KJosephDavis's page

I hope, though, that most PFO chartered companies/settlements won't be quite as paranoid as EVE corporations tend to be.

I'm sure they will be.

EVE corporations aren't paranoid because of anything intrinsic to Eve. They're paranoid because humans are paranoid! :P

I'd rather have the Devs try and make this game an online ROLEPLAYING game rather than just another online level grinding game.

I don't think this is achieved by either limits or lack thereof to how much you can level in one day. It's done with compelling NPCs, interesting dialogues, meaningful choices, atmosphere and good stories.
I don't play the elder scrolls, Baldur's gate or Torment to get to max level as quickly as possible, but to breathe in their atmosphere and experience a compelling narrative as an active participant.

But i think the fact that other players have to live in the same world will always stifle such things and limit the actual roleplaying aspects to singleplayer games.

This game almost certainly won't have many (if any) compelling NPCs or many interesting choices or dialogues or atmosphere not related to interacting with other players.

And getting to max level in this game will be pretty much implausible if not virtually impossible.

Nihimon is only saying he doesn't want a mechanism that implies he needs to do something daily. I agree with his sentiment.

I'm not sure what you're arguing for, or what your points have to do with that.

PFO is not the real world and I get enough gray shades on CNN for my taste. I've no problem with black and white morality in a game.

With the limited budget GW has, developing anything at this point not related to content generation is a waste.

I've played on a lot of role-playing servers. The main thing they most often lack is role-playing.

1) There will be no enforcement of role-playing policies. Even if they wanted to do it, GW won't have the budget.

2) Role-playing plots still won't have an effect on the game world. Game play will.

3) Agreed, but this does not mean role-playing will increase.

4) This problem will still be one.

5) What Bringslite said.

However, it doesn't matter if I'm right or not.

Alignment is confirmed.

@KJosephDavis

I think judging from the forums that most are expecting there to be considerably more role players here than is common in mmo's I would not be so sure that it will not be non role players in the minority if I were you.

I've heard the exact same before the launch of every major fantasy MMO and the sentiment is always wrong.

Tabletop gamers interested in role-playing form an insignificant percentage of the MMO population.

There may be substantial role-playing in Early Access. It will not last. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.

Theme park MMOs have a central AH because market dynamics are irrelevant to their gameplay. This is not the case for Eve or PFO.

It seems obvious that a central AH would be counterproductive as it removes a potentially vast amount of player conflict (aka game content).

How you played D&D or Pathfinder is unlikely to be how everyone else played it and has no bearing on whether alignment is good or not. If your group never used divine magic should we exclude it as well?

And just because previous MMO titles did not use alignment, similarly, has nothing to do with whether or not it could be an interesting mechanic for PFO.

It's interesting to me that people keep talking about how alignment will be "bad for role-playing" when that's something virtually no one will be doing anyway. Let's be real here, most players won't be interested and those of us who are would have a dang hard time even agreeing on what it even requires.

Alignment in PFO is going to have mechanical impact. Accept it and move on.

@ Bluddwolf

Programming an alignment system strictly for role-playing purposes w/no mechanical affect would be a gross waste of GW's time & resources.

Doing anything only for role-playing is a waste, since, in any mmo, there are a bare minority who actually do it. With GW's limited budget, they don't have that kind of luxury.

Either could work.

The issue with portals might be camping them, but that's a solvable problem.

@ZenPagan

I think you're taking a rare, edge case (that is solved by the bounty system anyway) and blowing it up into something it isn't. Further, if your worst case occurs, the devs will fix it.

You're probably freaking over a non-problem.

Are we all forgetting about the Bounty system and the Champion flag?

The other option is to sit there wringing your hands and crying about the harassment of your friends but you are powerless because the attacker flag has always worn off by the time you find him.

This is certainly not true.

Your friend just go murdered by the bandit. Your friend can now put a bounty on the bandit. Your friend can make you and your allies as the only people able to hunt down and destroy said bandit.

Enjoy your hunting trip.

Problem solved.

I was under the impression that watch tower came first, then fort. Fort is probably the minimum structure needed to get a settlement charter.

