Goblin Squad Member
|
If the necromancer is "vile" then killing him/her is not going to negatively affect you.
Also, how long do you think the Heinous flag would last? Do I have to patiently wait until I catch a vile necromancer who serves Zon-Kuthon in the act of raising undead, or if they are doing it, can we go after him?
Could you please unpack that Elorebaen? From what I'm reading, the Heinous flag lets you attack evil, but how long does it last? If it's short term, couldn't a vile necromancer manage windows of vulnerability?
|
Thought: Police Officers are Lawful Good (Not counting any crooked cops or whatever. The core concept of being a cop. TV Show cop. ) Cops are suppose to find non-lethal ways of subduing a criminal and are suppose to resort to lethal violence as a last resort. Even SWAT try to defuse a situation before they go in guns abalzing.
Maybe we are just looking at this all wrong and we actually are all crazy psychopaths. XD
We also put criminals in jail. I’m sure you can see why that wouldn’t work here.
The only means of repercussion/punishment for criminals that makes sense for PFO, and other online games, is to kill/smite them.
There is a jail in Archeage, that new Korean MMO that is coming to the states. I think in that game, you can only be sent there by an Admin or whatever, but still. Maybe they will add something like that? *shrug*
I think it would be cool if they added a non-lethal option and/or some kind of jail.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil.
Oh, and I meant Stupid Good, I guess, not Lawful Stupid.
In short, the Stupid Good character is "good" to the point of being unable to comprehend that someone else might be bad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few scenarios to ponder:
1. A big evil group meets a small good group in the wilderness. They attack, of course they attack.
2 A small evil group meets a big good group in the wilderness. They might attack, but if there is no chance to win they probably won't. They call backup and whack the good guys.
3. A big good group meets a small evil group in the wilderness. The good guys issue a challenge. The evil group doesn't take it. The good group leaves them alone. The evil guys call backup and whack the good guys.
4. A small good group meets a big evil group in the wilderness. I don't have to tell you what is going to happen.
Who doesn't want to play evil. Good is seriously handicapped by being good.
Quite agree, and when you add in the fact that LE settlements get great options, like being able to use violence (Might makes Right) and fantastic training facilities, buildings and other goodies, right now LE is a big win. This will be great for my second account, as I plan on that PC being LE.
I'n just a little concerned about my main PC, who I was planning on making NG - greatest good for the greatest number of people, laws and personal benefit be damned and all that. I hope this won't cause him to have to become CG or, worse, slip into NE if I support my fellow Kingdom members, but I will adjust. LG, particularly Paladins, right now do look a bit hampered by the mechanics, if the player wishes to interact with the PvP aspects of the game. Yes Paladins are paragons of virtue in the fight against Outsiders and Undead, but they also fight against mortal evils as well. In 33+ years of playing Fantasy RPG's, I have yet to meet a player with a Paladin that didn't fight evil in all its forms, including Human/Demi-Human ones. I guess we will see what shakes out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Could you please unpack that Elorebaen? From what I'm reading, the Heinous flag lets you attack evil, but how long does it last? If it's short term, couldn't a vile necromancer manage windows of vulnerability?If the necromancer is "vile" then killing him/her is not going to negatively affect you.
Also, how long do you think the Heinous flag would last? Do I have to patiently wait until I catch a vile necromancer who serves Zon-Kuthon in the act of raising undead, or if they are doing it, can we go after him?
The way I am understanding it is that the shifts will be proportional, so if the necromancer is really vile ie really evil, then your alignment is only going to shift a little, and in fact your reputation will probably go up, which is beneficial to you.
I can imagine folks trying to game the "Heinous window," but I think their reputation is going to catch up to them. If they are clever about avoiding the "Heinous window" I imagine a Bounty or a Contract will be placed on them.
I'm not saying I have an ultra clear picture as we are just getting pieces, but that's where I'm at.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In High Fantasy, Lawful Goods role is to protect the innocent BY destroying Evil in WHATEVER form it is found. That is kind of defines the genre.
This isn't Cops Online where you are supposed to use the minimum of force neccesary to enforce the law because there are a million shades of grey in everyone.
