
![]() |

I really want to know more about the self-flagging that Lee mentioned earlier. If the Champion flags allow you to engage against Evil characters freely while opening yourself as a valid target in return, then I think this will allow people who wish to be good to engage without fear of falling. I can't wait until Wednesday so we can get some clarification on this.
My issue with this is that for EVIL, good is always a VALID target because KILLING is in line with the EVIL alignment.
This is just allowing GOOD to circumvent the consequences of their actions, which in the case of KILLING is a shift toward EVIL.
I'm not making this up. Look at alignment in the Pathfinder Core Rule book. Yes, this isn't Pathfinder PnP, but unless someone can reference a Golarion sourcebook that says alignment is different in this campaign setting, it's a valid point to say that the Core Rule book is the basis for the establishment of this system.

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

Lets remmember many of the people directly and indirectly involved in this game devellopment are the very ones who created the game system and the Golarion world. If there is any incompatibility among the alignment system in this game with the way they know it should be in Golarion reality they will be able to detect that and change. Probably have already aproved it or at least will be able to do that in some point of the devellopment.
Myself, I'm not totally familiar to Golarion as I just use the PF system to roleplay my own world. So I will study the subject and, for now, I will trust the DEVs are in the right road.

![]() |

Imbicatus wrote:I really want to know more about the self-flagging that Lee mentioned earlier. If the Champion flags allow you to engage against Evil characters freely while opening yourself as a valid target in return, then I think this will allow people who wish to be good to engage without fear of falling. I can't wait until Wednesday so we can get some clarification on this.My issue with this is that for EVIL, good is always a VALID target because KILLING is in line with the EVIL alignment.
This is just allowing GOOD to circumvent the consequences of their actions, which in the case of KILLING is a shift toward EVIL.
I'm not making this up. Look at alignment in the Pathfinder Core Rule book. Yes, this isn't Pathfinder PnP, but unless someone can reference a Golarion sourcebook that says alignment is different in this campaign setting, it's a valid point to say that the Core Rule book is the basis for the establishment of this system.
It's a good point, and that's part of the reason I want to know more about it. We don't know what the benefits of "Champion" is, just that it allows more freedom in choosing targets. Maybe this only allows the criminal and attacker flags that an evil player gains to last longer vs someone with the Champion flag than it would vs normal players.

![]() |

Imbicatus wrote:I really want to know more about the self-flagging that Lee mentioned earlier. If the Champion flags allow you to engage against Evil characters freely while opening yourself as a valid target in return, then I think this will allow people who wish to be good to engage without fear of falling. I can't wait until Wednesday so we can get some clarification on this.My issue with this is that for EVIL, good is always a VALID target because KILLING is in line with the EVIL alignment.
This is just allowing GOOD to circumvent the consequences of their actions, which in the case of KILLING is a shift toward EVIL.
I'm not making this up. Look at alignment in the Pathfinder Core Rule book. Yes, this isn't Pathfinder PnP, but unless someone can reference a Golarion sourcebook that says alignment is different in this campaign setting, it's a valid point to say that the Core Rule book is the basis for the establishment of this system.
Defending itself against evil seems a secondary objective for good, where the destruction of the good seems a primary objective of evil. If the servants of the good grow more evil by killing the servants of evil, evil gains ground and loses nothing by the loss of those servants. Good however is reduced by the loss of devotees and reduced goodness of defenders alike.
The more the defenders of good focus on evil the less good they become, since their eye is taken off good's objective and the more like evil they become.
If the defender of the good becomes wholly dedicated to opposing evil the more reactionary they grow toward evil and thus can be more easily manipulated toward becoming evil. If on the other hand the defenders of good primarily focus on doing good then they are less likely to be manipulated by the machinations of the evil and bolster their own cause.
What must be found then is an appropriate way for the defenders of good to express their goodness. We must identify how the good improve their alignment.

![]() |

A point I haven't seen touched in all this is the meta gaming aspect.
How does good know that swarthy guy over there is evil? Reputation is reputation and that is the mechanic for knowing him by his looks. Otherwise there should be a CURRENT bounty/warrant for that person's arrest or you really shouldn't know, and therefore have no justifiable reason to engage them. You are not supposed to know if that person is evil just by tab target.
As a matter of fact if alignments were hidden, (a pretty good idea if you ask me), all of this is kinda moot.
You would know them by the same ways you would use in PnP module You use logic, common sense and reasonable belief. If you are wrong you face the consequences. You don't need to wait until AFTER the killing blow has been landed upon you to act.
I suspect it wouldn't go down unless you or someone you trusted had ALOT of past dealings with the individual or they were being absolutely and blantantly obvious about who they were.
Yes, I also hope that alignments are hidden. So anyone actualy trying to be somewhat subtle about it wouldn't have much to worry about.
I also, personaly would not act solely on the basis of a bounty. (OOC) We know that Bounties are absolute indicators. (IC) There is no reason to believe they can't be falsely placed, mistaken of identity or the circumstances under which they occurred.
Contrary to what seems to be popular belief here...I'm not a FFA PvPer... nor do I have any plans to go around slaughtering other players (Evil or not) with reckless abandon. I'm a Role-Player...my interest is in Role-Playing...I play PnP games, turn based wargames, fps games and other MMO's (not FFA). What I want is for the Alignment shifts to make sense as much as possible from an intuitive/cosmological standpoint. I don't want to see them sacrificed on the alter of Anti-Griefing concepts...nor do I want to see character concepts that are perfectly valid even routiene in Pathfinder Tabletop unviable in PFO. Finaly I don't want to see characters that are OPENLY, PAINFULLY, and BLINDINGLY OBVIOUSLY "Evil" we're talking wearing the skulls of a dozen orphans for a necklace "Evil" and I'm unable to engage them without becoming Evil myself because they don't have the right flags on them. That's FUN destroying in a game...and really taking my option to Role-Play my character in a sensible fashion away from me. In Classical Fantasy "Good" characters aren't passive, pacifist, wishy-washy, do nothings...and I'm not interested in playing any game where they are forced to be. Is that clear enough?

