Goblinworks Blog: Live Through This


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Digital Products Assistant

Added thread for new Goblinworks Blog: Live Through This.

Goblin Squad Member

Awesome!

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Awesome blog. Very Happy to see this.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Awesome - I like that you can choose to leave an alliance.

Goblin Squad Member

Quote:
Players begin with Rank 1 (neutral) and 0 rating with all alliances, meaning the player will not be killed on sight but will not be welcomed by any given alliance unless another force is involved, such as poor reputation. If a player helps a given alliance, in time they will increase to rank 1, at which point the alliance is friendly to them. On the other hand, if the player works against the alliance, they will become rank 0 and will be attacked on sight by NPCs of that alliance, and may appear as an enemy to other PCs of that alliance.

Whoops, we found a post-publish typo on our part. Friendly is rank 2. The breakdown should be:

  • Rank 0: Hostile
  • Rank 1: Neutral
  • Rank 2: Friendly
  • Rank 3+: Member

Goblin Squad Member

Much more interactive with the NPC's, via alliances (with benefits) and alignment congruence. It'll be interesting if different settlements are pull-pushed apart via different alliances *trouble brewing*.

Goblin Works Blog wrote:
In addition, we're recording interviews with the team about their various contributions and workflow—we think a lot of folks are interested to learn a bit about how these games are made and what motivates the people who make them.

Think this makes a huge difference. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks for the blog, and happy Thanksgiving!

Goblin Squad Member

I don't play Pathfinder, so I don't know anything really about these factions.

I hope that the game provides ample opportunity for people to learn about these organizations in-game.

Goblin Squad Member

Thank you for the blog.

The elements that really jumped out at me are the following:


  • Betrayer trait
  • I like how the settlement ranks/ratings are determined by the population.
  • The attention to the importance of consequences and the value they have for player interaction.

Most excellent.

Goblin Squad Member

@Sparrow, I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't in the traditional sense. There is a wealth of information about them at Pathfinder Wiki. I don't expect PFO will have long quest chains that reveal the stories of the factions, though.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Here's to player organizations eventually reaching the status of 'local group'.

I also hope that there isn't ever anything other than faction meshes or faction-specific Prestige Classes that require faction membership. It would not be cool if every CE settlement was as a big disadvantage unless it allied with the Denizens of Echo Wood.

Goblin Squad Member

Quote:
Players begin with Rank 1 (neutral) and 0 rating with all alliances, meaning the player will not be killed on sight but will not be welcomed by any given alliance unless another force is involved, such as poor reputation. If a player helps a given alliance, in time they will increase to rank 1, at which point the alliance is friendly to them. On the other hand, if the player works against the alliance, they will become rank 0 and will be attacked on sight by NPCs of that alliance, and may appear as an enemy to other PCs of that alliance.

The general basis of this is more or less the same as several big MMOs from the past few years. The chief problem that I have with this is that it does away with any type of secret diplomacy and plotting. If I were a member of the Daggermark Assassins Guild, the last thing I would want would be for everyone else to know this. But with this system, as happens with other games, the game is up from the outset.

Like wise with me working against an alliance or group in secret to undermine them. As soon as you do anything against them then you're in the negative. Which means doing away with one of their members, in secret, in the woods, where nobody has seen the deed? Everyone knows. Not very immersive if you ask me. Surely you guys can do better than this.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

thenoisyrogue wrote:


The general basis of this is more or less the same as several big MMOs from the past few years. The chief problem that I have with this is that it does away with any type of secret diplomacy and plotting. If I were a member of the Daggermark Assassins Guild, the last thing I would want would be for everyone else to know this. But with this system, as happens with other games, the game is up from the outset.

Like wise with me working against an alliance or group in secret to undermine them. As soon as you do anything against them then you're in the negative. Which means doing away with one of their members, in secret, in the woods, where nobody has seen the deed? Everyone knows. Not very immersive if you ask me. Surely you guys can do better than this.

Well considering this is all in the planning stage maybe you should suggest that there be some conditions where you could get away with it rather than just balk at the idea. Also if you go around wearing their mark/specific armor, showing a unique/faction weapon, or preforming assassin techniques of course people will know. Also you have to ask yourself if the immersion is possible without being a detriment to gameplay.