When you compound this with the fact that PvP is a major focus of the game. It kind of leaves LG with not much to do if they aren't allowed to use violence against Evil sentient creatures....
But here is the rub LG IS allowed to use violence against Evil sentient creatures...they just aren't allowed to INITIATE violence against Evil sentient creatures.
So LG role in the game, apparently, is not when they encounter Evil to draw swords and have at but rather to resort to "You're mother was an Ogre. I fart in your general direction!" to see if they can annoy Evil into attacking first so they can actualy fight it.....or worse yet, to send an innocent 3 year old child loaded down with gold out alone ahead of them to get slaughtered by Evil so that they can jump out of the bushes and yell "Aha! We've got you now, Evil!. We've got the whole thing on tape!"
Whereupon I suppose Evil can yell "Entrapment! I want a lawyer!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Correct me if I am wrong. According to the new post, "evil aligned" characters might not have access to the best training building one could get compared to a "Good aligned character."
What I do not understand, then if this is correct, what about the other part of the alignment that people seem to be missing. The Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic part of it.
From what I have read is all towns will be based off alignments. If this is the case, there are going to be no Good towns, Evil towns, or Neutral towns. They will have the full spectrum of the alignments, I do have to digress, there might be "True Neutral" towns.
So then in my theory of thinking, what is going to stop a Chaotic Evil character from going into a Chaotic Good settlement to do his/her training? - Since GW already stated that characters can move and interact with towns within 2 steps of their alignments.- Of course other than he might not have the correct rep to enter such a town, or if the town knows he is a nut case they might not let him. Wouldn't it be a smart move for that player to befriend the town so he could use such training?
If that is the case, I really over all do not see an issue with playing an evil alignment.
As for what are the benefits of playing an Evil character vs Good character we will have to wait and see what GW has in store for us to make that call.
Paladins are not bounty hunters. They are not sheriffs. They are not enforcers of the law. They are not Delta Force commandos.
Right on.
Paladins are heroic adventurers who use Good and Law to fight evil and chaos as expressed primarily by outsiders, undead, monstrous creatures, aberrations...
Sounds perfect for a game focused on lots of PvE content.... Oh...
Now, I considered that perhaps Paladins would only be able to be "Good" while Bounty Hunting (or, seek out to engage in combat without waiting to be attacked) for targets who are not just 'naughty' Evil, but truly EEEvil, i.e. Heinous. But then I read that the Heinous tag is supposed to be a fleeting event, that only applies WHILE creating undead, for example. So that doesn't really work for Bounty Hunting.
I'm all for Paladins not Bounty Hunting just for vengeance against violations of the Law, but given the apparent plan that PvP be paramount and PvE content will be minimal, it seems unfortunate to force Paladins to abstain from active pursuit of Good vs. Evil conflict, and merely 'passively' wait to defend settlements, etc. Any player of the P&P game will tell you that Paladins can and do seek out Evil, especially Evil that has committed horrible crimes against others (and thus is likely to do so again), whether that Evil is Undead, Draconic, Aberrations, or Humanoids with Class Levels. If the focus of the game is to be PVP and not PVE, it seems regrettable to say 'Sorry Paladin player (or Good Cleric, etc), you either have to wait for Evil to directly engage you or your allies, or can beat up the (pathetic, minimal) PVE content we have in the world'.
'Defending innocents' (i.e. not the Paladin's personal allies), even after the fact (Evil act), as well as 'Defeating Great Evil' (whether monster or humanoid) seems part of the Paladin schtick, and it will be a shame if that isn't implemented in PFO. I mean, just ask Paizo if they imagine most of their Good-compatable AP's could be easily completed by a Paladin who refuses to seek out Evil and confront it, but just waits for Evil to attack them (or their allies) directly.
At minimum, I could certainly see Heinous flag persisting for a long period of time (and allowing Good Bounty Hunting/aggression), as well as the concept of Evil Auras being relevant, so Evil Clerics/Anti-Paladins could be also be a more 'legitimate' target to seek out, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the message to Evil from the blog is, Evil is not a part time occupation in PFO .
The 'penalties' sound about as much of a burden to Evil as they are a protection for good, i.e. not much.
