Goblinworks Blog: Blood on the Tracks

Yea, I guess you have a point. Cavaliers can be CG right? Just want to know because I want to have a knight type character that is CG. Also, regarding the blog post I have a question: From what they said, it sounds like the only people who will be flagged are "evil" people. If I am (lets say) a paladin and I see a necromancer who is minding his own business walking down a road and I jump out and attack him (because he is evil and I am a freakin paladin) I would then get flagged as an attacker (right?) then once he is dead I would be flagged as a criminal? Or am I just missing the obvious which is "good guys would not attack people randomly, even if they are evil"?

According to other posters above there were 3.5 non-lawful Paladins though I do personally think that goes against the original idea of a Paladin fanatically enforcing the rules/laws of his god.

I suspect the answer to your other questions might be "yes you would get flagged as an attacker if he was not in the act of committing Evil but no you will not be a criminal/thief".

As far as a Knight goes there is no mounted combat yet and no pets hence no bonded mount. However, in terms of core classes, it is possible to play a fighter or cleric as mounted knight like characters. Assuming you can get hold of non-metal plate armor you may even pull off a druid/knight mounted on his animal companion. Bearing in mind there is NO mounted combat and NO animal companions yet.

Aven Galan wrote:

Yea, I guess you have a point. Cavaliers can be CG right? Just want to know because I want to have a knight type character that is CG. Also, regarding the blog post I have a question: From what they said, it sounds like the only people who will be flagged are "evil" people. If I am (lets say) a paladin and I see a necromancer who is minding his own business walking down a road and I jump out and attack him (because he is evil and I am a freakin paladin) I would then get flagged as an attacker (right?) then once he is dead I would be flagged as a criminal? Or am I just missing the obvious which is "good guys would not attack people randomly, even if they are evil"?

According to other posters above there were 3.5 non-lawful Paladins though I do personally think that goes against the original idea of a Paladin fanatically enforcing the rules/laws of his god.

I suspect the answer to your other questions might be "yes you would get flagged as an attacker if he was not in the act of committing Evil but no you will not be a criminal/thief".

As far as a Knight goes there is no mounted combat yet and no pets hence no bonded mount. However, in terms of core classes, it is possible to play a fighter or cleric as mounted knight like characters. Assuming you can get hold of non-metal plate armor you may even pull off a druid/knight mounted on his animal companion. Bearing in mind there is NO mounted combat and NO animal companions yet.

Pretty sure there were paladin variants, paladin of freedom, paladin of tyranny? in 3.5 that allowed you to stray away from LG.

Being,

My open mind ended when i read the developers are in favor of allowing other players to steal items i have gathered. i do not have alot of time to play games, so when i do get to relax a bit i do not want to waste my time doing things in a game just to have someone else steal it.
Unless they change it they have lost my support for this game. Well at least i'll get the print copy.
Personnally i cannot beleive the developers wish to alienate any paying customers but apparantly they do. So therefore i will take the ks donation as i just bought the books and minis and go elsewhere taking my friends with me.

I trully understand your point. Although I do like PvP (moderately) I also like PvE very much. And I'm not very confortable with the perspective of losing stuff to criminals. I Can live with that but it would take out part of the fun. I woud like to opt sometimes to go out and take risks and sometimes just to go to a PvP-safe area and enjoy some PvE.

Knowing that in games like EVE people are allowed to rarelly or never go to low sec areas and still having fun with no PvP at all, I believe it could be done in PFO as well, in order to not cast out players like you that strongly dislike PvP. I don't think that would hurt to create many possibilities for non-PvP players to enjoy a good PvE without worring of being forced to PvP. It would sufice to create interesting areas for PvE inside the secure zones of influence of the NPC Settlements. Why don't do that? As I said I can live with the perspective of a massive PvP environment however the experience would be not as fun as it would that the game offer me the chance to choose the risk I want to take every time I go out in the wilderness.

Well Thar, look on the bright side. I'm sure there are sets of gear you can go raid for in Wow. And if you've got them all don't worry, they will make more new ones soon! ;)

I trully understand your point. Although I do like PvP (moderately) I also like PvE very much. And I'm not very confortable with the perspective of losing stuff to criminals. I Can live with that but it would take out part of the fun. I woud like to opt sometimes to go out and take risks and sometimes just to go to a PvP-safe area and enjoy some PvE.

Yep, something like this would work for me:

- NPC caravans can carry your goods but they are liable to attack.

