Crimson Lord's page

Players should be free to run settlements how they wish, I have run guilds with a mix of player alignments all in one area. It can and has worked fine. This insistence that it doesn't via quoting literature is silly, game wise and roleplay wise it does.

Alignments on an individual basis are fine, but I disagree with it massively. It will cause problems, anyone thinking it wont is deluding themselves.

The only argument I have heard that makes any sense is that if you want to be an OOC meta gamer, you can coordinate your settlements to include all. Thats fine if you want to encourage meta gaming planning wise but I still disagree with that but there is another problem.

How long exactly will it take to build three settlements ? In that time my fellow guildies will not be able to be part of the same thing. Yet to hear anyone say with certainty how long it will take.

A perfectly viable solution to me would make this optional. If your village/settlement/city conforms with alignment, I.E all its official citizens are within the correct alignments. You get a bonus. If its not, you don't. A bonus such as faster settlement growth and increased profit would be a real legitimate bonus to encourage players to use the aligment grid. But if players truly want to have a mixed alignment settlement they can, even if its at their own cost.

That way your encouraged to make a settlement that fits within the alignment grid for the advantages, but if players "WANT" to do something else they can.

Forcing the players to do it all one way, a meta gaming way at that is bizarre and problematic. The more options their are, the happier the player base will be. There should at least be "some" option to have a mixed alignment settlement independent of the grid.

Moridian wrote:

What does disturb me however is the alignment restriction on a guild. It seems needlessly problematic. Me and my friends had discussed how our characters would interact. I want to be evil, some wants to be good and one guy wants to be neutral, because he is boring that way. All in all we could think of multiple ways the lot could fit in a group together and we are good to go!

Except now 70% of my friends an I are bared from each other by our sheer alignment. I am not completely against the idea, but I think it should be something up to the ruler of that specific city.

Lawful Nuetral will probably be the most popular alignment for settlements. Good-Evil spectrum covered, advantages of lawful settlements and True Neutrals accepted.

I'd also like to harp that I'm happy that this system will finally root out the Chaotic Good "posers". CG has always been the most misplayed alignment. People treat it like "I'm good but I have bad hair days". That's NOT Chaotic Good. Chaotic Good is the vigilante archetype and it inherently comes with the inability to conform to society's laws. The properly played CG is shunned by society and lives with the consequences of that.

This is what I mean, peoples first concern will be more about maximum grid coverage rather than legitimate roleplay sense. Its going to be an OOC decision rather than an IC one.

As I said I will be running a large guild, moving one over from another game. My major concern now is how I am going to be able to get them all in without the game mechanics screwing us over. So three settlements of the neutral tree seems the most efficient.

And again, you also cover another point. How some alignments are stupid and make no rational sense. Chaotic neutral or Chaotic Evil have often been described as the cheap alignments that allow plays to basically do anything without any real roleplay as their characters are basically insane.

Then there is the whole evil ruler argument, that if a ruler is enforcing the law however evil that law may be. Then technically he is lawful neutral unless he makes an extreme point of being sadistic. Thats just one example, if you have ever read any alignment argument thread you can probably list a hundred more. The Alignment system is a flawed idea and always has been, it is a useful guide at best and at worst just a broken mechanic.

The whole system is open to so much interpretation and manipulation, making it a core game mechanic concerning guilds just seems entirely unnecessary.

Until my guild has three settlements, all OOC planned out to maximum alignment coverage there is no way for me to have all the people I want in my organisation.

This for me has always been a major problem in normal pathfinder and roleplay. You get some groups that try to play the system, manipulate it and use the game mechanics before roleplay. Then there are others that put the roleplay and enjoyment first, and the game mechanics second. Its the very reason house rules were invented.

Shoe horning this system as a core guild mechanic just seems like your robbing a guild of the right to do things its own way which is exactly what a guild should be. You and your friends doing it your way.

I really do not like this update at all.

I run a large guild that has gone on for 8 years, its currently in another game right now but we have had full plans to come to this one in due time.

Being big fans of RP, this has seemed like the logical choice for the only MMO to truly support roleplay as a major feature rather than something the players just choose to do. However this update raises serious concerns, not all the people I plan to bring over will be able to join my guild. They are all forged into the same roles and similar characters, they are prohibited by game mechanics from doing the RP they want to do.

