Goblin Squad Member
|
There's a lot of PvE in PFO. It's just not necessarily the quest-grind type. Harvesting resources generates PvE content. Searching for dungeons generates PvE content. It won't be static, though. Your example of camping the boss mob won't work since the dungeons are supposed to be more dynamic in location and content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok lets move them in front of the entrance,
More time in makes you better or no reason to put time in, so Higher Level is more time in now, does not change the fact.
Yes they say we will be closer in Hit Points, but if like Eve, there are skills that increase Damage, and the ability to take Damage, then they will be stronger.
But back to the question, if stopping others from being able to continue over and over again, is it allowed.
What about body camping, they kill you, you go get your husk, take a step they kill you again, what is Griefing?
Twice
5 Times
10?I have read all the steps to try and curve it, but first we need to know what PFO considers Greifing?
And also understand that many just get enjoyment at ruining other folks games.
Lee
IMO doing it 2 or 3 times on the same spot would turn out to be griefing (unless he got attacked at said spot by monsters and was still lingering there).
however, if this would happen to me 2 or 3 times I would either call in my guildies and then extract revenge and make sure said person will not return to that location and realize it is a bad idea to do something like that. And if I have the money put out a bounty on his head to make him regret it even more.
It will also be up to the players in a way to police the griefing and how to handle it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok lets move them in front of the entrance,
More time in makes you better or no reason to put time in, so Higher Level is more time in now, does not change the fact.
Yes they say we will be closer in Hit Points, but if like Eve, there are skills that increase Damage, and the ability to take Damage, then they will be stronger.
But back to the question, if stopping others from being able to continue over and over again, is it allowed.
What about body camping, they kill you, you go get your husk, take a step they kill you again, what is Griefing?
Twice
5 Times
10?I have read all the steps to try and curve it, but first we need to know what PFO considers Greifing?
And also understand that many just get enjoyment at ruining other folks games.
Lee
Okay! So this going back to your husk? You're not a ghost. It's not like you have to tag your body before you can defend yourself. It's not like you can't take a group of friends with you. Body camping is 100% griefing.
Some group finds a dungeon entrance and is preventing entrance? Find a different one. Bring a group to counter them. Also, here's what I'm talking about with dynamic dungeons (someone correct me if this is outdated): Adventure in the River Kingdoms
Ruins, lairs and caverns: These are the classic set-piece adventuring experiences of many tabletop games. Call them "dungeons" for the sake of discussion. You will find these areas using abilities; once located they'll spawn on the map and be findable by anyone who travels to the correct location. If they are cleared, or if no character interacts with them for a fixed amount of time, they'll be removed from the game world automatically.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have read all the steps to try and curve it, but first we need to know what PFO considers Greifing?
The general statement from the dev's is that there will be no griefing in PFO
Mind you there is no griefing in Eve Online either, because the dev's have decided that nothing is in fact griefing.
It is unfortunate but the more I read from the devs the more I believe that will be the case in PFO because despite all of these posts from people asking if they can do this and do that to cause grief to other players, often times with no penalty to themselves, the answer has always been "yup thats ok by us"
I've yet to see one single post saying "no, thats griefing"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have read all the steps to try and curve it, but first we need to know what PFO considers Greifing?The general statement from the dev's is that there will be no griefing in PFO
Mind you there is no griefing in Eve Online either, because the dev's have decided that nothing is in fact griefing.
It is unfortunate but the more I read from the devs the more I believe that will be the case in PFO because despite all of these posts from people asking if they can do this and do that to cause grief to other players, often times with no penalty to themselves, the answer has always been "yup thats ok by us"
I've yet to see one single post saying "no, thats griefing"
I have seen Ryan say something about taking action against accounts where necessary, but I suppose we don't know what's considered griefing until there are mechanics and players to exploit them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We mention meaningful human interaction. The key is meaningful. Somebody ganking newbies without any consequences isn't meaningful. Somebody getting killed while they transport rare ore for the sword they are building, who then gathers some allies and goes after the attacker after putting a bounty on their head IS meaningful interaction. Both result in the death of a character. The first is something we don't want since it isn't meaningful, the second is something we totally want, because it IS meaningful.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p8bg?Kickstarter-Community-Thread-Player-vs-Pl ayer
There will be griefing in PFO. Then they'll get banned. Ryan and crew have said that *repeatedly*.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The general statement from the dev's is that there will be no griefing in PFOMind you there is no griefing in Eve Online either, because the dev's have decided that nothing is in fact griefing.
