Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the heinous flag you are basically killing any future this game has as a sandbox type of game. You are not going to find very many people that are willing to be evil, let alone create an evil settlement, because the shear amount of people who will be good. You will almost never see a player raise undead because the game is designed to allow everyone to gank you at will without repercussions. You won't see anyone use slaves because you are just painting a huge target on yourself.
It would make more sense to go to war with these kingdoms/settlements that use slaves and necromancy then to just outright grief them.
The act of raising undead or owning slaves may be an evil act, but to an evil settlement it is a matter if it is lawful or not since they are already evil.
Murdering someone is evil, bringing them to justice is good.
You're probably exaggerating a little. I don't think it will kill this game. And if it seems people aren't using slaves and necromancy as often as the devs would have thought they would be used, then they will probably remove the flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're probably exaggerating a little. I don't think it will kill this game. And if it seems people aren't using slaves and necromancy as often as the devs would have thought they would be used, then they will probably remove the flag.With the heinous flag you are basically killing any future this game has as a sandbox type of game. You are not going to find very many people that are willing to be evil, let alone create an evil settlement, because the shear amount of people who will be good. You will almost never see a player raise undead because the game is designed to allow everyone to gank you at will without repercussions. You won't see anyone use slaves because you are just painting a huge target on yourself.
It would make more sense to go to war with these kingdoms/settlements that use slaves and necromancy then to just outright grief them.
The act of raising undead or owning slaves may be an evil act, but to an evil settlement it is a matter if it is lawful or not since they are already evil.
Murdering someone is evil, bringing them to justice is good.
It sounds to me that being evil will basically boil down to mechanics that will obviously favor good aligned characters. Most people are not going to dedicate a lot of time towards a type of game play that is punishing or unfavorable without some type of reward. Especially when they are better rewarded and have favorable mechanics being good.
It will have a positive feedback effect. As more people align themselves with good the number of evil people will dwindle. People coming into the game are less likely to side with a "losing" team. The number of good aligned increases more. Eventually, evil characters will be such a minority that they become irrelevant. What you have left are good or neutrally aligned players. Since the game is focused on player created content, and there is barely any antagonists left, people will start to leave the game because of lack of content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless you're intending to include a "Paragon" tag for someone so sickeningly good to also be a valid target it just seems to be the developers actively choosing Good aligned companies as their 'side' in any war.
Humanity has chosen Good as its side in most any war.
So really, what's the question?
Absolute nonsense there. Yes humans who co-ooperate with eachother do well, and yes on a larger scale it offers an advantage. But just assuming right off the bat that the winners are "good" is utter nonsense. In almost all wars, both sides commit horrible atrocities, both sides do acts that are clearly considered evil. The difference is after the war is over, the victor is in a position to push their own attrocities under the rug, and the history books shift the focus to make a nearly even scale of war-crimes, to look like a 10/90.
Co-operating well with eachother, members of the same group, members who joined with the same intent/purpose/belief, helps by far. Concern for groups outside of your own, is situational.
There is no shortage of wars in the real world I could name, in which when you look at form a deeper historical perspective, based on the position, the winning side showed significant sides of being far more in the wrong than the losing side.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If people don't play evil, the players playing good are not going to have much of a challenge. Good cannot truly exist without evil to fight against. And so to keep our fiends who are making our game fun by playing the character who are base and foul on even terms is fair.
We don't want to eliminate PVP, nor do we want to allow wanton rpkills and rampant ganking. What we do want is *meaningful* PVP. And for that to happen both side need to be fair. So far we have seen several threads pointing out the penalties that evil characters have to deal with. But what we haven't seen is a description of the higher rewards to match an evil characters higher risk.
This^
I do have to agree with the OP on a lot of things however. It does seem that evil PCs are getting the shaft a bit. I have a friend who will most likely play an evil aligned character and I could see him stopping and dropping the game if he is always flagged (for doing evil things) and getting barraged by do-gooders and looted and what not. However as Imbicatus stated, there are penalties but the rewards could balance it out. Lets say you see a high level trader walking down the road and you happen to be CE. You think to yourself "hey, this guys probably has some really good items on him and a good amount of gold" so you run up, kill him, loot him and get some very rare items and tons of gold. You would be flagged as a criminal BUT you would walk away with some sweet rewards. So I think GW is going to make like if you want to be evil, you should be smart about it and make sure its worth the risk. Otherwise, just keep doing your own thing in PvE type stuff unless you want to be flagged all the time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the heinous flag as being able to give Evil players what would normally be considered unfair advantages, like slave labor for cheap (You still need to feed slaves so it's not free) manufacturing and construction, and Undead Armies which also have a very low maintenance cost and probably outperform anything short of a very highly trained well equipped and expensive army.
The counter for these advantages, which make progressing as an Evil character and an Evil civilization easier, is to make it easier to kill these Evil characters.
It also probably makes telling a story easier too.
I see the heinous flag as being able to give Evil players what would normally be considered unfair advantages, like slave labor for cheap (You still need to feed slaves so it's not free) manufacturing and construction, and Undead Armies which also have a very low maintenance cost and probably outperform anything short of a very highly trained well equipped and expensive army.
The counter for these advantages, which make progressing as an Evil character and an Evil civilization easier, is to make it easier to kill these Evil characters.
It also probably makes telling a story easier too.
