Okay so first time posting here in awhile, but I've been lurking lately and have a couple of questions for the Alphas.
I know monks are complicated and all and will come later in the development cycle. My question is basically this, at the start of EE you will be able to train one of the four base classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) and when the new classes come out you will have to...
a. just redirect your training to that new class?
If it's answer a: redirect your training. What would be the best class to focus on to be the most ready to covert to a monk? I am thinking fighter or rogue but not sure.
I think this is the list of Golarion Gods in PFO.
I think Calistra and Torag should be included for the Elves and Dwarves. I know a lot of people also wanted Sarenrae, Pharasma, and Cayden Cailean.
I consider myself a chaotic person in RL, not evil. I bristle at authority figures. I obey laws mostly out of fear of all the s%#% that comes at you if you don't. Have a hard time working at places that are too uptight with stupid rules. I've move around a lot. I am a total liberal. There is probably more. Not sure if that makes me chaotic but my life certainly feels chaotic a good deal of the time. (This is probably a little TMI)
As for role-playing I honestly have a hard time playing anything but a Chaotic-something. I find lawful characters boring. I actually was toying with the idea of a lawful PFO character, but have already kinda killed that idea.
Furthermore, ontop of that. Most of the truely "Evil" and feindish characters that I saw played well in such environments hardly ever touched a blade themselves. They concentrated on sowing strife and discord with thier words, Upon corrupting and disillusioning hero's and innocents and upon manipulation of people and events
YES, YES, YESThis is me. This is what I have been talking about.
T7V Wexel Daventry wrote:
I agree and that is what I will be doing in EE.
If you're only fighting other CEs, your relative power level will be just fine. Think of it as a challenge to overcome.
So if you want to role-play a chaotic evil villain we should just accept a lower tier of play?
They really are going for the "Wild-west" feel of the River Kingdoms huh?
I second that, Being your attempt to call out people who disagree with certain aspects of the developer's ideas as wishing for "EZ-mode" PvP and wanting to harm the overall success of the game was a poor attempt to misstate our intentions, but a fine piece of bloviation.
Honestly I am not experienced enough one way or the other as to speak to the nuances of EVE, my point is that apparently whatever they have or haven't done continues to bring in more players. The game is growing not dying as many other MMOs are, unusual for such an old MMO.
My point wasn't copy it, my point was that they must be doing something right.
Yet EVE is highly successful and still gaining subscribers after 10 years.
I'd say the same goes for me, truthfully I don't mind things being harder for me as a CE either. It's the thou shall not advance as a character due to lack of opportunity (training, etc) that really bugs me.
Good players will have the opportunities though because most likely a lot of those low-rep players will be flagged Criminal and Heinous and thus will be able to be attacked without any rep loss to the good players.
I don't mind even being more vulnerable to attack as a CE but I don't feel my advancement should be hampered. (i.e. training and crafting limitations.)
I'm in favor of well-played 'evil' (not that I'm any good at it). But if I were going to play a charming, urbane, manipulative wizard with a "rules don't apply to me" and a "I put my self first" attitude, I wouldn't choose to self-label as CE. I'd label as something else and game the system - setting my mantra as "rules don't apply to me." Lots of 'good' villains hide that way.
Indeed they do and that was just one example to show the range a chaotic evil can have. People love to associate chaotic evil with chaotic stupid.
I just don't like the idea of gaming the system for mechanical benefit as there are a lot of other great character concepts that would get destroyed by the current alignment system. However that apparently is "working as intended".
Pax JayBrand wrote:
Question 1: One of the official ones ended up being locked but they don't generally sticky much.
Basically my most favorite character I ever played in tabletop was a Chaotic Evil wizard for all intents and purposes. Even though she was officially Chaotic Neutral, I crossed over into the Evil camp on many occasions.
I was not some homicidal, face-stabbing, manically laughing stereotype. I was charming, urbane, manipulative, witty. I was the party leader, who held together the party together through strength of will and manipulation, but I always put myself first in almost all occasions. I nearly betrayed the party, often made deals behind their backs that only benefited me. Most of the time they never knew. Occasionally I got caught but I was good at talking my way out of things. This character ran for a campaign that lasted 3 real years of consistent playing. So she was no one shot throw away.
Chaotic Evil can be that. A "rules don't apply to me" and a "I put my self first" attitude is what makes chaotic evil. You don't have to be a stupid boor. Bearing in mind evil has degrees like anything else. Evils who want to destroy the world are not evil they are just insane.
Of course I could still play that way in PFO but there will be no purpose in setting your alignment at what your character really is. Just game it and give yourself the highest score on both the axis (7500, 7500) that way you have the farthest to fall. Alignment choice is meaningless. That is what we are lamenting. The alignment system is not really an alignment system, it's a bad player punishment. Unfortunately however it screws anyone who wants to RP a proper villain, treating them as nothing more than the equivalent of someone they don't want playing their game.