Goblin Squad Member

thenoisyrogue wrote:
The general basis of this is more or less the same as several big MMOs from the past few years. The chief problem that I have with this is that it does away with any type of secret diplomacy and plotting.

Maybe there will be some quests where you have to murder rival alliance npcs for loyalty points with your chosen alliance? etc. So on that level I can see it working for PvE. But I think there is a limit to how creative you can be as a player with NPCs vs unlimited with other players?

For eg a player could belong to a settlement as an infiltrator and kill some of the NPC allies and perhaps damage the alliance with NPC Alliance X and therefore render their building unuseable? Maybe that is possible?

--

Happy to see concrete evidence PvE is more integrated with other systems in the game at different levels eg alignment system, items, settlement upgrades, quests (I guess) and fluctuation in alliance statuses.

I agree with Decius, I'd prefer for there to avoid a 1:1 for eg as above all CE-settlement A must ally with Alliance X to be effective. Alliance Z should be equally valid (for CE-Settlement B) and possibly divisive to Alliance X and therefore aforementioned settlement A even though they seem to be CE as well as A.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
@Sparrow, I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't in the traditional sense. There is a wealth of information about them at Pathfinder Wiki. I don't expect PFO will have long quest chains that reveal the stories of the factions, though.

Yeah, I wasn't expecting any major quest lines or anything.

I would be satisfied with just being able to access a brief history of the groups.

Could be through in-game books, could be the website... I just think that having the info available for people would help for people that want to get into the setting, not just see who has the 'best' stuff.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

@ Sparrow: The link Nihimon shared should help you out, and some players are working on compiling information on the setting and world. This project purposefully tries to exploit the synergy of a fluff-laden table-top RPG and an MMO. Still, you bring up a point I'd hope to see addressed; how will GW work in the setting's fluff in game?

Back on topic, while I like most of what I saw on the blog, the wording hints that reductions in standing with enemy groups is automatic and unavoidable. I'd hope that wasn't the case. Intrigue relies on the ability for deception and for mechanics to be concealed. If it is impossible to prevent one's actions from immediately being known by the enemy groups, the sneaky assassin (or Eagle Knight!) is right out.

Also, while the blog did not say so, I'd hoped that it is easier to lose influence by a betrayal or violent act than it is to gain it. Many games with karma meters or reputation points treat this as an equal sliding scale when it should not be. As the old saw goes, you can save a dozen men and not be a hero, but you kill one and you're a murderer.

Goblin Squad Member

The Doc CC wrote:
wording hints that reductions in standing with enemy groups is automatic and unavoidable.

The sneaky diplomacy stuff is very hard to to with AI (very hard for devs, too simple for players).

ideas tossed out on the table:
-assign a 'visibility' or 'fame' rating to quests and actions. High visibility activities has more effect on standing with other factions.

-gear modifying standing (for better and for worse). Wearing Hellknight armor certainly should change how others view you - also if it is a disguise. Uniforms, cloaks, banners, holy symbols etc could work the same way. Take it to the next level with tatoos, tonsuring or ritual scarring. Doing 'bad stuff' wearing the gear gives a standing hit (ie. AI does not have to discern between spies and traitors)

(if gear gives +standing, then neutral/anonymous characters can infiltrate with the right disguise, but well known enemies would still be recognized as spies)

Quote:
Also, while the blog did not say so, I'd hoped that it is easier to lose influence by a betrayal or violent act than it is to gain it.

read again:

Blog wrote:
If you choose to betray your alliance, you immediately go to rank 0 and a negative rating with the alliance you are leaving, but gain half your old rating with a new alliance

Switching alliances repeatedly just makes you everyones enemy.

EDIT: so now PFO has a mechanic for fallen paladins. Time to dig up some old prestige classes?

Goblin Squad Member

One thing I would like to add about this.

First off I entirely agree that players should be the major drivers of the story. But I hope that the actions players take can still tell a story through the alliance. For instance in EVE I was always kind of upset that it is impossible for the Caldari to re-take Caldari-Prime. I understand the purpose for not allowing it within the context of EVE, but I do hope in this game that much of the power and holdings of alliances can be expanded, or conquered/destroyed through the actions of players. Like if Fort Inevitable is a starter town we shouldn't be able to raise it to the ground, but we should be able to push back the Hellknights to the point that they are all holed up in it's walls if we do enough to push them back and the players in that alliance do little to stop us or re-assert their power.

