
![]() |

Hey y'all:
Thanks for giving us all your comments and thoughts in this thread. I figured that the blog this week would be a doozy. Alignment and its ramifications are a touchy topic AND something that hasn't really ever been done in an MMO, so it is breaking new ground. Thankfully we have almost a year and a half to get it right. :)
There are some really great insights in this thread. Some good fodder for the grist wheel. This is what crowdforging is all about. We talk about some ideas that we have for the game and y'all give us a ton of feedback on those ideas.
One thing I would have you remember is that NONE of these systems are set in stone. Matter of fact, they aren't even in quicksand yet. They are some current thoughts we have had on the topic. There is plenty of time and room for change. Crowdforging is us throwing out ideas and you guys giving us your thoughts, and later, in-game experiences. Then we go away and talk about it and sometimes make some changes based on our discussions with you.
Personally, I think there is enough good thoughts in this thread to warrant another discussion on our end. Thanks again for all of your passion and dedication to Pathfinder Online!
-Lisa
Thank you Lisa!
I am sure no one meant to sound snippy or condescending, though some posts came across that way. I knew nothing was set in stone as you point out, but it was starting to look a lot less than crowdforging, which is a big part of why most of us financially backed this project; thus it made for some heated posts. The fact that you are listening and keeping us informed about ongoing talks is just the balm this thread needs. I thank you again, for this, for Paizo, and for your dedication to listening to your customers.

![]() |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

I think the problem here is that GW is trying to conflate 2 design goals under a single system which are inherently incompatible.
- GW wants, I believe, to place some mechanical incentives around curtailing Player behavior that they believe will have a negative impact on other players and the game in general. These behaviors are based largely upon modern social MMO player gaming mores, namely "unprovoked" attacks on players, and upon things which they believe may reduce the profitability of PFO.
- GW wants to present the kind of absolute alignment system that players will generaly expect in a High Fantasy setting so that players can make characters which are meaningfull fun and interesting to them and make choices that have real meaning.
I understand the rationale for both of these goals. The problem is that they are inherently contradictory and thus can NOT be accomodated within a single system. Modern social MMO player gaming mores are NOT the same as the mores that exist within a Classic High Fantasy Setting and that most people will expect of a game set in such a genre. High Fantasy is very nearly DEFINED by the struggle between GOOD and EVIL and thier no holds barred struggle to destroy one another. Despite what Ryan might protest I am absolutely certain that the fast majority of players will expect Good and Evil to attack each other upon mere recognition of each others existence...that recognition alone being enough justification for attack. Compounding this we are presented with a system that has very limited options for players to interact with each other (e.g. The Good player, even if they wanted to, can not merely apprehend the "Evil Rogue" from Ryans example and turn them over to city authorties for fair trial and imprisonment because PFO offers no mechanics to support such action) and an automated system that is, neccesarly, making very crude and broad judgements in examining the circumstances of each situation.
In short, Ryan, the system you guys are currently proposing just isn't going to work very well and a large number of people here are frustrated, concerned and disappointed with the proposition as expressed so far. Else, you wouldn't have over 450 posts on it in such a short time. You guys said you wanted feedback...you are getting it...and you can't expect that it will be flower petals and hugs. Sometimes the propositions that GW makes and believes in firmly are going to get ripped apart badly by alot of the community. That's what is happening here.
If I have one suggestion it's to divorce the (OOC) system that you want to use to curtail certain Player behavior from the (IC) system of representing Alignment.
I can live with a system that places some mechanical penalties on my character for attacking another character that murdered a dozen innocents yesterday and then had thier (attacker) flag wear off. I can't live with a system that tells me I'm Chaotic Evil for doing so. That's a farce of the genre and kind of a deal breaker for anyone that has any desire for RPing.

![]() |

I can live with a system that places some mechanical penalties on my character for attacking another character that murdered a dozen innocents yesterday and then had thier (attacker) flag wear off. I can't live with a system that tells me I'm Chaotic Evil for doing so. That's a farce of the genre and kind of a deal breaker for anyone that has any desire for RPing.
I don't know where you are getting the you=CE part.
It was never stated how much evil you are going to get for killing people aside from
For killing, you move less if the target was also evil (in other words, it's more evil to kill a good character).
I'm just guessing because I don't recall it being specifically said, but I wouldn't imagine you being some form of Good and killing an evil player is going to auto-drop you to evil. It will however, if continuously done slowly start to shift you toward neutral and then if continued shift you toward evil.
As for chaotic, you're only going to be shifting in that axis if you are continuously breaking laws (whether defined by NPC settlements or player settlements). I think a lot of people are expanding the system to mean a lot more than has been stated IMHO.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Thank you, Lisa, for stopping by and mentioning that things are still in flux. The system was sounding set in stone and totally alien to how I have ever seen alignment done (including in Pathfinder Society, the Paizo approved organized game campaign). Thanks for continuing to work on it and all your efforts on behalf of the project.

