Vath Valorren's page

Not meant to be a controversial question, however, with the release of new consoles and the increasing number of MMO's available on console systems, are there any plans to release the game on PS4 and/or Xbox One?

Had to ask, since his must have come up in planning.

This looks great! Now I just need to know how to get into early enrollment as a post-Kickstarter potential-backer :-)

A couple of comments:

Meta rule for Pathfinder Online: Everything starts simple, and becomes complex through iteration

1: Repetitive use of attack options

In the beginning, you'll have a handful of things you can do, and they're going to be repetitive and obvious, like 99% of all MMO combat.

Early iterations will enable strategy to evolve through things like facing, positioning, and reacting smartly to what your opponents are doing.

Further complexity will happen as iteration causes your actions in combat may be limited by, expanded by, or affected by, the actions of your allies and enemies.

Over time as we iterate this fractal space of options will become very complex and masters of combat will be players who have a highly developed understanding of how to react, moment to moment, to what is happening. Within a reasonably short number of iteration cycles, it will be easy for the "best players" to differentiate themselves from "average" players based on their skill at playing the game. This skill will not, in most cases, be related to their fast-twitch muscles or their hand-eye coordination.

You will still have to press buttons quickly.

When we open Early Enrollment, combat will be simple. It will not remain simple. Eventually, it will be extremely complicated and demand attention to detail and mastery to be "the best".

2: Keywords

The purpose of keywords is not to give a weapon a bunch of stacking abilities. It is to give characters a large fractal space of abilities. A sharp, flaming, undead bane, vorpal, ghost touch, brilliant energy sword could do 6 different things in the hands of 6 different characters. Or it could let one character do 6 different things, but not necessarily all 6 at once.

The more keywords a weapon has the more valuable it will be, not because of stacking, but because the universe of characters that can use it in conjunction with their character abilities is larger than the universe of characters that can use a weapon with fewer keywords....

This is encouraging. I was concerned about button-mashing becoming the norm for combat. That would be a step backward, even if PFO limited the allowable combat actions to 6 or so per weapon.

I would like to see active combat, as much as possible. Reactive skills, Positioning, dodge rolls, chained skills that lead to better effects, cooperative feats that take more than one person to achieve, etc.

It looks like this is possible, and maybe even planned.

Vath Valorren wrote:

I missed the Kick Starter, and I am looking forward to the opportunity to donate. I hope to have the opportunity to join everyone in game as an early beta tester.

I am sure I am not alone!

Early enrollment is not beta. It will be a hopefully bug free polished version of the game that will have features added as time passes.

There will be no character wipe or server wipes.

Yes, and I want in!

I missed the Kick Starter, and I am looking forward to the opportunity to donate. I hope to have the opportunity to join everyone in game as an early beta tester.

I am sure I am not alone!

Vath Valorren wrote:

Soldack Keldonson wrote:

Vath Valorren wrote:

I am glad that this is all just talk, and really has not bearing on PFO. I trust that GW will design an MMO that will be a step beyond the sand boxes of the past.

I may be wrong, but GW is designing a sandbox that exactly uses alignment system for everything in the game from flagging to settlement creation...

There is a big difference between our discussion of alignment, and the flagging system GW is working on. GW will start from behaviors and work backwards. The rpg alignment system seeks to define sets of motivations and then applies them to behavior.

Excellent point Valorren. PnP dictates that a character should be played by her alignment. In PO, the character's actions will lead to an alignment. Still, this debate has bearing on PO.

Yes, I completely agree. And I reverse my previous statement about this having no bearing on PFO. Everything we discuss is considered by GW, and this whole discussion is important to their planning.

What I suspect is that PFO will be a grand experiment in moral behavior.

Vath Valorren wrote:

I am glad that this is all just talk, and really has not bearing on PFO. I trust that GW will design an MMO that will be a step beyond the sand boxes of the past.

I may be wrong, but GW is designing a sandbox that exactly uses alignment system for everything in the game from flagging to settlement creation...

There is a big difference between our discussion of alignment, and the flagging system GW is working on. GW will start from behaviors and work backwards. The rpg alignment system seeks to define sets of motivations and then applies them to behavior.

Wildebob wrote:

Not necessarily, BigNorseWolf. Being beholden to the law of the land or of the church or whatever are only possible options. A lawful character could be sworn to a code of conduct entirely his own which dictates what he should do and still be VERY lawful. He thinks things through and decides which action is within his code.

