Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the question of how the alignment system will work in PFO is important enough to warrant it's own thread. It will effect every aspect of gameplay from pvp, contracts, chartered companies, transactions, settlements, npc relations and declaring war. I could go on. I've always believed the alignment system in tabletop Pathfinder (or D&D, for that matter) was /is broken and subject mostly to the tastes of individual DMs. Yet the developers have stated that in this way perhaps most of all PFO will mirror the tabletop version. Exactly how this is implemented may be the most important factor in determining whether PFO ultimately succeeds or fails. I'd like to submit two observations. First, a true neutral settlement would not have to admit all members regardless of alignment. According to the table on p.166 of the Core Rulebook, diagonally situated alignments on the chart are two steps from neutral not one. This would exclude lawful good, chaotic evil, etc., yes? Secondly I've never seen chaotic evil played successfully. In the online version it could be an npc alignment for individuals and brutal, disorganized groups or a 'warning' to a pc who is about to receive sanctions of some sort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the question of how the alignment system will work in PFO is important enough to warrant it's own thread. It will effect every aspect of gameplay from pvp, contracts, chartered companies, transactions, settlements, npc relations and declaring war. I could go on. I've always believed the alignment system in tabletop Pathfinder (or D&D, for that matter) was /is broken and subject mostly to the tastes of individual DMs. Yet the developers have stated that in this way perhaps most of all PFO will mirror the tabletop version. Exactly how this is implemented may be the most important factor in determining whether PFO ultimately succeeds or fails. I'd like to submit two observations. First, a true neutral settlement would not have to admit all members regardless of alignment. According to the table on p.166 of the Core Rulebook, diagonally situated alignments on the chart are two steps from neutral not one. This would exclude lawful good, chaotic evil, etc., yes? Secondly I've never seen chaotic evil played successfully. In the online version it could be an npc alignment for individuals and brutal, disorganized groups or a 'warning' to a pc who is about to receive sanctions of some sort.
TBH I think chaotic is going to be the greatest issue here. Good/Evil is fairly straight forward in most cases, Law/chaos on the other hand, is it's own mess, and by my interpretation the blogs (and my interpretation could be flawed, I don't deny or doubt this) I don't think in PFO it means what most people are expecting it to mean. So far everything I am reading that mentions chaotic, is mostly in reference to not keeping your end of a bargain on a contract, followed immidiately by notes saying your alignment will effect whether people will trust you.
Violating the terms of contracts is a fundamentally chaotic act. Doing so repeatedly will have effects on character's alignments. Alignments have meaningful consequences that affect the way characters interact with the world and the way the world interacts with them. The availability of some services, especially those related to the intervention of divine beings, will be keyed to alignment. And you can expect that players will form opinions of who your character is and based on alignment. Someone who has become chaotic evil is going to have a hard time hiring others to perform various tasks, and that character is likely to find it hard to get work from those who need a reliable and trustworthy hireling.
At least judging by this quote and context, that leads me to think.
Lawful = Almost always obeys contracts
Nuetural (L-C axis) = Usually obeys contracts
Chaotic = Regularly breaks contracts
Good = rarely kills players/good NPCs outside of war or criminals
Nuetural (G-E axis) = Soemtimes kills players/good NPCs outside of necessity
Evil = Often kills players/good NPCs
Now this is all very very speculative, working with very little known in the blog, but so far, the only things I have directly seen tied to law/chaos, is contracts, and the only thing I have directly seen tied to good/evil is murder. These could just be very small parts, two of hundreds of factors, but currently these are the only 2 factors that have been directly mentioned so far.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
....I've never seen chaotic evil played successfully. In the online version it could be an npc alignment for individuals and brutal, disorganized groups or a 'warning' to a pc who is about to receive sanctions of some sort.
I agree that it isn't usually played well.
I think that CE characters, to stay true to alignment, should never accept being subordinate to a lower rank leader. So if the party (company/settlement/kingdom) leader Fred is 10th level, Joe the 11th level CE fighter must either take over the group or he must leave.
It should also be impossible for CE groups to have democratic government. It's about force and power.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi - the idea of killing innocents could also be tied to common folk, though GW hasn't specifically mentioned it.
So there might be a way to deliberately kill off a settlement's stock of common folk, to weaken its harvesting and crafting ability in a long war. This would be above and beyond burning buildings and other stuff that has the commoners hiding into the forest until it's safe to come back. But yeah, killing off commoners would be evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Onishi is on the right tracks... just as important as what it effects:
OP: LIST: pvp, contracts, chartered companies, transactions, settlements, npc relations and declaring war. I could go on.
How it is measured?
As Ryan has said, it won't be x1 action that shifts your alignment, and you'll be fully aware of what and when it is about to shift. So is there a sort of alignment o'meter scale to show the progress towards full-blown change between the 9 named states?
As GrumpMel pointed out, when you start measuring things, the information retrieved often ends up being gamed away from what it should reveal.
Eg Do we get info on a player from their alignment (How many times they've either broken a contract or killed a person) as well as more detailed descriptions of the contracts they broke and the people they killed (which could be further investigated, eg witnesses requested)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
....I've never seen chaotic evil played successfully. In the online version it could be an npc alignment for individuals and brutal, disorganized groups or a 'warning' to a pc who is about to receive sanctions of some sort.I agree that it isn't usually played well.
I think that CE characters, to stay true to alignment, should never accept being subordinate to a lower rank leader. So if the party (company/settlement/kingdom) leader Fred is 10th level, Joe the 11th level CE fighter must either take over the group or he must leave.
It should also be impossible for CE groups to have democratic government. It's about force and power.