- Should you start regularly losing goods in a certain area you have several choices:
1. just cop the losses and make do with what sneaks through
2. move your operations somewhere safer
3. get some friends together and go hunt down the perpetrators.

-Markus- wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

Utterly fantastic!

It's also very nice to have confirmation that raising undead is still an "incredibly evil" act :)

If you are neutral and raise undead, it should not be considered an evil act. Disturbing a grave is not inherently evil, especially if your religion does not consider it to be so. Undead can be used for lots of good reasons, and while the undead themselves should share your alignment they should not be considered innately evil.

I would love to have a skeletal mining crew for example.

Animate Dead and its ilk all carry the Evil descriptor. That means they are defined as evil, and do effect people's alignment. That is how the Pantheon of Golarion feels about it, and mortals disagreeing doesn't change that fact.

Which is fine. What's not fine is everyone magically just "knowing about it" as soon as you see them

Which is fine. What's not fine is everyone magically just "knowing about it" as soon as you see them

Detect Evil is a very low level spell for clerics bards etc, but you are right, only Paladins should be able to detect at will and fighters and Barbarians should not have a clue.

On the paladin matter, you could always make a warrior cleric. Maybe take some fighter, I'm actually more partial to that than Paladins most times
(But I got a thing for warrior preachers).

I suppose it can be questionable how we could know about certain tags.
Especially thief and the like. How good a thief are you if everyone knows it?

Yea, I guess you have a point. Cavaliers can be CG right? Just want to know because I want to have a knight type character that is CG. Also, regarding the blog post I have a question: From what they said, it sounds like the only people who will be flagged are "evil" people. If I am (lets say) a paladin and I see a necromancer who is minding his own business walking down a road and I jump out and attack him (because he is evil and I am a freakin paladin) I would then get flagged as an attacker (right?) then once he is dead I would be flagged as a criminal? Or am I just missing the obvious which is "good guys would not attack people randomly, even if they are evil"?

If he's an undead-raising necromancer, he'll possibly have a Heinous flag so there'd be no worry there. Otherwise, unless he himself is a criminal, then yes you'd get an Attacker flag, and a Criminal flag as well if attacking him was against the law in the area. I believe you'd also get alignment shifts towards good (for attacking an evil necromancer) and lawful or chaotic (for either upholding or breaking the law, depending on the situation), but that's not actually covered in this blog.

-Markus- wrote:

If you are neutral and raise undead, it should not be considered an evil act. Disturbing a grave is not inherently evil, especially if your religion does not consider it to be so. (...)

Animate Dead and its ilk all carry the Evil descriptor. That means they are defined as evil, and do effect people's alignment. That is how the Pantheon of Golarion feels about it, and mortals disagreeing doesn't change that fact.

Well put Alexander.

Undead can be of all shapes and alignments. We are talking about the ritual of kidnapping souls from their afterlife and turning them into mindless undead slaves (and I suspect also making them evil by shattering their mind and flooding it with black magic).

If you start thinking that the souls of the dead are just as sacred as the souls of the living - and I think Pharasma sees it that way - then this becomes fairly obvious.

Richter Bones wrote:

Casting detect evil in an evil hex should give a good character a heinous flag. In a neutral hex there should be no heinous flagging.

I like this. Are there plans to have hexes with alignments, and how will that work? I can see how both NPC and Player settlements can be aligned. Does that mean a hex is evil because of the rules/laws of the ruling settlement, or is it just declared evil-ground?

By this token, you should not be able to summon "good" aligned beings without receiving a flag, in an "evil" hex.

The alignment issue is complicated...

I think it's said somewhere that when players form a chartered company, the chartered company's alignment is a direct sum or combination of the players' alignment that form the chartered company and it changes according to new members and if the players' alignments in that chartered company change. Same with settlement/nation I think.

Anyway I'm exited to see these flags in action and all out war without the flags. :)

Well considering that if you loose your gear in PFO replacing it will cost as much as repairing your stuff after you die in WoW I don't really see why this is such a big deal, Thar.

First in regard to.

"Thief: Characters gain looting rights to NPCs and other players they defeat in combat. Looting rights unlock after about 5 minutes so that anyone can loot a corpse. Looting an unlocked husk that you did not originally have looting rights to will mark you as a Thief. This flag lasts for a decent length of time after the act."

