If paladins aren't required to play the game in a manner in keeping with their chosen alignment because the game doesn't have alignment, do not under any circumstance allow paladins. What would be the point in allowing a class with the alignment being one of the drawbacks if you don't hold the player to their behavior standards? (yes, I would include meaningless duels and pvp as against LG in that regard. LG people do not go around fighting other people all the time for kicks.)
Goblin Squad Member
|
If paladins aren't required to play the game in a manner in keeping with their chosen alignment because the game doesn't have alignment, do not under any circumstance allow paladins. What would be the point in allowing a class with the alignment being one of the drawbacks if you don't hold the player to their behavior standards? (yes, I would include meaningless duels and pvp as against LG in that regard. LG people do not go around fighting other people all the time for kicks.)
Question... how on earth would that be determined? Heck real life human DM's that can process all of the information, weigh past events, words, motives, history etc... have a heck of a time deciding what is necessary and unnecessary force etc... How on earth is an algorithm going to do it.
Paladin from village Y gets a warning from his friends at village X. "Joe the noobslayer is on his way to your town, he is going to kill everyone he can if you don't stop him".
The paladin Sees joe approaching an area with many people incapable of defending themselves, and the paladin yells "Halt, turn away from this area or I will be forced to remove you".
Now a human would say if joe continues, that is a justified attack, but any computer would consider the paladin taking any action before the first newbie dies, unprovoked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The paladin Sees joe approaching an area with many people incapable of defending themselves, and the paladin yells "Halt, turn away from this area or I will be forced to remove you".
Now a human would say if joe continues, that is a justified attack, but any computer would consider the paladin taking any action before the first newbie dies, unprovoked.
This is why I keep proposing a Challenge skill that will open a character up to be killed without penalty if they remain in the area. Although, to avoid griefers using this, I imagine there would need to be a corresponding skill where the character being Challenged proclaims their innocence and their right to remain, but I don't know what in-game effect that should have. Perhaps bar them from initiating combat in that hex until they've first left the hex?
Who's deciding the alignment? Is it the player? Wandering GMs? Or an algorithm?
By the way, I have hated scripted algorithms for determining alignment. It can lead to weird metagaming where someone will do something evil to justify their goodness and vice-versa. It also ruins a lot of subtle things that algorithms can't tell.
PVP will always be a tough thing to determine however.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is why I keep proposing a Challenge skill that will open a character up to be killed without penalty if they remain in the area. Although, to avoid griefers using this, I imagine there would need to be a corresponding skill where the character being Challenged proclaims their innocence and their right to remain, but I don't know what in-game effect that should have. Perhaps bar them from initiating combat in that hex until they've first left the hex?The paladin Sees joe approaching an area with many people incapable of defending themselves, and the paladin yells "Halt, turn away from this area or I will be forced to remove you".
Now a human would say if joe continues, that is a justified attack, but any computer would consider the paladin taking any action before the first newbie dies, unprovoked.
Well I agree in concept, but I would say the logical solution is to have alignment weighed as lightly as possible. Assuming the marshals and guards are as good as they claim, newbies should have relative safety in NPC territories, they have little to lose and griefers have little to gain. Player settlements should be exempt from alignment altogether, If you are the paladin and it is your kingdom, any act you do is just defense of your land, if you are attacking someone elses settlement, then that is an act of war, also exempt from alignment, but may result in your own land being attacked or being flagged as kill on sight to the players in the area.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was just thinking about this today, so I'm glad somebody already started a thread on it. I'm going to throw out my ideas on this topic. Take them or leave them. To start, I think alignment should be a real, tangible, mechanical, programmed, and monitored element of the game.
Here's why:
1) Part of my idea has to do with my perspective on human nature. Specifically the nature that makes a vast number of people continue to try and get away with as much as they can get away with for as long as they can get away with it. That's in real life. In games things can get even worse. To be sure those are outlandish and noteworthy cases, but what they prove is that, if given the opportunity, where there is very little if any real life ramification, people will be d!cks. Of course the line between gaming life and real life is beginning to blur, but I don't think we're anywhere near having real life law enforcement deal with in-game murder.
2) The game already is going to have alignment in it in some form. As mentioned in the blog, settlements are going to be aligned and people that want to join settlements must have alignments themselves.