When 'played well' in my campaigns the pc was either killed by the other partymembers or ran off with some loot maybe after a murder or two. Then rolled a new char who was compatible with the partys' goals. Success? Perhaps.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Onishi: I can think of three other instances off the top of my head that also have to do with alignment directly: Banditry, assasination and war, all of which will be supported in-game. I realize a war declaration will make killings on opposite sides legal. But what about a scorched earth policy against the commonfolk? Can I hold non-members who are supporting the other side responsible also? Or just plain stealing? I can't imagine GMs running around adjudicating every requisite action so this would be done automatically. How and by what parameters? The definition of each alignment, before always a guideline, will now be of paramount importance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Onishi: I can think of three other instances off the top of my head that also have to do with alignment directly: Banditry, assasination and war, all of which will be supported in-game. I realize a war declaration will make killings on opposite sides legal. But what about a scorched earth policy against the commonfolk? Can I hold non-members who are supporting the other side responsible also? Or just plain stealing? I can't imagine GMs running around adjudicating every requisite action so this would be done automatically. How and by what parameters? The definition of each alignment, before always a guideline, will now be of paramount importance.
We know that banditry and assassination have to do with alignment.
We know that assassination is inherently evil, we do not know if banditry is evil, chaotic or both.
Scorched earth policy we know absolutely nothing about. I am going to assume that AoEs, and killing people who are not on the side that has declared war could be evil.
However we don't necessarally even know for a fact that killing people, outside of high sec/lawful territory, is evil/chaotic.we have very vague details that we are working with on these.
That is why I stated the only 2 things we know for certain, what they effect are the 2 I listed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From what I've gathered from Ryan's posts, alignment in PFO is meant to provide thematic context for our actions in the game:
We have chosen to use the Pathfinder world as our game world, and its internal logic is that people have alignments and those alignments are intrinsic aspects of the people who live in that world (rather than abstract philosophies like they are in our world).
So alignment serves to provide a context for what Hell Knights are, or Templars of the Ivory Labyrinth, or the Knights of Ozem, etc. and then really for us as players, it will help provide context for it means to be a member of a player created organization. For example, my player goal in this game is to a help found an order of The Vigilant--warriors who serve justice and good by dedicating ourselves to Iomedae, following the path of Peace Through Vigilance.
So what "lawful good" means here is about what spells we can cast, what weapons we can wield, places we can go to/not go to, immunities and vulnerabilities, behavioral norms, etc.
I might be getting this wrong, but it sounds like a way to bring the play setting to life, through an internal logic of operation based on alignment as a real thing in the world, not a linguistic abstraction. That's very different than our world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From what I've gathered from Ryan's posts, alignment in PFO is meant to provide thematic context for our actions in the game:
We have chosen to use the Pathfinder world as our game world, and its internal logic is that people have alignments and those alignments are intrinsic aspects of the people who live in that world (rather than abstract philosophies like they are in our world).So alignment serves to provide a context for what Hell Knights are, or Templars of the Ivory Labyrinth, or the Knights of Ozem, etc. and then really for us as players, it will help provide context for it means to be a member of a player created organization. For example, my player goal in this game is to a help found an order of The Vigilant--warriors who serve justice and good by dedicating ourselves to Iomedae, following the path of Peace Through Vigilance.
So what "lawful good" means here is about what spells we can cast, what weapons we can wield, places we can go to/not go to, immunities and vulnerabilities, behavioral norms, etc.
I might be getting this wrong, but it sounds like a way to bring the play setting to life, through an internal logic of operation based on alignment as a real thing in the world, not a linguistic abstraction. That's very different than our world.
Yes, alignment seems to be the principle way of regulating social progress and influence/opportunities of that. It's as important as xp/skill training it would appear.
It's also a reputation/flagging for "cheats" or otherwise "high risk" people:
1) Who can vouch for this person
2) Who else is affiliated with this person
3) How much track-record is transparent of this person
Another question is how the alignment system will influence the skill training/skills available to use system, if at all? Certainly "Criminal" status prevents fast travel, has been mentioned, but criminal is a temporary or spatially restricted status, whereas Alignment is much more long-term persistence?
I'm wondering if there will be any tribunal systems to award "pts" towards alignment shifts in eg Lawful Good settlements?
Additionally another approach could be that certain aligments eg Evil are delimited from entering into certain types of contracts?
This could be by:
1) Type of contract
2) Quantity (eg only smallest fees/menial contracts available)
3) Alignment of person providing the contract
4) Implications of breaking a contract ie more exacting/higher insurance etc only available
Conversely, assassination might be a contract that is available to Good but would dent their alignment, whereas Chaotic it would change nothing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We know that banditry and assassination have to do with alignment. ... we do not know if banditry is evil, chaotic or both.
I'm not sure that banditry is defined in game?
One act that could be labeled as chaotic is waging undeclared war. That is attacking another group's buildings or characters, in their territory, without a prior declaration of war.
Only companies, settlements, and nations should be able to declare war. Unaffiliated individuals or parties shouldn't have that option. Unaffiliated people that attack buildings or characters in a settlement's territory might be called bandits or brigands, and yeah, that should be a chaotic act and maybe an evil act as well.
(In time, maybe we'll get a PFO dictionary that defines all of these terms.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally if lawful-chaotic ends up purely meaning honors contracts, and does not honor contracts. I will be very disappointed. I don't mind that being a factor on the lawful-chaotic spectrum but it shouldn't be the whole thing. Ideally, I would like to see an actual rating separate of alignment that shows how consistent a player is in fulfilling contracts.
A great example of why this is important is my own company. We are neutral good. Honesty and honoring your word is a part of our code, as stated in other topics we would encourage our chaotic members simply to not give their word or enter into limiting contracts in the first place. Most of us generally follow the law however many of us view the law as secondary to good and it is always permissible to break it if done to accomplish a good end. We also will accept both lawful good and chaotic good members into our ranks as long as they aren't trying to wage a war on behalf of law or chaos but rather put their conflict aside in the service of good, because that is all we really care about.
If the contract system is all that determines lawful-chaotic we will be lawful good (Which we clearly are not.) and if it alignment is all that shows someone how likely you are to fulfill a contract we will be deemed as somewhat unreliable (Which again, we are not.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally if lawful-chaotic ends up purely meaning honors contracts, and does not honor contracts. I will be very disappointed.