The other thing is I would like to see a major evil alliance. None of the listed alliances are ones I particularly want to join or fight as a neutral good character in a neutral good settlement. I've always kind of figured we would oppose the Hellknights based on the name but.... Lawful Neutral isn't really offensive enough to make us care any more than Chaotic Neutral.

Goblin Squad Member

The blog talks about single players and settlements interacting with NPC alliances but will we be able to have PC guilds and PC alliances too? If all alliances are controlled by NPCs, I don't see how players could do politics...

As for the sneaky alliances like Daggermark Assasins, I could see a set of special skills that mock or hide specific rankings. Something in the line of the "See Alignment" and "Undetectable Alignment" spells in tabletop but for rankings. A player could specialize in infiltrating a specific alliance to the exclusion of all others. And a counter mechanism would be for paladin-like players to detect these infiltrators.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

randomwalker wrote:
Also, while the blog did not say so, I'd hoped that it is easier to lose influence by a betrayal or violent act than it is to gain it.

read again:

Blog wrote:
If you choose to betray your alliance, you immediately go to rank 0 and a negative rating with the alliance you are leaving, but gain half your old rating with a new alliance

I really equivocated with the word betrayal there. Whoops.

I'd hoped to express the idea that if you act against your alliance's interests, that you should lose status quickly compared to how it is gained, that's all. As in, killing even one member of the group or stealing from it can undo a lot of hard work of trying to build a reputation.

Another idea I've always wanted to see implemented was one which allowed a character to have relationships more complex than simple hostility/affiliation. For example, the game could track both how much a group likes your character and how much it respects your character, then take both into account. A respected, hated character is an honored enemy, a "Rommel to your Patton," whom they might actually listen to or flee from. A hated, disrespected enemy they just want dead. A liked, respected member may be a leader, while a liked but not-respected member is not entrusted with important work yet. This could dovetail into the reputation mechanics, or be independent, but it would require more work from the devs and I do not pretend to have the technical expertise to know if it is feasible.

@ Andius: They're cleaving pretty close to the fluff (for good reason), and the blog posts do mention both the Church of Lamashtu and the Black Eagles. One group is a cult of secretive crazies worshiping a demon goddess, and the other are cruel soldiers in the service of a tyrant. It seems like the major alliances are going to be good and neutral, with evil being mostly concentrated in the monsters and bandits in the countryside and the smaller, local groups. Hopefully that will give you something to smite?

Goblin Squad Member

My question is how it will be implanted?

Does we need to contact a officer of the alliance (Hey do want to join the goblin slayer club?) Than reputation would work or If you kill a thousand goblins, your reputation with the goblin slayer club went up (and goblin lover club goes down) even if you haven't seen them in your life?

Goblin Squad Member

CaptnB wrote:
The blog talks about single players and settlements interacting with NPC alliances but will we be able to have PC guilds and PC alliances too? If all alliances are controlled by NPCs, I don't see how players could do politics...

Player run "alliances" do exist and are referred to as kingdoms. Those will be the largest player organized groups in player politics, and will be comprised of multiple settlements. Similar in scope to the "alliances" found in other major Open World PVP games like EVE and Darkfall.

To be very clear, there are two entirely different mechanics. A settlement can join the alliance Knights of Ioemedae, AND still be in a player kingdom.

Player run organizations can be read about here if you are interested in learning more.

Goblin Squad Member

Right, it's described in a previous blog entry that I forgot ;)

My bad!

Goblin Squad Member

CaptnB wrote:

Right, it's described in a previous blog entry that I forgot ;)

My bad!

No problem. As a leader of a player organization I realize this stuff is more interesting to me than the general player cruising through the blogs. I was happy to clear the confusion.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm concerned that the way things are going with factions and settlements that the diversity of players for each region will be very narrow.

Has the option been discussed at all of a Free City? Where there is no alignment requirement, but perhaps there are less/no faction benefits?

Goblin Squad Member

Loved what I read in the blog. I certainly agree that starting with a limited number of them will help "flesh them out" such that they are an appropriate powered force in the world before adding more factions and more variety.

That said what Decius brings up is also a concern. I hope that, as in his example, every CE settlement doesn't feel like joining DothEW is the "best mechanical" or "most efficient" choice. It should be THE choice because of alignment and other CE "friendly" choices should come into play when it is decided to introduce more factions.

