Goblin Squad Member
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright so first off, I completely understand that the tag system is primarily to stop griefers from making everyone's life hell. I am all for this.
My problem is the Heinous Tag.
I'm really not sure what you guys are thinking with regards to Evil being an actual viable option in this game. You've mentioned already that training will be harder. Now you're providing a glowing neon sign for everyone to see "Hey check out how evil this guy is!" for absolutely no in-game reason. And then giving everyone a free shot at him.
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.
Now I may be jumping the gun here, but so far you've said very little other than negative things for people wanting to play the side of evil. Even some terminology when discussing alignments has suggested evil is a bbad thing to have happen to your character. 'You get hit with an alignment penalty'. Penalty? So falling to evil is a bad thing and is to be discouraged? In fact if anything you almost seem to be trying to artificially limit how many people do by placing multiple roadblocks in our way. If that's the case why even have 'Evil' alignments in the game at all?
There's apparently not going to be any stealth mechanics because it's too hard, so classic evil thievery or spying is out, necromancy and demonology now generates an 'auto flag for death' and on top of all this, we have a harder time training for skills?
It seems that you've decided evil people should be bandits who rob caravans and that's all. Which seems to be so frustratingly limiting as to not be attractive at all. If I am wrong and you have all kinds of crazy fun ideas for evil players I would love to hear them, and you may not intend this at all, but right now the message seems to be "Go good or go home."
There's been a number of fiercely contested topics on this subject, across the forums and back again. This is not a thread where I want to rehash those arguments with players, this a serious question to Ryan and his crew, do you envisage that people playing evil characters are detrimental to the game and should be discouraged? And if so why keep them? And if not, why are you making their lives so hard comparably to good players?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is the discussion on stealth 'being too hard'? I hadn't seen that posted anywhere and am curious. Link if possible please.
My understanding of it is that since evil has so many more freedoms and is so much easier there are consequences to it. From my reading the heinous tag is only for the really truly evil stuff so I doubt most evil characters would be getting slapped with it too often.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems like they are trying to push people away from this alignment so much that the only people going up against each other are good versus good. I do not see this as having longevity. You want to make being the bad guy just as lucrative and fun as being the good guy. Not so horribly punishing that people only play evil as a novelty on an alt.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where is the discussion on stealth 'being too hard'? I hadn't seen that posted anywhere and am curious. Link if possible please.
My understanding of it is that since evil has so many more freedoms and is so much easier there are consequences to it. From my reading the heinous tag is only for the really truly evil stuff so I doubt most evil characters would be getting slapped with it too often.
Some discussion of stealth is located here :
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nptz&page=3?Curious-Stealth-Mechanics
The original dicsussions were some time ago, and I haven't completely searched that thread to see if Ryan's final comments are in that one, but they are certainly discussing the fallout of said comments there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Last I heard it, it's mainly chaotic that weakens settlements, and makes it harder to get good training buildings or some such, not evil. That and on a few other points, either I'm confused or a lot of people are confusing chaotic with evil.
There are three primary starting settlements, one evil, one neutral and one good.
The evil one will not have trainers of the same quality of the other two was how I was led to understand it working. However I cannot find the original reference to it so if someone can and I'm wrong I'll happily cede that point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
seriously?! I know this is about a game, but are you really b++$!ing about not being able to be EVIL. Like it's some life choice like 'engineer' or 'marathon runner'. Evil represents everything foul and reprehensible about the human condition. It's a concept as much as a descriptor, and you WANT to play it? You're angry with the developers because they make being evil unpleasant?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
seriously?! I know this is about a game, but are you really b@@+*ing about not being able to be EVIL. Like it's some life choice like 'engineer' or 'marathon runner'. Evil represents everything foul and reprehensible about the human condition. It's a concept as much as a descriptor, and you WANT to play it? You're angry with the developers because they make being evil unpleasant?
Yes seriously.
