Suggestion for Next Blog: I Shot a Man in Reno Just to Watch Him Die


Pathfinder Online

Goblin Squad Member

7 people marked this as a favorite.

The Dev team has spent a lot of time explaining in detail the constraints and barriers to PvP: the flag system, the curse system, bounties, and GM appeals are all deterrent systems, and point to GW's commitment to restraining PvP.

Given that this is a PvP game, I'd like to ask that an upcoming blog go into the same level of detail for how we CAN engage in PvP.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Add to that some ideas for how one earns 'good points', because anyone who is willing to get their hands dirty now and then for the sake of preventing greater harm will need a way to recover.

Goblin Squad Member

Word.

Goblin Squad Member

+1

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed. They've spent quite a lot of time locking good aligned players into a nice and neat little box and telling us what we can't do.

I'd like to know how we are going to be able to take part in the meaningful player interaction this game is based on instead of how we can fight demonic outsider NPCs.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Watching the wanna be evils pout over consequences and the wanna be goods pout because of the fact they are not as good as they thought they were makes me rub my neutral belly with glee.

Neutrals REIGN!!!

Scarab Sages Goblinworks Executive Founder

avari3 wrote:

Watching the wanna be evils pout over consequences and the wanna be goods pout because of the fact they are not as good as they thought they were makes me rub my neutral belly with glee.

Neutrals REIGN!!!

+1 :)

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Great post, I too want to know the answer!

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

Agreed. They've spent quite a lot of time locking good aligned players into a nice and neat little box and telling us what we can't do.

I'd like to know how we are going to be able to take part in the meaningful player interaction this game is based on instead of how we can fight demonic outsider NPCs.

Is it really that important to have the word 'good' on a character sheet?

We must honestly examine our motives, even if the label we end up with doesn't sound as nice as we might have hoped.

Is this about getting a license to kill the dudes in black hats, or about defending the innocent?

It's a situation right out of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire; do we place greater value on the concept of purity than on preventing harm?

If we only use pre-emptive violence when it seems necessary, it shouldn't be too hard to clean up a bit afterwards. That need to clean up means we'll have to show some restraint because resorting to aggression does take a little effort to balance out. Even so, it seems that the amount of alignment ding we take is dependent upon the alignment of the target, so the real problematic PKs won't affect us much since they're likely to have sunk as low as the scale goes.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

far as I know:

Bounty hunting
Arenas
Consensual PvP("Hey buddy, wanna fight?" "Sure, why not.")

Come on, I will be pretty disappointed if there is no arenas for players to beat each other up.

Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:


Is it really that important to have the word 'good' on a character sheet?
We must honestly examine our motives, even if the label we end up with doesn't sound as nice as we might have hoped.

Is this about getting a license to kill the dudes in black hats, or about defending the innocent?

It's a situation right out of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire; do we place greater value on the concept of purity than on preventing harm?

If we only use pre-emptive violence when it seems necessary, it shouldn't be too hard to clean up a bit afterwards. That need to clean up means we'll have to show some restraint because resorting to aggression does take a little effort to balance out. Even so, it seems that the amount of alignment ding we take is dependent upon the alignment of the target, so the real problematic PKs won't affect us much since they're likely to have sunk as low as the scale goes.

I'm not asking ethical questions, I'm asking game mechanic questions. I'd like to better understand what LG PCs CAN do, to go along with all the info we've got on what they CAN'T do.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbando wrote:
I'm not asking ethical questions, I'm asking game mechanic questions. I'd like to better understand what LG PCs CAN do, to go along with all the info we've got on what they CAN'T do.

They can do just about anything, it's just a matter of how consistently they do certain things. It's a challenging road to have a mostly good balance while still taking an evil detour when necessary for expediency or combat advantage. If it always seems necessary, maybe you're not as good as you think. Sure, it's tough on paladins, but I really don't think playing one should be moral easymode. Couldn't you get much of the same effects out of mixing fighter skills with some more neutral cleric ones?

PFRPG lets you pick a class and then tells you what you can learn to do.
PFO lets you train what you wish and then tells you what class that adds up to.

PFRPG has you pick an alignment and then tells you how to act within it.
PFO lets you act how you wish and then tells you what alignment that adds up to.

