Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
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.So seeking justice for those who have been wronged but we have no personal connection to is evil, but seeking vengeance for wrongs personally done to us isn't?
I thought the entire point of the good alignment was non-selfish motives. To me you just described benevolent vigilantism which is clearly the realm of the chaotic-good.
Killing for money and/or vengeance is evil, even when done by a good person.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dont know, thats why Im asking?......
Why would I get the best rogue training in CE settlement? What if I was a Lawful Good Rogue that only used my awesome skills for PvE in dungeons full of evil stuff. Never do PvP, Try to never do evil or unlawful things? Couldnt I be just as good at trap finding and lockpicking as CE Thief?
No you cannot ... the logic seems to be the best trainers congregate where people that use those skills are more common.
Previous page this thread ...
It is absolutely clear that there will be some things they will be disadvantaged at training when the highest level of that training is linked to Lawful buildings.Just like Lawful characters will be disadvantaged at training skills taught in Chaotic buildings. There aren't many good lockpicking trainers in Lawful Good Settlements. Or rage-power teachers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the alignment shift is going to be slow (for most of actions) and there will be ways to attone or re-shift to the alignment you want to play , I can live with that.
So a paladin may be able to eventually kill an evil player and just do something good later to move his alignment balance back and avoid a total shift, that would prevent him to access the alignment related powers. Maybe some sort of mission, maybe just killing evil monsters...
I Want to see the things devellop a bit more to be able to judge how this system will really work. As it is now I just can't have an accurate picture and have too much doubts in my mind.
I will just give the GW team a credit and still watching their work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe I am sold on the Killing is Evil. Ending a life, even an evil life, seems like it should be considered non-good.
But this brings me back to my question about what alternatives Good players have. The ability to declare war against individuals of ill-repute seems like it could be abused pretty bad. And it is nonsensical for good characters to wait for a clear and present threat to become the aggressor. If I am out somewhere collecting resources and bandits start hanging around my camp waiting for their allies to show up so that they can overwhelm me, I should be able to fight them off without penalty as they show up instead of letting them finish grouping up so they can attack me or forcing me to run away.
Can we beat them senseless but not kill them? Potentially incapacitate their character for a time, without creating a looting opportunity or other death penalties for them?
Being able to defeat an opponent and have an outcome other than death would allow for Good characters to not have to wait until they become victims to act. But said options should not provide rewards other than safety from the defeated character for some amount of time.
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
I asked about this. Stephen said the flag would fade very quickly. The longest it would last would be a couple of minutes but more likely would fade when the spell or action ceases. So no one will be wearing the Heinous flag walking around town.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OK, got it. Ill need to basically play LE (or 1 step away? if that still applies?). Even if I envisioned my character being LN, and playing both sides. Now I know what box ill have to fit in. Because while I never claimed Id never do evil. I definitely didnt want to exclusively be so. Now I know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OK, got it. Ill need to basically play LE (or 1 step away? if that still applies?). Even if I envisioned my character being LN, and playing both sides. Now I know what box ill have to fit in. Because while I never claimed Id never do evil. I definitely didnt want to exclusively be so. Now I know.
If you really want rogue skills I suspect you need access to a chaotic settlement. LE will not give you that happily.
TBH if you are after a rogue/ranger then TN probably gives you the best access to various skills. Thus CN, LN, NE and NG settlements are all only a single step away from you. (the Keepers are NG ... blatant plug)
A traditional rogue is probably CN and ranger TN.
Depending exactly who an assassin works for he could be CE/NE/LE
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is absolutely clear that there will be some things they will be disadvantaged at training when the highest level of that training is linked to Lawful buildings.Just like Lawful characters will be disadvantaged at training skills taught in Chaotic buildings. There aren't many good lockpicking trainers in Lawful Good Settlements. Or rage-power teachers.
Thanks for posting this... Ryan, this should have been said at the outset and perhaps in the Blog itself.