Well ok, it's a game, not a life choice. And whether its good and evil, red or blue, black or white, I would like the sides to be fair. That is what I am asking about.
And like it or not, it is, currently, a choice. It's been an available choice since Basic Dungeons and Dragons. What's hard to understand about that?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Last I heard it, it's mainly chaotic that weakens settlements, and makes it harder to get good training buildings or some such, not evil. That and on a few other points, either I'm confused or a lot of people are confusing chaotic with evil.
Every settlement type should have advantages and disadvantages based on alignment.
Honestly the hardest to function settlements will be evil ones. Its not easier its actually harder especially in the chaotic and neutral varieties where its pretty much going to be free form pvp everywhere.
Seriously the settlements with the fewest laws are going to be the hardest to function in and won't be easy.
Lawful settlements will actually have it the easiest given the protections given by having strong laws.
Heinous tag is not a good idea period.
It really isn't easy to be evil to begin with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 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.
It sounds like being evil in PFO is going to degenerate into being horde on WoW. Just to grief little kids who still hold onto the illusion of good and bad. All that's going to happen is a bunch of socially maladjusted anonymous griefers are going to gang up and make life a living hell for gamers trying to actually enjoy a game.
Seriously, did you really just follow THAT opening statement with such a comment?
Looks like I've got the trolls biting already.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how "Heinous" will apply, first and foremost to the greedy Political class that will use slave labor or other means to build their settlements.
I will rofl is some of those "so called" good guys are the first to get tagged with "Heinous" meanwhile my merry band of bandits will have nearly free reign to slaughter their caravans and bleed them dry of their needed resources.
Open World PVP paradise, maybe Ryan Dancy is Goonswarm!
The Most Dangerous Game
When players harvest resources far from civilization and then transport them home, they will be at an elevated risk of being engaged by hostile forces. They'll have to worry about monstrous creatures from the surrounding area, and they'll need to be especially worried about other players seeking to profit from their hard labor.
This creates a powerful game dynamic. Going out to get those resources is a pathway to wealth. But to succeed, you'll need help to protect your harvesting crew and your logistics and transport system. Folks who try to extract wealth without effective protection will likely find themselves beset on all sides by those who would forcefully take what they've harvested.
Ultimately, we feel that it should be pretty likely for players transporting valuable goods to be attacked by other players, with an increasingly likelihood as the value and distance they're transporting goods increases. The game economy will make getting into town with a big haul valuable precisely because there are people out there who want to take it from you: if you can get it to market, you get to charge a premium because of all the people that couldn't.
Deciding how much to carry, how many guards to bring, and whether to fight or try to flee when you see a bandit should be significant choices as a traveler. Conversely, player bandits should have to decide whether attacking just anyone is worth it, and whether it's better to make a surprise attack or actually try to extort goods from the traveler first (if they stand and deliver, it triggers none of the consequences).
If you're interested in PvP, this will be a way for you to constructively pursue that style of play without worrying about being condemned by the community for being a jerk, or facing significant mechanical penalties imposed by the game systems.
At the end of the day, if you're killing other players that are uninterested in PvP for no benefit, we want to make the costs significant enough to convince you to do something else, as that's the kind of thing that drives players away. However, if they know they have something valuable and fighting or fleeing from you is the price of profit, suddenly it's worthwhile for everyone. And those opportunities should be worth risking the consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now you're providing a glowing neon sign for everyone to see "Hey check out how evil this guy is!" for absolutely no in-game reason.
A couple quick points, it is precisely for a in-game reason that you will receive a heinous flag. Additionally, alignment is a real tangible element in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
seriously?! I know this is about a game, but are you really b!*~$ing about not being able to be EVIL. Like it's some life choice like 'engineer' or 'marathon runner'. Evil represents everything foul and reprehensible about the human condition. It's a concept as much as a descriptor, and you WANT to play it? You're angry with the developers because they make being evil unpleasant?
the B*ing is about the idea of other players being content drastically going down. Good vs evil, chose a side... Oh before you make that call just know, if you are evil, we will ensure you are on an extreme handicap, you may not use the best gear and you cannot learn the highest skills, ever.