This makes sense as well. So if you are Evil, yes you will have the disadvantages of being flagged and attacked, BUT you also get a lot of advantages as well. It just needs to be balanced like that
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The River Kingdoms is a mostly chaotic place, however there is a code of sorts that limits the behavior of all of the kingdoms in its borders. Whether the kingdom is good or evil, they follow this code because in a way it represents the social contract. Those who have lived in the River Kingdoms all their life would know this code fairly well. Other than the code, however, the River Kingdoms is mostly chaotic neutral in its general alignment. The people of the River Kingdoms generally don't care about individual politics or alignments, other than being allowed to pursue their own ideals. Breaking the code, however, betraying the general spirit of freedom that is present in the lands, would have severe consequences.
The Heinous Tag is just that. But I would make it so that another person who witnesses these evil actions applies the tag. (Not a free for all tag. There actually has to be a witnessed event that breaks the code.)
The River Freedoms
1) Say What You Will, I Live Free
2) Oathbreakers Die
3) Walk Any Road, Float Any River
4) Courts Are For Kings
5) Slavery Is An Abomination
6) You Have What You Hold
As to the question of the undead. Since the characters in Pathfinder Online have a special bond with Pharasma (such as through threading items), I believe this constitutes as an Oath of Respect to not raise undead. (Pharasma is opposed to those dark arts). A necromancer who raised the undead would be, in respect to the River Kingdoms, an Oathbreaker, and I would not be surprised if Pharasma did something to make this character more visible to others.
As to the nature of evil in the game, and the Heinous tag in general, you might be forgetting that the gods in fantasy worlds are often much more active than the gods of the real world, and more likely to engage the characters. For good or for ill. So it may be the gods that are applying the Heinous Tag.
Just some thoughts... rambling through.
Necromancers summoning shadow demons, or perhaps something from the negative energy plane, might be able to do so without betraying the mentioned Oath of Respect to Pharasma.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It sounds to me that being evil will basically boil down to mechanics that will obviously favor good aligned characters. Most people are not going to dedicate a lot of time towards a type of game play that is punishing or unfavorable without some type of reward. Especially when they are better rewarded and have favorable mechanics being good.It will have a positive feedback effect. As more people align themselves with good the number of evil people will dwindle. People coming into the game are less likely to side with a "losing" team. The number of good aligned increases more. Eventually, evil characters will be such a minority that they become irrelevant. What you have left are good or neutrally aligned players. Since the game is focused on player created content, and there is barely any antagonists left, people will start to leave the game because of lack of content.
I wouldn't go so far in my assessment. I'm sure the gleam of a magic sword on someones back will sometimes cause the most righteous to fall. And it's not just about good vs evil. Good settlements can also go war with each other. Also I don't see a reason why an evil person would ally himself with a lot people if he's not at the top. It's imo that evil tries to enslave others or go up in ranks so they can gain power to enslave others. Also evil people have no ethics. So if you're trying to build an evil community that is as big as a good community, I don't think it will ever work unless you enslave PCs but that takes RP which is completely up to players themselves to comply.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Humanity has chosen Good as its side in most any war.
...
I'm not sure that is true. It is pretty arguable that humanity has chosen to war in their own interests, and invariably sees its reasons for war as good. The winning side's justifications then are those that prevail.
Almost everyone will attempt to justify what they do. Almost everyone wants to think they are good. The winners are merely those who are left with the power to socialize their rationalizations and are able to make their excuses stick.
Consider the cowboy movies of the '40s. Were those accurate portrayals of history, or fictions construed to make the cowboys seem 'good'? Consider the massacre at Wounded Knee, or trading blankets infected with smallpox to the indians. Were we really good?
I'll not go into recent history for the sake of the forums.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Set up a hideout near a settlement, raise lots of undead, then retreat to the hideout... If you're careful about it, the settlement may not realize it's a player created problem.
I'm very hopeful that PFO will allow players to work against a Settlement by aiding - or even initiating - nearby encampments.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@All about the "No stealth" statements:
I think everyone is reading too much into that one quote. If you look at his quote above that one I don't think he is saying there will NOT be stealth, more so there will not be stealth that keeps you hidden once you do something or are spotted, IE a really advanced stealth system that people want but isn't really technically feasible.
IE once you are detected or do something that could be cause of you being detected you will break stealth ie the quote
In general, being "hidden" is an all-or-nothing proposition, where the server does not communicate any information about my position to your client, period. And when my "hidden" state ends, every client can access that information. Thus, as a game mechanic, its less than ideal and doesn't work the way people wish it would.
As to the Heinous, I plan to play an Neutral character for my main and an evil character for my second main. I don't particualarly see an issue with the heinous flag except where it auto alerts people to your alignment (which may or may not be the case). Otherwise a lot of these concerns about making it easier to kill evil players and the like...
Well for one if you are running around in goody-goody land creating undead what do you expect? If you are in your own evil area, I'm highly certain they are going to have no trespass laws which are going to flag the goody-goody players for you to be able to attack them just as they would be able to attack you.
Additionally, as has been mentioned it seems that some of the acts that would flag you as heinous will give some advantage to evil players so this is just a balancer to the whole risk/reward scale and I think they've been very straight forward about making the game very focused on Risk vs Reward. If the reward is great you have a higher risk...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If people don't play evil, the players playing good are not going to have much of a challenge.
I don't think we'll have the slightest problem with this. I wouldn't be surprised if Evil outnumbered Good 2 to 1 if all players simply played their preferred alignment. I expect the only thing that will even it out is a lot of players who will choose to play the underdog rather than their preferred alignment.
From what I understand, most games usually shake out with a significant numbers advantage on the "evil" side. From my own experience, this seemed true in WoW, SWG, and SWTOR.
