Goblin Squad Member
|
I asked this in the big "Screaming for Vengeance" thread, but it got buried. Understandably so....... a lot of passion in that thread ^.~
Anyways, in that thread it was made clear that reputation is what really effects quality of a settlement more so than anything else. And that alignment would mean not being able to train certain skills or have certain facilities based on alignment. So no evil temples in a goody town, and no paladin training in an evil town, etc.
So basically:
Rep = Quality of settlement
Alignment = Flavor of settlement
Lee also indicated that the rep. of individuals of a settlement would effect the overall rep. of the settlement.
Does this mean that a TN settlement could slide to LN or CN along with whatever penalties/benefits?
Or does this just mean a slide in alignment in either direction would eliminate whatever specific TN benefits, but gain no benefits from the slide to LN or CN? Because it was originally chartered as a TN settlement?
Note: Not really talking about the one step alignment rule for who can join. However a follow up question would be could the alignment of the settlement shift enough to kick out members on the opposite end of the shift?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems like it would be possible where the alignment of the settlement is the average of its members.
Against this we have the assurance that taking over a settlement in war is not a do-able thing, the settlement must be destroyed and rebuilt.
As always anything that was said might here be misinterpreted, or even changed if the design needs it to change.
But take the scenario where you as a, what, CN character are only one step in alignment from a CG settlement. Let's say the CG settlement has 25 CG characters there and you, a CN. If you started recruiting more and more of your CN buddies and they keep adding wealth and renown to the settlement making it better an more prosperous to the settlement accepts your buddies more and more it seems at some point the alignment of the town might shift over to CN. And if that is true and possible then what is to stop the major CE guild a few hexes away from sending in their recruits to add to the newly CN settlement. What if so many come that suddenly the settlement shifts over to CE? Suddenly the original CG settlers whose town it originally was are in a settlement two steps removed from their alignment.
They may have to head out on the road, homeless refugees.
But so far I haven't seen anything from the devs other than the state of war scenario that says something like that can't happen.
First blush I would say that a settlements alignment could shift. Just like characters alignments can, and will, shift asked on their actions. And if the settlement shifts enough, then some characters would have to seek another residence elsewhere. But I'm not sure how that would work.
It would be interesting to see how the Devs view this.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
Yes.
Initially, the alignment is based on the average of members. Over time, new members and shifting member alignments affect the settlement. There are also certain ways to control it independent of trying to get your membership to change their ways (e.g., if you want your settlement to become more Lawful, you can make more laws; however, if they get broken a lot, it might actually make the settlement more Chaotic).
We'll have some manner of warning mechanism to make it apparent when you're getting close to crossing over into one of the other spaces on the alignment chart. Once you cross over, buildings that required the previous alignment will stop working (though new buildings may become available) and members now more than one step away will no longer be members (though we will probably include some kind of transition state so they or the settlement can try to adjust alignment to avoid getting kicked out instantly).
First blush I would say that a settlements alignment could shift. Just like characters alignments can, and will, shift asked on their actions. And if the settlement shifts enough, then some characters would have to seek another residence elsewhere. But I'm not sure how that would work.
It would be interesting to see how the Devs view this.
Maybe this helps (from the Blog)
Settlements also have ranks and ratings with alliances (except with local groups, as they do not have enough influence to really support settlements). The alliance rating for a settlement is based on the alliance ratings of all members of that settlement, so if some members of your settlement are working against an alliance the settlement hopes to join, you should go talk to those guys
If a settlement falls out of being within one alignment step of an alliance it has joined, all buildings in that settlement that require an alliance stop working and all upgrades related to it are lost, but it still costs money for upkeep. If a settlement willingly leaves an alliance, the same thing happens. There is no option for a settlement betraying an alliance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes.
Initially, the alignment is based on the average of members. Over time, new members and shifting member alignments affect the settlement. There are also certain ways to control it independent of trying to get your membership to change their ways (e.g., if you want your settlement to become more Lawful, you can make more laws; however, if they get broken a lot, it might actually make the settlement more Chaotic).
We'll have some manner of warning mechanism to make it apparent when you're getting close to crossing over into one of the other spaces on the alignment chart. Once you cross over, buildings that required the previous alignment will stop working (though new buildings may become available) and members now more than one step away will no longer be members (though we will probably include some kind of transition state so they or the settlement can try to adjust alignment to avoid getting kicked out instantly).
Thanks very much Stephen, this is exactly what I was looking for. With this and what Lee posted in the other thread, I now know how things will work, as well as how to control my PC destiny. Again, thanks for the response.
Yes.
