Goblin Squad Member
|
When that is the Civil Rights movement it is CG. When it is wide-scale contempt for copyright and intellectual property law, it is probably CN. In every case, chaotic people are happy following the vast majority of the laws, only breaking the ones that they think are stupid or wrong. I have always seen the law-chaos axis of alignment as the difference between Deontological and Utilitarian ethics respectively, not any broad generalizations about who is selfish and who is more civic minded.The Civil rights movement is a perfect example of the differences between CG/LG/NG in the face of an injust society.
LG would go get a permit to protest, and make a LEGAL protest. that is not being chaotic, that is having a different opinion. A LEGAL protest by the KKK would be an example of lawful evil.
NG would fudge the lines, a peacful protest despite not getting the permit. Maybe some graffitti or a sit in that pushes the authorities to the brink.
CG is more radical, they might bomb or steal or hack a website, but genrally they will not kill unless in self defence. Once you cross the line to murder you have entered the good-evil axis.
LG would not protest. They would work within the courts and legislature to get the laws they disagree with repealed and replaced by incrementally better laws. The benefit is that this is the conservative, "proper" channel to deal with this sort of thing by. The downside obviously is that it takes too long, getting stuck in judicial and legislative gridlock and procedure.
NG would have a peaceful protest with a proper permit and all, and then maybe write a letter to their congressman and circulate a petition.
CG is meanwhile, holding sit ins, forming Occupy movements and getting in the face of the media to get their message across.
so basically your view of LG is my view of NG and your NG is my CG, and you ahve completely forgotten the truly Lawful way to effect societal change. What you call CG is also more like CN if they are willing to cause actual property damage by bombing and hacking.
This is a game mechanic designed to deny characters and NPC's access to magic and items.
I'm not even quite sure what this means. But if you have such an extreme view of what you need to be doing to be chaotic, I'd like to hear your description of lawful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what the system would really benefit from in terms of mass conflict (e.g. "Wars") is the concept of "Casus Belli" aka "A Justified Cause For War". That's a concept that alot of strategy games encorporate.
Basicaly the concept is that there are certain specific actions when taken by one nation act as legitimate provocation for the aggrieved party to engage in hostilities (of limited scope and duration) without suffering harm to thier reputation or national standing (or in this case alignment). I think this could really help the game here and address some of the issues of abuse that we might see, while increasing the possibility for meaningfull interaction even among non-evil, non-chaotic nations.
I would setup the caveats that the individuals/organization performing the "provocation" A) Always be provided with warning by the system that thier actions were about to trigger a "Casus Belli" (just as with criminal tags) so that no one could say they were doing so out of ignorance. B) The Declaring Country must make an "Official Declaration of War" that included say 24 hours advance notice and a public notification to the declared upon party (no surprise wars) and C) The War have a limited duration...say 1 week, until it was automaticaly concluded and hostilities only be allowed in non-neutral territory (i.e. no fighting in NPC Controled territory..aka "Switzerland").
I would say given the above stipulations, there would be no cause or reason that an organization that observed above said conditions need suffer a slid toward "Chaos" or "Evil"
In terms of the provocations for a "Casus Belli" they should be specificaly predefined by the system but I would suggest the following non-conclusive list....
A) Competition for control over a contested hex (i.e. both constructing buildings that were precursors for decalring control over territory)
B) Entering a nations controled territory when thier laws clearly forbade it.
C) Conducting hostilities against the nations structures, or resource camps.
D) Initiating hostilities against innocent 3rd parties in the nations controled territory if that were against it's laws.
E) Attacking caravans that were under the nations "official protection" anywhere outside of the attacking nations own territory.
F) Sponsoring (officialy) charaterd companies who did the same. Be carefull who you chose to sponsor.
D) Contracting an Assasination against the nations officers (e.g. The "Franz Ferdinand" clause). If there were some mechanic available for "officialy discovering" this in game.
There are probably a few other things that might logicaly be added to such a list.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I made a post here about how I think chaotic settlements should be 'different' but not specifically made to be 'worse' in all cases.
That post was largely because I feel CG/CN/CE settlements have a valued place in PFO.
I made that post shortly after my post here and voicing my mild dissatisfaction with some of the details we've gotten recently.
I actually have to run out the door, so I can't take the time to dig up a link, but the devs recently seemed to indicate that CG and LE settlements would not be incredibly gimped, only if they dropped below that status towards CE would they start seeing significant costs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I see a CG town as making up for that efficiency loss by being more free and open both economically and socially.
