SAD results in conflict. SAD is probably going to have a longer refresh time to prevent abuse.

Other then that, SADs are likely to be common but I wouldn't consider it limitless.

I'd prefer a daily static gain that is accented by in-game actions up to a daily maximum. This static gain is decreased exponentially when rep is low.

ZenPagan wrote:

I am pretty sure frankly that there are going to be a considerable number of very low rep people who didn't get there via undesirable behaviour but due to failures of the alignment and reputation system to differentiate between meaningful and meaningless behaviour

For any that needs this explained in simple terms, GW make 95+% of all PvP sanctioned! leaving only the griefing / griefers standing out like a sore thumb.

Again, harsh penalties SHOULD NOT be emplaced until the system WORKS.

What you run into with sanctioning 95% of all PvP is that you leave a computer to decide the following.

If player A and player B keep fighting WILLINGLY, and player A keeps winning is that griefing or is that consensual?

Outside of any system GW has that has been deemed "meaningful" how is the computer to tell whether player A killing player B 5 times in 20 mins isn't just player A griefing player B?

If they are at war, it's fine. Feud, fine. Opposing factions, fine. So on and so forth.

If you don't have consequences for Forced PvP, you leave it up to a piece of code to decide what is griefing and what is ok... without any other mitigating factors, that code will get it wrong almost all the time. People are going to complain that its either too harsh or too lenient.

This is WHY they have "meaninful PvP". There has to be jerk penalties and they have to be harsh. People that PvP for PvP in Forced PvP for their primary means of play and don't take an interest in their REP are just going to have to deal with it. I don't care honestly if people get upset because they've got harsh penalties or not when REP is concerned as long as REP stays a measure of how much of a jerk you are, because to me, this is Pathfinder with PvP.

The story matters. The story is told by the players, through war, raids, feuds, SADs, ambushes, escalations, etc. If you aren't contributing to the story, then you don't matter to me unless I know you. I don't want to play "PvP Online- starring Pathfinder".

Again, this is once the system is working as intended or as close to working as possible.

So to answer the OP, "Could Pathfinder survive with no unsanctioned PvP?"

No. The possibility of you being able to be attacked and killed and your stuff being gone has to be there for this game to be credible. Otherwise, its not PvP with consequences.

Meaningful PvP doesn't have the claws that Forced PvP does when it comes to consequences. If there was only meaningful PvP, there would be very little consequences for the individual.

People have a right to attack who they want, when they want. Period. It doesn't mean that they won't suffer consequences, but it would be a much safer place if you could only be attacked when at war or feuding or being raided. The River Kingdoms isn't a safe place. If we want it to be, we've got to make it that way.

Honestly Qallz, I am not in favor of Evil or chaotic toons (that maintain a descent Rep) being punished in the same ways, i.e. training, trading, social opportunities. Ryan has stated that if those individuals fall into the "funnel" of consequence, so be it. He seems (from what I understand) to feel that it is a small price to pay. I really don't agree with it but, I am not the DECIDER.

On the other hand, if the way that you want to play does not fit in well with the way that GW want's you to play and your toon suffers for it, that is on you. Especially if it is clearly defined.

I completely agree. That is why if Settlement REP is low, training facilities should close and if character REP is low, they should be handicapped. CE wouldn't HAVE to suck if this were the case.

Frankly before talking about punishment for low reputations we should be seeing what they are proposing to gain reputation.

Speaking for myself in Pathfinder I will not be partaking in activities which do not interest me. An example of this is PVE I will not be touching it with a barge pole. Another example is the faction system. If all rep gains were through PVE or the faction system therefore then I would never gain any rep and while not partaking in griefing or jerk behaviour (all PVP I engage in will have an in character reason and I will not be concerning myself whether it is sanctioned or unsanctioned) I would nevertheless slowly over time drop in rep until I hit rock bottom.

Now while I do not suggest for the moment that PVE will be the only method of gaining rep it is quite possible that all of the potentials for rep gains are either tied to things I want no part of or are tied to things that I do so rarely that they won't offset any reputation loss I suffer.

I suspect many will find themselves in this situation to be honest and I fully expect reputation to impact a lot more heavily on some of those who are most for the punishment of low rep than they believe will be the case.

Again, my opinion is based on a working REP system where REP can be regained, to an extent, through meaningful actions, both PvP and PvE.

Also, note that GW has to internally decide where the "jerk" line is. Doing behavior that is not "jerk-like" should not affect your REP in a working REP system.

I don't like all these suggestions for insane punishments for "jerks", because some of the low-rep characters who we're grouping in with the "jerks" aren't jerks at all, simply people who enjoy PvP, and look for as many opportunities to engage in it as possible. They may never corpse camp or do any of the other "jerkey" behaviors that people don't like (though I can't really say what those behaviors are other than corpse camping, the only other one I can think of is killing someone far below your level, but they said the power curve was relatively small, so I don't think that that applies here).

If I see some random person running through the forest and I've never seen them before, I'll want to kill them. Why? Because I enjoy the opportunity for a nice PvP sesh. By PFO standards, this would be considered "bad", get me a rep loss, AND doing this enough would get me labeled as a jerk, and may even get me the banhammer... causing me to lose so much that I worked so hard for.

This is why I am an advocate for FFA hexes. There should be a no-man's land, and the most valuable resources should be there. That is yet to be determined whether or not it will be in the game. Engaging in "forced PvP" aka unsanctioned is an undesired behavior.

PvP for the sake of PvP doesn't fall within the realm of "meaningful human interaction". While I may have qualms with this, such as "PvP for loot", GW has told us that it will have consequences. One of those consequences is going to be reputation loss. Ways to mitigate that are known as sanctioned PvP or as I call it, "meaningful PvP". GW says you'll suffer lessened or no consequences for this PvP because it has meaning in game.

