Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the original idea of a challenge mechanic, what about the opposite? A non-aggression mechanic that prevents either side from attacking the other after they acknowledge each other at some predefined distance.
To what end? Or, more accurately, what way would this system provide an advantage that "Hey, I won't stab you if you don't stab me." "Deal." wouldn't?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff
Gotcha. I agree, knowing how we will be treated if we us something and its later found to be an exploit would be good.
I have played table top for years and never heard of RAI as an acronym. Good to know. Yeah I agree as they are intended and how they are written are two different things. I am pretty confident that this early group will be good at taking any rules as written to their farthest logical use and figure out how to break anything thats breakable.
I think I saw somewhere that Ryan and crew knew that if something can be exploited it will be. Thats good to hear, because thats the reality of games these days.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm just trying to think outside the box. Sometimes a problem has to be approached from a fresh perspective, so I offered a suggestion that flipped the concept on its head.
No, not really. You suggested a system that had identical consequences to doing things without the suggested system.
So in the final tally, you suggested nothing at all, which is neither outside the box, nor inside.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Except to control purely exploitative behavior, I would always rather have something controlled by player action (and reaction) than game mechanic. I know that seems like an easy answer to a complicated debate, but a true sandbox game should allow players to play the role they wish and, subsequently, live with the consequences of those actions as dished out by the reacting community in which they reside.
A true sandbox game should provide me the board to play on, but not the board game rules that dictate my actions.
That said, I have no problem with a settlement "owning" the hex it resides in, or a fortress owning a smaller portion of a hex, and so on. Most fantasy settings are based on medieval style settlements and laws. In such time periods, if you marched into a lord's territory and acted in a way he thought wrong, you were at fault and could expect rough treatment. I'm less convinced such should be the case with harvesting camps or caravans, since neither is a permanent settlement. You don't own the road and as soon as the resources in your camp are depleted, you're packing up and moving along.
I completely agree with this post. Furthermore, outside of the controlled hexes there should be badlands or no man's land where there can be (game mechanic) consequence free pvp and or ninja looting. In these zones, you travel at your own risk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm just trying to think outside the box. Sometimes a problem has to be approached from a fresh perspective, so I offered a suggestion that flipped the concept on its head.No, not really. You suggested a system that had identical consequences to doing things without the suggested system.
So in the final tally, you suggested nothing at all, which is neither outside the box, nor inside.
<sigh> Where is Erwin Schrödinger when you need him?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As to the original idea of a challenge mechanic, what about the opposite? A non-aggression mechanic that prevents either side from attacking the other after they acknowledge each other at some predefined distance.
I understand why you suggest this, and I think it's actually a very good idea. It's similar to the way cowboys would raise their hand when they encountered a stranger out on the plains; it was an acknowledgment that you meant no harm.
The problem is the incentive not to trust strangers in a game where you can be attacked against your will. This solution creates a stronger incentive for both sides to remain friendly. In essence, if you attack after you "/friendlywave", then you'll suffer even more significant penalties to your Reputation and Alignment.
Don't worry too much about Blaeringr or others attacking your ideas, you'll get used to it - though it may take a while. Seeing that my post has garnered 163 responses, even though several people are hellbent against it, makes me realize it's an important topic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the second idea, an non-aggression treaty with additional penalties for breaking it above those associated with the violence itself.
I dislike the idea of the game mechanically locking out the ability to attack. That takes away the potential for betrayal of any sort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the second idea, an non-aggression treaty with additional penalties for breaking it above those associated with the violence itself.
I dislike the idea of the game mechanically locking out the ability to attack. That takes away the potential for betrayal of any sort.
Well it allows the betrayal of "Hey this guy just made a truce with me. We're at X coordinates, he thinks he's safe now so come kill him."
I just think the mechanical block feels a bit cheesy but extra alignment loss is a really good idea. It makes sense you lose more alignment if you pull them in for an embrace and stab them in the back than if you had just come right out and stabbed them to start with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there were a way to make a shared gesture actually work with computer code it might be a very good idea. However if the shared /wave triggers an anti-PvP condition between the parties then that entails an anti-friendly fire condition as well, which I am not sure should be suppported.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there were a way to make a shared gesture actually work with computer code it might be a very good idea. However if the shared /wave triggers an anti-PvP condition between the parties then that entails an anti-friendly fire condition as well, which I am not sure should be suppported.