It is unfortunate but the more I read from the devs the more I believe that will be the case in PFO because despite all of these posts from people asking if they can do this and do that to cause grief to other players, often times with no penalty to themselves, the answer has always been "yup thats ok by us"
I've yet to see one single post saying "no, thats griefing"
As you know, that's completely false. What you meant to say was "The dev's have articulated negative consequences for griefing," so that the game design punishes anti-social behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok lets move them in front of the entrance,
More time in makes you better or no reason to put time in, so Higher Level is more time in now, does not change the fact.
Yes they say we will be closer in Hit Points, but if like Eve, there are skills that increase Damage, and the ability to take Damage, then they will be stronger.
But back to the question, if stopping others from being able to continue over and over again, is it allowed.
What about body camping, they kill you, you go get your husk, take a step they kill you again, what is Griefing?
Twice
5 Times
10?I have read all the steps to try and curve it, but first we need to know what PFO considers Greifing?
And also understand that many just get enjoyment at ruining other folks games.
Lee
The anti-griefing is really only going to be against people attacking others for no profit. If there is a profit to be made, it isn't griefing.
If someone is camping your corpse, that is not griefing, they are simply exploiting your stupidity if you keep returning. If someone kills you, there is no reason to try and return to your corpse. You only return if you die in PvE, or you have friends there guarding it.
There is a lot that many would consiter 'griefing' but it's really them not wanting to think critically. You have to constantly be aware of risk, and incorporate it into your planning.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Ok lets move them in front of the entrance,
More time in makes you better or no reason to put time in, so Higher Level is more time in now, does not change the fact.
Yes they say we will be closer in Hit Points, but if like Eve, there are skills that increase Damage, and the ability to take Damage, then they will be stronger.
But back to the question, if stopping others from being able to continue over and over again, is it allowed.
What about body camping, they kill you, you go get your husk, take a step they kill you again, what is Griefing?
Twice
5 Times
10?I have read all the steps to try and curve it, but first we need to know what PFO considers Greifing?
And also understand that many just get enjoyment at ruining other folks games.
Lee
The specific example you gave, where they didn't loot your husk and remove all incentive for you to return, and they do not gain any kind of advantage from repeatedly beating you, is griefing. Period. It quite possibly would not result in them not being customers after the first such offense; especially since you wouldn't lose anything by not being able to get to your husk (as compared to them looting it and leaving). If they have a valid goal which is furthered by the acts that they are taking, and you have a reason to keep trying the same thing, then it's probably a gameplay error that should be patched in the code layer or strategy layer rather than the metagame layer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The term "Carebear" is quite derogatory, and is intended to imply a generally childish attitude.
/sigh,
carebear means some someone who gets their kicks out of helping people (opposite of griefer), and generally behaves friendly, helpful and nonviolent.The very fact that the term can be interpreted as derogatory confuses and saddens me. What word should we use? (anti-griefer is something completely different, 'noob lover' just sounds very wrong).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The term "Carebear" is quite derogatory, and is intended to imply a generally childish attitude.
/sigh,
carebear means some someone who gets their kicks out of helping people (opposite of griefer), and generally behaves friendly, helpful and nonviolent.
The very fact that the term can be interpreted as derogatory confuses and saddens me. What word should we use? (anti-griefer is something completely different, 'noob lover' just sounds very wrong).
I find carebear fairly derogatory too, it always comes across as "whiny grinder who cries when someone interacts with their pixels"
|
The term "Carebear" is quite derogatory, and is intended to imply a generally childish attitude.