If someone makes up a code on their own there's no reason they can't amend it as the situation warrants, resulting in either chaotic or neutral behavior.

That is also the very problem with these definitions of alignment as inflexible codes or orientations. If my god or my country tells me to do something I disagree with, I can change my behavior at any time. Just because someone follows the letter of the law, or the word of their god down to the syllable, does not make that law/word "good".

Slippery slope...

I am glad that this is all just talk, and really has not bearing on PFO. I trust that GW will design an MMO that will be a step beyond the sand boxes of the past.

Valandur wrote:

@the OP

Well, after reading all the replies, where do you stand on LG, LN etc? What I mean is, does it still seem paradoxical? How has your opinion of the alignments changed?

I understand LG a lot better from this excellent thread full of great responses and opinions.

Overall, Being helped me the most. It seems LG and NG both do good, but the code which LG uses to determine what is good is far more defined then NG. LG wants to have order while good is being done. NG just wants to have good done regardless of whether it also encourages order.

I may start a new thread on chaotic good..... :)

I hate to throw a wrench in things here, but NG has a code that is just as defined as LG. The main difference is that with NG, the Good comes from a universal code that stands over and above any law, while LG comes from a tradition, society, or a mandate from some deity. CG comes from my own personal thoughts and feelings regardless of rules or tradition.

With LG, the context is the laws of society, tradition, or a god. Wth NG, the context is a code or formula, for what we define as "good". Wth CG, the context is our own personal, self-direction.

The problem is that these distinctions fall apart when you add context in the mix.

Here is a an idea for you, Malcolm Reynolds of the Firefly series would be Lawful Good if he was a member of a society that followed his obvious and personal moral code.

The key factor for each "alignment" is what is most important as an outcome to each person, and why.

Let's take slavery, in my opinon is could not be considered "good":

Lawful good = the most important outcome is conformity and tradition that leads to benevolence. Slavery is not acceptable because tradition, by nature, must be benevolent to all. A tradition of slavery would undermine the reason for tradition, ie. benevolence.

Neutral good = the most important outcome is uniform benevolence because it is universally good. Slavery is not acceptable because it is not uniformly benevolent. Having a slave, even if it benefits "most" people via increased industry, does not respect the benevolence of the slave as a being itself.

Chaotic good = the most important outcome is universalism based on self-direction. Or, the reason for universal "goodness" is that each individual can choose it themselves. Slavery cannot be good, as each slave cannot be self-directed (obviously). Funny thing is, Elves in the PF universe can have slaves (not sure, is that right?). Chaotic good is not "lawless", it's just that laws are less important than choosing goodness on your own.

I disagree that chaos vs law is principled vs unprincipled, it is probably more like what is most important, self direction vs community or tradition. In the end, it doesn't matter much, because I will flag myself a Champion and attack you if you enter my forest unwelcomed.

Frankly, it's a big mess.

Sorry to quote myself, but I do not want to type this again:

One thing I am not convinced of - the Gary Gygax idea of alignment making it into the game, realistically. I disagree that anyone is divided into those boxes, or dimensions, as they are "defined" by the rpg world. This website "Real" Alignments?

has a clever interpretation (based on research) that could work. It's worth a look. If you declare yourself to be Lawful Good (Conformity and Benevolence), and then immerse yourself in the context of the game, you may find your motivations and values reflect more of a Lawful Evil (Power and Security) point of view.

Basically, it depends...

Vath Valorren wrote:

If one race is slower on foot than another, there will be some problems. PvP balancing is very difficult, and making one race faster than another is difficult to overcome even with a stamina bar. Hit box sizes are also a problem, and many games just avoid that issue completely.

"Burst" is usually king in PvP, whether it is damage, or speed, or control. PvP balancing is a nightmare, I am sure. However, I am confident that GW can balance racial differences against PvP advantages.

What your seeing as a problem I see as a benefit. Due to their shorter stature, races like Gnomes and Dwarves may not be as fast as other races, but their shorter size makes them harder to hit hence the benefit to their size. :)

I see what your saying, and it is realistic. However, MMO rules will not be as realistic. I do not think they plan to have an aiming reticle, and hit boxes will not matter so much for tab targetting. Combat will not work like PnP, and I doubt GW could clearly balance hit boxes vs. foot speed.