That's right by sacrificing CE, PFO has sacrificed the whole alignment system in regards to having any real role-play meaning within the game. Any alignment is meaningless, everyone will just set their alignment to LG (farthest from CE)so no matter your actions then you can drift back up to get the most mechanical benefit. One of the greatest things that drew me as a role-player to PFO was the alignment system, now it's just a tool to smack bad players over the head with. All the while being ineffectual as players are smart and will game the system.
Ryan, how high can a reputation go playing Lawful Evil?
As in you have to do some evil stuff to maintain the "Evil" in your alignment and most evil things result in loss of reputation. So how would, in your opinion, a Lawful Evil city fair against a Lawful Good one in terms of advanced training and crafting?
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Some portion of people will want to play a Role with an alignment limit, mostly Paladins but maybe Monks. Some of them will not know there are alignment restrictions for those Roles and they'll either have to grind alignment changes to get to where they need to be, or they'll start over
Will clerics be expected to stay within the accepted alignment restrictions of the deities as per the tabletop rules?
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Yes I realize the developers at this time are erring on the cautious side with their initial rules because they don't want unwanted PvP to get completely out of hand. I also realize the knobs and dials can be adjusted and will be adjusted during EE. I may sound like I am convinced its going to be horrible for evils but I'm not. I know I can't really judge it until I see it in action.
It sounds like an evil settlement next to good one could cause the unrest in the good settlement without going to war to do it . A good settlement may not be able to use that tactic without the cost in alignment being to high. It will be interesting to see the kind of things you can do as an evil settlement that good settlements cant do, causing unrest in a good settlement sounds like great gameplay.
That would be interesting.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
No it's not out of context, it says "IF" they do not take care to keep evil things from happening in their lands the Unrest "MAY" end up higher than an evil city. It says nothing about them frequently having higher Unrest. I don't expect that to be the norm for Good cities.
The second quote refers to the fact that it would not be smart for a LE city to set the reputation requirement too high. If it's too high it ends up being too restrictive for other evil alignments (who will most likely have lower reputations) and thus hurting their overall population. If they set their reputation requirement very high why wouldn't someone just go to a good city where there will be less Unrest to get better training? At the same time if they do not set it too high they will end up with inferior training by not being able to build Tier 2 and 3 facilities. It's a Catch-22.
Mmmmm, all those sound delightful.
I honestly don't see how you will even be able to hold on to CN playing a bandit. Most of the time you will be attacking non-hostile players. Unless SAD reduces the reputation hit you take? Or can you declare war on every settlement you come across? (The whole idea of a bandit having to officially declare war sounds a bit goofy though)
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
I don't think you know that for sure. From the blog:
Unrest: Unrest measures how unhappy your NPCs are, causing them to work less hard and decreasing crafting and training efficiency so they take longer. Unrest starts high for Evil settlements and low for Good settlements
Higher end structures, like tier 2 and 3 training and crafting facilities, require the settlement have its minimum Reputation set to certain levels to function. So if you want your town to have awesome training and crafting facilities, you have to set a high minimum Reputation to enter the settlement.
Looking at those two together you can't see what a major problem Evil settlements are going to have?
Lawful Evil Settlements don't want only Lawful Evils in their city, I'd imagine they want to cater to all evils to a degree. Otherwise they won't have very robust populations. As long as someone minds their P's an Q's in the city, Evil doesn't care what they do beyond their walls.
Are Drow going to be a character choice some day? And maybe underground settlements to go with it.
I hope so. Honestly I hope we get more choices for the start of the game. Though my main will be human I was hoping for more of a choice for my Destiny's Twin. I am not so worried about the classes not being there since it's skill based and you can always train in something new but once you pick your Race it's done. Only having 3 choices in EE is really limiting. They should strive for more.
My main, my DT and the chartered company myself and my friends will form will be LE. This seems as good a place as any to state that more and more I'm coming around to the view of Proxima Sin: If I choose a character and my core alignment is Chaotic Evil, why does the mechanical anvil fall on my head when I haven't done anything? I presume I would start with a 1000 reputation like anyone else-why is it assumed I will immediately start RPKing and following around people making real world insults? If I'm a CE Barbarian raider-a role which should be completely supported and would generate a lot of fun content-I don't expect to stroll into Fort Riverwatch and buy a Cinnabun but why would the training at my warcamp be any worse? I don't expect the barbarian horde to have a settlement with high DI structures-that makes sense-but I am saying that training for low rep evil characters shouldn't be less powerful or harder to get, it should be different. So, yes, it should be difficult or impossible for our CE raider to go get Fighter or Wizard training based on his low rep, but rage powers? Fiendish sorcerous bloodline powers? Negative energy channeling? Sneak attack training at Thornkeep? I gotta raise my reputation to get those? A CE player expects to travel to dangerous places to learn dark secrets, and understands he/she will never be welcome at Brighthaven. I realize a CE character will engage in unsanctioned pvp; probably hoping for some nice loot; and I understand that by their very nature griefers will probably end up CE with reputations of -5500 or worse, but that someone who roles a CE character is automatically a griefer who will commit actions that will cut them off from npc settlements at -2500, who made that rule? Heck, you could just worship Rovagug, declare a feud against a good chartered company and start the killin'. Completely under the rules.
