It would be beneficial for us to know how long the Heinous flag lasts provided no further heinous actions are committed. If nothing else, just a general idea would help.
If its just something that will drop off after 15 mins, or if it persists for days will make a big difference.
From the Blog:
Heinous: Certain incredibly evil actions (like raising undead or using slaves in a construction project) may briefly flag a character with the Heinous flag.It appears by the wording (emphasis mine) that some of the time you may not get flagged at all, especially when combined with Stephen's post above, and if you are, it will only last a brief while. As to what is brief, it could be 15 mins or an hour, perhaps? Doesn't sound like it lasts that long in any case, certainly not days I should think, as that isn't what most people would consider brief.
Ah thanks for the reply! It might not be that big of a deal then. If your playing a Necromancer, and you raise some undead, triggering the flag, you could just goof around for a few minutes until the flag drops off before venturing out among others. I guess then it depends on what other sorts of actions get the heinous flag. If those actions are things you would need to do while in public. The only other example is slavery and I doubt they will add that as part of the game.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it seems like it'd be more agreeable to start strict and ease off than to try to patch in a bunch of new penalties later.
You know, this is the first common sense explanation I have heard in regards to these penalties. Once actually understanding that you aren't necesarally seeing the current plans as trying to hit the bullseye perfect, but instead erring on the side of caution, then losening up, it makes more sense.
I still have over all concerns over the concepts, like CE settement being as defined as "the worse possible settlement for access to training etc...", the flags I honestly don't have a problem with.
IMO I 100% agree with "Make being hated as hard to survive, progress etc... as possible", Attach bells to the evil guy, put up warnings for entire alliances when an evil guy gets within 500 feet of a good town, all things I support.
I am still in disagreement with "Impose an impenetrable wall for how powerful an evil player can reach".
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be beneficial for us to know how long the Heinous flag lasts provided no further heinous actions are committed. If nothing else, just a general idea would help.
If its just something that will drop off after 15 mins, or if it persists for days will make a big difference.
Minutes, maybe even only seconds, not days.
For undead, it's likely to just be the time it takes to summon the undead (maybe plus a little bit if the summoning time is really quick). By the time you can be like, "What? THESE undead, Mr. Paladin? I got these as a bequest from my grandfather. A terrible act, of course, but it seems like wasting them would be an even greater crime!" then the opponent is on shakier moral ground.
It'd probably vary for other stuff, and it's up for debate regardless. Guiding rule would probably be if you're clearly in the process of doing something awful and any LG court in the world would consider it open and shut, then you'd get it, but if you've put any reasonable doubt in between you and the act, you only have to worry about it if you did it somewhere where it also got you the Criminal flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be beneficial for us to know how long the Heinous flag lasts provided no further heinous actions are committed. If nothing else, just a general idea would help.
If its just something that will drop off after 15 mins, or if it persists for days will make a big difference.
Minutes, maybe even only seconds, not days.
For undead, it's likely to just be the time it takes to summon the undead (maybe plus a little bit if the summoning time is really quick). By the time you can be like, "What? THESE undead, Mr. Paladin? I got these as a bequest from my grandfather. A terrible act, of course, but it seems like wasting them would be an even greater crime!" then the opponent is on shakier moral ground.
It'd probably vary for other stuff, and it's up for debate regardless. Guiding rule would probably be if you're clearly in the process of doing something awful and any LG court in the world would consider it open and shut, then you'd get it, but if you've put any reasonable doubt in between you and the act, you only have to worry about it if you did it somewhere where it also got you the Criminal flag.
Remarkably sensible. Glad to see such care being put into the balance...almost as if GoblinWorks knows what it is doing...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would be beneficial for us to know how long the Heinous flag lasts provided no further heinous actions are committed. If nothing else, just a general idea would help.
If its just something that will drop off after 15 mins, or if it persists for days will make a big difference.
Minutes, maybe even only seconds, not days.
For undead, it's likely to just be the time it takes to summon the undead (maybe plus a little bit if the summoning time is really quick). By the time you can be like, "What? THESE undead, Mr. Paladin? I got these as a bequest from my grandfather. A terrible act, of course, but it seems like wasting them would be an even greater crime!" then the opponent is on shakier moral ground.