That was exactly what came to mind, meaningful emotes. /truce when accepted could lead to sliding towards Chaos if broken.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've rewritten this post three times, because the question of how much influence one player should have over another's game play/experience is that tricky of a topic. As with most of these issues, what we seems to be debating over is the degree of "grayness" somewhere between total wild west lawlessness and freedom of action (even obnoxiously annoying action), and candyland perfection where we all get along and all get what we want. Somewhere between these two is the happy medium that still won't please everyone, but will be tolerable to most.
I understand and agree with Nihimon's desire for a system that allows owners of a locale (settlement, fortress, etc.) to defend their "home" without being flagged. The possible abuse of this would be hex-owners who use this mechanism as a way of attacking any passerby without consequence to their own alignment. I believe a "challenge" toggle from the owner that targets the trespasser would work. It could send the message "You are trespassing, you have "x" amount of time (enough to exist the hex) to leave or you will be attacked." I would add that any NPC guards that the owner of the location had at their disposal for defense could be activated as well. The challenge should also have a means of being toggled off if, after a quick exchange of words, the owner decided to converse with the intruder rather than be hasty. If the intruder refused, it's up to the owner to enforce their threat.
If I've read the above posts correctly, however, it seems that some people want a similar mechanism for person-to-person issues, regardless of territorial claim. Here is where I will have to respectfully disagree. having to deal with others on an individual basis is different than having an annoying squatter or a nightly band of harassers terrorizing your player town and running off your customers and tavern patrons. If you're an individual who has had the misfortune of being targeted by a griefer, you can always keep walking, ignore them, out talk them, etc. If we compare it to real life, if someone is talking smack to you on the street, the police aren't going to rush to your aid unless the person has actually threatened you. In a world where you can be resurrected, threats don't mean nearly as much and the city guard seem understandably less concerned about them.
I totally agree with Dario's second statement above, in that, as I've stated earlier in this thread, my real concern is that game mechanics will replace natural consequence. Too many MMOs in the last decade have been so worried about players becoming upset by other players that they have created highly insulated environments to the point where there is hardly any need for other players at all. In my experience, you can't have a true sandbox game without allowing for all play styles. Especially in an MMO world where alignment is even being considered, how can you have players role-play evil if their hands are tied at every turn by protective game mechanics?
Yes, I've been around long enough to anticipate the argument - "Then what's to stop griefers from rationalizing their bad behavior by claiming they're role-playing how their character would truly behave?" Nothing, really, though what they're doing to negatively affect your character should make the role-played villain and the obnoxious griefer pretty easy to tell apart. And at that point, I return to natural consequences...word of mouth, not an alignment flagging system, will spread the griefer's name pretty quickly. Don't trade with them, don't offer assistance, etc. Unfortunately, just like real life, unless that annoying person does something illegal (e.g. attacks you), there isn't much we can do about them.
Perhaps the real question (and no, I'm not being flippant here) is whether you're in the right game for your play style. If you find the occasional griefer that disruptive to your game-play as to need a game mechanic to deal with them, perhaps MMOs aren't the kind of game you should be playing. Again, like real life, if you're a person who doesn't easily tolerate behavior different from your own, perhaps single player activities are more your style. After all, if you wouldn't seek out crowds of people all acting potentially differently than you in real life, why would you do so in a game, then expect all sorts of game mechanic constraints placed on everyone else's behavior to suit your temperament?
I'm sure I'm opening myself to a flood of abuse by having typed the last paragraph, but perhaps that's the white elephant in the discussion. Are people's expectations for what they want in the game in keeping with the type of game they'll be playing? I go into an MMO expecting to meet every type of player and play style. Otherwise, I might as well play a single player game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good post.
total wild west lawlessness and freedom of action (even obnoxiously annoying action), and candyland perfection where we all get along and all get what we want. Somewhere between these two is the happy medium that still won't please everyone, but will be tolerable to most.
No, you pretty much covered it with the wild west scenario. Player created laws, player created enforcement, there's nothing candyland about it.
I understand and agree with Nihimon's desire for a system that allows owners of a locale (settlement, fortress, etc.) to defend their "home" without being flagged. The possible abuse of this would be hex-owners who use this mechanism as a way of attacking any passerby without consequence to their own alignment. [...] I would add that any NPC guards that the owner of the location had at their disposal for defense could be activated as well.
For the first, I suggest this:
For the sake of miscommunication, lack of communication or even outright acts of passive hostility I would say that roads through a hex should not be considered part of that hex's influence. Travelers can pass unmolested by xenophobes and trigger happy murderhobos alike, at least so far as lawful attacks are concerned. Perhaps guards should be posted on these roads at hex borders, or little waystations be present. The purpose of which being a greater outreach of both the hex's influence and protection to its associates, and as a means of notification to those passing into said hex what laws are in place and what to expect.