In addition, I think they are majorly misdirecting the bandits. IE the goal should IMO be to try to make bandits want to attack the most powerful players that can afford to drop a peg or 2, and avoid the newbies whom A. don't know the game well enough to fairly defend themselves, B. Can't afford the losses.
If a bandit attacks a powerful vet, not only does he have a low chance of success, because he is by de-facto worse as his training was capped. But if he somehow manages to win he can't use his il-gotten gains because well he couldn't train to use the powerful weapon he managed to steal.
Thus, what evil is there, will be directed entirely at the wrong people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In addition, I think they are majorly misdirecting the bandits. IE the goal should IMO be to try to make bandits want to attack the most powerful players that can afford to drop a peg or 2, and avoid the newbies whom A. don't know the game well enough to fairly defend themselves, B. Can't afford the losses.
If a bandit attacks a powerful vet, not only does he have a low chance of success, because he is by de-facto worse as his training was capped. But if he somehow manages to win he can't use his il-gotten gains because well he couldn't train to use the powerful weapon he managed to steal.
Thus, what evil is there, will be directed entirely at the wrong people.
First, it is possible to be a bandit and not be evil. I have a feeling many bandits will drift towards CN than CE or NE. Then we have this:
Deciding how much to carry, how many guards to bring, and whether to fight or try to flee when you see a bandit should be significant choices as a traveler. Conversely, player bandits should have to decide whether attacking just anyone is worth it, and whether it's better to make a surprise attack or actually try to extort goods from the traveler first (if they stand and deliver, it triggers none of the consequences).
If you're interested in PvP, this will be a way for you to constructively pursue that style of play without worrying about being condemned by the community for being a jerk, or facing significant mechanical penalties imposed by the game systems.
This tells me that there will be ways to stop, beat down and convince caravans to give up at least some of their cargo, without having to kill them all.
But even if we do drift a bit towards evil, we can just clear a hex or two of evil mobs, shift back towards neutral at least, and then back to caravans.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Suppose that the acts which grant the 'heinous' flag are balanced (as in, people who can perform those acts are uncertain of whether they are worth the cost).
How powerful would undead armies or slave labor have to be, if they were to flag the actor for 24 hours as free to attack in PvP?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth it if you can stay hidden.
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. they'll be out searching high and low for a server generated source thinking their prosperity is the cause.
That could be fun to watch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This tells me that there will be ways to stop, beat down and convince caravans to give up at least some of their cargo, without having to kill them all.
But even if we do drift a bit towards evil, we can just clear a hex or two of evil mobs, shift back towards neutral at least, and then back to caravans.
Possibly, but the level and extent is still a mystery.
Maxim 16: Your name is in the mouth of others be sure it has teeth.
You attack a caravan, the guards do not back down... quite frankly unless your group already has a very strong reputation as cut-throat bandits, why would they? I mean the guards are there for a reason right? I'm pretty sure the caravan hired a guard with a sword, not a white flag.
Now of course once you have a reputation for killing, once you've torn down 3 or 4 caravans of said charter, yeah they will probably surrender to you the next time you see them.
and if the mechanical consequences go away from just killing a bunch of evil NPCs... well now you just opened the door to grant griefing absolute free rein. OK kill 2 players here... now 10 demons, 2 players, 10 demons... Hello LG goon swarm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm curious now, if a caravan only has NPC guards, will that trigger any consequence for killing them? It shouldn't, you can't grief NPCs.
So if a merchant goes the cheap route and hires only NPC guards to protect his / her caravans... very nice!!
"if the mechanical consequences go away from just killing a bunch of evil NPCs... well now you just opened the door to grant griefing absolute free rein. OK kill 2 players here... now 10 demons, 2 players, 10 demons... Hello LG goon swarm."