Please understand I am not suggesting that 2 out of 3 players are themselves Evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't go so far in my assessment. I'm sure the gleam of a magic sword on someones back will sometimes cause the most righteous to fall. And it's not just about good vs evil. Good settlements can also go war with each other. Also I don't see a reason why an evil person would ally himself with a lot people if he's not at the top. It's imo that evil tries to enslave others or go up in ranks so they can gain power to enslave others. Also evil people have no ethics. So if you're trying to build an evil community that is as big as a good community, I don't think it will ever work unless you enslave PCs but that takes RP which is completely up to players themselves to comply.
It sounds to me that being evil will basically boil down to mechanics that will obviously favor good aligned characters. Most people are not going to dedicate a lot of time towards a type of game play that is punishing or unfavorable without some type of reward. Especially when they are better rewarded and have favorable mechanics being good.It will have a positive feedback effect. As more people align themselves with good the number of evil people will dwindle. People coming into the game are less likely to side with a "losing" team. The number of good aligned increases more. Eventually, evil characters will be such a minority that they become irrelevant. What you have left are good or neutrally aligned players. Since the game is focused on player created content, and there is barely any antagonists left, people will start to leave the game because of lack of content.
Evil people do have ethics. Every society has ethics. It used to be ethical to own slaves in the US up until the 1860s. It used to be unethical to drink alcohol in the 1920s. Ethics change, morals change, laws change. Societies change at different times.
A lawful good society might see the genocide of orcs as ethical where a lawful evil society might see them as cheap labor but unethical to wipe them out completely. A lawful evil settlement might even integrate some of them into lower classes.
What is good? It's a debate that has been held for thousands of years and will never be resolved in this forum. It would be wiser to institute what is lawful and what is not by the players guided by what their deities command as good. Evil and good are but two different point of views. Leave it to the gods to determine what is right and what is wrong for their followers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If people don't play evil, the players playing good are not going to have much of a challenge.I don't think we'll have the slightest problem with this. I wouldn't be surprised if Evil outnumbered Good 2 to 1 if all players simply played their preferred alignment. I expect the only thing that will even it out is a lot of players who will choose to play the underdog rather than their preferred alignment.
From what I understand, most games usually shake out with a significant numbers advantage on the "evil" side. From my own experience, this seemed true in WoW, SWG, and SWTOR.
Please understand I am not suggesting that 2 out of 3 players are themselves Evil.
Oh, I agree. I was just replying to shadowmage about why would anyone want to play evil in terms of this content for this game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with the OP. So far we've heard nothing but pretty serious negatives for being Evil and nothing about any positives.
This is a pretty serious design problem, IMO, in a game that is supposed to be focused on Player vs Player Conflict. Good vs Evil is one of the classic axis of Conflict, especialy for the setting. However I fear with the mechanical advantages/disadvantages described so far that conflict will be incredibly lopsided (meaning no fun) as very few people will be willing to play Evil and put themselves at such a mechanical disadvantage and even those few who do will not be able to compete effectively.
Now it's possible that the above is a misinterpretation and that there will be corresponding mechanical advantages to playing Evil to balance out the disadvantages and GW just hasn't communicated them yet... but I would suggest GW address this issue so that we actualy do understand thier design intent here.
As someone who intends to play a LG, I really don't want Evil antagonists to be few and far between and disadvantaged to me (note here I said Evil antagonists not RPK'ers). If this were a game which were primarly PVE focused with some PvP on the side and meant mostly to be played in a cooperative fashion against the environment, I could see the rationale for pushing people toward Good Alignments but still allowing the freedom to choose Evil with the appropriate penalties....but as far as I understand the design intent, that does not describe PFO. I'm simply not understanding the rationale that seems to be going on here by GW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If people don't play evil, the players playing good are not going to have much of a challenge.I don't think we'll have the slightest problem with this. I wouldn't be surprised if Evil outnumbered Good 2 to 1 if all players simply played their preferred alignment. I expect the only thing that will even it out is a lot of players who will choose to play the underdog rather than their preferred alignment.
From what I understand, most games usually shake out with a significant numbers advantage on the "evil" side. From my own experience, this seemed true in WoW, SWG, and SWTOR.
Please understand I am not suggesting that 2 out of 3 players are themselves Evil.
I think that has a bit more to do with the subject matter being dealt with. For example with star wars based games, alot of people simply don't like or are unable to empathize with Lukas's depiction of the ultimate "good" guys ... the Jedi...while the Empire and the Sith are pretty empathetic to many. In a WWII Axis and Allies based game, you have about equal numbers of people choosing Axis as choose Allies.
In games where you do have greater emphasis on the "good guys" and they and their values are more recognizeable to players, you tend to have more people choosing "good". If we look here on the forums, before any mechanical advantages or disadvantages were discussed, the vast majority of players were choosing the "Good" side...Why, because Pathfinder itself (and D&D before it) is mostly focused on portraying the subject matter from a "Good" or at least neutral perspective and it's a form of "Good" that is recognizable to us. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't go so far in my assessment. I'm sure the gleam of a magic sword on someones back will sometimes cause the most righteous to fall. And it's not just about good vs evil. Good settlements can also go war with each other. Also I don't see a reason why an evil person would ally himself with a lot people if he's not at the top. It's imo that evil tries to enslave others or go up in ranks so they can gain power to enslave others. Also evil people have no ethics. So if you're trying to build an evil community that is as big as a good community, I don't think it will ever work unless you enslave PCs but that takes RP which is completely up to players themselves to comply.
It sounds to me that being evil will basically boil down to mechanics that will obviously favor good aligned characters. Most people are not going to dedicate a lot of time towards a type of game play that is punishing or unfavorable without some type of reward. Especially when they are better rewarded and have favorable mechanics being good.It will have a positive feedback effect. As more people align themselves with good the number of evil people will dwindle. People coming into the game are less likely to side with a "losing" team. The number of good aligned increases more. Eventually, evil characters will be such a minority that they become irrelevant. What you have left are good or neutrally aligned players. Since the game is focused on player created content, and there is barely any antagonists left, people will start to leave the game because of lack of content.