In this post you separate Law and Chaos from Good and Evil. That is what needs to be done in my opinion.
I think most expect that Lawful settlements will be better at teaching skills based on lawful traits. Chaotic skills, more so in Chaotic settlements.
Most if not all of us get that..... But you had many of us thinking that Evil character or Chaotic characters would be capped or denied training in skills that would be common and not alignment specific skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The original Batman was either Chaotic Neutral if he apprehended the villains or Chaotic Evil if he killed them. He just had a facade of Lawful Good in keeping with the whole Cold War polarization of good/evil.
Interestingly in "Dark Knight" the Joker goes out of his way to reveal to Batman his true (evil) nature. The Joker in Dark knight penetrates the lawful good mask batman hid behind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My greatest concern with this system is when it comes to the Death Curses. The way it looks right now is that if a player is LG their entire career, they could kill a CE player once), have a death curse put on them by someone who doesn't care about reputation and lose all their gear. Having a loophole in the system where someone can loot your gear after one kill is dangerously close to having a system where you can loot people's gear all the time.
This won't be a huge concern if gear is a relatively small investment, but if gear is hard to replace this system may be too much of a punishment on LG characters.
PFO will be a grand experiment in moral behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Individual acts of random justice meted out between individuals with no social connection? That's an evil act, regardless of the alignment of the victimSo Batman is evil?
Wayne's Law: "As a discussion of alignment grows longer, the probability of a comparison between every alignment and Batman approaches 1."
There have been so many versions of the character that you can find a case that matches any alignment. Calling in that example is essentially a synonym for saying "I got nothin'..."
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.So seeking justice for those who have been wronged but we have no personal connection to is evil, but seeking vengeance for wrongs personally done to us isn't?
I thought the entire point of the good alignment was non-selfish motives. To me you just described benevolent vigilantism which is clearly the realm of the chaotic-good.
I don't see any implementation of Good = Non-Selfish here, it seems like Good = Well Behaved, in other words subsumed to Law. Saying Good people can fight back when their group has personally been attacked is not about Good, but about self-interest. If you are informed somebody totally unrelated to you were attacked, then choosing to fight that Evil is further divorced from self-Interest, i.e. more Good, yet because no Flag are active for you, that is an Evil act. If Detect Evil is basically Detecting Unjustified Murder (that no Law will address), then why isn't it Good to confront that Evil?
How can a CG characters actively pursue their alignment by what we know? They can't, they either have to work within the same law that is amenable to LG types (responding to law breakers, i.e. sheriffs, what paladins aren't supposed to be, yet end up being anyways), or have to wait to be attacked even if a character/group is a known murderer. Seriously, where is the case that a LG would not do something to fight Evil, but CG would? If that CG fight against Evil doesn't really exist, than CG doesn't really have any reason to exist, except just as LG people who break Laws in ways that don't count as Evil, which probably means breaking contracts, etc. I don't think that cuts it for the masses of Pathfinder players who love playing heroic CG characters, who fight the forces of evil however they can, even if that means they run into problems with the forces of law.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I completely disagree with the rules as I understand them at this time. I most definitely will be evil it seems. I will not wait to be attacked until they have superior numbers. I'll initiate combat and I might do it without a bounty. I feel I have every right to prey on bandits like they prey on fat merchants. If a character is evil killing them is good. This is not the real world. This is a game that doesn't have as many shades of grey there is black and white. These rules just mean more will embrace the black.
So much for a druid role. Guess I'll go rogue/ranger and not care like the bandits. Hell if I'm going to be punished for helping others I am seriously considering joining the dark side and just doing whatever I feel like. Going to be evil anyway might as well not fight it.
Druids can be Evil, FYI. (Alignment: ANY Neutral)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Killing for money and/or vengeance is evil, even when done by a good person.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.So seeking justice for those who have been wronged but we have no personal connection to is evil, but seeking vengeance for wrongs personally done to us isn't?
