Thanks much, then.
I had honestly expected them to take a while to ship, since at the time of ordering, one was a preorder and the other was on backorder, but this was really unexpected for time.
Thanks again.
Search Posts
I'm wondering what's up with both of these orders. Order #2848637 has said "Order pending" since mid-February, when I changed the payment method due to, well, the card being used being replaced thanks that whole Target thing a while ago. Order #2848638 has been on backorder, even though it was a preorder. Is there any chance I could get information on when Ultimate Psionics (hardcover, color) will be back in stock? Both orders were placed in October, as part of Order #2848628.
I've been trying to download the update to the Path of War WIP since last night, and every time I try, it says "Now personalizing". I've tried a few other books as well, and it's worked for them. Any clue what's going on?
@Neandenil: It... Honestly is pretty damn hard to come up with one that fits the setting, IMO. @Blareingr: More like Goblinworks identifies a person by account, but players by character name. There could be an option to friend an entire account, or just individual characters. You wouldn't know the name of the account from trying, which could be accepted or rejected at will. As for the "Two with same name", presumably by giving one a nickname, or via character appearance. I know two guys named Tim IRL, and I tend to call 'em Big Tim and Tall Tim, to their chagrin. Not the same surname, but the point still stands. Or, you know, their character's appearance is next to the name. The only way for someone to get the exact same look is if they're intentionally copying. @Hardin: And what about the people who'll show up a few years time? People become fans of games all the time, and forcing them to use a fifth or sixth choice of name isn't that good of an option. I'm bringing this up because it will probably prove relevant.
So,this is something that totally didn't spring to my mind upon starting up DDO again recently. Character names. Some RPGs require each player to have an individual character name, that nobody else has. That... Leads to stupidity. A suggestion is that player data is tied to their account/email, allowing there to be multiple "Bob"s running around, instead of one Bob, one BOb, one BOB, one BoB,and so on. Nothing quite breaks immersion like having "BillyBob93" join your party, after all.
... Yeah, you're misinterpreting. I said custom made presets. So each player has a pool for their own custom disguises to be set in, so they can just click whatever they use to disguise, and not be forced to make a new one every time they use that ability.
Would be nice if you could have like 10 presets for a disguise or alter self spellsI think the player should provide his own disguise. Otherwise we'll soon have a list on the net that says beware of butchers with a bloodstained apron, an old lady with a silver cane, and 8 others. I'm pretty sure he means custom made preset disguises, so you don't have to make one up every time you disguise yourself. Could be wrong, though.
There's a reason I keep saying that restricted alignments should only be an option for settlements. People getting the boot for the alignment of the settlement is one of them. It restricts options needlessly. I mean, there are plenty of examples in fantasy of cities with people of all alignments in them, being functional members of society. Sure, there are some that are unquestionably Good, or Evil, or Chaotic, or Lawful, but for the most part, they're generally mixed alignments. Forcing people to be within a step of a settlement's alignment ruins a great number of concepts. The LG priest trying to redeem the evil town, the NE merchant who's set up shop in a CG village because he has goods that nobody else can provide, and so on. It's incredibly silly to negate swaths of concepts like that. Now, Alliances and settlements, I can see. A paladin order would totally remove their base in an overly Evil town. A thieves' guild would remove their safehouse from a town that cracked down harder than most.
Well, they'd go to Lawful Neutral if they kill solely based on the law. LN cares only that the law is carried out, regardless of intention. That's a prescribed job within the confines of legality, however. "Assassinating" evil before it causes harm would likely be neutral at least, often chaotic. ... LN cares that their sense of justice/honor is carried out, which is not necessarily the law's itself.Really, people should reread that whenever they get the desire to talk alignments. It's clear up a large number of the annoyances...
Really, it shouldn't even be called necromancy. Too much of it deals with manipulating the dead into undeath, and not calling them up for their knowledge. Lump it together with healing, and call it necro-viviturgy, I say. Manipulation of life and death, instead of divinations based on the dead. People get so hung up over the animating forces that they forget that they're just that- the animating forces. And that so called antiquated notion is truely correct. Manipulating positive energy, which is commonly associated with life and healing, is no different than manipulating negative energy- both are merely energy to be harnessed.
Necromancy is pretty much exclusively about the manipulation of negative energy. Healing magics utilize positive energy. It's pretty much the exact opposite of necromancy. They used to be necromancy. At any rate, spells of the Necromancy school "[...]manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force". Sounds like healing and resurrection to me.