Goblin Squad Member

Seems like a Blog of this subject is needed in the near future. =)


Not a bad forum subject and the posts are intersting, but having lost someone in RL due to something simular, I find the topic title in extremely poor taste. But thats just me.

Goblin Squad Member

It would be great to hear more on this. More of my friends are questioning just how much they will get to PvP now days.

Goblin Squad Member

+1 for giving ryan the blog title ahead of time
+1 for having an awesome idea for a blog
+1 because I'm just feel generous today

Goblin Squad Member

That is too many +1's, Alku Leon. I don't think we're allowed to do that.

I think that's a great topic for a blog, Mbando.

I don't want to sound like Captain Hindsight, but I've been seeing this most recent blog coming: everything that has been said has given me (and most people, based on the state of these forums) the idea that Lawful Good will be the "highest" alignment, the one that gets the most stuff, and I knew it wouldn't be handed out. You'd have to seriously restrict your options and carefully weigh choices and make decisions based on keeping your alignment. I figured once GW went into some details on the mechanics, people would freak.

I'm not saying I like what they're doing. I'm not saying I don't. Personally, I think there is far, far too much information unavailable - not that it is missing or omitted but actually still abstract at this point in the design process - for me to make judgment calls on any of the systems we've heard about.

What I will say is that if the average PFO fan who posts on these forums is correct on their assumptions about what we do know, there will be two alignments for most roleplay heavy players - the one the game has dictated their character has from the character's actions, and the one that the player sees his character having, based on the concept and most likely previous interpretations of the LvC/GvE system. The two alignments may or may not match up. That'll be a case-by-case thing.

Goblin Squad Member

avari3 wrote:

Watching the wanna be evils pout over consequences and the wanna be goods pout because of the fact they are not as good as they thought they were makes me rub my neutral belly with glee.

Neutrals REIGN!!!

heh, well 70% of the consiquences I have full agreement with, flagging, putting ones self on the line, increased chance of losing things on death, potential barring from lawful and good areas etc...

Things like, lowered maximum potential etc... on the other hand, are a bit of a huge negative to many people. I know a huge portion of players when they start a game, go straight into planning out the maximum potential for a build, and knowingly cutting into it isn't something that people want to do. Taking longer to reach the max potential, having to fight twice as hard is reasonable, having to watch your back at every corner, also reasonable... Being effectively barred, not cool.

Ryan does say there will be potential for evil settlements to become competitive, so maybe there is more hope then it seems, but that is the part that needs some explaining. Basically everything we have concrete is

Virtually any engagement in PK outside of war, is evil and usually chaotic.
Chaotic evil is going to lower your potential as a character.

Which is a bit scary when the original description of the game is "Instead of working our tails off to make content that the players are going to cut through 2 months development time in 2 days, we're going to encourage the players to become each-others content".

So yeah, what we are lacking, is an explanation for how we become eachothers content, as currently they are just flooding us with information for how they are going to keep it from falling too far the other way.

Second suggestion for blog

War, what is it good for?

Details that would be useful to know, what defines a war, IE do both sides have to accept a war? Do lost settlements get absorbed into the winning side? etc...

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi ~ I will agree that the entire community is probably pretty curious about one thing we haven't heard much about yet: The war mechanic. Because everything we have seen so far is pushing us towards that mechanic.

The war mechanic is going to be a very, very interesting thread. How many factions can you declare war against? How often can you change it?

Goblin Squad Member

Alku Leon wrote:

+1 for giving ryan the blog title ahead of time

+1 for having an awesome idea for a blog
+1 because I'm just feel generous today

Where do I spend these?

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
Alku Leon wrote:

+1 for giving ryan the blog title ahead of time

+1 for having an awesome idea for a blog
+1 because I'm just feel generous today
Where do I spend these?

In a knowledge etiquette skill, maybe?

Goblin Squad Member

avari3 wrote:

Watching the wanna be evils pout over consequences and the wanna be goods pout because of the fact they are not as good as they thought they were makes me rub my neutral belly with glee.

Neutrals REIGN!!!

You're missing it avari. It's not about worrying that your side will be gimped, it's about worrying how robust player interactions will be. For weeks I've been posting my concern about the deck being stacked against evil being active, and now I'm worried about the same thing for LG. If being active at either end of the alignment spectrum, given that mechanical aspects of the game (class, schools of magic) are alignment based, then it affects all of us.