This seems very odd to have an immunity delay and a thief flag. Surly if it has sat there for five minutes unlooted this would mean the person with rights doesn't want it? Why not remove the flag and extend the immunity time a bit more and avoid it all together? Or remove the immunity bit and have actual stealing rather then picking up abandoned goods as it seems now.

I fear the only real use for this is leaving stuff laying about and waiting in ambush for anyone to foolishly pick up the seemingly abandoned objects.

To "Traitor/Betrayer"

Is betrayal somehow going to be worked out by the game? assigned by a groups leadership? automatically given to anyone who leaves a group? And is there any idea of what constitutes betrayal if the systems assigns it?

For "Heinous".

I would hope there is at leased a good reason to do these bad things and suffer this penalty, raising of the dead being rather powerful for instance.

For the economics of banditry, unless a significant amount of items are destroyed when looted (which may make banditry unprofitable and pointless) since these goods would still exist after changing hands and would need to be sold to provide much use to any bandits and as such still go to market. It would need to be from the discouragement of goods collecting/transportation the driving up of prices would come from not the actual theft itself a point I hope goblinworks is aware of.

On a slightly connected note am I correct in my thought that items are not lost upon death but only when looted so all that is required for a group in a fight is to hold the field and they will lose nothing thus rendering any attempts at economic attrition on a larger force completely pointless or actually counterproductive by giving them your loot if you can't take the ground?

Pretty sure there were paladin variants, paladin of freedom, paladin of tyranny? in 3.5 that allowed you to stray away from LG.

Indeed there were, in the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana. The basic paladin was renamed the "Paladin of Honor", and was joined by the "Paladin of Freedom" (Chaotic Good), "Paladin of Tyranny" (Lawful Evil), and the "Paladin of Slaughter" (Chaotic Evil), providing Paladins of all four extreme ends of the alignment spectrum.

Also, it should be noted that these variants all had their own code of conduct, much like the "Stick Up Your Rectum" class feature of the Paladin of Honor, but tailored for their own alignment.

I hope that you wont get flagged in general/simplified. I would think that making the encounter/act known would go through some chain of events before it became public. If someone attack a caravan and kill everyone, someone will have to look for clues if they want to find out who did it, if there are no witnesses. If the bandits allow someone to live the attack will be known to public but the identify still might be unknown if the bandits were disguised in some way. If someone in the caravan escapes they might alert someone and they might come to the rescue, or they might start tracking down the bandits. It might seem like a hard thing to handle in a game but I believe that small clever decisions on a small level will give the game a big boost on the bigger picture.

I hope that you wont get flagged in general/simplified. I would think that making the encounter/act known would go through some chain of events before it became public. If someone attack a caravan and kill everyone, someone will have to look for clues if they want to find out who did it, if there are no witnesses. If the bandits allow someone to live the attack will be known to public but the identify still might be unknown if the bandits were disguised in some way. If someone in the caravan escapes they might alert someone and they might come to the rescue, or they might start tracking down the bandits. It might seem like a hard thing to handle in a game but I believe that small clever decisions on a small level will give the game a big boost on the bigger picture.

I'm not sure this idea is viable and if it adds or not to the gameplay as a positive measure. In a first view it looks like a mechanism that will protect criminals a way too much. Actually as we are going to be send back to life by the Gods, we could remember who attacked us and warn people about that. So I think a simplified and general method is easier to implement/handle and in the end makes sense. I Don´t see the need to the game devellopers spend time to create such complexity as in the end the result of a simpler system makes sense.

Well Thar, look on the bright side. I'm sure there are sets of gear you can go raid for in Wow. And if you've got them all don't worry, they will make more new ones soon! ;)

I really dislike this kind of response. It offers no constructive anything and is just offensive.

Valandur wrote:

Well Thar, look on the bright side. I'm sure there are sets of gear you can go raid for in Wow. And if you've got them all don't worry, they will make more new ones soon! ;)

I really dislike this kind of response. It offers no constructive anything and is just offensive.

I stand with you.

Misere wrote:

Valandur wrote:

Well Thar, look on the bright side. I'm sure there are sets of gear you can go raid for in Wow. And if you've got them all don't worry, they will make more new ones soon! ;)

I really dislike this kind of response. It offers no constructive anything and is just offensive.

I stand with you.