I get the feeling Dancy wants Open World PVP, he has written it several times. He was pretty clear he wants to encourage bandity to make caravans have a hard time getting to a settlement. The reward for both is high. The risk is also high.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My opinion only:
There is a lot of confusion between chaotic and evil on these forums.
Bandits, in themselves, are chaotic in a place where thievery is illegal or just neutral in any area where there is no law against it.
Stealing is not evil in itself its just unlawful. Much as speeding or cheating on your tax or failing to hand in lost property is unlawful(chaotic) but not evil as such. On the other hand speeding in a school zone to deliberately terrify children might attract the evil tag.
Some things (rape, child abuse) are clearly unlawful and evil. Others are just unlawful. The confusion seems to come becasue thievery is often deemed evil in the real world because it tends to break BOTH national/local laws and goes against various religious commandments. In a D&D world stealing really seems to just be chaotic not evil.
Enough philosophy, some unrelated but important points/questions:
1. Will all caravans be accompanied by PCs or will PC merchants be able to hire NPC caravans?
2. If NPC caravans exist and the merchant hiring them chooses not to hire PC guards or accompany it, can bandits attack these without attracting the various negative tags?
EDIT: I see Bluddwulf has similar thoughts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know its off topic, but Im rather disappointed about the whole no stealth thing? Has there been any follow up. Why should I even be a rogue now, and not just RP one as a ranger? Rogue as I understand it is already one of the weaker fighters as is. Whats next? You can UMD away anything you could need a rogue for? Im not trying to be a downer here, but can anyone give me a light at the end of the tunnel?
@Onishi
Could you dig up a source on the whole bad guys = capped training thing? If thats for real, thats just more crazy anti-griefing tactics. I might be a PvP player, but I like making my character the best I can too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi
Could you dig up a source on the whole bad guys = capped training thing? If thats for real, thats just more crazy anti-griefing tactics. I might be a PvP player, but I like making my character the best I can too.
Alignment: A character's alignment dictates what kind of Settlements they can belong to. A character's Settlement dictates what kind of training, resources, markets, allies, and potentially character abilities that character can use. The more grief you cause, the worse your alignment, and eventually you'll only be able to access the worst sort of Settlement. That will have a direct influence on your character's relative power vs. other characters of a similar age.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I might disagree with Bluddwolf sometimes but this game would suck if there is not bandits. I hope it's no harder to go from evil to good as it is for someone to get rid of a negative sec rating in Eve.
Sure there be repercussions for actions yep and as Onishi points out if you go evil you will be limited to certain towns. I look at that as part of the fun. Kind of the way I once thought having a bounty showed my pilot skills.
Doesn't mean I'm always going to to be stuck in the armpit of the universe just that I've been a bad boy and you should not mess with me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmmm, that could be what its saying, but its not very specific. It could just mean a limit to training certain skill types and abilities to things related to L or G. Like Paladin or Cleric stuff. Or maybe the training takes longer? And this is a classless system, so limiting what all I can learn wouuld reduce my overall power, without necessarily capping my skill on say my Rogue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe certain crafts will be harder or not in those towns also. Take a poison. They might be cheap in the naughty town, relatively expensive in the medium town, and not at all in the boy scout town. Opposite holds true for cure light wounds pots. Still I would look at that as a prime import business opportunity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe certain crafts will be harder or not in those towns also. Take a poison. They might be cheap in the naughty town, relatively expensive in the medium town, and not at all in the boy scout town. Opposite holds true for cure light wounds pots. Still I would look at that as a prime import business opportunity.
I don't know, the wording to me implies differently.
The more grief you cause, the worse your alignment, and eventually you'll only be able to access the worst sort of Settlement. That will have a direct influence on your character's relative power vs. other characters of a similar age.
If you ask me that is pretty clearly saying CE settlements are by definition "the worst sort of settlement", and as a result CE characters will have the lowest relative power.