GW from day one has said that the game will be built on meaningful human interaction and PvP with consequences. Low REP sucking is part of that. If you want to keep your battle prowess, you should engage in meaningful PvP to offset the hits you take from forced PvP.

I have no issue with you dropping randomguy in the forest... but its completely against the premise of the game that I backed for you to be able to do that and NOT suffer consequences.

Forced PvP isn't a flaw in the game... it's a vital part. If its not there, this is just a sparring session, not a fight. But if you plan on running around and forcing PvP on everyone and NOT utilizing constructive means to engage players in PvP, then all you are doing is PvPing for the sake of PvPing... and as I said, just doing that isn't part of the program.

You've got to feud, you've got to raid, you've got to SAD, assassinate, bounty hunt, and so on and so forth. That is part of players BEING the story. Otherwise it's just one big cluster.

I mean really, we need to know where the "jerk" line is, REP wise. Is -2500 considered slight jerk behavior or is -7500 full on jerk mode?

Once we find out where that is, some people are going to flock to that line.

The only thing GW could do is make that line dynamic.

In the end, GW is going to have to decide where moderate REP ends and Low REP begins. Once "jerk" players discover where that line is, there will be a great many of them that straddle it. If one week low REP is -3000 then next week it's -1000, a player straddling the -2500 line is going to keep closer to the averaged high.

In the end, through control of character advancement (and possibly abilities, not sure if I would turn off abilities for low REP but I'm sure it's an option) you trend "jerk" players to mid-REP behavior patterns out of necessity.

Where this does not work is with a subtle power curve. If four new characters with decked out gear can take down a high level character with average gear, then six could take down a character with max gear.

It then becomes a numbers game.

Where I see the solution is that a steeper power curve in the beginning to lessen the "zerg" potential and then tie tier 2 abilities and beyond to moderate and high rep. Then you keep the low REP line dynamic.

This throws a wrench in the plans of low REP organizations going to war. Will we be able to use our tier 2 and tier 3 abilities tomorrow? Will our abilities go out in the middle of combat?

If they want to be any kind of successful, they have to have at least a minimal investment in their character and their settlement. They also have to be minimally invested in their own REP if they don't want to get beat down every time.

If you get them invested in the habit of paying attention to their REP by tying it to their abilities and advancement that are necessary to be successful, it becomes second nature. They are going to pay attention to it and they are going to care about it, because if not, then they loose a lot more then they would otherwise.

It'd be up to GW to decide where that line is and how dynamic they want Low REP to be.

Ryan hit it on the head when he said banning is going to be equivalent to a mine field. Same principle applies here. If you are a boarder line jerk, you are still a jerk SOME of the time... so in return, you can only use advanced abilities SOME OF THE TIME. Borderline jerks are going to straddle that line, unless you significantly blur it. Then they stay closer to the high average of the blur... which if GW does it right, should fall within the lower spectrum of mid REP.

Also, I should note that I only advocate this system being enacted once ALL the kinks of the REP system are worked out. Once that system is thoroughly vetted and there are no ways that result in your REP dropping for illegitimate reasons that are not the intention of GW.

I can see a fast alignment gain if it requires something that will always be meaningful to every player who engages in it. Unfortunately doing good acts for other players does not qualify as people will just give their buddy some gold which the buddy then gives right back.

The pilgrimages you touched on earlier may be a good way to seek atonement. For example:

"Go from point A to point B on foot carrying nothing but these items." It will be similarly challenging and time consuming for everyone if the mechanics are properly set up so that you fail if you mount a mount, hop in a cart, or pick up an item not on the list there would be pretty much no way to game it.

At that point it's just a question of how much time exploring the map in sackcloths with a walking stick make up for weeks, months, or years of evil behavior.

Yeah, meaningful challenging stuff like that is all I'm asking for. Just a variety of things like that to do. Base it around the deity in charge of the alignment you are trying to reach.

Yeah, I no longer see the relevance of the "core alignment" mechanic when the following is also true:

Quote:

If this is the case, then it will cause lots of confusion from the RP crowd...for instance my desire to be militantly TN, to combat the censorship of the extremes. I intend to do not evil, yet also do not intend to be good. Your system does not allow this. Of course, just modifying my expectations to fit the system is a viable solution, one I am ready to embrace, but it will be very unintuitive to many TT gamers.

I would be LG in such a system.

And, if LG offers more mechanical benefits, why would anyone not just abandon their RP, set their core to LG, and do what they can to fight/atone for every other shift?

EDIT: I am definitely not a min/maxer, but when the IC justifications are already out the window, what else is there to embrace?

For some, RP isn't so easily cast aside. If he is "militant" true neutral, I don't see him staying lawful good for long. This is someone who will likely use chaotic tactics whether or not they are legal, bouncing him out of Lawful. He'd probably confront engage Andius or Bluddwolf or both simultaneously, regardless if it were "forced PvP" or "meaningful PvP". That would bounce him from Good.

Then we go back to how does he maintain this "militant" behavior if there is no way to actively shift back to good.

@Areks

If what you mean is that if I kill person A, or Bluddwolf kills person A we take the same alignment hit, I agree that is appropriate.

What I want is that if person A is good and person B evil that killing person A prompts a larger drift toward evil than killing person B. It can even still be considered an evil act in both situations. Just not AS evil.

As to how to evil can become good, unfortunately do the the ability to create a good system for measuring benevolence, the best answer is "stop doing evil things". At that point there should be methods to slowly drift up to good.

Glad we agree on the first part.

My only objection to the second part is what you wrote in the third part =)

I'd be fine with different alignment hits based on targets alignment, if there was a better answer for how evil becomes good. Slow drift to good doesn't work if I want play an evil Chelixian barbarian who finds salvation and tries to redeem himself. There are people who want to play those stories out and Pathfinder Online should be THE PERFECT GAME to do that in... but it doesn't look that way.