Say if we run an evil, war like organisation. No one can roleplay as a good guy spying on us, or a misguided Knight who has joined us but doesn't agree with our stance. So many options are removed automatically.

This limits roleplay, it doesn't improve it. The alignment system is easily one of the most questionable, debatable and misguided thing about original DnD and one of the worst things Pathfinder carried over from it.

There is a reason why many other roleplay systems do not bother with it or have something completely different. Its too easy to poke holes in it and subjective ideas such as Good and Evil are so clearly open to interpretation, you can make a mockery of the system but within the rules if you are so inclined. This is the first update I have seen in this game that has made me directly question its future. It has looked up until now as an open sandbox that allows players to explore roleplay.

Now we have a clear example of the players being smacked by mechanics that limits them in so many ways. May even stop their friends joining their guild. Is this the future of things to come ? Game mechanics being put before roleplay and actual enjoyment of the game ?

I am seriously concerned and am doubting the possibility of bringing a large scale guild to this game. Will I be forced as a GM to demand all my members roll characters of a set alignment ? I dont want to be put in that position, I can see many people refusing to do so and damaging our guild community.

I am very worried about this and I hope the development reconsider. Roleplay and guilds should be the domain of the players, it should be up to us to reconcile our own characters reasons for joining any organisation, not limited and enforced by the game.

Defiante1 wrote:

I have no idea why people are so paranoid about being attacked when their doing non violent things. From everything we have heard so far, attacking a guilds city (The only really sensible place to hold one) is a no small thing.

While the Wedding Guild would be more than happy to organize an event within a Settlement for anyone, it is not the only sensible place for such a ceremony.

Perhaps two frontier farmers wish to celebrate their love at their farm. It is quite possible that a nearby Escalation would try to interrupt their special day. Escalations are inconsiderate like that.

The majority of all weddings occur in a church, in a town/village. The remote lovely locations are usually honeymoon things or expensive resorts. Not the wilds. Having a wedding in the wilds should require guards unless the people are delusional.

In a land where bandits and wild monsters exist often and freely, wanting to get married outside regardless either requires mad bravery or just lack of understanding of danger. If they don't want guards then they knowingly put themselves at risk. Much like a real couple deciding to get married in say a random part of a country at war. Just because its "pretty."

As for a farmer and his wife having a private marriage on their farm. Sure that could be interrupted, but just as likely to be raided when their just farming. Being a farmer is dangerous in a land with raiders and bandits.

But again, I think your failing to apply logic to the world PvP that will be present. The game is taking a realistic take. In other games, your friend gets attacked, you send help. So does the enemy and woo big battle.

In this, if you and your friends get taken down. Your missing armour and weapons, if your friends turn up, you cant help. Not only that but if they get defeated. Their down on weapons and equipment which is not free. Gold is harder to come by as a criminal, these are not irrelevant loses.

Not to mention, as a guild leader good luck convincing your guildies to keep charging in at their own cost. They might not want to lose their weapons. Most likely will just take note of names and try to get revenge at a later date. Attack is very profitable in this but also insanely risky.

The whole design of this game is to have a realistic fantasy world where outside the cities and villages, there is no law save that which is enforced by a sword. Very true to most fantasies and history.

So in short, yeah get guards if you don't want to be sensible and get married in safety like a normal person.

I have no idea why people are so paranoid about being attacked when their doing non violent things. From everything we have heard so far, attacking a guilds city (The only really sensible place to hold one) is a no small thing. The idea that another city would organise a huge raid just to interrupt a wedding is absurd. Especially considering you can lose your equipment attacking.

You wont see so many "griefers" when attacking has plenty of risks too. Throwing your life away to interrupt something means fighting through a ton of guards with a huge group, all of you capable of losing your equipment when defeated.

It isn't worth it.

I think people are confusing realistic attacks such as raiding, stealing resources, pillaging supply lines and banditry. All for money and supplies to expand your territory or weaken a rivals. With ganking that happens in other games. They have also stated explicitly that getting to high level and power takes immense time. Not to mention that a group of 3-4 can still take you down with ease.

As opposed to say something like WoW with one high level destroying an entire area. That just isn't possible in this game.