The way I see it, the most quintessentially Chaotic thing you can do is to perform civil disobedience when you see an injustice. That is not selfish, that is principled. When that is the Civil Rights movement it is CG. When it is wide-scale contempt for copyright and intellectual property law, it is probably CN. In every case, chaotic people are happy following the vast majority of the laws, only breaking the ones that they think are stupid or wrong. I have always seen the law-chaos axis of alignment as the difference between Deontological and Utilitarian ethics respectively, not any broad generalizations about who is selfish and who is more civic minded.
I think this is where the disconnect is. GOOD towns are free. EVIL towns are oppressive. NEUTRAL towns would be in the middle. The LAWFUL-NEUTRAL-CHAOTIC distiction is in the view of and acceptance to follow community standards. LAWFUL characters (GOOD/NEUTRAL/EVIL) support the idea of rules. CHAOTIC don't.
LG towns are the most ethical. They have laws, the laws are good natured, and people follow them because they are ethical in nature. If there is a problem with a law in a LG town, it's brought up for peaceful consideration and a ruling is made. If the law is truely unethical and yet the community sustain it...they would risk losing LG status. A LG town would not have a death penalty (by the book) and killing would be a crime under all but the most narrow of circumstances. I.E. The attacker was bent to kill me and in my defence the attacker fell on my sword and died. Otherwise the question would be, "Once you subdued the attacker, why didn't you call for the guards?"
CG towns are still GOOD, meaning they side with ethics, but there administration is less ordered.
If you're looking for Free Market solutions, you need to turn your gaze toward X-NEUTRAL towns. Probably either LN or TN. If you're an Atlas Shrugged fan... CN towns are all the rage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind, LG, TN, and CE are VERY difficult alignments to play, and don't really match real life personalities.
LG is the caracature of valor, TN is completely apathetic about anything, and CE are monsters.
As a TT DM, I normally refuse characters of NE, CE, and try to encourage my players away from LG, TN, and LE (though I'll allow them). I know some will skoff at that, but honestly, it's a pain in the party. LG in a party of non-LG has to contend with the others not being lilly-clean, and the party has to avoid him calling the law on them for minor offenses. TN in a party are lumps that shrug their shoulders toward any decisive choice. LE characters are always looking for ways to bend the rules to get something extra from a treasure haul that should be equally divided.
But if/when a situation arises that challenges that ethos, the player will need to make a choice as to why they're reacting as such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I made a post here about how I think chaotic settlements should be 'different' but not specifically made to be 'worse' in all cases.
That post was largely because I feel CG/CN/CE settlements have a valued place in PFO.
I made that post shortly after my post here and voicing my mild dissatisfaction with some of the details we've gotten recently.
I actually have to run out the door, so I can't take the time to dig up a link, but the devs recently seemed to indicate that CG and LE settlements would not be incredibly gimped, only if they dropped below that status towards CE would they start seeing significant costs.
I think the idea here is that no one is "gimped" but that the alignments are balanced in terms of viability.
"LG" is kind of self-burdoned
in terms of the fact that they must abide by very strict "Rules of Engagement" and that those rules must take into account the well being of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society, even those who are too fragile to contribute to the advancement of thier community. However the society as a whole benefits from the enlightened and orderly atmosphere this produces (in terms of certain mechanical benefits).
"LE" must also abide by strict "Rules of Engagement" but those rules in no way need consider the needs of the weak, the vulnerable or those to frail to contribute to society. Thus they are far less burdoned by thier obligations. They get some benefits from being orderly but since they have no need to burdeon themselves with being well intentioned, they derive no benefits from it either.
"CG" feels a sense of natural responsibility and inclination to foster the well being of all, including the meek and the weak. However they are under no obligation to play by any sort of Rulebook. They throwout the Rulebook and do whatever seem "best" to them at the moment, as long as it's beneficial to those whom they care for. Since they feel a moral desire to care for the weak, they gain some benefit from that. However since they are free to throw out the rulebook, they gain no benefits from being orderly.
"CE" is actualy the least, "self-burdoned" of them all. They don't need to worry about following any rules and they don't need to worry about caring for anyone that can't help them directly. They are free to do whatever is percieved is most expedient to them at the moment. However because of the lack of any restrictions upon them and the lack of compunction to care about anyone but themselves, they recieve no benefits from being either orderly or from being loved by those who must serve them.
Neutrals fall between those extremes. Essentialy no one is really "gimped" under such a system...you are just choosing your mix of advantages and disadvantages.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose chaotic and neutral settlements could have lower tax rates/less regulation, so they might have less services, but their services might be cheaper? Or at least the potential to be lower due to less tax needs, since less provided by the city and more by private individuals and groups?