I'd like to put out there that I think that most of the comments about how Evil doesn't work well with others/immediately backstab are completely incorrect. That's Stupid Evil, not any of the actual alignments. A CE fellow should be able to recognize that, yes, having buddies means you're less likely to get ganked yourself, after all. Everyone is (well, some people are) making anyone evil out to be a lunatic who cannot be trusted and will stab you in the back the moment you turn away. Not completely likely. Remember, alignment is an average, not a constant. There can be the CE Fighter who's really a swell guy to talk to, but prone to acts of violence and, well, Evil. Or a LG person who occasionally has the irresistable urge to go kick puppies. _________________ As for actual mechanical benefits for alignments, there should be some. Not immediate buffs for it, but more like "By being Lawful Good, you can take Paladin/Use a Holy Avenger". Granting access to something another alignment wouldn't have, be it an ability tree or use (or greater use) of an item. And all alignments should have this sort of benefits. And alignment should most certainly have nothing to do with settlements, aside from those run by organizations that are strongly aligned. A town with a generally LE alignment should be able to have a LG or CG character living in it without much hassle, but a town run by a cult of the Great Old Ones? Yeah, no way. _______ Huh. That was a rather long rant, methinks. At least, it too a long time to write. :p
An evil pillar of community? Sounds clearly Lawful Evil to me. You could join a Lawful Neutral town and hobnob with those Paladins all day (even though they'll dislike you). If the Paladins didn't want to see you, they'd go to a Lawful Good town. More NE, IMO. Again, I think this is one of those playgroup/forum culture differences showing through. Regardless, I still say there should be towns open for anyone, regardless of alignment, but restricted by reputation. Makes far more sense.
@Nihimon: Yeah, after reading up on him, he seems about what I'm saying. An evil guy who makes investments in a town to further profit, in a manner that makes him a pillar of the community. (The main reason that I dislike the alignment restriction of settlements, actually- removes an entire swath of character concepts... *shakes head slowly*).
Well, probably by being Stupid Evil, in this. It is really, really hard to make an Evil character who's also an upstanding member of society, and it mostly relies on motivation more than action. Also, all but the ones that are directly serving a diety are arguable. Say you're getting paid to go empty a small holding of a group of people who moved in (when it was unclaimed!), by killing them. Is that Evil? After all, it's assasination, effectively! Spoiler:
Because if so, all those adventurers who go clear out caves of monstrous races that are minding their own business? Evil. Even the paladin. @Nihimon: No, I mean upstanding. Contributing to the community, helping it grow, and so on. High-rep Evil is another story- think Lex Luthor, instead of, say, an utterly ruthless merchant with an interest in getting the town built and improved. Lex is nearly mindless in his desire to rid the world of Supes, and refuses to be sensible and make a killing from his inventions. That's stupid evil, and not contributing to the community at all. The merchant, though? He's willing to sell to the community, to help it grow, because he sees a far greater chance of profit ahead. Pragmatic Villany, in essence.
I sincerely hope that Necromancers are not limited to a single effective "pet" with the occasional summoning of a small group of minions. I think it would be truly epic to be able to raise a literal army. Indeed, that is one of the reasons I brought this up. Minionmancy is needed! Let us swarm our foes with bodies, even vastly weaker ones! We have reserves!
So, having thought about something posted (specifically, this post about raising some skeletons and dressing them in a quite fetching bow-tie and top hat combination), I have to ask: is minionmancy going to be doable/viable? Meaning, specifically, will there be the possibility of necromancers running about, reanimating corpses at the cost of onyx, crafters making golems, and druids catching ALL the dinosaurs*? And, if so, will the minions count as part of the character in question for gaining things such as bounties, losing reputation, and so on? *May be an exaggeration, but one that would be quite amusing
Remember, Malarious, that the way you play a MMO is not the same as the way others play MMOs. They could be in it for the community, not the lore, and have no reason to follow your same philosophy. Or they're playing for, gasp, non-RP related fun. Sometimes it's nice to turn off your brain and click on monsters for a while. If they want to break their own immersion, I say fine by me. It's their own experience, after all.
Eh. It's not so much card fraud as that I generally dislike anything having any of my information for longer than a transaction. You know?
Sirs, I shall likely be joining your organization. As a fellow of... questionable morals, but supreme ethics, you should have little issues with me. I, too follow the logic of there being no inherent alignment in any form of magic, and will enjoy working with folk of similar attitude.
Well, yeah. But some merchants with basic gear is a good idea. Thing about player run economies is that they can get... Well, fairly silly, quickly. A few things to prevent that from getting to be too much of an issue won't really hurt, and will give noobs some way to get acceptable gear without running afoul of the economy.
Open a temple to Calistra. Or twenty... Put 'em near the temples of Cayden Cailean (read: alehouses), and we can have ourselves a party! But more seriously, creating a town where the main focus is coin. Somewhere that can serve as a giant trading center, ruled by a Lich-King of neutrality. Also, profit.
Oh, I know of how Pathfinder is for alignments. Thing is, it makes little sense for such a narrow window of allowing people to settle. Why would a Lawful Good settlement object to a Chaotic Neutral individual making a living there? So long as the taxes are paid and they don't stir up trouble, I'd see no reason for them to do so. (Also, my post was more about there being degrees of alignment, too. Someone can be freedom loving, and flexible while still honoring tradition, and be called CN, after all.) Anyway, I'm just saying that the option for players to form settlements of more than just an alignment and those one step away from it should be there. Because in a sandbox game, restricting players in that manner feels... Wrong, and immersion breaking.