I thought the entire point of the good alignment was non-selfish motives. To me you just described benevolent vigilantism which is clearly the realm of the chaotic-good.
That isn't what we are talking about. Killing for vengeance is what Ryan is saying is ok. If someone kills us, or someone associated with us then we have a social connection.
If some is just running around randomly bullying people, and I want to stop them... Well then we have no social connection and killing them would be evil.
So selfish motive... peachy keen! Altruistic motive... that's evil.
Now if he wanted to say that we shouldn't be killing people just for being a bully I could agree, as long as there is a lesser mechanic we can use to stop them. Otherwise we should be able to kill them. Hell, they are marked by Pharasma anyway! It isn't like they won't come back.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Killing for money and/or vengeance is evil, even when done by a good person.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.So seeking justice for those who have been wronged but we have no personal connection to is evil, but seeking vengeance for wrongs personally done to us isn't?
I thought the entire point of the good alignment was non-selfish motives. To me you just described benevolent vigilantism which is clearly the realm of the chaotic-good.
That isn't what we are talking about. Killing for vengeance is what Ryan is saying is ok. If someone kills us, or someone associated with us then we have a social connection.
If some is just running around randomly bullying people, and I want to stop them... Well then we have no social connection and killing them would be evil.
So selfish motive... peachy keen! Altruistic motive... that's evil.
Now if he wanted to say that we shouldn't be killing people just for being a bully I could agree, as long as there is a lesser mechanic we can use to stop them. Otherwise we should be able to kill them. Hell, they are marked by Pharasma anyway!
You don't have to know everyone you care about. But what you're saying sounds a lot like you want the ability to hunt someone indefinitely because they once got away with highway robbery. I know that isn't your actual position, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I used to play eve a little and I am not sure how the verious factions are NOT balanced?EVE Online convincingly demonstrates that this is a false assumption.
You want the majority of this game to be player created, but the only way that will happen is to make all characters balanced.You did not say factions. You said characters.
The characters in EVE form a very broad spectrum of power and they are not balanced. What causes the emergent behavior that is so interesting in EVE (and that will also appear in Pathfinder Online) is that what those characters do has meaning to their players (and to the players that interact with them). Balance is the least meaningful thing about EVE. What is intensely meaningful is the struggle between you trying to do a thing, and me trying to stop you. Perhaps that struggle requires me to bring friends. Perhaps that causes you to respond by bringing friends as well. Occasionally, that means 3,000 people show up in one place to resolve the dispute.
Not every character in EVE can do what every other character can do. Some regions of space are more valuable than others, thus control of the space is meaningful. Not every path between two places is equally safe, thus risk & reward changes based on how you choose to travel. Not every piece of gear is available for direct purchase from the source to every character, based on how that character has acted (or failed to act in that past), thus your costs to gain desired equipment vary based on your in-game actions.
RyanD
Your right, I mistyped. I was talking more about factions/alignment based groups being balanced more than characters themselves. I ment alignment based things like settlements and guilds/companies/ect. I want to play a bandit/assassin. I understand I will be evil, aiming more for either lawful or neutral but definately evil. I am concerned that in choosing to be this type of character will hinder my opportunities to rise skills and achieve greatness in simular fashion to a LG or "Good" in general character would. You said something ealier about barbarians (rage-skills) being trained in chaotic towns and that made me wonder if each alignment would have this sort of thing? If so, then "WHy didn't you say so." as that would be the type of balancing I was looking for. It gives me a reason to be this alignment and something others don't have.
As far as characters themselves, since there is no class system, will we be able to gain entry to towns and use these training buildings by either "farming" alignment/reputation to the respective level for it, or by using deceit (spells or disguise) to get in? Or are we more or less "Stuck" with the buildings in our town and our alignment? I am asking more as a completist who wants to eventually know and do everything advailible in game.