![]() |

I'm just guessing because I don't recall it being specifically said, but I wouldn't imagine you being some form of Good and killing an evil player is going to auto-drop you to evil. It will however, if continuously done slowly start to shift you toward neutral and then if continued shift you toward evil.
And I really think that is what GrumpMel is talking about here. He’s not saying you will just turn CE because you’ve killed someone.
But at least with our order, as you have seen the many posts by Andius indicate, we are going to do our best to thrawt evildoers. And since there really is no way to stop them in a non-violent way (at least so far), we are going to have to stop them by attacking them and potentially killing them. And by having to do that over and over, it will drop the character closer and closer to evil. That is our concern here.
We aren’t talking about just killing evil characters on a whim, but what about a known group who griefs players, or a group that just robbed yesterday (attacker/criminal flag has worn off) a bunch of players? How do you go after them and bring them to justice without killing them (as there is no other mechanical means right now) and taking an alignment hit?
But as I said earlier, I want to see what methods there will be to see how you can improve your alignment towards good, to balance it out.

![]() |

The system was sounding set in stone and totally alien to how I have ever seen alignment done
I think that's because the alignment system is more of a set of guidelines in the tabletop game. Every edition of that "other game" and today with Pathfinder seems to have moved a little further away from penalizing characters based on alignment choices.
With the exception of alignment specific spells and effects, it's just there to help you conceptualize a character. Alignment has a much greater importance as spelled out thus far in the development of PFO. Not to say that's a bad thing, but it's definitely different.

![]() |

@Dakcenturi
From the blog:
"You slip toward chaotic whenever you gain the Attacker or Criminal flags, except when pursuing a bounty (see below). This is generally a flat amount of loss.
You slip toward evil whenever you kill someone while you have the Attacker flag or gain the Heinous flag. For killing, you move less if the target was also evil (in other words, it's more evil to kill a good character)."
I see someone out in the wilds that has murdered a dozen innocents yesterday for LoLs. I know they are a thoroughly Evil sob that does this on a fairly frequent basis. The attacks happaned in uncontroled hex's so they only gained the Attacker flag (it lasts only for a short time). It's a day later so they are now unflagged.
They aren't going to attack me because I don't look like easy prey.
I attack them (gaining the Attacker flag and shifting toward chaotic).
While holding the attacker flag I kill them (shifting toward Evil).
This happens on a frequent enough basis, because I spend a fair amount of time in the Wilds trying to protect innocent. I become Chaotic Evil... for the act of protecting the innocents and fighting Chaotic Evil villians.

![]() |

But at least with our order, as you have seen the many posts by Andius indicate, we are going to do our best to thrawt evildoers. And since there really is no way to stop them in a non-violent way (at least so far), we are going to have to stop them by attacking them and potentially killing them. And by having to do that over and over, it will drop the character closer and closer to evil. That is our concern here.
Maybe it would make more sense for you to do a non-good neutral (LN, N, CN)?
I don't know I've never played a *Good* character because I have felt that it's to limiting from the perspective of not being able to kill others because to me killing people is bad (read evil). Depending on the circumstances it might be justified but taking another life (imho) is still evil whether it is for good reasons or not. This is why I play neutral, generally because while I don't particularly want to go around killing people, I can if I have a reason.

![]() |

@Dakcenturi
This happens on a frequent enough basis, because I spend a fair amount of time in the Wilds trying to protect innocent. I become Chaotic Evil... for the act of protecting the innocents and fighting Chaotic Evil villians.
If all you are doing is running around killing people in the woods you *know* are evil then I would agree you're chaotic evil.
However, if you do this occasionally, while the rest of the time you are saving puppies and donating to beggers or whatever else causes you to raise your good/lawful alignment. Then you should stay somewhere in the neutral realm.

![]() |

...We aren’t talking about just killing evil characters on a whim, but what about a known group who griefs players, or a group that just robbed yesterday (attacker/criminal flag has worn off) a bunch of players? How do you go after them and bring them to justice without killing them (as there is no other mechanical means right now) and taking an alignment hit?
An understandable concern if you're trying to stay on the NG side of the fence, but perhaps the answer is less about system and design, and more about tactics and feeling the overall flow of the game on a given day. Maybe the company has to get good at scouting and baiting the bad guys who have been on your radar screen. Maybe they're just too smart that day (though that means they're not gaining Attacker flags by killing travelers on the road, so they'd be better off drinking at an inn or something), and it's time instead to go off and help bring in that major caravan or wipe out a growing NPC menace in an adjacent hex. Or volunteer to jump in a declared war where the goals are pretty clear.
It seems to me that while all activities are not going to be easily available to all characters of all alignment types, the players are going to be able to figure out pretty quickly the pace/flow of the game and where the action is that will work for them. Or Beta will show that they can't, at which time it seems GW is going to make some adjustments.

