Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While discussing the use of a challenge mechanic on another thread, I kept coming back to the question of how this game will determine my alignment based on my deeds. In Ultima Online (the only MMO I've ever played that had any sort of mechanism for flagging a player based on their behavior), you could be flagged gray for doing criminal acts (allowing you to be attacked by players for a set time period...I think it was 5 minutes) or red for being a murderer (you could be attacked by anyone, couldn't enter cities without being guard-wacked, etc.).
The question I keep coming back to is, besides the obvious (breaking a contract, attacking another player, etc.), how else will the game determine alignment change? In that I doubt a mechanic can be devised to determine "intent" rather than simply action, what actions, based on your current alignment, would cause a shift?
So that's the thread premise...what actions do you think - that could actually be tracked by a game - should shift your alignment?
Have at. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interaction with a character of the same or different alignment, where 'interaction' can be martial or social. The effect would be moderated by a number of qualifying factors such as war, challenge, criminality, and weighted by type of interaction (scale from simple proximity through trade, and into violence.
Socializing with members of the same alignment bolsters that alignment. Interaction with characters of different alignment trends toward each other's alignment and is cumulative.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Socializing...I'm not sure how the game would tell I'm socializing short of detecting that I'm in the same general vicinity. What if I'm a LG soldier standing guard over a CE captured enemy? How would a proximity detector for "socializing" determine that difference?
for something less extreme, how would my being a CG merchant be interpreted by such a system if I unknowingly sold bread to a LE customer? Is it my fault if I don't have a detect evil spell?
Just wondering.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As to how the game might meter social interaction you do have a location that is already tracked just as those you are near.
The prison guard is affected by the prisoners he guards. The merchant is influenced by his customers and they by him. Proximity would be slight in its impact. Violence would be more significant. Duration would be cumulative.
A spy in a city would thus wish to minimize contact, as if those he was spying on had cooties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure how the effect of sitting in a room with the same alignment characters will make me any more that alignment than I already am.
I guess my intent of this thread was twofold:
1. Brainstorm possible actions - truly game-trackable actions - that would swing alignment one way or the other.
2. To point out how slippery of a slope it is to have something like game adjusted alignment for anything but the most obvious actions. For instance, if an evil toon killed and looted a friend's body, thereby acquiring his favorite magic sword, would it still be an "evil" act for my neutral-good thief to steal it back for him?
This is the problem of having a game mechanic making black and white decisions when so much that happens in an open, sandbox MMO falls into gray areas...without the consideration of intent, you potentially end up with people being flagged (or in this case, moved from one alignment to another) without it truly being their "fault".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This all seems driven by the need to have alignment for particular classes/skills (paladins, assassins, clerics of a particular deity), which I understand, but I have a feeling it could potentially cause far more troublesome logistics than the benefits that are hopefully gained by it's presence.
As for spies...the best spies aren't stand-offish, but rather are the ones who make you feel they're your best friend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to pop these relevant Goblin Works Blogs in for convenient referral:
RESPECT: Find Out What It Means to Me!
Alignment & Social Information: (1) Lawful-Chaotic, (2) Good-Evil, (3) Reputation
@Dario: Eg how you break or complete contracts and other laws and actions on other players I think determines the flagging on the chaotic-lawful axis as you say. The good-evil seems to be related to NPC Alliances and the actions you do to advance those causes I think. Reputation is how people rate you and so that information becomes valuable social currency as per the blogs.
Andius wrote up a good thread on this also: A Serious Discussion of Alignment & PVP and referenced eg Darkfall amongst other mmorpg "alignment" systems for comparison.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Hobbs: It is all speculative for now, how I am seeing what might be.
So if a druid character desires to move his alignment back toward true neutral after visiting a good aligned or evil aligned city he might spend some time in the wilderness, a neutral aligned area. By being there and doing things which are not lawful and not chaotic, not good or bad, his alignment gradually centers.
A chaotic spy in a lawful town would necessarily avoid chaotic activities and so would gradually gravitate away from chaotic unless he actively does chaotic activities, perhaps out of the sight of the guards.
Just by sitting with people of a different alignment will tend to gradually affect you unless you actively work to counter it.