Don't get me wrong I'm not looking for a "change your alignment to lawful good" card. I'm looking for something that I can do in game that affects my alignment in a positive way. I agree that it needs to be something that isn't gameable, as alignment isn't hair color or wardrobe.

Maybe if grouping for extended periods of time with people of a particular alignment increases the rate of speed at which your alignment shifts. IDK. Hopefully Tork has some good news for me when he revisits alignments.

Qallz wrote:

Good- Selfish. Acts out of their own self-interest and thereby gives the most to the world and moves it forward.

Evil - Altruistic. Drags down the world and pulls it backwards by punishing those who produce for the sake of those too weak or lazy to provide any real value.

Moral relativism - Not applicable to the PFO universe. ;)

Hence why you take the same evil hit as Bludd for killing after an evil-doer rejects your SAD. ;)

Still, if Good initiates an activity that leads to a hostile state with evil, such as a rejected SAD, Good has to take an evil hit for killing the target regardless of what alignment they were. Your action precipitated the hostile state. In Good's defense, if the Evil alignment hit were proportionate to the percentage requested for SAD, the evil hit would likely be minimal.

As to refusing an SAD giving evil points, I would disagree. The person delivering the SAD is driving the entire conflict.

We are arguing the same point there.

I don't recall saying that "refusing a SAD gives evil points". The person who stops the target to SAD them should take the evil hit if a refusal results in conflict.

As you said, the person delivering the SAD is driving the entire conflict, thus they take the hit.

The only thing a SAD should do alignment wise is work the Law vs Chaos axis. SAD is either Legal or Illegal.

The potential conflict after the SAD is either evil or it's not.

Again, what I see missing here, is how does evil become good in the game?

I might have to drop in. I'd like to see how you sell PfO to another organization like ours. Hopefully you can pull a good bit of them in, it'd be great to see a few new faces in here.

Regardless if I drop in or not, I hope things go well for you guys!

-Areks

As SAD is a trainable ability, there should be no cost. This will lead to play types using the SAD being deficient in influence. We've yet to hear a great deal about what influence faucets there will be. Having play styles revolve around it's possible expenditure seems a bit premature.

I agree with the general idea that the outcome of a SAD could impact influence, I just think we need to hear more about the scale of influence's use in general before we start tagging abilities that can be used multiple times a day with an influence cost.

"Killing is always 100% evil" is an impossible stance to take in a PvP game. If that's a hard line stance then all non-pacifists will eventually end up evil. It would render the good alignment nearly non-playable. Evil slide should be relative to how evil the target killed was, because it can and should be assumed evil characters have done evil things that make attacking them less evil in terms of game mechanics.

I agree for the most part. GW has given us some exclusions, such as war, the right to defend yourself from an aggressor, factions, feuds etc.

Still, if Good initiates an activity that leads to a hostile state with evil, such as a rejected SAD, Good has to take an evil hit for killing the target regardless of what alignment they were. Your action precipitated the hostile state. In Good's defense, if the Evil alignment hit were proportionate to the percentage requested for SAD, the evil hit would likely be minimal.

Again, this is marginalizing one instance where Good would possibly take a partial alignment hit for killing. If you just run out and kill an evil character because they are evil, that doesn't change the fact that you just killed someone.

My point is you didn't have to stop and confront the evil character. You chose to. If you do it through SAD, and you don't offer something acceptable to them and you kill them, you initiated that conflict and killed them. Your consequence for that action should be modified based on how acceptable your offer was.

If they belong to a rival faction, no penalty. If you are at war, no penalty. But if Bluddwolf is going to take an evil hit for killing someone that doesn't accept a SAD, which currently is the case, then so should Andius.

Again, it is very unfortunate that the alignment system cannot accommodate intentions and see the merit of "violence for the sake of Good" outside of what GW has establish as "consequence free" PvP, cause I'm seriously itching to role my vigilante assassin.

For the record, Bludd is neutral, so he will take an evil hit if he targets good and they don't accept.

My previous statement of "Killing is killing. Killing is evil." was meant in the context alignment in the game. Of course, that stance as you said would indeed make playing Good impossible if every time you killed someone you took an evil hit.

What I am saying is the devs have stated that if you initiate a hostile state with someone and kill them, outside of "meaningful PvP", you will take an evil hit to your alignment. Right now, the conflict that results from a rejected SAD is not exempt from alignment penalty. If you are able kill someone after a rejected SAD without an alignment hit, so should Bluddwolf.

To further accentuate my point, if CN Bluddwolf SADs another Neutral, and they reject and Bluddwolf kills them, what direction should his alignment go and why? If I follow the logic of "basing consequences off of how evil the target is" the following happens.

Bluddwolf kills a Good Rejected SAD = Evil Shift.
Bluddwolf kills an Evil Rejected SAD = No Shift.

By that logic, correct me if I am wrong, but if Bluddwolf kills a Neutral Rejected SAD, there should be a moderate evil shift, as he and his target are equally away from evil.

You might argue that he should take a full evil shift because the neutral target was not evil.

Now if we use that logic what kind of shift does evil take when it kills evil? If there is no shift, then how does evil become good? We have established a path for good and neutral to become evil by killing those not evil. Why can evil not move back to good by killing evil?

I would argue that evil killing evil doesn't result in a good shift, because the act of killing is evil. What do you think about evil killing evil to become good?

Lifedragn wrote:

Though I have enjoyed the mental exercise of the back and forth discussion!

It's a staple of The Seventh Veil :)

Glad to see some things have changed =) I'm sure it would have helped if I hadn't been so "aggressively vocal" in arguing my points back then, but it is what it is I guess.