I'd be disappointed, too. But I figure GW is introducing game concepts and one week they told us about their concept for contracts. Sometime in the future they will tell us about some other concept that also affects alignments. I figure to use this thread (and others) to get out ahead of their internal discussions, or at least ahead of their official blog entries.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally if lawful-chaotic ends up purely meaning honors contracts, and does not honor contracts. I will be very disappointed. I don't mind that being a factor on the lawful-chaotic spectrum but it shouldn't be the whole thing. Ideally, I would like to see an actual rating separate of alignment that shows how consistent a player is in fulfilling contracts.
A great example of why this is important is my own company. We are neutral good. Honesty and honoring your word is a part of our code, as stated in other topics we would encourage our chaotic members simply to not give their word or enter into limiting contracts in the first place. Most of us generally follow the law however many of us view the law as secondary to good and it is always permissible to break it if done to accomplish a good end. We also will accept both lawful good and chaotic good members into our ranks as long as they aren't trying to wage a war on behalf of law or chaos but rather put their conflict aside in the service of good, because that is all we really care about.
If the contract system is all that determines lawful-chaotic we will be lawful good (Which we clearly are not.) and if it alignment is all that shows someone how likely you are to fulfill a contract we will be deemed as somewhat unreliable (Which again, we are not.)
Hmm, I'm interested in what measures are available also for determining the things that matter about a player:
1) Trustworthiness
2) History of honored contracts
3) Affiliations and recommendations from associates etc
& their opposites. Which are useful measures for choosing the appropriate response to deal with them. If Alignment is only a blunt indication of all these, it's questionable how useful it could be? Alternatively if the above is auxilliary information as a part of "Alignment Test" then that might be ok, where alignment is more about what it allows and disallows a player to do, once they've shifted and the background details more for the "inspection" component.
So either way, it looks more like a "process" players will go through that will determine their alignment vs a choice you make outright at the start? If you are gunning for Neutral I guess that either means:
A) You honors contracts/the like half the time; you're half trust-worthy, 50-50 you'll do them again next but nothing totally reprehensible so far like assassination/drinking demon's blood (if that's evil-chaotic eg)
B) You've only done some reprehensible things so far, you've got some space to claw back to lawful good and the benefits that entails...
C) Complex web of decisions in balance puts you neutral (eg choices made on alliance shifts to suit your own purposes but were not intentionally screwing anyone over)
So alignment looks more emergent than prescriptive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats, True Neutral is likely hard to play. The entire idea of maintaining balance in all things is supposed to be a challenge.
As I posted in the Put It in Writing thread, a given act should weigh differently based on the character's alignment. So for each alignment affecting act, GW would need to assign values for each alignment or alignment band. As an example, look at breaking a contract. For a lawful character, not fulfilling a contract is a slide towards chaos. For a neutral character, the same act is maybe 70% of that amount, sliding to chaos. For a chaotic player, not fulfilling a contract is in alignment and maybe there's no effect at all, since otherwise contracts would be very easy to game as an agreement between a player and his alt.
Generally, alignment affirming actions (one that give you points in your own alignment) should be harder than actions that would shift you out of alignment. It's easy to do wrong, and harder to do right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a list of actions that *could* be alignment related. There's a lot more than this possible, I'm sure, and my ideas of shifts is subject to persuasion.
Declaring War. Small shift to chaos. All war is disruptive and lawful groups will often seek other ways to achieve their goals.
Attacking without a Declaration of War. Large shift to chaos. All of the disruption of war and violates orderly social norms as well.
Declaring a Crusade/Dark Crusade. Shift to chaos + shift to good/evil. This is like a declaration of war, but limited to Good vs. Evil group conflicts. The implication is that the war is being fought to one side's destruction. Neutrals risk alignment shift if they participate in a crusade.
Destroying enemy forts and watchtowers (military structures). Confirms law, no penalty for others.
Destroying other enemy structures. Small shift to chaos.
Destroying any structure in a crusade. Shift to good/evil.
Killing enemy characters in a crusade. Small shift to good/evil.
Killing commoners (I'm imagining this as an option when attacking civilian structures). Small shift to chaos, large shift to evil. In my imagining, this reduces the total number of commoners in the hex for some time; the number killed off will depend on the building and its upgrades.
Negotiating a Peace. A shift to law. How large of a shift will depend on how long the war lasted and how much damage was done, ending a long and ugly war gets more of a shift.
Negotiating an end to a crusade. A shift to law, but a large shift to evil/good. Why are you negotiating with sworn enemies of the faith?!?
Belonging to a company *and* a settlement. Confirms law. Lawful players with both obligations will get a helpful drift back to law for some given period in this state. Neutral and chaotic characters can have both obligations, but do not get the beneficial drift.
Belonging to a company *or* a settlement. Confirms neutral.
Belonging to neither a company or a settlement. Confirms chaos.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's a list of actions that *could* be alignment related. There's a lot more than this possible, I'm sure, and my ideas of shifts is subject to persuasion.
Declaring War. Small shift to chaos. All war is disruptive and lawful groups will often seek other ways to achieve their goals.
Destroying other enemy structures. Small shift to chaos.
Destroying any structure in a crusade. Shift to good/evil.
Killing enemy characters in a crusade. Small shift to good/evil.
Killing commoners (I'm imagining this as an option when attacking civilian structures). Small shift to chaos, large shift to evil. In my imagining, this reduces the total number of commoners in the hex for some time; the number killed off will depend on the building and its upgrades.
Why would any of these actions have an effect on a member of a Hell Knights affiliated organization?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats, True Neutral is likely hard to play. The entire idea of maintaining balance in all things is supposed to be a challenge.
As I posted in the Put It in Writing thread, a given act should weigh differently based on the character's alignment. So for each alignment affecting act, GW would need to assign values for each alignment or alignment band. As an example, look at breaking a contract. For a lawful character, not fulfilling a contract is a slide towards chaos. For a neutral character, the same act is maybe 70% of that amount, sliding to chaos. For a chaotic player, not fulfilling a contract is in alignment and maybe there's no effect at all, since otherwise contracts would be very easy to game as an agreement between a player and his alt.