Try talking about how vulnerable and put-upon you are as you ride all flagged up in a group of 20 well-armed thugs who practice formation combat ;p
It will all come down to war, bringing down the stronghold of Evil so they can't ride roughshod over the world, not how bandit X fares in his doomed solo career.
tl/dr;
Evil isn't for people worried about a flag .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@The Finder
I think to use the training facilities, then a character will have to be a member of the settlement. To join a settlement, then you will need to be within one step of alignment with the settlement. So a Chaotic Evil charater could join an train with a Neutral Evil settlement or a Chaotic Neutral settlement, but not a Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good one.
You also have reputation as a limiting factor. Most people who wind up chaotic evil will be there from PVP activites, and will therefor also have a low reputation. A neutral evil settlement may no care about your Evil or Chaos settings, but they may not allow people with a low rep to join because that will bring the entire settlement reputation below the point where they may have penalties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, let me just say that I am really hoping that GW takes the time to really read and take account of everyone's thoughts an opionons here. This is actually a good thread with alot of good veiws and thoughts. You can really tell the passion and determination us gamers have to making this game enjoyable and fun for everyone.
That being said, there is alot of crap in here too and I ask that the devs really look through it and decide what they feel will make this game sucessful.
My personaly thoughts, most of which has already been said but I will say them again anyway, are as follows.
You want the majority of this game to be player created, but the only way that will happen is to make all characters balanced. Strictly looking at it from an alignment standpoint, this means that characters and settlements should have access to equivilent buildings, training, crafts, ect. What I mean is for example, LG city would have a large church to (LG deity) that would teach high level spells and skills of the good nature. An evil city would have an evil "Church" for an evil deity that teaches high level spells and skills of the evil nature. Neutral would do the same, but for neutral. Not just religion, but everything. Like posion training would be exculsive to evil, MAYBE neutral cities, where the good cities would have their version, maybe alchemy focused on healing potions? Just an idea.
The point is there should be balance, not good gets everything and evil gets bent over the fence. I am already working on contructing a bandit company that is more towards neutral, but will have evil characters and will preform evil contracts and "jobs" upon request. How can I do this if we will be held back from training, having a strong settlement, and other "perks" the good get? After all, didn't you (GW) say you wanted this to be a PVP game with PC created content? My associates and I are willing to provide meaningful and exciting "content" for those who wish to go the good route, but I refuse to be hindered because of it.
I 100% agree with a harsh stance on griefing and I would be interested in leaving it, atleast somewhat, up to PCs to police ourselves. I don't mind having in-game mechanics built to minimize and hinder griefing, but what if we grief the griefer? I am more than happy to camp and farm griefers. I did it in wow, and it worked ok (expecially considering there was NOTHING to prevent or control it.) I just want to be able to charge a tax for crossing my bridge, or a toll for "keeping the roads safe" without having all of these hinderances that are being discussed.
This game has SOOOOOOO much potential and I believe that with the right balance between control and freedom, this game could be the best game EVER. I have been waiting for a game that captures the essence on TT RPGs and allows the freedom to do ANYTHING while suffering the concenquences of said actions. I am NOT looking for a free pass to do evil and not pay for it, but I just want a fair shake. I don't feel my associates and I are getting that.
Last thing, I know it hasn't been addressed yet but I feel it is still relevant here. How will disguise and fraud going to work in PFO? Lets say, I am RPing an assassin who keeps up the facade of a good noble or maybe just a passing traveler. How would that work since I would be evil due to my profession, but if I am good at my job and no one sees me or knows what I have done, then why can't I enjoy all that comes with being an average joe in a good settlement? I can't tell you how many times I have seen this in an NPC in TT. or even look at real life. How many serial killers are found living a "normal" life in suburban america?
I would think that at the very least, classes that require or promote Chaotic alignment (Barbarian, Clerics of Chaotic Gods) would/should have NO disadvantage training their abilities just because they are Chaotic. (extrapolated to settlements geared towards these Classes/Alignments) If Chaos is going to be so disadvantaged in an attempt at social engineering, why even have these classes then?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Correct me if I am wrong. According to the new post, "evil aligned" characters might not have access to the best training building one could get compared to a "Good aligned character."