I may find that a fort is a bit too permanent / resource intensive to have "settlement" status. But, I guess we will have to deal with that expense.

I have a feeling everyone is going to want to be a part of a settlement eventually. From what the blogs and post have hinted at, joining a settlement is going to be de rigueur very quickly.

I've stated multiple times here that I'm not really even in favor of having an alignment system for PFO, or if we have one to make it simple self-selection. Given that we will have one, and it will play a very important role in gameplay and given the limitations of any automated system....I'm trying to insure that it isn't something which sucks all the fun from the game and ends up breaking peoples backs for being imperfect.

I agree with what you're trying to do, but I would encourage you to keep the hyperbole to a minimum. I can't imagine any system would "suck all the fun from the game." Usually it's unexpected collusion of systems that do that.

This is a game where PvP is supposed to be happening ALOT.

I'm aware.

You and your party encounter another party out in the Wilds. In this same area 5 minutes ago another LG party got wiped out and robbed...but that was 5 minutes ago so the Attackers will no longer have ATTACKER flags (those flags only last for 1 minute after combat) and no CRIMINAL tags would apply because it's not in a settlement area. The other party seems to be moving threateningly to encircle yours while you try to talk with them, you even think they might be using the DISGUISE mechanic to mask thier identities. One of your party members gets nervous and jumps the gun attacking them...combat ensues and you defeat them....if there are 4 members in the other party and they aren't actualy Evil, you and everyone in your party gets 2 shifts toward Evil and 2 shifts toward Chaos....taking you all the way from LG to CE in one incident. Note this wasn't even adjucated by the Alignment system as "murder" since it happened in unsettled land...just an "attack" and a "kill".

Now, I agree that it was wrong of the first party to jump the gun and attack first....but in a game where PvP is supposed to be happening ALL the time, should that 1 mistake equaly WEEKS or MONTHS worth of grinding to atone for? Sorry, I wouldn't want to play that game, and I don't think too many others would either. YMMV.

Yes, it was wrong for the first party to jump the gun and they should suffer for it if they're trying to play Lawful Good. Sorry. I have absolutely zero pity for them. Play your alignment or settle for something less.

And, where are you getting WEEKS or MONTHS from? Who has proposed it be that onerous? It certainly shouldn't be trivial, but I'm not aware of anyone who has proposed the strawman you're busy breaking.

But still, no, I don't see how it happens accidentally. What you describe wasn't an accident. Yes, people are going to get ganked and robbed. Players can either suck it up and stay Lawful Good, or they can freak out and get hit with the drop they deserve.

From the actual numbers Stephen posted for the alignment scales, you can calculate for yourself that 2 unwarrented kills of moderately good characters takes you down a full shift on the Good/Evil axis (I haven't bothered to do the math for Law/Chaos)...since each individual kill is calculated seperately that means that a single party engagement gone wrong (e.g the target party was misidentified) can easly take you ALL the way from LG to CE.

How would a Lawful Good character "accidentally" murder two other good players?

Seriously, I really don't see how that could happen.

Someone trying to be Lawful Good shouldn't be attacking anyone that is tagged as Criminal, Outlaw, or Heinous in any shape, form or fashion. If they do, my heart has no pity for them.

If you avoid murder, theft, arson, and general thuggery, it shouldn't be pretty hard to keep a decent alignment. It's not like we're playing under a capricious GM who docks your paladin for not sharing his ice cream with the wizard.

Then there's no reason for drift.

You can disagree and dislike the drift mechanic, but to assert there is no reason for it is being willfully ignorant.

There are reasons.

The reasons might be bad, they might be good, but they're definitely reasons.

For the record, I have no real opinion on drift being good or bad.

In tabletop fantasy games, I've always been one of those folks who saves potions forever, thinking "I know I'm going to need them worse later than I do now", whether I actually do or not. Result: I never remember to use consumables, in essentially any game, no matter how they're implemented.

I look forward to trying...again...to break the old habit.

Unfortunately, I do the exact same thing.

I'm glad the landscape looks like an actual landscape.

@ GrumpyMel

You ignored one very important part of the Put It in Writing blog.