And yes, I got off early today ;)

As far as rep gains from SADs, I've hit on this in another topic but they are too gameable to be of any value to this game.

I just deliver SAD's to friends, alts, alts of friends, rich players with tons of alts that hire them out for SAD rep grinds, my alliance does a SAD rep swap with another alliance where we both SAD each-other, accept, and reap tons of rep.

There are many, many, many ways to game it to the point that it renders reputation is meaningless like alignment was in Darkfall when you could gain it for killing reds.

Daily diminishing returns are the way to combat this. You could also cap the amount of REP you can regain in a 24 hour period.

People that want to be boarder line are always going to be boarder line, no matter if that boarder is -5000 or 0. If they care about REP, they'll stay close to the boarder.

I don't think that making REP un-grindable is the answer. It's to make that grind painfully proportionate to the number and severity of the actions that made them fall.

Going on a slaughter fest prior to vacation is significantly different than ganking a few newbie players once or twice a month.

I think REP hits should take into account frequency. If I kill someone outside of the "meaningful PvP" arena, I will take a REP hit. The significance of that REP hit should take into account my previous REP hits for this same action.

Was it last month? Last week? Yesterday? A few hours ago? A few minutes ago? A few seconds ago?

Just my opinion, but after I "force PvP" two to three people, my REP gets a REP hit multiplier. Another "force PvP" I take the normal REP hit x 1.25. Then 1.50, 2.0, 3.0. The REP decline is tied to the frequency of the action.

Once you break low REP, -2500, you REP regeneration rate gets a modifier as well. From -2500 to -3500 you recover rate is reduced to 80%. -5000 could be 50%. -7500 would be something as low as 10%.

Here is the caveat. If you are logged in and playing, your REP regeneration penalty is decreased by 20%. You are in the game, dealing with the consequences of your actions, not vacationing for a month, letting your REP rebuild.

Going from -7500 to -5000 should take 6 months. From -5000 to -2500, 3 months. -2500 to 0, a month.

With a REP hit modifier in place, you can go from +7500 to -7500 in a day.

My only concern is that all alignments and archetypes have equal opportunity to gain REP. Likewise, all alignments and archetypes should have equal advancement opportunities.

Ways to gain REP should be meaningful and fun, and everyone should have equal opportunity to play the game in a meaningful, fun, and mechanical rewarding way. It doesn't matter if its a merchant, a crafter, a paladin, an archer, a necromancer, a tyrant, or a death knight.

Personally, I would like to see all training facilities closed to anyone with REP below -5000. Only Basic training allowed for characters with REP above -2500. If you want to advance your character, you can't be a jerk. If you want to earn a merit badge at all, you've got to have REP above 0. This renders a low-REP settlement completely useless for training and character advancement. At least this would give those wishing to play CE by the rules a chance.

Except in RL those who run toll roads usually belong to a government or organization that has legitimate claim to "ownership" of the road. No one in the river kingdoms can claim the road in such a way to justify a toll...that is even a river kingdom law. As such, any toll is illegitimate, hence banditry.

But we can exert legitimate control over hexes. If that road passes through a hex someone controls, they are subject to their laws. While contrary to the River Kingdom laws, according to game mechanics, tolls could be completely legal, thus lawful.

Also, it's worth pointing out that killing someone and taking their stuff is also allowed under River Kingdom law, as long as you don't ambush them, however game mechanics will likely quantify that as chaotic, not lawful.

The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly SAD:

Good: This SAD is for 25% of a merchant's goodies. It is the most reasonable SAD. If it is successful and honored the Bandit goes off with a small reward to his Reputation.

Bad: This SAD is for 50%. If it is successful and honored the Bandit goes off with no reward to his Reputation.

Ugly: This SAD is for 75%. Least desirable, but the merchant lives and leaves with 25% of his goodies and no damaged gear. If it is successful and honored the Bandit goes off with a small penalty to his Reputation.

Keeping things simple, transactions quick (safer for the Bandit, less annoying for the victim), and rewarding for reasonable SAD's.

Honestly, like I told Andius, it is my belief that this won't be something that can be judged until we see what the economy is like.

If a merchant is carrying 25gp worth of items and his profit is only 10gp, SADing for 25% will leave him with less than 5gp profit. Is that more or less than the cost of crafting the item? We don't know.

Let's say a SAD with rep boost is 10% not 25%, since you were just throwing numbers out there.

With 25gp worth of items, a rep boosting SAD would be 3gp. If 3gp isn't viewed as a reasonably acceptable profit, they are going to ask for higher. This is going to make SAD a non-viable way to increase REP while being productive for something other than REP grinding. You will have to choose profit or REP. Most of the people doing the SADs will choose profit all day and increase the pool of low REP characters.

You've got to give the bad guys that play by the rules ways to stay high rep. Providing meaningful PvP interaction should result in a non-grindable type of REP gain.

Consider this, what would CG Robin Hood and crew do if the non-evil rich people refused to pay? I cannot believe they would kill them...but some threat has to exist of no one would pay. What mechanic would they use?

Sleight of Hand and if attacked, defend and once feasible disengage. Don't know if Sleight of Hand will be in-game, but I hope so.

Areks wrote:

I don't think a bandit's target would play into what hit they take, good or evil. Killing is still a static evil act. So even if a CG bandit SADs a LE merchant and the merchant refuses, killing the merchant is still and evil act.

Even when that merchant is transporting supplies that will be used to kill, oppress, and enslave?

Not all good aligned characters are pacifists. There-are-many-examples-of-violence-for-the-sake-of-good. I would argue robbing evil merchants falls within the realm of vigilantism and should those trigger a much smaller slide toward evil, even if that doesn't affect reputation loss.

@Andius - You don't have to indulge me, but I would appreciate it if you would.