![]() |

@ Lord Daeron : While I am aware I can still do the PVP and the alignement shift that is not what worries me. It is the fact that I am being flagged via the anti griefing mechanism at all and therefore presumably could be judged a griefer by a gm and have my account shut down.
I currently play Eve and although I doubt anyone there would accuse me of being a griefer I find legitimate actions I would make as a player get trapped by there much more limited anti griefing mechanism to the point where I am not allowed to defend myself against someone I know is about to suicide gank me. My worry is that this game is going to end up even more restrictive of legitimate player actions in the name of anti griefing
Agreed, proactive self defense is not possible in EVE.
Likewise the complexity of the flagging system deters people from assisting people being attacked. Classic case in EVE is Can-Flipping (or 'stealing' to get flagged as 'criminal' to goad another player into attacking). In this situation the aggrieved party cannot be directly assisted by a 3rd party. A 3rd party could jump in with non-attack support (such as healing/repairs). This in turn opens the healer up as a legit target to be attacked, and if it is, can then shoot back.
What this prevents is any meaningful combat on the Good end of the spectrum where people can come to the aid of say, an unaligned merchant being attacked by bandits (a common thematic element in fantasy worlds). This could be left to PvE but that doesn't build a player driven response system to acts of banditry.
A small point however, in EVE the penalty for death can be minimized quite heavily which makes suicided ganking worth the trouble. It is suicided because they get killed by the NPC response force while a buddy darts in scoops up the loot. One way to deal with that would be to 'lock' the corps if the 'marshals' show up and kill the ganker. In game this would be the equivalent of the marshals taking the body (and stuff) back to HQ for retrieval by family/friends/the-person-killed. They're not going to let some pick-pockets run up to the crops after the fact.
This is mostly directed at the 'safer' High-Sec end of EVE space. In Low-Sec, where NPC guards don't respond things get more open. Risk/Reward. Although the flagging system and Standing hits for getting into combat still happen. Used to be a part of a Low/Null-Sec patrol alliance that would regularly sweep NPC controlled territory along a particular corridor to keep try an keep trade flowing up and down. In PFO this could very well be a 'Good' group but will slowly get Evil hits for engaging and driving off the 'Evil' bandits.
It all goes back to IMO the Kill vs Subdue issue. Initiating combat being Chaotic I can get behind, especially without a set of formalized system (see dueling). However PFO currently doesn't have a system of combat without death in the plotting.

![]() |

It's a good point, and that's part of the reason I want to know more about it. We don't know what the benefits of "Champion" is, just that it allows more freedom in choosing targets. Maybe this only allows the criminal and attacker flags that an evil player gains to last longer vs someone with the Champion flag than it would vs normal players.
That would be acceptable, but still wouldn't mean they could kill an unflagged evil character because they are evil... which is what I believe they want. They think killing EVIL falls in line with GOOD and it doesn't. Confronting EVIL and defending against EVIL does. That's why they created the whole flag system in the first place. So you know who did what. If you see an EVIL character that is unflagged, you may not know them from Adam.
The enemy list is where things get interesting. If you can share that across a CC, things get a lot more acceptable. I killed bad guy because he robbed my fellow CC member and refused to return the stolen goods is more plausable than random newb saying someone did something and then you go mount your steed and run them down in the name of justice.
That makes sense. Then you can have enemies of the state. If bad guy kills 20 of our members while they are guarding a caravan, he's gonna have bounties on him, but he can be made an enemy of the state. Of course, there would have to be critera to make someone an enemy of the state and a limited number of them allowed at a time, but for those really evil characters, I can see the reprecussions of killing them (once, then the flag is lifted) being waived for someone who has proven themselves to be really bad. This could be an alternative to full blown war.
And the players in charge of that settlement/kingdom would decide how long that flag stays active as long as that character isn't killed in the flags name. I could see one to three enemies of the state for a settlement, and from five to ten for a kingdom... based on settlement/kingdom advancement.
This ties the solution to our current problem to an in-game mechanic they already have. The enemy list.

![]() |

It makes sense to me that there would be some way for a King to declare a player an enemy of the state such that if said player is found in that kingdom he is fair game within the power of the state.
I don't think that a King's sanction would prevent alignment shift where alignment shift is a matter of the will of the gods.
So if Andius decreed that Being was a nefarious ne'er do well who should be killed on sight within his vast kingdom then when I am skipping carefree up the road and cross into his territory I immediately get a flag I cannot shake so long as I am in his realm.
But if I have no other flags on me if Rambo guts me with his hunting knife Rambo would still get an alignment shift.
But if that mechanic were in place and the Kings Sanction resulted in an alignment shift for my killer, since he is an agent of the King wouldn't the Kingdom issuing the sanction also get an alighnment hit?

![]() |

It makes sense to me that there would be some way for a King to declare a player an enemy of the state such that if said player is found in that kingdom he is fair game within the power of the state.
I don't think that a King's sanction would prevent alignment shift where alignment shift is a matter of the will of the gods.
So if Andius decreed that Being was a nefarious ne'er do well who should be killed on sight within his vast kingdom then when I am skipping carefree up the road and cross into his territory I immediately get a flag I cannot shake so long as I am in his realm.
But if I have no other flags on me if Rambo guts me with his hunting knife Rambo would still get an alignment shift.
But if that mechanic were in place and the Kings Sanction resulted in an alignment shift for my killer, since he is an agent of the King wouldn't the Kingdom issuing the sanction also get an alighnment hit?
Sounds like a specific instance of the Tresspasser flag that was mentioned in the blog post "Blood on the Tracks"
•Trespasser: Entering a settlement city that has forbidden you entry (due to too low reputation or other mechanics) applies the Trespasser flag, which persists while you're in the area and briefly after leaving. This might also be applied for entering other areas where your simple entry is sufficient to allow you to be attacked and driven off.

Valandur |

Agreed, proactive self defense is not possible in EVE.
Likewise the complexity of the flagging system deters people from assisting people being attacked. Classic case in EVE is Can-Flipping (or 'stealing' to get flagged as 'criminal' to goad another player into attacking). In this situation the aggrieved party cannot be directly assisted by a 3rd party. A 3rd party could jump in with non-attack support (such as healing/repairs). This in turn opens the healer up as a legit target to be attacked, and if it is, can then shoot back.
What this prevents is any meaningful combat on the Good end of the spectrum where people can come to the aid of say, an unaligned merchant being attacked by bandits (a common thematic element in fantasy worlds). This could be left to PvE but that doesn't build a player driven response system to acts of banditry.
A small point however, in EVE the penalty for death can be minimized quite heavily which makes suicided ganking worth the trouble. It is suicided because they get killed by the NPC response force while a buddy darts in scoops up the loot. One way to deal with that would be to 'lock' the corps if the 'marshals' show up and kill the ganker. In game this would be the equivalent of the marshals taking the body (and stuff) back to HQ for...
I would like to come up with some method a player could come to the aid of another being attacked without getting flags or penalties for doing so. Coming up with some way for the game to recognize this might not be easy though.
If a player got jumped by bandits, I would assume the bandits would have the "Attacker" flag? With this flag someone could step in and engage the bandits without penalties right? If this is correct, would the 3ed party suffer any penalties if he kills one or both of the bandits?