/sigh,
carebear means some someone who gets their kicks out of helping people (opposite of griefer), and generally behaves friendly, helpful and nonviolent.
The very fact that the term can be interpreted as derogatory confuses and saddens me. What word should we use?
Well-adjusted individual.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Somebody else posted the old EQ term, 'Bluebie' earlier. I think that could work, so long as people pick up on the meaning.
For the record, although 'carebear' has been used derogatorily, I don't feel the term itself is derogatory. Kind of like somebody responding to somebody that happens to be a professor, "Well, the professor over here thinks we should do it his way, and he's obviously the smartest so we shouldn't worry our stupid heads about it."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem I have with the anti-PvP arguments is that everyone keeps sharing their experiences with PvP in AoC, or LOTRO, or WOW, or EVE, or MMORPG whatever. Comparisons to any of these games in existance are grossly inaccurate and irrelevant, PFO PvP will share very little in common with any of them. So please base your opinions on the other parts of the game. If you want PvP to be a backdrop and something you rarely if ever experience, it can be! Just not through the unrealistic rules that exist in other games that magically prevent players from causing harm to each other (which in my opinion just opens doors for other forms of griefing with no form of retaliation).
Judge the game on it's other merits and don't let PvP be the deciding factor on whether you back the game or not. I really think you're doing yourself a disservice if you primarily base your opinion of the game on PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tyveil: just being the Devil's advocate , but other experiences in other games Re: PvP is all any of us with concerns have to base our opinions on. Other games have promised meaningful PvP in a role-playing fashion and failed miserably. My fear is PFO will fail as well, taking $2-300 along with it
Now, as I have posted elsewhere, I am willing to take that leap of faith, because of who is making the game. That doesn't allay my fears, or make them any less unreasonable. It's easy to say PFO will be different. I certainly hope it is. But, the legacy of promises made and broken will influence a large section of gamers. It may not be fair to PFO, but it is what it is.
Lately I have begun to try to spread news of PFO among my PvE brethren. I can tell you now I am not having all that much luck. PvP as a game style and culture have won few friends. I attempt to show the commitment the development team has to making PvP a more 'friendly' interaction, and I harp on the success of Paizo in achieving groundbreaking gaming, but it is a hard sell. I suggest patience and understanding with those who have had bad experiences. It is hard for some to believe. Many hear 'PvP' and tune right out. Those here are willing to listen for the most part. Heck, I went from 'no way in Hell' to 'OK, I'll give it a try'. It can be done.
sandbox is defined by the amount of freedom you give to the players.
the more freedom the more content they can create with their imagination
there is a huge difference between dieing in pvp and griefing.lets talk in game terms.
there is a swamp where a "valuable" flower grows .
you want to be an alchemist.I want to be a bandit.
on your way back from the swamp i kill you and you lose all of the flowers you gathered. you can-cry at the forums and rage quit then go back to wow
-call some friends from the alchemist guild and ask for protection/form a caravan and go to the swamp prepared
-pay a bounty on my head so that some paladin/hero guy kills me for you and i no longer raid the road to the swamp
- contact me and ask for protection so that you send me 5 flowers a month and i never attack you again while you are doing business at the swamp
-join our gang and become the alchemist of the bandits ,where you help us kill other alchemists by making potions and poisons for us.you pretty much have a monopoly of the flower and we all become filthy rich
See this, right here?
This is why, at present, I have ZERO INTEREST in supporting or playing this game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is why, at present, I have ZERO INTEREST in supporting or playing this game.
I would hope you would judge the game on its own merits rather than judging it based on one forum post. Maybe that poster was having a bad day. Maybe this was the post that made them realize what they were doing was wrong. Maybe they're perfectly happy being rude. You can't know, but you can resolve to judge the game, and the community here, fairly.
I hope you reconsider.
No, it's more a matter of my concern that as time passes and the game's subscriber base grows, you are going to have more people like that guy (on a bad day, if you want to be charitable) than you are people who want to build an interesting, engaging player-driven world.