How is "accepting a SAD and allowing goods meant to kill, oppress, and enslave" different from "accepting a bribe to look the other way"?

Three scenarios come to mind.

1. You SAD an evil caravan with "evil intended goods" and they accept. A good aligned person has looked the other way, while hard to quantify in mechanics, this is clearly an ethically questionable action.

2. You SAD said caravan with an high SAD with the expectation they will reject and you can kill them. Not in the spirit of the mechanic and just another way to suffer less than full penalties for killing evil.

3. You SAD said caravan with an acceptable SAD. They accept the SAD and you kill them anyway. Less ethically questionable than option 1 but you get more loot.

Which of these, if any, is most accurate in regards to your intent and which is most accurate in regards to your statement about not wanting an evil hit because the goods are meant for evil?

You need to rely on another mechanic outside of SAD to determine evil alignment shifts. Additionally, it is nearly impossible to code in 'I killed this guy for totally legitimate Good-aligned reasons'. Being evil does not make killing them a good act if it was done for a selfish reason. And most Falls From Grace come from good folk trying to justify their evil acts through the lens of good.

Perhaps a certain Good Faction fighting an Evil Faction would avoid an evil shift. But that would be independent of the presence of a SAD.

I agree. The evil shift isn't from the SAD. SAD is either lawful or chaotic. What comes after a SAD is completely up to you... Even in a hostile state.

If Good initiates the SAD and the SAD is refused, Good precipitated that hostile state. Good is the aggressor. Evil has a right to defend itself. It is the same as if you walked up and attacked them. You did the action that led to the hostile state being initiated.

I feel the term 'fair SAD' is an oxymoron. Fair robbery, fair theft, it doesn't work.

How about fair toll? Stand and Deliver is a skill mechanic. It has more possible uses besides banditry.

Interdiction and Tolls are two excellent examples of ways to use SAD in a lawful function. It's not robbery or theft if it is done within the confines of a territory owned by a settlement whose laws allow for it.

I made the same argument for good or neutral aligned assassins over a year and a half ago. It got shot down. If that still stands, if a good aligned assassin has to take an evil hit when assassinating an evil character, then so should good bandits when SADing evil merchants.

I whole heartily agree with you that not all good aligned characters are pacifists nor was I implying that they were.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but it seems like you want to be able to use the same mechanic as Bluddwolf, but if he isn't good, he should take an evil hit for killing a good or neutral. If you are good, and you kill evil, you shouldn't take that same evil hit for committing an evil act.

If the alignment system were dynamic, you would be correct. Dynamic alignment allows for evil acts to be considered good if done against evil. Unfortunately for the both of us, static alignment is what we have to deal with. The alignment hit is based on the action, regardless of mitigating factors. Killing is killing. Killing is evil.

Trust me, I long to play the vigilante assassin, but with this alignment system its not possible because "killing is evil". If "killing is evil" for me, it should be "killing is evil" for everyone, regardless of their play style.

Eh... not really. While I'm not opposed to a merchant skill for smuggling, SAD should be its opposing skill check. Having to train two skills to SAD players seems excessive. Also, large items should probably be restricted from smuggling. Kinda hard to hide great axes and full plate in a wagon. Maybe unlocked once your smuggling reaches 200?

@Life- SADs don't change the static fact that killing is evil on the alignment axis.

@Imbicatus- I would tie what can be seen to the SAD skill proficiency. If they are SAD 30, a minimal portion, SAD 175, a moderate portion, SAD 300 all of it.

SAD on the individual would be "stop and frisk". That hidden boot pouch might get overlooked by SAD 30, but SAD 200 and up would probably catch it.

SAD on a caravan or a group of players would take longer than an individual. This time would decrease as the player's SAD skill increases.

I wouldn't. If a bandit offers a 10% SAD and it's refused, then they end up killing their target, they shouldn't take a rep hit for that. It's definitely chaotic. Depending on the target it may also be evil, but if you refuse a 10% SAD then you're kind of spitting in their face and saying "Come and see if you can take it!" And at that point any ensuing PvP is very meaningful.

I honestly can't say whether or not I agree with this until we see how the economy is. If something costs 25gp to craft and the market is only supporting a 35gp price point, that's barely a profit and I think it's the merchant's right to want to keep every bit of that without being penalized.

If the economy supports an item crafted for 25gp being sold for 50gp then 5gp wouldn't be that bad and could see an argument being made for a chaotic shift. Even still, we run into the issue of "what is a fair SAD?"

I don't think a bandit's target would play into what hit they take, good or evil. Killing is still a static evil act. So even if a CG bandit SADs a LE merchant and the merchant refuses, killing the merchant is still and evil act.

What could happen is your hit for a refused SAD is equal to the percentage you asked for the SAD. 10% SAD refused, you only take 10% of a normal "killing is evil" hit to your alignment. This would crest at 75% obviously, as when you kill your target you only get 75% of their loot, so maybe it accelerates at 60-75% to where asking for a 75% SAD results in a full 100% "killing is evil" alignment hit.

Nihimon wrote:

... there should probably be some consequence for the Merchant refusing the SAD...

Imbicatus wrote:

I vehemently disagree with this.

Lifedragn wrote:

A merchant should NEVER EVER be penalized extra for refusing the SAD - reasonable or not.

I very much think it's appropriate to give Bandits a Rep Hit if their offer is refused. My suggestion occurred to me as a way to balance that. Maybe it's not necessary.

Really, what could a merchant get a rep hit for?

I agree with Life and Imbicatus, they shouldn't get one for refusing a SAD.

Maybe completing a transaction with someone that their organization/settlement has a trade sanction/embargo against? Fencing goods on the black market?

I don't think a rep hit for over-pricing is really feasible.