It'd probably vary for other stuff, and it's up for debate regardless. Guiding rule would probably be if you're clearly in the process of doing something awful and any LG court in the world would consider it open and shut, then you'd get it, but if you've put any reasonable doubt in between you and the act, you only have to worry about it if you did it somewhere where it also got you the Criminal flag.
Thanks for the reply Stephen, it is good to get a sense of how you guys are approaching these issues.
It's obviously an uphill battle for us evil folks though. Alexander sums up the mentality, it's not griefing if good kills evil because they're supposed to.
You're not 'supposed' to grief anyone. Players with Good alignments will though, all the time. And they'll hide behind the veil of self-righteousness as they do it. I don't intend to participate in a race to the bottom myself, but I acknowledge others will.
It must be tough planning for this stuff. I'm very glad you're trying though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, we're pretty sure that MMOs are a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior. Keep in mind that we're quite likely to have a large contingent of players that wound up Evil not due to a principled roleplaying decision, but because they like killing dudes and think evil has the best clothes.
So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums. We suspect that these will be necessary to keep some kind of balance in the alignments, given the overall tendency of most player bases. If it turns out that we were overly cynical about human behavior, and it does indeed result in a chilling effect on players willing to play down at the other end of the spectrums, we'll happily relax or remove some of these rules. But it seems like it'd be more agreeable to start strict and ease off than to try to patch in a bunch of new penalties later.
Heinous itself was added to the design recently in response to players a month or so ago specifically worried that the general alignment systems meant their paladins would have to stand by and watch evil characters do horrible things that they couldn't stop without major penalties. Making it a general system seems better, as that means we're not putting in something that only paladins get to use, but as the discussion above has noted we may eventually want to make it more directed if it does result in weird evil-on-evil dynamics.
It is likely that we'd let your LE settlement make it a crime to attack a character just for being Heinous, and this would be true in Fort Inevitable. Choosing whether to break a law that protects evil is just the kind of moral quandary a paladin in Fort Inevitable or similar environs should have to face. And the oncoming Criminal flag might cut down on the number of your evil peers that are interested in jumping you just because they can.
This would be perfectly acceptable to me. While committing evil acts doesn't protect you from receiving a heinous flag they are still protected by the laws of the settlement. So other evil characters and do-gooders would have to think twice about attacking these players when in an area where it is considered lawful to commit certain evil acts. This still keeps the slider on law-chaos and evil-good separate. A CE settlement is unlikely to protect anyone with a flag of any type.
If the rule did unbalance the game then it would be easier to remove one then to implement one. However, if there was already a large amount of good settlements it will make it an uphill battle for an evil settlement to gain a foothold. I don't think that will stop people from trying though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think they have said much on what the Evil will have going for them because it isn't yet settled out enough to release info.
But I do think there will be something to give better balance.
The points that have been made that really evil is going to be heavily populated are probably on the money. The follow up though is that probably most of those will pretty quickly put their evil character on a backburner and reduce their dedicated time on him.
Other hand if the evil focus on RPing their characters without venturing very often into 'good' areas, focus on building up their settlements, alliances, and nations as it appears their good counterparts do then maybe it can work. Then when an Evil and a Good nation are brushing up against each other and competing for the same resources they make use of the war declaration option to express their evilness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of punishing behavior, why can't the game mechanics reward behavior (based on the settlement's alignment) instead.
As someone else posted, wish I could give credit, there should be a "Pius" flag. Granting bonuses to a good aligned settlement for not using nefarious means to construct or defend its settlement. An evil aligned settlement gets the same kind of bonuses for being "Heinous".
If there is going to be an alignment system then there should be benefits for following that, regardless of what alignment it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Instead of punishing behavior, why can't the game mechanics reward behavior (based on the settlement's alignment) instead.
As someone else posted, wish I could give credit, there should be a "Pius" flag. Granting bonuses to a good aligned settlement for not using nefarious means to construct or defend its settlement. An evil aligned settlement gets the same kind of bonuses for being "Heinous".
If there is going to be an alignment system then there should be benefits for following that, regardless of what alignment it is.