Basically, it's my belief based on limited observations of player behavior in other MMOs that you will have more "bandits" than "alchemists" if you create an environment in which the bandit is encouraged to do whatever he wants just to spur interaction. If you let an animal defecate in your house to start with, it becomes very hard to break that animal of the habit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, because we both know that neither of us has a crystal ball.
I just want to assure you that Goblinworks has taken a stance on PvP and Griefing that is really unique among game makers. The simple fact that they have planted their flag on the idea of actively and ruthlessly combating griefing is a major innovation. In addition, they've shared very specific plans and very detailed analysis with us that can easily give a thoughtful person reason to be hopeful that PFO really will break the mold of exploitative PvP/Ganking that's been prevalent in other games.
Besides, you just mind find a gem or two in the midst of all those those lumps of coal :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think we should try and argue people out of their values and goals. If someone thinks this:
there is a swamp where a "valuable" flower grows .
you want to be an alchemist.I want to be a bandit.
on your way back from the swamp i kill you and you lose all of the flowers you gathered. you can-call some friends from the alchemist guild and ask for protection/form a caravan and go to the swamp prepared
-pay a bounty on my head so that some paladin/hero guy kills me for you and i no longer raid the road to the swamp
- contact me and ask for protection so that you send me 5 flowers a month and i never attack you again while you are doing business at the swamp
-join our gang and become the alchemist of the bandits ,where you help us kill other alchemists by making potions and poisons for us.you pretty much have a monopoly of the flower and we all become filthy rich
sounds like no fun, then likely they won't like this game. Think about the above (we'll skip the "cry and go back to wow" comment as mere spite). The awesomeness of being able to solve a social problem like the above in multiple ways is just, well, friggin' awesome. And if you don't see how exciting that is, then how would you possibly take pleasure in in PFO?
Granted, PWU may not understand that this is only one of a range of possible social problems. My guess would be that they haven't thought through "negotiating a vending chain," "diplomatic solution to war," "managing the alignment of a settlement," etc. But they are quite correct that one of the possible (perhaps likely) social problems they would have to solve is "armed robbery."
There are on-rail games where you don't have a lot of choice, and the pay-off in those games is very different than the pay-off in sandbox, choice-centered games. If that pay-off sucks is of no or trivial value to you, why the heck would you support that kind of game?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think we should try and argue people out of their values and goals. If someone thinks this:
there is a swamp where a "valuable" flower grows .
you want to be an alchemist.I want to be a bandit.
on your way back from the swamp i kill you and you lose all of the flowers you gathered. you can-call some friends from the alchemist guild and ask for protection/form a caravan and go to the swamp prepared
-pay a bounty on my head so that some paladin/hero guy kills me for you and i no longer raid the road to the swamp
- contact me and ask for protection so that you send me 5 flowers a month and i never attack you again while you are doing business at the swamp
-join our gang and become the alchemist of the bandits ,where you help us kill other alchemists by making potions and poisons for us.you pretty much have a monopoly of the flower and we all become filthy richsounds like no fun, then likely they won't like this game. Think about the above (we'll skip the "cry and go back to wow" comment as mere spite). The awesomeness of being able to solve a social problem like the above in multiple ways is just, well, friggin' awesome. And if you don't see how exciting that is, then how would you possibly take pleasure in in PFO?
Granted, PWU may not understand that this is only one of a range of possible social problems. My guess would be that they haven't thought through "negotiating a vending chain," "diplomatic solution to war," "managing the alignment of a settlement," etc. But they are quite correct that one of the possible (perhaps likely) social problems they would have to solve is "armed robbery."
There are on-rail games where you don't have a lot of choice, and the pay-off in those games is very different than the pay-off in sandbox, choice-centered games. If that pay-off sucks is of no or trivial value to you, why the heck would you support that kind of game?
This is pretty much how I feel about what PvP brings to the table.
So here's a question. Let's assume there is a group of 100 people who share a goal and want to roleplay a group based on the Warhammer 40k concept of an Eldar craftworld, reflavored for Golarion purposes.