In the cosmology of the Pathfinder Universe, "Evil" absolutely does have ethics....that's what LE is all about. Those ethics are entirely different from those recognized by "Good" but they do exist....and there are even functioning societies and nations (e.g. Cheliax) based upon them. Evil can work and ally with others simply because they recognize the utility of doing so. Evil characters don't neccesarly have to be on top, although the may certainly desire to do so. As long as they provide value to the power structure, they'll recieve some reward commesurate with that value which can make thier life comfortable and give them things they want. LE may even sacrifice of themselves or place themselves at disadvantage because they feel compelled by thier own code to do so... that is because thier own code is part of thier self-identity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In most fantasy games, as I mentioned above, the good gods are more powerful than the evil ones, and have a somewhat vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Pathfinder actually turned this around a bit by introducing a very powerful LE deity and faction with Asmodeus. Lamashtu is much more monstrous in nature, and Norgorber, a deity of stealthy assassins.
Of these three deities: Asmodeus uses society to achieve his evil aims. Lamashtu shuns society to achieve her evil ways. And Norgorber hides in society to achieve his evil ways. I think these represent the main three ways that evil has been used in both Dungeons and Dragons and in Pathfinder, although in Dungeons and Dragons, I think there was a very active corruption or total perversion of society idea that we don't see as much in the Pathfinder universe.
I think, depending on your alignment and what faction you are allied with in Pathfinder Online, you can still effectively play whatever alignment you want to play. There are at least two factions that are evil-leaning. One of those organizations is in favor of owning and using slaves, despite the 'unlawfulness' of that act in the River Kingdoms. (I wonder if this applies to indentured servitude.)
So I think, at least in terms of player alignment and playing ability, we are basically left with three options: Use society to achieve your evil ways. Shun society to achieve your evil ways. Or hide in society to achieve your evil ways. There isn't really a complete destruction or corruption of society option (and in a game it would be difficult to play anyway), but just because something is difficult doesn't mean people won't try it. (It seems that more people will try it because its difficult.)
I'm actually surprised that the game allows for people to raise up undead or to use slave labor. Few games (that I can think of) go into such detail. How the good gods react to this behavior, however, remains to be seen.
But, like someone said above, if there is a Heinous tag, there should be something that opposes it. It doesn't have to be a tag. Perhaps a title or something like a halo or aura.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fear with the mechanical advantages/disadvantages described so far that conflict will be incredibly lopsided (meaning no fun) as very few people will be willing to play Evil and put themselves at such a mechanical disadvantage and even those few who do will not be able to compete effectively.
I don't think this is something we'll have to worry about. In most games, the "evil" side massively outnumbers the "good" side. And there are inherent advantages to being evil in that you can simply take what you want without being troubled about the impact on the person you took it from, which makes acquisition of wealth and resources much easier.
I'll be very, very surprised - even with all these disadvantages to being Evil - if Evil doesn't significantly outnumber Good once we're in Open Enrollment.
In games where you do have greater emphasis on the "good guys" and they and their values are more recognizeable to players, you tend to have more people choosing "good".
That's not my experience, but I don't have hard data.
If we look here on the forums... the vast majority of players were choosing the "Good" side...
Very skewed sample :)
Ultimately, I really don't know. I'll bet Ryan does, though :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll try and paraphrase here as I don't remember where I saw the post:
"if you chop a lot of wood alone, you get stronger at using an ax,
if you create a lot of undead alone, you get more evil"
With regard to the Heinous tag, if they generated that tag alone (or in secret), then I think the tag should be filtered by reputation. This presumes that detect evil was not used. By-the-by, will there be a detect good or detect law?
There have been threads on disguise and I think disguise should be able to mask some tags.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good cannot truly exist without evil to fight against.
One of the ideologies of the Nettles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nihimon, you may correct me if I get anything wrong in my take on this :)
Something I see people forgetting is that while PFO is player driven, there is still a mostly unseen NPC presence in the River Kingdoms. Getting a heinous flag is likely to do with immersion, as most people that populate the area (not the PC's) would view such actions as slavery and raising the dead as "heinous". You can still play an evil PC, just remember that this unseen population will view you as evil, and would likely convey this fact to PC's in most any inn, tavern, bar, etc... So "Good" PC's would seek you out to stop your evil. You may not see it as evil, and your settlement may not see it as evil, but the general population of the whole area very well could. Think of it this way - slavery is aberrant to River Kingdom population, and raising the dead (to use the other example Ryan used) is, to them, just another form of slavery - you disturbed the rest of the dead to control them as your "slaves". It keeps things well rooted in the lore.
Nothing has been stated to my knowledge, that would prohibit you from doing actions deemed evil or heinous, or playing a PC with an evil alignment, but there are consequences as most people (that large unseen population) view them as such. If I were to play an evil PC, I would just look at it as just another aspect of being evil - lots of people will not like it, even if I don't think Ii am doing anything wrong. No one in RL who is "evil" ever thinks they are doing evil, but RL is shades of grey. PFRPG and PFO have clear black and white alignments. This makes things more black and white for players. It's the nature of the beast, and PFO won't be a derivative of PFRPG without such a view. Playing an evil, or even a neutral character who does some things others would view as against their moral compass in the River Kingdoms just has to be more careful, as they are likely to be hunted down (though not always). At its core, PFRPG like D&D (and AD&D before that), is a game where the players are generally considered to be good aligned. Yes, you can play an evil campaign, and I have taken part in those. But in those instances, the GM has had waves of do-gooders try and stop us. This is just the mechanic GW is using to simulate that reality. If Open PvP is to be a huge part of this sandbox MMO, then good aligned PC's need to have a way of being able to go after evil PC's, otherwise it is just PKing. "But he's evil" isn't a good excuse to explain why someone killed another PC. Heinous flags the evil character so that PvP has meaning. If you play an evil PC, you will be doing evil deeds. Evil PC's have a reason to kill good or even neutrally aligned PC's - they are evil and will do evil deeds. Any player wanting his/her PC to remain good can't simply attack another PC because they are evil aligned.