As for the second, guards should stay with the settlement/outpost, enforcement for player settlements should be in the players' hands.
If I've read the above posts correctly, however, it seems that some people want a similar mechanism for person-to-person issues, regardless of territorial claim. Here is where I will have to respectfully disagree.
Players should accept the consequences of their actions, period. It wouldn't hurt to add subdual damage though, it would keep all the intolerant do-gooders from turning into murderhobos or otherwise spending all of their time raging about pests that they aren't willing to accept the consequences for to get rid of them.
I totally agree with Dario's second statement above, in that, as I've stated earlier in this thread, my real concern is that game mechanics will replace natural consequence. Too many MMOs in the last decade have been so worried about players becoming upset by other players that they have created highly insulated environments to the point where there is hardly any need for other players at all.
Probably not a risk, probably. But a point for concern if it happened.
And at that point, I return to natural consequences...word of mouth, not an alignment flagging system, will spread the griefer's name pretty quickly. Don't trade with them, don't offer assistance, etc.
It doesn't sound like players who do nothing but cause undue misery for others are going to be tolerated. Problem solved.
Perhaps the real question (and no, I'm not being flippant here) is whether you're in the right game for your play style. If you find the occasional griefer that disruptive to your game-play as to need a game mechanic to deal with them, perhaps MMOs aren't the kind of game you should be playing.
You're definitely right, I would add that if you expect the game to hold your hand, this also isn't likely to be the game for you. On the other hand if you're willing to let your assumptions about Open PvP and other forms of player interaction get turned on their head, it could very well be a greatly enjoyable experience. No promises if you run afoul of Tony though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see many people think a police state will solve all the "problems".Let's just change the name of the game to Judge Dredd Online and we can all say I AM THE LAW. You anoy me , now I will KILL you. I seem to be ranting, it sounds like you want some open world pvp without consequences, the very thing that the game is trying to do away with.What kind of game will it be if it is "go away or I will kill you"?
It will stink. The game has to decide what is good and evil and law and chaos , not the players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If alignment is fundamental to abilities, then choosing an alignment at game start is only the beginning.
Alignment, I assume, will be determined by the accumulated effects of the player character's choices. If a player aspiring to be a Paladin chronically elects non-paladin actions he will devolve into a fighter. If a fighter continually chooses to help the oppressed and combat evil he should eventually gain access to paladin skills and abilities.
If a Monk character must be lawful, but behaves inconsistently he will become more chaotic until he loses his Monk abilities.
If a true neutral druid does not balance his good deeds with bad he will gradually lose his animal companions.
This can only work consistently if the game is programmed to continuously evaluate the real choices the character is made to take.
How does this relate to the /challenge mechanic?
Of the activities the game can track are not only militant, but social.
Suppose when a character interacts with other characters each will be affected by the others' alignment.
This might be used to address some problem issues, such as an evil chaotic character harrassing a group of lawful good characters by incessantly reciting aloud Justin Beiber lyrics. The lawful good characters each are involuntarily interacting with a single chaotic evil character it is true, and they will have to perform a lawful good activity to compensate. But the chaotic evil character is interacting with many lawful good characters and will have to compensate that with many times more chaotic evil actions in order to retain his uber rogue skills.
Now, let us say the game programming also weights various interaction activities.
If the evil chaotic character wounds a lawful good character he does gain significant chaotic evil influence, but at the same time if there is not a condition of declared war with the lawful good character (as opposed to lawful good NPCs which might entail a very different set of rules/values) the chaotic evil influence he gains will be offset by his vigorous interaction with a lawful good character, rendering his influence gains by violence something of a wash, countered by weighted social interaction with lawful good.
His lawful good opponents would similarly suffer but at a much reduced rate, since the malefactor has been challenged.
Further where a solo chaotic evil character is harrassing multiple lawful good characters each of those are interacting with only one chaostic evil influence source, where the chaotic evil charactrer is interacting with many lawful good influence sources.
Where the numbers are equal the effects would be equal. However if the Lawful challenge the chaotic, and the challenging mechanic is a lawful event, then the lawful would gain influence and the chaotic lose influence.
Where the lawful good are outnumbered, their lawful good influence loss will be disadvantageous to them, except insofar as each lawful character has more /challenge opportunities and gains lawful influence with each and the influence change should result in a wash.