I completely agree
I would like to play evil, but it seems imposibble and not profitable so I'll have to maneuver between many restrictions to keep character TN.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Instead of punishing behavior, why can't the game mechanics reward behavior (based on the settlement's alignment) instead.
As someone else posted, wish I could give credit, there should be a "Pius" flag. Granting bonuses to a good aligned settlement for not using nefarious means to construct or defend its settlement. An evil aligned settlement gets the same kind of bonuses for being "Heinous".
If there is going to be an alignment system then there should be benefits for following that, regardless of what alignment it is.
I completely agree
I would like to play evil, but it seems imposibble and not profitable so I'll have to maneuver between many restrictions to keep character TN.
The way I interpret flags (which could easily be incorrect) is: Evil is a slippery slope.
EG: The normal way to hire and pay wages for workers via a contract/auction etc.
If the opportunity to pay for slaves or undead at a cheaper rate comes up: Would you take it? If so the expediency of such an action calls down a morally dubious decision (and as there are gods/alignment absolutes in Golarion) that affects the flag.
In gameplay terms it just means short-cut to cheaper labour but added risk?
-
I like the idea of a comparable, opposite "Good" flag, but maybe it's a question of doing "Good" things which don't confer advantages, you do them because they are "good" at the cost of more expedient means? In gameplay terms, players might value their alignment and consistency of such far more than taking lots of small actions to gain small advantages, in the long run paying off with settlement upgrades collectively?
Just a guess for the vision tbh.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Instead of punishing behavior, why can't the game mechanics reward behavior (based on the settlement's alignment) instead.
As someone else posted, wish I could give credit, there should be a "Pius" flag. Granting bonuses to a good aligned settlement for not using nefarious means to construct or defend its settlement. An evil aligned settlement gets the same kind of bonuses for being "Heinous".
If there is going to be an alignment system then there should be benefits for following that, regardless of what alignment it is.
Alignments shift, they are in constant flux, they are not something set in stone. I think the heinous flag can be seen through the eyes of the common people in the game, farmers, workers, waitresses, cleaners and such. To them those actions are hideous and not needed in their work as opposed to law, order and goodness of the heart which are crucial for their professions.
Shifting different kinds of rewards through alignments. Trying to stay in certain alignment for the purpose of reward. This would probably cause some PVP oriented guilds to try to get best rewards for that. That's why good guys have the most benefits. They're alignment prohibits them from being random player killers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stephen,
Thanks for the explanation. It makes more sense now.
I still I think it would probably be a better route to discourage player behavior that you don't want to see directly rather then do it through the alignment system but if you think that there is going to be a massive player imbalance on the Good vs Evil scale, I can see the rationale for wanting to incentivize one side over the other. As long as you guys are ready to adjust if that doesn't turn out to be the case.
The heinous flag makes alot more sense in the context you put it under, as long as players holding it can have some areas they can operate within where everybody doesn't get a no-consequence shot at it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would you necessarily WANT to summon undead in front of wandering paladins.
Isn't the necromancer thing usually done in private, in which case who cares what flags you temporarily acquire?
I suppose some players may wish to parade their undead around in town on market Sunday just to be cool, but I do not see the loss of evil street cred bragging rights a big imposition on the practical use of the spells.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, it really sounds like it is going to be literally impossible to be a necromancer with a high reputation, which seems thematically absurd to me as many of the most notorious villains tend to be undead/associate with necromancy--Sauron and Count Strahd von Zarovich come to mind.
I don't think your examples qualify as "high reputation" - anyone killing them would be heralded as a complete bad-ass (and possibly hero), not suffer a large reputation loss.
This is the setting of the game. You are familiar with the concept of role-playing, yes? Some concepts are appropriate to play in a given setting, other concepts aren't, and some come with big "kick me" signs on them. You'll still be able to do some undead-raising stuff, you just won't be able to wander the market sipping Perrier and shopping for a new tablecloth with your undead posse (unless you're so incredibly powerful, like Sauron, that nobody messes with you).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't necessarily want to SUMMON them in front of a paladin.