![]() |

Imbicatus wrote:I really want to know more about the self-flagging that Lee mentioned earlier. If the Champion flags allow you to engage against Evil characters freely while opening yourself as a valid target in return, then I think this will allow people who wish to be good to engage without fear of falling. I can't wait until Wednesday so we can get some clarification on this.My issue with this is that for EVIL, good is always a VALID target because KILLING is in line with the EVIL alignment.
This is just allowing GOOD to circumvent the consequences of their actions, which in the case of KILLING is a shift toward EVIL.
I'm not making this up. Look at alignment in the Pathfinder Core Rule book. Yes, this isn't Pathfinder PnP, but unless someone can reference a Golarion sourcebook that says alignment is different in this campaign setting, it's a valid point to say that the Core Rule book is the basis for the establishment of this system.
This is from the SRD. I don't have access to the Core Book from where I am posting...
"
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"
Good protects INNOCENT life. Evil destroys INNOCENT life.
That's a very important qualifer. According to that definition if the life destroyed isn't INNOCENT, the isn't Evil. Furthermore if you are protecting INNOCENT life by destroying non-innocent life. It would pretty clearly fall under GOOD.
Evil isn't INNOCENT...pretty much impossible for it to be so.
That means the simple act of killing isn't Evil. It's when you start applying context to what is killed and for what purpose that meaningfull determinations of Alignment can be made.

Valandur |

Being wrote:It makes sense to me that there would be some way for a King to declare a player an enemy of the state such that if said player is found in that kingdom he is fair game within the power of the state.
I don't think that a King's sanction would prevent alignment shift where alignment shift is a matter of the will of the gods.
So if Andius decreed that Being was a nefarious ne'er do well who should be killed on sight within his vast kingdom then when I am skipping carefree up the road and cross into his territory I immediately get a flag I cannot shake so long as I am in his realm.
But if I have no other flags on me if Rambo guts me with his hunting knife Rambo would still get an alignment shift.
But if that mechanic were in place and the Kings Sanction resulted in an alignment shift for my killer, since he is an agent of the King wouldn't the Kingdom issuing the sanction also get an alighnment hit?
Sounds like a specific instance of the Tresspasser flag that was mentioned in the blog post "Blood on the Tracks"
Quote:•Trespasser: Entering a settlement city that has forbidden you entry (due to too low reputation or other mechanics) applies the Trespasser flag, which persists while you're in the area and briefly after leaving. This might also be applied for entering other areas where your simple entry is sufficient to allow you to be attacked and driven off.
I wonder that killing isn't mentioned here, just being driven off. What happens if the banished character refuses to leave and you kill them? Would you get an alignment hit?

![]() |

@GrumpyMel Erm.. I love how you leave out the pieces that don't apply to your argument. From the exact same PRD.
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.

![]() |

I would like to come up with some method a player could come to the aid of another being attacked without getting flags or penalties for doing so. Coming up with some way for the game to recognize this might not be easy though.
If a player got jumped by bandits, I would assume the bandits would have the "Attacker" flag? With this flag someone could step in and engage the bandits without penalties right? If this is correct, would the 3ed party suffer any penalties if he kills one or both of the bandits?
It has been hinted that players might be able to get *Marshal* like abilities.
I think it would be cool if you could play a Marshal. You'd get an alert when someone was violating a rule established in a Hex controlled by your Settlement and the location of that crime. You'd have the right to go there and stop it. That way you wouldn't have to have PCs standing around every 10 feet waiting for someone to transgress.

![]() |

Lets remmember many of the people directly and indirectly involved in this game devellopment are the very ones who created the game system and the Golarion world. If there is any incompatibility among the alignment system in this game with the way they know it should be in Golarion reality they will be able to detect that and change. Probably have already aproved it or at least will be able to do that in some point of the devellopment.
Myself, I'm not totally familiar to Golarion as I just use the PF system to roleplay my own world. So I will study the subject and, for now, I will trust the DEVs are in the right road.
Lucas could retrofit Star Wars so that it was Jar Jar Binx that actualy defeated the Emperor. He's the IP holder so he has the absolute right to do so. Doesn't mean the fans have to accept or support it.
It's upto the fans to determine what they are willing to be OK with.

![]() |

Dario wrote:I wonder that killing isn't mentioned here, just being driven off. What happens if the banished character refuses to leave and you kill them? Would you get an alignment hit?Quote:•Trespasser: Entering a settlement city that has forbidden you entry (due to too low reputation or other mechanics) applies the Trespasser flag, which persists while you're in the area and briefly after leaving. This might also be applied for entering other areas where your simple entry is sufficient to allow you to be attacked and driven off.
Well, from "Blood on the Tracks" we're told you don't get the Attacker flag for attacking someone who is already flagged. From "Screaming for Vengeance" we're told that the alignment shift and rep loss happen if you get/have the Attacker flag. Initial implication is no. In practice, it's too early to tell.

![]() |

@ GrumpyMel
your statement can be considered by some people as a sophism.
"If A loves B and B loves C, so C loves A?" Not necessarilly.
Protect the innocent is not neccessarilly by killing the evil. Even in a fantasy reality.
In this game it may be the only way though, if they don't implemment other mechanisms to deal with that in a non-lethal way.

![]() |

Decius, mentioned early the sort of "gentleman's agreemnet" addition/overlay to all these mechanism: I think that has much potential as well as a codified system of flags to provide breathing room for role-play? Eg even stand-and-deliver. :)
With respect to alignment: I've always found Albert Schweitzer's "Sanctity of Life via "The Will To Live" a solid foundation, personally, as the instinct to live as seen in all animals (and organisms) is nowhere more apparent than when one is dying.

![]() |

I have a suggestion: Let's keep the alignment + reputation 3 axis system but run it through a Warhammer 40k morality filter.
This would solve everything!
I suppose "Burn the Heretic, Kill the Mutant, Purge the Unclean" counts as a morality system.
Lucas could retrofit Star Wars so that it was Jar Jar Binx that actualy defeated the Emperor. He's the IP holder so he has the absolute right to do so. Doesn't mean the fans have to accept or support it.
It's upto the fans to determine what they are willing to be OK with.
Think you mean Walt Disney's frozen head, nowadays.

Valandur |

LordDaeron wrote:Lets remmember many of the people directly and indirectly involved in this game devellopment are the very ones who created the game system and the Golarion world. If there is any incompatibility among the alignment system in this game with the way they know it should be in Golarion reality they will be able to detect that and change. Probably have already aproved it or at least will be able to do that in some point of the devellopment.
Myself, I'm not totally familiar to Golarion as I just use the PF system to roleplay my own world. So I will study the subject and, for now, I will trust the DEVs are in the right road.
Lucas could retrofit Star Wars so that it was Jar Jar Binx that actualy defeated the Emperor. He's the IP holder so he has the absolute right to do so. Doesn't mean the fans have to accept or support it.
It's upto the fans to determine what they are willing to be OK with.
By that logic, regarding this issue, 99.8% of the fans are siding with GWs interpretation that killing = evil. That doesn't bode we'll for your position.
What you said last night, about it being a chunky way to get their version of things to work, I understand and can support. But I don't think the answer is making it "ok" to kill an evil player with no alignment hit.