"The settlement's alignment—characters must be within one alignment step* to join or remain a member of the settlement."

I doubt someone could drop two alignment steps, such as from Neutral Good to Neutral Evil or Chaotic Good to Chaotic Evil, accidentally or after only a "few" missteps. If you do something so heinous as to go from CG to CE, then you deserve whatever you get.

Further, I would refer you to blog RESPECT: Find Out What It Means to Me where it says, "[Alignment] may* cause a character to be ejected from them if the character's alignment diverges from the expected norm of that organization.

It's not guaranteed.

Further, in the blog I Shot a Man in Reno it talks about how settlements can set reputation levels. It's entirely possible alignment no longer kicks people from settlements like it said in Put It in Writing.

This makes it even more likely alignment won't do that with put into context with developer remarks about how a settlement's whole player population will affect the settlement's alignment score and you won't be able to see alignments easily.

Either way, since you have to drop two steps for that to happen, this is much ado about nothing methinks.

@ GrumpyMel

I see what you're saying, but, and I could be wrong, I don't think anyone is proposing what you're opposing.

Instead, I think most people don't want to see someone shift from Chaotic Evil to Lawful Good in a day. Dramatic shifts from Evil to Good (not vice versa!) should be difficult.

Edit - And to echo Dario, I don't think alignment prevents entry into anywhere.

Nothing prevents entry.

Instead, being a member of an organization or with certain flags active might make someone a criminal in a certain place, but there isn't any physical bar to entry in the game at all as far as I can tell.

Otherwise, make your town illegal to CE, NE, and LE and you're pretty safe from assassins.

I really want to be able to spend some of my game time exploring and writing about my explorations without feeling like I'm falling behind.

I empathize with your position, but I really don't think the feeling you experience on this issue is solvable with a hybrid day/week system. Even with that system, you could still feel as if you fell behind provided you failed to get "max" in a given week.

To address your point, a better method might not be a hard cap like "only +1000 Lawful Good points/day" (or whatever, I'm completely pulling numbers out of the aether for demonstrative purposes).

Instead, a 'soft' cap related to time investment requirement may work better. As in, sure, you could theoretically grind out a lot of Lawful Good points in a day or two, but it would take virtually all your time simply due to how long the quests take.

And, you know, if a player is really that dedicated to changing their alignment to pour hours and hours and hours into in a short period of time, heck, let them have that cake.

I think the number of people who would actually do that is so small as to be insignificant.

@ Bluddwolf

Instead of different levels of war, maybe allow a chartered company to declare war provided they meet X, Y, & Z requirements (whatever those might be). Settlement possession should make those requirements easier to reach (point being it should be easier for a settlement to declare war than a roving band).

If we did that, then....

Skirmish/Raid - Covered by the aforementioned.

Insurgency - It would be covered too, but it might be easier (in this case) to simply allow the company/kingdom/whatever to not end the war. Insurgency would be what follows if a settlement is taken and the previous owner, though homeless, simply chooses to continue fighting.

Conflict/Conquest - There is no substantial difference in these two categories. They're effectively the same. In any case, they'd work the same if there was one declaration of war, but it was open to any player organization capable of meeting the declaration requirements.

I just don't want to see something like SWTOR where you end up doing countless Black Talon speed runs just to increase or decrease alignment.

I don't think that can happen.

If I remember correctly, PvE content is generated by the system, then despawns once "completed". I could've sworn I read something like that in a blog update.

Unless I'm totally wrong, PvE speed runs to modify alignment should be impossible by default.

Alternatively, instead of using a black or grey fog-of-war, the game could simply show the map area as a large expanse of forest, where clearings with towns are revealed as those towns are discovered. Imagine a map of an "ocean" that shows nothing but water until you discover an island, at which point that island is shown on the map where there used to be only water.

This is a great idea.

@ Being, I like the idea!

I would add, I think a player should only be able to use map functions when they have a map in their inventory.

I'd love for maps to be a commodity crafted by players and sold. Full area maps might be a very valuable commodity indeed.

Also, maybe have maps able to only hold a limited number of tiles (12?). If you wanted to be able to look at the entire "game space", you'd need more than one map.