That's how I would envision it anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
LG would not protest. They would work within the courts and legislature to get the laws they disagree with repealed and replaced by incrementally better laws. The benefit is that this is the conservative, "proper" channel to deal with this sort of thing by. The downside obviously is that it takes too long, getting stuck in judicial and legislative gridlock and procedure.NG would have a peaceful protest with a proper permit and all, and then maybe write a letter to their congressman and circulate a petition.
CG is meanwhile, holding sit ins, forming Occupy movements and getting in the face of the media to get their message across.
so basically your view of LG is my view of NG and your NG is my CG, and you ahve completely forgotten the truly Lawful way to effect societal change. What you call CG...
There is absoultely zero non-lawfulnes in your nuetral and zero chaos in your chaotic. When a lawful character runs into a problem, they will choose from the options to confront that problem WITHIN THE LAW. That may be through legislation or the legal system or peaceful protest. As long as they are acting within the law, they are being LAWFUL.
The nuetral character is the one that as you state "obeys the laws on a utilitarian level". The nuetral character would rather obey the law all things equal, but will break the law from time to time either because they disagree or they are just morally grey area.
The chaotic character does not take the law into consideration in their decision making. They will act according to their moral code of good, nuetral or evil and it makes little to no difference to them if it is against the law or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the idea here is that no one is "gimped" but that the alignments are balanced in terms of viability.I made a post here about how I think chaotic settlements should be 'different' but not specifically made to be 'worse' in all cases.
That post was largely because I feel CG/CN/CE settlements have a valued place in PFO.
I made that post shortly after my post here and voicing my mild dissatisfaction with some of the details we've gotten recently.
I actually have to run out the door, so I can't take the time to dig up a link, but the devs recently seemed to indicate that CG and LE settlements would not be incredibly gimped, only if they dropped below that status towards CE would they start seeing significant costs.
This is exactly what I am aiming for in my post, yes.
Rather than a straight 'upkeep costs more, you can't progress your characters' situation, living in a Chaotic settlement is just different. The strength is taken from the community and distributed to the individual in terms of more freedoms. With more freedoms, each individual has more responsibility to making the settlement work.
Again though, since that post, we have been told that really only CE settlements will be crippled (with maybe some deficiencies in CN and NE?), so some of my initial concerns have been somewhat addressed. I would still see myself playing a CN character, however, and so am interested in the details.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moral Foundations Theory might be an interesting thing to consider. It proposes that there are 6 basic evolutionary and societal values that trigger the feeling that something is right or wrong in people.
1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.
4) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
5) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
6) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what the system would really benefit from in terms of mass conflict (e.g. "Wars") is the concept of "Casus Belli" aka "A Justified Cause For War". That's a concept that alot of strategy games encorporate...
While I like the basic idea I see it being hard to implement meaningfully.
Clan A want a war with Clan B.
Clan A puts a spy in clan B. The spy crosses into Clan A territory against their laws, kills a bunch of clan A members who stand there and let him do so, and destroys a non-important building.
Clan A now declares war on Clan B with no penalties.
Clan B should at least have a chance to kick out the spy / hand him over for "justice" to be done to avoid war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what the system would really benefit from in terms of mass conflict (e.g. "Wars") is the concept of "Casus Belli" aka "A Justified Cause For War". That's a concept that alot of strategy games encorporate...While I like the basic idea I see it being hard to implement meaningfully.
Clan A want a war with Clan B.
Clan A puts a spy in clan B. The spy crosses into Clan A territory against their laws, kills a bunch of clan A members who stand there and let him do so, and destroys a non-important building.
Clan A now declares war on Clan B with no penalties.
Clan B should at least have a chance to kick out the spy / hand him over for "justice" to be done to avoid war.
How about this:
If a group performs an act of war, their settlement(if part of one) must choose to disown them or risk War.If a settlement goes to war, as part of an act of war, their kingdom must choose to disown them or risk war.
If at either level it is decided to risk war, the damaged settlement may go to war and may demand payment for damages.
The settlement/kingdom must decide "how badly do we want to keep these people.
If a group commits an act of war, the group they committed the act against gets kill rights for 30 days, but doesn't have to go to war.
If a settlement/kingdom disowns a group/settlement, that settlement/kingdom has kill rights against the group/settlement for 30 days.
Disowning a group/settlement requires the settlement/kingdom to pay 100% of the damages, determined by the average regional market value of the destroyed/stolen goods. So it is in their best interest to go after the offenders and get what they took so they can get some of their money back.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Disowning a group/settlement requires the settlement/kingdom to pay 100% of the damages, determined by the average regional market value of the destroyed/stolen goods. So it is in their best interest to go after the offenders and get what they took so they can get some of their money back.