Generally, alignment affirming actions (one that give you points in your own alignment) should be harder than actions that would shift you out of alignment. It's easy to do wrong, and harder to do right.
I see, that's very different way to how I was looking at this and very interesting/more active participation with alignment than my concept. I realize I was making a (big) assumption that all players would start as Lawful-Good, come to think about it:
... LG could be the default/base state of alignment because:
1. Most people probably ARE inclined to be social/helpful/gregarious/ community-oriented.
2. iirc and it's been mentioned a few times RP'ing either CE or Neutral are more challenging.
3. Collaboration IS lawful-good mostly, but the more competition for resources and opportunities for quick gain appear, the more the threat of alignment shifts away from LG to any of the other states.
4. This would leave the really Lawful Good and you might get Chaotic Good etc and beyond eventually..
So it ties in (at least in theory!) with Social Progress maximized by lawful good players, but it won't stay easy to stay LG for long, and some might jump at the chance to shift alignment for short-term gain/ long-term alignment shift, very soon?
-----------
I'm curious if Chaotic Evil would happen to be players who completely wish to terrorize other players in anyway possible within the acceptable conduct of the game (hence their extreme alignment warning status) or if as you suggest, Alignment is a weighting system with it's own internal logic that a player needs to "live-up to" to sustain that status.
So, in this case a CE character is just acting in a way that boosts their alignment status eg agitating for wars and looking to do crime where they can and sowing the seeds of destruction et al.?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Mbando, my read of the Hell Knights is LN tending towards LE. As in, many people join the HK in the service of law (LN), but their senior leadership tends towards LE. Does that match yours?
In my post above the list, I mention that given acts should be weighted differently for different alignments, and the shifts in my list are probably mostly from a viewpoint of law and good, so the effects on LN might vary.
Declaring war - I maintain that war embodies chaos; there's a small shift to chaos. I'd also say that characters in leadership roles of a settlement or company should be the ones that are affected by the declaration, the rank and file members aren't making the declaration.
* A side note on war. I envision war as two things: attacking enemy characters and buildings, anywhere, after a declaration of war; or attacking characters or building in another settlement's hex as an act of undeclared war. War is limited to companies, settlements, or nations. Attacking unaffiliated parties or anybody in your own territory falls outside war. Attacking other companies or razing structures outside of settlement hexes is also not war, but can lead to war.
Destroying non-military structures during a war - this is part of war-is-chaos. It would affect those characters actually involved in destroying the buildings. The shift towards chaos might be less for a LN and even less for a LE. But in the long run, LN and LE characters who destroy everything possible are falling into the spell of chaos.
Destroying structures/killing characters in a crusade - I envision crusades and dark crusades as a very specific type of warfare. These are wars fought with no quarter given between good and evil forces. I'm not sure if that falls into HK territory if they are LN. I'd think they could fight a separate war against either side during a crusade, but if they join the crusade as a crusade it's for good or evil, not law.
Killing commoners - It would be a large shift towards evil for LG. For LN, it is a lesser shift, maybe 70%? Structures can be destroyed without killing commoners, the "kill commoners" means the characters are destroying the building and going out of their way to kill noncombatant common folk. Yup, evil. It's how LN Hell Knight soldiery eventually turn into LE Hell Knight leaders.
(For the LE members of the Hell Knights, killing commoners confirms the evil side of the alignment, but there's still the small chaos shift involved in destroying the building.)
It certainly shows that there is room for more alignment defining actions. How do the Hell Knights maintain their lawful aspect? Maybe they mostly do police action, not attacking other settlements but pushing back squatters and outlaws in the wilderness, and savaging lawbreakers inside allied territory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Mbando, my read of the Hell Knights is LN tending towards LE. As in, many people join the HK in the service of law (LN), but their senior leadership tends towards LE. Does that match yours?
In my post above the list, I mention that given acts should be weighted differently for different alignments, and the shifts in my list are probably mostly from a viewpoint of law and good, so the effects on LN might vary.
Declaring war - I maintain that war embodies chaos; there's a small shift to chaos. I'd also say that characters in leadership roles of a settlement or company should be the ones that are affected by the declaration, the rank and file members aren't making the declaration.
Pretty much--"peace and stability at any price," even if it means killing every man, woman and child in a rebellious city.
I'm just trying to think through the implications of this kind of game logic. For example, assassination in PFO is evil--this adds flavor to the game world, and helps bring Golarion to life, but it also has serious in-game implications about who can and can't use this tool.
All these decisions have implications. So if you make waging war a chaotic act, or restrict warfare to avoid it being chaotic, it has some pretty serious implications for lawful organizations like the Hell Knights. Not saying they couldn't do that, just pointing out the stakes of the choice.
Also, I'm wondering about the idea of weighting actions by alignment. As I understand Ryan's comments about alignment, alignment isn't contextual, but rather has ontological status. That sword is lawful good, that spell is chaotic, that act is evil, etc.
It would really change the game if alignment became relative--for a LG character to execute an assassination contract was a very evil act, but for a chaotic good character it was a somewhat evil act, and for a chaotic neutral character, meh.
As Lictor of what could be PFO's first Hellknight-based organisation, I lean towards 'law and order at any price' as well. The wiki entry states that Hellknights care about results and although that can be a bit ambiguous, I take it to mean that they got to any length to exterminate their enemies but that they take care of those in their charge to increase productivity.
IMO, Eve got this right. A security system made sense as the world is policed. If there weren't NPC police though, it'd make zero sense. So, if PFO doesn't have world police then I just don't see how it'll logically work without feeling forced. Let peoples' deeds have some permanency by making a single character rich enough so that people don't want to make alts just to get around alignment. Let their deeds affect their alignments but don't make it shown to others unless they have the requisite ability. Simply let someone's reputation be what makes or breaks them in the game and restrict alignment to where it matters such as how spell effects affect certain aligned creatures.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pretty much--"peace and stability at any price," even if it means killing every man, woman and child in a rebellious city.
To me, this appears to be one of those cases where people of a certain alignment can pervert that alignment if they believe everything they say.