The complication it seems to me, is that it's short-hand for, [Message]"Most other themepark mmorpgs support pve sans pvp and zero looting. These are designed to be integrated into PFO, because it's sandbox, promoting player interaction, can be graduated risk/reward assessment by players, loot is highly disposable etc. If after considering all these reasons for integrating you still can't bear the thought of your char being taken out by another player and loot being lost in such a manner, they PFO cannot cater to that. In fact it CANNOT compete with other mmorpgs that do cater to that.[/Message] I think Valandur is well-meaning in this case, but the economy of use of words to explain this message leads to the apparent lack of "decorum". If Thar is willing to ask, "Well if looting puts my neck out of joint so badly, I can't be the only one, why is GW allowing looting? I can't see anything worse than looting in mmoprgs. Anyone think this also or want to explain why I should have to put up with it?" Instead of: "PvP + Looting in any form is impossible for me." Well there's not much to discuss with such a declaration. In fact it almost looks foolish/fanboi-ish to start to explain/persuade why it works from such a stand-offish gambit? As well as running out of steam in such cases, no matter who positively intentioned! *chuckles* :)

But it's true, to say "go seek other mmoprgs" as a slogan can lead to "false negatives" ie people who COULD be open-minded given enough information and extra discussion.

Being,

My open mind ended when i read the developers are in favor of allowing other players to steal items i have gathered. i do not have alot of time to play games, so when i do get to relax a bit i do not want to waste my time doing things in a game just to have someone else steal it.
Unless they change it they have lost my support for this game. Well at least i'll get the print copy.
Personnally i cannot beleive the developers wish to alienate any paying customers but apparantly they do. So therefore i will take the ks donation as i just bought the books and minis and go elsewhere taking my friends with me.

There are things more important than one player's dollar.

The developers are willing to ban unrepentent griefers because they will degrade the quality of the game, just as if they were eliminating a 'bug', no matter how expensive that bug was to create. If something hurts gameplay is to be eliminated, regardless of what it actually cost to make, then so too might types of players who will damage the content for the rest of the paying population be discouraged from imposing themselves on the rest of the player population.

So perhaps 'players' with minds closed are, like griefers, a type of player who refuses to engage in sportsmanlike player interaction. Such a player may degrade the quality of the game, since player interaction is the primary source of content.

If you cannot see the value of interacting with others in a sportsmanlike manner, then maybe you would be like a flaw in programming, just like a griefer. Possibly then it would be better to not have you complaining to everyone around you that it isn't more like a singleplayer themepark game.

It isn't the deveoper's responsibility to 'fix' you. They didn't build you. It isn't my responsibiity to educate you or make excuses either. The best we may be able to do is advise you what the game will be like honestly and let you sort yourself out of the mix? Is that fair?

If you already know you will not enjoy the game, then I have to ask why you are here complaining in public?

Thar wrote:

Being,

My open mind ended when i read the developers are in favor of allowing other players to steal items i have gathered. i do not have alot of time to play games, so when i do get to relax a bit i do not want to waste my time doing things in a game just to have someone else steal it.
Unless they change it they have lost my support for this game. Well at least i'll get the print copy.
Personnally i cannot beleive the developers wish to alienate any paying customers but apparantly they do. So therefore i will take the ks donation as i just bought the books and minis and go elsewhere taking my friends with me.

There are things more important than one player's dollar.

The developers are willing to ban unrepentent griefers because they will degrade the quality of the game, just as if they were eliminating a 'bug', no matter how expensive that bug was to create. If something hurts gameplay is to be eliminated, regardless of what it actually cost to make. So too might types of players who will damage the content for the rest of the paying population be discouraged from imposing themselves on the rest of the player population.

So perhaps 'players' with minds closed are, like griefers, a type of player who refuses to engage in sportsmanlike player interaction. Such a player may degrade the quality of the game, since player interaction is the primary source of content.

If you cannot see the value of interacting with others in a sportsmanlike manner, then maybe you would be like a flaw in programming, just like a griefer. Possibly then it would be better to not have you complaining to everyone around you that it isn't more like a singleplayer themepark game.

It isn't the deveoper's responsibility to 'fix' you. They didn't build you. It isn't my responsibiity to educate you or make excuses either. The best we may be able to do is advise you what the game will be like honestly and let you sort yourself out of the mix? Is that fair?

If you already know you will not enjoy...

Maybe because he hopes his point of view being taken in consideration and something could change to make the game include some safe areas for players who enjoy PvE and not PvP?

And I don't think it is one player issue, I believe it is a thousand players issue, as many people will refrain to join a game where you risk being hunted down and slaughtered all the time you go out just with the intention of collecting some material or killing some monsters.