So if the spy (Which is likely an alt.) just fences the goods (Probably back to the clan they stole it from given that's who they work for.) and disappears how will Clan A get it's money back?
I still see a lot of potential for abuse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what the system would really benefit from in terms of mass conflict (e.g. "Wars") is the concept of "Casus Belli" aka "A Justified Cause For War". That's a concept that alot of strategy games encorporate.
Basicaly the concept is that there are certain specific actions when taken by one nation act as legitimate provocation for the aggrieved party to engage in hostilities (of limited scope and duration) without suffering harm to thier reputation or national standing (or in this case alignment). I think this could really help the game here and address some of the issues of abuse that we might see, while increasing the possibility for meaningfull interaction even among non-evil, non-chaotic nations.
I would setup the caveats that the individuals/organization performing the "provocation" A) Always be provided with warning by the system that thier actions were about to trigger a "Casus Belli" (just as with criminal tags) so that no one could say they were doing so out of ignorance. B) The Declaring Country must make an "Official Declaration of War" that included say 24 hours advance notice and a public notification to the declared upon party (no surprise wars) and C) The War have a limited duration...say 1 week, until it was automaticaly concluded and hostilities only be allowed in non-neutral territory (i.e. no fighting in NPC Controled territory..aka "Switzerland").
I would say given the above stipulations, there would be no cause or reason that an organization that observed above said conditions need suffer a slid toward "Chaos" or "Evil"
In terms of the provocations for a "Casus Belli" they should be specificaly predefined by the system but I would suggest the following non-conclusive list....
A) Competition for control over a contested hex (i.e. both constructing buildings that were precursors for decalring control over territory)
B) Entering a nations controled territory when thier laws clearly forbade it.
C) Conducting hostilities against the nations structures, or resource
...
Casus Belli would be interesting, though perhaps I play too many strategy games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've been playing the Paradox grand strategy games while I wait for PFO. CKII, Vicky2, and patiently awaiting EU4 =D
Casus Belli would be interesting. I wouldn't mind if it were just grossly simplified, since it seems like it could be something that gets very complicated and can be exploited.
Riffing off Valk's and Mel's ideas,
1. Groups that own 'forts' or some other territorial claim in the same hex each have 'territorial claim' casus belli against the other.
2. Settlements have 'territorial expansion' casus belli against any of their neighbors (assuming settlements/buildings are built in the closest neighboring hexes where this is possible).
3. Settlements have a 'opposing idealogy' or 'heathen ideology' (since the gods that are worshipped in each probably hate eachother) casus belli against any settlement of an ideology exactly opposite to theirs (LG vs CE, CG vs LE, and then for semi-neutral, just the opposite sides since that's all they have against eachother: CN vs LN and NG vs NE).
The other ideas are really interesting. I especially like the 'entering neutral territory when that settlement forbids it' because it gives meaningful choices such as "do I march 5 hexes over and allow enemy scouts to report that my armies are on the move, or do I risk war with my neighbor and march through his territory?" I just see a problem in determing at which point that goes from 'random settlement members entering' to a 'settlement-sponsored breaking of the law.' And whatever that point it, I expect people to discover what it is, and then transport their armies piecemeal across the neutral territory to avoid the casus belli.
I see other similar problems with other suggestions that use the descriptor 'act of war committed.' Also, the individuals that are committing a lot of those actions are already being penalized with alignment shifts. I think that may be enough to discourage that behavior; at the very least, the fact that characters from lower alignment settlements can occasionally take such actions outside of war is the one benefit they have over LG, which gets plenty of benefits for not engaging in non-war PvP.
We might be able to find ways around these issues, and I don't mean to discourage you from doing so if you wish, but I also think that with some basic CBs, LG settlements will have plenty of opportunity to declare war. Anything more than that, and I don't mind the 'upstanding society' taking a hit for warmongering.
This discussion got really interesting, I'd love to see some more ideas :)
So, I'm trying to get a better handle on alignment, reputation, settlements, guilds, etc. Maybe some questions will help?
First, are alignment and reputation congruent? Is it *possible* for a high-reputation character to be a chaotic or evil alignment? I'm really not grasping the details of this well. I thought that your ability to join a settlement was tied to reputation, not alignment, and that the evil/chaos alignmnets made it *harder* to have high reputation, but not impossible? But now I'm not sure.