Your response was more of what I wanted to know and I thank you for taking the time to answer it. I do feel alittle bit better about the system now that I have more info. I try not to make snap judgments and I want more details and info so I ask. Really glad to see dev involvment on the forums.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.So seeking justice for those who have been wronged but we have no personal connection to is evil, but seeking vengeance for wrongs personally done to us isn't?
I thought the entire point of the good alignment was non-selfish motives. To me you just described benevolent vigilantism which is clearly the realm of the chaotic-good.I don't see any implementation of Good = Non-Selfish here, it seems like Good = Well Behaved, in other words subsumed to Law. Saying Good people can fight back when their group has personally been attacked is not about Good, but about self-interest. If you are informed somebody totally unrelated to you were attacked, then choosing to fight that Evil is further divorced from self-Interest, i.e. more Good, yet because no Flag are active for you, that is an Evil act. If Detect Evil is basically Detecting Unjustified Murder (that no Law will address), then why isn't it Good to confront that Evil?
How can a CG characters actively pursue their alignment by what we know? They can't, they either have to work within the same law that is amenable to LG types (responding to law breakers, i.e. sheriffs, what paladins aren't supposed to be, yet end up being anyways), or have to wait to be attacked even if a character/group is a known murderer. Seriously, where is the case that a LG would not do something to fight Evil, but CG would? If that CG fight against Evil doesn't really exist, than CG doesn't really have any reason to exist, except just as LG people who break Laws in ways that don't count as Evil, which probably means breaking contracts, etc. I don't think that cuts it for the masses of Pathfinder players who love playing heroic CG characters, who fight the forces of evil however they can, even if that means they run into problems with the forces of law.
I think he said attacking someone and getting the attacker flag moves you to chaotic, killing them is the evil part. So a CG character would be ok with starting the fight, it is just the "finishing" it that becomes the issue. I would LOVE for there to be some mechanic in-game where good character (or people who just rather not kill all the time) to knock out someone or otherwise just subdue them. That way, it isn't killing them and we don't get the evil for it, but we still "defeat them" and get the satisfation and MAYBE limited loot from it. Not sure exactly, it is just an idea, but there it is. I think someone had asked about this before.
What do we think? would this help those good people trying to stay good? Even being evil, expecially if I go lawful, I might have use for a knock out technique here and there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to know everyone you care about. But what you're saying sounds a lot like you want the ability to hunt someone indefinitely because they once got away with highway robbery. I know that isn't your actual position, though.
I've never even implied I want that... ever. I want the right to hunt people until they change their behavior. If you are going out committing acts of evil every day then you should expect good aligned opposition. If you aren't, then you should naturally gravitate toward neutral.
Here is a big question of mine. Why the heck would anyone play evil if they don't want and expect to be hunted by good aligned players? I fully expect my positions to cause evil opponents to seek me out. I WANT that! That is what meaningful player interaction is all about!
The minute I stop wanting that I'll behaving the way I do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Druids can be Evil, FYI. (Alignment: ANY Neutral)Ah yes but not CE as I will attack first if I or others are threatened.
" ...if I or others are threatened"
You are following a rule/guiding principle there. Sounds more like neutral (if self interested) or lawful evil to me :D
If you were CE you would be like one of those 70's punks or euro-trash football hoodlums, randomly starting fights and killing just because you happen to be in the mood.
A NE druid would definitely " attack first if I or others are threatened" .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is a big question of mine. Why the heck would anyone play evil if they don't want and expect to be hunted by good aligned players? I fully expect my positions to cause evil opponents to seek me out. I WANT that! That is what meaningful player interaction is all about!
Possibly some people are expecting good aligned merchants etc to play the game with the sole intention of providing others with a free source of easy targets :D
i think he's saying 'if I or others are threatened' in the sense that a euro football hooligan would use, i.e. if they happen to be in the mood ;-)
seriously, i just want to know what means there are for CG characters to actively pursue Chaos AND Goodness simultaneously, in ways that LG or CN/CE characters wouldn't do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't mind the flags for starting combat. I wouldn't mind getting a death curse for killing someone. I don't mind bounties from either good or evil characters. People should have the right to make donations to a paladin order or a assassin guild to get some pay back.