What I do not understand, then if this is correct, what about the other part of the alignment that people seem to be missing. The Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic part of it.
Given that CE settlements will be unable to work well together, and the individualism of NE, Ryan posted this:
- "Evil" is at a mechanical disadvantage and a fairly significant one. So very few people will want to play it, from a pure gameplay standpoint.
This statement is not supported by the information we have shared.
Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)
Lawful Good will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Keeping that alignment in the face of temptation to use force to solve problems will be hard)
Lawful Evil will get all the upside of being able to use force to solve problems, and will have awesome Settlements.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Giving GMs that much leeway to decide what is griefing and what is not honestly scares the crap out of me. You then run the risk of a GM having a bad day and deciding to take it out on players. Or even GM favoritism towards certain players/groups/settlements. For the love of god put down a guildeline.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeesh people are moving this way past where it needs to be. Some quotes:
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).
Point 1 This means you have to be an attacker or commit a Heinous act to slip toward evil
Point 2 If you are LG and kill someone who is CE you are only going to take a small evil hit because killing someone, unprovoked is evil )ie not in response to them attacking you or having already done something evil.
Attacker: A player that attacks another player character that is not fair game gains the Attacker flag. You can also gain this flag by assisting (buffing or healing) a character with the flag. This flag disappears shortly after leaving combat, but allows the victim and his or her allies to fight back without themselves suffering penalties. This flag is applied anywhere in the world, unless the target has one of these flags or is at war with your settlement.
Point 3 You become an attacker if you attack (or help in attacking) someone anywhere in the world without having a reason to attack them.
Criminal: This flag is given to players that break a law established by the settlement that controls the hex they're in. This is likely to last for some time after taking the action. Illegal actions are declared via the settlement system by the players in charge, but often include murder (for example, killing a target in an unprovoked attack). You don't gain the flag for breaking a law in a settlement you're at war with.
Thief: Characters gain looting rights to NPCs and other players they defeat in combat. Looting rights unlock after about 5 minutes so that anyone can loot a corpse. Looting an unlocked husk that you did not originally have looting rights to will mark you as a Thief. This flag lasts for a decent length of time after the act.
Traitor/Betrayer: Leaving a player or NPC group after betraying them may result in a flag: Traitor for PC groups and Betrayer for NPC alliances. These flags last for quite some time to allow the player to be punished for whatever actions were taken against the previous member group.
Heinous: Certain incredibly evil actions (like raising undead or using slaves in a construction project) may briefly flag a character with the Heinous flag. These actions are universally considered wrong, and other players are not punished for attempting to stop another player from doing these things.
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.
Point 4 You don't have to worry about slipping evil if you attack someone who breaks the law, steals from corpses, is a traitor to their group, is doing evil stuff, or trespasses in a settlements.
Repeat offenses while already flagged will have additive effects. It is entirely possible that one may become so notorious that they are permanently flagged as a criminal.
Point 5 People constantly breaking laws, stealing from corpses, being traitors to their groups, doing evil stuff, or tresspassing in settlements could potentially get perma-flagged.
In my opinion this looks like a lot of balancing and playing smart of the evil side as opposed to the good side. All the LG people worrying about not being able to run around and kill people because it may effect there good alignment to some small extent (see point 2 above) I think are over-exaggerating the situation.
I find this blog extremely disappointing. Good is meant to oppose evil. How is *stopping evil actually evil*?Whoa, hold your horses, my friend. Remember the blog states: "Don't Panic!" This stuff all needs to go through live testing AND crowdforging/feedback and population response feedback.
Well said ;)
.I think I might have a problem with authority in RL, so CG sounds possibly a fair reflection of my character... <.< , >.>
Oh I know I do. Guess that's why all my PnP characters were CN :p
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Giving GMs that much leeway to decide what is griefing and what is not honestly scares the crap out of me. You then run the risk of a GM having a bad day and deciding to take it out on players. Or even GM favoritism towards certain players/groups/settlements. For the love of god put down a guildeline.
I think we can trust GW not to hire any a+%&#$* GMs.