If one race is slower on foot than another, there will be some problems. PvP balancing is very difficult, and making one race faster than another is difficult to overcome even with a stamina bar. Hit box sizes are also a problem, and many games just avoid that issue completely.

"Burst" is usually king in PvP, whether it is damage, or speed, or control. PvP balancing is a nightmare, I am sure. However, I am confident that GW can balance racial differences against PvP advantages.

Being wrote:

I'm unsure of Mr. Gygax's advice regarding sage, but his use of basil was unparallelled.

Perhaps only Thyme will tell?

I like where this is going!

More on topic, vorpal swords a. la. Instant death, is unlikely in an MMO

Actually, the very bottom-line-main-point of an MMO will keep Gary Gygax' fears from coming true. Having so many people, so many customers, will prevent the "i-win" button.

I would not think any of these problems will appear in PFO, as game mechanics will keep things on an even keel.

I am more concerned the world being dominated over time by a massive zerg of non-roleplaying l337 kiddies that cannot be challenged by a smaller group of game world-authentic players (this happened in Shadowbane...)

I will not attempt to reinvent an MMO combat system, but I can say what I like:

Skill chains (FFXI, DAOC)
Reactive skills (DAOC)
Positioning skills (DAOC)
Active dodge (GW 2)
Aiming (Darkfall)
Fewer hot bars (GW 2)
Group special attacks (FFXI, GW 2)

What I dislike:
Tab targeting (although I understand its uses)
20+ combat abilities (that are all usable at once)
Spamming attacks

I have not played them, but Tera online, Neverwinter online, and Elder Scrolls online look like they have great systems.

I like the idea of doing nothing moves you towards 0. Makes it easier for traders to stay neutral so they can get the trading bonus for flagging themselves.

In the case of Evil vs Good moving towards 0, this should be a long process, I'm thinking months for someone at either extreme.

I agree with this also. So it seems everyone starts at zero?

Question: will Chaotic good settlements truly exist? I do not see how an Elven city, for example, could be truly effective unless it were headed for Lawful good. How can you have Chaotic settlements at all?

This is excellent work! I am opposed to alignments, but this is something more.

I went back and read my OP, based on many of the thoughtful posts here, just to ensure that I still have the same idea.

What I feel I was advocating was that our actions (ie. Reputation) should be a better judge of our adherence to being a Paladin or an Assassin, than a preset class / alignment structure.

No matter how much many want to wish for it, PFO will not have classes. I add to this my belief that being a Paladin or an Assassin is more about actions than they are about traditional skills or alignment.

Just taking what we know already, every attack we make will move us closer towards chaos. So just how is a traditional Paladin supposed to remain Lawful Good?

Then we have the EvE style skill system, where eventually every player could have every skill, over years of playing. So at some point, couldn't we all claim to have been a Paladin, or we would at very least had all of the same skills.

Perhaps I am just over thinking this, or I'm being too cynical in thinking that players could never maintain Lawful Good or Lawful Evil without some game mechanic artificially creating it.

I agree.

Alignment may work for a table-top rpg controlled by a DM, but it will not work for an MMO. What is most important for an MMO will be rules set by the Devs, and player reputation. If the Devs can make rules for every possible alignment, then you might see some approximation of player alignment. This is beyond the scope of PFO in my opinion, as player alignment will shift faster than they can make rules for it.

Did I make the goat rope longer?

Sorry, let me clarify - you can learn every skill/feat there is to learn, even if it takes 19 years, but you can only slot a maximum number. If you slot a majority of feats from one role/class, you then receive the focus/capstone.

Is that right?

Tell me if I have this correct: players will have a maximum of 20 levels worth of skills to slot. This can be 10 levels of this, 5 levels of that, and 5 levels of that other class. When you reach 20 "levels" of one "class" or "role", and you slot a majority of those skills or feats, you receive the focus bonus or capstone. Is that correct?

Sorry, just cannot read all of this... So I might repeat something.

Character skills

Already another thread for this, but I would like a skill system that permits multiclassing that requires thought but does not lead to "cookie cutter" templates. GW has some great direction here already. Train lots of skills, but slot only a limited number of feats. Be rewarded for role specialization, but have the flexibility to multiclass without severe penalties.

Weapons or magic items that level wih you

Similar to LOTRO legendary weapons, or a "bound" weapon.

Racial architecture

Customize your settlement!