Thing is if I kill an "evil" character why should I get labeled as "evil" this is not the real world. This is a fantasy game. I should move towards evil if I kill good. I should move towards good if I kill evil. Why make it more than that?
These rules are making it so anyone who does PvP often, outside of official wars, is going to be evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Druids can be Evil, FYI. (Alignment: ANY Neutral)Ah yes but not CE as I will attack first if I or others are threatened." ...if I or others are threatened"
You are following a rule/guiding principle there. Sounds more like neutral (if self interested) or lawful evil to me :D
If you were CE you would be like one of those 70's punks or euro-trash football hoodlums, randomly starting fights and killing just because you happen to be in the mood.
A NE druid would definitely " attack first if I or others are threatened" .
Yep I agree tell that to the rules listed in that blog. I would be Evil for killing and Chaotic for starting combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Possibly some people are expecting good aligned merchants etc to play the game with the sole intention of providing others with a free source of easy targets :D
Clearly. Some people in this community want all the high points of being a robber and none of the penalties. If dealing with the penalties isn't part of the excitement and appeal to them then they need to pick another profession. Personally the only reason I wouldn't play a bandit is I wouldn't be able to bring myself to kill and rob people who've done nothing I know of to deserve it. The sticking to the shadows and hiding from the law part sounds fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So I'll start off by saying this thread is a monster and I did not read every single response, my apologies if I'm repeating something someone else already mentioned.
Characters with low reputations may also find they're not wanted in certain places. Settlements can set a minimum reputation to enter the city; players who don't meet the requirement are warned, and become trespassers if they continue to enter.
This makes sense, so long as it can work both ways. If I were an evil character running a settlement, I'd probably want to set a maximum reputation for people entering my city, don't want those do-gooders mucking about in my town.
Settlements may also be selective about permitting players with low reputations to join, since maintaining a high minimum settlement reputation is key to building several prestigious and useful structures.
This is absolute BS. Essentially, if you're trying to run an Evil settlement (where naturally, low reputation characters are going to hang out) you will never be able to get or utilize the most useful structures available. Like someone being evil automatically makes you bad at city planning.
I perfectly understand that being evil is going to be a significantly harder way of playing the game. I embrace that. But I also see that being a Lawful-Evil character is going to be pert near impossible based on how the whole alignment system is panning out. This means LE settlements are going to be nigh impossible to establish. Since Lawful seems to be the only way to make a decent city, your going to have an extremely disproportionate amount of LG Kingdoms, and therefore, NO LE kingdoms since they will be severely outnumbered and prime targets for the LG kingdoms. PvP will turn into nothing but LG wargames and arena fights since Evil characters will have no where to turn or live. This is going beyond making the game difficult for Evil players, its starting to look like it will be damn impossible.
LG players!!! You dont want this to happen!! How much fun is this game going to be if there aren't bad-guys like me to fight against? If there is no evil kingdom on the other side of the river to marshal your armies against, to protect the good people of the River Kingdoms against? What is an RPG with out antagonists??
Sorry for the vent, but I had to get it off my chest.
TL;DR - If things keep going as they are, I predict a complete lack of evil players, and therefore, no significant player-generated content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LG players!!! You dont want this to happen!! How much fun is this game going to be if there aren't bad-guys like me to fight against? If there is no evil kingdom on the other side of the river to marshal your armies against, to protect the good people of the River Kingdoms against? What is an RPG with out antagonists??
I don't think you have read many of the comments by LG/NG/CG players. Many of us most definitely do not want this. The idea that I go towards evil for hunting down evil characters is not what we want. I honestly feel that the hardest profession for anyone to play in these rules is a Paladin.