Now if Ryan posts something different as for GW's reasoning, fine, but this is my interpretation of why they are using this flag - to give PvP an in-game reason for occurring. As always, I can be very wrong, but this is what I first thought of when reading the post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon,
I don't think you can really divorce the inate popularity of a side/faction/alignment from the presentation of that side/faction/alignment in the subject matter. After that you get into the utilitarian issues of what that choice allows you to do.
Thus I don't think you can really do good perdictive analysis when you are crossing subject matter. Using Star Wars as an example...
Are peoples choices based upon "Good Guy"/"Bad Guy"?
Upon Lucas's depiction of the idealogy of Jedi and ideaolgy of Sith ?
Upon Mark Hamiil vs James Earl Jones ?
Other factors?
If "Bad Guy" was depicted as Jar Jar Binx instead, would we get different results?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon, you may correct me if I get anything wrong in my take on this :)
Not really concrete enough for me to even consider correcting anything.
I think you did a fantastic job of offering a plausible explanation for it, though. I certainly found it convincing :)
If "Bad Guy" was depicted as Jar Jar Binx instead, would we get different results?
LOL! That's a great question! I have no idea :)
You're probably right, and I tried to be very clear that my opinion is just that, and totally unscientific.
My gut tells me there will be more Evil than Good in PFO even with all the mechanical disadvantages of being Evil. My gut's been wrong before, and it's decidedly absent a compelling, convincing rationale in this case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good cannot truly exist without evil to fight against.One of the ideologies of the Nettles.
If the Good is something in itself then whether evil exists is irrelevant. Some say evil is merely the relative absense of good.
In a world where there are both good and evil deities, Good and Evil are things in themselves.
If Good were extinguished altogether it would not impair evil whatsoever, and if evil were completely eradicated it would not reduce good a whit.
Were evil gone, then we should understand good without the context of what it is not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
My gut tells me there will be more Evil than Good in PFO even with all the mechanical disadvantages of being Evil. My gut's been wrong before, and it's decidedly absent a compelling, convincing rationale in this case.
My experience suggests your opinion that evil will still be popular has sure footing. It might not be as popular as it would have been without overbalancing in favor of Good, but I'd go for the standard deviation still electing to follow their romantic fantasy of evil.
Whether there will be evil character opponents worthy of evoking a real hero from the ranks of the good is an altogether different question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think this is something we'll have to worry about. In most games, the "evil" side massively outnumbers the "good" side. And there are inherent advantages to being evil in that you can simply take what you want without being troubled about the impact on the person you took it from, which makes acquisition of wealth and resources much easier.
I would disagree with this statement largely. OK yes in eve and darkfall, in which there are no official definitions of good or evil, the pillage route is far in favor. In WoW, while the sides aren't clearly defined, and a deep history would put them all about even on the good/evil axis, most players associate horde with evil due to the simple ugly/monsterous must be the bad guys association. Almost universally on all WoW servers, the standard population ratios have been 2:1-4:1 in favor of alliance.
Now in games like say Pardus, the general social structure does not approve of piracy outside of war. Pirates aren't significantly weaker by any stretch, they have their own unique items, though in general dealing with being hated in pardus... means lots of deaths, as a result pirates themselves make up maybe 5% of the community.
Bottom line it is very largely dependant on the theme and flavor of the game. Eves style pretty much makes it clear that piracy is accepted and expected. So of course If killing and pirating are defined as evil, then yes that is the default path for most players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Gloreindl,
The problem that creates is that in PnP Pathfinder, the "Bad Guys"...the antagonists are all NPC's controled by the GM. They don't mind if they are mechanicaly disadvantaged or continualy lose to the "Good Guy" protagonists. That's, in fact, thier expected role in the game. If the protagonists need some more antagonists to play against, the GM simply picks up the Monster Manual to create some. Thus the dynamic works.
That's not the case in PFO. The primary driver of conflict here is supposed to be Player vs Player conflict. If one side, lets not even call it "Evil", lets call it "Team Red" as opposed to "Team Blue"...If "Team Red" is at a distinct mechanical disadvantage then you simply aren't going to have much quality Player vs Player conflict, as few will choose to play it...and those that do won't be performing well in that combat. That dynamic no longer works in the context of the type of game being made.
Now if "Team Red" has some disadvantages but also other advantages that "Team Blue" doesn't have and overall isn't any worse off but just encourages different tactics...that can work. However we haven't really heard anything about the mechanical advantages of "Team Red"...or if that is even the design intent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know it's been said "Evil" will have a wider range of player-alignment types that can access such Settlements, and also allied to Evil NPC alliances, work with evil gods to gain evil god's favor/influence etc. One of the old DnD tricks iirc back aeons, is Evil has access to a wider range of items, is that correct? Maybe that too??
In term of samples, the early enrollment people seem to be good aligned, but the 'go ons' and Russians might be LE if they find PFO to their tastes.