If he used wording to imply "Different", IE evil clerics channel negative energy, good ones channel healing. Evil characters don't get access to X, but good characters don't get access to Y. I would be 100% for it.
Of course there is one possible meaning that could be different. If he means being known for being griefers, IE being the most hated specifically, meant your settlement is likely to be under constant attack, thus you would be unlikely to develop it's training before being torn down, this I could get behind and agree with. But that wouldn't be directly tied to alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My guess is training takes longer.
I also had the impression its Chaotic Evil settlements that will suffer the most. Lawful Evil less so.
Makes sense.
Still it's not permanent. Just repair your alignment to neutral and you are free to do what you need and then head back out and bandit away.
I do wonder if player settlements can do the same thing. So the awesome LE city that makes the best potions puts a trespassing status on and good character. Would make perfect sense to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The more grief you cause, the worse your alignment, and eventually you'll only be able to access the worst sort of Settlement. That will have a direct influence on your character's relative power vs. other characters of a similar age.If you ask me that is pretty clearly saying CE settlements are by definition "the worst sort of settlement", and as a result CE characters will have the lowest relative power.
If he used wording to imply "Different", IE evil clerics channel negative energy, good ones channel healing. Evil characters don't get access to X, but good characters don't get access to Y. I would be 100% for it.
Of course there is one possible meaning that could be different. If he means being known for being griefers, IE being the most hated specifically, meant your settlement is likely to be under constant attack, thus you would be unlikely to develop it's training before being torn down, this I could get behind and agree with. But that wouldn't be directly tied to alignment.
Ryan gave an example of working around this though. In the whole discussion over what territory bounties could be issued in he talked about players with bandit characters using other characters that could access better settlements safely stocking up the bandits' hideout with better gear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan gave an example of working around this though. In the whole discussion over what territory bounties could be issued in he talked about players with bandit characters using other characters that could access better settlements safely stocking up the bandits' hideout with better gear.The more grief you cause, the worse your alignment, and eventually you'll only be able to access the worst sort of Settlement. That will have a direct influence on your character's relative power vs. other characters of a similar age.If you ask me that is pretty clearly saying CE settlements are by definition "the worst sort of settlement", and as a result CE characters will have the lowest relative power.
If he used wording to imply "Different", IE evil clerics channel negative energy, good ones channel healing. Evil characters don't get access to X, but good characters don't get access to Y. I would be 100% for it.
Of course there is one possible meaning that could be different. If he means being known for being griefers, IE being the most hated specifically, meant your settlement is likely to be under constant attack, thus you would be unlikely to develop it's training before being torn down, this I could get behind and agree with. But that wouldn't be directly tied to alignment.
More importantly, why is banditry the only definition of 'roleplaying evil' that they seem to have?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Problem is with the blog posts is they are addressing not only early adopters but the general MMO fan base. They likely still want to remind people that they won't get ganked 24/7 right out of the gate. That it is a sandbox PvP game but with really slightly harder rules for the gankers (not a judgment call guys just putting a label that people understand). Edit: ya I do think the rules are slightly harder for bandits here than pirates in Eve.
I can come up with a pretty long list of thing many would think good but others think evil or the reverse of that. Right and wrong in many cases are in the eye of the beholder as it were. I think that's a hard sell in a blog that takes minutes to read. It's harder to make the wrong calls on Law and Chaos. Either you are following the law in the area or your not for the most part.
I do think something that would be cool is upgrades to settlements that could reflect and alignment. Cosmetic things like maybe some shrines to different gods. Would add flavor and add to the RP elements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alright so first off, I completely understand that the tag system is primarily to stop griefers from making everyone's life hell. I am all for this.
My problem is the Heinous Tag.
I'm really not sure what you guys are thinking with regards to Evil being an actual viable option in this game. You've mentioned already that training will be harder. Now you're providing a glowing neon sign for everyone to see "Hey check out how evil this guy is!" for absolutely no in-game reason. And then giving everyone a free shot at him.
