Goblin Squad Member
|
Since there are penalties for building buildings for all of Evil, Chaotic, and Reputation, then I can totally see PC settlements being able to block low rep characters from using those facilities. It probably wouldn't matter for NPC settlements, but those will be locked out of advanced training.
Will it play out that way? Too early to tell. But Reputation is a tool for the community and players to self regulate bad behavior. If I build a LG stronghold and have a paladin training facility there, you can bet I would have something in place to keep out undesirables.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can loose reputation just for cursing who killed you with death penalty. Will be that fair to put in the same bag, griefers and players who just lost their reputation over using it for death curse?
A death curse should be rare, and you pray to Calistria, a CN god of vengeance to level it. It is meant to be a nuclear deterrent, and if you use it frequently, then yeah, losing access to high reputation facilities is a legitimate thing to be worried about.
If you use it only when needed against the vilest scum in the river kingdoms, you'll be fine. If you use it every time you get killed by a bandit when escorting high value materials to town, then don't be surprised when some of Calistria's taint brings you down to their level.
If they do it ocasionally lets say twice a week ?And will reputation prevent someone from training in a LG city? For what I read I don't think so.
And the worse for me : see people posing as good but expoiting the alignment system may be the most imersion breaking thing ever IMO.
"see that paladin? last week he killed a noob just for fun. He attoned and now is LG again, he does it frequently"
No TY, don't wanna witness stuff like that
But this isn't a P&P RPG. You don't roll a class to play at the character creation. You don't select an alignment for yourself at character creation. In a sandbox MMO, those things are fluid. They're dynamic. They change over time. Nothing is set in stone.
Your alignment and reputation stand to reflect your recent activity. It's meant to aid/punish behavior on a small scale. If you're online and need access to a LG settlement - you'll have to had acted accordingly in the past few days, otherwise you might be out of luck.
It's not meant to solidify your character in a playstyle for eternity. That's one of the main distinctions between sandbox and themepark MMORPGs. You don't shoehorn yourself into 1 class, you start with a blank slate and are given access to every form of training to allow you to play in a manner you choose.
If you like to RP, I have nothing against that. But in MMORPGs, RPers do not make up the majority. I bet PFO will indeed have a strong RP community - maybe bigger than any other MMO. But you're also going to have a TON of players who don't. Roleplay is something you can only control on a small scale. If you want people to Roleplay in your group; you have control over that. You can kick them out or leave. If you want them to Roleplay in your company/guild; You have control over that too. Invite them or don't. If you want everyone to Roleplay in the MMORPG you play; You're going to be severely disappointed because there's no way that's going to happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Um...ok lets be clear about what IC actualy means...since it seems to me you are a bit fuzzy on the definition to be making that kind of assertion.IC = IN CHARACTER... what your character knows of the world, not what you the player knows of the world.
In Character both a PC and an NPC elf are sentient free willed beings who can chose to do whatever they want to do. There is no programming, there is no computer, there is no glowing sign over one elf's head saying "Hi, I'm a PC."
I can't believe I'm having to explain a concept this basic.
I'm having difficulty believing your in-character will argue against the gods that your motivations override your deeds and protect your alignment pretenses.
We are not in character, and are discussing world design.
If the computer cannot factor your avowed intent then your character's heart-of-hearts is an invalid measure of your alignment.
Alignment can be computationally identified by measuring the incidence of key behaviors.
If you prove yourself to be of a different alignment than you pretend you are, your alignment can be changed by the agent of the DM, namely the computer.
It is fully effective and absolutely more fair than listening to your rhetoric for six hundred posts.
This is largely an intellectual arguement at this point since the recent Dev Blog addressed most of my personal concerns in this area, but for the sake of intellectual excersize I'd like to answer your above post.
I think we are talking past each other a bit here.
I agree that automated systems can only measure actions not intent, that's part of thier limitations.
You were talking about how the designers have designed the game and thier limitations on doing so.
I'm trying to talk about how a character living in the world would logicaly see the world.
The sole reason I am doing so is to illustrate that a major factor in why the Dev's designed the Alignment system the way they did was to control the OOC Player Activity of Griefing (The latest Blog kinda calls that out explicitly). Sometimes those concerns mesh with a logical representation of the Alignments of the Pathfinder Universe, sometimes they run contrary to then (i.e. if the concern of Griefing weren't present...the shift would be in the opposite direction).