Settlements should want to join a faction based on its ideals, not its game mechanic benefits.

Goblin Squad Member

Skwiziks wrote:

I'm concerned that the way things are going with factions and settlements that the diversity of players for each region will be very narrow.

Has the option been discussed at all of a Free City? Where there is no alignment requirement, but perhaps there are less/no faction benefits?

We screamed and yelled for something like this during the Star Wars Galaxies beta for the "neutral" faction. In essence we wanted the same formal "formalization" in game as the Empire and Rebels but with the creative free stroke to define ourselves as "Cartels", "Corporations", "Pirates", etc., and subsequently define who we were at war with.

Essentially many had played Empire or Rebel over the many years of their lives and wanted to play something of their own home brew against the backdrop of the Galatic Civil War.

Knowing that alignment (and ideals to an extent) are very straightforward and, I dare say, exclusive leaning (based on your alignment), I don't know that the idea of a Free City would be a prevalent thing. Maybe one Free City type faction, sure, but I would think the reality would run counter to what the founders of that faction intended. By that I mean they may have an inclusive mindset, where everyone best behave (not necessarily get along or like each other), but every other faction would probably look at them with raised brow and lots of concern due to the fraternization of the traditionally opposing alignments.

I mean if Luke Skywalker came into a room to find Han Solo playing sabacc with the Emperor, he'd probably not trust him too much anymore. It's certainly be a "Dude, WTF!" moment.

So yeah, I think it'd be interesting to have if done in a "lonely island" (not the Adam Sandburg group) type way. They, and any settlements that joined them, may not be enemies to everyone like the Cult of Lamashtu, but they certainly would not have anything above a neutral (not trusted) level with everyone else who goes and picks an antagonistic (Good vs. Evil) side.

Goblin Squad Member

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:
So yeah, I think it'd be interesting to have if done in a "lonely island" (not the Adam Sandburg group) type way. They, and any settlements that joined them, may not be enemies to everyone like the Cult of Lamashtu, but they certainly would not have anything above a neutral (not trusted) level with everyone else who goes and picks an antagonistic (Good vs. Evil) side.

That's kind of what I'm referring to. As things are now, it just doesn't feel right that a Free City is impossible in the River Kingdoms. Isn't it the best place in Golarion for one to spring up? Some place where no one cares who you are, what you do, or who you're friends are as long as you play nice and don't get caught.

Or maybe N factions/settlements could have no alignment restrictions?

Goblin Squad Member

Skwiziks wrote:
V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

...

Or maybe N factions/settlements could have no alignment restrictions?

I think this was brought up elsewhere and got the kibosh because you'd end up with PFO being full of nothing but N player organizations. Part of the charm I believe they are going for with PFO is making folks make decisions, commit to a side and go with it. Less of trying to get the "best of both world", "jack of all trades", <insert any other overused cliche> and replace it with meaningful choice.

Goblin Squad Member

A guess, that neutral will be cosmopolitan but more unstable; more directions with which characters alignments could switch to/from? I wonder if that guess is close.

Goblin Squad Member

If you didn't lose faction for killing someone in a forest with no witnesses then the same would have to be true for gaining faction.
This would make it really annoying trying to gain faction if there has to be witnesses around every time I kill something.

Goblin Squad Member

Rafkin wrote:

If you didn't lose faction for killing someone in a forest with no witnesses then the same would have to be true for gaining faction.

This would make it really annoying trying to gain faction if there has to be witnesses around every time I kill something.

Unfortunately in an MMO with guaranteed resurrection, there is no such thing as killing a PC with no witnesses. Because the victim will certainly testify

Goblin Squad Member

Skwiziks wrote:
... it just doesn't feel right that a Free City is impossible in the River Kingdoms. Isn't it the best place in Golarion for one to spring up?

I don't think it's required to join an alliance, so wouldn't a Free City just be a city without alliances? Or are you asking for an NPC City that is the base for a "Free City" alliance that players and Settlements can join?

Rafkin wrote:

If you didn't lose faction for killing someone in a forest with no witnesses then the same would have to be true for gaining faction.

This would make it really annoying trying to gain faction if there has to be witnesses around every time I kill something.

I would rather see us gain faction when we brought back the head of the enemy leader, rather than immediately upon killing him.

Goblin Squad Member

I made a post about settlement alignments here.