You could only every start combat or kill someone if at war with them. Oh ya maybe if you can get to them while they are still flagged with heinous or some other flag but they will just run and hide until it's gone.
I don't think you need to worry about no-one being evil. You might be hard pressed to find a "good" player that has more than 5 PvP kills.
Settlements may also be selective about permitting players with low reputations to join, since maintaining a high minimum settlement reputation is key to building several prestigious and useful structures.This is absolute BS. Essentially, if you're trying to run an Evil settlement (where naturally, low reputation characters are going to hang out) you will never be able to get or utilize the most useful structures available. Like someone being evil automatically makes you bad at city planning.
Evil =/= Low Reputation.
I expect Lawful Evil types to easily have high reputations.I expect Lawful Evil to be a very succesfull city/settlement type.
That's why I've gotten from Ryan here and the Blog.
It's mainly Chaotic Good that seems marginalized with Good being heavily subjugated to Law.
LG at least has the Criminal Flag, so if the Evil dude ever commited a 'crime' (this also goes for LN/LE),
they can be attacked on sight when re-entering the hex where that law applies (without triggering the Attacker flag on the Paladin)
(+elsewhere in wilderness, etc? if the other character has some connection to the law-regime?)
I don't if the intent IS for Good people to be able to ATTACK Evil people with no Evil consequences as long as they don't kill them, but just aim for some other outcome (penalizing?) that isn't death (=Evil)? Or how strong the reduction of Evil-alignment-consequences for Attacking/Killing an Evil character will be, if the character is REALLY Evil, perhaps it is basically zero?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lundy
I know, I didn't read probably 70% of the responses to this mega-thread, I find most of the arguments to be repetitive. However, I really wanted to say something after I read the blog entry. It really is my hope that the Good community realizes the importance of also having a thriving evil counter-part.
@Quandary
I just tried to type out like... 3 different replies, but none of them made much sense. So I'll ask a question, how do you expect a Lawful Evil person to maintain both a high reputation, and remain evil? I am honestly not trying to be a jerk, really, I just cant seem to explain myself today :)
All three axes are lowered by unprovoked PvP, but nuanced differences can result in a player having high values in some axes but not others. Specifically:
You slip toward chaotic whenever you gain the Attacker or Criminal flags, except when pursuing a bounty (see below). This is generally a flat amount of loss.
You slip toward evil whenever you kill someone while you have the Attacker flag or gain the Heinous flag. For killing, you move less if the target was also evil (in other words, it's more evil to kill a good character).
If you have the Attacker flag, when you kill a target you lose reputation proportional to the reputation of the target (it's less disreputable to murder targets that have low reputation). Additionally, the target might further choose to rebuke you (even if it didn't result in a kill), expending some of his or her reputation to lower yours.A settlement can remain competitive with a low rating in law, good, or reputation (or average ratings in all three), but the penalties add up such that a settlement that caters to low-reputation chaotic evil characters will be at a fairly significant disadvantage compared to other settlements, and such characters may have a hard time finding a place to train, trade, and craft.
GW clearly envisions reputation not being tied to Evilness.
If a higher percentage of your Chaotic/Evil inclined kills are against people with low reputation, then your reputation isn't so low.Also there is other mechanics involving reputation around rebukes/salutes and death's curses,
which are independent of alignment, and thus a LE character could have good reputation while being Evil.
I don't really know the details completely (who does?), but conceptually they are not tied together,
so it's plausible to have a decent reputation while being Evil,
in other words, 'reputation' may not have all the connotations you may think it does.
also see this:
There are other mechanics in Pathfinder Online that describe the relationship between characters. One of those is the reputation system. A "reputation economy" is a method of giving weight to people's actions. Earning a good reputation is valuable, and having a bad reputation can close a lot of doors. eBay's buyer and seller ratings are an example of a reputation economy.
Your character will have a reputation as well. As your character undertakes various actions for others, those others will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the results, and you will have the opportunity to do the same in reverse.