So from a characters persepective, he see's 2 Elves identical in nature, takes the exact same action against them for the exact same reasons with the exact same context and recieves opposite result.
From a characters perspective that would make the moral rules of the universe arbitrary, capricious and impossible to predict. Probably not something the designers would want if representation of the Universe in an accurate/sensible fashion were thier primary concern...that would demand consistantcy in the morale rules of the Universe that CHARACTERS can observe (e.g. 2 + 2 ALWAYS equals 4), unless they were purposefully going for an arbitrary and capricious universe. Of course, we as PLAYERS understand why the results came out different, we can recognize the differences between the 2 Elves. It makes perfect sense to us, as Players looking at it as a GAME but not as characters looking at it as a World. Conclusion, OOC concerns about Griefing (player behavior) took precedence over logical and consistent representation of the Universe.
That is not to comment about whether that fact is good, bad, neccessary, uneccesary, etc. It's merely to establish that it exists as a fact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm trying to talk about how a character living in the world would logicaly see the world.
Okay, sure.
...from a characters persepective, he see's 2 Elves identical in nature, takes the exact same action against them for the exact same reasons with the exact same context and recieves opposite result.From a characters perspective that would make the moral rules of the universe arbitrary, capricious and impossible to predict.
Only if that character is behaving as a mindless automaton. Were he a sensitive, thoughtful character he would recognize that no two elves are the same. Two elves cannot be of identical nature unless they are NPC. Every elf is unique. When he decapitated the one he received approval from his diety. He knows then he done good and that the elf who died had been a very bad elf. When he decapitated the other elf the deity seems to have grown quite angry, and he would realize he had mistakenly killed a favorite elf of his diety. His world makes sense because he isn't mindless.
That is not to comment about whether that fact is good, bad, neccessary, uneccesary, etc. It's merely to establish that it exists as a fact.
Whether you think it is fact is your business, but in my book it is pretty shaky, filled with bias and unmerited judgment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being,
If the CHARACTER cannot tell the difference between the Elves until AFTER he has already recieved punishment or reward for acting upon him then indeed the moral rules ARE arbitrary and capricious. In order for a rule not to be so, a character must be able to predict the moral judgement for an action BEFORE taking said action.
If they CAN predict but there is no logical and rationale basis for said rule explained to them that they can understand, then they are merely arbitrary but not capricious.
Example: If you punish your child for staying up late on one school night and reward him for doing so on the next, your rules are arbitrary and capricious to the child as he has no way of knowing whether he will be rewarded or punished for staying up late on a school night.
If you tell the child that he will be punished for staying up late on Tues. nights and Rewarded on Wed. nights. You are not being capricious as the child can now predict whether he will be rewarded or punished for future actions but has been given no explanation he can understand as to WHY.
If you tell the child that on Wed. morning he has an important class that he needs to be alert for but on Wed. nights he watches a science program that is far more educational then his Thursday morning classes, you have ceased being arbitrary and capricious as he both can predict the judgements of his future actions and can understand the basis for such judgements.
In regards whether there was any accuracy in my statement that OOC Anti-Griefing concerns was a major factor in Alignment adjucations. Stephen in his blog explicity lists them as a bullet point in the major design factors of the system. I think, therefore, I'm fairly safe in stating that they were.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@GrumpyMel, the character should realize that he can't know the hearts of other characters. If he chooses to act knowing full well that he lacks sufficient information to make the proper judgment, then he should be prepared for the consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, the character should realize that he can't know the hearts of other characters. If he chooses to act knowing full well that he lacks sufficient information to make the proper judgment, then he should be prepared for the consequences.
Which would lead to the logical conclusion that he shouldn't attack first in PVE as well, would it not?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which would lead to the logical conclusion that he shouldn't attack first in PVE as well, would it not?
The game will have indications for Friendly, Hostile, and Neutral. I would imagine that most of the mobs that you'll kill in PvE will be Hostile. If you consistently kill NPCs that are Neutral or Friendly, I would hope that would have a negative impact on your alignment as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being,
If the CHARACTER cannot tell the difference between the Elves until AFTER he has already recieved punishment or reward for acting upon him then indeed the moral rules ARE arbitrary and capricious.
I am certain that a child who thought the world revolves around their personal reality would think that world capricious when it goes on its way anyway.
Whether the character knows the difference between the elves the deity knows and cares about one of them. That deity overrides the worldview of the oopsy character.