That's assuming Chaotic means automatically law-hating, which is only a small part. Remember, Chaotic is flexibility, adaptation, and freedom, while the "disrespect of authority" is only a potential downside. And Lawful, again, has law-abiding as only a small part, with the rest being stability, honesty, and trustworthiness. Don't exactly see how the positives are conflicting.
Nah. Neutral is less willing and eager to gut someone for their stuff. Probably just a playgroup difference regarding alignment definitions. Still, point stands. Why can't CN work out of a LG settlement? They can contribute, but not completely offend the whole town. Ideally, no alignment restrictions would be the thing, but I suppose that adding a within 3 steps option would be second best. That way you can get NE in a LG town (which would be the amoral blackmailer who has dirt on the ruler/highly successful and utterly ruthless merchant who has much needed or desired goods, ect), but not the commonly expected CE murderhobo psychopath players, and so on. Basically, slacken the shackles of alignment a little, you know?
It's more that I think of Chaotic Evil PC's as being more "Enlightened Self-Interest" than "LOLOLOLMURDERLOLOLZ". Being CE, and rational about it is what I'm talking about. Utter lack of empathy and willingness to kill when you benefit, but not when there's detrimental things, would be a trait I'd expect, instead of "I murder the king". Get what I'm saying?
Not really. Over a long period of time, those evil aspects will shine through. You'd be evicted if not worse. Eh. If you're CE, you aren't ruthlessly slaughtering puppies every minute of the day, you know. Save the murderhobo-ness for when you're off being a hired thug, and be a generally normal person in-town. Paladin's don't have to start smiting Joe Commoner just because he pingged as evil, after all, and that's essentially what you'd be being while in-town. Now, if your reputation caught up with you, that's another story, which I'm far less annoyed by. Far more reasonable to be ejected over a bad reputation than an alignment difference.
Behavior =/= alignment, at least in whole. It contributes, but isn't the whole. The reasoning behind it is part of the thing. I could play your archtypical CE murderhobo, who doesn't really care for his kills as beings, in the same party as a LG Paladin. So long as they were both pointed at the same target (EG: An army of [X]'s invading their home country, a group of [Y]'s raiding their village, ect), I'd see no problem with them working together. One is killing for the sheer thril of it, while the other to protect and save. Are they philisophically and morally opposed? Yes. But are they conflicting? No. They have the same goal, just different reasons. Even in social adventures, there's enough common ground for such different characters to work together. Say, [Z] was murdered and robbed, and CE wants to find the guy who done it because, hey, [Z] owed him money and he's getting it, even from the killer's hide, while LG wants to bring the killer to justice. In this case, CE might want a town where he can rest and recover from going out and being a murderhobo for hire, while Paladin wishes to guide and shepherd people to a new, shining future. Both want to get the town built up and defended, though they'll take different approaches, but their goals aren't conflicting, letting them contribute their own way. See what I'm getting at?
The thing is, WHY? This is not specifically about me. It's about the whole concept. There are multiple canonical settlements that have major players of conflicting alignments in them, as I recall. Just because someone is Chaotic Evil doesn't mean they can't get along with Lawful Good folks. They can be self-serving, greedy, jerks, and still be friends of paladin's, after all (note that the code does not require the paladin to only work with Good characters, just that associates do not "consistently offend her moral code", something easy to keep done if evilness is done out of sight and quietly.) The artificial restriction based on alignment will break immersion because it makes no sense, is what I'm saying.
Why is it that the restriction on joining a settlement based on alignment fills me with dread? The one step away thing seems like a horrible, horrible idea, at least as a main rule. So, I suggest, as default, letting people start settlements where Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good people can both live, making the alignment restriction an optional thing. Sure, there may be personality conflicts, but the morals and ethics don't automatically determine friendships, or make someone bad to live near. In fact, such differences might add to the RP potential, and add to the experience. I know for a fact that a few buddies of mine are ging to be aiming for somewhere in the Lawful alignments (on either end of the moral spectrum), while I'm likely to be Chaotic. Does that mean I shouldn't be able to set up house near them, and work with them to build a town? It shouldn't.
A question that I am unsure if has been asked, so I'm asking anyway. Is there going to be a way to buy a bulk of subscription time, without leaving a card linked? Because I'm incredibly paranoid about leaving my card number on any account for much longer than it takes to complete one transaction, and would prefer to be able to buy, say, 6 months of subscription time in one go than leave it on monthly. Note I'm saying more "Subscription in advance" than "Microtransactions". Sort of like buying a larger pack of [Thing that gets used up] in advance because you know you'll use them, instead of getting a smaller pack regularlly. Like, say, razor blades. Sure, you can get the 4-pack of blades whenever you run out, but if you get the 24-pack, you have a longer time before you need to buy more. Am I coming across clearly? |