Opposites attract. Birds of a feather and all that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
gaining lawful or good...
hmmmm - completing bounties. Killing criminals, subduing criminals (pcs). completing "quests" for settlments. for example doing stuff for a LG settlement could give you either lawful or good alignment, a CG settlement either chaotic or good...etc. However something like doing a bounty as an evil character, well you might not be doing the bounty as a good thing (catching/punishing a criminal) but because it allows you chop up someone, maybe a bounty could give you a choice to accept it as good or evil? So basically you can choose to accept the bounty as good or evil. If you are good when you defeat the mark he/she doesnt die but get thrown in jail (for simulated time not for real) and then thrown back into the world minus some items as a fee to the jail. that would be a good IG explanation for item loss when you are "subdued". evil characters just kill the mark.
if PfO uses the traditional alignment then killing any evil critter is a good act, killing any good critter is a evil act...etc.
an alignment system that works needs be able to involve most everything so people can move their alignment (or not) when they want too, but not so much stuff that people feel restricted from doing a lot of activities. Obviously a LG character isnt going to bandit people but..
Another example of things you could do that effect your alignment.. Say your a CE cleric and you spot a group of adventurers from a nearby LG settlement fixing to engage a camp of NPC orcs in the next valley. Well if the evil character went to the Orc camp and buffed the orcs prior to the fight, he should get a alignment shift towards evil. The same could be true if the party was evil, the cleric good, and the NPCs of good alignment, shift towards good.
If they introduce factions like in EQ1, a lot of things like this could occur, including the ability to improve your standing with a type of NPC. Say you wanted to be accepted by Goblins, and in the game goblins and dwarves don't get along and killing either results in positive faction to the opposite group. Well you can kill loads of dwarves and eventually goblins would welcome you, or perhaps at least talk/trade with you. Many many possibilities.
I used EQ because that's what came to mind. Many games have factions built into their systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Decius This would need to be classified as an inherently Good act.
@Hobs This a question I've been driving quite a bit in my posts.
What I've taken away from the various replies is that Law in conflict with Chaos (and vice versa) should improve respective standing with that alignment axis. (Law is more lawful for opposing Chaos. Chaos is more chaotic for opposing Law.. note that this may not be the same as law, as in player laws.)
Same deal for Good and Evil. Evil desires to be Evil, and by combatting good they further their agenda of Evil, so getting Evil clouds for hurting Goods is really a goal to be sought after, not a punishment. From the perspective of Good however, Evil is not to be sought after (except for killing) and taking an Evil cloud is absolutely not desirable, so in that respect, committing Evil acts IS a punishment.
This all boils down to the Neutral perspective. I feel that it's going to be a constant balancing act of actions and reactions... and for TN, I think that's Okay. If you kill an Evil person (boosting your Goodness), you really should have to redress the balance and kill a Good person as well (which does not in effect make you less Good, it makes you more Evil, a fine distinction), or simply commit other Evil acts to bring your alignment back in line. Likewise, a Neutral who hunts down too many bounties is eventually going to have to start committing Chaotic acts to stay balanced.
The only downside to all of this is that TN's are likely going to be pushed into going Criminal from time to time in aid of pursuing this balance, unless they provide a LOT of means with which to do so. If player laws turn out to be divorced from the Force of Law as it seems, this may not be necessary where TN settlements are concerned. It could very well be that in places where it's not Criminal to do somewhat bad things to a variety of alignments, TN's have a recourse for the occasional issue of how do I move the needle back to the middle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also thought that you can't see people's alignment anyway, so how will you know unless you just wander round detecting alignments on everyone all day. Which kinda makes it pointless tyo have them hidden in the first place.
But what sort of interactions? If an innkeeper sells some bread and ale to a LE person, does he become more Evil for it? Will Tavern Keepers have to be all True Neutral for serving customers?
If I sell healing herbs to someone who makes excellent healing potions, but also happens to be an evil necromancer on the side, but I'm well in the good range, does he become more good for giving me money and I become more evil for selling herbs to a healer? Or will he be unable ot be evil because he sells healing potions? Unless most of his clientele happen to be evil.
Or are we just talking physical aiding? healing, combat, that sort of thing?
Does a humble old priest who believes in helping the unfortunate have to be neutral for helping anyone in need regardless of their alignment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a necromancer selfelssly protects villagers with a small army of undead, is he still evil for casting "evil" spells?
And if a spellcaster uses "good" spells to slaughter innocents, does he somehow still count as a good-aligned character?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Darcnes your orientation is clearly along the Good-Evil spectrum.
The decisions of the true neutral key on both spectra. It is not focused on the conflict between the extremes but on the nourishing of balance.
Whether to remove a hideout or construction site from the wildlands is a question of whether that construction is beneficial for the forest. Any forester knows that selective harvesting is beneficial where clear-cutting or denuding an area of mineral content is harmful. Where thinning of the herd is beneficial, extermination is extreme. The Lawful are build fences and the evil burn carelessly, and if either grow too powerful the wilderness will suffer.