Point 2 If you are LG and kill someone who is CE you are only going to take a small evil hit because killing someone, unprovoked is evil )ie not in response to them attacking you
No, attacking somebody who already did something evil (just not right in front of you) and thus is evil aligned, is evil according to what's been stated.
It's even been stated that the Heinous flag associated to creating Undead and slavery will persist for only a short period of time, so you can't attack the biggest Evil Cleric creating Undead armies and enslaving innocents, except when they are actually doing those actions... without becoming Evil yourself.Point 4 You don't have to worry about slipping evil if you attack someone who breaks the law, steals from corpses, is a traitor to their group, is doing evil stuff, or trespasses in a settlements.
Well, somebody with Evil or Chaotic Alignment presumably has that because of doing stuff like that. (some of those are just Law/Chaos issues)
But if they don't have a valid flag, then you DO have to worry about slipping to evil/chaos if you attack them.The main thing countering this seems like the Criminal flag, which only applies within territory governed by a settlement applying it's laws to the settlement, so Evil people going around raping and murdering in wilderness areas is NOT something Paladins or other Good folk would be able to go do something pro-active about (without turning Evil). Of course, this means that Paladins ARE put in the position of 'Sherrifs' implementing laws for settlements, thus Goodness is subjugated to Lawfulness.
Likewise, the incentive for Good folks who want to stay Good (whether Lawful or Chaotic Good) is NOT to proactively go out and attack/destroy those evil people doing evil acts in the wilderness (which would be evil), but to only worry about controlling territory in which they can then implement laws (at least for Lawful Good folks, not Chaotic Good). Of course, they cannot instigate combat without becoming evil, so they will have to go into territories and wait to be attacked, and in that manner try and take over a territory. At least LG can ally with Lawful/Good territories to take advantage of the Criminal flag (whch would give Lawful points presumably), for CG characters who don't want Lawful points (such as Barbarians), it seems they pretty much have to roam around and hope to see Evil people attacking somebody unprovoked, and then join in their defense. No proactive CG barbarians.
It really seems there is room to negate being flagged Evil for attacking Evil folks... at the very least Heinous can and should persist for a long time, and perhaps every time you do an evil act (criminal or not) that is flagged as 'recent evil' for a decent period of time, and attacking them then won't be flagged as evil. i would just have a thresh-hold, unprovokedly attacking people who are minimally evil would still be an evil act, but attacking substantially evil people would not be an evil act, and could be a good act: how else are Chaotic Good characters supposed to pro-actively get lots of Chaos and Good points without being forced to wait to defend against an evil attack? being good by following the rules and not initiating combat just doesn't seem very Chaotic Good. obviously, being automated there is going to be some weird scenarios you could think of, but simply allowing (serious) evil to be attacked (for their past actions) without being flagged as evil, seems like something that's do-able to implement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Point 2 If you are LG and kill someone who is CE you are only going to take a small evil hit because killing someone, unprovoked is evil )ie not in response to them attacking you or having already done something evil.
That's true in this particular context, but it's not generally true.
I'm a High Reputation, Lawful Good character. There's a Low Reputation, Chaotic Evil character who's been following me around for the last three hours making "yo mama so fat" jokes about my mother. I finally decide I've had enough of it and dispatch him. This gives me the Attacker Flag.
At that point, a Paladin can come by and kill me and take my stuff without any Flags or Alignment/Reputation hits. Because I was Flagged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Giving GMs that much leeway to decide what is griefing and what is not honestly scares the crap out of me. You then run the risk of a GM having a bad day and deciding to take it out on players. Or even GM favoritism towards certain players/groups/settlements. For the love of god put down a guildeline.I think we can trust GW not to hire any a*+$&&$ GMs.
Opinions have way too wide of a range to dictate if someone's account is going to get punished or possibly banned. Having one GM ban for something that another doesn't also creates a total conflict with the rules and TOS of a game. It's going to be an absolute nightmare if there aren't set rules. It's a s!#~ decision.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think all alignments should be "equal". Nor do I think all player behavior should be tolerated, nor do I think any character concept should be accommodated.
It is in working within limits that we find Beauty and Truth.