Stability at any price. We'll kill everyone in the city as a mass punishment for what their leadership has done. We'll kill any civilians we encounter, to serve as an example to other cities. We don't have time for trials, but we don't need them - the evidence that they are rebels is clear as day. If there are foreigners in the city, that's unfortunate, but everyone will be killed. We are going to unleash the dogs of war on these rebels. We have to destroy this city to save it!
No possibility of chaos creeping in there? I'm not saying that they are turning into chaotic evil in one act in wartime, I'm saying that the longer a character is in an uncontrolled war, the more he will risk slipping from law into neutral and eventually into bestial chaos.
A military unit will need means to enforce discipline, and actions to slide a character back towards law/order. I imagine lots of guard duty time is a lawful sort of thing, and a good.. hm, a smart commander can rotate troops from bestial action in war back to dull, but orderly guard patrols.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From what I understand alignment in PFO will not simply affect what spells you can cast, what items you can use, magical effects, etc. It has been explicitly stated in-game actions can gradually move your alignment. Nearly undefeatable guards will enforce laws in and around npc settlements. PC settlements and kingdoms will be aligned as per their charter and players will be responsible for policing those areas. A separate reputation system seems silly to me and an inefficient divergence of developer resources. I think PFO alignment will be defined at character creation and pcs will be held to account for that choice. What has not even been touched on is the consequences of character choice as relates to the portfolios of different deities and how that will bear on divinely granted spells and abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A soldier who is following orders to slaughter a city is being lawful. A soldier who is disobeying those orders is chaotic.
I see no way for that to be subverted.
Lawful stupid is NOT an alignment.
I completely disagree. A Lawful Good character just simply wouldn't follow that order-indeed, would consider the commander who gave it subversive, evil and perhaps insane. Lawful Neutral would need some sort of tribunal or other official process before proceeding and still may be extemely leery of 'killing everyone' regardless of age, sex or condition. Even if they were kobolds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So there is nothing that is considered less than lawful to the soldier once his commander orders it? Murder, theft, killing his own children if the commander orders it - no justification needed, just an order?
I'm not sure Goblinworks can code all that.
I'll continue to believe that each character, including the soldier, has free will of her own, and her actions determine her alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Urman: I totes agree with what you're getting at, if you're using "alignment" as a linguistic abstraction for culture and ethics in the real world. But isn't that separate conversation?
We're talking about alignment the way we might talk about geography--something ontologically real (uhh, in a fictional world) that is meant to bring the game to life for players. So I think the question isn't "Is warfare a chaotic enterprise? If so, how do we work alignment to model this?" Instead the question is, "How does making <X activity> chaotic going to affect gameplay and construct Golarion?
@Sepherum: Yes, Ryan has said that player actions affect alignment. But he also keeps saying it's not a moral abstraction--it's a palpable force in Golarion. There are incredibly evil demons, and noble, pure-hearted deities, etc.
So our experience of alignment as players is emergent, but what alignment points to (good, evil, chaos, law) is fixed, exterior, and not contextual. At least not in what GW is saying so far.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi - the idea of killing innocents could also be tied to common folk, though GW hasn't specifically mentioned it.
I started to say that's unlikely since we won't actually see the Common Folk, but then I realized we might very well be killing them if we attack, for example, a Harvesting Camp Site. I certainly hope I won't get flagged as evil for attacking a Harvesting Camp Site, though...
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I completely disagree. A Lawful Good character just simply wouldn't follow that order-indeed, would consider the commander who gave it subversive, evil and perhaps insane. Lawful Neutral would need some sort of tribunal or other official process before proceeding and still may be extemely leery of 'killing everyone' regardless of age, sex or condition. Even if they were kobolds.A soldier who is following orders to slaughter a city is being lawful. A soldier who is disobeying those orders is chaotic.
I see no way for that to be subverted.
Lawful stupid is NOT an alignment.
A lawful good character might follow that order, justifying his evilness with his lawfulness. He might disobey that order, justifying his chaotic nature with his goodness. He might resign on the spot, remaining true to both law and good.
Following an order is lawful- the fact that some orders are evil or good is a separate issue, and there is no promise that a given character can survive remaining true to alignment.
How PFO systematizes alignment is an entirely different discussion. I see no way to do it consistently in a manner that makes sense that isn't trivial to exploit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A lawful good character might follow that order, justifying his evilness with his lawfulness. He might disobey that order, justifying his chaotic nature with his goodness. He might resign on the spot, remaining true to both law and good.
I disagree to an extent, lawful dosn't always mean blindly following orders, a lawful person that somehow comes under the command of a chaotic person, would not be forced to follow those means blindly, there is actually a point where the lawful thing to do, is to lead a rebellion against a poor leader.
Lawful is first and foremost true to his own code of ethics and rules. Lawful hits first and foremost on personal honesty and following said rules. If a lawful person has a leader that's rules clearly violate his personal ethics, following those laws would be chaotic. Secretely disobeying them would also be chaotic however. Openly resigning from his position, and either joining a new leadership, or even starting a rebellion against the current one, would be lawful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For me it comes down to the simple question, would Andoletta, Angradd, Apsu, Erastil, Folgrit, Grundinnar, Iomedae, Ragathiel, and/or Torag (all the LG deities) condone the action? If not, then it cannot be done for LG reasons. Of course, as we all know...a charismatic leader can make any action seem like the right and justified one. The difference between what we know and what is truth on Golarion is that there really are absolute and universal watchers, these deities. I charismatic leader falsely speaking for a LG god might get away being a false prophet for a short time...but the specific deity might have a real beef with this and act personally or through loyal followers to insure it stops.
My only problem with the alignment system as is currently being proposed (or at least how I understand it) is the confusion between Lawful-Chaotic and Trustworthy-Untrustworthy. I do not think the two are identical. Gnomes and Elves as species tend toward Chaos, does that mean they should not be trusted? No, to me it means they tend to prefer not being girded by arbitrary laws such as those made by societies...they do however tend to work under other sets of laws such as those found in the natural world.