I rather expect reputation to also be triggered by events like contracts and guild membership, which it's reasonable to think that LE characters would be competent at maintaining at a high level.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They've certainly implied you can make due with only one of the three low, thus saying you can be Lawful Evil with a HIGH reputation. HOW, we don't know.
While this blog and others are pointing out ways to be low rep Chaotic Evil, we haven't actually seen a lot on how to get rep, or good, or lawful.
Once we do, discussing these things will hopefully be easier.
Moreover, I sincerely hope they'll list more ways to get chaotic, and evil, and whatnot. The more the better, to better fit character ideals. Not every evil goes around murdering, nor every chaotic. And no sense taking up contracts and failing them on purpose to spam up Chaos points so your barbarian works.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... there is no logical reason to a LE settlement not being able to progress as much as a LG one.Yes, there is. In a Lawful Good society, the common-folk are free and prosperous, leading to innovation and a greater dedication to improving the entire community. In a Lawful Evil society, the common-folk are constantly in fear of upsetting their masters, so they follow orders exactly, even if they know the orders are counter-productive. At least, that's a plausible reason :)
On the other hand, LE societies are not burdened with "ethical inflexibility", allowing them to make progress in areas that LG societies would not even consider.
;)
(this message brought to you from Deus Ex.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I totally feel it brings freshness to this game, when people have to act differently according to their alignment in terms of PVP.
It will be challenging to play a paladin, but I'm sure there are tons of people out there who are dying to do just that, to stand out from the crowd.
1. Paladins can't just go killing evil people just because they are evil.(Period). This is the gray area everyone is talking about. The motivation for good is to give a another person a chance to redeem himself.
2. Every person has a little bit of every alignment in them, henceforth the name alignment.
3. I totally agree that killing someone is an evil act and changes a person. (This is totally deep.) Sometimes killing someone can be a merciful act or a righteous act and one must pray to the gods for forgiveness.
4. I would really like to see this game bring forward some chaotic neutral bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... there is no logical reason to a LE settlement not being able to progress as much as a LG one.Yes, there is. In a Lawful Good society, the common-folk are free and prosperous, leading to innovation and a greater dedication to improving the entire community. In a Lawful Evil society, the common-folk are constantly in fear of upsetting their masters, so they follow orders exactly, even if they know the orders are counter-productive. At least, that's a plausible reason :)
On the other hand, LE societies are not burdened with "ethical inflexibility", allowing them to make progress in areas that LG societies would not even consider.
;)
(this message brought to you from Deus Ex.)
EXACTLY! Black magic related buildings, slavery related buildings, poison research labs etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It looks like a Lawful Evil person can pursue a bounty (thereby keeping their Lawful aspect) and initiate the attack against the target of the bounty getting the Attacker flag following through by killing them (which would make you Evil).
A Lawful Good person would need to provoke an attack from the target to avoid the Attacker flag so that they can keep their Good status if they defeat their target.
Chaotic Good on the other hand would want to avoid bounties or initiating attacks even though it would help their Chaotic side because defeating their target would slide them away from Good (having the Attacker flag and killing someone). Instead they will want to get Criminal flags to keep their Chaotic aspect. If they want to fight other players they will have to let someone else start the fight.
This is how it looks to me right now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have a question.
Suppose I'm in a group. One of my crew members attacks another person and gains the attacker flag. Then that character starts fighting back and one of his friends attacks me and gains the attacker flag before I get a chance to help my friend. So we all heal each other and help each other and now everyone is carrying the attacker flag on both sides of the conflict.
Is this a valid scenario?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me that most folks have put the cart before the horse.
Look: There won't be a Paladin class: we will be classless and build up our character skills from the basics. There won't be a monk class: the monk skills will bcome available to those who earn them.
That means we don't have to choose alignment from the outset. We can play the way we prefer according to how we understand that specific character to be. We will elect actions according to how we play our roles.