They build a settlement, and 90 people in the group are dedicated to crafting, exploring, dungeon running, guarding, etc. They are all scrupulously Lawful Good. These take on the roles of 'Guardians' in my 40K analogy.
9 of the players take on the role of 'Exarch' and are totally focused on PvP/War, but only in 'legal' ways. They also try to stay as totally focused on 'Lawful Good' as possible, but are willing to slide out and do things neither lawful nor good on occasion. They make a point to be the best they can be in PvP and work together to be anti-griefers to keep reputation up. They are the war leaders when the entire guild gets into conflict.
1 player takes on the role of the Avatar of Khaine. The other 99 support this character, giving him as much training, gear, and loot as he requires. He goes out and does whatever the hell he wants, to whoever the hell he wants. He becomes the 'Old veteran' from Ryan's discussion on player types, but allows himself to go CE. He kills newbies, breaks contracts, assaults neutral types, etc.
The other 99 are fully aware of his character and support it by allowing him to live in their settlement and use their resources.
What happens to the other 99 and the settlement itself? Will 90 Lawful Good players and 9 mostly Lawful Good players who associate with this one monster mean that they inexorably collapse out of Lawful Good? Will that one player drag them down to Lawful Neutral? Lawful Evil? neutral Good? True Neutral? Can one player out of 100 take them all the way down to Chaotic Evil?
If 100 people want to set up this structure where 99 support one ravenous, brutal, griefing avatar of murder and death, will the one be banned? Warned? Will one's CE actions mean that you can't take advantage of LG goods and services?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What happens to the other 99 and the settlement itself?
My understanding is that every interaction those 99 have with the 1 will bring their reputation and alignment down, so that eventually you have 100 Chaotic Evil people in a very sucky Chaotic Evil Settlement.
Can one player out of 100 take them all the way down to Chaotic Evil?
As I read it, it's not 1 out of 100, it's the 99 interacting with CE over and over and over again.
Will one's CE actions mean that you can't take advantage of LG goods and services?
I believe that's their intent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Avatar is totally OP, but at least Eldrad isn't in there to totally ruin my day. We all know the Eldar fell to Chaos long ago.
*ahem* Anyhow, I hope Goblinworks allows a "bad apple spoils the bunch" system. I get the feeling that the one CE character will lower the rep and alignment of the whole town. They'd have to kick him out, rehabilitate him, or suffer the consequences of his actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will one's CE actions mean that you can't take advantage of LG goods and services?
Based on the GW info currently released there are two areas that offer a response.
1. Since the effect on the settlement will be obvious to those in the settlement and will not occur immediately, everyone who stands to be affected by this player will know what is going to happen.
2. The settlement can always remove this person from the settlement population. Given #1 there should be plenty of notice and information to support this decision.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Basically, it's my belief based on limited observations of player behavior in other MMOs that you will have more "bandits" than "alchemists" if you create an environment in which the bandit is encouraged to do whatever he wants just to spur interaction.
This is not encouraged in PFO.
I don't approve of griefing, but I love Random Player Killing in PvP games. Because of the heavy consequences of not only griefing but even simply randomly killing somebody, I may opt out of PvP in PFO and simply be a crafter (no PvP) or maybe just minimize my PvP interaction as a crafter/merchant (hiring caravan guards).
The only time I see the situation described happening is in the very beginning (when all the griefers come in, thinking this is a new playground in which to stomp on some sandcastles) and when the settlement the alchemist is a part of is at war with the settlement the bandit is a part of. In the second case, you can significantly minimize your risk by sticking to well-patrolled areas or joining a settlement dedicated to peace. Or, you could pay others to bring you the flowers you need to make your portions.
I am far more annoyed when somebody else is picking all the flowers, even the flowers I am standing on as I kill the crocodile near it, and I have no way of stopping him. That is griefing without recourse. At least in insorrow's example, when you get griefed the bandit not only gets punished, but you can punish him further with unlimited bounties (even just 1 coin!) or any of the other suggestions he made.