![]() |

Dakcenturi wrote:Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.Which is exactly why the current blog describes killing someone that is evil less evil but never good
Which is the point people are contesting based on their own feelings of what good/evil entails and not defined rules for the setting.

![]() |

GrumpyMel wrote:Wrong! For the purpose of this game, the 7 PC races are essentially "at war" with Orcs, Goblins, and the evil races. That is why we can kill them just like any other faction we are at war with.
Except that it is NOT "Evil" to destroy "Evil". Otherwise every adventurer that ever killed an Orc, Goblin, Drow, Ogre, would be thoroughly and unrepentantly Evil. Yet Pathfinder portrays paragons of Good doing these things and being Good for doing them. Q.E.D.
There is no such entity as a "player" in the Pathfinder Cosmology. From the standpoint of the Universe an (NPC) Evil Drow Sorceror is equivalent to a (PC) Evil Elf Sorceror in every regard.
You are taking a completely OOC construct designed to control OOC player behavior and trying to apply it to an IC measure of the character.
I could as easly say that, for the purposes of this game, Good is at War with Evil and therefore they can be killed whenever we want just like any other faction.

![]() |

GrumpyMel wrote:LordDaeron wrote:Lets remmember many of the people directly and indirectly involved in this game devellopment are the very ones who created the game system and the Golarion world. If there is any incompatibility among the alignment system in this game with the way they know it should be in Golarion reality they will be able to detect that and change. Probably have already aproved it or at least will be able to do that in some point of the devellopment.
Myself, I'm not totally familiar to Golarion as I just use the PF system to roleplay my own world. So I will study the subject and, for now, I will trust the DEVs are in the right road.
Lucas could retrofit Star Wars so that it was Jar Jar Binx that actualy defeated the Emperor. He's the IP holder so he has the absolute right to do so. Doesn't mean the fans have to accept or support it.
It's upto the fans to determine what they are willing to be OK with.
By that logic, regarding this issue, 99.8% of the fans are siding with GWs interpretation that killing = evil. That doesn't bode we'll for your position.
What you said last night, about it being a chunky way to get their version of things to work, I understand and can support. But I don't think the answer is making it "ok" to kill an evil player with no alignment hit.
Um, I wasn't aware of a tally of the opinions of the "fans" as a whole here....or really more then about a dozen or so of us posting with some frequency.

![]() |

Design, Alignment, Player Factions
I’m glad to see thoughtful and proactive design being done to manage and minimize grief while preserving meaningful pvp. Player conflict will fuel and drive the great stories played out in the sandbox.
I’d like to share a preference to see alignment play a minimal role in the mechanics that shape player organizations – chartered companies, settlements, kingdoms.
Here’s why -> I don’t want to find that I have limited my game play choices by initial character creation. For example, I create a lawful character only to find that the players that I have most fun working with have established chaotic communities thus limiting my interaction with them.
At the outset of the game, I don’t know who I’m going to want to group with and perhaps overtime my choices for player communities may change. Furthermore, I may very well want to try different approaches to the game that best fit a variety of alignments (perhaps operating as bounty hunter one season and a bandit another).
I’d rather not be forced into using multiple characters when the time-based skill system provides incentive for growing skills on a small number of toons over a long time instead of encouraging a plethora of alts for every occassion. In EVE, I’ve used several different toons for different purposes but still find the concept of a “main” character important. In essence, I don’t want my PO main(s) to be hamstrung from exploring all aspects of the gameplay with whomever I want to group up with by alignment restrictions.
I do like the concept of seeing Pathfinder alignment an element of flavorful game design but I hope it doesn’t provide substantial mechanical restrictions on my gameplay.
In any case, the design team should keep up the great work and thanks for the opportunity to participate in the crowdforging process.
Cheers,
Jim

![]() |

Dorje Sylas wrote:I would like to come up with some method a player could come to the aid of another being attacked without getting flags or penalties for doing so. Coming up with some way for the game to recognize this might not be easy though.
If a player got jumped by bandits, I would assume the bandits would have the "Attacker" flag? With this flag someone could step in and engage the bandits without penalties right? If this is correct, would the 3ed party suffer any penalties if he kills one or both of the bandits?
Let me turn this on its head just because its too easy to pain the defender as a Good (with a capital G) guy. A group of Robin Hood style bandits are harassing and looting the trader backing a Lawful Evil power base (steal for the rich and Evil). Assume this scenario.
There are two different scenarios to consider actually, depending on how the flagging system is implemented
1) the "Attacker'" is the first aggressor, they started it, they got the "chaotic" ding.
2) the "Defender" started it by attacking the 'Attacker' after they got flagged as criminal of say picking the "Defender's" pocket.
3rdly) Where this is happening, in full open PvP or a heavily NPC protected area.
=====
Assuming a NPC protected area, where the 'Attacker' is going to get curbed stomp for starting the fight... when the NPCs show up.
In EVE the flagging system is not inherited, not exactly. If I roll up and shoot the 'aggressor' in a fight I'm not in yet I am now a new 'aggressor' by the system rules. The system doesn't take the criminal flagging into account.
In order for a 'aid' the defender system to word, it has to take the status of flagging into account. A bit of auto-grouping essentially.
Lets take (2), as this is the more common "wish I could help but can't" situation that occurs in EVE.
1: "Attacker" steals from "Defender's" kill; Flagged Criminal ("Defender" can attack without NPC reaction)
2: "Defender" attacks "Attacker"; Flagged Aggressor toward "Attacker" ("Attacker" can attack without NPC reaction)
3: "3rd Party" attacks "Attacker: Flagged Aggressor (NPCs come running and curb-stomp "3rd Party".)
That's how EVE does it. To let a 3rd party actually get in you have a bit of inheritance.
1: "Attacker" steals from "Defender's" kill; Flagged Criminal ("Defender" can attack without NPC reaction)
2: "Defender" attacks "Attacker"; Flagged Aggressor toward "Attacker" ("Attacker" can attack without NPC reaction)
3: "3rd Party" attacks "Attacker": Flagged Aggressor toward "Attacker" (because the "Attacker" is already Flagged Criminal, no NPC reaction. "Attacker" can counter attack "3rd party")
What about someone coming to the Attacker's aid in the above? Personally, if this is happening in a NPC protected zone, pox on the Attacker. He chose to bait and play games that way. Even if he's the noble thief Robinhood, let the NPCs curb-stomp his buddies if they try to jump in. In a 'protected' space, the disadvantage should be on the "Attacker" and anyone else should have the option of giving them a swift kick for it without an NPC.
The only Criminal flag is the one given to the "Attacker". If the "Attacker" is both Criminal and Aggressor, open session game.
There is another mess that can be created, where the "Attacker" steals the loot and then drops it. The "Defender" then picks it back up and gets flagged for stealing the "Attacker's" now item. In EVE ownership is appending to the "container" holding the items. Not sure how ownership will be handled in PFO, but I'd guess it will be similar just to avoid database issues. 20 lumps of Gold Ore wont' get a variable of their original miner's name. It's the act of taking from a pack/sack/loot-bag/body that flags, not the actual possession of item.
In the case of both being flagged, things would get mess as both would be Aggressor and Criminal, meaning a kind of bloody free for all on the two. The only way I can think to mitigate that is to allow the "Defender" to steal from the "Attacker" (who is already flagged criminal) without getting flagged himself.
This would actually be best written in programing logic and I'll have to come back later with that.
======
Now lets take the NPC reaction force out of the loop. Now the states of "Criminal", Aggressor, Attacker, Defender, aren't really an issue outside of how it impacts Reputation and Alignment. And that is a slightly different tangent.
A Flagging system is all about who is allowed to do what to whom under the eyes of the NPC guardian system. When you take the AI guardians out of the equation Flagging doesn't really matter, which is what unrestricted totally open PvP is.
Without NPC guards. I can jump in whenever I feel like it... and so can anyone else. The only issue then becomes how Alignment and Reputation get affected. Which one of the major issues this thread has brought up. Exactly what acts do what and how much to whom. Bigger can of worms, but related to "Can-Flipping" and "High-Sec" griefing tricks.