Action based combat

Reactionary moves, dodge rolling, aiming(?), skill chains, positioning, etc. - without having 36 buttons to push

Vath Valorren wrote:

No way I could read all of these posts, what a thread!

I did read all of Ryan's posts, and I am impressed with his explanations. Not worried at all about PvP in PFO. It looks ike they have a vision that will steadily develop into a great plan.

One thing I am not convinced of - the Gary Gygax idea of alignment making it into the game, realistically. I disagree that anyone is divided into those boxes, or dimensions, as they are "defined" by the rpg world. This website "Real" Alignments?
has a clever interpretation (based on research) that could work. It's worth a look. If you declare yourself to be Lawful Good (Conformity and Benevolence), and then immerse yourself in the context of the game, you may find your motivations and values reflect more of a Lawful Evil (Power and Security) point of view.

It can work in the real world.

One example is that real world research has shown successful business people and politicians often have all the clinical signs of a psychopath, they just for reasons of their own conform to social norms.

Assuming we deem:

psychopath = evil

We hence would find psychopathic serial killers are Chaotic Evil and successful politicians are Lawful Evil. I have no issues with this, it fits my worldview well.

Yes, what you point out is correct, the alignments show themseles in the real world - Just not in the rpg defined way. I take issue with good vs evil and law vs chaos as the dimensions. I would not say that a successful politician is "evil" or even "lawful", it's just that they might be very concerned with power and security (their own or even others'). There are probably more than 2 dimensions happening.

Anyway, trying to force "law vs chaos" and "good vs evil" on the world might back fire, or it could correct itself. Adding "reputation" might bring things in line, who knows.

No way I could read all of these posts, what a thread!

I did read all of Ryan's posts, and I am impressed with his explanations. Not worried at all about PvP in PFO. It looks ike they have a vision that will steadily develop into a great plan.

One thing I am not convinced of - the Gary Gygax idea of alignment making it into the game, realistically. I disagree that anyone is divided into those boxes, or dimensions, as they are "defined" by the rpg world. This website "Real" Alignments?
has a clever interpretation (based on research) that could work. It's worth a look. If you declare yourself to be Lawful Good (Conformity and Benevolence), and then immerse yourself in the context of the game, you may find your motivations and values reflect more of a Lawful Evil (Power and Security) point of view.

PFO will be a grand experiment in moral behavior.

My outlook is still very positive, so no doom and gloom from me. It looks like the rpg alignment system is getting in the way of meaningful and fair pvp. PvP balancing should be based on reputation and local law, among other things. The world should be more than "might makes right" or Lord of the Flies reasoning.

Role-playing evil should be viable in the game world, but it should be similar to what "evil" is in the real world. In the real world, folks we call "evil" do not follow the law unless it serves their own purposes. Following the law, by itself, does not make someone "good".

For pvp balance, I do not care if someone is good or evil, only that laws exist to keep the playing field level.

More rambling, but with examples:
The bounty system is a great idea, but just because someone kills me and I place a bounty on their head, does not mean the act of satisfying the bounty is a "good" action. Anyone can place a bounty on someone else.

If my settlement has borders that are closed, then anyone entering is trespassing. I should be able to stop them and kill them if neccesary. Frontier law does not always look "good" but it should serve a purpose.

LordDaeron wrote:

That should no happen as the motivation of the char is just money. They should create a way to prevente alignment shift in cases like that. Shifting into good alignments should be optional not mandatory IMO.

Sorry, you're looking at it backwards.

In PFRPG, you pick a class and that determines what you can train in.
In PFO, what you choose to train determines your class.

In PFRPG, you pick an alignment and that tells you how to act.
In PFO, the way you act determines your alignment.

In the real world, morality and ethics are hard questions and people have varying opinions on how to promote happiness and limit suffering. We're getting better at it, as slow as the process may be.
However, in Golarion, good, evil, law, & chaos are objective energy states. A GM makes a call based on their own view of the system, but in PFO, that call is whatever the dev team codes.

There's no Euthyphro's Dilemma here: Does god command something because it is good, or is the act good because god commands it?
The code places us firmly on the second horn of that dilemma, also known as Divine Command Theory, only in our case it is the code that says what is good or evil.
I doubt they'll make punting bunnies a good act, but if they do, that's just life in Golarion.
Yes, it is ultimately arbitrary, but that's what happens when you surrender your own sense of empathy and ethical reasoning to some outside fiat.
Unfortunately, a computer game can only aim for consistency.