Valandur |

@Dakcenturi
From the blog:
"You slip toward chaotic whenever you gain the Attacker or Criminal flags, except when pursuing a bounty (see below). This is generally a flat amount of loss.
You slip toward evil whenever you kill someone while you have the Attacker flag or gain the Heinous flag. For killing, you move less if the target was also evil (in other words, it's more evil to kill a good character)."I see someone out in the wilds that has murdered a dozen innocents yesterday for LoLs. I know they are a thoroughly Evil sob that does this on a fairly frequent basis. The attacks happaned in uncontroled hex's so they only gained the Attacker flag (it lasts only for a short time). It's a day later so they are now unflagged.
They aren't going to attack me because I don't look like easy prey.
I attack them (gaining the Attacker flag and shifting toward chaotic).
While holding the attacker flag I kill them (shifting toward Evil).This happens on a frequent enough basis, because I spend a fair amount of time in the Wilds trying to protect innocent. I become Chaotic Evil... for the act of protecting the innocents and fighting Chaotic Evil villians.
If that's all you ever do then your right, you will slowly switch toward CE. But as a Paladin our also supposed to be performing lawful and good acts that benefit what your deity stands for. Although we don't know the actions that move your alignment toward lawful and good, I feel confident that GW will provide many options for you to reverse any shift in your alignment, thereby keeping it LG.
I think that until the Devs say they won't be adding these actions, that its fairly safe to bet that they will be added. As Lisa says, we are barely beginning to iron out the systems. I think there is time to find a system we can all work with and be content with.

![]() |

GrumpyMel wrote:@Dakcenturi
This happens on a frequent enough basis, because I spend a fair amount of time in the Wilds trying to protect innocent. I become Chaotic Evil... for the act of protecting the innocents and fighting Chaotic Evil villians.If all you are doing is running around killing people in the woods you *know* are evil then I would agree you're chaotic evil.
However, if you do this occasionally, while the rest of the time you are saving puppies and donating to beggers or whatever else causes you to raise your good/lawful alignment. Then you should stay somewhere in the neutral realm.
This sums up concisely my understanding of the alignment system. The person involved in ganking is pushing their alignment in one direction depending on the target, area and frequency of attacks. Likewise hunting these "evil-ones" would depend on similar criteria.
=
I think a controlled hex for eg if the option to introduce the law: "No player chars of Alignment/Rep below X otherwise flagged as criminal if entering upon penalty of death, then that is fair game and min/zero alignment conflict in that area, I believe?
I'm not sure Lawful Good will be proactively hunting evil: They would be too busy promoting powerful centralised authority and democratic systems and infrastructure and generally would only resort to a "just war" when they were compelled to?! :p
I have almost no understanding of the Reputation axis. That must have a huge impact even more than the alignment system possibly on all this, is my thoughts as it stands?

![]() |

I think the problem here is that GW is trying to conflate 2 design goals under a single system which are inherently incompatible.
Modern social MMO player gaming mores are NOT the same as the mores that exist within a Classic High Fantasy Setting and that most people will expect of a game set in such a genre. High Fantasy is very nearly DEFINED by the struggle between GOOD and EVIL and thier no holds barred struggle to destroy one another. Despite what Ryan might protest I am absolutely certain that the fast majority of players will expect Good and Evil to attack each other upon mere recognition of each others existence...that recognition alone being enough justification for attack.
I think a more detailed post on the Reputation system would clear a great deal of this up, as now it is still very much abstract to us. What GW proposes may make more sense if we have a better understanding of the "player" alignment system as I think we all grasp the character alignment system.
High Fantasy is more of a dominant preestablished good vs evil that is growing in power and decides to rear its ugly head and subject good to it's ideals. Good never goes out and picks a fight with evil. Evil always throws the first punch... because it's evil.
Evil is always doing something in preparation to attack good. Mordor ammassing it's forces, testing the boundries of the goodly nations. Then BOOM warfare. WARFARE... which in PfO was already said to free players from the penalties of most if not all flags.
Good will likely attack evil in evil is trespassing.
I can see good attacking a flagged evil character in the wilderness as the area is lawless and it is known that the evil character is up to no good. However, if good and evil meet each other in the wilderness and have no way of identifying or assessing the power of the other, good would probably attack good, neutral, or evil and take the alignment hit out of self preservation. This is with the understanding that the criminal flag doesn't apply in the wilderness.
Identification and power assessment would change things wholly. I had the understanding that there would be /con feature to assess character power

![]() |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

I'm extremely pleased to hear that they're going to be reassessing this blog. I think that's needed.
I also want to remind everyone that "hunting down Chaotic Evil characters" was previously listed as one of the means of actually becoming and staying Good, so the concern you're hearing from folks who intend to play Paladins is entirely justified.
I'll see if I can dredge up a quote.

![]() |

I believe something that should be taken away from all of this is the fact that despite the game title, "Pathfinder Online", this is more akin to "Golarion Online" with a Pathfinder theme and Kingmaker accents.
To be fair, GW has said this from the very beginning, and rather frequently since then.