If the system continues to be bound in the success and failure of contracts I hope they (Goblinworks) does just shift to the more intuitive Trustworthy and Untrustworthy instead of Lawful and Chaotic. However, I can see how the contract system mixed with a more holistic system of possible actions or lack thereof as proposed by Urman would make sense.
I am still a fan however of a deity based system, certain deities "like" and "dislike" specific behaviours, those behaviours should increase and decrease your status with those deities, and your "alignment" is computed from the sum of those statuses.
One cool thing about this system is that we would all really exist on a continuum, a plane on which we can be at a specific point, much more precise and flexible than the simple 9 discrete point mapping. This map could still be broken down into the 9 regions, but it would not be as black and white. Also, when a settlement selects its alignment, it can do so with a circle or area x on the square map, this keeps the range of alignment possibilities even. And, as the "governors" train governance skills, the circle can increase slightly in area. Any ways, just tossing out my 2 pence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I think the question isn't "Is warfare a chaotic enterprise? If so, how do we work alignment to model this?" Instead the question is, "How does making <X activity> chaotic going to affect gameplay and construct Golarion?
Inside the latest blog entry thread, Ryan showed an extract from the settlement design document. One idea was that when a settlement's fortress is destroyed, or the settlement is reduced to fewer than 10 characters, the settlement is abandoned/destroyed and settlement citizens *cease skill training*. They need to either rebuild the fort, recruit more members, or flee to another settlement to start training again.
That suggests GW is looking for war as a player vs player activity, but with a real finality not found in other games. One side *can* win a war. When a settlement is on the ropes it has a serious risk of bleeding members afraid of stopping their training. If it loses enough members, it dies anyway.
I'm merely guessing here, but it doesn't look like GW is interested in two settlements sparring for months over the same silly pasture. They want some real warfare.
In my list, I'm assuming the strongest groups are going to be lawful. They will have strong leaders and a unity of command and purpose. So the list doesn't penalize going to war too much. It does encourage groups to make peace once they achieve some objective, rather than staying in a drawn out "war" where 5 people fight over the same pasture every weekend.
It also makes settlement crafters a secondary target. Yes, crafter buildings can be targeted if one side thinks it is worth it, but generally, crafter-buildings would be less of a target and crafters might therefore be more encouraged to join settlements.
Note that in my definition of warfare, non military buildings outside of settlements are not protected in the same way. If a new crafter-wannabe joins the game, he's safer in a settlement than as a target in the woods. His building is certainly less of a target.
The killing NPC commoners bit is mostly there for the entire PF idea of killing innocents = evil. It allows evil characters to do something evil, but with the side effect that it hurts the value of that hex. So lawful evil types might do this when they know they won't win the hex. Chaotic evil can do it because they like to cause problems. Good types will have something to be offended about. Everyone wins.
The idea of crusades is there because some group of people will invariably justify their antisocial behavior by saying "we're chaotic evil, so griefing is good role playing". The crusades option gives the various good factions permission to band together, get medieval, and wipe the griefers out. Evils can use dark crusades if the goods get too insufferable, just to keep a balance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only problem with the alignment system as is currently being proposed (or at least how I understand it) is the confusion between Lawful-Chaotic and Trustworthy-Untrustworthy. I do not think the two are identical. Gnomes and Elves as species tend toward Chaos, does that mean they should not be trusted? No, to me it means they tend to prefer not being girded by arbitrary laws such as those made by societies...
I agree. I think Law/Chaos has been a lingering point of confusion since the first RPGs were played. I've always thought Elves and Gnomes could be grouped with Chaos if the reasoning was simply that Humans couldn't understand their motives. Which would make sense if those races were only NPCs, but that isn't the case.
I'm not sure GW has the license or interest in renaming Law/Chaos, though.
I don't think that being Chaotic will automatically mean that people will expect you to break contracts but it will just permit sellers to be more wary. Someone being Chaotic really means that they don't care about the consequences if they do break the contract.
Goblinworks Founder
|
@forencith
Does Golarion have a Deity similar to Pholtus from Greyhawk?
Pholtus and the Theocracy of the Pale were a Lawful Good society that would brand anyone not of their faith as Heretics that must repent for their sins or suffer the consequences. Much like Robert Jordan's White Cloaks from the Wheel of Time series, they viewed Heretics as abominations or corrupt.
http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Pholtus
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I completely disagree. A Lawful Good character just simply wouldn't follow that order-indeed, would consider the commander who gave it subversive, evil and perhaps insane. Lawful Neutral would need some sort of tribunal or other official process before proceeding and still may be extemely leery of 'killing everyone' regardless of age, sex or condition. Even if they were kobolds.A soldier who is following orders to slaughter a city is being lawful. A soldier who is disobeying those orders is chaotic.
I see no way for that to be subverted.
Lawful stupid is NOT an alignment.
A lawful good character might follow that order, justifying his evilness with his lawfulness. He might disobey that order, justifying his chaotic nature with his goodness. He might resign on the spot, remaining true to both law and good.
Following an order is lawful- the fact that some orders are evil or good is a separate issue, and there is no promise that a given character can survive remaining true to alignment.
How PFO systematizes alignment is an entirely different discussion. I see no way to do it consistently in a manner that makes sense that isn't trivial to exploit.
Those scenarios unfortunately aren't have large holes in them.
A soldier who disobeys an order to slaughter a city isn't necessarily being Chaotic. If the "laws" or the land forbade such massacres then he would indeed be acting in a lawful manner by disobeying.
As for a Lawful Good soldier, he absolutely would obey an order to slaughter an entire city of evil goblins that threatened his home.
What will be very important, I think, since Ryan says that alignment won't be as arbitrary as it can be on the table top is that GW should sit down and at least plan out a Laws of the Land matrix for which a players actions can be measured against in order to apply alignment changes.
As I alluded to above, it's not black and white. You also have to decide if you are going to give merit to the way of thinking to those who are deemed "evil". I, personally, won't for a second believe anyone who tells me that a goblin raiding a human village is "evil". In his mind his actions aren't evil. He is just doing what he has been taught to do to survive. The Goblins societal mores certainly don't show that action as evil. Indeed they may see humans as a great evil and they are doing a just, good action in removing them.