I think over-reporting of "penalties to evil/chaotic" is partly the case, here, given the red hot discussions of griefing/ganking also. Lee mentioned they expect/aim for most players being Neutral. So that will be interesting to see how that develops: Perhaps EE will be dominated by Good-Lawful and as the population increases, it might swing further down the Evil axis??
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Gloreindl,
The problem that creates is that in PnP Pathfinder, the "Bad Guys"...the antagonists are all NPC's controled by the GM. They don't mind if they are mechanicaly disadvantaged or continualy lose to the "Good Guy" protagonists. That's, in fact, thier expected role in the game. If the protagonists need some more antagonists to play against, the GM simply picks up the Monster Manual to create some. Thus the dynamic works.
That's not the case in PFO. The primary driver of conflict here is supposed to be Player vs Player conflict. If one side, lets not even call it "Evil", lets call it "Team Red" as opposed to "Team Blue"...If "Team Red" is at a distinct mechanical disadvantage then you simply aren't going to have much quality Player vs Player conflict, as few will choose to play it...and those that do won't be performing well in that combat. That dynamic no longer works in the context of the type of game being made.
Now if "Team Red" has some disadvantages but also other advantages that "Team Blue" doesn't have and overall isn't any worse off but just encourages different tactics...that can work. However we haven't really heard anything about the mechanical advantages of "Team Red"...or if that is even the design intent.
Perhaps it is largely a matter of perspective. I don't see a major disadvantage in having this flag as part of the game. I pointed out that should I choose to play an evil character with my Destiny's Twin, I am not at all viewing this as having a disadvantage. I see it as a simple game mechanic to allow meaningful PvP, rather than just having Team Red and Team Blue PK each other just because. Being evil has meaning. This mechanic gives that meaning a tangible force to allow for PvP. This is my take on it, and I am not a big fan of PvP, but I see where GW is going with this, and PvP is meaningful in PFO. Just picking a PC and assigning a CE alignment caries no significance if that PC never does evil deeds. They would, in effect just be Snidely Whiplash twirling their mustache, but not at all acting as meaningful evil PC's.
If I decide to make an evil PC (likely a secondary account), and I am thinking of doing just that, now that I see my actions can be in-game evil, I welcome this flag. It means my PC is acting the part I have chosen for him. Now my choice has impact on PFO and on my PC. I don't see a downside to this. It makes playing an evil or even unscrupulous PC have more meaning, and thus more fun. I, and anyone else, gets to RP a PC that has to deal with the consequences of my PC's actions. This is a good thing as it is a game, and player interaction drives it. Simply put, this actually makes playing an "evil" PC all that more attractive. I don't need to run around and steal kills, or kill PC's to play I am evil, I need only do certain acts, which may be in keeping with my PC concept. I then have to deal with the consequences of those choices/actions. Now I am pulled deeper into the immersive feel of PFO.
It comes down, at least until Ryan, Lisa or someone else from GW says the flag is for another reason, a matter of how you perceive the mechanics behind this flag. You see it as negative. I see it as a positive one that is likely to have me create an evil Necromancer at some point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only greviances with the mechanic would be if say an assassin kills its target without being detected. Why would that be public knowledge, the same for a thief stealing without getting caught, or raising dead when no one is around or in a hideout. An "evil" flag based off of actions would imply that players can sense auras, in which case, should be universal.
As long as only the player knows it happened and no one else, it should be weighted differently than if part of a contract.
Also, completing a contract should weigh differently than getting caught or otherwise botching an attempt. Contract would be private but still the knowledge of the action is spread past the person performing the act but getting caught could be a very public affair.
Conversely, if flags aren't universal and only for evil, there should be boons for having it. Cheap slave labor, easier or better interaction with NPCs due to intimidation, reputation bonus, etc.
If no boons are attached, all it is is a neon "Evil" sign above them giving good and neutral players a heads up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Gloreindl
There are 2 big mechanical disadvantages to this flag....
1) It's a huge IFF (Identify Freind Foe) which points you out as a target. You DON'T which characters you see are likely to be trouble to you, but people who are your foes will know exactly who to attack. Being able to determine who is a likely threat and who isn't is a huge advantage in combat intelligence.
2) You will be able to be attacked any time anywhere without repurcusion. You don't have the same advantage as attacking your foes within range of a civilized hex will summon the NPC guards to come fight you AND even if you win, you are subject to the "death curse" of those you defeat. Being free to choose the time/place of the engagement is a huge combat advantage.
Combine this with whats already been said about "Evil" settlements having less powerfull training facilities...and I'm seeing some pretty big mechanical disadvantages stacked up against "Evil"
Note, this is coming from the perspective of someone who intends to be FIGHTING "Evil" in game.
It's good that Alignment has consequences and that it evokes an immersive feel. It's not good that your setting up one side to continualy loose in order to do that. If that is what's happening...and again it may be simply that we are hearing only about certain design aspects and not others which ends up tilting our perspective, I'm hoping that happens to be the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really sure why people keep thinking the game will be one big Good vs Evil brawl. There will be many conflicts, between many groups, having both similar and different alignments - but generally those conflicts will follow certain rules. Those who wish to flout all the rules (legal and moral) will find acceptance with few groups organized enough to call themselves a settlement, because settlements require rules.
If your goal is simply to cause strife everywhere, then that's generally regarded as chaotic and evil, and don't be surprised if just about every settlement treats you poorly. If your goal is rather to unite and rule large swathes of territory through conquest, that's not necessarily evil in and of itself.