The objective is to seek balance and harmony in both wilderness and civilization.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being & Jameow I am quite against guilt by association as a game mechanic. Players should draw their own conclusions, spies can be hired to notice if a Good character is spotted in an Evil town on unseemly business, and that information can make it back to other ears.
@Icyshadow Ryan has stated that Alignment is going to be Absolute in nature and not relative at all. So yes, killing a bunch of Neutral and Good characters will be characteristically Evil, regardless of motive or means.
So I CAN be a nice guy while creating undead?
Last time I checked, Ryan apparently said the opposite.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Darcnes your orientation is clearly along the Good-Evil spectrum.
The decisions of the true neutral key on both spectra. It is not focused on the conflict between the extremes but on the nourishing of balance.
Whether to remove a hideout or construction site from the wildlands is a question of whether that construction is beneficial for the forest.
I think you're focusing on a Druidic perspective a bit more there. TN at its purest (class/race and deity aside) is about balance, how you choose to maintain and redress the balance is called the story of your character. ;)
The objective is to seek balance and harmony in both wilderness and civilization.
I understand this, and agree, though that is too limited in scope. I gave examples of both Good-Evil and Lawful-Chaotic shifts in the previous post.
I am far more curious if you find fault with the system as a whole, and where, and why specifically. Or if this satisfies your outlook on how it needs to be in order to function.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the question is, if a CE and LG in a completely isolated turn of events get locked together in a dungeon where their only hope of survival is to cooperate (with a mutually agreed upon dual upon escaping), and somehow this takes months... whether or not they have both become TN and likely don't feel the need to kill each other anymore by the time they exit the dungeon.
Or, has their loathing of each other merely grown?
Alignment bleeding could potentially go both ways in light of that, but you're not taking into account the heart of a person. The personality involved. The game can't really track these things, and perpetual alignment bleed based on contact rather than actions is a resource drain the server really doesn't need.
Food for thought.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Darcnes The system in general is fine, but your apparent need to cast about for the characteristics of balance using a system of polarity only approximates its nature. Finding true neutral only by averaging between good-evil and chaos-order is not a true neutral orientation. The nature of true neutral must be something in itself rather than a set of Cartesian coordinates.
My position is that true neutral is every bit as much something in itself as Good or Evil or Chaos or Law are. Your system attempts to define true neutral in terms of what it is not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We're not talking about motives, we are talking about mechanics. If you do a bunch of good acts and a bunch of bad acts, mechanically you can only end up somewhere in the middle. It doesn't matter what your motivations are, whether it's because you have some strange interpretation of balance that means for every life you save you should take one, or maybe your character is severely schizophrenic or insane and does good things by day and evil things by night.
Or whether you are a druid committed to balance. You end up somewhere in the middle through mechanical means. That's what the OT is about. What ACTIONS affect your alignment. I can't se how you can have actions that increase your neutrality without dragging everyone into the middle. But that may just be my lack of imagination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the case of two characters, one CE and the other LG, trapped in the dungeon together will find an approximation of TN together until they escape through practical need but will not be TN in themselves. Once released from the bonds of necessity they will tend away from that bondage and each seek their habitual alignment again assuming they haven't first killed one another on release from the bondage of necessity.
However their memory of one another afterward may be rather more fond than they would have expected, a lasting mark on their characters and this moment of neutral cooperation is a mark of TN influence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Jameow Yes.
@Being You're right, I have not account for Neutral having a polarity of its own, merely the absence of the other polarities. I think the fact that you are dealing with sets of polar opposites, which inherently implies only two does lead to a sense that Neutrality merely exists as a state between the other two. I also think this would be more of a philosophical debate than one of actions and consequences.
Mechanically we should try to poke holes in this system or otherwise refine it as seems to be occurring in the War thread between those two WarDec proposals. =)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being I see what you're saying, it holds water.
The characterization of these Alignments, however, seems more of an absolute nature than one of ideologies. Pretty much everything I have said is in regards to mechanical operation, ideological concerns are going to be the realm of the character itself, not the system. My definition of Good or Evil probably does not exactly match that of but a bare handful of the community, likewise you will find those who believe Neutrality embodies different values than you.
As you said, linear thought process will not easily grasp the ideals of TN. Well, computers are the embodiment of linear processes. =)
Can we agree to maybe agree, or disagree or whatever on the ideologies involved and look at it from a mechanical perspective, perhaps with an eye towards the ideologies only just so they are not completely divorced in execution?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm still trying to see how you can do it without it being planar, unless it;s a triangle with good, evil and neutral being the points. But mechanically, what is a neutral action? anything that is not good or evil? That would just drag EVERYONE unnecessarily to Neutral every time they eat or something.
things that promote balance? but that surely depends on the circumstance, which makes it not mechanically very viable.