Again, it is not my case, but I think all the people should have the right to express their oppinions and concerns. If they will be or not taken in consideration by the GW team, that is up to them, but they should be allowed to speak.

Maybe because he hopes his point of view being taken in consideration and something could change to make the game include some safe areas for players who enjoy PvE and not PvP?

And I don't think it is one player issue, I believe it is a thousand players issue, as many people will refrain to join a game where you risk being hunted down and slaughtered all the time you go out just with the intention of collecting some material or killing some monsters.

Again, it is not my case, but I think all the people should have the right to express their oppinions and concerns. If they will be or not taken in consideration by the GW team, that is up to them, but they should be allowed to speak.

The game already includes relatively safe areas for those who don't want to engage in interplayer activities that include an element of risk. Thar folded his arms and refused to consider my points about competitive play and sportsmanship: He refuses to consider the sentiments of others, he just wants his way. His idea of conversation is apparently to tell the rest of us that unless we play by his rules, regardless of the rules of the game that is being developed, he is taking his ball and going home with his thousands of friends.

So where does his rule stop? When he gets an auto-win button?

His point wasn't about griefing as you suggested in your defense of him, it was about the prospect of losing the fruit of his labor to theft, as if he had nothing to say about it.

And LordDaeron, please try and refrain from replacing my points with your strawmen about everyone's right to express their opinion. He is clearly already expressing his opinion. I said nothing about shutting him up, but instead asked him why, if his mind is closed, is he pretending to converse? If his mind is truly closed his words are not a conversation they are a soliloquey. The only ideas that he will entertain are our capitulation.

I say let him take his ball and go home if that is what he wishes to threaten. I ask him if that is his point then why is he here pretending to contribute?

First in regard to.

"Thief: Characters gain looting rights to NPCs and other players they defeat in combat. Looting rights unlock after about 5 minutes so that anyone can loot a corpse. Looting an unlocked husk that you did not originally have looting rights to will mark you as a Thief. This flag lasts for a decent length of time after the act."

This seems very odd to have an immunity delay and a thief flag. Surly if it has sat there for five minutes unlooted this would mean the person with rights doesn't want it? Why not remove the flag and extend the immunity time a bit more and avoid it all together? Or remove the immunity bit and have actual stealing rather then picking up abandoned goods as it seems now.

I fear the only real use for this is leaving stuff laying about and waiting in ambush for anyone to foolishly pick up the seemingly abandoned objects.

My presumed logic for this being thievery is that it is because you're stealing from the killed party. Yes, we know they can come back and retrieve their things, but since soulbinding points will vary in distance from where you die, there are sure to be times when it becomes impossible to reach your husk, even going as fast as you can, in 5 minutes or less-particularly if you were out gathering resources in an unclaimed hex adjacent to or even farther from your own "home hex" if you will.

This flag also has interesting implications in other ways. We know you're only allowed to apply "Calistria's Sting" to those who did the actual killing of you, seemingly leaving open a niche for scavengers to try and steal from a PC they did not themselves kill. The Thief flag provides a fairly balanced way to still have an OOC reason to at least want to question those flagged. Or more concretely, let's say I'm harvesting away from home, a 10 minute run away from my settlement. A bandit held me at bladepoint threatening me. Being brave...and noticing a powerful NPC monster about to enter aggro radius to us both, I let him kill me rather than surrender to his tactics. I run back to my body, fast as I can. I find both of our husks have been looted already, and notice you walking away casually with the Thief flag up. I now have probable cause to question you for my belongings. Maybe I pay you to have them returned. Maybe I just ask you if you know who took them. Or, perhaps I make the not illogical conclusion that YOU are the one who stole from me, and RPing my character as well as using the metagame knowledge that killing a Thief-flagged player has diminished penalties, I choose to attack!

My reasoning for the Thief tag is that it is used to punish those who are trying to bypass the risk of PvP and just get the rewards.

Example: Player A attacks Player B, and kills Player B but is gravely injured in the fight. Player C sees this happening and doesn't interfere until one side falls. Player C then runs in before Player A can loot Player B and one shots him due to the injuries from Player B. Player C then loots both Players A and B for twice the reward of a fair fight with a fraction of the risk. Player C gets the Thief tag for looting Player B when he had nothing to do with killing him. He doesn't have the right by victory to those goods.

This is being a jerk and breaking Wheaton's Law, and I'm glad that its going to be discouraged.