I'm thinking the skill would be Cartography. If a player had a blank map in their inventory* and map tools (quill, ink, compass, etc), the map would draw automatically as they moved around the environment. Also, I'd like for players to be able to make notes on maps and add basic symbols (really basic).

I know this would probably require programmer time that might be better spent on other things, but as someone who LOVES exploring, I would love something like this.

* Perhaps 'slotted' in some fashion, since I know slots are going to have a value in terms of prioritizing what to place in them.

PS - Of course, as Dario said, maps put up on websites might make this element pointless, but I'd still love it.

@ randomwalker & Being

Seems reasonable to me.

Heinous and Criminal are seperate from Attacker. You can get both of those without first requiring the Attacker flag. Yes, war will protect characters from the Criminal flag in some circumstances (Specifically, they do not gain the Criminal flag for breaking laws of the settlement they are at war with). There is nothing about war that protects you from the Heinous flag.

Fair point. I was thinking Attacker and Criminal could eventually lead to Heinous, but that's not actually supported in the language.

I'm fairly certain of it, because the only thing I remember reading that granted immunity to Bounties was wearing an Assassin's Mask....

It's kind of hard to reference a quote that wasn't said. If you believe it should be on that list, I would ask you to provide a link to the quote that supports your assertion.

I would refer you to...

Ryan Dancey's Blog post To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms where it is directly stated, "When you are murdered—that is, killed unlawfully—you will have the option to place a bounty on your killer's head."

An assassination is not a lawful killing which is why the Assassin's Mask is such a useful tool for a criminal. It is irrelevant for a soldier in a declared war, since combat is typically not considered to be unlawful killing.

Then there is...

Ryan Dancey's Blog post I Shot a Man in Reno which states, "[The Attacker flag is granted when]the character has attacked another character outside of a war situation, and the target character did not have a PvP flag. It denotes which character is the aggressor in PvP combat.

Combine this with...

Blog post Screaming for Vengeance where it is stated, "If you have the Attacker flag, when you kill a target you lose reputation proportional to the reputation of the target. Additionally, the target might further choose to rebuke you (even if it didn't result in a kill), expending some of his or her reputation to lower yours.

We already know war protects one from reputation loss, since a warfighter is immune to reputation loss (and using these other blog posts as evidence) it stands to reason they are:

1. Not vulnerable to bounties.
2. Do not suffer reputation loss.
3. Do not suffer alignment loss
4. Are not considered the Attacker (and as such will not gain the Attacker flag, nor will they be eligible for the Criminal or Heinous flags which can all follow on from Attacker).
5. May not be "rebuked" by a target (i.e. suffer a curse)
6. In general, will not experience negative factors associated with unlawful killing, the definition of which is outlined in numerous blog posts.

There seems to be a lack of clarity and specificity about what you're actually saying.

I feel I've been consistent about my position through the entire thread.

I, too, think the natural drift would be toward neutral. You aren't good without doing good and you can't be lawful without doing nothing. Similarly at the other poles. Other hand I think there would be a difference between doing nothing (NN) and striving for balance among the extremes (TN), but that doesn't seem to be the direction the developers intend.

I tend to agree with your sentiment, I just have no idea how they could give players enough Lawful or Good actions to take to make it meaningful.

A drift toward Lawful and Good does make sense.

After all, it's pretty easy for the game to quantify evil and chaotic actions. What would be Lawful or Good action that would come up enough for the game to quantify it?

(PS - I'm not saying there aren't any, I just can't think of any off the top of my head.)

KJosephDavis wrote:

- Immunity from Death Curses

- Immunity from Bounties
- Immunity from Reputation Loss
- Immunity from Alignment Shifts
- Immunity from Negative Tags Like Bounty, Outlaw and Heinous

I'm fairly certain that "Immunity from Bounties" shouldn't be on that list.

Why are you certain of that?

I think it would be downright bizarre and immersion breaking if a nation at war could put a bounty on enemy soldiers. After all, bounties are for murderers, not something we typically consider soldiers to be in human civilization.

I don't understand what "Immunity from Negative Tags Like Bounty, Outlaw and Heinous" means.