Granted, I did not have the information on factions and their interaction with settlements that we have now, but I think it still applies.

Originally I was thinking that factions were great, because they would naturally limit true neutral settlements because their members would be gaining reputation with various opposed factions, keeping the settlement from achieving high-tier access. But then, you have to expect that neutral settlements would put faction requirements into place on their members in order to counteract this.

Personally, I would still like to see true neutral settlements not allow the corners. I would be willing to concede them the ability to choose 1 corner to allow, or even possibly 2 corners on the same side of the grid, if they were indeed somewhat limited on their interaction with factions.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

But this would mean no CG, LG, CE or LE Pathfinders lol.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that.

Goblin Squad Member

Ah, I'm going to assume that members of the Pathfinder Society are called Pathfinders.

Well if that is something that is in the PnP and that we definitely want to port to the game, it could easily be made possible by allowing characters and settlements of any alignment to obtain favor with neutral alliances, much like how I suggest that CE/LE/CG/LG settlements should be able to recruit true neutral characters.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I don't think it's required to join an alliance, so wouldn't a Free City just be a city without alliances? Or are you asking for an NPC City that is the base for a "Free City" alliance that players and Settlements can join?

Even if a Settlement isn't pursuing an Alliance, it still has an alignment requirement according to earlier blogs, and characters still have to be within one step of that alignment.

I'm talking about having a PC or NPC Settlement that has no alignment requirement, a "Free City". Maybe it has no ties to any Alliance, but it feels thematically appropriate to the region.

@Kakafika, that seems a bit more flexible of a system. I'd be okay with that.

Goblin Squad Member

Skwiziks wrote:
I'm talking about having a PC or NPC Settlement that has no alignment requirement, a "Free City". Maybe it has no ties to any Alliance, but it feels thematically appropriate to the region.

I think Alignment will always be a factor by the looks of things:

1. It's absolute part of Pathfinder (I believe)
2. As well as an individual flagging system it's collective so eg adhering to laws etc leads to LG settlements which is conducive to the goals of those players and visa-versa with eg CE who want to break rules etc but at the price of having to be excluded from LG stability etc.

I think that's the intention. I believe however settlements can vary their laws/rules for admitting/doing business with different alignments: Under votes:

Goblin Works Blog wrote:
  • Adding or removing a player character to or from the settlement
  • Sponsoring a chartered company (or ceasing sponsorship of one)
  • Changing the access permissions for a settlement

I guess there might be flexibility then to that degree?

Goblin Squad Member

Skwiziks wrote:
I'm talking about having a PC or NPC Settlement that has no alignment requirement, a "Free City".

Ah, I see. That would be interesting.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't want to see the common situation you find in most MMOs most guilds accept players of every alignment since that allows them to bolster their numbers more by not having to turn anyone away.

With the proper advantages for companies that follow an alignment, and perhaps even penalties for those that don't... alignment becomes meaningful enough I see no reason there can't be player organizations like the Pathfinder Society that accept all alignments.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

There already is a player organization that accepts players who intend to play characters of any alignment. We are currently speculating on how best to support all of those characters with the least duplication of effort.

The last resort option is that we have multiple implementations of the in-game entities which are the traditional identity of a player organization: we make 'unaffiliated' settlements.

Sczarni Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
@Sparrow, I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't in the traditional sense. There is a wealth of information about them at Pathfinder Wiki. I don't expect PFO will have long quest chains that reveal the stories of the factions, though.

also the wiki already has a Pathfinder online portal for fans to begin inputting this information when this comes out.

Lantern Lodge

Skwiziks wrote:
V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

...

Or maybe N factions/settlements could have no alignment restrictions?

I think this was brought up elsewhere and got the kibosh because you'd end up with PFO being full of nothing but N player organizations. Part of the charm I believe they are going for with PFO is making folks make decisions, commit to a side and go with it. Less of trying to get the "best of both world", "jack of all trades", <insert any other overused cliche> and replace it with meaningful choice.

I agree with avoiding (or actually just making it difficult, given the hope for true sandbox characters) "best of both worlds" but that has nothing to with JOATs (Jack Of All Trades) which is certainly worthy of being allowed and has nothing to do meaningful choices (unless you think I somehow avoided meaningfull choices out here in reality)

For reference it is usually, when fully phrased, " a jack of all trades and master of none" which thoroughly puts JOATs on a different level then those seeking the best of everything.