Southraven wrote:

Which is fine. What's not fine is everyone magically just "knowing about it" as soon as you see them

Detect Evil is a very low level spell for clerics bards etc, but you are right, only Paladins should be able to detect at will and fighters and Barbarians should not have a clue.

Maybe having a glowing sign above your head saying: Evil ! is too much, but everyone you kill is going to tell people you did it. It won't be much of a secret with the low population of closed beta.

Re: Flags , I don't see where they are really limiting the open pvp, anymore than locks stop actual thieves. Flags are going to limit the nice people, not the 'all pvp, all the time' crowd.

unless the consequences of being flagged are MORE than 'it's okay to pvp with me' ?

re. Thief:
Relevant situations include

1- you kill a group of mobs but the last one kills you. While running back to your corpse, a random player loots all your kills, and/or loots your corpse.

2- bandits jump your group and kill your friend before you kill them. You loot the bandits, but while waiting for your friend to return a random player runs by and loots his body.

Misere wrote:

Valandur wrote:

Well Thar, look on the bright side. I'm sure there are sets of gear you can go raid for in Wow. And if you've got them all don't worry, they will make more new ones soon! ;)

I really dislike this kind of response. It offers no constructive anything and is just offensive.

I stand with you.

The thing is, were this Thar's first post about PvP I wouldn't have posted what I did. But Thar has made a number of posts stating, and restating the same thing. At first many of us, including myself, tried to get them to study the Dev blogs and to think about PvP with a broader view then just how it's been handled in most MMOs. I believe that Thar has looked at these blogs and has certainly seen our attempts to look at PvP differently and is just determined to maintain a negative view of PvP and of PFO despite all this.

That's the only reason I posted what I did. I wasn't insulting, I didn't demean their character nor suggest that there was anything wrong with their insistence on remaining on the forums of a game who's philosophy they disagree with.

I do think they will get more satisfaction by finding a game that suits their play style and doesn't contain elements that they oppose. Wow, being the largest theme park game seems the logical choice for them to find what they seek, hence my suggestion that they seek happiness there as opposed to trying to get the Devs to change a core component of PFO just because they don't agree with it.

I don't know whether we are supposed to be able to loot our own corpses, but my impression is that is not going to be possible. When the fight is over, one person is down and the victor has looting rights to grab some of the unthreaded contents. The defeated respawns somewhere with his armor, whatever was in his hands, and any threaded items. Apparently after awhile the rest of the defeated's corpse despawns, destroying any remaining loot. I assume there is a delay between the vicotr looting and closing the body and the point where the corpse despawns to allow the victor time to offload loot, perhaps to a partner, and reopen the corpse to grab more.

If I'm victor and looting and you run in to also loot then you would be flagged thief, allowing the victor to attack you to defend his kill without penalty.

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Animate Dead and its ilk all carry the Evil descriptor. That means they are defined as evil, and do effect people's alignment. That is how the Pantheon of Golarion feels about it, and mortals disagreeing doesn't change that fact.

Which is fine. What's not fine is everyone magically just "knowing about it" as soon as you see them

If I go out and chop wood for a year, I will become strong. It doesn't matter if anyone sees me do this.

If I go out and raise undead for a year, I will become evil. It doesn't matter if anyone sees me do this.

I don't think that's really your objection, though. I think you're actually saying that we shouldn't wear our Alignment on our sleeve, so we shouldn't be barred entry based on Alignment when there's not a clear way for the people barring us to know what our Alignment really is. I fully support this, and think it fits in very well with a lot of the discussion on Anonymity and Disguise.

I don't know whether we are supposed to be able to loot our own corpses, but my impression is that is not going to be possible. When the fight is over, one person is down and the victor has looting rights to grab some of the unthreaded contents. The defeated respawns somewhere with his armor, whatever was in his hands, and any threaded items. Apparently after awhile the rest of the defeated's corpse despawns, destroying any remaining loot. I assume there is a delay between the vicotr looting and closing the body and the point where the corpse despawns to allow the victor time to offload loot, perhaps to a partner, and reopen the corpse to grab more.

If I'm victor and looting and you run in to also loot then you would be flagged thief, allowing the victor to attack you to defend his kill without penalty.

You can loot your own husk.

However, until you return to your husk, you are in danger of losing the rest of your inventory. If you get to your husk before anyone else, you'll be able to get all your stuff back

I still hope I can have a CG paladin, I think its kind of stupid that they limit it to just LG

I really hope that we get some way to learn most of the abilities usually associated with paladins without having to be LG.