![]() |

@Jim You wanting to be able to play with people of a certain alignment is fine. In fact, with how they've described things the more you play with them doing the same things the more your alignment will drift towards theirs.
Alignment is going to have a lot of purpose in PFO. Some quotes.
All three have limited direct effect on the player, but large effect on that player's social life
Players will select an alignment for each character during character creation. Actions players take will tug at each character's alignment, shifting it this way and that. A prolonged series of minor actions, a few significant actions, or a single monumental action could shift a character's alignment into a whole new position.
Alignment will affect the kinds of religious services that the character can receive. Healing, restoration, and resurrection from some forms of death may require divine intervention. Alignment will affect the character's relationship with social organizations, and may cause a character to be ejected from them if the character's alignment diverges from the expected norm of that organization. NPCs may be more or less willing to interact with characters based on their alignments. The gates of some settlements may be open or closed to a character based on alignment.

![]() |

Papaver wrote:Which is the point people are contesting based on their own feelings of what good/evil entails and not defined rules for the setting.Dakcenturi wrote:Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.Which is exactly why the current blog describes killing someone that is evil less evil but never good
Nope I'm using basic logic here. Clearly if you are disregarding the first portion of the paragraph that I quoted that dealt with protecting the innocent being good and killing the innocent being evil and considering the second portion quoted by Dak "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" as more authoritative and holding greater weight. Then logic demands we arrive at certain conclusions:
- Killing as a result of a bounty must be evil. Yet we know it results in no shift.
- Killing in self-defense (e.g. someone who has the ATTACKER flag) must be evil. Yet we know it results in no shift.
- Killing a Criminal or Tresspasser must be evil. Yet we know it results in no shift.
- Killing in War must be evil. Yet it results in no shift.
- Killing Evil NPC's in PVE must be evil. Yet it results in a shift toward Good.
- Killing Evil NPC's including members of the 7 PC races of the game in most of Paizo's adventure paths and modules must be Evil. Yet they overwhelming are represented as Good deeds done by Good Characters who have not turned Evil despite thier many, many adventures that involved killing.
If the simple act of killing was an inherently Evil act which outweighed all other factors and was irregardles of target, context, or motivation of the killer...then ALL of the above MUST be Evil for said arguement to be logicaly consistant. Since they ARE not...we know the arguement that "killing Evil is Evil" or simply even "killing is Evil" must be false in the absolute and is conditional upon other factors.
Furthermore if we know that Protecting the Innocent is Good....and that's directly from the source...and we know that Killing Evil NPC's in order to Protect the Innocent is GOOD from both the Paizo published content and the espoused PVE plans for PFO...it takes a very tortured leap of logic to conclude that Killing Evil PC's to Protect the Innocent is the opposite of Good from a cosmological sense...especialy since the distinction between PC and NPC does not exist IN UNIVERSE....since killing even Evil characters of the PC races is often depicted as "good" actions in the published material....and many NPC races in PVE here (e.g. Drow, Duragar) are minimaly different from corresponding PC races.

![]() |

I'm a Role-Player...my interest is in Role-Playing...I play PnP games, turn based wargames, fps games and other MMO's (not FFA). What I want is for the Alignment shifts to make sense as much as possible from an intuitive/cosmological standpoint. I don't want to see them sacrificed on the alter of Anti-Griefing concepts...nor do I want to see character concepts that are perfectly valid even routiene in Pathfinder Tabletop unviable in PFO. Finally I don't want to see characters that are OPENLY, PAINFULLY, and BLINDINGLY OBVIOUSLY "Evil" we're talking wearing the skulls of a dozen orphans for a necklace "Evil" and I'm unable to engage them without becoming Evil myself because they don't have the right flags on them. That's FUN destroying in a game...and really taking my option to Role-Play my character in a sensible fashion away from me. In Classical Fantasy "Good" characters aren't passive, pacifist, wishy-washy, do nothings...and I'm not interested in playing any game where they are forced to be. Is that clear enough?
Amen. I am 100% with you, and I do not believe that based on what we have been presented with that there will be any problem with this vision. We need to see some more info, but at the very least it seems to me that GW is getting this message loud and clear.

![]() |

@ Djorge Sylas
The flagging system from EVE the time I played really had some issues. I remember a guy that came over me and attacked just because I catched a floating container that someone (probably him) left behind in space and had no porperty tag on it anymore(actually that was very strange). So he assumed I was tagged as criminal and shot me in a high security zone. Needless to say he got massacred by Concord security. That was the better loot I ever had in the game. Guy's stuff was way beyond anything I could afford and way above my skill level to use.

![]() |

@GrumpyMel
I like it that you're pushing your thoughts through to us. I would like to ask you: What kind of system would you implement for paladins to be able to kill evil PCs?
You must be aware that they are able to do that with these rules, but with a shift to evil alignment.
Would you be able to kill any evil PCs you detect with your detect evil spell without penalty or just certain evil alignments without alignment shifts or a shift to good? Or would evil PCs be pointed out to you directly by game mechanics so that you could freely engage them without alignment shifts or a shift to good?

![]() |

Look,
I think we all want a system here that allows people to feel like it's NOT open season on thier characters without meaningfull consequence toward thier agressors.
However, I also don't believe it's fair nor reasonable to invalidate character concepts that are reasonably close to iconic stereotypes drawn from the source material, to minimize their ability to participate in foundational aspects of the game and to push them away from behaving the way characters in the source material usualy do.
Paladins and other Lawful Good Characters from the source material DON'T sit around at home doing nothing while the forces of Evil build up around them. They don't shirk from engaging Evil when they find it....and they don't lose thier powers nor thier Alignment from defeating and destroying Evil. They aren't pacifists, the learn martial skills and the use of deadly weapons....and they use them...at least in the source material quite often.