![]() |

you can go and make up your own world that obeys your own rules and then try to attract an audience of people who appreciate your work.
RyanD
First off Ryan I appreciate the nerve you showed in making this statement. I can respect when someone says exactly what they mean to say even if I entirely disagree with them. You and I are not all that unalike, a concept which I'm sure terrifies some of the members of this community.
Second off while our livelihoods are not invested in this game many of the members of this community are invested in this game to the tune of hundreds or thousands of dollars. A lot of us invested a lot of time convincing friends to contribute or advertising this game on other communities. This game should belong to us just as much as it belongs to you. It is because of our support that you are able to move forward with this project.
Quite a few of us are extremely concerned you are marginalizing the good alignment to a PVE role in an Open World PVP game. To me good alignment is about helping people for non-selfish motives and I think there is a lot of support for this in the P&P.
My concern is that we will end up with a system where smaller factions come running to us and say "Help! Help! Evil Murderdudes killed my family, stomped on my puppy, and made off with my precious heirlooms like they have done to 15 other people in-front of hundreds of credible witnesses this week! Please go stop them and recover my heirlooms!" And we will have to say "Sorry Non-Combat-Trained Newb. That happened over an hour ago. Their flag wore off. We have no right to attack them and your stolen goods are now their rightful property."
That isn't good aligned, that's neutral-coward. And beyond that, it doesn't seem like a very fun game to play for us, for Non-Combat Trained Newb or really for anyone other than Evil-Murderdudes.
Maybe you have all the solutions worked out already but how screwed would we be if you don't and we never even mentioned there is a problem?

![]() |

GrumpyMel wrote:@Dakcenturi
This happens on a frequent enough basis, because I spend a fair amount of time in the Wilds trying to protect innocent. I become Chaotic Evil... for the act of protecting the innocents and fighting Chaotic Evil villians.If all you are doing is running around killing people in the woods you *know* are evil then I would agree you're chaotic evil.
However, if you do this occasionally, while the rest of the time you are saving puppies and donating to beggers or whatever else causes you to raise your good/lawful alignment. Then you should stay somewhere in the neutral realm.
That's the basic disconnect. Most people I know would adjucate that as "Good" rather then Evil. Because in a Classic High Fantasy sense, I'm absolutely sure that 95+ percent of fans of the genre expect that Goods purpose is to DESTROY Evil wherever and whenever it is found. Good is martial and millitant towards Evil not pacifistic because Good KNOWS that the ONLY way to protect the innocent is to DESTROY Evil..utterly.
There are know prison rehabilitation programs in Classic High Fantasy where the Arch-Villians turn into good productive citizens. There is no giving the Arch-Villian an opprtunity to be mirandized and call Johnny Cochrane before you are allowed to draw your sword. It's a very binary setting.
By your definition Sir Galahad, the "noblest and purest" of King Arthurs knights would probably be Chaotic Evil... as he spent a very large amount of his time doing just that.
By contrast, if I sent an innocent 3yr old child out laden with gold to be slaughtered by the villian so that they could gain the "Attacker" flag before I jump out of bushes to attack...THEN I would not gain the CE shift under the proposed system.
"Good Guys" are NOT pacifists in the Classic High Fantasy genre...they are quite millitant and violent when it comes to seeking out and destroying Evil.

![]() |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

I see someone out in the wilds that has murdered a dozen innocents yesterday for LoLs. I know they are a thoroughly Evil sob that does this on a fairly frequent basis.I attack them...
This happens on a frequent enough basis, because I spend a fair amount of time in the Wilds trying to protect innocent. I become Chaotic Evil... for the act of protecting the innocents and fighting Chaotic Evil villians.
Emphasis added.
You are not "protecting the innocent". You are taking revenge, or enforcing your idea of justice on others.
Protecting the innocent would involve you accepting a contract to guard a caravan or resource harvesting team, and being present when they were attacked, and responding.
Going into the wilderness looking for a fight isn't "protecting" anyone. It's just you deciding that you want others to fear you when they choose to attack others.
RyanD

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Going into the wilderness looking for a fight isn't "protecting" anyone.
I'm not sure that's a defensible position.
If there's a pack of wolves in the forest that preys on our livestock and kills our children, then going into the woods to hunt them down and kill them - or drive them off - is very much "protecting" my village.

![]() |

@GrumpyMel You keep saying how Classic High Fantasy defines good/evil.
I keep saying how I define good evil, and very similarly how Pathfinder defines good/evil is not the same as your definition.
Specifically from the Pathfinder PRD
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent[, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
To further illustrate, again from the PRD
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order.
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
I don't see anywhere in there kill evil. All I see oppose. Oppose != kill.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Emphasis added.
You are not "protecting the innocent". You are taking revenge, or enforcing your idea of justice on others.
Protecting the innocent would involve you accepting a contract to guard a caravan or resource harvesting team, and being present when they were attacked, and responding.
Going into the wilderness looking for a fight isn't "protecting" anyone. It's just you deciding that you want others to fear you when they choose to attack others.
RyanD
So, even though you know that is the character/group that murdered those innocents, and you know they will repeat their actions, it is evil for you to stop them from doing it again? By the only means the game is set up to do right now, but attacking and killing them?
Ryan, sometimes justice needs to be served after the fact. In fact, it happens a lot of the time like that. With the way it is set up now, with the information that we have, there is no way to do that without taking an alignment hit.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Going into the wilderness looking for a fight isn't "protecting" anyone. It's just you deciding that you want others to fear you when they choose to attack others.RyanD
Don't buy that one. Protection doesn't have to mean reactive in the moment--it could be proactive, or deferred reactive.
If there is an evil Ogre Magi raiding and pillaging, then me hovering over group "A" in case they get attacked may be sub-optimal for protecting the community. I might hunt the ogre down afterwards, with the express and reasonable intent of preventing future slaughters. That's not looking for a fight--that's protecting the innocent.
Swap "evil PK" for "ogre mage"--not sure how that is qualitatively different.