But if I'm looking at fighting one, I'm sure as crap going to want my minions in whom I invested my training (at the opportunity cost of, say, skill in swords or fireballs) by my side.
But if I have them by my side, the paladin suffers no consequences for ganking me, regardless of how much more powerful than me he is, because I will by definition have the heinous flag for having undead under my control.
Well maybe he will attack, or maybe not.
Depending how long they hang around for, it may make sense to raise them once you are actually in combat. Otherwise the Paladin might just decide to hang around and chat about the weather while your minions clean there nails or whatever undead do until they eventually fade back to dust.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would be like any other wizard getting to cast 10 fireballs before being labeled an arsonist and becoming fair game for anybody of any power level for the next day.
Well if the game actually had fireball destroying the environment and setting fire to forests and local villages like they should, that would be very reasonable.
Also rather amusing, I would like to see that implemented.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are familiar with the concept of role-playing, yes?...this is an instance where the consequences for how you BEHAVE and how you ROLE-PLAY appear to be getting muddled.
Can we maybe agree to leave ad hominem attacks out of this? I'm trying to point out a legitimate concern here, not start fights... there's no reason for aggression. That said, if I have misinterpreted you, I apologize.
My apologies if my comment was somewhat snarky - but I am driving at a real point here as well, not seeking confrontations.
Some concepts are appropriate to play in a given setting, other concepts aren't, and some come with big "kick me" signs on them. You'll still be able to do some undead-raising stuff, you just won't be able to wander the market sipping Perrier and shopping for a new tablecloth with your undead posse...1) Is it really that difficult to conceive of a town that supports necromancy?
No, not difficult at all, in a vacuum. However, we are not in a vacuum, we're in the River Kingdoms as presented by Goblinworks, where (apparently) creating undead is universally despised. These are, if you will, the background ground rules set by the GM, and to me it seems that you're saying "but with my other GM it's no problem if I play a necromancer, why is it a problem here?" That game isn't this game.
That said, if you're looking to change the setting, it might be more profitable to propose some reasons why, instead of trying to propose that PC necromancers should somehow be exempt from the campaign ground rules.
2) I restate: the no Rep loss portion of the heinous flag applies to those with bad *character behavior* a mechanic primarily implemented to punish bad *player behavior*. It blurs the line between the two, which I think is not only unfair but a poor precedent to set.
Actually I think the purpose of the reputation system is specifically to try to align player behaviour with character behaviour - coupled with alignment, it (hopefully) promotes sensible in-character actions as opposed to arbitrary player whim. In that light, the Heinous flag and its no-reputation-loss rule is specifically encouraging PCs to "deal with" Necromancers who - by the setting given to us, the players, by the GM, Goblinworks - are universally reviled, even by other evil people.
Edit: formatting fail
Yeah the multi-quoting gets really confusing at times :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Is it really that difficult to conceive of a town that supports necromancy?
that doesn't conflict with the heinous flag.
a settlement can not treat necromancy as a crime, and they can treat anybody who attacks anybody unprovoked (including heinous necromancers) as criminals.settlements just don't get to dictate how cosmic alignment works, and they don't get to dictate that everybody else must view their necromancing or slaving ways as compatable with 'high reputation'.
slaving/necromancing societies may well end up using Lawfullness as more of an indicator than Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think of this game as a really cool psychosocial experiment. My hypothesis is that if you give positive punishment (flagging) to someone who uses undead and offer no types of reinforcements, then all players will gravitate towards more rewarding types of game play.
Which brings me to: if no players use undead then player created undead cease to exist and it is illogical to have player created undead.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think of this game as a really cool psychosocial experiment. My hypothesis is that if you give positive punishment (flagging) to someone who uses undead and offer no types of reinforcements, then all players will gravitate towards more rewarding types of game play.
Which brings me to: if no players use undead then player created undead cease to exist and it is illogical to have player created undead.
You're only actually punished if you get caught (i.e. someone catches you while you're flagged). Merely having the flag doesn't do anything by itself. So yes, I'm sure plenty of people will try it, because of course unlike all those OTHER idiots, THEY won't get caught... ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think of this game as a really cool psychosocial experiment. My hypothesis is that if you give positive punishment (flagging) to someone who uses undead and offer no types of reinforcements, then all players will gravitate towards more rewarding types of game play.