The /challenge mechanic should further inform griefers that in order to not lose their ganking skills they need to coordinate with others rather than operate solo. This should reduce griefing and increase cooperative role play, which in turn should afford the game a degree of self-moderation, and enjoy a consequent reduction in solo griefing.
True, there would still be inter-alignment conflict, but the very fact that the game is reinforcing cooperative play should lead to improved/less extreme interaction.
How would this look server wide?
Last I heard 85% of chartered companies self identify as Good aligned. This system should then significantly favor the good and challenge the evil.
I've posted this unsure of my logic, and still feel rather nebulous about whether it has contributed anything useful. Has this description/observation advanced our thinking at all, or should I simply nevermind it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Darcnes,
The candyland comment was directed at the theoretical player influence meter sliding towards the use of game mechanics to control player action. I have no desire to see that extend out past the safety of NPC cities, short of the challenge system being discussed here. If you step out past what we used to call the "Guard Zone" in Ultima Online, you take your chances. After all, that's one of the things that separates the adventurer from the townsfolk...their willingness to venture away from the protection of their city walls.
As for your settlement's guards, if the griefing party is doing its griefing inside your player town, and refuses to leave, I see nothing wrong with your NPC guards helping to remove them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... It wouldn't hurt to add subdual damage though, it would keep all the intolerant do-gooders from turning into murderhobos or otherwise spending all of their time raging about pests that they aren't willing to accept the consequences for to get rid of them. ...
I do hope subdual damage and combat maneuvers are allowed. I look forward to a monk with bull rush, disarm, ki throw (if allowed) and the Staff of Circles from the Daily Deals. I can just imagine the frustration of players who exhibit those "socially challenging behaviors" when they get constantly knocked on there behinds and their weapons taken (and hopefully sundered). I can envision a charted company with Staffs of Circles keeping those players away from others repeatedly and with intent.
[Edit] Oh, I completely forgot the possibility of ropes of entanglement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can't you say "Good sir, please leave before I separate your neck from your head." And if they don't leave, you attack them.The problem is when someone is intentionally being obnoxious and trying to goad you into attacking them so that you'll suffer the penalties of Alignment and Reputation loss.
Yes, I can ignore them, but I've never yet seen an /ignore system that actually made them invisible to me and I'm fairly certain there are some really insoluble problems with trying to make one.
Yes, I can report them, but that burdens the mods and takes time and is subject to all the other problems associated such as throw-away accounts, etc. Waiting a day or two for the mods to finally ban someone who's being obnoxious like this, only to have him start up a new account and start all over is not very appealing.
Again, the problem is with characters who are intentionally trying to goad you into attacking them so that you will suffer from the existing game mechanics. Rather than giving them this tool, I would rather the game mechanics acknowledge this problem and empower the players to deal with it themselves.
Would be nice to differ between lethal and non-lethal attacks, as a wizard I would want to turn them into a toad and walk away :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being when you create your character its alignment is set at True Neutral, it is your actions in game that cause it to change to whatever.
Also, THIS
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being when you create your character its alignment is set at True Neutral, it is your actions in game that cause it to change to whatever.
I keep seeing this pop up, and I really dislike this idea. My character is not springing forth from the ether, he's had a life prior to this. I'd rather pick my starting alignment and let my behavior change it if it needs to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let there be an 'I wish to discover my alignment by practice' option at charater creation which sets the alignment to indeterminate (neutral).Isn't that exactly the same as simply choosing Neutral at Character Creation?
You could have it be a state where anything you do that affects your alignment has a magnified effect for a predetermined time, essentially fast tracking you to the alignment you "should" be based on your actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yup, except where neutral is not merely the absense of alignment.
btw I have received my Core Rules and apparently PF:TT defines neutral as an approximately lackadaisical uncaring state with an inability to distinguish right from wrong. But later (when discussing Druids) True Neutral is described as a philosophical position.
I would recommend that point should be revisited and evolved to match my preferences ;P
no arrogance in my family: I have it all.
Current popular opinion is that the player gets to pick his intended alignment.
I'd have said he has to earn it but that idea is not most popular.
Unfortunately that would preclude a player from joining a settlement until they brought their alignment within range that's acceptable.
Maybe the devs will think of some way to accomplish both ideas, it's always possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd have said he has to earn it but that idea is not most popular.
I'd be inclined to agree with you. The class alignment thing is would be a great argument to the contrary, in keeping with the prior story of your character point.