A computer program is nothing if not consistent. Given the individual in the world must adapt to that world to survive, one would hope the character would eventually be able to figure out the internal consistency of its rules.
If not, then he will be obsolete, and then extinct.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which would lead to the logical conclusion that he shouldn't attack first in PVE as well, would it not?The game will have indications for Friendly, Hostile, and Neutral. I would imagine that most of the mobs that you'll kill in PvE will be Hostile. If you consistently kill NPCs that are Neutral or Friendly, I would hope that would have a negative impact on your alignment as well.
How would that information be represented from an IC fashion? Clearly our characters don't see big glowing signs over beings in the world. Is there a way to tell a hostile Drow for example from a Friendly or Neutral Drow just by looking at them, before any interaction takes place from an IC perspective?
I'm trying to understand a set of rationale and consistant rules for IC behavior that would explain the Alignment mechanics from a purely world logic perspective.
In PvE you are rewarded if you attack a hostile NPC first as long as you guessed correctly about that NPC's intenetions. In PvP you are not, even if you guessed correctly (e.g. The other player actualy came out and said, "Yes, I did have hostile intentions toward you") Again the rules would be inconsistant from a World Logic standpoint.
Note that the point is pretty much MOOT now, as the Champion flag allows me to do exactly as I wished and Stephen basicaly said that OOC Anti-Griefing measures played a major role in the design considerations for the Alignment system. So it's an academic discussion at this point.
I guess given the most recent changes we could NOW say that it is NOT Evil for Good to proactively Attack and Kill Evil as long as Good has openly and publicly declared his intent to do so. It only becomes Evil when good is hiding his intent....which I guess kind of makes sense. One could look at it from an IC sense almost as the Good character stating "Repent now or I shall strike the down!", wheras the Good character who hides his intent gives Evil no opportunity to declare it's repentance first?
Good still loses reputation which could simply be viewed as the good player displaying signs of zealotry...and people always tend to get nervous around zealots...even good ones...hence the rep loss. So I can kinda see the IC rationales working now for the new mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Note that the point is pretty much MOOT now, as the Champion flag allows me to do exactly as I wished...
I feel the same way.
Good still loses reputation which could simply be viewed as the good player displaying signs of zealotry...and people always tend to get nervous around zealots...even good ones...hence the rep loss. So I can kinda see the IC rationales working now for the new mechanics.
I'm glad you said this. I'd been feeling just a little bit worried about the Reputation loss, but this is a great way of looking at it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being,
If the CHARACTER cannot tell the difference between the Elves until AFTER he has already recieved punishment or reward for acting upon him then indeed the moral rules ARE arbitrary and capricious.
I am certain that a child who thought the world revolves around their personal reality would think that world capricious when it goes on its way anyway.
Whether the character knows the difference between the elves the deity knows and cares about one of them. That deity overrides the worldview of the oopsy character.
A computer program is nothing if not consistent. Given the individual in the world must adapt to that world to survive, one would hope the character would eventually be able to figure out the internal consistency of its rules.
If not, then he will be obsolete, and then extinct.
Being, my whole point was that the character does NOT know the difference between the elves....only the PLAYER does.
Furthermore the character does NOT know WHY killing one is good and the other bad. The PLAYER does, but again the character does not.
From Merriam-Webster... Arbitrary =existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary.
The moral rules are not Arbitrary from the Players standpoint because we have OOC knowledge of the OOC considerations that the character does NOT. However for the character they are, as they have no knowledge of such things or considerations, as they exist entirely outside thier Universe.
Just as rules are Arbitrary for a child when the child isn't given any explanation of those rules or a way to understand them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon,
I think they kind of had to keep the reputation loss....if not that then some other mechanism. We don't really want any player to be able to declare open season on any other player with ZERO repercussion.
I just don't want the repurcussions to cause too much cognitive dissonence for players. My main concern wasn't mechanical penalties at all. It was a players ability to identify with thier own character.
I think that why Alignment arguements always get so touchy for players. Because they are (at least in the PnP Rules) a descriptor of the characters attitude, personal philosophy and outlook on the Universe. No one else really likes someone ELSE slapping a label on that...because it's (for many) a big part of the definition of the character.