So, let's take a look at some tropes and help me understand what alignment these people would be:
Monopolistic Profiteers. Avoiding all player combat, they buy low and sell high, and don't care who they buy from or sell to as long as profit is maximized at every step.
Killer Killers: If it is red, it's dead. These players kill everyone that is red, regardless of reason, level or skill disparity. Anyone that they see that is red is killed on-sight. If possible, they will multi-kill, camp, or otherwise harass these players. After all, they deserve it!
Glory killers: A little worse than the Killer Killers, these players will assault anyone not directly allied with them. They don't go hunting newbies or make a big stink in town, but out in the wilds where the NPC guards don't go, they kill everyone they see. They fight for fun, or for profit. If the target doesn't appear to provide either of those, then they will be left alone.
Indiscriminate Killers: They stay away from the starter towns, but out in the wilds, if it isn't blue, it's dead. They attack anyone they see at any time.
Organized bandits: They stalk the roads and paths in small groups, with large forces ready to come in on a moment's notice, and only attack caravans or obviously wealthy individuals. If you look like a juicy target, they kill you, loot you, and haul off your wagons.
Murder for Profit: Solo players that take any contract to kill they can find, as long as the pay is good. If they see someone worth a lot of money, they'll kill them for coin.
Operatives: they take contracts to kill only non-good, but don't care about profit. If there's a 1-coin contract on a neutral newbie, they'll kill them. It's all about the mission, nothing personal, but you're a scourge on the world and it's time to be wiped clean.
Make a Statement Thugs: you want to send a message, this is the guy. You point him at a target and he'll kill them every time he sees them. He'll stalk them. He'll disrupt their business. He'll character assassinate. He'll sully their reputation. He'll scam them, trick them, deny them access to goods and services. He'll do it all with a calling card letting them know EXACTLY why they're being targeted and what to do to make it stop.
Any thoughts on where these people/groups should end up? Which of these would be banned and which are the quality content you want to have for the good guys to interact with?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll take a stab:
So, let's take a look at some tropes and help me understand what alignment these people would be:
Monopolistic Profiteers. Avoiding all player combat, they buy low and sell high, and don't care who they buy from or sell to as long as profit is maximized at every step. true neutral
Killer Killers: If it is red, it's dead. These players kill everyone that is red, regardless of reason, level or skill disparity. Anyone that they see that is red is killed on-sight. If possible, they will multi-kill, camp, or otherwise harass these players. After all, they deserve it! chaotic evil by definition. might get banned for spawn camping
Glory killers: A little worse than the Killer Killers, these players will assault anyone not directly allied with them. They don't go hunting newbies or make a big stink in town, but out in the wilds where the NPC guards don't go, they kill everyone they see. They fight for fun, or for profit. If the target doesn't appear to provide either of those, then they will be left alone. Neutral evil but will eventually end up chaotic evil when they have accrued enough murders
Indiscriminate Killers: They stay away from the starter towns, but out in the wilds, if it isn't blue, it's dead. They attack anyone they see at any time.Neutral evil but will eventually end up chaotic evil when they have accrued enough murders
Organized bandits: They stalk the roads and paths in small groups, with large forces ready to come in on a moment's notice, and only attack caravans or obviously wealthy individuals. If you look like a juicy target, they kill you, loot you, and haul off your wagons.classic Chaotic Neutral archetype
Murder for Profit: Solo players that take any contract to kill they can find, as long as the pay is good. If they see someone worth a lot of money,... Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil depending on their methods
We've become numb to it, but fact is most PvP centric attitudes are chaotic evil by anything close to a rational standard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, are alignment and reputation congruent? Is it *possible* for a high-reputation character to be a chaotic or evil alignment? I'm really not grasping the details of this well. I thought that your ability to join a settlement was tied to reputation, not alignment, and that the evil/chaos alignmnets made it *harder* to have high reputation, but not impossible? But now I'm not sure.
First, for reference, I think the most relevant reference post is Lee Hammock's.
It will be possible for a Chaotic Evil character to have a high Reputation, and it will be possible for a Lawful Good character to have a low Reputation. I think both of those extremes will be very rare, because the things that generally move you towards CE also tend to reduce your Reputation, but they're not locked together.
Alignment determines which Settlements you can call Home in that you must remain within one step of the Settlement's Alignment. Reputation determines which Settlements you can enter without being immediately attacked, and which facilities you will be allowed to use.
I am going to refrain from trying to answer any of your questions about the Alignments of the various Tropes, and whether or not they would/should be banned as griefers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's very reassuring.
Making Reputation and Alignment 2 completely separate things is the best thing possible.