Soldiers fighting a war shouldn't get tagged with Attacker, Heinous or Criminal (should have been attacker & criminal post), when they attack and kill at-war enemies.

If you're at war and you can still get hit with Attacker or Criminal, what, again, would be the point of ever going to war?

The other three (Immunity from Death Curses, Reputation Loss, and Alignment Shifts) aren't really special. Anytime you have any PvP-flag enabled, your attacker is immune from those.

Yes, that is true. It also has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Players at war shouldn't be PvP-flagged to neutral players. This strikes me as very unfair.

I'm not sure it does. The key fact in PFO is that C can send in an army to attack A anyway. Will it really make that much of a difference to them whether or not they take Reputation or Alignment hits for doing so? Maybe, maybe not. If C is Chaotic Evil, I guarantee you it won't matter to them at all.

That's true, but if a hex allows anyone who enters it free-for-all PvP, think about what C Invaders gain....

- Immunity from Death Curses
- Immunity from Bounties
- Immunity from Reputation Loss
- Immunity from Alignment Shifts
- Immunity from Negative Tags Like Bounty, Outlaw and Heinous

Why should a supposedly neutral faction gain those benefits when the war is between A & B?

(Quick Note: If most/all of those immunities are not part of the benefit of being at war, the entire idea of declaring war will rapidly lose relevancy.)

That's possible, but it's not really known yet. There might very well be counter-Siege Equipment that is needed to dislodge Siege Equipment. We just don't know.

If the invading army is all dead, does it really matter what happens to their abandoned siege equipment?

So if warzone is full, consequence-free PVP for everyone in the hex:

A declares war on B.
A emplaces a siege camp around B.
C assembles army, enters warzone, attacks A.

C has none of the drawbacks of being at war (it's noncombatants and settlement are unflagged, does not pay any associated "war cost") unless A then declares a second war on them. This is even worse if war cost is non-equal (such as the case where the aggressor pays more than the defender), since A would have to pay the agressor cost again to defend itself from C if forced to declare war against them.

Which provides a huge benefit to any defensive alliances.

Not to say that's a "bad" thing per se, but talking about potential emergent gameplay before it causes a problem in game is a good thing.

I think everyone knows how I feel on the issue, so I won't reiterate it.
:/

I bet the 3 NPC zones will be pretty much your basic NPC area w/everything you'd expect.

I thought there had already been a hint in game about currency production. Hmmm...maybe I dreamed that?

It would be cool if they could figure out a way to pull it off.

Paducah, KY.

Good should indeed have reduced freedom of action generally but that does not mean they should be handicapped to this extent. As I said the normal rules shift as well in war time and what was unthinkable becomes acceptable.

Yeah, but wouldn't it be awesome if this played out in alignments? Think what kind of great story that could be!

The settlement of Caulborn was founded by Lawful Good paladins. Yet, it was the long war with Askeroth and Faem which drove the Caulborni to the depths of cold, ruthless evil....

If neutrals are targets, then war can't change reputations (probably alignments).

Shouldn't it have the chance to do exactly that?

The concern is (or should be) that neutrals will still be providing supply for the enemy or taking actions contrary to the interests of the other belligerent.

I think we all agree that this is the case. Neutrals in a conflict zone is certainly a serious diplomatic problem.

Why should the game rules automatically resolve this problem between players? Isn't the game content supposed to be about problems between players? Why does this problem deserved to be solved when others are not?

(Edit: Quick note, I'm legitimately interested in answers to these. If they're good enough, I may change my opinion.)

@KJosephDavis

Your argument regarding China is similarly irrelevant, since the third party settlement is free to react to their merchants being killed with a war declaration with or without the attackers getting alignment and reputation hits for doing so.

Agreed. I was trying to describe the political dilemma an attacker could face to demonstrate attacking a neutral in a war zone might not be an obvious decision. I apologize if it came across otherwise.

Here is my proposal. Neutral agents, that is, individuals who are not part of the warring settlements, should not be open game. Here's why. That gives the war-involved parties a choice. They can deal with these entities as individuals or they can deal with them as state actors (that is, representatives of their respective settlements).