Reputation is what OTHERS think of you....which no one can really control. Alignment is more about what you actualy think. At least that's how I've always approached it in PnP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ GrumpyMel it is said that who gets the Pharasma mark is able to recognize other marked ones, maybe that is the way a char wold perceive a difference among PCs (marked ones) and NPCs (unmarked ones) and a lot could be explained in relation to the fact that a char hesitates more in attacking a marked one than an unmarked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ GrumpyMel it is said that who gets the Pharasma mark is able to recognize other marked ones, maybe that is the way a char wold perceive a difference among PCs (marked ones) and NPCs (unmarked ones) and a lot could be explained in relation to the fact that a char hesitates more in attacking a marked one than an unmarked.
It's been suggested by random people on the forum (myself included), but I'm not sure there's been any official source saying so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation is what OTHERS think of you....which no one can really control. Alignment is more about what you actualy think. At least that's how I've always approached it in PnP.
I assume reputation is not open ended and there will be a point, if you work on it, when your reputation gets as high as it can go.
In terms of game mechanics:
If your character is played in such a way as to be always gaining reputation one way of thinking of it when your rep is "maxed" and more rep points are coming your way again soon is that you have rep points to "spend" ... by giving them to people who please you , offering rep points as a bonus to a merchant to get a better deal or even to a bandit to get a reduced SAD ... or, occasionally, spending them on a death curse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being, my whole point was that the character does NOT know the difference between the elves....only the PLAYER does.
Not true: in the gameworld those elves know and their god(s) know, and those who know those elves will know. Those are also elements of your alignment and reputation. If you share a deity with one of those elves and you stike them down, your god will know it. And your alignment may suffer, more or less depending on how much of a loss it was and how much your deity cares about you compared with th elf you struck down.
Not everything in the in-game world depends on what your character thinks of it, believes in, or how self-righteous your character manages to think himself.
Furthermore the character does NOT know WHY killing one is good and the other bad. The PLAYER does, but again the character does not.
Mel the question 'Why' is probably the most common question for anyone experiencing catastrophe and loss. People hardly ever get an answer, either. Knowing why killing one elf is not bad but killing another is bad does not depend on your character but upon a deity whose reasons may not often be shared with your character.
From Merriam-Webster... Arbitrary =existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary.
If you have an event in the in-game world, whether your character understands the physics that resulted in the effect will affect only your character's understanding, and not at all the physics.
What seems completely arbitrary to you may have a very simple explanation to another, but the event is the same whether understood or not.
The moral rules are not Arbitrary from the Players standpoint because we have OOC knowledge of the OOC considerations that the character does NOT. However for the character they are, as they have no knowledge of such things or considerations, as they exist entirely outside thier Universe.
They will if you have taken any care to build your character from a background consistent with the world they inhabit. They will expect that to kill the favorite elf of a deity will have negative consequences where killing a marginal elf may have none.
Just as rules are Arbitrary for a child when the child isn't given any explanation of those rules or a way to understand them.
You are completely correct to suggest that a child should be provided understanding of how the world works, why the rules they are epected to live by are rules that really should be lived by since those rules are distilled from ages of experience and are not arbitrary.
Isn't it good that we are being provided a look at what the rules of PFO are and discuss why they will be as they will be?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being,
Again we are talking past each other. You are talking about what the player knows (e.g. the big glowing sign over an object in the world saying "I'm a PC")... I'm talking about what the character knows (e.g. He looks at one elf and he looks pretty much the same as the other Elf). I'm going to drop this line of discussion with you, as it's gotten circular. At least, I think, others on this board have gotten the concept of what I'm discussing.
@LordDaeron,
Yes, if that was done then at least it could add an (IC) level of predictability. It wouldn't actualy explain much in regards why those moral rules existed but it would allow a character to predict the moral outcome of thier actions.
Anyway, as I said, it's a moot point at this juncture...as the Champion flag allows those of us who want to be more proactive on the Good side the opportunity to do so...and even seems to provide a somewhat rationale IC explanation for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being,
Again we are talking past each other. You are talking about what the player knows (e.g. the big glowing sign over an object in the world saying "I'm a PC")... I'm talking about what the character knows (e.g. He looks at one elf and he looks pretty much the same as the other Elf). I'm going to drop this line of discussion with you, as it's gotten circular. At least, I think, others on this board have gotten the concept of what I'm discussing.
I think Being (and myself, and others) can see what you're saying, but we can accept that seeing that big glowing PC sign can be an IC thing and is not forcibly relegated to being OOC knowledge.