![]() |

Lets take (2), as this is the more common "wish I could help but can't" situation that occurs in EVE.1: "Attacker" steals from "Defender's" kill; Flagged Criminal ("Defender" can attack without NPC reaction)
2: "Defender" attacks "Attacker"; Flagged Aggressor toward "Attacker" ("Attacker" can attack without NPC reaction)
3: "3rd Party" attacks "Attacker: Flagged Aggressor (NPCs come running and curb-stomp "3rd Party".)
That's how EVE does it. To let a 3rd party actually get in you have a bit of inheritance.
1: "Attacker" steals from "Defender's" kill; Flagged Criminal ("Defender" can attack without NPC reaction)
2: "Defender" attacks "Attacker"; Flagged Aggressor toward "Attacker" ("Attacker" can attack without NPC reaction)
3: "3rd Party" attacks "Attacker": Flagged Aggressor toward "Attacker" (because the "Attacker" is already Flagged Criminal, no NPC reaction. "Attacker" can counter attack "3rd party")
Actually, since the latest expansion, EVE now does it the 2nd way - anyone stealing (in a security zone that actually defines stealing, i.e. high sec) is flagged a "Suspect", and anyone is free to attack them, not just the victim of the theft.

![]() |

@GrumpyMel
I still think that champion flag they talked about will be the solution to all those issues you are presenting.
Lets imagine how it could work:
Some criminals were assaulting caravans and you just is alerted about that. You just put a flag to sign you are a champion and you can attack any evil char that has been flagged as criminal recently (lets say some days or even weeks), but you are now a target for them (what makes sense as they see you as a threath to their acitivities).
It works for me, this would be a way to distinguish real good RPs from just griefers trying to subvert the system to have a free hit on evil chars.
And that won't be against a logical cosmology, as well as the flag would set your intention as a Char.

![]() |

it takes a very tortured leap of logic to conclude that Killing Evil PC's to Protect the Innocent is the opposite of Good from a cosmological sense.
You have a logical omission in there, GrumpyMel.
What you left out is the gap between killing PCs and Defending the Innocent when they are being attacked by PCs.
Evil aligned or not evil aligned, if they are not engaged in attacking the innocent they are just PCs. Evil aligned or not evil aligned if a PC is unflagged they are innocent. If you attack the innocent, guess what? You are attacking the innocent.
Defending the innocent is different from attacking player characters.
When they are not attacking the innocent, PCs are just PCs. Even if you think you remember them attacking the innocent at some time in history they aren't attacking now. They are just PCs, and you would be mowing them down like any other player killer.
You aren't protecting the innocent you are killing people.

![]() |

GrumpyMel wrote:it takes a very tortured leap of logic to conclude that Killing Evil PC's to Protect the Innocent is the opposite of Good from a cosmological sense.You have a logical omission in there, GrumpyMel.
What you left out is the gap between killing PCs and Defending the Innocent when they are being attacked by PCs.
Evil aligned or not evil aligned, if they are not engaged in attacking the innocent they are just PCs.
Defending the innocent is different from attacking player characters.
When they are not attacking the innocent, PCs are just PCs. Even if you think you remember them attacking the innocent at some time in history they aren't attacking now. They are just PCs, and you would be mowing them down like any other player killer.
You aren't protecting the innocent you are killing people.
More to the point, killing them doesn't stop them from committing evil. You're just hoping to inconvenience them enough that they go somewhere else and pester other innocents or start playing your way.
Hmm. Antagonize people until they quit or go somewhere else. That sounds like a definition I've heard before.

![]() |

We need to see what the new self-flagging tool is. We may need to work with GW figuring out how long other kinds of flags last.
But if an unflagged player character is defined as innocent, then those flags are more significant in a practical sense to interplayer relationships than alignment in some ways.

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

@GrumpyMel
I like it that you're pushing your thoughts through to us. I would like to ask you: What kind of system would you implement for paladins to be able to kill evil PCs?
You must be aware that they are able to do that with these rules, but with a shift to evil alignment.
Would you be able to kill any evil PCs you detect with your detect evil spell without penalty or just certain evil alignments? Or would evil PCs be pointed out to you directly by game mechanics so that you could freely engage them?
@Aeioun,
Thanks. I don't even intend to play a Paladin...just a LG Fighter...but I want to make sure Paladins are viable for others to play...they are one of the core Arch-Types from the source, after-all.
What I don't want to do is circumvent mechanics intended to put some logical controls around PvP running unchecked without consequences. I don't even think that's a good idea for "Champions" or whatever rules GW comes up with next week....as thier initial concerns about PvP were valid. I just don't think Alignment should be the primary mechanism used to penalize agressive PvP play.
The death curse and the bounty system definately should still be in place against Characters, even Champions that act agressively in PvP. It might be reasonable to maintain reputation hits as well, if not then certainly some other mechanism might be warranted. Good characters should still take Alignment hits (pretty significant ones) for acting agressively against Good or Neutral Characters. I also wouldn't make Detect Alignment fool-proof. I'd make it a learnable skill, counterable by another learnable skill on the target (disguise maybe). Which means if the Good character were going around willy-nilly and attacking characters he believed to be Evil without provocation...he would be taking pretty significant Alignment hits as he WOULD, inevitably hit neutrals and goods by mistake some times...and those would be costly hits.
So all the non-alignment penalties remain the same (which should be a deterent in themselves). Good doesn't suffer Alignment hits for attacking Evil but they take big ones for hitting neutral and good by mistake and the game doesn't give them a 100 percent fool-proof method of knowing Alignment. Evil still has the advantage that they can attack anyone they want and remain Evil. Good has to pick and chose carefully but they don't get penalized when they pick properly.
Maybe Champions, if they go that route. Don't take reputation hits for going after the opposite alignment and even recieve small Alignment bonuses when they guess right...depending upon just how far along the opposite Axis the target was..but they are under a permanent death curse (as far as threaded items) and are always considered Flagged (thus viable targets) to ANYONE of the opposite Alignment.
I don't know...just brainstorming and throwing out some ideas here.