![]() |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

If there's a pack of wolves in the forest that preys on our livestock and kills our children, then going into the woods to hunt them down and kill them - or drive them off - is very much "protecting" my village.
Swap "evil PK" for "ogre mage"--not sure how that is qualitatively different.
Because they stay dead.
Player Characters don't stay dead. Killing them doesn't stop them from doing what they're doing. You're not killing them to end a problem. You're killing them to make the player involved have to calculate the cost of being killed BY YOU when considering the decision to engage in murder.
It's a financial transaction, not a defense of the innocent.
There are two different stories being told here.
One is a classic fantasy story - you protect the weak by killing the danger. Everyone lives happily ever after.
In Pathfinder Online, that's a PvE story.
Two is what happens in MMOs - you attempt to modify the actions of other humans by using pleasure and pain. Eventually either you give up, your target gives up, or you both give up. Everyone has an interesting and meaningful series of interactions.
In Pathfinder Online, that's a PvP story.
RyanD

![]() |

I'm starting to see the alignment system again as good vs evil and law versus chaos.
It seems enough simple and reasonable and normal PnP style that when a good guy kills a bad guy he becomes more good and when a bad guy kills a good guy he becomes more bad. If you think there's something wrong with this picture...
If I think about it in a way that the bad guy would have killed many people if the good guy wouldn't have killed him, I still don't think killing the bad guy was a good act. At most it was a necessity and a duty, but not a good act.
I guess it's a matter of opinion.

![]() |

Ryan Dancey wrote:Emphasis added.
You are not "protecting the innocent". You are taking revenge, or enforcing your idea of justice on others.
Protecting the innocent would involve you accepting a contract to guard a caravan or resource harvesting team, and being present when they were attacked, and responding.
Going into the wilderness looking for a fight isn't "protecting" anyone. It's just you deciding that you want others to fear you when they choose to attack others.
RyanD
So, even though you know that is the character/group that murdered those innocents, and you know they will repeat their actions, it is evil for you to stop them from doing it again? By the only means the game is set up to do right now, but attacking and killing them?
Ryan, sometimes justice needs to be served after the fact. In fact, it happens a lot of the time like that. With the way it is set up now, with the information that we have, there is no way to do that without taking an alignment hit.
How about just a small alignment hit. An itsy-bitsy alignment hit. Or not as small of a hit as that, but enough you can live with it and keep these known evil marauders from working their evil throughout a night or two of gameplay, and drive them to another hex.
Isn't that worth a bit of slide on the scale then?
Of course, the alternative is you just camp them and don't attack, which is enough clear deterrence that they don't pull anything off. Until one side or the other goes home. Granted, that doesn't sound like a lot of fun in-game.
Final thought - for those that you can't catch in the act but are causing grief, isn't that essentially what the bounty system is for?

![]() |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Hey y'all:
Thanks for giving us all your comments and thoughts in this thread. I figured that the blog this week would be a doozy. Alignment and its ramifications are a touchy topic AND something that hasn't really ever been done in an MMO, so it is breaking new ground. Thankfully we have almost a year and a half to get it right. :)
There are some really great insights in this thread. Some good fodder for the grist wheel. This is what crowdforging is all about. We talk about some ideas that we have for the game and y'all give us a ton of feedback on those ideas.
One thing I would have you remember is that NONE of these systems are set in stone. Matter of fact, they aren't even in quicksand yet. They are some current thoughts we have had on the topic. There is plenty of time and room for change. Crowdforging is us throwing out ideas and you guys giving us your thoughts, and later, in-game experiences. Then we go away and talk about it and sometimes make some changes based on our discussions with you.
Personally, I think there is enough good thoughts in this thread to warrant another discussion on our end. Thanks again for all of your passion and dedication to Pathfinder Online!
-Lisa
Thank you for the head's up, Lisa!
I think it is important to stress and re-iterate what you mentioned for everyone: This is what crowdforging is all about.
I just hope as we move forward that it isn't the vocal minority driving the crowdforging. We should expect well-reasoned arguments for the crowdforging process to move forward, always.

![]() |

I happen to agree with you Aeioun, but your arguing philosophy at this point.
Killing people is evil, in most fantasy settings when you see a "paladin" kill some one they seek out some sort of atonement or offer a prayer for forgiveness after the fact even if the person they killed was the dark lord of OMG we are all doomed for ever.