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.
Now I may be jumping the gun here, but so far you've said very little other than negative things for people wanting to play the side of evil. Even some terminology when discussing alignments has suggested evil is a bbad thing to have happen to your character. 'You get hit with an alignment penalty'. Penalty? So falling to evil is a bad thing and is to be discouraged? In fact if anything you almost seem to be trying to artificially limit how many people do by placing multiple roadblocks in our way. If that's the case why even have 'Evil' alignments in the game at all?
There's apparently not going to be any stealth mechanics because it's too hard, so classic evil thievery or spying is out, necromancy and demonology now generates an 'auto flag for death' and on top of all this, we have a harder time training for skills?
It seems that you've decided evil people should be bandits who rob caravans and that's all. Which seems to be so frustratingly limiting as to not be attractive at all. If I am wrong and you have all kinds of crazy fun ideas for evil players I would love to hear them, and you may not intend this at all, but right now the message seems to be "Go good or go home."
There's been a number of fiercely contested topics on this subject, across the forums and...
I think there's a lot to untangle here.
Setting out what we roughly know:
1. Order-Chaos axis = primary player-player alignment system
2. Good-Evil axis = primary player-npc alignment axis
3. Reputation = Additional system for players to rate interactions
4. Flag system = (1) action taken (2) person affected (3) area/status context of flagged action.
I think this blog is talking primarily about the flag system which is a "temporary marker" for recent actions and/or an alignment point or added/docked or two. I also guess the flag system is being highlighted to reassure against random player killing/griefing. IE recent discussions you can see people suggest if you allow open world pvp and looting then bedlam 24/7 ensues. But with a flagging system that suggests a lot more caveats to these actions especially if players are organised and allied.
To reassess: If all 3: of the above 1-3 are bad that means various flags and alignment shifts have occurred to warrant a "neon sign" that says this PC is severely chaotic-evil infamous reputation. Whether that player is RP'ing CE scum or is CE scum - I think my sword will provide answers before questions are asked!
I think "Heinous" is an evil marker: Ie slaves/undead are a short-cut to cheap labour and all the bad actions are simply finding expedient and morally dubious options to advance at the cost of other players etc??
/food for thought, *rambles on some more*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From 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. These actions are universally considered wrong, and other players are not punished for attempting to stop another player from doing these things.
A brief flag for the most evil persons in the universe. I think it's agreeable. This can be a nice thing in the battle field, when people see the "necromancer" flag and know they have to take him down quickly cause he is the most evil person in the universe and probably the leader of "bad guys"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From 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. These actions are universally considered wrong, and other players are not punished for attempting to stop another player from doing these things.A brief flag for the most evil persons in the universe. I think it's agreeable. This can be a nice thing in the battle field, when people see the "necromancer" flag and know they have to take him down quickly cause he is the most evil person in the universe and probably the leader of "bad guys"
I would be fine with it, if there was a corresponding flag for someone who summoned angels or saved orphans. The point is no so much that the flag exists, but that it only affects one single alignment.
Evil has a lot of things going against it already in this game. Why do they need more?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there's a lot to untangle here.Setting out what we roughly know:
1. Order-Chaos axis = primary player-player alignment system
2. Good-Evil axis = primary player-npc alignment axis
3. Reputation = Additional system for players to rate interactions
4. Flag system = (1) action taken (2) person affected (3) area/status context of flagged action.I think this blog is talking primarily about the flag system which is a "temporary marker" for recent actions and/or an alignment point or added/docked or two. I also guess the flag system is being highlighted to reassure against random player killing/griefing. IE recent discussions you can see people suggest if you allow open world pvp and looting then bedlam 24/7 ensues. But with a flagging system that suggests a lot more caveats to these actions especially if players are organised and allied.