Anyone else got ideas?

That's why you need to give us mounted combat before you give us paladins. Full plate isn't so slow when it's lowering a lance from the back of a charging mount. It might not be good in swamps or thick forests but woe to those who screw with paladins on an open field.

And woe to those who screw with halfling paladins on riding dogs anywhere. Especially if you let people ride Druids when they're playing as a rideable animal.

I call Being if we can ride druids!

Ryan Dancey wrote:

It will be interesting to see how the interplay of evil vs. good plays out in the wilderness. My instinct is that the evil characters will be built to move very quickly so they can strike and withdraw. And that implies that the opposing forces have to be built to move quickly too so they can follow and try to block or slow a retreat. Being built for high speed seems counter to the idea of knights in full plate. On the other hand, I had a long talk with the designers about not asking players to be "bored" as a way of controlling their use of their gear, and putting a really slow movement rate on characters in full plate is essentially asking them to be bored. So consider this a really good area for a lot of future discussion and brainstorming.

Or movement in formations. Personally, I am all for massive defense bonuses (such as layers of metal protection) having consequences...including slow movement. But, in history, people in plate did not walk far. They were mounted or in the case of infantry, traveled/walked unarmoured until the battle horns sounded.

EDIT: (Responding to Areks) and per Ryan's prediction...the two sides draw their battle-lines *grin*.

LOL.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

It will be interesting to see how the interplay of evil vs. good plays out in the wilderness. My instinct is that the evil characters will be built to move very quickly so they can strike and withdraw. And that implies that the opposing forces have to be built to move quickly too so they can follow and try to block or slow a retreat. Being built for high speed seems counter to the idea of knights in full plate. On the other hand, I had a long talk with the designers about not asking players to be "bored" as a way of controlling their use of their gear, and putting a really slow movement rate on characters in full plate is essentially asking them to be bored. So consider this a really good area for a lot of future discussion and brainstorming.

Or movement in formations. Personally, I am all for massive defense bonuses (such as layers of metal protection) having consequences...including slow movement. But, in history, people in plate did not walk far. They were mounted or in the case of infantry, traveled/walked unarmoured until the battle horns sounded.

That's a little too realism > fun IMO. Don't get me wrong, full plate should never be out running leather, but I'd be OK with a full inventory leather wearer being just as slow as FP.

Proficiency in Full plate should result in no hindrance to their normal movement rate. They've dealt with the armor for a long time, they know how it works, their body has developed the necessary muscle groups to support the added weight.

A rogue archetype in leather would be carrying less based on encumbrance, as opposed to a full plate fighter. Maybe link speed to the current encumbrance / maximum encumbrance ratio?

A rogue that just has basic gear runs at 90% speed, while a rogue with a full inventory runs as slow, if not slower, than a full plate fighter with a bare bones inventory?

The bad guys should have some loot to weigh them down right?

So, some settlements might want to recognize the victim's ownership of stolen items, others might not. This plays on the "corruption" rating, if a settlement recognizes original ownership, those who support it will move to the area and they can try to enforce it...and retrieve "stolen goods". However, settlement corruption will increase whenever something is stolen. Alternately, those settlements who follow the laws of the river kingdoms will not get the corruption penalties...nor will they have access to tracking of stolen goods or the ability to avenge victims of theft.

I would just add that some corruption could be recouped if the goods are recovered. Not all, but some, because in the end if you keep getting robbed you are enforcing your laws very well. Other than that, it seems like a viable trade off.

Ehh... I have a problem with global knowledge. It shouldn't be known that it is stolen just because it was stolen.

A possible tie into the bounty system, if the merchant gives you a shipping ledger, that would have a description, start point, route, and destination. It could be tracked using the track skill.

The point is, it's not a FFA just because EVERYONE knows its stolen. There is a reason why you know that those goods in particular are stolen giving you a legal and ethical right to reclaim them.

Don't wanna make things TOO easy on you guys ;)

I definitely like the idea that stolen items could be flagged as stolen and then SADed by lawful players.

I could see this for a limited amount of time after the initial SAD, but once they move through a few hexes it goes away.

Without first hand knowledge of the bandit initiated SAD, I wouldn't consider that a good act, nor establishing a law allowing non-lawful goods to be fined on word of mouth to be a law that results in good alignment hits for the settlement.

Will stealth mechanics work with archery?

@Arek's Could a SAD-like mechanism be used to enforce a toll road? Sure. I've suggested myself that such a mechanism could be used by town guards to inspect cargoes at a city gate. SAD itself was introduced as chaotic-aligned mechanism. We have seen nothing from GW explaining whether it will be available for other than chaotics, just that it will be trainable.

otoh, once it is available for lawfuls to use, I expect to see Andius' Paladin Patrol shaking down bandits for the widows and orphans fund.

Originally, it was part of the Outlaw flag. With flags being gone, it got shifted into a trainable skill. Where this will be trainable and to what alignments have not been stated after the revision to my knowledge.

I don't expect to see Paladin groups using the mechanic unless the laws of the settlement support it and then only on their territory.

Xeen wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Xeen wrote:

SAD's for 75%+
Raids to the extent of the rules
Factions against any faction a large number of YOU will be in
Warfare by joining other settlements engaged in war
Gaming my reputation and alignment within the rules

You will be PVP'd and I will not suffer for it.

And you know what? If you really do PVP in only those circumstances, you are playing the game we all want played and you will be a meaningful contributor to the game. Problem solved.

LOL, something tells me that isnt what people will want once they have experienced it.

Lol, something tells me this that isn't what you will want once you have experienced it.

Lol, Something tells me you are both partially correct.

That's one interpretation of SAD.

Another is a toll road... which is likely a lawful action. Failure to accept the SAD would then be a chaotic action, not following the laws of the local authority. Completely legitimate possibility, especially likely possibility in hexes controlled by a lawful evil settlement.