No, it's more a matter of my concern that as time passes and the game's subscriber base grows, you are going to have more people like that guy (on a bad day, if you want to be charitable) than you are people who want to build an interesting, engaging player-driven world.
Basically, it's my belief based on limited observations of player behavior in other MMOs that you will have more "bandits" than "alchemists" if you create an environment in which the bandit is encouraged to do whatever he wants just to spur interaction. If you let an animal defecate in your house to start with, it becomes very hard to break that animal of the habit.
For what it's worth, I'm one of the most rabidly non-PvP people here (I hate the use of "anti" anything, as it tends to preemptively set up a win/lose perception). I just upped my investment in the Kickstarter.
It's my understanding, from reading the volumes of information on these forums over the past week(ish), that input from players like us has already had an impact; PFO as envisioned now has fencing around PvP, and mechanisms to discourage griefing, thanks to that feedback. The developers really do seem to want to attract all kinds of players. And it sounds like a rich, exciting world to play in.
The proof, of course, won't come until the game is ready to play. But at that point, I think the larger the number of suspicious non-PvPers who are playing, the more likely we are to have a voice if there is a problem. I'm willing to invest some money, and some time, to get that voice - and with luck a really fun place to play.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
No, it's more a matter of my concern that as time passes and the game's subscriber base grows, you are going to have more people like that guy (on a bad day, if you want to be charitable) than you are people who want to build an interesting, engaging player-driven world.
What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for behavior that builds an "interesting, engaging player-driven world"?
@Marshall
That one player will have lost membership in that LG settlement long ago. Once a character moves more than one step away from the alignment of his/her settlement, they are no longer a member.
Ah, that makes mechanical sense. It is meaning that my understanding of Guild vs Settlement is a little off. So a Lawful Good settlement can only have LG, LN, NG members? Interesting.
Also, would a True Neutral settlement allow all alignments? Or just N, NG, NE, LN, CN allowed, while the CE, CG, LG, LE are considered two steps away?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know if I'd discount that completely.
Well, of course nothing is written in stone yet, and they may well decide to completely change major features. But Ryan was pretty clear that he didn't want players to have the option of a Neutral Settlement, or every Settlement would be Neutral to maximize the number of characters who could live there.
From Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing:
Well won't true neutral settlements still end up with the most people anyways?For that reason I think we'll have to exclude true neutral from the alignment options for the organizations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah I find that strange. I know they are still looking at it all, but I think the most popular settlements should be LE/LG/LN so it should be the lawful part that gets the most bonuses as a society not the good/evil.
It's the lawful that is tied to ganking and bad gaming behaviour the good/evil is the game mechanic tied to worshiping gods/necromancy etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know if I'd discount that completely.Well, of course nothing is written in stone yet, and they may well decide to completely change major features. But Ryan was pretty clear that he didn't want players to have the option of a Neutral Settlement, or every Settlement would be Neutral to maximize the number of characters who could live there.
From Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing:
Well won't true neutral settlements still end up with the most people anyways?For that reason I think we'll have to exclude true neutral from the alignment options for the organizations.
I hope they stick with this idea, because it will lead to a more interesting landscape whereby meaningful choices are made.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ryan Thank you for the post.
I am sorry that some people still find things objectionable, but trying to please everyone has ruined more than a few games.
I think that the first people that enter the game will have to form a strong culture where Settlement vs Settlement, Guild vs Guild and Alliance vs Alliance action are all active so that random gankings are not as temping. Also the early community will need to take a strong stance against random violence by actively hunting those that choose to be Chaotic Evil. The game as described so far sounds like it will support this culture very well.
I fully support an open world sandbox RPG, and I understand that this means that for the markets to work correctly and for settlements and land ownership to have meaning that PvP is required. It is an option I may not take full advantage of but I feel that it is exciting that it is a core part of the game.