If they handle them as individuals, they can either attack anyway, and deal with the normal consequences of individual PVP, or use one of the character scale methods of sanctioned PVP. For example, get some chaotic aligned individuals to flag Outlaw to SAD them. Does this put a LG settlement at a disadvantage? A bit, they would have to contract outside their settlement for the service, but there are ample historical examples of privateers being sanctioned to harass enemy supply lines.

Alternatively, they can treat them as state actors and have the option to declare war on the parent settlement, thus flagging all the individuals from that settlement for them.

I agree. This is how I think it should work (I've been arguing for this, but may not have done as good a job at describing it as Dario did).

Also, there will be players who use bots to make their own little armies, and they'll gladly pay Goblinworks for the privilege. I've seen it in Vanguard in a way that makes me completely despair that there will ever be any way to stop it.

Pretty hard to stop people with excess cash and free time.

Heck, if someone wanted, they could literally pay other people to play with them. Someone probably already does this.

I do not think this makes your case for why neutrals should not be fair game as it is not in my view affected by the flagging or otherwise

Fair enough.

What's your position on good-aligned characters having the ability to engage in typical non-good behavior (murder/steal) w/o reputation (at minimum) penalties?

If war hexes allowed what has been mentioned, Good characters could become de facto bandits in these zones even against people unaffiliated simply trying to get somewhere else. Is allowing this behavior worth preventing alt spies and neutral player movement?

It seems to me like we'd be potentially creating Good-aligned bandits who could be way, way better bandits than CE bandits.

The issue for me is the only reason for a neutral to be there is help one side or the other. The side you are not helping knows this I have yet to see why you think they are unjustified in stopping you?

If when the uk was retaking the falklands an armsdealer had decided to send a shipful of weapons into port to supply the defending garrison do you think that the uk governement would of

A) said oh they aren't argentianian so we cant kill them
or
B) blown them out of the waters after they had been warned off at the falklands territorial limits

I think we both know what the answer would have been

I am happy for people to get a warning when entering a war hex. (defined as a hex belonging to either of the warring parties) and being able to turn away without consequence. As I said Enter At Your Own Risk.

Any merchant etc violating this is likely to reap significant rewards if successful but there will be extra risk

I agree with everything you say here. I really, really do.

Let's take your example farther. Suppose that instead of just some arms dealer, the weapon shipments heading to the Argentinians were coming from a Chinese factory, owned by a Chinese company, and arriving inside a People's Republic of China container ship. Would the Royal Navy have been so quick to blow it up in that circumstance.

Unlikely.

Why?

The UK would have been stuck between a tough choice. Do they risk letting the weapons get to the Argentinians or do they attack the merchant ship and possibly instigate a war, or at the least a serious incident, with China?

There's no simple solution which is exactly what I want to be able to happen in PFO.

True, that situation can occur even if war zone hexes ignore neutrality, but I think that would have a chilling effect on merchants going into the hex such that it would make these situations less common. I may be wrong on that.

I really feel like giving factions at war carpet immunity from neutrality violations (in essence) in a war zone removes potentially interesting ethical and diplomatic decisions from coming up with little gain except to the aggressor.

Also, I think preventing anyone from getting to a besieged city is a perfectly valid and smart tactic for an aggressor. I just don't think it's a tactic that necessarily deserves special sanction in the rules.

Forums are a notoriously difficult place to express yourself clearly. I'd ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm genuinely trying to understand your point, unless I say something that makes it clear I'm not. Misunderstanding you should not be considered de facto proof that I'm not trying.

Point taken and benefit given.

I'll also add my familiar refrain that balance concerns shouldn't be as important as they would be in other games. Why is it "unfair" for me to have 20 skeletons, but it's not unfair for me to have 40 players who are willing to follow me around and roll all over you?

I have zero interest in playing a necromancer.

That being said, I really, really hope necromancers and evil priests can make undead armies (or at least battalions) to wreak havoc with.

I really, really want to fight guys like that.

First an unreserved apology,rereading what I said perhaps KJosephDavis may have taken it as an insult when I said I didnt expect to convert him. This was not written to imply he was closed minded, I merely wished to acknowledge him as my opposite pole in this debate. No slur on his character was intended.