Which brings me to: if no players use undead then player created undead cease to exist and it is illogical to have player created undead.
You're only actually punished if you get caught (i.e. someone catches you while you're flagged). Merely having the flag doesn't do anything by itself. So yes, I'm sure plenty of people will try it, because of course unlike all those OTHER idiots, THEY won't get caught... ;)
That is why it is a hypothesis. Once creating undead becomes available then we can collect data. Flagging in this case is positive punishment because you are giving something to someone that is viewed negatively.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think of this game as a really cool psychosocial experiment. My hypothesis is that if you give positive punishment (flagging) to someone who uses undead and offer no types of reinforcements, then all players will gravitate towards more rewarding types of game play.
Which brings me to: if no players use undead then player created undead cease to exist and it is illogical to have player created undead.
There may not be player created undead, depending on the Crowdforging, so Goblinworks may be way ahead of us :)
But my hypothesis is that people who are flagging already will use undead if they're available. If you're already an Assassin or an Outlaw, it doesn't matter at all that you roll up with some zombies in tow.
And if you're at war? Unless there are a bunch of unaligned spectators, everybody there is either your ally or getting ready to kill you anyway. Might as well bring a ghoul along, they'll have plenty to eat when you're done.
Furthermore, I'd be shocked if there weren't people specifically trying to stay flagged villain at all times. Because what better way is there to prove you're a badass than strolling into a good settlement with your villain flag flying proudly and seeing if they have any crusaders worthy of the name?
Cheers!
Landon
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But my hypothesis is that people who are flagging already will use undead if they're available. If you're already an Assassin or an Outlaw, it doesn't matter at all that you roll up with some zombies in tow.
Actually, you aren't allowed to toggle those flags if you have Heinous. I assume creating undead while an Outlaw or Assassin will cancel your Outlaw/Assassin flag.
EDIT: My mistake, you can't DISable those flags while Heinous.
And if you're at war? Unless there are a bunch of unaligned spectators, everybody there is either your ally or getting ready to kill you anyway. Might as well bring a ghoul along, they'll have plenty to eat when you're done.
Hmm.. depending on who your allies are, they may well whack you anyways I imagine summoning undead alongside your lawful good paladin allies will be one of the fastest ways to see the business end of a two-hander.
Furthermore, I'd be shocked if there weren't people specifically trying to stay flagged villain at all times. Because what better way is there to prove you're a badass than strolling into a good settlement with your villain flag flying proudly and seeing if they have any crusaders worthy of the name?
Precisely. Evil will always attract some players simply because "evil".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think of this game as a really cool psychosocial experiment. My hypothesis is that if you give positive punishment (flagging) to someone who uses undead and offer no types of reinforcements, then all players will gravitate towards more rewarding types of game play.
Which brings me to: if no players use undead then player created undead cease to exist and it is illogical to have player created undead.
There may not be player created undead, depending on the Crowdforging, so Goblinworks may be way ahead of us :)
But my hypothesis is that people who are flagging already will use undead if they're available. If you're already an Assassin or an Outlaw, it doesn't matter at all that you roll up with some zombies in tow.
And if you're at war? Unless there are a bunch of unaligned spectators, everybody there is either your ally or getting ready to kill you anyway. Might as well bring a ghoul along, they'll have plenty to eat when you're done.
Furthermore, I'd be shocked if there weren't people specifically trying to stay flagged villain at all times. Because what better way is there to prove you're a badass than strolling into a good settlement with your villain flag flying proudly and seeing if they have any crusaders worthy of the name?
Cheers!
Landon
You bring up a good point and something I completely missed when reading through the blog. You can be flagged with either the Outlaw, Assassin, or even the Enforcer flags and still be heinous. I guess I thought those flags were dropped if you gained the heinous flag but that is only for the Traveler and you can't activate the Traveler flag or the Champion flag if you have the heinous flag. Attention to detail.