Yes, you can be evil in the game, if you really want to - but I don't think the game is intended to be "good vs evil" in a High Fantasy struggle. There doesn't have to be parity between good and evil for evil to be a valid choice in the game, because the major conflicts in the game are not along the alignment axis, but rather along the settlement borders - regardless of their alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly disagree with the fact that a brief heinous flag would bring a huge cap between good vs evil. I think it's the right direction to start from.
It certainly paints a necromancer class, but maybe the devs want to say: we don't want that many necromancers running around. They are a rare breed and if someone wants to play a necromancer his play style will be a little different from the other players, he has to work more from the shadows and work behind the scenes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Gloreindl
There are 2 big mechanical disadvantages to this flag....
1) It's a huge IFF (Identify Freind Foe) which points you out as a target. You DON'T which characters you see are likely to be trouble to you, but people who are your foes will know exactly who to attack. Being able to determine who is a likely threat and who isn't is a huge advantage in combat intelligence.
2) You will be able to be attacked any time anywhere without repurcusion. You don't have the same advantage as attacking your foes within range of a civilized hex will summon the NPC guards to come fight you AND even if you win, you are subject to the "death curse" of those you defeat. Being free to choose the time/place of the engagement is a huge combat advantage.
Combine this with whats already been said about "Evil" settlements having less powerfull training facilities...and I'm seeing some pretty big mechanical disadvantages stacked up against "Evil"
Note, this is coming from the perspective of someone who intends to be FIGHTING "Evil" in game.
It's good that Alignment has consequences and that it evokes an immersive feel. It's not good that your setting up one side to continualy loose in order to do that. If that is what's happening...and again it may be simply that we are hearing only about certain design aspects and not others which ends up tilting our perspective, I'm hoping that happens to be the case.
GrumpyMel, glad to know I will have an ally on the good side :)
I am thinking that you are correct that this all boils down to what we haven't yet been told. Frankly, it may be way too soon for more info, as the Devs will need to build and test the system, so the alignment of nearby settlements may come into play. We'll just have to wait ans see what the Devs are able to find works and what tweaks need to be made. Who knows, we both could have this all wrong =D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the Good is something in itself then whether evil exists is irrelevant. Some say evil is merely the relative absence of good.
In a world where there are both good and evil deities, Good and Evil are things in themselves.
I believe I disagree. In the Pathfinder pantheon there is no single entity that is True Good, as there is none that is True Evil. All gods in that pantheon are, if you will, specifically flavored instances of Good/Evil, Law/Chaos. Even before there were mortals to worship them their alignments were a mixture of those axis. In many ways I consider the alignment of the deities to be reflections of their worshiper's choices in life. I believe that, just as actions shape alignment in PFO, the alignment of the devout shapes the alignment of their gods. Granted, the gods do have a vested interest in keeping their worshipers on the same page.
I believe that good and evil are not distinct things, but the categorization of the results of our choices of action. Neutrality does not make distinctions along a particular axis. Neutrals (of good/evil) do not place the descriptors of good or evil on actions or things. Without distinction there is no choice.
If Good were extinguished altogether it would not impair evil whatsoever, and if evil were completely eradicated it would not reduce good a whit.
Were evil gone, then we should understand good without the context of what it is not.
As most of the gods alignments are a mix, if all those of evil alignment were to be destroyed conflict would still exist, only between LG and CG. One of them would become the new age evil.
I am more comfortable defining something by what it is rather than by what it is not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Gloreindl
1) It's a huge IFF (Identify Freind Foe) which points you out as a target. You DON'T which characters you see are likely to be trouble to you, but people who are your foes will know exactly who to attack. Being able to determine who is a likely threat and who isn't is a huge advantage in combat intelligence.
I think we may be getting caught up on this. These are mechanical flags. How they show up in-game is a separate consideration, as is the abilities/spells/etc that will "attach" to these flags. There is quite a bit of design discussion to be had around the "How."
Note, this is also coming from someone who wants "Evil" to be viable. =)
again it may be simply that we are hearing only about certain design aspects and not others which ends up tilting our perspective, I'm hoping that happens to be the case.
I think this is probably the case given where we are at in the design process.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a quick comment, as I am more forest than trees with regards to the design.
This discussion should be against the backdrop of actual real world MMO experience. We are not talking about esoteric descriptions of alignments that one can have in the context of a PnP game. We are talking about actual mechanical elements that address some common and not so common situations in actual MMO experience. Seems like the alignment-related discussions always seem to go off the rails when we start thinking of the alignments in the abstract. Ryan has been fairly clear with regard to non-abstractness of alignments in PFO.
Just a thought =)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not believe we have yet heard all the advantages the Evil may be able to capitalize on.
Just as a hypothetical: Since most NPC conflict will likely be also evil, other than wild animals which will likely be neutral, it might turn out that the evil may be getting abilities that permit them to supplement their ranks with goblins, orcs, and hobgoblins among others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a quick comment, as I am more forest than trees with regards to the design.
This discussion should be against the backdrop of actual real world MMO experience. We are not talking about esoteric descriptions of alignments that one can have in the context of a PnP game. We are talking about actual mechanical elements that address some common and not so common situations in actual MMO experience. Seems like the alignment-related discussions always seem to go off the rails when we start thinking of the alignments in the abstract. Ryan has been fairly clear with regard to non-abstractness of alignments in PFO.
Just a thought =)
I completely concur with this. This is intended to be a question of mechanics and what seems, at face value anyway, to be a stacking of the deck to one side of the fence.
It probably isn't, there is probably more to this than we see, but it really needs someone from GW to say something on the matter to help clear it up.
Please let us suspend philosophizing for a moment, and remember this is an MMO that will function based on rules.