You could say that the only thing a JOAT is, is a master of versatility.

Goblin Squad Member

Re: Demo: Interested if we'll see stamina system in evidence yet, a proto-type of the action-bar skill-slot and the general feel of combat animations between different models. Also how the tab-targeting will work with bows in particular? It'd be good to see a critical hit also. :)


So I'm in favour of this system as it will prevent 'flavour of the month' faction-hopping although it would be interesting to see how long the Betrayer trait lasts. I'm in favour of somewhere at least a month or more.

With the Society being a faction, will that mean we have access to the Aspis Consortium and will the rewards for being in the Society include Society-specific missions?

I honestly can't think of an MMO that I want to play more than Pathfinder. Assuming it manages to deliver, I can see it eclipsing other MMOs for years to come.

Goblin Squad Member

Blog wrote:
You may choose to leave an alliance at any time, or you may be automatically forced out if your alignment is more than one step from the alliance's alignment.

This simple line implies two things:

1- Alliances won't accept everyone regardless of alignment, except N ones;
2- Alignment may shift, so it is not a static value chosen at character creation. It will certainly be tied to characters' actions in-game.

Goblin Squad Member

Some thoughts...

- The system as described sounds pretty good.

- In regards the secret society/intrigue/agent stuff. Mechanicaly, I expect the easiest way for them to go about this (if they did) would be to impliment some sort of condition on the player (like a buff) that masked or changed the players true allegience for NPC's and other A.I. functions. Essentialy it would be like putting on a disguise. This condition could automaticaly be dispelled by the player taking certain actions within the settlements radius...perhaps a periodic check by the NPC A.I. and possibly could be attempted to be "unmasked" be PC's with sufficient rank with the NPC organization (i.e. The guards wouldn't be likely to listen to the ravings of some stranger to the organization but might well trust someone alligned to the organization). Both the "disguise" and the "unmask" would have long cooldown timers. Any rating points you gained while "disguised" simply wouldn't count, effective rank would be dependant on the quality of the players "disguise" and would revert back to what the players real rank was when the "disguise" was removed. Essentialy the game needs to keep track of what the players actual ranks and ratings were but the A.I. could maybe have a function that checked if there was a "condition" in place on that player for certain interactions and substitute the rank from that instead. That's the only way I could imagine an automated system really handling it.

- In regards the "Free City" thing. I don't see any block for an NPC settlement/organization doing that. In fact, I kinda imagine Thornkeep might not have any alignment restrictions. That kinda stuff could be self balancing, as the Dev's would control both the benefits derived from alignment with that settlement/organization and it's in-game motivations. I believe Ryan has already put the kibash on PC settlements/kingdoms or companies that accept all alignments due to the fact it would just be too much of an advantage in the growth of such in-game organizations. Note that does not neccesarly prevent out of game organizations that accepted all alignments, just puts some limitations on how they can interact in game. It'd be pretty futile for the Dev's to try to control out of game stuff anyway.

- In terms of PC settlements, I'd expect that certain interactions (like voting for leadership) be hard coded to require membership in the settlement and other interactions be determined by the members\leadership themselves based on some sort of permissions system. For instance, I really wouldn't expect the game to REQUIRE the player to be a member of the settlement to buy/sell at it's market. That would really put a damper on trade. Rather I imagine the membership/leadership could set some sort of role based permission on that interaction that was more lenient. Thus I would expect you'd have some gradation in how "Open" a PC settlement was...All the way from; "If you aren't a member we kill you on sight once you enter our territory"... to "We pretty much welcome anybody to interact with us in most ways, save a few things which are logicaly restricted to members".

Edit: Note that alot of the interaction in PC settlements will hopefully be Player to Player..not Player to A.I. Therefore just because you and I are different alignments doesn't mean that I am automaticaly going to kill you on sight once you enter my territory or refuse to trade with you....or maybe I will, it all depends on my character and what out of game rules my organization has set up. That's (hopefully) more important then the in game logic setup for the A.I.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
... impliment some sort of condition on the player (like a buff) that masked or changed the players true allegience for NPC's and other A.I. functions.

Ryan has hinted at something similar to this with respect to Assassins getting into restricted areas in order to execute their contracts.

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, GrumpyMel, I'm kind of hoping that Thornkeep will be pretty loose with its membership.

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: Live Through This All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.