Which is why I want more info from GW. As Onishi points out, if the ends of the spectrum are difficult but still viable, it's very different than if they are so mechanically disadvantaged they're not viable.

Very interested to read the upcoming blogs.

Goblin Squad Member

LordDaeron wrote:
Mbando wrote:
Alku Leon wrote:

+1 for giving ryan the blog title ahead of time

+1 for having an awesome idea for a blog
+1 because I'm just feel generous today
Where do I spend these?
In a knowledge etiquette skill, maybe?

Got a crush on me, sweetie? ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
LordDaeron wrote:
Mbando wrote:
Alku Leon wrote:

+1 for giving ryan the blog title ahead of time

+1 for having an awesome idea for a blog
+1 because I'm just feel generous today
Where do I spend these?
In a knowledge etiquette skill, maybe?
Got a crush on me, sweetie? ;)

No, unless you are planning to play a female Dwarf with big breasts and red long hair, LOL.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
Got a crush on me, sweetie? ;)

I don't know... I might. Still trying to work through that :)

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

avari3 wrote:

Watching the wanna be evils pout over consequences and the wanna be goods pout because of the fact they are not as good as they thought they were makes me rub my neutral belly with glee.

Neutrals REIGN!!!

While I am planing on being NG, any of the potential N alignments seem to be missing from the current discussions, and I'd like to see that change. Since Ryan is spending so much time on the Good-Evil Axis and the Law-Chaos axis, will we who choose to not be on the Lawful or Chaotic end of that axis suffer? It seems that those who want to play Druids might also be getting ignored in all the Paladin v Bandit talk. I am hoping Lisa, Lee, Stephen or Ryan will discuss what those who are either True Neutral or any of the other neutral alignments can do to stay that way in stead of risk sliding toward either extreme.

Goblin Squad Member

Gloreindl wrote:
avari3 wrote:

Watching the wanna be evils pout over consequences and the wanna be goods pout because of the fact they are not as good as they thought they were makes me rub my neutral belly with glee.

Neutrals REIGN!!!

While I am planing on being NG, any of the potential N alignments seem to be missing from the current discussions, and I'd like to see that change. Since Ryan is spending so much time on the Good-Evil Axis and the Law-Chaos axis, will we who choose to not be on the Lawful or Chaotic end of that axis suffer? It seems that those who want to play Druids might also be getting ignored in all the Paladin v Bandit talk. I am hoping Lisa, Lee, Stephen or Ryan will discuss what those who are either True Neutral or any of the other neutral alignments can do to stay that way in stead of risk sliding toward either extreme.

As a Druid player myself, these are also questions I'd like to know.


Newts get to walk around and hand out the flags, mediate caravan ransoms, and cure insanity when the pally can't take it anymore.

Goblin Squad Member

+1 to the PFO community for fighting for the game we hope to forge PFO into.

First, the title... Good song, But I think they are onto Judas Priest this month.

[quote = Anduis]They've spent quite a lot of time locking good aligned players into a nice and neat little box and telling us what we can't do.

I'd like to know how we are going to be able to take part in the meaningful player interaction this game is based on instead of how we can fight demonic outsider NPCs.

Not completely accurate here. They have also told you what you can do and there is more information coming out next week.

What you can do:

1. PVP consequence free in unsettled hexes or settled hexes with little or no laws.

2. Declare war on companies that you consider the enemy of the society you want to create and maintain, and avoid the negative consequences you wish to avoid.

3. PVP against players that have criminal flags, in settled zones with laws and only suffer a small Chaotic and Good vs. Evil shift.

Many of you are responding to the latest blog, as if there will be no way to shift yourself back to good or lawful.

It is clear that since LG settlements will be the most advanced settlements, there must be many opportunities to achieve that status. It will likely come from PVE questing which will be often.

If you engage in PVP, you will shift to Chaotic, that is by design. If you kill too many players in settled hexes, you will be evil. That is how the Devs are trying to curtail griefing.

If you want to be able to kill every pickpocket that is flagged, or at one time had been flagged, as a thief.... You are not Lawful, Neutral or Good.

Goblin Squad Member

The Next Blog should be entitled: "Dissident Aggressor"

Because you get to flag yourself for PVP, and get added buffs for the type of skills that are appropriate for what you are looking to do.