Thanks, hopefully I haven't inadvertently insulted you (or anyone) in this thread. That was not my intent (super promise!).

An enemy could easily run out of swords, or consumbales. Settlements I dont believe naturally accrue ore and lumber without harvesting.

I would assume.

However, I think a 3rd party providing supplies (while neutral) to keep a kingdom fighting is a good potential problem for an aggressor to deal with. Do they violate neutrality and all that goes with it or do they try to defeat their enemy without that?

As I said though, I do not think there should be a circumstance where a 3rd party (neutral) is providing all or even a majority of the effort required to keep one faction fighting. I don't think this will be the case, but, if it is, it seems like a less than great idea.

As AOE causes friendly fire it is unlikely siege engines will be firing as the attackers storm the walls. I assume they will be used to breach the walls then the attackers charge. How long does it take to log over?

I doubt anyone, even the developers, know that yet.

It could go either way. However, in a close contest where bodies are needed immediately to hold a breach, the few minutes in between could make a lot of difference.

Still, this is the tactic I'm most suspicious of, but it might not be a problem if siege weapons are really only useful against buildings. Or it could be coded that if you get hit by a siege weapon that is considered an "Attacker" or "Criminal" flag hit. Giving siege weapons that exemption would (to me) be the best way to solve the problem. After all, I don't think siege weapons will be useful at all outside of sieges, so not much chance for exploitation there.

KJosephDavis wrote:

Further, the adventurer is never going to trust the traitor again. That name is going to stick in the adventurer's mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os9d2f-2lD0

Ha! That's great!

I believe that paladins suffer alignment hits whenever they kill (except Heinous?). Not sure about that but if true that is not a good example. Anyone playing a paladin "should" question before killing anyway. Those that abuse the role they play are really cheating themselves as well as others. That is a whole different kettle of fish...

That would be good if true (hopefully it is).

Now, even if that is the case, I don't think it solves the problem.

After all, non-paladins who were any flavor of Good could do the same. Doesn't it seem bizarre that neutral good or chaotic good knights could butcher neutrals anywhere* without suffering reputation (or alignment) repercussions?

* Quite note, I don't mean a war declaration would let them do it, literally, anywhere, I mean that it seems weird that Good-aligned characters could possible do that in any location even a war zone without reputation or alignment repercussions.

These are good questions.

Given that good logistics for your side and disrupting your enemies logistics is a huge help to winning wars why would anyone use anything other than neutral logisitcs and force their opponents to take an alignement and rep hit?

First, you're assuming neutral logistics would be able to support all of a faction's war needs. We have no reason to assume this is the case. Given the thread about assassination it seems that settlement resources will depend not just on things like gold and swords, but buildings, NPCs, and players in positions of authority.

It seems unlikely to me that a faction could support its entire war effort via 3rd party help.

If they could (which it has not been demonstrated that this is the case), I would be against that and I would change my position.

However, you're assuming this is something that could occur and we don't have good evidence that it actually could.

Given that you will be able to set up a shield of neutrals to cause havoc to the alignement and rep of your besiegers when they try and batter down your walls why would anyone not do it?

Let's suppose a Faction tries this.

A Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil invader might not care. They are evil after all. They slaughter the neutrals and the defenders and take the settlement.

Now, let's suppose the attacker isn't evil....

This is a real problem for a Good attacker, but putting innocents (which is what the neutral alts could equate to) in the line of fire is a tactic despotic regimes have done for years. The Mongols did it (by driving civilians into an enemy army's lines) and Saddam did it in both Iraq Wars (or tried to).

That being said, having neutrals stand in the line of fire isn't as obvious a tactic as it might seem.

Suppose a Faction is defending with 50 soldiers. 10 of them switch to alts to provide "neutral body shields."

That means there are 10 less good soldiers in the castle. So, if the attacker does decide to attack, and they kill the neutrals, the opposition once they break down the walls is weakened.

Now, all that being said, this is what I would consider the most blatant abuse of the mechanic and I would be fine with a no-neutral policy in the event of sieges since that's where it would be most abused and most useful.