If you think something in the game mechanics is broken, or unfair, or not to your liking then...prove it in Early Enrollment. Use your Destiny Twin to make opposite characters around the point with which you have an issue, and then play each of them as hard and as honestly as you can. If you can show by where those characters are comparative to each other after a period of time (say a month RL) then you may have a dependable case to suggest to GW that a change is in order.
"I can not see your heart. Your actions can be seen by all".
probably a little bit, since people use 'attack' for things like 'i attack him with my sword', i.e. when they are not the aggressor but are defending themself from the aggressor. +1
Something that was mentioned in the blog that begs some clarity.. PC patrols, or PC law enforcers within the hex where their settlement resides. We don't know much about this, here's a brief snip from the blog..
When players build a settlement, they establish control over the entire hex that contains it. In addition to potentially establishing PC patrol groups around the hex (and responding to allies that shout for help in chat), the settlement might establish laws to make murder (and several other actions) illegal. Thus, players might be nearly as safe in certain player-controlled hexes as they are in NPC territory.
As it stands by what we know now, The PCs would suffer an alignment hit and flag if they jumped on a evildoer unless that evildoer had a flag already. There must be some sort of protection given to these PC cops that allows them to do their jobs without suffering flags and alignment hits right?
I think it would be good to get some more info on what sort of protections the Devs are thinking the PC cops would have?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Something that was mentioned in the blog that begs some clarity.. PC patrols, or PC law enforcers within the hex where their settlement resides. We don't know much about this, here's a brief snip from the blog..
When players build a settlement, they establish control over the entire hex that contains it. In addition to potentially establishing PC patrol groups around the hex (and responding to allies that shout for help in chat), the settlement might establish laws to make murder (and several other actions) illegal. Thus, players might be nearly as safe in certain player-controlled hexes as they are in NPC territory.As it stands by what we know now, The PCs would suffer an alignment hit and flag if they jumped on a evildoer unless that evildoer had a flag already. There must be some sort of protection given to these PC cops that allows them to do their jobs without suffering flags and alignment hits right?
I think it would be good to get some more info on what sort of protections the Devs are thinking the PC cops would have?
"Right son ... we got no evidence against you but we know you done something against the law at some point so your busted ...."
Sounds more the Lawful Evil way of doing things to me.
A neutral character could slip very slightly to evil for a minor transgression and then be open to attack from everyone.
As far as PCs wanting to play robo-cop - well surely settlements will have laws. For example "Evil players entering here are trespassers". Hence when someone breaks those laws they can be suitably chastised/fined and killed if they do not comply.
It seems to me that people here are being rather unreasonable. Evil players want the right to rob and kill without consequence providing they can be "clever" enough and Good players want the right to murder anyone with the evil tag regardless of how they acquired it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The restrictions on alignments should be mainly for NPC settlements. Players get to put their own permissions on a city. So if a LE city is made and they could careless about alignment or reputation they might let you in. Now PC settlements should all have access to all the same upgrades/buildings. This would be a basic balance issue for wars and I highly doubt that GW would not see it that way.
In Eve pirates have the same problem with their sec status and it doesn't see to hurt them in the least. In fact the most fun and profitable time I had in Eve was when I did pirate. I am also sure that those bandits that want to head back into big trade hubs can repair their reputation/alignment.
The other big thing people are bringing up is LG seems to be favored. I look at it as LG is the hardest to achieve. Being evil is easy. Good needs to show restraint. Hell a good character can't even bounty hunt without hits to alignment.
If someone wants to play a bit more of a vengeful PKK role they have almost as much to worry about. While the bandit is stalking the merchant they will be stalking them. In the end both get hit with bounties/death curse/flags.
As it stands by what we know now, The PCs would suffer an alignment hit and flag if they jumped on a evildoer unless that evildoer had a flag already. There must be some sort of protection given to these PC cops that allows them to do their jobs without suffering flags and alignment hits right?
There is a Criminal flag for breaking laws of settlement/hex. I discussed it in my last post.