To reassess: If all 3: of the above 1-3 are bad that means various flags and alignment shifts have occurred to warrant a "neon sign" that says this PC is severely chaotic-evil infamous reputation. Whether that player is RP'ing CE scum or is CE scum - I think my sword will provide answers before questions are asked!
I think "Heinous" is an evil marker: Ie slaves/undead are a short-cut to cheap labour and all the bad actions are simply finding expedient and morally dubious options to advance at the cost of other players etc??
/food for thought, *rambles on some more*
You're quite correct and I am absolutely certain part of the issue here is that we don't have all the information. Thus my question to Ryan. I'm hoping he's not taking it as facetious line of questioning as it's not intended to be.
I'm curious about the good/evil thing only applying to NPC's though, where did you get that impression from?
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?
Any civilization that expects to survive, even a virtual one, must enforce cooperation and some level of civility. A player choosing to do rotten crap to everybody in such a virtual reality is intentionally kicking that model in the balls for his own selfish fun and gain.
You know what we do to players who act this way at the table? We kick them out. Do you know what we do to people in real life who act this way? At the very least we ostracize them socially. At the worst, depending on the crime, they are executed.
It boggles my mind that people continue to argue for the "right" to have whatever they want and to do whatever they want, not only just at the expense of everybody else, but intentionally intending to hurt everybody else just to get a little jolly out of life.
Seriously, a tag is the least of your worries if this is what you need to get off in the world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about this?
Give players a surrender option, and the bandits can "loot" the player as if he was dead however the player moves on with the knowledge he was just robbed but the bandit thankfully left him alive.
Maybe unflag the player that surrendered from PvP for five minutes to give him time to flee?
You can have flavors of bandits who will butcher anyone they come across or have the ones who allow their prey the chance to surrender without bloodshed.
Or even if the bandit is forced to bleed their prey with some hard lumps the victim can "surrender".
I can see this opening a lot of role playing opportunities.
A bounty could be placed for the thief but it can't be renewed forever because he isn't a murderer.
Just thinking outside the box. This would probably make everything more complicated than it needs to be.
|
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?
Any civilization that expects to survive, even a virtual one, must enforce cooperation and some level of civility. A player choosing to do rotten crap to everybody in such a virtual reality is intentionally kicking that model in the balls for his own selfish fun and gain.
You know what we do to players who act this way at the table? We kick them out. Do you know what we do to people in real life who act this way? At the very least we ostracize them socially. At the worst, depending on the crime, they are executed.
It boggles my mind that people continue to argue for the "right" to have whatever they want and to do whatever they want, not only just at the expense of everybody else, but intentionally intending to hurt everybody else just to get a little jolly out of life.
Seriously, a tag is the least of your worries if this is what you need to get off in the world.
You are confusing 'playing an evil character' with 'griefing other players'. I have this conversation almost every thread this comes up.
And you're being kind of nasty about it as well.
Summoning undead in a virtual world is a means to achieve power. A ranger summoning a horde of woodland creatures to aid him is exactly the same mechanic, but one is deemed evil and the other is good. One is punished in game and the other is not. Why? These are artificial constructs in an artificial world. That raising undead is, in the game world of Golarian, labelled evil. That is fine. That the online version comes complete with an a big flashing "Hey this guy over here did something evil!" when there is no actual way a normal player could know about it, is not fine as far as I am concerned.
I opened my post by saying I completely agree with the anti-griefing mechanics. I do not want to grief people, and I can assure you there will be plenty of griefers with a nice shiny "Good" sticker over their head.
Please look past in game appellations and recognise what I am talking about here is game balance, not a griefing tool.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I see is that if you commit a crime such as using slaves or raising undead they would get a criminal flag anyways. Why punish evil characters when they are in their own territory doing what is considered lawful. If my evil settlement had a law against paladins then the instant a paladin walked into my territory he would be flagged a criminal.
*Evil settlement enacts a law that allows the enslavement of the lesser humanoid races.