Yes, and another example that came to my mind lately was Drow. A completely Chaotic Evil society but I doubt anyone would call them uncivilized with inferior training. The lack of training in Chaotic settlements does not make sense.
It seems to me that the "Universal" truths should apply everywhere, despite the laws of man. Now that does not mean that "attacking" a heinous flagged person could not be illegal in a settlement if they so choose.
Well at least we hope the granularity of the settlement laws will allow you to set an override to the heinous flag and get the attacker flagged criminal. However since the Heinous flag is a universal flag that overrides any repercussions this makes me nervous. Those two rules are at odds with another and the Settlement rule will have to trump the Heinous flag, otherwise Heinous flagged people are not even safe in their own cities.
Proxima Sin wrote:
I want meaningful choices in addition to combat that allow one to play as their chosen alignment no matter what it is. Like you said Proxima everything I'm hearing makes it sound as if evil and especially chaotic evil is going to be limited in that area, especially as compared to the good spectrum alignments. Fundamentally that strikes me as unfair.
I also don't like the answers that equate to "well don't choose that alignment because it's not mathematically advantageous for you to." That is not role-playing.
Proxima Sin wrote:
Cheliax openly uses slavery, it is thoroughly sanctioned by the state at all levels. Geb is a country entirely made of undead, it's ruler an immortal ghost. Gnolls are a major race of Katapesh, that can often be found in the cities there.
There are probably more, these are just a few examples. Golarion is big.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
@Fiendish, you should read over the alignment section of the blog post Alignment and Reputation. Basically what I believe Ryan is saying is that crafters have no reason to be anything except LG; their actions will not drift them away from LG (maybe even drift toward LG, but that would be kinda weird IMO), and it gives the most benefits, so it's in the crafters' best interests to pick LG.
Then why does he use the word "drifting" to LG. That makes it sound as if their actions move them to LG rather than what they pick.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Well at least half "Srsly". When you say...
Ryan Dancey wrote:
The people who want to be crafters are going to end up drifting towards lawful good. The actions they take are going to mostly be lawful and mostly be good. They're going to avoid combat and they're not going to spend time & energy pursuing the kinds of Achievements that will unlock combat-focused character abilities.
To me that says unless you play a combatant who actively and regularly participates in player killing you are going to drift away from whatever your starting alignment is towards LG. I don't think that it is too big a leap to say based on everything you've stated here.
We clearly have examples of characters in fiction who are not combatants or who even kill people (at least directly) that are villains and evil.
Are there going to be opportunities for characters to role-play evil settlement managers, evil crafters, evil merchants, etc. without being direct combatants? From what you have posted tonight it does not sound like it. I hope I am wrong.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
So Lawful Evil can only maintain being Lawful Evil by whacking Chaotic Evils? If that is the case they need to rethink the whole system as that is so frustratingly limiting, and nothing like Pathfinder p&p.
This tells me there are not going to be any evil schemers/manipulators in the game because since they are not actively killing people they drift towards good. Even though they may me causing all kinds of damage in other ways.
Does it not seem dumb that the current way is no one who doesn't participate in active killing can be evil?
Maybe they should not let you change your core alignment freely when you pick it (but maybe a cost of some sort will change it) , and instead of calling it "Active" alignment, call it "Perceived" alignment. As in that is how you seem to others though you may be rotten to the core and are a good actor? Classes with alignment restrictions like Paladins need to keep up appearances and keep their Perceived and Core alignment equal.
Hopefully there is more to than what Ryan just said because that seems a bit limited.
I agree, As a LE I certainly wouldn't be against using some CE thugs to harass my enemy and all the while keep my hands clean.
I agree! To the victor go the spoils!
I'm still trying to figure out why the use of slaves or undead saddle the player with the most severe PvP flag, for PvE content. This is especially true for Necromancers.
Yes,I have this feeling as well. It's why I think a separate flag for Heinous is a bit much.
As one who will be using slaves, one who will worship the God of Slavery, as one who will be allied with the Hellknights of Fort Indomitable, who are the Order of the Chain whose prime directive is the capture and return of escaped slaves. It makes me think I will be flagged Heinous a good deal of time.
I like the way you think. I was also thinking it would be great if we could set up a slave market in my city where raiders/slavers come to sell them!