Of course, that puts Paladins back in the "Sheriff" role in terms of proactively going after Evil-doers, contrary to RD's stated intent. And CG Barbarians can't do stuff like go on Chaotic rampages against Evil-doers, they must wait for Evil-doers to trigger the battle, a very play-by-the-rules type of approach. (simply a play-by-the-rules approach that has less opportunity to do what your Good/Evil alignment would want to pursue, compared to LG who are more comfortable with Law/Bounty systems)Good players want the right to murder anyone with the evil tag regardless of how they acquired it.
This isn't a P&P tabletop game, there isn't an open-ended list of ways to become evil, only the specified means... Which seem to be killing people without justification (flag) and possibly creating undead/enslaving the living. Alignment is an objective thing in the game world, detectable by spell. If somebody detects as evil, then you know they did those things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This isn't a P&P tabletop game, there isn't an open-ended list of ways to become evil, only the specified means... Which seem to be killing people without justification (flag) and possibly creating undead/enslaving the living. Alignment is an objective thing in the game world, detectable by spell. If somebody detects as evil, then you know they did those things.
At the very least a neutral character collecting a bounty would acquire the Evil alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that people here are being rather unreasonable. Evil players want the right to rob and kill without consequence providing they can be "clever" enough and Good players want the right to murder anyone with the evil tag regardless of how they acquired it.
Being "clever" in an MMO involves one person finding a hole in the game mechanics and hundreds or thousands of copy cats slipping through the same hole once it becomes public knowledge.
The hole in the mechanics outlined in this blog is so large that it can be seen by the naked eye from space. Only attack merchants. Don't attack military forces and peacekeepers.
There is nothing clever about that. I could easily explain that to a child.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nope. Killing people is evil. No ifs ands or buts, killing them is wrong.
If things were the way you say in this game, after a war we would have all people involved changed to evil...
In a medieval style reality, sometimes the only way to deal with evil criminals is to kill them before they kill innocent people. In this case even a good person would try to kill criminals to stop their criminal activity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nope. Killing people is evil. No ifs ands or buts, killing them is wrong.
If things were the way you say in this game, after a war we would have all people involved changed to evil...
In a medieval style reality, sometimes the only way to deal with evil criminals is to kill them before they kill innocent people. In this case even a good person would try to kill criminals to stop their criminal activity.
Knowing Alexander Damocles and his comments on this blog on The Empyrean Order's boards I have to believe that quote was taken out of context.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see where you're going here, but I'm not sure how the "protect the weak" part comes into play.
"The weak", in the Crusader Road, are the Common Folk, the people who don't magically come back from the dead when killed, or gain exceptional powers as they live their lives.
Could you explain how that would work if a Paladin sees a criminal attacking a weak player who they aren't in a group/settlement with? I guess I mean, how loose would the "allies" part of the Attacker flag mechanic be?
I think there's room for some kind of mechanic where you can ask others for help, and they can agree to help you. But that's just me speculating and not having thought through how such a mechanic would be abused (ok, I'm already thinking about hidden/invisible non-allies standing around waiting for a fight to break out centered on a visibly weak target who can then immediately add a surprise "response force" to crush aggressors).
Also, how long do you think the Heinous flag would last? Do I have to patiently wait until I catch a vile necromancer who serves Zon-Kuthon in the act of raising undead, or if they are doing it, can we go after him?
No idea; that's a Lee/Stephen thing, not a Ryan thing.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is a strong difference between respect for life and being unwilling to end one. It is because I respect life that I am willing to end one to save the lives of random innocents. Otherwise I would simply hole up in TEO's hexes and only fight to defend myself.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
I agree 100%
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am very concerned about losing Good points for attacking a currently unflagged 'Evil' character. I can understand gaining Chaotic if you go about doing so in settlements where murder is illegal.
Do we have to be a neutral or evil guild in order to effectively fight evil? That sounds a bit crazy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Point 2 If you are LG and kill someone who is CE you are only going to take a small evil hit because killing someone, unprovoked is evil )ie not in response to them attacking you or having already done something evil.That's true in this particular context, but it's not generally true.
I'm a High Reputation, Lawful Good character. There's a Low Reputation, Chaotic Evil character who's been following me around for the last three hours making "yo mama so fat" jokes about my mother. I finally decide I've had enough of it and dispatch him. This gives me the Attacker Flag.