Possibilities:

Champion = Mitigate or Eliminate shift to Evil for Pvp kills.

Outlaw = Shortens time on Attacker, Criminal and Thief flags.

Assassin = Mitigate or Eliminate negative Reputation shifts.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

The Next Blog should be entitled: "Dissident Aggressor"

Because you get to flag yourself for PVP, and get added buffs for the type of skills that are appropriate for what you are looking to do.

Possibilities:

Champion = Mitigate or Eliminate shift to Evil for Pvp kills.

Outlaw = Shortens time on Attacker, Criminal and Thief flags.

Assassin = Mitigate or Eliminate negative Reputation shifts.

Interesting suggestion Bluddwulf. I'd like to see at least one more, if not many more of these, especially one that would involve the slide between Law and Chaos. There are many of us who wish to play some flavor of Neutral (NG in my case). Right now most of the talk is about the opposite ends of that sliding scale (LG, CG, CE, LE), but little has been said about the more "balanced" alignments. Perhaps it could even be called "Balanced"?

Now, if these self-flagging mechanics do come about, and I hope they do, and if there are enough of them, would it be unbalancing to be able to apply more than one self-flag, provided they aren't diametrically opposed (no Champion Assassin, for example)? You could, however have an Outlaw Assassin, or a Balanced Champion.

Some things that the Devs will need to address, in addition to game balance if you can have multiple self-flags, would be, naturally, can the be exploited to allow for griefing and mitigating the anti-griefing mechanics. If an Outlaw Assassin flagged PC kills another player with no in-game reason to do so, will this negate the intent of the mechanics to keep PvP within the realm of "having a good reason" to occur? This will be an interesting discussion for Lisa, Ryan and the Devs (and I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall when it occurs).

Thoughts?

BTW, great idea for the title! Song is awesome, and the Slayer version/cover isn't bad either ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Gloreindl wrote:

Interesting suggestion Bluddwulf. I'd like to see at least one more, if not many more of these, especially one that would involve the slide between Law and Chaos. There are many of us who wish to play some flavor of Neutral (NG in my case). Right now most of the talk is about the opposite ends of that sliding scale (LG, CG, CE, LE), but little has been said about the more "balanced" alignments. Perhaps it could even be called "Balanced"?

Now, if these self-flagging mechanics do come about, and I hope they do, and if there are enough of them, would it be unbalancing to be able to apply more than one self-flag, provided they aren't diametrically opposed (no Champion Assassin, for example)? You could, however have an Outlaw Assassin, or a Balanced Champion.

Some things that the Devs will need to address, in addition to game balance if you can have multiple self-flags, would be, naturally, can the be exploited to allow for griefing and mitigating the anti-griefing mechanics. If an Outlaw Assassin flagged PC kills another player with "no in-game reason" to do so, will this negate the intent of the mechanics to keep PvP within the realm of "having a good reason" to occur? This will be an interesting discussion for Lisa, Ryan and the Devs (and I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall when it occurs).

Thoughts?

BTW, great idea for the title! Song is awesome, and the Slayer version/cover isn't bad either ;)

You are quite correct, the question will be hinged on what is a "good in-game reason"?

I am hopeful that this question is resolved when they get to a future Dev Blog on Contracts, particularly Player Created Contracts.

I am guessing that you could have more than one self-activated tags at one time. I disagree that you can't be a "Champion Assassin". Role Playing grants limitless possibilities, and sandbox MMOs are supposed to cater to that as much as possible.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

1. PVP consequence free in unsettled hexes or settled hexes with little or no laws.

I don't like this idea as we would end with , for example, a LG char going to the wilderness just to be able to kill/robb w/o alignments consequences. So people would behave like CE in that areas and go back to the LG settlement with no penalties. That wouldn't work, at least for roleplayers. To allow non-alignment-penalty areas is to open a wide door to abuse and alignment missmatched behaviour.

No flags ok, but alignment is no human business. It is gods' terrain, if you act against you god's alignment you must always face the consequences, even in FFA regions. Or the entire cosmology will make no sense.

The other suggestions I like very much, though.

Goblin Squad Member

LordDaeron wrote:

I don't like this idea as we would end with , for example, a LG char going to the wilderness just to be able to kill/robb w/o alignments consequences. So people would behave like CE in that areas and go back to the LG settlement with no penalties. That wouldn't work, at least for roleplayers. To allow non-alignment-penalty areas is to open a wide door to abuse and alignment missmatched behaviour.