As a Player, choosing alignment is meaningless unless there are rules involved, and consequences for breaking rules/following rules. The rules will be in place before your character is created, and it looks like we can see the rules beginning with pvp flags, "heinous" flags, and such, prohibiting certain activities.
I assume there will be NPC settlements in game, probably racial settlements, and potentially known landmarks and cities that exist in the River Kingdoms. Eventually, we will also have Player settlements. Both of these types will have rules programmed into them (hex by hex?), that are based on the culture and laws of the folks who live there. Also, players will probably have some starting location (based on race, and preferred alignment?).
A player can claim all day long to be Lawful Good or Lawful Evil, but they will start off as the alignment of their starting area. If you can start off in a Lawful Evil settlement, then that settlement should have rules to reflect that. By that same token, I would not expect to see a Necromancer guild in a "good" aligned NPC settlement. (I have to say that by definition, most good cities would frown on raising the dead)
Idea #1: I propose that alignment is tied to location, and each player's ability/tendency to conform to the rules for that location.
Idea #2: We should have NPC settlements of all alignments (what would an Evil settlement look like?)
Idea #3: Players can set the rules for their own settlements (based on set guidelines from the NPC settlements, and the ability to pick and choose "rules")
Just ideas, would love to see some feedback.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Please let us suspend philosophizing for a moment, and remember this is an MMO that will function based on rules.
As a Player, choosing alignment is meaningless unless there are rules involved, and consequences for breaking rules/following rules. The rules will be in place before your character is created, and it looks like we can see the rules beginning with pvp flags, "heinous" flags, and such, prohibiting certain activities.
I assume there will be NPC settlements in game, probably racial settlements, and potentially known landmarks and cities that exist in the River Kingdoms. Eventually, we will also have Player settlements. Both of these types will have rules programmed into them (hex by hex?), that are based on the culture and laws of the folks who live there. Also, players will probably have some starting location (based on race, and preferred alignment?).
A player can claim all day long to be Lawful Good or Lawful Evil, but they will start off as the alignment of their starting area. If you can start off in a Lawful Evil settlement, then that settlement should have rules to reflect that. By that same token, I would not expect to see a Necromancer guild in a "good" aligned NPC settlement. (I have to say that by definition, most good cities would frown on raising the dead)
Idea #1: I propose that alignment is tied to location, and each player's ability/tendency to conform to the rules for that location.
Idea #2: We should have NPC settlements of all alignments (what would an Evil settlement look like?)
Idea #3: Players can set the rules for their own settlements (based on set guidelines from the NPC settlements, and the ability to pick and choose "rules")
Just ideas, would love to see some feedback.
Ideas 2 and 3 are already stated as being in the game (although not necessarily at launch). Player run cities will determine their own laws and can dictate rules of engagement and conduct in their hex. Whether they can enforce them is another thing entirely.
The three starting locations will all be weighted to either good, neutral or evil and have different aspects, advantages, disadvantages and laws as a result.
Player alignment itself, and option 1, is where most of this discussion is coming from, as it is not very clearly defined as to how it will work in game. There have been some nebulous statements but nothing I would define as concrete. This may be because GW themselves don't know yet, or they do know but haven't mentioned it yet.
And it's the mechanics of how these alignments will work that we need to know. As it can greatly impact on a players daily life.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ideas 2 and 3 are already stated as being in the game (although not necessarily at launch). Player run cities will determine their own laws and can dictate rules of engagement and conduct in their hex. Whether they can enforce them is...
I would like to add, since laws are often a reflection of an area's morals, the laws of the settlement decide whether you get flagged or not.
As of right now, unless the devs put out different information, I no longer have any inclination of playing someone who is evil or a necromancer because of these mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20121121
Selection of Alliances
As play begins, we're going to have a limited number of alliances in the game, concentrating on a smaller number to make sure they get proper resources and attention rather than spread ourselves too thin on a wider number of alliances. For now, we think the initial spread will probably look something like this:
Hellknights (Major Alliance—LN—controls Fort Inevitable)
Knights of Iomedae (Major Alliance—LG—controls Fort Riverwatch)
Pathfinder Society (Major Alliance—N)
Denizens of the Echo Wood (Local Group—CN)
Various Local Groups in Thornkeep
So Fort Inevitable is LN, Fort Riverwatch is LG, and we know from the Thornkeep book that it is CN.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to add, since laws are often a reflection of an area's morals, the laws of the settlement decide whether you get flagged or not.
This is already very much the case with the Criminal Flag.
However, there are also Deities watching our actions, and the other Flags are based on their judgment, not the local constable's.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am just adding my voice to Southraven's and others. The flags as presented especially the heinous flag are too punative for evil characters. If someone wants to play a seriously evil villian, not just some ganker bandit. I'm talking like a Cheliaxan Priest of Asmodeus who uses slave labor, like any good Asmodeus follower should. If it's such a pain that you'll be constantly ganked, as you are unsafe anywhere even at home, then why bother? It doesn't make sense and it makes it seem like playing a character like that will be such a PITA that it won't be worth it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's such a pain in the ass that you'll be constantly ganked, as you are unsafe anywhere even at home, then why bother?
First, why wouldn't you be safe at home? Surely you're not living in a Settlement with other players who are going to kill you for doing whatever it is you're doing. If so, then you should consider finding a new home.... perhaps Shadow-Haven.
Second, that fear of being constantly ganked is the exact fear that generally Good-aligned Merchants and Crafters are already living with.
Finally, Evil has always had the advantage of being free to kill the Good guy and take all his stuff without worrying about their conscience. Good needs the Flags in order to justify their actions.
Really, all these Flags do is level the playing field so that Evil isn't the only threat.