So you're lawful good fighter just killed a lawful good village of goblins (if you are giving all sides equal merit in the importance of their beliefs). Do you take a hit since you killed all those poor LG goblins?
Like I said, I think it's important that those parameters be clearly defined. Ultimately by which entity(ies)standard action action deemed good, neutral, evil. And to say that you just have to use common sense shows a lack of understanding to the points I've made above.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I, personally, won't for a second believe anyone who tells me that a goblin raiding a human village is "evil". In his mind his actions aren't evil. He is just doing what he has been taught to do to survive. The Goblins societal mores certainly don't show that action as evil. Indeed they may see humans as a great evil and they are doing a just, good action in removing them.
So you're lawful good fighter just killed a lawful good village of goblins (if you are giving all sides equal merit in the importance of their beliefs). Do you take a hit since you killed all those poor LG goblins?
Like I said, I think it's important that those parameters be clearly defined. Ultimately by which entity(ies)standard action action deemed good, neutral, evil. And to say that you just have to use common sense shows a lack of understanding to the points I've made above.
This is exactly where the deity based approach clears up the issue. V'rel, I agree with everything you said up until this last...and in RL I would agree with you, that goblins acts are no more evil that us humans pushing them off their land for...keeping this realistic lets say oil. However, based off absolute judgement of the deities of Golarion, all of the Goblin deities are Evil, so any culture based off their "teachings" and aimed at winning their approval will also be. I do not think the goblins in this particular example see themselves as bod or evil, I bet in their simplicity, they think they are the good guys...and they would be right from their perspective. But, they are still Evil as in trying to appease a being which is the very definition of Evil.
@Elth, not that I am aware of...I could see Asmodeus making a group believe they were acting LG while actually doing his LE will. But, I always thought the White Cloaks followed their own made up deity and used it to justify their position...obviously if their god disagreed with their methods it would tell them. *grin*
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Adherence to a code of beliefs is not inherently Lawful. The Pirates' Code, or the Seventy Maxims, are both codes of behavior that can be followed without deviation by chaotic characters.
Lawfulness is the belief that the needs of the many are more important than any individual. Chaos is the belief that the individuals are the only important part of the whole. Following orders without question is Lawfull because it places the organization above the judgement of the individual. "Pillage, THEN burn." is not inherently Lawfull nor inherently Chaotic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is exactly where the deity based approach clears up the issue. V'rel, I agree with everything you said up until this last...and in RL I would agree with you, that goblins acts are no more evil that us humans pushing them off their land for...keeping this realistic lets say oil. However, based off absolute judgement of the deities of Golarion, all of the Goblin deities are Evil, so any culture based off their "teachings" and aimed at winning their approval will also be. I do not think the goblins in this particular example see themselves as bod or evil, I bet in their simplicity, they think they are the good guys...and they would be right from their perspective. But, they are still Evil as in trying to appease a being which is the very definition of Evil.
I agree that a being trying to appease an evil deity is in part or whole evil as well. I think we are both agreeing that we need some "base point" which establishes what is a "good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral" act.
I can see one way being to look at the Gods and going by their definitions. I guess there is that part of me that then asks "Who or what gave them their definitions" such that a "Good" god is labeled such and the same for a "evil" god. One scenario I really don't like is that all the "Goood" gods got together and decided that the "Evil" gods were evil. That's like the victor getting to write the history in our own world, knowing that certain liberties will be taken to make themselves "look good", lol.
If there were some being, and admittedly I'm not versed on Golarion's Deities...I will be moreso by the end of this day...that created the gods and fashioned some in it's vision of Good, Neutral and Evil, then it makes sense and we have that base point.
Being Lawful doesn't mean that they necessarily should be forced to follow the rules. To me, that would be a component of Lawful Neutral/Evil. Rather, simply being Lawful should mean that you abide by the laws that govern you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having the Alignment "Lawful" (big-L) is not the same thing as being "lawful" (small-l). It's a world view, not a simple adjective.
Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Compare to:
Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
It's not as simple as whether I follow the laws or do whatever I want to do. It's about what I believe creates a better society.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that a being trying to appease an evil deity is in part or whole evil as well. I think we are both agreeing that we need some "base point" which establishes what is a "good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral" act.
I can see one way being to look at the Gods and going by their definitions. I guess there is that part of me that then asks "Who or what gave them their definitions" such that a "Good" god is labeled such and the same for a "evil" god. One scenario I really don't like is that all the "Goood" gods got together and decided that the "Evil" gods were evil. That's like the victor getting to write the history in our own world, knowing that certain liberties will be taken to make themselves "look good", lol.
If there were some being, and admittedly I'm not versed on Golarion's Deities...I will be moreso by the end of this day...that created the gods and fashioned some in it's vision of Good, Neutral and Evil, then it makes sense and we have that base point.
You know...I read something interesting in researching for this thread that makes Pathfinders alignment system different from other systems. Asmodeus, the LE devil boss is described in the gods manual as simply being pure Lawfulness without the influence of compassionate Good. This is a position I would have considered being left for LN previously. What this suggests if we use gods as the root of the alignment system: Good means compassionate, Evil means the lack thereof, Neutral means balancing the two...whether philosophically or logically.
This is at odds with what I previously believed. Previously I would have suggested Good was a belief and Evil was a counter belief (for clarification, in a fantasy world I mean, not RL). To be Good or Evil was to hold some conviction, but...this new way of looking at the world actually makes a lot of sense. Good are united in cause because they do share a conviction. Evil is not united in cause because they share nothing...Evil is simply the lack of any Good. LE and CE do have serious convictions Lawful and Chaotic respectively, but there is no "Evilness" uniting them...there is nothing uniting them. Which is why they fight among each other more than Good and Evil fight each other (Look up the constant wars between the Demons (CE) and the Demons (LE)).