No flags ok, but alignment is no human business. It is gods' terrain, if you act against you god's alignment you must always face the consequences, even in FFA regions. Or the entire cosmology will make no sense.

The other suggestions I like very much, though.

This is what it is for now... The Unsettled, wilds of the wilderness, are the 0.0 Space of EVE Online. Free-for-All and alignment consequence free.

It should stay that way in my opinion. Otherwise you are forcing your alignment restricted laws onto everyone, and everywhere in the game. That is not a sandbox, that is a Good Character's Theme Park, and I don't like the rides there.


Bluddwolf wrote:
Gloreindl wrote:
...but little has been said about the more "balanced" alignments. Perhaps it could even be called "Balanced"?
I am guessing that you could have more than one self-activated tags at one time. I disagree that you can't be a "Champion Assassin".

@Gloreindl - what would "Balanced" do?

A Champion Assassin flag might be something befitting a vigilante or a mercenary...? Or something an assassin might get when under contract?

LordDaeron wrote:

I don't like this idea as we would end with , for example, a LG char going to the wilderness just to be able to kill/robb w/o alignments consequences. So people would behave like CE in that areas and go back to the LG settlement with no penalties. That wouldn't work, at least for roleplayers. To allow non-alignment-penalty areas is to open a wide door to abuse and alignment missmatched behaviour.

No flags ok, but alignment is no human business.

You may have answered your own question - No player assigned flags in unsettled areas so everyone would take the full hit of their actions - with appropriate AI flags - might that work?

Goblin Squad Member

Snowbeard wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Gloreindl wrote:
...but little has been said about the more "balanced" alignments. Perhaps it could even be called "Balanced"?
I am guessing that you could have more than one self-activated tags at one time. I disagree that you can't be a "Champion Assassin".

@Gloreindl - what would "Balanced" do?

A Champion Assassin flag might be something befitting a vigilante or a mercenary...? Or something an assassin might get when under contract?

LordDaeron wrote:

I don't like this idea as we would end with , for example, a LG char going to the wilderness just to be able to kill/robb w/o alignments consequences. So people would behave like CE in that areas and go back to the LG settlement with no penalties. That wouldn't work, at least for roleplayers. To allow non-alignment-penalty areas is to open a wide door to abuse and alignment missmatched behaviour.

No flags ok, but alignment is no human business.

You may have answered your own question - No player assigned flags in unsettled areas so everyone would take the full hit of their actions - with appropriate AI flags - might that work?

We don't have alignments in EVE so some concepts that are valid there may be nonsense in PFO. Wanna PvP indefinitelly w/o alignment changes, pickup an alingment that fits your chaotic behaviour.

Goblin Squad Member

Wyldethorne wrote:
Gloreindl wrote:
avari3 wrote:

Watching the wanna be evils pout over consequences and the wanna be goods pout because of the fact they are not as good as they thought they were makes me rub my neutral belly with glee.

Neutrals REIGN!!!

While I am planing on being NG, any of the potential N alignments seem to be missing from the current discussions, and I'd like to see that change. Since Ryan is spending so much time on the Good-Evil Axis and the Law-Chaos axis, will we who choose to not be on the Lawful or Chaotic end of that axis suffer? It seems that those who want to play Druids might also be getting ignored in all the Paladin v Bandit talk. I am hoping Lisa, Lee, Stephen or Ryan will discuss what those who are either True Neutral or any of the other neutral alignments can do to stay that way in stead of risk sliding toward either extreme.
As a Druid player myself, these are also questions I'd like to know.

Also very much planning to a druid for main character. So love to know how we going to be ripped off and/or bonuses we going to get.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Champion = Mitigate or Eliminate shift to Evil for Pvp kills.

You also get champions for evil, so there should be a shift to greater evil.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LordDaeron wrote:
We don't have alignments in EVE so some concepts that are valid there may be nonsense in PFO. Wanna PvP indefinitelly w/o alignment changes, pickup an alingment that fits your chaotic behaviour.

We should not be picking an alignment that fits our characters. Our characters will fit the alignment they are.

This is why I never liked an alignment system. It is unnecessary and limiting in a role playing game. We should only have a reputation. That is the true measure of who our characters are.