Here's the fulcrum: you don't start out as ANY class, you train for those. In essence this means your character's journey has just begun, you are in the process of establishing your ties with the paladin order, or the necromancer coven. While it is easy to say that your character has history, at this stage in your career, it's not that much. If your character is meant to be Evil, you are going to act out the steps that put him on the path and completion of this destiny.
From a gameplay standpoint there is another reason for this. As a new player you do not have an informed expectation of what these alignments are going to really mean. You gain this knowledge first hand by experiencing the actions and consequences yourself. You may decide that being Good is too much of a hassle, or maybe that you're a bit more Chaotic than you thought you were.
I believe it has already been stated that Reputation is going to be very important with various NPC Alliances. It should be easy enough when joining one of these Alliances (such as the Paladin Order) to receive a boost towards a given alignment, Lawful and Good in this case, that is only enough to achieve these pre-requisites and thus allow joining of the order IF that character is of the right Alignment state for these boosts (which only occur on successful joining of the Alliance, which merely checks if these boosts will be enough for you to meet pre-reqs) to make enough of a difference. Someone who has committed a couple of Chaotic acts that tries to join the Paladin Order would be told to come back later when they're ready to stop sowing discord. This kind of boost could be a one-time thing, the first time a character pursues a class-based Alliance for example.
Thoughts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unfortunately that would preclude a player from joining a settlement until they brought their alignment within range that's acceptable.
It would, and that's a good thing. Settlements are founded on the principals of their founders, who in order to have gotten far enough along to found a settlement in the first place have proven their dedication to these ideals.
You, having just created a new character, have proven nothing. You should absolutely have to walk a mile in the shoes you think you want to wear before proclaiming that these are the shoes for you.
PFO will be using an absolute representation of Alignments, not individual ideologies. You don't get to say I'm Lawful Good, and simply be Lawful Good because you can rationalize and justify your actions. Those actions are what the game says they are, however you yourself view them, and you need to have a good grasp of what you're signing up for when you are going to make a commitment to a larger organization like a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure I see the advantage of taking away the player's choice in their starting alignment and forcing them to grind alignment to get where they feel their character should naturally be. The character might be new as an adventurer, but they're not new as a person.
I honestly dislike the idea of joining Alliances providing a boost to your alignment. I don't think any one in-game decision should have a major, instant impact on your alignment. A neutral person who joins an Assassin's Guild isn't going to go out and start torturing puppies for fun suddenly.
Unfortunately that would preclude a player from joining a settlement until they brought their alignment within range that's acceptable.It would, and that's a good thing. Settlements are founded on the principals of their founders, who in order to have gotten far enough along to found a settlement in the first place have proven their dedication to these ideals.
You, having just created a new character, have proven nothing. You should absolutely have to walk a mile in the shoes you think you want to wear before proclaiming that these are the shoes for you.
PFO will be using an absolute representation of Alignments, not individual ideologies. You don't get to say I'm Lawful Good, and simply be Lawful Good because you can rationalize and justify your actions. Those actions are what the game says they are, however you yourself view them, and you need to have a good grasp of what you're signing up for when you are going to make a commitment to a larger organization like a settlement.
Sure wish we could create polls. Would be nice to know how people feel about concepts
Like this.I'm ambivalent really, either way is fine. But I've got a feeling that many have opinions one way or the other about this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Core rules for TT state the player picks his alignment at character creation, just like they describe True Neutral as vaccuous, wishy washy, unable to tell right from wrong. If we go with the player's journey toward their vocation I'd also recommend identifying True Neutral as a power rather than a null, and propose undeath as the polar opposite of nature, just as evil is the polar opposite of good.
But if we are going to start changing things where do we stop? Much though I would like the power of Druidism to have a source of Nature, such as the Sun, or the Earth, the developer should confront the issue if it hasn't already and either stick to the rules or be plain and open about changes so that our recommendations can be salient to their intended design.
Just sayin'.
I think it would be more holistic to adjust our alignment with our deeds, but that doesn't mean it is in accord with the design. I just don't know, and it is challenging to spin up solutions where the problem is only an illusion in the first place.
Other hand (is that two or three?), if they haven't said how they want to go that might mean they haven't firmed up a decision and are maybe thinking about it. They would have to consult with the authors and with Paizo and who knows who else. Which might give us some room for a little chaos as well as some strict reading of the core rules.
Your thoughts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The TT Core rules feature both interpretations of Neutral, Being.
Neutral: A neutral character does what seems to be a
good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other
when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus
neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral
characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than
a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably
thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would
rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still,
she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any
abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit
themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good,
evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes.
They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best,
most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral means you act naturally in any situation,
without prejudice or compulsion.