I think it would be extremely reasonable to expect that if robbed by another player someone should be able to issue a one time bounty per incident. Players who do not want bounties issued on them should not play outlaws because being hunted is an integral part of the outlaw lifestyle whether you're Blackbeard, Jack the Ripper, Han Solo, or Robin Hood.

While I completely agree, I'm not sure if this will happen. I recall the devs recently stating that bounties wouldn't be as common as previously thought due to their high cost. Just as assassination will be less common than previously thought, so will bounty hunting. I hope this is not the case. The fewer chances to execute bounty hunting and assassination, the lesser chance their is that one will be able to make their living by focusing on these skills.

An interesting paradox is the SAD is basically a verbal agreement. Breaking that agreement by reprising against the bandits could be a chaotic action as they are breaking a lawful agreement. The contractor would likely have their lawful shift through use of contract negated by the fact that they are breaking their previous agreement, a chaotic act. Just my opinion on the matter.

@ Andius

They have a criminal flag. When a bandit attacks an outpost, he is flagged as "hostile" to the owner of the outpost. That owner can then either attack the bandit, or I would assume could hire a bounty hunter to do so.

If that owner is part of a company (most likely is) the entire company can attack the bandit. When the bandit is attacked, the owners and the bandit are "Hostile" to each other and none get alignment or reputation consequences.

If a third party (who do not see the bandits as hostile)attacks the bandits, they will incur normal alignment and reputation consequences.

If a settlement wishes to make raiding illegal, raiding an outpost would flag the bandits "hostile" to all settlement citizens. The downside to this is that the raids will also harm the settlement's security DI.

What it appears is that caravans may function in a similar or even the exact same fashion.

With the bounty system you can only place a bounty on someone who has killed you last I checked. This may have changed, but if it did, I didn't see it.

Attacking an outpost may or may not suffer a chaotic shift. Killing those that engage you would likely incur an evil shift as you percipitated the hostile state. Blogs have clearly stated you have the right to defend yourself without penalty but attacking and killing will result in penalties.

Doing these action while engaged in a fued would negate these. Also, I would assume if your faction and the target faction were oppsing they would also be negated.

Settlement warfare
faction warfare
raiding
SAD's
Assassinations
Bounty Hunting

I have enough to keep me busy that the Devs are coding... Is that something Ryan Dancey wants in his game...

I want that answer, because if this stuff is being coded but it isnt really wanted in game I need to know... Im not going to play in a game Im not wanted in... Its no fun for me and no fun for the DM (Ryan)

Yeah, I would expect that answer and most of the other answers I have received from players.

I dont care what your answers are. None of you want to pvp anyway... so here we are. You want PVPers to be gimped into the ground.

I want all play styles, whether PVE or PVP to be on the same playing ground.

I would expect that I will stay high rep, and be LE... And still be able to PVP most of my play time.

You keep using "PvP" when you're describing "RPK." We need to swap out the correct words for your posts to be accurate. So...

"You want RPKers to be gimped into the ground." Yes, you got it finally--you cracked the case!

"I want all play styles, whether PVP or RPK to be on the same playing ground." No doubt you do want that. You're likely to be bitterly disappointed :)

"I would expect that I will stay high rep, and be LE... And still be able to RPK most of my play time." No doubt you do. You're likely to be bitterly disappointed :)

Firstly, I don't believe that no one here wants to PvP. A lot of people want to PvP. That's not the question.

The question is how that PvP will be regulated.

Settlement and Feud warfare has been previously stated to be "consequence free" PvP. LG should be able to proactively strike out against someone they are at war at. The consquences of Faction war fare have not been elaborated on... I would surmise that they are the same as the other two types of "war".

Raiding and SADing will depend on who controls the territory and what laws they have in place. Raiding and Banditry may or may not result in a chaotic shift based off of settlement law. SADing in unclaimed territory has yet to be discussed. **Personally** I would base the alignment penalty based off of proximity to settlements and the alignment/progress of that Settlement.

(A chaotic settlement likely wouldn't care if banditry occurred right outside its boarders. A fledgling lawful settlement may not have the appropriate resources to exert their influence past their own holdings. Just an opinion, don't bite my head off ;))

Assassination and Bounty Hunting are contracts, as contracts are a lawful function, they can be argued with reason to be lawful actions.

All of these are functions that are meaningful PvP interaction. These things have been elaborated on by the developers as such.

None of these are RPKing.

All of those are valid ways to meaningfully engage in PvP.

There's been no change on this front from what we've told you about alignment and rep previously. That is, we expect the majority of CE characters to also have very low reputation, because ganking lowers all three axes. So Ryan's shorthand is "CE will suck," because we genuinely believe that there won't be very many CE players that maintain high reputation.

There are a few of you that plan to play CE as a roleplaying choice, and try to make sure you're only doing it in a way that doesn't cost you too much rep. That's awesome, and we really hope you succeed. If you have a high-rep CE town, the penalties are the minimal ones that we've mentioned before; it's the low-rep that really hurts you. But we still expect that CE will be very strongly correlated with low-rep, because we don't expect that the majority of players coming in outside of the forum community will be choosing CE for roleplay, just drifting there due to behaviors that also lower rep.

If the early enrollees manage to set up enough high-rep CE settlements to create and maintain an expectation of "playing CE but not being a jerk about it" among later players, that'd be great. Just don't get your hearts set on pulling it off :) .

So if CE Settlements are less than optimal training areas due to the player base that comprises the CE alignment, would a NE settlement be a viable and comparable training alternative?

Or are we back to those choosing to play CE-high rep, playing within the rules that GW sets out and not being jerks still being left out to dry?