Urgh, how would the guards know, and why should they know, if you killed a player away from the cities with no witnesses?
I love dnd, and hate foolish game mechanics.
If your evil deeds get out, have all sorts of punishments and problems associated with this, but allow the skilled sneak thief or clean killer to seem like just another Joe Adventurer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Jameow Good and Evil cease to be polar opposites and would need to be at war with Neutrality at that point. I believe that Neutrality as an Alignment must be categorized as an absence of either extreme, and ideologies be roleplayed for a manageable system to be in place. Like you said, eating shouldn't drive people towards Neutrality.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Computers do indeed rely on binaries, but complex systems vary.
Recognize that you and I are heirs to the Greco-Roman cultural legacy, which means that our thinking tends to be oriented toward engineering. The idea of True Neutral is from a different culture, the Celtic, and is largely lost to us with a few exceptions. A reference text that might be of interest might be Robert Graves' 'The White Goddess' if any are of the scholarly bent, but have a caution there as Graves, while a poet, was also of the Greco-Roman cultural lineage.
Also, consider the implications of the way some other cultures see the forest with an elephant in it where we see the elephant in the forest.
It may be that if TN is described the spectra we should be thinking through should be the lines of a pentacle or the sides of a five-sided equilateral pyramid rather than a convenient cross that lays out nicely in a two dimensional grid.
A third possible conceptual model would be a five dimensional yin-yang, but that challenges my mind the way string theory does.
The True Neutral will see things from the point of view of nature, where nature includes human civilization. In a fantasy setting of course it would include non-humans.
There are several mechanical models to consider.
The mechanics should be something similar to a world diplomacy where annihilation is possible if anyone gets too much of an upper hand. The power of each faction must dynamically be counterbalanced by the powers of the others in order for peace and prosperity to thrive. If any one power dominates that does not balance itself with discipline and forebearance, then peace and prosperity will be lost, and if we survive at all it will be in ruins.
Another model could be economic in nature.
I have enough to do writing fiction and practicing my other arts as well as finishing out my career. This matter could require a book in itself, but rest assured I have given thought to it and it is meaty on the order of Hegel's Weltgeist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then what do you suggest, mechanically?Please describe the specific problem in one post and I will do my best to respond to your understanding of it in a way that will make sense.
As I said, we're talking mechanics. An action based on balance is entirely contextual based on what else has happened. That's not a very clear thing to base any sort of mechanics on... and would drive people towards neutrality if they somehow did implement it.
An army of paladins came through an area and cleansed it of evil, making it good... so then a necromancer/warlock/black mage/ something evil comes through and defiles it... in the process increasing their neutrality for doing something evil... doesn't make sense.
What's a neutral act MECHANICALLY? That would shift alignment?
Remember that for the purposes of mechanics intent of the player is utterly irrelevant. Morality is absolute.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What the true neutral does is seek to achieve or maintain balance. The natural state of the wilderness is in natural balance, and countering whatever would disrupt that balance is his task. Yet promoting the balance can also mean refraining from countering good, evil, chaotic, and lawful influences depending upon the balance of power between those poles. So if a woodsman is harvesting the woodlands selectively on site, that activity is good for the forest and intervention is not desirable. But if the woodsman leaves his NPCs will start clear-cutting, hoping to please the woodsman through productivity. Clear-cutting is counter-productive to the forest so the untended loggers might be disturbed or run off. Yet if the woodsman's camp is aligned lawful good and chaotic evil is running rampant then the concern for a balance of power between the alignments takes precidence and the woodsman's unattended camp would be allowed to continue unhindered.
How this could be programmed should be fairly simple to describe at a high level where the relative power of the alignments is known (to the game program).
Where is more detail needed for this model to be plain?
Still sounds to me like a neutral quagmire. Dragging people into neutral based on their alignment vs the other things and making it very difficult to get from neutral to good or evil, either that or makes alignments nearly static and unchangeable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yet promoting the balance can also mean refraining from countering good, evil, chaotic, and lawful influences depending upon the balance of power between those poles.
It can also involve being an agent provocateur and playing both sides off against one another. Always more amusing :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Still sounds to me like a neutral quagmire. Dragging people into neutral based on their alignment vs the other things and making it very difficult to get from neutral to good or evil, either that or makes alignments nearly static and unchangeable.