Paragraph 1 is the interpretation you describe as "wishy-washy", and paragraph 2 is the interpretation you seem to be in favor of. The only problem that I see is that you have some sort of artificial association between neutral and nature, and I'm not a hundred percent clear on why, other than "Druids".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure I see the advantage of taking away the player's choice in their starting alignment and forcing them to grind alignment to get where they feel their character should naturally be.
[snip]
I don't think any one in-game decision should have a major, instant impact on your alignment. A neutral person who joins an Assassin's Guild isn't going to go out and start torturing puppies for fun suddenly.
These statements seem somewhat conflicted. In fact, the second part is one of the reasons I think the choice of alignment at character creation should be limited. Some other good reasons have already been stated in this thread.
Like I stated in the other thread (I think the Character Customization thread?), I can imagine a system where you choose an alignment one-step from true neutral at character creation. Since you won't be a Paladin, it won't matter that you aren't Lawful Good, to start.
On a related note, I imagine that when a Paladin loses his alignment, he won't lose all of his abilities and become useless in combat. I imagine that only certain skills (maybe even the most powerful ones, many of them being earned later in development) are gated by alignment. Alternatively, classes with alignment restrictions might have certain aspects of their abilities gated by alignment, like some bonus damage, a lingering DoT, or bonus damage to undead.
On a related note, I imagine that when a Paladin loses his alignment, he won't lose all of his abilities and become useless in combat. I imagine that only certain skills (maybe even the most powerful ones, many of them being earned later in development) are gated by alignment. Alternatively, classes with alignment restrictions might have certain aspects of their abilities gated by alignment, like some bonus damage, a lingering DoT, or bonus damage to undead.
I wonder what the PF TT rules say about this? I know the old D&D system had it laid out exactly what would happen, the paladin would lose any Divine powers and become a standard fighter until they do a quest, or perform a heroic act. I believe that's how AD&D dealt with it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong! Now we have 4th edition and other rule sets, I have no idea how they change matters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure I see the advantage of taking away the player's choice in their starting alignment and forcing them to grind alignment to get where they feel their character should naturally be.
[snip]
I don't think any one in-game decision should have a major, instant impact on your alignment. A neutral person who joins an Assassin's Guild isn't going to go out and start torturing puppies for fun suddenly.
These statements seem somewhat conflicted. In fact, the second part is one of the reasons I think the choice of alignment at character creation should be limited. Some other good reasons have already been stated in this thread.
Like I stated in the other thread (I think the Character Customization thread?), I can imagine a system where you choose an alignment one-step from true neutral at character creation. Since you won't be a Paladin, it won't matter that you aren't Lawful Good, to start.
Character creation is not an in-game decision, it is a meta-decision of establishing the background of your character. My character has had seventeen years (or more, if you're not unfortunate enough to be born human) to establish his alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because neutrality is the province of Druids, and Druids prize nature....
The only problem that I see is that you have some sort of artificial association between neutral and nature, and I'm not a hundred percent clear on why, other than "Druids".
I'm not sure it's possible to actually vocalize how much I disagree with this statement. Neutrality is the province of people who adopt a belief in it, whether they're druids, or fighters, or sorcerers, or clerics, or...
The fact that druids are required to subscribe to some degree of neutrality does not mean that neutral belongs to them, any more than Lawful belongs to Monks, or Chaotic to Barbarians.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps the real question (and no, I'm not being flippant here) is whether you're in the right game for your play style....Again, like real life, if you're a person who doesn't easily tolerate behavior different from your own, perhaps single player activities are more your style. After all, if you wouldn't seek out crowds of people all acting potentially differently than you in real life, why would you do so in a game, then expect all sorts of game mechanic constraints placed on everyone else's behavior to suit your temperament?
I thought you made a point or two worth considering until you got to the "if you don't agree with me on this topic then you must be a narrow-minded person who might be intolerant" part. Really? LOL.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because neutrality is the province of Druids, and Druids prize nature....
The only problem that I see is that you have some sort of artificial association between neutral and nature, and I'm not a hundred percent clear on why, other than "Druids".I'm not sure it's possible to actually vocalize how much I disagree with this statement. Neutrality is the province of people who adopt a belief in it, whether they're druids, or fighters, or sorcerers, or clerics, or...
The fact that druids are required to subscribe to some degree of neutrality does not mean that neutral belongs to them, any more than Lawful belongs to Monks, or Chaotic to Barbarians.
Okay, your disagreement is duly noted. Thanks.