![]() |

I do appreciate the GOALS GW is trying to achieve with the system it's discuss. But (IMO) the actual system itself is just not going to work very well as proposed....and because it's a game and it's limited in it's mechanics and it's ability to adjucate situations...doesn't want to for play purposes do the things it really aught to do to flag villians properly ....and doesn't offer many options for interacting with them...it's going to end up with pretty absurd results.
For example:
An individual murders a wagon-load of orphans in the wilds, just for fun. In any reasonable High Fantasy narrative said individual would probably be marked CE instantly and PERMANENTLY flagged as (Villian - Ok to Kill on Sight). In the game, they are flagged as simply Attacker and the flag wears off after 10 minutes or so.
The next day our hero encounters said individual in the woods. The villian sneers "Yes I killed those Orphans, and tomorrow I'll torture to death another wagon-load". Any reasonable Classic High Fantasy novel would have the "Good." thing for our Hero to do is instantly draw his sword and slay the villian. Even the most pacifistic (and definatly non-High Fantasy) narrative would probably have the Hero attempt to capture the villian so he can't do any more harm and bring him in for trial and permanent inceration somewhere. The "Evil" thing would actualy be for the hero to shrug and walk away.
In PFO, under the same situation our Hero would instantly gain the (Attacker) flag for attacking an unflagged character (and shifting toward chaotic), unable to capture the villian (as there are no system mechanics to support it) and if they won and actualy killed the villian shift toward Evil for killing a character while they were flagged as the attacker. The "non-Evil" thing to do under PFO's system would be for the hero to shrug, walk away and leave the villian be to kill more orphans tomorrow.
I would have to wonder about the sort of narratives read by anyone who thinks PFO's system adjucated the scenario accurately.

![]() |

Quite a few of us are extremely concerned you are marginalizing the good alignment to a PVE role in an Open World PVP game. To me good alignment is about helping people for non-selfish motives and I think there is a lot of support for this in the P&P.
No... I think he is ensuring that good acts like good and shifts towards evil if it doesn't.
Evil has to commit evil acts in the first place to be evil. Attacking another player is an evil act. If you get attacked, fight back and kill them. You are not the attacker and don't take an alignment hit.
Why is this getting blown out of proportion?
Is it not in line with evil to kill someone and take their loot? Is it not in line with good to guard merchants and when attacked, defend it?
This is what Ryan meant when he said meaningful.
If "non-combat trained newb" gets mugged in your land, evil dude gets criminal flagged. If you are patrolling your borders... like the blog explicitly states... you stand a chance of seeing said evil dude and upholding justice.
If you have a territory where no one patrols and you wait for "non-combat trained newb" to come up to you and you uphold justice on your own time... evil dude will be long gone or his flag has expired. That's where you being "good" comes into play. When it happens... because it will... do what you are supposed to do as a good guy and extract justice. If you wait or you are busy, then evil dude gets away with the crime and your kingdom gets a little more lawless because you didn't take action in time.
But let me ask you this... if you've got a settlement under siege and one "NCT" newb comes up to you and says that evil dude (not of the evil organization seiging your settlement) over there killed me and my friends and took all our stuff. If you don't help him then and there, and you allow that evil dude to get away with the crime and escape punishment because you had to save your settlement, does that make you any less lawful good? Or did you just have to tackle the greater evil....
Since evil dude robbed and killed people while your settlement was under attack, doesn't that make him just the bad guy that got away.
Would you consider having to choose between upholding the laws of your kingdom and saving an entire settlement a choice that has significant and meaningful reprecussions? Players' choices will have an impact on the game. We are getting exactly what we asked for.
They never promised us that we would be able to have each of our own individual interpretations of how a lawful good character acts taken into account when developing the game mechanics. They said we would be able to play a lawful good character... and we can. Again, GW is delivering exactly what it promised.

![]() |

GrumpyMel wrote:
I see someone out in the wilds that has murdered a dozen innocents yesterday for LoLs. I know they are a thoroughly Evil sob that does this on a fairly frequent basis.I attack them...
This happens on a frequent enough basis, because I spend a fair amount of time in the Wilds trying to protect innocent. I become Chaotic Evil... for the act of protecting the innocents and fighting Chaotic Evil villians.
Emphasis added.
You are not "protecting the innocent". You are taking revenge, or enforcing your idea of justice on others.
Protecting the innocent would involve you accepting a contract to guard a caravan or resource harvesting team, and being present when they were attacked, and responding.
Going into the wilderness looking for a fight isn't "protecting" anyone. It's just you deciding that you want others to fear you when they choose to attack others.
RyanD
I agree with Ryan here, but wouldn't it have been better to point out that "in the wilds" is where open pvp exists. Wasn't it said that there will be no negative flags or consequences in the lawless wilderness?

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

@Ryan. I'm assuming when we go out and kill the bandits on the road that they get set back to a respawn point, the have to re-gear, and they may or may not have some kind of death penalty that makes it difficult to go right back out and PVP.
So no we haven't permanently eliminated that threat but for 10, 20, 30 minutes it takes them to regroup, regear, and get back out there that road is safe.
Just like there is likely to eventually be more wolves or another ogre magi.