Thank you, this partially clarifies my dilemma. It still seems like a problem to me, but if the devs have a clear idea what the divine rule needs to be, then so be it.

What about a community whose borders are shut? Can you patrol the borders and kill trespassers without lowering your rep?

I am also interested to see how you can raise your rep, lawfulness, and goodness "scores".

I am still not sold on the idea that lawful v. chaos, good v. evil are realistic axes that reflect practical life, even in game. There is too much philosophy that says otherwise. Practically speaking, good vs. evil is decided from the perspective of the community that sets the laws. Chaotic vs. lawful is a completely separate dichotomy that is meaningless without a context. Reputation I can stand behind.

Tell me if I am wrong - the bottom line is that the developers are attempting to prevent meaningless PvP. So it seems like a leap to say that so-called "lawful good" communities are best, and receive the greatest "shinies". The Elves are chaotic good and have been around a very long time, and I have to assume they have "all the upgrades". Would they have some better buildings if they were lawful good?

Overall, I believe it will pan out to a helluva good time.

Great ideas in this thread, and I know that GW is most likely considering this idea from all sides.

I can't add too much, but what about item decay, item repair, and the possibility of deconstructing items?

All three of these things can help "use up" raw materials in a way that will balance "magical" creation and "magical" destruction.

Item decay can be a function of time, combat, specifically using an item, or something similar. Item repair could require the use of raw materials. Also, deconstructing items could lead to a pile of raw materials that is smaller than what was required to create the item.

Also, a quick note, I would like to see crafters be relevant through all phases of a character's life, not just "end game". Not that there is an end game!

Aso, every player character should have a need for all types of crafters. I liked how DAOC had leather crafting as a requirement for heavy armor, as an example.

Fiendish wrote:

If it's such a pain in the ass that you'll be constantly ganked, as you are unsafe anywhere even at home, then why bother?

First, why wouldn't you be safe at home? Surely you're not living in a Settlement with other players who are going to kill you for doing whatever it is you're doing. If so, then you should consider finding a new home.... perhaps Shadow-Haven.

Second, that fear of being constantly ganked is the exact fear that generally Good-aligned Merchants and Crafters are already living with.

Finally, Evil has always had the advantage of being free to kill the Good guy and take all his stuff without worrying about their conscience. Good needs the Flags in order to justify their actions.

Really, all these Flags do is level the playing field so that Evil isn't the only threat.

I agree. "Evil" players should be flagged, and like it. Much like the Dread Lords of UO worked hard to become "Dreaded". Good aligned characters (or Neutral for that matter) should not be inclined to randomly attack other players or break the law, and should be protected in that endeavor by the Gods or the overall rules of PFO.

Ehh, all these flags sound overly punative to evil players. I saw nothing particulary bad for good players.

Evil is already at an advantage in that they're more than happy to kill a Good guy and just take his stuff. Good doesn't do that. They need the Flag in order to justify their action.

With open world PvP, the flags level the playing field for the so-called "good" players. Evil players will have the advantage of striking first, as they are unconcerned with flags. When "evil" players are flagged, "good" players have the option of striking first (and will!) without needing to worry about acting out of character or facing "criminal" status.

There should always be a PvP solution...

As long as there are plans to keep the sprawl to a minimum, I am for it. I would hate for PFO to turn into the madness that was UO player housing.

I agree! As much as I would love to have a lone tower out in the wilds, I think everyone else would like the same.

Please let us suspend philosophizing for a moment, and remember this is an MMO that will function based on rules.

As a Player, choosing alignment is meaningless unless there are rules involved, and consequences for breaking rules/following rules. The rules will be in place before your character is created, and it looks like we can see the rules beginning with pvp flags, "heinous" flags, and such, prohibiting certain activities.

I assume there will be NPC settlements in game, probably racial settlements, and potentially known landmarks and cities that exist in the River Kingdoms. Eventually, we will also have Player settlements. Both of these types will have rules programmed into them (hex by hex?), that are based on the culture and laws of the folks who live there. Also, players will probably have some starting location (based on race, and preferred alignment?).