![]() |

I also wouldn't make Detect Alignment fool-proof. I'd make it a learnable skill, counterable by another learnable skill on the target (disguise maybe). Which means if the Good character were going around willy-nilly and attacking characters he believed to be Evil without provocation...he would be taking pretty significant Alignment hits as he WOULD, inevitably hit neutrals and goods by mistake some times...and those would be costly hits.
Why would good or neutral players want to disguise their alignment as a matter of course, which could cause other good players to accidentally attack them? I would think it would only be of help for evil characters to avoid being attacked (or *very* occasionally for a neutral or good character to infiltrate an evil area)

Valandur |

GrumpyMel wrote:it takes a very tortured leap of logic to conclude that Killing Evil PC's to Protect the Innocent is the opposite of Good from a cosmological sense.You have a logical omission in there, GrumpyMel.
What you left out is the gap between killing PCs and Defending the Innocent when they are being attacked by PCs.
Evil aligned or not evil aligned, if they are not engaged in attacking the innocent they are just PCs. Evil aligned or not evil aligned if a PC is unflagged they are innocent. If you attack the innocent, guess what? You are attacking the innocent.
Defending the innocent is different from attacking player characters.
When they are not attacking the innocent, PCs are just PCs. Even if you think you remember them attacking the innocent at some time in history they aren't attacking now. They are just PCs, and you would be mowing them down like any other player killer.
You aren't protecting the innocent you are killing people.
Thank you Being. This is the main reason I've joined this debate. I fear the implications of someone being able to just jump a character simply because they might be of evil alignment. It goes back to that scenario where a group uses detect alignment then slaughters any evil aligned character they find despite the fact that the PC has done nothing wrong (recently).
Even though in Grumpy's scenario things are arranged to make it just ambiguous enough to possibly allow him to have some justification. The scenario he lays out will likely never happen, I really doubt an evil character would attack some players, then wait around until their flags drop off, and then continue to hang around the area. Even if that were to happen, he could just take the bounty on the evil character and go attack them with bounty in hand. Or attack them, kill them and go do a LG act to reverse the alignment hit.
Given that there are two options available for him to do what he wishes to do, I must side with the Devs here. I just don't see an issue with how things stand alignment wise. Is this the best solution? I'm sure there is a better way to handle it, but I've yet to see one proposed that covers all the points.

![]() |

GrumpyMel wrote:it takes a very tortured leap of logic to conclude that Killing Evil PC's to Protect the Innocent is the opposite of Good from a cosmological sense.You have a logical omission in there, GrumpyMel.
What you left out is the gap between killing PCs and Defending the Innocent when they are being attacked by PCs.
Evil aligned or not evil aligned, if they are not engaged in attacking the innocent they are just PCs. Evil aligned or not evil aligned if a PC is unflagged they are innocent. If you attack the innocent, guess what? You are attacking the innocent.
Defending the innocent is different from attacking player characters.
When they are not attacking the innocent, PCs are just PCs. Even if you think you remember them attacking the innocent at some time in history they aren't attacking now. They are just PCs, and you would be mowing them down like any other player killer.
You aren't protecting the innocent you are killing people.
Evil by definition can't be innocent. Most common english dictionaries will tell us that.
In order to be Evil you HAVE to have harmed the innocent or be inclined to do so. Both the section of the source I quoted and Dak did are in agreement with that.
So by DESTROYING something (i.e. removing from existence) that has harmed and is inclined to harm the innocent, you pretty much would have to conclude that you ARE protecting the innocent from it. Granted, it's possible that it MAY not be the ONLY way of doing so..but it's pretty indisputibly A way of doing so.
The only question...which I'll admit is possible... but I think is pretty well answered by the source material....is how much does the act of killing something which is Evil weigh against protecting the innocent from it.
In order to logicaly conclude that the evil of taking an evil life outweighed the good of protecting the innocent from it, you would have to conclude that Evil life had more value then all the harm it was likely to do in future. That's a pretty hard conclusion to make for anything more then was just marginaly Evil.

Valandur |

Valandur wrote:Dorje Sylas wrote:I would like to come up with some method a player could come to the aid of another being attacked without getting flags or penalties for doing so. Coming up with some way for the game to recognize this might not be easy though.
If a player got jumped by bandits, I would assume the bandits would have the "Attacker" flag? With this flag someone could step in and engage the bandits without penalties right? If this is correct, would the 3ed party suffer any penalties if he kills one or both of the bandits?
Let me turn this on its head just because its too easy to pain the defender as a Good (with a capital G) guy. A group of Robin Hood style bandits are harassing and looting the trader backing a Lawful Evil power base (steal for the rich and Evil). Assume this scenario.
There are two different scenarios to consider actually, depending on how the flagging system is implemented
1) the "Attacker'" is the first aggressor, they started it, they got the "chaotic" ding.
2) the "Defender" started it by attacking the 'Attacker' after they got flagged as criminal of say picking the "Defender's" pocket.
3rdly) Where this is happening, in full open PvP or a heavily NPC protected area.
=====
Assuming a NPC protected area, where the 'Attacker' is going to get curbed stomp for starting the fight... when the NPCs show up.
In EVE the flagging system is not inherited, not exactly. If I roll up and shoot the 'aggressor' in a fight I'm not in yet I am now a new 'aggressor' by the system rules. The system doesn't take the criminal flagging into account.
In order for a 'aid' the defender system to word, it has to take the status of flagging into account. A bit of auto-grouping essentially.
Lets take (2), as this is the more common "wish I could help but can't" situation that occurs in EVE.
1: "Attacker" steals from "Defender's" kill; Flagged Criminal ("Defender" can attack without NPC reaction)
2: "Defender" attacks "Attacker";...
Let me add some detail to the scenario I laid out...
It takes place in a wilderness hex (lawless). The crafter is NG, the attackers NE.
Here is a possible addition that might work....
The passerby sees the crafter get jumped by the two bandits. The crafter seeing the passerby cries out for help with the /help command. The passerby deciding to aid the crafter uses the aid command /aid. What this does it places them both in a group giving the passerby the same "rights" as the crafter ie. he was attacked and has the right to defend himself without flags nor alignment shifts. Yes I'm aware it's a lawless hex, but if it happened in a hex with laws the same rules would apply.
Now if the crafter were really the evil one, and if he had attacked first, but used the /help command. And the passerby helped him using the /aid command, then the penalties the crafter suffers would also be applied to the passerby. So some care should be taken before you just leap to aid someone.
Does this sound like a workable way to help another player yet avoid the penalties of just jumping into the fight?