This puts a whole spin on it. I could literally be an Enforcer, flagged all the time, and just bring out the undead to help with my enforcement!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
right. and saying 'the flag is the only negative reinforcement and there is no positive reinforcement' is ignoring that having undead minions follow you around to gnaw on the faces of whoever you tell them to is positive reinforcement if you are interested in power.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, you aren't allowed to toggle those flags if you have Heinous. I assume creating undead while an Outlaw or Assassin will cancel your Outlaw/Assassin flag.
Pretty sure it's the other way around. You can't turn it off while you're heinous.
From the blog: "This flag cannot be disabled while Attacker, Criminal, or Heinous (or their 24-hour versions) are active."
For comparison, the Champion equivalent: "This flag cannot be activated while the Attacker or Heinous flag (or their 24-hour versions) is active."
Hmm.. depending on who your allies are, they may well whack you anyways I imagine summoning undead alongside your lawful good paladin allies will be one of the fastest ways to see the business end of a two-hander.
They certainly could if they wanted too, but we haven't seen any punishments for not killing anyone yet, so the paladin's probably fine just letting that slide. If they want to roleplay it, obviously, that's between you and your friendly neighborhood paladin.
Precisely. Evil will always attract some players simply because "evil".
Yup, for the evulz. It's hard to overestimate the draw of having "Villain" next to your name.
EDIT:
This puts a whole spin on it. I could literally be an Enforcer, flagged all the time, and just bring out the undead to help with my enforcement!
Oh, Enforcer, that's delightful!
Cheers!
Landon
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
right. and saying 'the flag is the only negative reinforcement and there is no positive reinforcement' is ignoring that having undead minions follow you around to gnaw on the faces of whoever you tell them to is positive reinforcement if you are interested in power.
There has been no information pertaining that undead minion would be more powerful then a druid's animal companion. Essentially it would be a class feature just like getting two-weapon fighting.
If everyone gets a special power then everyone is special which means every one is the same and special powers are illogical and are no longer special. If it is not special it cannot be a positive reinforcement.
Flags like Outlaw, Assassin, and Enforcer have both a negative punishment and a positive reinforcement. It is up to the player to decide if the punishment is worth the reinforcement. Allowing players to create undead while these flags are on allows those players to also decide if they want undead as well without additional punishment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
right. and saying 'the flag is the only negative reinforcement and there is no positive reinforcement' is ignoring that having undead minions follow you around to gnaw on the faces of whoever you tell them to is positive reinforcement if you are interested in power.There has been no information pertaining that undead minion would be more powerful then a druid's animal companion. Essentially it would be a class feature just like getting two-weapon fighting.
If everyone gets a special power then everyone is special which means every one is the same and special powers are illogical and are no longer special. If it is not special it cannot be a positive reinforcement.
Flags like Outlaw, Assassin, and Enforcer have both a negative punishment and a positive reinforcement. It is up to the player to decide if the punishment is worth the reinforcement. Allowing players to create undead while these flags are on allows those players to also decide if they want undead as well without additional punishment.
Undead could very well be nothing like pets. All hypothetical things thrown out here.
Undead could be set to defend, and move, with high maintnence cost, and a high creation cost. Moving and controlling an undead could be a full concentration thing (IE the player cannot control himself and the undead at the same time. think mind control from WoW). If maintained the undead would continue to be peaceful to it's masters, if unfed, they become uncontrolled, and will attack anyone regardless of who is near, another necromancer could take over an uncontrolled undead.
Compared to pets, which in general are free for the class, in traditional MMO's can be revived etc...
Undead could be specifically to be forces for the keep of an evil location, while an animal companion could be designed to travel around. In general one does not picture necromancers as traveling front line characters, usually they are in their lair, preparing for an attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if undead do not provide a desirable capability then few people who are in the position to choose to create/control them would actually bother to do so. i doubt there will be a substantial negative penalty (Heinous) for something that would provide no counterbalancing power-up. GW has suggested that if they do undead creation/control it will likely be like pets/NPC AI (which is the reason they may not do it).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if you're at war? Unless there are a bunch of unaligned spectators, everybody there is either your ally or getting ready to kill you anyway. Might as well bring a ghoul along, they'll have plenty to eat when you're done.
this!