2a)Settlements-- It is the idea that the game will have specific, seemingly identifiable, people joining in the beginning. I'm hoping this is so the developers have, at least a small, handle on the people joining. Perhaps there will even be a survey of some kind to make sure that those people "pioneering" the virtual settling of the game will be mature, and or very excited about role playing specific roles in the game. If that's the case their progressive hierarchical structure of populating the people of the game becomes its own way to create organized, governable societies. Once those organized and governable societies are in place, newer players to the game will have a lot more difficulty ruining other people's fun on a case by case basis. If you are in a kingdom that was created by two like minded settlements who have players fulfilling all major roles, including law/good enforcement, it makes random acts of useless violence for goods a lot more difficult to get away with.
2b)Settlements act as an extension of the people that make them up. If alignment is a necessary component to entry into a settlement, it darn well better be a necessary component of character creation. If that is the case, then my point 3 becomes very feasible.
3) Alignment should be measurable, programmed, monitored, and in-game tangible. If I have a wizard/sorcerer/bard in the game I darn well better be able to see alignment. If I have a cleric/oracle/inquisitor in the game I darn well better be able to detect evil. Part of organizing patrols in my settlement will be finding people who can do just that. Then if people are in town trying to make trouble we can tell right away what their core value system is, based off of a tangible, identifiable mechanic.
Of course people will say, what's to stop me from picking lawful good as my character's alignment but acting chaotic-evil? Well, hopefully the society at large, which is much the way it would work in a table-top game. If a character went around killing innocent civilians for their "loot" there are people, soldiers, mayors, rulers, kings that would step up and put a stop to them. Even on the grand scale. In game this could really be as simple as having a "flagging" system for people that routinely act against their alignment. If a character joins a chaotic good adventuring troupe, but then backstabs them at their weakest to take their loot. They will all flag him/her immediately, and in-game moderators will provide a predetermined set of penalties and warnings up to and finally including account deletion.
I'm not a programmer, I don't claim to have any knowledge of how to get that to actually work in game, but I do know that there are similar systems out there already, and the technology absolutely is there to be able to do it.
So my ultimate proposal for this is that alignment not only be a real, tangible, measurable, monitored game-mechanic, but that it also bring with it a user-agreement contract statement upon alignment choice. This agreement should say something to the effect that the user has made a choice to play their character according to a strict moral code (even if that moral code is lawful-evil), and that deviations from that alignment will meet with actual real life account penalties, up to and including account deletion. Forcing real role-playing of alignment, and making sure that all characters in game at least have a chance to determine what that is from a distance will make the game more realistic to the table-top, and much more conducive to setting up actual legitimate systems of government that work to protect and defend their people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Im rather curious what type of alignment checks and balances their can be in an MMO setting, I was hoping to roll a paladin out of the gate but how can they enforce my ideals and if I can choose my god, wouldn't that also allow me to choose even harder ideals and rulesets to moniter?
I would be strongly inclined to leave alignment out of it entirely - artificial or rule-generated alignment, that is. The way the game is shaping up, it seems very clear that player actions will determine a more realistic kind of alignment. What might be interesting, on the other hand, is a reputation system based on player input.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the system should be there. It would kill immersion if it wasn't. I think NWN2 did a pretty good job with the system, you started with your alignment and your actions in the world changed your alignment. If you where say, a barbarian, and ended up hitting "lawful" you could no-longer train barbarian ranks.
I think a similar system should be in place here. But just how to put the system into place needs more information on how themeparkey the game will be. When you have dialogue it's easy to shift alignment, and there are some actions that would change your alignment(something like killing a baby rabbit in a way that destroys it completely, or fulfilling a bounty for free)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any system that relies on programs to determine the morality of human actions is doomed to make utterly ridiculous determinations. SWTOR has some really silly stuff (like helping soldiers abandon their post during wartime) show up as Light Side actions.
The only way I can see Alignment working is something like a Paladin losing his alignment if he aids an Evil-aligned faction, but even that is too restrictive, since one of the main tenets of Good (at least in my mind) is the idea of Redemption, which means that Good must be able to be good even to those who are Evil.
If a "Good" aligned character funds some evil aligned characters to cause massive harm, is he still good? How does the computer know?
What if an Evil aligned character tricks a good aligned character into funding him?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a "Good" aligned character funds some evil aligned characters to cause massive harm, is he still good? How does the computer know?
What if an Evil aligned character tricks a good aligned character into funding him?