Aven Galan wrote:

I still hope I can have a CG paladin, I think its kind of stupid that they limit it to just LG

I really hope that we get some way to learn most of the abilities usually associated with paladins without having to be LG.

I'm sure you can. I just dont expect to see aura of good, divine health, lay on hands, or smite evil among them. Some kind of Fighter/cleric combo can do a better job of all of those things than a paladin anyway with spells.

Fram a mechanics perspictive, there isn't a strong argument for why Paladins cant be of a different alingment as long as they follow thier code. From a flavor perspective in terms of the pathfinder world, there is a very strong reason why paladins need to be LG.

How about a friend who "loots" you just to prevent you from being looted by enemies? And return your stuff for you, will he be flagged? I think in this case could be an option of the dead's char player to decide if who loots him will or not be flagged.

How about a friend who "loots" you just to prevent you from being looted by enemies? And return your stuff for you, will he be flagged?

Yes, and a lot of your stuff will get destroyed too.

Friends don't loot their friends' corpses. They stand guard over them until their friends can return and loot the husk themselves.

But in an emergency, as you having a few very valuable itens in your inventory, it would be worth to let your friends to loot you and loose the less valuable stuff, but not risk a stronger enemy to get it.

Being wrote:

I don't know whether we are supposed to be able to loot our own corpses, but my impression is that is not going to be possible. When the fight is over, one person is down and the victor has looting rights to grab some of the unthreaded contents. The defeated respawns somewhere with his armor, whatever was in his hands, and any threaded items. Apparently after awhile the rest of the defeated's corpse despawns, destroying any remaining loot. I assume there is a delay between the vicotr looting and closing the body and the point where the corpse despawns to allow the victor time to offload loot, perhaps to a partner, and reopen the corpse to grab more.

If I'm victor and looting and you run in to also loot then you would be flagged thief, allowing the victor to attack you to defend his kill without penalty.

You can loot your own husk.

Goblinworks Blog wrote:

However, until you return to your husk, you are in danger of losing the rest of your inventory. If you get to your husk before anyone else, you'll be able to get all your stuff back

Thanks aggain, Dak: I was laboring under a misconception.

It may be just me but the prospect of planning ahead before going out into the wild actually is interesting. If I decide to go out solo, then I'm going to try to find out as much as I can about possible threats. Reports of particularly tough monsters or bandits might just have me take more precautions. Even talk to a few people about temporarily getting together for a better chance. If I go out alone without proper thought or preparation...well, I sure that there is a "You might be a XXX if..." joke there somewhere.

It may be just me but the prospect of planning ahead before going out into the wild actually is interesting. If I decide to go out solo, then I'm going to try to find out as much as I can about possible threats. Reports of particularly tough monsters or bandits might just have me take more precautions. Even talk to a few people about temporarily getting together for a better chance. If I go out alone without proper thought or preparation...well, I sure that there is a "You might be a XXX if..." joke there somewhere.

I hope to gain a reputation for maintaining comprehensive knowledge of what threats are in the wild and where, for as large an area as I can manage.

That way those who aren't upset with my penchant for destroying resource harvesters that are left unmanaged might seek me out for current intel on threats and locations.

How about a friend who "loots" you just to prevent you from being looted by enemies? And return your stuff for you, will he be flagged? I think in this case could be an option of the dead's char player to decide if who loots him will or not be flagged.

While I agree with Nihimon about you should guard the husk for a friend. It could be *possible* that GW plans to allow party members to automatically have loot rights, or maybe a system where you can give loot permissions to friends or something to avoid issues with friends looting your husk to save things in a pinch.

I'm more curious to know if there will be some differentiation to let people know before they loot and get the flag whether a husk has passed that 5 minute loot lock. Maybe some visual indicator?

I hope to gain a reputation for maintaining comprehensive knowledge of what threats are in the wild and where, for as large an area as I can manage.

That way those who aren't upset with my penchant for destroying resource harvesters that are left unmanaged might seek me out for current intel on threats and locations.

Hehe I can see it now!

Bob: "I think I'll go on an adventure to ..."
Jim: "Well don't forget to see that whacky druid first so you know what's going on out there, just um... make sure you don't step on any flowers or anything."

I hope to gain a reputation for maintaining comprehensive knowledge of what threats are in the wild and where, for as large an area as I can manage.

Any chance you'd be interested in documenting what you find - in character or out - and sharing that with the rest of the community? This is exactly the kind of thing The Seventh Veil is interested in putting in our libraries.