Initially, the alignment is based on the average of members. Over time, new members and shifting member alignments affect the settlement. There are also certain ways to control it independent of trying to get your membership to change their ways (e.g., if you want your settlement to become more Lawful, you can make more laws; however, if they get broken a lot, it might actually make the settlement more Chaotic).
We'll have some manner of warning mechanism to make it apparent when you're getting close to crossing over into one of the other spaces on the alignment chart. Once you cross over, buildings that required the previous alignment will stop working (though new buildings may become available) and members now more than one step away will no longer be members (though we will probably include some kind of transition state so they or the settlement can try to adjust alignment to avoid getting kicked out instantly).
Thanks Stephen, I figured you guys were on top of this and I like the way it's going. Playing an alignment will be more difficult then many think. I imagine we will see much shifting between characters and settlements :) it'll be interesting watching it happen. I'm glad my guild/settlement is going with NG instead of the more extreme ends of the spectrum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes.
There are also certain ways to control it independent of trying to get your membership to change their ways (e.g., if you want your settlement to become more Lawful, you can make more laws; however, if they get broken a lot, it might actually make the settlement more Chaotic).
Very interested in what kind of laws you enact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm also curious as to what types of governments settlements can create? Are we stuck with just a single king or dictator? Can we have a democracy? Can we allow officials to build buildings but not change laws or declare war? Will everyone be able to access the treasury for upkeep on buildings or just the ruler? If the town architect wants to build a new building and the general wants to upgrade the npc guards but there isn't enough cash for both, who wins?
TL/DR: I'd really like to know how granular settlement management will be.
I'm quite interested in how the settlement law system will work. It's not like you can just type in a law and the game will understand what you mean and be able to just enforce the law. Sort of a questionnaire that let's you pick yes or no to different questions, I can't imagine how the system will function.
No matter how its done it'll be realms beyond anything that's been done in a MMO before. And just being a part of at will be cool!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm also curious as to what types of governments settlements can create? Are we stuck with just a single king or dictator? Can we have a democracy? Can we allow officials to build buildings but not change laws or declare war? Will everyone be able to access the treasury for upkeep on buildings or just the ruler? If the town architect wants to build a new building and the general wants to upgrade the npc guards but there isn't enough cash for both, who wins?
TL/DR: I'd really like to know how granular settlement management will be.
From "All Politics Are Local Politics":
Allocation of settlement votes:
Feudal: One character has all the votes
Oligarchy: A limited group of characters have votes as apportioned by the charter
Democracy: Every member of the settlement has an equal vote
From "To Form a More Perfect Union"
The player nation system, by which settlements can join together to form a larger organization, has a charter very similar to the settlement charter. A player nation does not need to mirror the political or tax structures of its constituent settlements, so the details of a player nation charter could be substantially different than those of their constituent settlements.
The political structure of a kingdom has the following options:
Democracy: Every player character member of the player nation has an equal vote
Executive: One settlement has all the votes
Federation: Each settlement has one vote
Star Chamber: A limited group of characters have votes as apportioned by the charter
Security Council: A limited group of settlements have votes as apportioned by the charter
Kingdom: One character has all the votes
I guess it's a good thing those $5000 taverns are "between settlements" but I still have to wonder what happens to all the time, R/L money? whatever it takes to own a shop inside a settlement when I get the boot due to a settlement alignment shift?
Alignment shifting of player settlements sounds like a much bigger and "better" method of large scale griefing then anything one idiot could do in PvP lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I guess it's a good thing those $5000 taverns are "between settlements" but I still have to wonder what happens to all the time, R/L money? whatever it takes to own a shop inside a settlement when I get the boot due to a settlement alignment shift?
Alignment shifting of player settlements sounds like a much bigger and "better" method of large scale griefing then anything one idiot could do in PvP lol
Indeed this kind of griefing is a possibility DEVs must consider and create mechanisms to avoid. Actually your concern is valid for all kinds of business. I would really hate to invest time and money in a shop inside some settlement and see it changing alignment and expelling me because my alignment matches no more the settlements' range. What would be of my business in this case?
Indeed this kind of griefing is a possibility DEVs must consider and create mechanisms to avoid. Actually your concern is valid for all kinds of business. I would really hate to invest time and money in a shop inside some settlement and see it changing alignment and expelling me because my alignment matches no more the settlements' range. What would be of my business in this case?I guess it's a good thing those $5000 taverns are "between settlements" but I still have to wonder what happens to all the time, R/L money? whatever it takes to own a shop inside a settlement when I get the boot due to a settlement alignment shift?