At that point, a Paladin can come by and kill me and take my stuff without any Flags or Alignment/Reputation hits. Because I was Flagged.
Thats the problem with the flagging system as a whole for both sides.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do we have to be a neutral or evil guild in order to effectively fight evil? That sounds a bit crazy.
"Fighting Evil" is absolutely in the balliwick of Lawful Good Settlements. That is what War is for.
Individual acts of random justice meted out between individuals with no social connection? That's an evil act, regardless of the alignment of the victim. That still doesn't mean that you can't do it if you're Lawful Good, just that you'll shift your alignment (slightly) every time you do it, and you'll have to decide if that shift is worthwhile. In other words, a meaningful choice.
RyanD
I am very concerned about losing Good points for attacking a currently unflagged 'Evil' character. I can understand gaining Chaotic if you go about doing so in settlements where murder is illegal.
Do we have to be a neutral or evil guild in order to effectively fight evil? That sounds a bit crazy.
right, the chaotic for breaking laws thing makes more than enough sense.
and if chaos is penalized vs. lawful in terms of settlement abilities, that's already a penalty vs chaos.i don't like that CG characters who don't want lawful points basically cannot proactively pursue evil...
effectively to maintain CG they must hold themself to a lawful-type code that evil must first directly attack them or their allies.
how nuts!
it seems like GW is basically not recognizing that characters would intentionally not want to be lawful,
i.e. pursue a chaotic path for it's own sake (e.g. barbarian),
they see chaotic as merely a failing to follow lawful rules, rather than a positive value in it's own sense.
pragmatically, in terms of how alignment will automatically be measured, chaos WILL likely be a 'failure of adherence to law'
(although i wish it could also be measured positively, and law is a 'failure of chaos')
but leaving the door open for good-aligned proactive pursuit of evil, without subjugation to lawful-orientated criminal flags,
seems necessary if good isn't to be subjugated to law, and thus CG marginalized.
CG should be strongly present as a pole within the game, and have it's own valid proactive options to pursue both sides of CG.
or else we are left with pursuing evil monsters, in the game where that is supposed to be de-emphasized.
what is the difference between pursuing evil monsters and pursuing evil characters (whose actions are monstrous)?
a game where CG only exists as people who act LG in terms of fighting evil people, but otherwise only gain C points by lieu of their economic/contract actions, just doesn't seem liable to appeal to players into the Pathfinder or Golarion concepts, or the concept of heroes who go out and fight evil, while being fully chaotic the whole time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan,
What about LN settlements? Can they be just as good as LE and LG? It sounds like they could but Im not sure.
Broken record I know, but what type of limits could be placed on training. I want to know what options I have so that I can ensure I can fully train my rogue/ranger.
I am in a guild and we'd rather be LN, but we might need to change that to LE if thats not a viable (read powerful) choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan, I can understand your point of view from a 'real-world' style morality system. However, the usual morality of fantasy game worlds does not typically support this. How would you explain the existence creatures such as the Solar - a good aligned angelic being that is known to hunt down individual creatures (not just evil outsiders) and slay them BEFORE they can cause harm to innocents under such a ruleset? In PFO, such celestial beings could quickly become Neutral or Evil themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Taking a pure reputation hit, I can understand. If a group of merchants see some guy going about innocent business that they do not recognize suddenly get blasted by a bolt of lightning, the aggressor's social reputation is definitely going to suffer. Just because the man may sacrifice babies every night to an evil deity does not mean that loose cannon vigilantes are well appreciated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do we have to be a neutral or evil guild in order to effectively fight evil? That sounds a bit crazy."Fighting Evil" is absolutely in the balliwick of Lawful Good Settlements. That is what War is for.
Individual acts of random justice meted out between individuals with no social connection? That's an evil act, regardless of the alignment of the victim. That still doesn't mean that you can't do it if you're Lawful Good, just that you'll shift your alignment (slightly) every time you do it, and you'll have to decide if that shift is worthwhile. In other words, a meaningful choice.
RyanD
So Paladins are evil imperialists conquering kingdoms that violate thier sense of morality?