If you're going to be attacked anyway, the heinous flag is trivial but the ghouls make a difference.LE armies will be scary if they have a rear line of necromancers generating reinforcements. If I run a LE settlement, I'll welcome them with open arms.
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 HoldAs 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...
I really love this explanation. Necromancers aren't just ignoring the laws of nature, they're betraying the goddess who helps them.
If "Bad Guy" was depicted as Jar Jar Binx instead, would we get different results?
I actually think a big reason people hate Jar Jar is that he's the annoying "Scrappy Doo" character the heroes have to protect. If he was treacherous scum, I think he'd have been more popular. As someone who enjoys villains with major weak points, I would have enjoyed watching him. ;D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Follower of Asmodeus enslaves a kobold tribe to do his mining out in the wilderness. Is now free kill for every player in the game without them suffering consequences Yay.
Serves him right! Enslaving his betters, the nerve!
Sorry about all the multi-posting, but I'm caught up now. I kept thinking it was too late for an edit, see, since I kept getting distracted while reading.
Hmm.. depending on who your allies are, they may well whack you anyways I imagine summoning undead alongside your lawful good paladin allies will be one of the fastest ways to see the business end of a two-hander.
Then the question becomes either "why have you joined a do-gooder organization?", "why have they joined an organization that employs necromancers?", or, my favorite, "how is the organization leader going to respond to members attacking other members during wartime?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're going to be attacked anyway, the heinous flag is trivial but the ghouls make a difference.
LE armies will be scary if they have a rear line of necromancers generating reinforcements. If I run a LE settlement, I'll welcome them with open arms.
right. and consider some LE (or CE) group that normally doesn't use Undead and pursues high Reputation for it's normal benefits...
but if it comes down to it in a war, they are ready and able to pull out the undead.heck, not just Evil groups could do that, Neutral as well, and although training the Undead abilities is almost certaily Evil settlements-only,
there could well be Good groups with 'reformed' formerly Neutral/Evil members, who can still use those abilities when need be.
(and it could very well be that using those abilities to take control over other people's Undead is less Evil/LowRep/Heinous than actually creating Undead)
of course, you are free to use them 24/7 as well. it's all about choices.
The point about Pharasma makes alot of sense... It would even make sense for Undead usage to impact on the Threading ability which is granted by Pharasma.
P.S. Ironic commentary from "Arazni" :-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry about all the multi-posting, but I'm caught up now. I kept thinking it was too late for an edit, see, since I kept getting distracted while reading.
Then the question becomes either "why have you joined a do-gooder organization?", "why have they joined an organization that employs necromancers?", or, my favorite, "how is the organization leader going to respond to members attacking other members during wartime?"Hmm.. depending on who your allies are, they may well whack you anyways I imagine summoning undead alongside your lawful good paladin allies will be one of the fastest ways to see the business end of a two-hander.
I can't say why a Necromancer who plans on creating undead would choose to join a "do-gooder organization" as you put it. You'd have to ask one of them, I have no intention (at the moment ;)) of playing an undead-creating Necromancer.
As for "Why join an organization that employs Necromancers", depending on your definition, not all Necromancers create Undead, and I don't see why those who don't wouldn't be able to have an alignment compatible with working alongside Paladins. But if one suddenly does start creating undead, it might behoove the LG types to do something about it. Just as if someone whom they assumed was also LG and sane suddenly decides to attack Good people out of the blue.
Regardless of the reasons in either case of getting into that situation, I was just pointing out that potentially even your allies could have a problem with your behaviour if you started suddenly creating undead, and I used an obvious (if extreme and unlikely) example.
And for organization leaders dealing with intra-organization conflict, well, that's just part of the job description ;)
(and it could very well be that using those abilities to take control over other people's Undead is less Evil/LowRep/Heinous than actually creating Undead)
Yeah, one of the creators (I think it was either Ryan or Stephen) implied that it's the creation that's evil. You can claim later that, as he said, the zombies were left to you by your dear departed grandfather. ;D
Oh, and to the above post: What I meant was that a paladin should not join an organization that employs evil people in general. If the necromancer has until now pretended to be a fairly ordinary wizard, and just started summoning zombies without warning, he may well deserve what's coming to him.