Alignment shifting of player settlements sounds like a much bigger and "better" method of large scale griefing then anything one idiot could do in PvP lol
The Devs haven't given us much info regarding owning businesses within a settlement. I recall them mentioning that we could run a shop within a settlement, but that's not the same as owning one. I'm very curious as to what's possible. And the alignment issue is important, it could really mess things up. There will have to be some general actions that settlements can take to keep their alignments in line with the players desires. What those are though I'm not sure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The settlement owner will need to have tools in place to see before and after effects of settlement alignment/reputation average before allowing a request to join the settlement. If there are 30 CG residents and 15 who are CN, them you might be ok letting another five CN characters join. But being able to say no, sorry we can't let you join because if we do our alignment may shift is totally valid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's a reason I keep saying that restricted alignments should only be an option for settlements. People getting the boot for the alignment of the settlement is one of them. It restricts options needlessly.
I mean, there are plenty of examples in fantasy of cities with people of all alignments in them, being functional members of society. Sure, there are some that are unquestionably Good, or Evil, or Chaotic, or Lawful, but for the most part, they're generally mixed alignments. Forcing people to be within a step of a settlement's alignment ruins a great number of concepts. The LG priest trying to redeem the evil town, the NE merchant who's set up shop in a CG village because he has goods that nobody else can provide, and so on.
It's incredibly silly to negate swaths of concepts like that.
Now, Alliances and settlements, I can see. A paladin order would totally remove their base in an overly Evil town. A thieves' guild would remove their safehouse from a town that cracked down harder than most.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's a reason I keep saying that restricted alignments should only be an option for settlements. People getting the boot for the alignment of the settlement is one of them. It restricts options needlessly.
I mean, there are plenty of examples in fantasy of cities with people of all alignments in them, being functional members of society. Sure, there are some that are unquestionably Good, or Evil, or Chaotic, or Lawful, but for the most part, they're generally mixed alignments. Forcing people to be within a step of a settlement's alignment ruins a great number of concepts. The LG priest trying to redeem the evil town, the NE merchant who's set up shop in a CG village because he has goods that nobody else can provide, and so on.
It's incredibly silly to negate swaths of concepts like that.
Now, Alliances and settlements, I can see. A paladin order would totally remove their base in an overly Evil town. A thieves' guild would remove their safehouse from a town that cracked down harder than most.
I agree with you in that. I wold like to see a bit more of flexibility in that system. Maybe allowing TN cities to have all the alignments with no penalties or foccusing more in the governors alignment (and the companies who own the settlements) than the alignment of the people who will just join the town to make a living and profit or have it just a base of operations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe anyone has said you couldn't have all alignments in a city. Those who don't match the city laws might have to step lightly. However, there is no reason they could not live in the most Lawful Good town in game.
As for affecting alignment, I think it should be based on the government. If it is Feudal or Oligarchy where you have 1-10 people in charge, then only those few people will be able to influence the settlement's alignment.
If you want a big democratic hippy commune where everyone is welcome; get ready to eat some alignment hits if an evil guild moves in. They get an equal say as much as anyone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As for affecting alignment, I think it should be based on the government. If it is Feudal or Oligarchy where you have 1-10 people in charge, then only those few people will be able to influence the settlement's alignment.
If you want a big democratic hippy commune where everyone is welcome; get ready to eat some alignment hits if an evil guild moves in. They get an equal say as much as anyone else.
I Agree 100%
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hm. I won't bet on GW implementing rules that eliminate non-pvp player drama and reduce the potential for a settlement's political content.
The struggle to maintain a favorable alignment would be absent outside a seige. It seems like eliminating the potential for CG factions to overcome LG settlements by putting NG characters into the population should prove interesting, and, considering current RL Politics, relevant.
Spellhammer you need to start at the top of this post and READ IT, up to and including the post by Stephen Cheney.
You’re welcome to have whatever alignments in your settlement you care to have and if as you suggest "have all alignments in a city. Those who don't match the city laws might have to step lightly. However, there is no reason they could not live in the most Lawful Good town in game."
Your correct, HOWEVER as it's currently being described, allowing those evil toons into your LG settlement WILL eventually, quicker if their numbers are left unchecked, shift its (the settlements) alignment and will eventually force your LG toon to leave your own settlement
In reference to settlements Stephen Cheney wrote, "We'll have some manner of warning mechanism to make it apparent when you're getting close to crossing over into one of the other spaces on the alignment chart. Once you cross over, buildings that required the previous alignment will stop working (though new buildings may become available) and members now more than one step away will no longer be members (though we will probably include some kind of transition state so they or the settlement can try to adjust alignment to avoid getting kicked out instantly)."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand.