A player can claim all day long to be Lawful Good or Lawful Evil, but they will start off as the alignment of their starting area. If you can start off in a Lawful Evil settlement, then that settlement should have rules to reflect that. By that same token, I would not expect to see a Necromancer guild in a "good" aligned NPC settlement. (I have to say that by definition, most good cities would frown on raising the dead)

Idea #1: I propose that alignment is tied to location, and each player's ability/tendency to conform to the rules for that location.

Idea #2: We should have NPC settlements of all alignments (what would an Evil settlement look like?)

Idea #3: Players can set the rules for their own settlements (based on set guidelines from the NPC settlements, and the ability to pick and choose "rules")

Just ideas, would love to see some feedback.

The first problem with the rpg take on alignment is this, in my opinion: does it reflect practical life? I thoroughly disagree that you can fit a person's actions, motives, and goals into law v. chaos, good v. evil; completely free of context.

At the moment, alignment is a roleplay feature and nothing more. PvP flags are consequences for discouraged behavior. The "heinous" flag is a problem, that seems clear to me, but it makes sense if it is a local "rule" based on cultural practice. However, on that level, right or wrong still remains a culturally or even "hex" defined point of view.

Alignment should be tabled until GW has an idea how best to police the sand box in general, imho.

Papaver wrote:

While looking up how GW wants to handle instancing i came across two things.

First

Quote:

What we'd like to do with Pathfinder Online is combine an open world approach to design with this kind of theme park content. As you explore, you may discover a dungeon entrance. So long as you don't go inside, that entrance can be found by other explorers. Once a character enters the dungeon, though, that entrance becomes "locked" to that explorer; other characters won't be able to find that entrance. A character with access to an entrance can form a party and the party can enter the dungeon as a group.

Which IMO a strange but interesting way to make dungeons work.

Second

Quote:

We have a vision of one more kind of PvE content; for historical reasons, we'll call it a "module." This is a scripted, fully designed adventure suitable for some number of characters of some specified power level. Some of these modules will likely be available to everyone for free. Others may be obtained via the use of in-game microtransaction currency. Modules you unlock would likely be instanced content available to just those characters you wish to adventure with, meaning each group that unlocks a given module will experience it as though it exists exclsuvely for them.

While it mentions groups If i recall correctly it is not uncommon for pen and paper modules to have suggested scaling to player numbers. And there being a number of solo modules available.

So that may be an indicator for a kind of viable solo content being present.

I totally missed some of this thanks for posting.

I love the idea of explorers finding and locking down instances. This gives me a reason to be out in the woods taking risks. I can either get a party together or hopefully sell the information and keep searching for more entrances. It would be a way for a full stealth woodsman...

This. Instancing can easily be used to bring the theme park elements and PVE "safe" zone into the massive sand box that is PFO. And based on Ryan's posts, my assessment is that Eve is a better model for the mechanics of PFO, while Pathfinder the RPG is the content.

Casting detect evil in an evil hex should give a good character a heinous flag. In a neutral hex there should be no heinous flagging.

I like this. Are there plans to have hexes with alignments, and how will that work? I can see how both NPC and Player settlements can be aligned. Does that mean a hex is evil because of the rules/laws of the ruling settlement, or is it just declared evil-ground?

By this token, you should not be able to summon "good" aligned beings without receiving a flag, in an "evil" hex.

The alignment issue is complicated...

This is excellent! I am very new here, and found PFO just after the Kickstarter ended. Grats on that by the way, after what I have seen here that is very good news to me!

From the blog post, I really love this part: "In Pathfinder Online, Player vs. Player combat is meant to be the major source of conflict: Defending your resources from enemy players will be a bigger challenge than defending them against AI creatures."

I am a huge fan of meaningful PvP, as I started with UO (pre-Trammel), and went to Daoc and even Shadowbane. Seriously, some of the highest highs and lowest lows in any MMO for me has been the exhilaration of PvP combat. Shadowbane was a tremendous sand-box (in theory, if not in technology) that I was sad to leave behind. And Daoc had incredible atmosphere - everything is better when death hangs over your head...

My question is this: will Player characters be able to assist in the security and well being of certain NPC settlements. For example, will an elf PC be able to patrol the borders of Kyonin (or some similar settlement that will be in the game at some point) without being flagged? How do NPC settlements interact with Players; will there be some kind of faction gain or citizenship preference?

From a roleplay perspective, it would be great if a player who claimed to be born in a certain area or who had a certain heritage could act on that. Hopefully this made sense!