There are lots of tools in the Pathfinder Online sandbox. Some of the uses to which those tools can be put are unwanted. So instead of removing the tool, we seek to remove the behavior associated with the misuse of the tool.

...

- it's inherent in those play styles to intentionally violate rules and community standards;

That play style becomes socially harmless and mechanically beneficial if it is done in the context of territorial control. If you operate in a war zone and your targets are war targets, you're playing the game as intended.

If you do it in territory controlled by someone you're not at war with, you'll suffer mechanical penalties.

Will the play style, as stated by Xeen in the context of how it will be performed in PfO, not EVE, used only in manners that GW has stated are "meaningful PvP" be equally supported in regards to other play styles?

Basically, if Xeen chooses to play by the rules laid out by GW and be CE, will his abilities and advancement potential be comparable to other play styles?

If not, what other play styles are being handicapped and in what ways?

Clearly, GW has paved the way to engage in meaningful PvP and that is a viable course of action for those with the CE alignment. If advancement is tied to Settlement allegiance, is there another option for CE to reach full potential besides a CE settlement?

Sweet!

Fort Hood, TX by way of Tongducheon, Camp Casey, South Korea, by way of Crowley/Lafayette, Louisiana.

We would have too many enemies to keep track of and imply that even after the war finished with our original aggressor, that we would still be at war with those who aided them.

If I gave the impression that we will be declaring war on everyone with a "guilt by association" type system, that is wholly the wrong impression I was trying give.

Pagan is basically at the point I was trying to convey.

Running an active blockade is the primary scenario to which I was speaking. Rendezvous is the other. Rendezvous is a bit trickier and will likely be handled on a case by case basis with a lot of moving parts factoring in.

There's nothing magical about the phrase "act of war", either. It's used mostly (in Earth history) as a pretext for positioning an act as "recognition that a state of war already exists" instead of "declaring war".

Again, many different factors come into play.

Is it just a single merchant from a company?

Is it an entire company?

Following the logic that we declare war on an entire organization because they had one merchant try and sell some wine to our enemies is not plausible. We would have too many enemies to keep track of and imply that even after the war finished with our original aggressor, that we would still be at war with those who aided them.

What it boils down to is this, supporting our enemies through logistical means will be treated as a hostile act and will be dealt with as such.

In Urman's example, C would be our target. We would give little care to the suppliers of the supplier of our enemy, as they would likely be our suppliers as well. D and E probably conduct business away from the conflict. Inflating the purchasing price of specific goods that are C's main inventory being provided to our enemy to shrink C's profit margin and raise their asking price thus shrinking the reward and increasing the risk is a hypothetical economic strategy we might employ... as is undercutting the C's prices on goods they provide D and E in an effort to lure them away.

Hopefully the economy will be malleable enough to employ such strategies... but again, that's why I prefaced it with "hypothetical".

Just so people don't think that all our actions will be martial, we hope that political and economical arenas are just a viable when it comes to exerting influence.

I don't see why. If you provide supplies to people engaged in hostile activities against us, how is that not aiding our enemy?

More generally, protecting one's own supply lines and attacking those of an enemy is a fundamental military strategy; an example of this as a purely logistical campaign for the military means of implementing strategic policy was the Berlin Airlift.

A few quotes I feel it necessary to elaborate on.

When Pax is at war, we will not trade with the enemy ourselves. We will blockade our enemy's settlement, and ambush all that attempt to come in or leave that settlement during a state of open conflict.

You will not be granted free passage to trade with our enemy during a time of war. You will still be granted safe passage within Pax lands, provided we do not know for certain you are there to undermine our war efforts.

The final misconception presented to us last night was that, if you lose the services of one or even a few merchants due to one interaction, that we will lose access to those goods or future trades permanently.

Resource nodes and political relationships will be shifting, maybe even constantly so. Our trusted friend one day, could become neutral, on the same day our previous enemy could also become neutral. Friends could one day become enemies, and the vice versa is equally true.

If we are at war, we will notify blue parties and do our best to alert greys that come into areas where sympathetic actions towards our enemy will be viewed as hostile and shift their standing from grey to red. These shifts will be for the duration of the conflict and likely return to grey afterwards. Again, we will do everything in our power to alert neutral parties of the consequences of their actions. If they continue that action, they will be viewed as hostile.

Trading with a entity we are at war with is an act of war. Whether you trade with them before or after is completely up to you. The only other factor is if blue entities have a specified agreement with us that prohibits trading with entities we are red with but not actively engaged in a war/feud.

The loss of business of a single merchant or small group of merchants may or may not be significant enough to warrant some sort of reparations. Just as we understand the need for merchants to turn a profit and how our interests can sometimes interfere with that, we expect merchants to understand that their pursuit of profit with our enemy is undermining our interests and will be prevented to the best of our ability. Instances where merchants withdraw their business from our markets will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

We have and will continue to be as open as possible. We intend to follow through on everything that we proclaim as an official objective or position. We fully intend to do everything in our power to provide some stability in the political realm for those we are allied with and those neutrals who's business we value.

Wonderful. A few people with crazy names exist in the world.

However, they are a very rare exception to the rule. It's not every other person you meet that's named Rainbowfart Kidneystone. Just like I'm sure a few odd names might slip through the cracks of their name enforcement.

I'd like to point out that there was a topic on this subject already. Every point being brought up here was brought up there. Goblinworks made their decision in the end that they want people to use roleplay style names.

I highly doubt anything in this topic will cause them to reverse that decision, so we are better off discussing things that haven't already been decided, like if we should follow a firstname/lastname system or if we want to be able to have more or less than 2 words in our name.

How is it that Avari and Bluddwolf are on the same page opposing the view of myself and Andius?!

Kinda makes me feel like I'm in an episode of the Twilight Zone or somethin.

Still going I see.