As far as the Good gods essentially forcing the Evil gods to be Evil. I don't think that is the case...there are gods who have decided to change alignments. No one seems to force them to be anything. Asmodeus and Rovug are the two Evil powerhouses, LE and CE respectively and they are alike in that they have zero compassion, so their other drives are not tempered. Asmodeus was there at the beginning of Creation and is currently the holder of the Contract of Creation which some suggest has a clause that promises him final dominion...he has a vault in which he stores every "idea" he intends to implement once it happens. Point being...it sounds as if the gods define their own position in the pantheon, it is not like the Greek stories where Zeus forces them to play certain roles...instead they play certain roles because they are the embodiment of that position. If you are driven by compassion, you are Good; if not, you are Evil...if you are somewhere in the middle, you are Neutral.
I think the Good gods would love for all the evil gods to see the err of their ways and join them.
And, I know many will argue with my interpretation here, I am just sharing what I read and how it makes sense to me. I am not saying it should or needs to be any given way.
Lawfulness is the belief that the needs of the many are more important than any individual. Chaos is the belief that the individuals are the only important part of the whole. Following orders without question is Lawfull because it places the organization above the judgement of the individual. "Pillage, THEN burn." is not inherently Lawfull nor inherently Chaotic.
I initially really liked this definition Decius, but...The embodiment of Law is a hive of Intelligent Insects living at the pinnacle of Axis, the "heaven of Law". At first it is very logical that insects would appear very ordered and lawful, as it appears they all work for the good of the collective. This would on the surface seem to support your argument. However, insects communicate implicitly through a process called stigmergy. The interesting thing about this system is that it does not require any understanding that others are even about, in other words, from the perspective of the insects, they are all that exists. Their apparent coordination is the result of each of them acting rationally (with their own best interests in mind) in a system designed to elicit certain behaviours from those individuals. If a termite is hot, it automatically starts digging and when it digs, it releases a coded pheromone. When other termites, each acting individually, receive this pheromone, a hardwired neural system is stimulated which drives them to dig...and when they dig, they too release this pheromone. It is all just hardwired drive, no termite even knows the other termites exist, yet the result is termite mounds with "air conditioning" and zero hot spots that can kill termites. So, the reason I illustrated this system, it at first seems to exemplify:
Lawfulness is the belief that the needs of the many are more important than any individual.
But upon reflection better supports:
the belief that the individuals are the only important part of the whole.
Since no termite ever knows more than themselves how can they value the collective?
Similarly, by your definition Libertarianism would be deemed Chaotic, but I would actually argue it is extremely Lawful...like the termites.
What this suggests is that there are gradients of Lawfulness, and to determine how lawful one is, the system to which you are part needs to be evaluated...not the individual. If you participate in a system that is Coordinated, whether by force, coercion, choice, or accident, you are Lawful. Since only the result is examined in determining Lawfulness, the Lawful position seem to be more "the end justifies the means" whereas Chaos seems to be more "the means justifies the end". This makes sense because a goal-oriented approach would lend itself to making plans and coordinating to fulfil those plans efficiently, whereas a more chaotic position would live in the moment and simply accept where that might get them. This makes sense for the more fae creatures to then be Chaotic...which does not mean they cannot make plans, only that they plan in different ways...ways that will likely result from their whims. To illustrate, a lawful character might take up training to be the best at something they do not enjoy but pays well because they plan on receiving the rewards at the end...a chaotic character would do what they enjoy and plan on being the best at it because they know they will be doing and therefore practising it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For those who do not want to read my wall of text, I proposed and supported the following alignment system:
Does compassion play a role in your dealings with other entities?
Always = Good
Sometimes = Neutral
Never = Evil
Which is more correct, "the ends justify the means" or "the means justify the end"?
The end justifies the means = Lawful
A combination of both = Neutral
The means justified the end = Chaotic
How you answer these two questions should dictate your alignment (if my arguments and conclusions above are not false).
So, this actually allows me to express my doubts about the current Law-Chaos system as we briefly know it. It is true that a person who takes Contracts and does not fulfill them is probably Chaotic...so that works. It also suggests players who do not take contracts and therefore not participating in the system are Chaotic. Finally, the place it does not seem to work is where players take contracts and fulfill them...simply because it was convenient and they were headed that way anyways. If I want to craft swords because I enjoy crafting swords...why not also take and fulfill this contract to craft swords and make some money? This is well within the behaviour of a Chaotic character, but would end up making them Lawful if they always fulfill them...so does not work.
As a possible solution: Making Chaotic the default (or at least a selectable initial option) would allow people who do not participate in the system to remain Chaotic. Optionally, creating a very slow degrade system from Lawful to Chaos would also achieve this result. This degrade system would be overcome by completing even one contract in x time. And finally, only make Contracts for and by Lawful people/organizations move one toward Lawful. Other contracts should have no effect when completed (but can still have the shift toward Chaotic apply when failed/abandoned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is more correct, "the ends justify the means" or "the means justify the end"?
The end justifies the means = Lawful
A combination of both = Neutral
The means justified the end = Chaotic
I'm not sure that's correct. Assume a Paladin, faced with a group of 3 LG, 3 CG, 3 CE, 3 LE. If he kills 9 people he can say, "Everyone is LG now". Does that end justify the means?
I think maybe it's reversed; for a lawful, the means justify the end.
Or maybe they both apply to law. For the LG, the means justify the end, and for a lawful evil the end justify the means?
(GW: answer these questions to the satisfaction of all of us, and it will be a first in RPG history)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, the only problem I see with your example is that being LG, the Paladin is also bound by compassion too. A LE equivalent to the paladin would do as you suggest. The important part in that question is simply the Law part...in which case the LG and LE character is the same...the difference is the LG character has additional behavioural restrictions (those that keep him from killing the other 9 people). But, being Lawful, they also have to consider how their immediate acts play into the larger goals...Chaos does not necessarily take future goals into consideration.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe chaotics don't feel the need to justify every action to a bunch of judgmental/lawful neighbors, so they don't worry about either of the little sayings.
In case that sounds harsh, let me clarify. I think to some degree the "chaotic" alignments are most foreign to us in Western society. I think both of the sayings were produced by lawful/orderly Westerners to justify their behavior to society or associates.