![]() |

If you're just looking for consequence-free PK opportunities, then white hat/black hat, Alliance/Horde, factional warfare is what you're looking for, and I think war declarations will serve that.
Dexter isn't a good guy just because he kills people that are (usually) more evil than he. There is more of a difference between good and evil actions than just picking acceptable targets.
If you're looking to dispense some 'Charles Bronson justice', then why do you need that to have a "100% good guy!" stamp of approval? You're sacrificing a bit of your humanity to prevent a greater evil, and that can be noble as long as you have the restraint to use it sparingly. Those who do it too often or too easily become bad guys without realizing it, just like every rational villain.
I love the Dresden Files, but there are times when Dresden acts in evil ways for am overall good cause, and that balancing act is central to the character. Look up the discussions he has with Michael Carpenter, when Harry wants the Knights of the Cross to skip right to kicking in the teeth of the Denarians. Harry has to get his hands dirty sometimes, and that makes him more interesting as a character.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
I hope GW doesn't shy away from making an alignment system that's about more than whether a character is wearing a white hat or a black one.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Because they stay dead.
Player Characters don't stay dead.
Yep, yep. I get it. I actually got it before, but I keep getting drawn into the same mistake I think a lot of people are making. Player characters are players, and that makes them different. Making a game where "Good" characters could always freely kill "Evil" player characters without consequence (I know, that's not really what people are asking for) creates an environment even worse than where everyone can always attack anyone else.

![]() |

Everyone seems to be operating under the assumption that there is going to be no way to get your good alignment back. I have to hope that there will be some way to shift your alignment through something other than PVP. So if you see that guy that killed the orphans yesterday and you murder him you get an evil hit ( a small one since you where good and he was pretty evil) then you go off to teh temple and pray or do a quest some place or what ever mechanic the devs put in for you to grind the rep you want.

![]() |

I'm starting to see the alignment system again as good vs evil and law versus chaos.
It seems enough simple and reasonable and normal PnP style that when a good guy kills a bad guy he becomes more good and when a bad guy kills a good guy he becomes more bad. If you think there's something wrong with this picture...
If I think about it in a way that the bad guy would have killed many people if the good guy wouldn't have killed him, I still don't think killing the bad guy was a good act. At most it was a necessity and a duty, but not a good act.
I guess it's a matter of opinion.
The way of looking at it that I think Ryan is trying to pointout to us is that when the bad guy is just going to resurrect it is a whole different scale than if the bad guy was an NPC who will stay dead.
The goodness badness value is on a different scale because the bad guy is hardly affected. The evilness of it is that a good guy has dipped himself in blood, and his purity is tainted. Too many more times and he will lose the sanctity of his devotion to Goodness and the Law. If he falls far enough he may lose his aura of goodness and his smite, and be just a fighter with several training periods and accomplishments now unavailable to him.
In a way he is contributing to the grief in the world because he felt the need to compel a fellow player to change from that player's natural character.
So if a bandit really wanted to grief a paladin he would incite the paladin into murdering over and over until the paladin, now a slave to his personal vision of justice, is a paladin no more.
Kamakaze griefing. Psychological warfare.

![]() |

Ryan Dancey wrote:Going into the wilderness looking for a fight isn't "protecting" anyone.I'm not sure that's a defensible position.
If there's a pack of wolves in the forest that preys on our livestock and kills our children, then going into the woods to hunt them down and kill them - or drive them off - is very much "protecting" my village.
By the same token, taking PCs into account, they would gain the trespass flag, criminal flag, and henious flag which would make them more than fair game... and that isn't even close to what he is talking about. Going out into the wilderness and attacking someone unprovoked is not the same as defending your homestead. Again, if you get attacked, you don't take the hit for killing them.

![]() |

Nihimon wrote:If there's a pack of wolves in the forest that preys on our livestock and kills our children, then going into the woods to hunt them down and kill them - or drive them off - is very much "protecting" my village.Mbando wrote:Swap "evil PK" for "ogre mage"--not sure how that is qualitatively different.Because they stay dead.
Player Characters don't stay dead. Killing them doesn't stop them from doing what they're doing. You're not killing them to end a problem. You're killing them to make the player involved have to calculate the cost of being killed BY YOU when considering the decision to engage in murder.
It's a financial transaction, not a defense of the innocent.
There are two different stories being told here.
One is a classic fantasy story - you protect the weak by killing the danger. Everyone lives happily ever after.
In Pathfinder Online, that's a PvE story.
Two is what happens in MMOs - you attempt to modify the actions of other humans by using pleasure and pain. Eventually either you give up, your target gives up, or you both give up. Everyone has an interesting and meaningful series of interactions.
In Pathfinder Online, that's a PvP story.
RyanD
Seems like a relevant observation to me.

![]() |

Nihimon wrote:If there's a pack of wolves in the forest that preys on our livestock and kills our children, then going into the woods to hunt them down and kill them - or drive them off - is very much "protecting" my village.Mbando wrote:Swap "evil PK" for "ogre mage"--not sure how that is qualitatively different.Because they stay dead.
Player Characters don't stay dead. Killing them doesn't stop them from doing what they're doing. You're not killing them to end a problem. You're killing them to make the player involved have to calculate the cost of being killed BY YOU when considering the decision to engage in murder.
It's a financial transaction, not a defense of the innocent.
There are two different stories being told here.
One is a classic fantasy story - you protect the weak by killing the danger. Everyone lives happily ever after.
In Pathfinder Online, that's a PvE story.
Two is what happens in MMOs - you attempt to modify the actions of other humans by using pleasure and pain. Eventually either you give up, your target gives up, or you both give up. Everyone has an interesting and meaningful series of interactions.
In Pathfinder Online, that's a PvP story.
RyanD
I don't buy it for a second either....
So you are giving us the option to CAPTURE and PERMANENTLY imprison the Evil immortal??? That would be protecting the innocent.
How IC do we even know the villian IS immortal?
What does the fact of having or not having a BOUNTY do to the equation of making the villian feel enough pain (or at least lose the capacity for a time) to not kill innocents for awhile? The motivation is the same, the effect is the same. Why is one CE and the other not?
What difference does it make that the killing of innocents or the later encounter with the villian took place in the woods or a settlement?
Respectfully Ryan, your arguements here have more holes then Swiss cheese. I do believe you are gamely trying to defend an indefensible position.
Furthermore, I think if you keep pushing down this road, I think you are going to lose quite a number of fans who have upto this point supported your project financialy.