Of course they will be both influenced by our actions but still... I hate the preconception that a Chaotic Evil character is a killer.
Chaotic evil is an alignment like any other, and to me, it is implied that a lot of people may be chaotic evil. Not all of those people are trained for combat, actually, chances are those trained for combat are a minority.
The popular girl that dispenses humiliation and cruel pranks on the girls outside her social sphere can very well be Chaotic evil.
Also, Chaotic evil is not stupid (not necessarily at least) and should know how to stick to the rules to the point of being an acceptable member of a community, or at least look like one.
Sure he probably sells drugs to the little kids but he never slaughtered a man on the street just for the lulz.
As far as alignment goes I always found that the best way to see them is to separate law/chaos and /good/evil in separate aspects.
Lawful is a traditionalist, conservative, that follows the rules all the times he found it possible. He doesn't tend to fight the law but when he does (yes, a lawful character can fight the law) he tries to find the most legitimate way to do it. He would probably form a rebel factions with his rules, plans for future regency and the like.
Chaotic is a progressist. He may follow the rules if they suits him or if he fear punishment too much but is very fast to drop them when they do not conform to his ideas. He tends to fight the law a lot (but doesn't have a magical compulsion to do so if he doesn't need that) but usually doesn't have a plan for what happens next. he doesn't need an excuse to act as he feels is appropriate.
Place neutral on the middle ground and then use Good/evil axis for motivations.
Good have selfless motivations while Evil has selfish ones.
So, to me a rebel that sponsor a different heir to the throne who promises to ban slavery may pretty well still be a Lawful good character. And if he becomes a highwayman to sabotage the enemy lines he would have a low reputation.
And The Chaotic character can be a pretty content and peaceful character if he lives in a place where law doesn't get in his way. he would probably have a pretty high reputation while he manage his brothel of imported slaves and his rigged casino.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. Groups that own 'forts' or some other territorial claim in the same hex each have 'territorial claim' casus belli against the other.
One thing I have been pondering is whether having a constructed settlement in a hex would prevent the construction of a fort or watchtower?The Settlement that controls that Hex is likely to prevent its construction.
Violently.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure if "casting cure wounds on a thief who is on the run" IS evil. What if you're a healer of one of those groups that believes it is their duty to heal ANYONE in need? I think that would make you lawful good. Mechanically it would make you a criminal though.
It's complicated!
How so? I started reading this thread a week from when it started and haven't quite finished it yet. But, if this is how things are going to be worked out, it makes little sense to me. Casting cure wounds on anyone can only be construed as good. If said healer witnessed the actual crime, then not so much, but evil? Never.
Since when is compassion ever a crime. What if said thief, is stealing to keep several poor families alive during severe hardships and this "thief on the run" was just fired from the only job he could find, due to no fault of his own. Unless that "thief" is carrying a big sign "Evil Thief here on the run!", how do I know casting "cure wounds" on this person is an evil act? The answer, I hope, is you don't. And as an action, it should never be an evil act. But, based on your own alignment, may have different shifts?
In the case of an evil character, the shifts should be very small, unless you are casting on a "good" character, where the shift would be more significant. In my opinion, most evil healers wouldn't be casting "cure wounds" on anyone that needed them, unless there were some personal benefit to doing so. But, I digress.
Oh, what if you were actual a good healer in an evil area and the "thief on the run" was a chaotic good thief? Does that make you a criminal or evil?
Back to finishing this interesting discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Gibbs If the thief is tagged as a criminal, you know he/she is a criminal, and when you try to heal that character, you will get a popup saying "Healing this person will be a criminal act. You will be tagged as a criminal and your alignment will shift."
This is necessary to avoid bandits killing some random dude, having their healer buddy nearby to heal them up, then going out to do it again. The healer must be flagged for assisting in these criminal acts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The "disownment" works because it could now allow settlement A to lawfully target those individuals/sub-group rather then settlement B.
The idea here is that a Settlement/Nation/Company should be able to use force against an entity that has performed a legitimate grievence against it. If that entity is part of a larger organization, then the larger organization has the opportunity to stand by that entities action or disavow them. In either case, the agrieved entity may now lawfully take action against the offending entity.
So lets try this:
- An individual or group of individuals commit an offense against Organization A....
Organization A now has the right to brand those individuals as "Criminals" (to Organization A) which now allows Orginization A to engage in hostilities against those individuals. Remember, Organization A can't abuse this because there is a very specific list of predefined actions that open up such opportunity and the individuals are warned they are about to open up such opportunity before they commit the action.