I understand the difficulty but do not share it. To the contrary, neutrality will be found as difficult to maintain as lawful good.
Players usually are social creatures and will tend to be with others like them and avoid those who significantly differ.
While Lawful Good will have difficulty remaining pure in their alignment because of the self discipline that chaotic aligned people find oppressive, the True Neutral will find it difficult to guage the balance of power among player factions without frequenting their settlements and engaging in conversations.
This is why I think it should be significant who we associate with, and why it should be that simply spending time in the wilderness should promote growth toward true neutrality. A Druid visiting a settlement should seek out the forest to re-center himself. A Paladin should seek out the company of his fellow paladins and lawful good clerics and monks in order to reinforce his Lawful Good alignment. A chaotic evil spy should periodically engage in chaotic evil activities to regain his characteristics because he cannot as easily revel in bawdy bacchanals among the austere aristocracy.
If I lay my hand upon the oak and listen to its breath I grow peaceful and rested. The mighty oak, after all, is just a little nut who stood his ground.
Whether you think it is intelligible or not in your hasty judgement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yet promoting the balance can also mean refraining from countering good, evil, chaotic, and lawful influences depending upon the balance of power between those poles.It can also involve being an agent provocateur and playing both sides off against one another. Always more amusing :)
Truly said, Jiminy
No, because "Create Undead" is an evil spell, and nice guys don't cast evil spells.So I CAN be a nice guy while creating undead?
Last time I checked, Ryan apparently said the opposite.
Not even to trick Evil people into lowering their guard?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I made a post here in another thread supporting that neutral be obtainable not only through 'balanced' actions, but inaction, as well.
I also wouldn't mind the idea that some actions will draw a character towards neutral (I can't think of one off the top of my head), and especially that some actions would be 'not good' but not necessarily 'evil' and vice versa.
There are mechanical as well as RP reasons to design it this way. The most important reason in my mind is something that Andius pointed out in other games: That the 'goodest' characters in games would often kill somebody 'for free' every time they reached the maximum level of 'good.' Having True Neutral as the natural resting point of alignment (even if it took a year of inaction to get there from the extremes) means that characters of a particular alignment will have to act in a way fitting to their alignment in order to stay there.
I highly recommend those interested in this thread read through that thread. Though the discussion there was admittedly not focused solely on alignment, the ideas in that thread acted as the starting-point for many of the OPs for the more-specific threads out there now.
EDIT: I just saw Being's comment on meaning 'balance' not on an individual level, but on a local/region level. Being, for clarification: do you mean to say that a N town bordered by many Evil settlements would do Good acts, and in so doing remain N? And that if the same town were instead bordered by many Good settlements, they would engage in Evil acts, with the same result?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, Neutral on the Good/Evil axis makes me think of the aspect of Buddhism where the most important thing is to refrain from doing Evil, rather than to actively do Good. Not that Buddhists don't believe in Charity or Good Works, so don't think I'm saying Buddhism is Neutral - just this aspect of it.
So, Neutral refrains from doing Evil but is not compelled to do Good either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
EDIT: I just saw Being's comment on meaning 'balance' not on an individual level, but on a local/region level. Being, for clarification: do you mean to say that a N town bordered by many Evil settlements would do Good acts, and in so doing remain N? And that if the same town were instead bordered by many Good settlements, they would engage in Evil acts, with the same result?
A neutral settlement I believe would have to be either lawful neutral or chaotic neutral. I don't really think you would have a true neutral settlement per se unless GW/Paizo says there are (example: starting towns might be considered neutral despite my thinking they are not true neutral but rather merely indeterminate).
I think a Neutral-populated hex surrounded by evil settlements would seek to protect its territory from encroachment and strive to remove untended harvesting/construction sites from natural habitats in their own hex and those neighboring it, which would weaken those other-aligned settlements relying on those resources as a side-effect. Understand that a neutral-populated hex surrounded by Good aligned hexes would behave similarly.
In my view a Lawful Neutral settlement would perform similarly, but in a structured military manner, where a chaotic good settlement might do so using guerrilla tactics. A true-neutral Druid's Grove or Ranger camp would likely use mixed guerilla/military tactics where appropriate to the situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Understand that a neutral-populated hex surrounded by Good aligned hexes would behave similarly.
So, you're saying that a Neutral Settlement surrounded by Good Settlements would seek to sabotage or weaken the Good Settlements?
That doesn't seem right to me. I would think their self-interest would give them an incentive to, in effect, mooch off the benefits of having nearby Good Settlements.