![]() |

Nihimon wrote:By the same token, taking PCs into account, they would gain the trespass flag, criminal flag, and henious flag which would make them more than fair game... and that isn't even close to what he is talking about. Going out into the wilderness and attacking someone unprovoked is not the same as defending your homestead. Again, if you get attacked, you don't take the hit for killing them.Ryan Dancey wrote:Going into the wilderness looking for a fight isn't "protecting" anyone.I'm not sure that's a defensible position.
If there's a pack of wolves in the forest that preys on our livestock and kills our children, then going into the woods to hunt them down and kill them - or drive them off - is very much "protecting" my village.
Flags which would last for all of 10 minutes before being removed.

![]() |

I do appreciate the GOALS GW is trying to achieve with the system it's discuss. But (IMO) the actual system itself is just not going to work very well as proposed....and because it's a game and it's limited in it's mechanics and it's ability to adjucate situations...doesn't want to for play purposes do the things it really aught to do to flag villians properly ....and doesn't offer many options for interacting with them...it's going to end up with pretty absurd results.
For example:
An individual murders a wagon-load of orphans in the wilds, just for fun. In any reasonable High Fantasy narrative said individual would probably be marked CE instantly and PERMANENTLY flagged as (Villian - Ok to Kill on Sight). In the game, they are flagged as simply Attacker and the flag wears off after 10 minutes or so.
I imagine that would give them a Heinous flag with a long timer.
The next day our hero encounters said individual in the woods. The villian sneers "Yes I killed those Orphans, and tomorrow I'll torture to death another wagon-load". Any reasonable Classic High Fantasy novel would have the "Good." thing for our Hero to do is instantly draw his sword and slay the villian. Even the most pacifistic (and definatly non-High Fantasy) narrative would probably have the Hero attempt to capture the villian so he can't do any more harm and bring him in for trial and permanent inceration somewhere. The "Evil" thing would actualy be for the hero to shrug and walk away.In PFO, under the same situation our Hero would instantly gain the (Attacker) flag for attacking an unflagged character (and shifting toward chaotic), unable to capture the villian (as there are no system mechanics to support it) and if they won and actualy killed the villian shift toward Evil for killing a character while they were flagged as the attacker. The "non-Evil" thing to do under PFO's system would be for the hero to shrug, walk away and leave the villian be to kill more orphans tomorrow.
Assuming that all flags have worn off (which may not be the case given the villain's activities), the shift on the alignment scale towards evil would probably be rather minimal, and your Reputation would probably increase quite a bit.
So, in this scenario we would want there to be net balance of overall positive for the "Good" character, without creating a scenario whereby the "Good" character is allowed to kill the "villain" over and over and over to the point where the "good" character starts to become a "griefer."

![]() |

Just gonna post thisFrom another thread.
The Common Folk face many threats that are outside the scope of PvP. Monsters are their biggest problem. Monsters get worse if you don't deal with them. So the Paladin has a lot of work cut out for her figuring out where the monsters are coming from, going there, killing all the monsters, and doing whatever is required to de-escalate the monster generation mechanic.
There will be lots of "protecting the weak" type activities to spend time on. There's an infinite number of Goblins.
@Mbando: Paladins can use force against evil PCs without alignment consequences when those PCs are Criminals, Heinous, or At War with the Paladin's Settlement. A Paladin could choose to whack a known evil character at any time, of course, they'll simply have to deal with the stain on their alignment. Some players may choose to play a character that never gets such stains, but that's a meaningful player choice, not a rule.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Nihimon wrote:If there's a pack of wolves in the forest that preys on our livestock and kills our children, then going into the woods to hunt them down and kill them - or drive them off - is very much "protecting" my village.Mbando wrote:Swap "evil PK" for "ogre mage"--not sure how that is qualitatively different.Because they stay dead.
Player Characters don't stay dead. Killing them doesn't stop them from doing what they're doing. You're not killing them to end a problem. You're killing them to make the player involved have to calculate the cost of being killed BY YOU when considering the decision to engage in murder.
It's a financial transaction, not a defense of the innocent.
RyanD
It's a financial transaction for the express and reasonably expected purpose of protecting the weak. I know that killing a PC in game does not permanently remove them from the game. The idea is to make the cost of being a bad-guy too high, in order to protect the weak.
Now, if you think it's going to enhance gameplay to complicate protecting the weak, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing your explanation. That's a different question.