Organization A sends an Ultimatim to the Sponsoring Organization those individuals belong to....the Sponsoring Organization can either chose to disown those individuals (kicking them out of the organization and also branding them as criminals in the Sponsors territory for a set period of time) or support them...which gives Organization A a Casus Belli against the Sponsor.
This defeats the spy scenario and means that if you want to mess with some settlement/kingdom through direct hostile actions by your membership. You can't hide behind the "We don't Want War...You'll have to take an Alignment/Reputation hit if you want to fight us"...shield.
If you don't want a war, you either burn the assets you use for such activities or go through an outside group. Either way the party that is getting attacked gets to retaliate against those who are directly attacking it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Gibbs If the thief is tagged as a criminal, you know he/she is a criminal, and when you try to heal that character, you will get a popup saying "Healing this person will be a criminal act. You will be tagged as a criminal and your alignment will shift."
This is necessary to avoid bandits killing some random dude, having their healer buddy nearby to heal them up, then going out to do it again. The healer must be flagged for assisting in these criminal acts.
I do agree with "healing this person will be a criminal act. you will be tagged as a criminal" i do agree much less to the "and your alignment will shift" I fail to see healing as an inherently evil or chaotic action.
I think that aside from the obvious murder, actions that shift your alignment should be more significant.taking a quest from the hellknights to round up a bunch of escaped slaves is the kind of action that should define an alignment shift (towards law and evil)
Removing the guards from your settlement should shift your alignment (toward chaotic)
But I wouldn't force an alignment shift in grey areas that the game has no way to know what kind of alignment shift should they represent.
I do agree with "healing this person will be a criminal act. you will be tagged as a criminal" i do agree much less to the "and your alignment will shift" I fail to see healing as an inherently evil or chaotic action.
I think that aside from the obvious murder, actions that shift your alignment should be more significant.
Remember that the things that affect your alignment have to be handled programmatically, and not by a human. Healing a random criminal who is dying to a PvE orc may not seem bad, but mechanically it's no different than being the healer of a a gank squad and enabling them to murder newbies. Each individual healing spell of a criminal will need to have some the same amount of alignment shift attached to it. One heal of a random criminal likely won't do much, but it will need to do something, otherwise blowing a hundred heals on the gank squad would just be 100 'oh, it's just a little heal, no alignment shift needed' individual acts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel
I think that's a great idea. I think that if that were implemented, there would be no need to give bonuses to LG settlements and penalties to CE settlements, since the 'freedom to randomly attack' would be much diminished.
I would much prefer the casus belli system that has been developed in this thread along with the differences between Lawful and Chaotic settlements I described here, partly in response to my misgivings about the direction PvP was going that I posted here.
Anybody that goes back to read those, do keep in mind that there have been various dev posts and discussions that have somewhat softened my initial concerns. I would still like Chaotic settlements to 'feel' much different than Lawful settlements, such as I describe. I do not think they should be simply penalized with higher upkeep; rather they should have less ability to raise revenues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Remember that the things that affect your alignment have to be handled programmatically, and not by a human. Healing a random criminal who is dying to a PvE orc may not seem bad, but mechanically it's no different than being the healer of a a gank squad and enabling them to murder newbies. Each individual healing spell of a criminal will need to have some the same amount of alignment shift attached to it. One heal of a random criminal likely won't do much, but it will need to do something, otherwise blowing a hundred heals on the gank squad would just be 100 'oh, it's just a little heal, no alignment shift needed' individual acts.
I do agree with "healing this person will be a criminal act. you will be tagged as a criminal" i do agree much less to the "and your alignment will shift" I fail to see healing as an inherently evil or chaotic action.
I think that aside from the obvious murder, actions that shift your alignment should be more significant.
I think you read it wrong.
I said it should still make you a criminal. So if the healer is healing the ganking squad he will become a criminal, lose reputation, and can be killed by the ones who are defending themselves from the ganking squad, possibly will be banned from most cities for having a low reputation.But still he shouldn't change alignment.
Reputation, criminal flag and alignment are separate things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how the devs plan to work this out, but I want to address the "what if you heal a thief" statement from a Dungeonmaster perspective.
Player Bogan is a cleric of Saerenrae, Good Aligned, and studied in the Healing Domain.
As a DM, I would NEVER challenge or punish Bogan for healing another entity who was in need. I don't care if this guy has just been beaten down by the parties barbarian for ambushing the party and killing the ranger. I further don't care if Bogan saw him decapitate a nun. Healing is a life-enriching action. In my opinion, life-enriching actions tend to be good rather than life-diminishing actions.