Being wrote:

I hope to gain a reputation for maintaining comprehensive knowledge of what threats are in the wild and where, for as large an area as I can manage.

Any chance you'd be interested in documenting what you find - in character or out - and sharing that with the rest of the community? This is exactly the kind of thing The Seventh Veil is interested in putting in our libraries.

My two destinies twin characters will be a monk and a druid and I expect to be spending a lot of time exploring. I'm not sure what kind of mapping tools we will have available, but I'll likely be chipping in to help with that... minus the location of anything really rare and valuable of course :)

I get the impression that people are under the assumption that bandits/thieves will steal anything and everything that is not tied down in every possible area.
Just to give you a little insight into this bandits idea of his profession:
Draining the herd to extinction is not a good business practice.
Take some coin and/or materials from your "mark" but leave him in relative wealth later on, so he can continue his/her business practice and thus keep the flow going.
Also killing unneeded is time consuming (5 minute wait) and not preferable. Only if needed.

Just a thought shared, take it for what you will.

... I'll likely be chipping in to help with that...

Great! If you're interested, you can go ahead and sign up to be a Scribe on our forums to add articles to our Library (our wiki). IronVanguard has done a fantastic job of cleaning up what we had and organizing it.

I should be clear that this is not an urgent project. We're not trying to compete with Dakcenturi's PFOFan.com wiki. I certainly don't envy the work he signed up for by trying to document the shifting sands that are the development plans for Pathfinder Online. We'll certainly be adding articles about a lot of overlapping stuff once we're in the game, but our real priority is trying to create something that can be treated like a real in-game Library, hopefully with branches in diverse Settlements.

... minus the location of anything really rare and valuable of course :)

Hah :)

We expect - and encourage - people to pursue their own interests first. We believe that everyone will be better off if that is done. We also consider ourselves lucky to get whatever additional information we do receive; we certainly aren't going to chastise the gift-giver for failing to give us a larger gift.

Being wrote:

I hope to gain a reputation for maintaining comprehensive knowledge of what threats are in the wild and where, for as large an area as I can manage.

Any chance you'd be interested in documenting what you find - in character or out - and sharing that with the rest of the community? This is exactly the kind of thing The Seventh Veil is interested in putting in our libraries.

As I said I am not averse to sharing what I learn. I doubt I will actually be joining any other guilds until my own decides what they wish to do, and that might not be until it is clear PFO is reality rather than vapor.

I know I wagered my money on it, but it still little more than a wager and the tumbling dice will be rolling awhile yet.

I should be clear that this is not an urgent project. We're not trying to compete with Dakcenturi's PFOFan.com wiki. I certainly don't envy the work he signed up for by trying to document the shifting sands that are the development plans for Pathfinder Online.

Hehe yeah it is a lot to poor through but man does it let me throw quotes around :P

By the way, I think both of our wikis are going to have unique benefits and end up both serving the community!

Traitor/Betrayer: Leaving a player or NPC group after betraying them may result in a flag: Traitor for PC groups and Betrayer for NPC alliances.

I am curious how this is going to work mechanically. Obviously if you party up with people and then attack them while you are still in a party that could trigger the flag. I guess that means spellcasters will have to be careful with those AOEs unless there is a /forgive command.

But that only accounts for direct combat. What about leading a party into a bandit ambush? Or a monsters den and leaving them to die? Will players be able to vote to put this flag on you?

I doubt I will actually be joining any other guilds until my own decides what they wish to do...

You certainly don't need to join our guild to be a Scribe, that's why it's a different application process. In fact, IronVanguard is not a member of our guild, but has been an incredibly valuable - and valued - resource in whipping our wiki into shape.

I think both of our wikis are going to have unique benefits and end up both serving the community!

Thanks. I certainly hope that proves to be the case :)

LordDaeron wrote:

How about a friend who "loots" you just to prevent you from being looted by enemies? And return your stuff for you, will he be flagged?

Yes, and a lot of your stuff will get destroyed too.

Friends don't loot their friends' corpses. They stand guard over them until their friends can return and loot the husk themselves.

Yup, though it would be nice to see something like a DRAG mechanic (with permissions of course) to get fallen (or even stunned/immobilized) comrades out of harms way. You could balance it by requiring 1 hand free and significant movement penalties on the dragger.

That would be something that even newbie characters could be usefull for in combat...doesn't take any skill to drag...just guts.