I also know we have a solid year and a half prior to EE. Rather then complaining about a problem I prefer to embrace the crowdforging concept; try to think of a better way of doing it.
For example this post.
Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So... you invited those smiling strangers to your settlement, and it turns out they are evil kitten-eating cultist. You get a warning they are starting to turn the whole village into evil kitten-eaters. What to do?
well, if you were stupid enough to make them mayor, judge and sherrif, the your village becomes a place of evil. But if you are still in power, you just expel them before they can do more damage, and the village remains neutral.
what i want to know is whether I could make 10 lawful good newbie alts and put those in my settlement (never to be logged on to again) to balance out my bad actions. Should the influence of passive players drop towards zero?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This ...
Yes.
... and members now more than one step away will no longer be members ...
... answers a question I had been wondering about.
It means it may be quite feasible to infiltrate and corrupt smaller settlements, have many of the original members booted, than have your own plants quit as well just before declaring war. Things could get very interesting in game if the evil side get creative.
I do like the one step alignment requirement. Although there are many counterexamples in the literature where individual and settlement alignments seem to mismatch. Drow for example seem to be LE individuals in a LE society.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So... you invited those smiling strangers to your settlement, and it turns out they are evil kitten-eating cultist. You get a warning they are starting to turn the whole village into evil kitten-eaters. What to do?
well, if you were stupid enough to make them mayor, judge and sherrif, the your village becomes a place of evil. But if you are still in power, you just expel them before they can do more damage, and the village remains neutral.
what i want to know is whether I could make 10 lawful good newbie alts and put those in my settlement (never to be logged on to again) to balance out my bad actions. Should the influence of passive players drop towards zero?
Good point, although DEVs are going to track accounts to "recicle" inactive chars names to avoid people making chars just to reserve names, and will block or delete those inactive accounts. That procedure may reduce the effectivity of such strategy. But it could take time and one could build alts just to stop an "alignment crysis" and to buy some time. THAT is one reason IMO only leaders' alignment should impact setller's alignment (or at least that should account more than other players') or maybe the leading guild's members' alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IMO a very, very, important factor that should be accounted in this alignment shift mechanism (if it still account all players in the settlement) is the time people are living in the settlement.
For example, a CE char that has joined a NG settlement for just 1 day should affect it less than one that is there for months, as we would suppose he had time to know people, make contacts and plot bad stuff.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would be fairly simple to track, just an extra column in a database.
GW is kinda big on newer players catching up with long term players, so you may need a break point where they are considered equally.
Basic idea: people count as 1 plus the number of active months they have been a resident maximum 9 for a total of 10. This would put a gateway where after 10 months the CE guy would be equally considered.
Then you are suggesting a time-played-as-resident gating value for citizenship? Not a bad idea.
Excellent idea. It would be a lot more difficult to pull off if you factor in residency. Still doable in a long range plan, but you run into players growing bored waiting around for their status to rise, they get bored and wander off to do other stuff. Short attention span FTW!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then you are suggesting a time-played-as-resident gating value for citizenship? Not a bad idea.
Yes, exactly what I suggest. That would also solve (or reduce) that problem of people creating "ghost alts" just to influence settlement alingment, as it would give time to GW to investigate accounts to track this kind of behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just one question that occurred me right now and is quite important IMO and I would like some input from DEVs if possible:
How settlement governors will control the alignment of who joins their settlement if alignments are supposed to be kept in secret?
(at least it is I've got from what I read around)
Same for companies, how they will control member recruitment to assure there is no one faking their alignment?
Just one question that occurred me right now and is quite important IMO and I would like some input from DEVs if possible:
How settlement governors will control the alignment of who joins their settlement if alignments are supposed to be kept in secret?
(at least it is I've got from what I read around)Same for companies, how they will control member recruitment to assure there is no one faking their alignment?
I'd think the joining of settlements would be a simple mechanic like going to town hall and talking to an NPC who would ask if you wanted to join. The governor would have given instructions for that NPC mechanic when he set up the settlement. When you said yes the server would check your credentials and say yea or nay.
The latter could be hard. I can see one possibility if detect alignment spells are allowed. Or they might have to be a bit tolerant. If guards have some innate abilty to detect alignment and a settlement had set rules about who could enter the settlement, a CC/guild might use the ability to enter the settlement as an indicator of the desired alignment.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
How settlement governors will control the alignment of who joins their settlement if alignments are supposed to be kept in secret?