Now if Bogan called for his torture after healing mortal wounds...THERE'S the life-diminishing action.
If Bogan healed him to convince him to beat the rouge that stole from him last week...again, life-diminishing action.
Now what makes it difficult in a computer game is this:
If Bogan heals the bad guy while the bad guy is currently attacking Bogan's friends? He's now enriching the bad guy's life and diminishing his companions. This requires a degree of subjectivity that is extremely hard to create algorhythmns for. You have to be able to consider intent, and computers aren't real intuitive there.
Same situation presents with the CG thief that steals from a wealthy merchant to feed a pauper's child. Stealing is bad, but charity is good. Now you have to weigh the sins and virtues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Enabling Evil is Evil.
Healing a Thief/Murderer can only be considered Good if there's a reasonable expectation that it won't actually result in more Evil. Doing so knowing that it will result in more Evil is, to me, the very definition of Evil.
At least, that would be my DM perspective.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Killer Killers: If it is red, it's dead. These players kill everyone that is red, regardless of reason, level or skill disparity. Anyone that they see that is red is killed on-sight. If possible, they will multi-kill, camp, or otherwise harass these players. After all, they deserve it! chaotic evil by definition. might get banned for spawn camping
for the rest of the cases I agree with you, avari3, but this one is not obvious to me.
"Red" here means at war or tagged criminal, possibly also extremely low rep characters. Attacking criminals is potentially a lawful action, and fighting a declared war should not affect alignment at all. Essentially ths character behaves like a NPC marshal, and I could easily see this as a LN, LE or even LG character. However any misconduct (ex. multi-killing a known ganker when the first kill is legit) will drag them toward CE.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How so? I started reading this thread a week from when it started and haven't quite finished it yet. But, if this is how things are going to be worked out, it makes little sense to me. Casting cure wounds on anyone can only be construed as good. If said healer witnessed the actual crime, then not so much, but evil?
You are thinking too much from a role-play perspective. If healing evil players isn't a criminal act than many evil players will have an escort of good-aligned healers and buffers while they terrorize blues.
Sometimes game mechanics have to trump role-play for the sake of preventing abuse. Besides, a criminal flag doesn't mean you are evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How so? I started reading this thread a week from when it started and haven't quite finished it yet. But, if this is how things are going to be worked out, it makes little sense to me. Casting cure wounds on anyone can only be construed as good. If said healer witnessed the actual crime, then not so much, but evil?You are thinking too much from a role-play perspective. If healing evil players isn't a criminal act than many evil players will have an escort of good-aligned healers and buffers while they terrorize blues.
Sometimes game mechanics have to trump role-play for the sake of preventing abuse. Besides, a criminal flag doesn't mean you are evil.
Are you implying than that ALL evil aligned characters are criminals? Also it seems that all criminals are flagged in some way to indicate that they are criminals? So, if I perform a criminal act in Town A and travel halfway across the world to Town B, I'm still considered a criminal in Town B? And anyone that may help me is AUTOmatically flagged as a criminal? Your example isn't very helpful, since the escort of good-aligned healers would be assisting the evil players in doing the crime. That is entirely different than healing a thief that happens to be running from the law.
Scenario:
Angry man walks into a bar and punches another man in the face. After a short fight, angry man stops fighting and tries to leave the bar. Is he flagged as a criminal? If so, its okay for anyone to just KILL the man without any repercussions?
Full details of above:
Angry man was robbed and his wife cruelly beaten a month prior by the man he attacked. It took him a month to have the courage to confront the man, but as he was fighting realized killing the man wasn't right, he decided to leave and have the man arrested for his crimes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also it seems that all criminals are flagged in some way to indicate that they are criminals? So, if I perform a criminal act in Town A and travel halfway across the world to Town B, I'm still considered a criminal in Town B? And anyone that may help me is AUTOmatically flagged as a criminal? Your example isn't very helpful, since the escort of good-aligned healers would be assisting the evil players in doing the crime. That is entirely different than healing a thief that happens to be running from the law.
Murdering somebody in lawful territory puts the 'criminal' flag on participating characters. Healing characters with the 'criminal' flag puts that flag on the healer. A player will be warned that they will get the criminal flag before attempting a criminal action. Looting somebody's corpse that you did not defeat in battle will give you the 'thief' flag. Attacking somebody in the wilderness where there are no laws against murder gives that character the 'attacker' flag (potentially; still just an idea in development).
All your questions are good ones ;) We don't know much more than what I detailed above about how flags will work. We do know, however, that murder/thieving is likely to lower reputation, and some interactions with low reputation characters will lower your character's reputation.