In other words, we agree: Wartime is a good time for the undead, but still don't be an idiot about it. ;D
sure... and imagine if undead have a duration (such that you have to regularly 're-create' them) then taking control of them is a very short term thing in the scope of one battle, more or less.
sure... and imagine if undead have a duration (such that you have to regularly 're-create' them) then taking control of them is a very short term thing in the scope of one battle, more or less... unless you want to get into the undead creation business.
if undead training facilities ARE only available in evil locales (which seems reasonable), i would expect most of them to restrict training to only actual members of their group (or allied groups), since otherwise it would be allowing un-allied Neutral characters to gain access to the ability, and even later join a Good group more easily. denying their enemies a unique ability (especially an ability to take control over undead that the undead-using evil people use) would be strongly desired. of course, if some undead-using evil group is in a marginal situation, they could well open up training to anybody who wants to, for the right price.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think of this game as a really cool psychosocial experiment. My hypothesis is that if you give positive punishment (flagging) to someone who uses undead and offer no types of reinforcements, then all players will gravitate towards more rewarding types of game play.
Which brings me to: if no players use undead then player created undead cease to exist and it is illogical to have player created undead.
There may not be player created undead, depending on the Crowdforging, so Goblinworks may be way ahead of us :)
But my hypothesis is that people who are flagging already will use undead if they're available. If you're already an Assassin or an Outlaw, it doesn't matter at all that you roll up with some zombies in tow.
And if you're at war? Unless there are a bunch of unaligned spectators, everybody there is either your ally or getting ready to kill you anyway. Might as well bring a ghoul along, they'll have plenty to eat when you're done.
Furthermore, I'd be shocked if there weren't people specifically trying to stay flagged villain at all times. Because what better way is there to prove you're a badass than strolling into a good settlement with your villain flag flying proudly and seeing if they have any crusaders worthy of the name?
Cheers!
Landon
What happens if your just a dude with the traveler flag who isn't evil and uses found undead as a source of cheap labor and to prevent your friends and comrades from being killed in war?
Why should you get the heinous flag?
Pharasma hates undead, because its a violation of her ethos.
To her its just as much an abomination as being immortal.
Her job is to bring the dead to the afterlife they deserve.
Honestly every character in the MMO would be on her naughty list, because they won't stay dead.
i don't really care, and it may come down to a game balance issue if GW doesn't want Neutral groups/characters to also have access to Undead (I went into the 'gaming' of that option in my last post), but it's worth noting that in Pathfinder, the Control Undead spell does not have the Evil descriptor (indicating that casting moves you towards Evil alignment), and the Command Undead Channel Feat is available to Neutral Clerics, although it's not usable by Good Clerics or Neutral Clerics that channel Positive Energy. (I'm not aware of a way for Good characters to channel Negative Energy, Evil chars can Channel Positive if they are an Oracle of Life, but there isn't the equivalent/reverse option) to the contrary, the CREATE undead spells ARE given the Evil descriptor (moving your alignment to evil)
i think the idea of 'Evil beyond Evil' or 'Evil without standards' = Heinous is something that GW wants to implement at some level, so whether an Evil character/group decides to go Heinous is still a decision they have to make... and Undead being universally evil in Pathfinder (albeit Arcane casters Controlling them may not necessarily be) seems in line with that.
um... ALL of the different alignment PVP tags allows anybody to kill you without any alignment/rep consequence.
WAR lets anybody do that to anybody in the war, and Chaotic Evil people can kill anybody they want without alignment hits either.
i'm pretty solidly sure that GW is planning for evil to be a signifigant part of the player base,
and to be a more than viable option power-wise, far from non-playable,
as well as low-Rep characters/groups to also have a place in the game...
(you're pretty much being given a monopoly on the low-Rep inducing lines of business)
there is certain evidence that LAW will be more favored in settlement terms,
but if anything Ryan Dancey's comments have made me believe that LE will be a very successful alignment as a group.
(with LE characters easily able to group up with both LE, LN, and NE groups/settlements)
fyi, i believe the plan IS to select your own gods, albeit there may not be multiple gods per alignment early on.
orcus isn't a deity in the pathfinder world AFAIK.