![]() |

Being wrote:GrumpyMel wrote:it takes a very tortured leap of logic to conclude that Killing Evil PC's to Protect the Innocent is the opposite of Good from a cosmological sense.You have a logical omission in there, GrumpyMel.
What you left out is the gap between killing PCs and Defending the Innocent when they are being attacked by PCs.
Evil aligned or not evil aligned, if they are not engaged in attacking the innocent they are just PCs.
Defending the innocent is different from attacking player characters.
When they are not attacking the innocent, PCs are just PCs. Even if you think you remember them attacking the innocent at some time in history they aren't attacking now. They are just PCs, and you would be mowing them down like any other player killer.
You aren't protecting the innocent you are killing people.
More to the point, killing them doesn't stop them from committing evil. You're just hoping to inconvenience them enough that they go somewhere else and pester other innocents or start playing your way.
Hmm. Antagonize people until they quit or go somewhere else. That sounds like a definition I've heard before.
From an IC perspective you don't know that they will return from the dead. Even if you did it would prevent them from doing harm to innocents for a time (just like evil extra-planars that are banished to thier plane of origion for a time when defeated) and impacting thier future ability to do so through resource lose.
You keep assuming that the motivation for the players actions comes from an OOC desire to impact the players play in some manner rather then an IC desire of the character to do something within the Universe. It is the CHARACTERS cosmological outlook and actions which are measured by Alignment NOT the players.
I might have 9 different characters of 9 different alignments but I'm still one player.
Seriously are none of you guys able to seperate IC from OOC in your heads. If I tell another player that I wish the 49'ers would burn in Hades do you expect to impose a shift toward Evil on my character for me the player wishing ill upon others?

![]() |

GrumpyMel wrote:I also wouldn't make Detect Alignment fool-proof. I'd make it a learnable skill, counterable by another learnable skill on the target (disguise maybe). Which means if the Good character were going around willy-nilly and attacking characters he believed to be Evil without provocation...he would be taking pretty significant Alignment hits as he WOULD, inevitably hit neutrals and goods by mistake some times...and those would be costly hits.Why would good or neutral players want to disguise their alignment as a matter of course, which could cause other good players to accidentally attack them? I would think it would only be of help for evil characters to avoid being attacked (or *very* occasionally for a neutral or good character to infiltrate an evil area)
Why very occasionally? Do only evil kings have spymasters? Not to mention good rebels plotting the overthrow of a LE tyrant.
There's plenty of reasons for good and neutral to disguise themselves, depending on how harshly certain areas treat other alignments.
Same with lawful and chaotic.
I'll admit lawful and good usually hide less though.

![]() |

GrumpyMel wrote:I also wouldn't make Detect Alignment fool-proof. I'd make it a learnable skill, counterable by another learnable skill on the target (disguise maybe). Which means if the Good character were going around willy-nilly and attacking characters he believed to be Evil without provocation...he would be taking pretty significant Alignment hits as he WOULD, inevitably hit neutrals and goods by mistake some times...and those would be costly hits.Why would good or neutral players want to disguise their alignment as a matter of course, which could cause other good players to accidentally attack them? I would think it would only be of help for evil characters to avoid being attacked (or *very* occasionally for a neutral or good character to infiltrate an evil area)
Good or Neutral wouldn't do that...but the point is that attempts to determine thier alignment don't automaticaly succeed either...even if they have no skill in disguise. The better the detecters skill the greater the chances for an accurate reading..but never to 100 percent. The greater the targets disguise the less accourate the reading.
Example say base detection gave you a 50 percent chance of accuracy. With training you could push that up another 30 percent max with highest level of training. A target trained in disguise could decrease the accuracy down by 30 percent max. So detection could range anywhere from 20-80 percent accurate depending upon the skills of the 2 characters involved. You get a limited number of refreshes per day. You never see the rolls, just the results. Successfull results would give you an accurate reading. Unsuccessfull results would give you either no reading if you failed only by a little or a false positive if you failed by alot. Understand the mechanism?

![]() |

@Valandur,
"The scenario he lays out will likely never happen, I really doubt an evil character would attack some players, then wait around until their flags drop off, and then continue to hang around the area. "
I expect that will be standard operating procedure for many Evil characters. In fact, I expect certain types of Evil characters will do so with the purposefull intent of griefing the Good characters by causing them to take alignment hits. Very likely accompioned by taunts and goads to try to draw the attack. The current system is kinda setup for that to be a reasonable strategy.
Bounties are only availble if the victem posts a bounty to a mailbox (in civilization). You are selected as an individual eligable to pick up the bounty. You are physicaly there at the mailbox and pickup the bounty. The bounties automatic timer has not automaticaly worn out....and of course most importantly, the victem has the mimimum funds available to post a bounty. Which is why these particular type of Evil griefers will probably concentrate on new characters who are known to be poor as victems for thier ploy.
Edit: In fact, if said griefers were really smart they'd start out as LG characters themselves to maximize the alignment hit to good characters when they retaliated. However I expect most would be too drawn by the "I'm cool, I want to wear black and be EVIL" factor to do that or too i'll disciplined to remain LG for long.
It's part of why I wanted them to drop the whole Alignment system entirely and just let folks pick and RP thier alignments as desired. The only ones who would really care much about an Alignment shift away from Good as an incentive not to Grief are the people least likely to Grief in the first place (E.G. Role-Players or Anti-Griefers). The actual Griefers don't care squat about what alignment they are or probably have a slight preference toward Evil anyway. Alignment shifts are just another tool in the Griefers tool-box with which to annoy people who actualy care about how thier characters are represented in game.
Reputation ALREADY exists as a tool which can mechanicaly punish griefers by worse training options and seperate decent Evil players from Evil Griefers. So we are basicaly (IMO) just opening up RPers, who are very likely to play pretty close the Alignment they've chosen for thier characters anyway...as targets for Alignment greifing and not really accomplishing anything else.

Quandary |

Quandary wrote:You can't put a bounty on just anyone. You have to have a reason to place a bounty on someone ie. they killed you. Eve is experiencing what happens when you can place bounties on whomever you wish. It allows people to use the bounty system to grief others and distorts the whole concept of the bounty system.i do have 1 question about the bounty system:
it's supposed to have a feature where the bounty hunter gains some ability to track the target and gain info about the target. can you accept your own bounty to access those features yourself, or just access those features directly on characters you COULD put out a bounty on (or anybody you want to)? D.I.Y. bounty hunting, as it were...? since some characters are supposed to have skills which enhance those functions, why can't they use them outside of a bounty contract?
sure, i'm well aware of that. i was assuming the normal context for a bounty... and i wondered if in that 'allowed' situation, if you couldn't take your own bounty, to gain the advantages of it... the tracking/information stuff, as well as removing some of the Chaotic aspects of attacking the target (after their own attacker flag has worn off).

Quandary |

...Attacker... Heinoua... Tresspasser... These are both intended to be "catch them in the act" flags. I have seen nothing indicating a duration on the Criminal flag, nor given the description of it, do I see any reason to believe it's intended to fill the same role (and would be redundant if it did so), but rather that it is intended specifically to allow others to pursue, locate, and punish the criminal after the fact. That suggests to me a longer duration. More comparable might be the Thief flag, no specifics given but "a decent length of time", and the Traitor/Betrayer flag, which lasts "for quite some time to allow the player to be punished for whatever actions were taken against the previous member group."
Right, it looks like all the long duration flags are orientated to the Law vs. Chaos axis, violations of Law. Exactly why I see Law as well taken care of so far, but Good not so much, subsumed to Law.