Alignment will naturally follow.
So if your vision of your character includes killing every evil thing you see then your character's available skills to train will reflect that. You might have imagined him or her to be a paladin but if your choices in the world keep you from LG alignment then that is on you: your preconception of your character was in error. Your character aspired to become a paladin but didn't measure up. You can get bitter or you can get better. That will be your meaningful choice.
Your chosen deity... you might think you are a devout worshipper of Iomedae but your actions show you actaully follow Sarenrae: as a mortal prone to error you were wrong: the words from your lips did not match the actions from your heart.
The honest character will eventually realize their alignment. They can aspire to a different alignment and be more careful about what they choose to do and become reconciled through their deeds with the deity they prefer. Or they can simply accept themselves.
Then too you will discover how people like your character contribute to their community. If you are chaotic it is ultimately because of how you interact chaotically with your community that is the cause of inefficiency. To be chaotic and expect your community to provide all the benefits of a disciplined Lawful settlement is to want something for nothing: entitlement in its purest expression. You don't get the same perks as a lawful good community because you don't earn those perks.
Simple, and brutally honest. You make your community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have a question.
Suppose I'm in a group. One of my crew members attacks another person and gains the attacker flag. Then that character starts fighting back and one of his friends attacks me and gains the attacker flag before I get a chance to help my friend. So we all heal each other and help each other and now everyone is carrying the attacker flag on both sides of the conflict.
Is this a valid scenario?
I think if you are actually teamed with someone then your whole group will be flagged the moment your friend attacks another person.
This is why it was mentioned earlier about groups of people not teamed getting flagged as they joined the fight depending on who they attacked or healed.
So be careful who you group with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Avena
That is entirely possible and I will be interested to see what they have to say in that regard. The difficulty I am having is reconciling what we know about PvP so far with the intial design statement that this will be a largely PvP focused game.
From a purely mechanical standpoint, here is what I see so far:
- "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.
- Initiating PvP outside the context of War generaly makes one "Evil" which places one at a mechanical disadvantage so very few people will want to do that from a pure gameplay standpoint.
- War requires mutual consent. Which means that no power which does not believe it has an overwhelming advantage against it's opponent will be willing to risk engaging in it...since War requires consent of said opponent.. no wars will occur.
What I'm seeing from the above is that the optimal game-play strategy is to trick/goad an opponent who you believe is at a disadvantage to you into engaging in PvP so that you can defeat them without negative consequence, take thier stuff and place them at a further mechanical disadvantage as a result of thier attack by shifting them toward Evil. As players are not generaly stupid, I believe this will be the primary element of gamelplay in the system currently described for PFO.
That end bit seems a valid concern for the/any flag system. So it's constructive to point out.
But what's noticeable is that initiating pvp is always hitting your alignment -> evil/chaos (whichever is applicable - and no doubt adding reputation hits). So pvp if proactive is a trend towards these. That's interesting and wonder what the shift to good will be. It seems a possible natural consequence that managing alignment will be a big deal and if managing a lot of conflict means doing a lot of apposite actions towards shifting your alignment back (ie running faster and faster to stay in one place), is the price to pay: Possibly it takes longer to shift back than it does to shift "down" is the catch on iniating pvp?
Shame I can't come up with constructive criticism. Perhaps for bandit's more explanation on how the "stand and deliver" stuff can be initiated as a less evil option to ply their trade?!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day the Paladin is probably the most controversial of the core classes for all of the reasons in this thread. Mostly because it is the class most influenced by "the curse of Gary Gygax" ie; alignment. Many of us have actually played Pathfinder or DnD. Many of us have also Dungeon Mastered. Every DM has a different interpretation of what being a Pally is and NOBODY here can say they always agreed with the interpretations they played under. Dancey's interpretation is one of many acceptable ones and GW's are effectively the DM's of PFO.
So just like in the PnP version, suck it up cuz you don't always get your way in these games.