I believe in the vision of the game as it is spelled out in the blog. I do hope that as people play it and find loopholes in the mechanics of the game that allow people to escape the consequences of their actions that GobinWorks will be quick to seal those up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlements it's not as much as an issue as Kingdoms. TN settlements would allow 5 alignments within one step. TN kingdoms would allow for 5 settlement alignments, and thus with a settlement of LN, NG, NE and CN could get all alignment types within 1 of at least one settlement.
TN settlements would still have an advantage in player size, but if anything not lawful has penalties to upkeep and whatnot it may balance out? Eh, I'd be fine banning them.
I DO hope LE is as good for running settlements/kingdoms as LG, though, in terms of administration and building availability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope they stick with this idea, because it will lead to a more interesting landscape whereby meaningful choices are made.
At fist I thought that this would be a stupid and arbitrary restriction, but now that I think about it, I can see that it could help raise the value of alliances. Also it would help balance out the really strong bias towards lawful alignments that it seems that the settlement system will have by encouraging NG and TN settlements as the trade centers while the lawful settlements should be more militarized.
I will reserve further judgement until I know exactly how you choose and maintain your alignment in game, but I would consider the strict alignment rules on settlements to be a success if it encourages most settlements and guilds to form alliances containing a variety of alignments. I forget exactly how nations work, but they should not have alignments, so that some LG settlements as a defensive border with some CG and TN economic powerhouses can form a single nation, leveraging the advantages of all alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I forget exactly how nations work, but they should not have alignments...
The current plan is that Player Nations will have alignments. As IronVanguard mentions, each Settlement must be within one step of its Player Nation, and each Character must be within one step of their Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I forget exactly how nations work, but they should not have alignments...The current plan is that Player Nations will have alignments. As IronVanguard mentions, each Settlement must be within one step of its Player Nation, and each Character must be within one step of their Settlement.
Hmm just realized that might be a little awkward for my secret necromancer masquerading as a kindly old man! Since necromancy will probably make him evil, but no one will know that! Guess he'll have to go to a lawful neutral settlement
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm just realized that might be a little awkward for my secret necromancer masquerading as a kindly old man! Since necromancy will probably make him evil, but no one will know that! Guess he'll have to go to a lawful neutral settlementI forget exactly how nations work, but they should not have alignments...The current plan is that Player Nations will have alignments. As IronVanguard mentions, each Settlement must be within one step of its Player Nation, and each Character must be within one step of their Settlement.
Not all necromancy counts as evil acts... and maybe the evil of animating mindless skeletons and zombies should be temporary, pending their destruction or release. If you keep animating new ones such that former servitors are released into the wild, you're creating evil, but if you animate a few to fight a few battles, and make sure to destroy any leftovers when you're done, then it's relatively neutral.
Another way to do it is to charge the actions of undead you animated to your alignment account, whether you personally commanded them at the time or not. That would keep people from creating too many too freely, unless they're intentionally trying to populate the world with dangerous monsters that will attack random people, which is unquestionably evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm just realized that might be a little awkward for my secret necromancer masquerading as a kindly old man! Since necromancy will probably make him evil, but no one will know that! Guess he'll have to go to a lawful neutral settlementI forget exactly how nations work, but they should not have alignments...The current plan is that Player Nations will have alignments. As IronVanguard mentions, each Settlement must be within one step of its Player Nation, and each Character must be within one step of their Settlement.Not all necromancy counts as evil acts... and maybe the evil of animating mindless skeletons and zombies should be temporary, pending their destruction or release. If you keep animating new ones such that former servitors are released into the wild, you're creating evil, but if you animate a few to fight a few battles, and make sure to destroy any leftovers when you're done, then it's relatively neutral.
Another way to do it is to charge the actions of undead you animated to your alignment account, whether you personally commanded them at the time or not. That would keep people from creating too many too freely, unless they're intentionally trying to populate the world with dangerous monsters that will attack random people, which is unquestionably evil.
I WANT him to be evil, I just don;'t wan't peopel to KNOW he's evil. Kinda gives it away if he can't join a LG town (he's still be lawful, just not good) but I suppose neutral would do! I guess I'd have to do good stuff to maintain the facade of goodness anyway!