90% of all people are Chaotic Neutral at heart. We are not good or bad, but self interested. We are lawful because we are punished if we are not. We break minor rules all the time, and wish from time-to-time some of the major ones were not there either . That just leaves the remaining 10% who are either profoundly good or abhorrently evil.

You can already see it here on these forums. Many of those who claim to be lawful, are just as chaotic as the rest of us. Those who claim to be good, seem to only want to express that by killing those who they don't agree with. Those that are playing evil, can't understand why they can't put together some shining city on the hill.

Only when you embrace your Chaotic Neutral self, will you set yourself free from the delusion of good, the oppression of law, and the depravation of evil.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Snowbeard wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Gloreindl wrote:
...but little has been said about the more "balanced" alignments. Perhaps it could even be called "Balanced"?
I am guessing that you could have more than one self-activated tags at one time. I disagree that you can't be a "Champion Assassin".

@Gloreindl - what would "Balanced" do?

A Champion Assassin flag might be something befitting a vigilante or a mercenary...? Or something an assassin might get when under contract?

LordDaeron wrote:

I don't like this idea as we would end with , for example, a LG char going to the wilderness just to be able to kill/robb w/o alignments consequences. So people would behave like CE in that areas and go back to the LG settlement with no penalties. That wouldn't work, at least for roleplayers. To allow non-alignment-penalty areas is to open a wide door to abuse and alignment missmatched behaviour.

No flags ok, but alignment is no human business.

You may have answered your own question - No player assigned flags in unsettled areas so everyone would take the full hit of their actions - with appropriate AI flags - might that work?

Hi Snowbeard :) I see the point you and Bluddwolf have with Champion Assassin flags, and they do make sense put that way. Guess I got too caught up in the good v evil debacle.

Anyway, a Balanced flag would work similar to the Champion flag, in that it would keep Neutral aligned PC's from slipping to far to either side of the Law-Chaos axis. It would be a mechanic that would force players to have to always have to run out and try and re-balance their alignment back to a Neutral stance. Otherwise you'd force the players to constantly be doing actions to counter act previous ones, ruining the fun they may have because suddenly your NG Champion is slipping toward CG, (works for N, CN, LN and NE as well). I know I don't want to have to be forced by game mechanics to always HAVE to do things to keep me NG. The proposed Champion self-flag saves some of the headache of the good-evil axis, so why not one that allows for someone to remain more-or-less in the middle of the chaos-law axis? Druids, I am sure, will appreciate this flag, as would a LN Monk or CN Barbarian conceptual PC.


LordDaeron wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

1. PVP consequence free in unsettled hexes or settled hexes with little or no laws.

I don't like this idea as we would end with , for example, a LG char going to the wilderness just to be able to kill/robb w/o alignments consequences. So people would behave like CE in that areas and go back to the LG settlement with no penalties. That wouldn't work, at least for roleplayers. To allow non-alignment-penalty areas is to open a wide door to abuse and alignment missmatched behaviour.

No flags ok, but alignment is no human business. It is gods' terrain, if you act against you god's alignment you must always face the consequences, even in FFA regions. Or the entire cosmology will make no sense.

The other suggestions I like very much, though.

I think it was Ryan that said "alignment is absolute", and somewhere I read that it's a province of the Gods.

I think you should get whatever results your actions bring alignment wise. Whether its bonuses or penalties, your actions everywhere, should have consequence. I could see the wilderness, because its lawless, giving no flags. But alignment shifts should happen everywhere. (IMO anyway)..

Goblin Squad Member

The only logical thing I can think of for the self-flagged is that they are fair game to each other but that it wouldn't change anything for those who have not self-flagged. Because PVP will already run wide even without those flags imo. Paladin not being able to attack evil without taking an alignment hit must be such nuance that it can't be reproduced that well in an MMO without breaking some of the concepts behind a sandbox MMO. I myself am a big fan of the alignment system, but I'm willing to play the way I want to play and let the game brand me with it's chosen alignment according to my play style.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Almost forgot to mention this, I like the blog and the proposed ideas. Obviously they are only part of a bigger system, but I have confidence in Goblinworks.

Goblin Squad Member

Nice call, Mbando :)

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Suggestion for Next Blog: I Shot a Man in Reno Just to Watch Him Die All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online