This is why I believe the monitors of adherence to alignment should be the collective and game moderators. Build in a simple flagging system, where players flag players that they believe are acting in opposition to their alignment. Have each "flag" require a description of the person's actions, and how the person believes this is counter to their described alignment. I don't want "the computer" to be making alignment judgments. The amount of alignment threads on the Pathfinder message board should clue us in to the fact that no person could ever create a mathematical formula to truly monitor and adjust alignment. If they are building this game to reflect a real society (which I believe they really are trying to) then society is the final arbiter of actions. Honestly I'd love for the real ramifications of evil actions to be carried out by settlements and kingdoms. Let there be an actual court. Let an actual person (monarch), or people (oligarchy, democracy) decide the fate of people. Then let them tell their people (judges, magistrates, bailiffs, sheriffs, etc.) to carry out that justice. If people can be the ultimate arbiters of rightness of action, and the game starts with a select group of people who actually want things to run smoothly, and not turn into a rampaging PvP nightmarescape, then those established parties, companies, settlements, and kingdoms will be enforcing justice.
For those people that are abusing the system, or constantly acting in contrast to their chosen alignment, account activity penalties should be enforced.
Let the people police themselves. If you are going to create a guild of thieves, you'd best prepare yourself for skullduggery, stealth, cabals, and conspiracies, maybe even bribery of powerful people (all of which are things any real thieves guild would have to do). Instead of a loose group of people who are all rogues with a sweet name, you'd actually need to work together for protection, money, and continued existence. You'd also better prepare yourselves for possibly being caught and brought to justice by the powers that be, in-game! That's what makes this "experiment" so exciting to me. If they can actually pull off societies that police themselves in an MMO they'll have broken new ground.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Thank you all for your posts, and i will continue to follow this thread.
Thanks for letting me know that from what i understand, there isn't plans to include an alignment system similar to the system in the Pathfinder role playing game.
again thanks. Ill keep on reading. Perhaps non consentual PVP and alignments don't mix.
Excuse me, it looks like there is some sort of alignment....ill have to read this tread more closely
Goblinworks Founder
|
See it only as a mechanic for how spells/npcs work or react to you. But like others have said your actions will determine what your alignment becomes or that it can change by actions.
With some classes like Paladin you can lose your status by doing something wrong and it's hard to get back in their good graces again without atonement (a Quest! woot)
Just a thought... but does anyone remember the allegiance system from d20 modern? It basically got rid of alignment, and broke allegiances into Person/Group, Organization, Nation, Belief System, Ethical Philosophy, and Morale Philosophy.
Person or Group: This would either entail an individual you know or a group of player characters you have established.
Organization: This would be guilds.
Nation: This would be settlements, either NPC run or player character operated.
Belief System: Each god and goddess would be their own belief system.
Ethical Philosophy: This would encompass law and chaos.
Morale Philosophy: This would encompass good and evil.
Lets add one more to this list; Race.
Race: This would include all humanoid subtypes, and all monstrous types.
Now, each of these allegiances are added to a list and given a score from 100 (absolute loyalty) to -100 (no loyalty whatsoever). Ethical and Morale ideologies are opposed, so law is always the inverse of chaos and good is always the inverse of evil. Some deities may be inversely opposed to each other as well, but the rest of the allegiances can be increased or decreased independently of each other.
When you create your character, you set your "alignment," as well as your deity (if you choose one), race, and starting area. If you decided to play a human paladin (lawful good) of Iomedae, your starting allegiance list looks like this:
Good 100
Law 100
Iomedae 100
Starting Settlement 50
Humanoid (human) 50
Friendly Settlements 25
Friendly Races 25
Friendly Deities 25
Neutral Settlements 0
Neutral Races 0
Neutral Deities 0
Unfriendly Settlements -25
Unfriendly Races -25
Unfriendly Deities -25
Hostile Settlements -50
Hostile Races -50
Hostile Deities -50
Deities Directly Opposed to Iomedae -100
Chaos -100
Evil -100
Individual player characters or guilds could be added to this list to represent either close ties to a particular individual (swearing fealty to a superior or lord) or commitment to an organization or guild. This could be RP only, or may grant a small morale bonus when in a party with the individual or guild members.
Now, the most important items on this list are your top three allegiances. So long as your paladin keeps law AND good in their top three, no problem. If law OR good begin to slip, then you should check your behavior and make amends for any transgressions (perceived or otherwise). If Iomedae drops from your top three, doesn't mean you don't still love her and worship her, just means something else is taking priority in your life. Now, if she becomes unfriendly towards you... well, that is another story.
Clerics in much the same way would have to keep their deity in their top three spots to remain cleric-y and druids would have to keep any combination of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil out of their top three to stay druid-y. Monks would have to keep Law in their top three and so on and so forth.
While the numbers I use are pretty small compared to what would probably be necessary to maintain balanced game play, and I haven't even tried to come up with the arbitrary numbers you would add or subtract for a particular action, this is sort of an outline for how I see alignment being reworked to keep things in check and maintaining the feel of your character.
Just a thought.