*Group of players gank a slaver working a mine where the law to own slaves is legal.
*Player complains to leadership and wants a bounty placed on the murderous gankers.
*Evil settlements hands are tied due to game mechanics and is perfectly within the rights of all players to infringe on their territory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about this?
Give players a surrender option, and the bandits can "loot" the player as if he was dead however the player moves on with the knowledge he was just robbed but the bandit thankfully left him alive.
Maybe unflag the player that surrendered from PvP for five minutes to give him time to flee?
You can have flavors of bandits who will butcher anyone they come across or have the one who allow their prey the chance to surrender without bloodshed.
Or even if the bandit is forced to bleed their prey with some hard lumps the victim can "surrender".
I can see this opening a lot of role playing opportunities.
A bounty could be placed for the thief but it can't be renewed forever because he isn't a murderer.
Just thinking outside the box. This would probably make everything more complicated than it needs to be.
I am fine with a 'surrender' mechanic. But again, it focuses on banditry alone.
I don't even want to be a bandit.
If I play a thief I want to break into buildings, dodge guards, pick locks and steal the plans you have for a new super-catapault. Or cross the moat, into the tallest tower and kidnap the maiden. Or steal the records to bribe a powerful merchant who has been gaming the system. there is so much more to thievery than just mugging someone in a remote location!
An evil cleric should be converting people to his cause! Desecrating holy temples, corrupting the weak!
An evil wizard could not have any interest at all in conquest, but just be focused on creating the 'perfect' abomination. Or trapping souls to power his magical constructs.
An evil warrior could still want to be the greatest swordsman in the land, so he hunts down any perceived as his competition and demands a duel to the death. Or just plain holds up a bridge and yell "None shall pass!"
It's not always about conquest, and its not always about stealing. At least it shouldn't be, it can be so much more fun, for myself AND yourself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I see is that if you commit a crime such as using slaves or raising undead they would get a criminal flag anyways. Why punish evil characters when they are in their own territory doing what is considered lawful. If my evil settlement had a law against paladins then the instant a paladin walked into my territory he would be flagged a criminal.
*Evil settlement enacts a law that allows the enslavement of the lesser humanoid races.
*Group of players gank a slaver working a mine where the law to own slaves is legal.
*Player complains to leadership and wants a bounty placed on the murderous gankers.
*Evil settlements hands are tied due to game mechanics and is perfectly within the rights of all players to infringe on their territory.
Using slaves/raising the dead is "evil". Criminal flag relates to lawful-chaotic behavior ie breaking a settlement's laws. They are different things. If you are an evil char, you can still be lawful. But raising dead means you are promoting "evil" for your evil gods or your own evil plans of gaining cheap labour etc. The key is "evil" is something the gods of Golarion actively know about and concern themselves with. Eg it was mentioned that gaining increases in evil via doing pacts with evil gods and possibly joining evil NPC factions. Of course this is all abhorrent to plenty of players who would like to forcefully prevent such behavior and thereby gain the favor of their "good" gods by slaying such evil-doers (Righteous retribution sanctioned - finally!) ;)
I'm curious about the good/evil thing only applying to NPC's though, where did you get that impression from?
-snip-Good vs. Evil is a matter of flavor for the most part; good aligned towns will have different alliance options than evil towns. So a Chaotic Good town may join a Neutral Good alliance and build an outpost for them in the settlement, unlocking Alliance gear, training, NPCs, etc. A Chaotic Evil settlement can't join that same alliance, but could join the Cult of Lamashtu. Each has different costs and benefits.
Basically law vs. chaos is a choice of playstyle; if you want to fight the man and cause trouble, Chaotic is for you. If you want your settlement to be a place you hang out but don't worry about developing while you run around and do whatever, go Chaotic. If you want your town to be the best town ever and run as efficiently as possible, go Lawful.
As suggested, "for the most part", so there's probably situations where it's fuzzy/makes no difference/all the difference etc??
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.