I'd be surprised if there was any secret to a Settlement's alignment, or it's stated alignment. Such info will be common knowledge thus there's no point in trying to obfuscate it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd be surprised if there was any secret to a Settlement's alignment, or it's stated alignment. Such info will be common knowledge thus there's no point in trying to obfuscate it.
How settlement governors will control the alignment of who joins their settlement if alignments are supposed to be kept in secret?
I believe I didn't make myself clear, I was speaking of player alignments. So If I'm NE but want to join a LG settlement and pretend I"m NG, how will the settler managers know I'm bluffing if alignments will not be exposed to everyone to see?
I believe I didn't make myself clear, I was speaking of player alignments. So If I'm NE but want to join a LG settlement and pretend I"m NG, how will the settler managers know I'm bluffing if alignments will not be exposed to everyone to see?I'd be surprised if there was any secret to a Settlement's alignment, or it's stated alignment. Such info will be common knowledge thus there's no point in trying to obfuscate it.
How settlement governors will control the alignment of who joins their settlement if alignments are supposed to be kept in secret?
I'd be interested in hearing the answer to that myself.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone NE tries to join a LG settlement the invite will fail because of not being within one step (there's some level of alignment detection implied by that fact, and we'll come up with a lore reason for that if you guys really want one ;) ).
Additionally, kicking people out of a settlement will largely remove the effect their alignments had on the overall score, so if you notice you've invited in a bunch of NGs that are really close to CNs and that's weighing your LG settlement down, you can kick them to more heavily secure your preferred alignment.
But you won't necessarily know exactly who's borderline and making it harder to maintain your alignment if you had a lot of people joining up recently (or a lot of shifts recently). And this kind of potential subtle sabotage is something that is probably desirable in the long run as a tactic to use against rival settlements.
If someone NE tries to join a LG settlement the invite will fail because of not being within one step (there's some level of alignment detection implied by that fact, and we'll come up with a lore reason for that if you guys really want one ;) ).
Additionally, kicking people out of a settlement will largely remove the effect their alignments had on the overall score, so if you notice you've invited in a bunch of NGs that are really close to CNs and that's weighing your LG settlement down, you can kick them to more heavily secure your preferred alignment.
But you won't necessarily know exactly who's borderline and making it harder to maintain your alignment if you had a lot of people joining up recently (or a lot of shifts recently). And this kind of potential subtle sabotage is something that is probably desirable in the long run as a tactic to use against rival settlements.
I wonder.... If you had 10 settlement members and you knew that 2 of them had been going out and acting out evil acts, but you didn't know which two. Could someone look at the reputation of all 10 and see which 2 had recently gotten some negative reputation hits?
I 'think' this is possible but don't know...?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This could get tricky for clerics.
Example, my CC (Keepers of the Circle) is NG and will almost certainly create a NG settlement.
Suppose I decide to be a cleric of the CN god Gorum (motivation - to achieve access to his war/strength/glory domains and great sword favored weapon). I can achieve this by becoming TN (this is banned in 3.5 unless your deity is TN but is perfectly OK in PF).
Whilst his keeps me within one step of both my deity and my settlement I am treading a tightrope as any alignment variation whatsoever will either negate my cleric abilities or get expulsion from the settlement.
Could be very interesting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This could get tricky for clerics.
Example, my CC (Keepers of the Circle) is NG and will almost certainly create a NG settlement.
Suppose I decide to be a cleric of the CN god Gorum (motivation - to achieve access to his war/strength/glory domains and great sword favored weapon). I can achieve this by becoming TN (this is banned in 3.5 unless your deity is TN but is perfectly OK in PF).
Whilst his keeps me within one step of both my deity and my settlement I am treading a tightrope as any alignment variation whatsoever will either negate my cleric abilities or get expulsion from the settlement.
Could be very interesting.
In this situation, you would probably be better served from a metagame perspective by going CG. You would still be welcome in a NG settlement, be within one step of your god, and the corner alignments should be easier to maintain than the neutral ones based on dev posts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In this situation, you would probably be better served from a metagame perspective by going CG. You would still be welcome in a NG settlement, be within one step of your god, and the corner alignments should be easier to maintain than the neutral ones based on dev posts.
Good point.
As an interesting sidenote it is perfectly possible as a cleric to worship an LE God like Asmodeus and be yourself LN.
This would then mean you are eligible to join a LG settlement even though you are a cleric of a LE God.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, having read the latest GW blog, this scenario is another good argument for players alignment shifting gradually towards that of the settlement they are in - rather than everyone always becoming LG.
That way if you are trying to maintain an odd alignment for any reason it will be difficult as you will gravitate towards the settlement alignment.