Goblinworks Blog: I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 336 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LordDaeron wrote:
I don't think alignment should change when we are offline AT ALL. So if I have a CN Char and have real life issues that prevents me to play, lets say, for a month, Will I come back to find out my char is now LG???? No way, makes no sense!

Agree with this. I also think there should be some setting for folks who purposefully want to be lower down the axis in one area to set their max threshold.

Just because a guy is spending alot of time hanging out at a bar socializing and RPing with others doesn't mean he's become Lawful instead of Chaotic.

Goblin Squad Member

Richter Bones wrote:
Neadenil Edam wrote:

I am not clear why people are so upset about heinous.

You raise undead and get flagged for a few minutes while they are out collecting goods for you. Nobody sees.

How does that render necromancy nonviable?

True it prevents you flaunting your cool necromantic skills in public without getting smacked by the self-righteous side... but so what, do you really expect get away with raising undead while a Paladin is watching ? Just do what is probably normal for a necromancer and do all that evil dark necro stuff in private.

It's not getting whacked by the righteous that has people questioning about the heinous flag, it's the fact that all these other playstyles get bonuses for opening themselves up to pvp but the necromancer gets no such bonus. Unless the bonus is overpowered undead I don't really see any incentive for this type of playstyle. The necromancer is also at risk from being ganked from anyone, they don't have to be good.

The only reason I could see a bonus for someone using slaves is free labor, but then this would have to be enough of a bonus for someone to want to weigh the risk versus the reward.

Agree, but then we don't know just how powerfull the benefits of using undead or the other things that would result in the heinous flag are...it could be balanced against that.


Banecrow wrote:

Because as long as you have the undead you created you keep the heinus. It does not just go away after you create the undead you keep it for as long as that undead is around.

It is totally unfair to people who want to play a necromancer. It is all penalty and singles out a play style that people do like and just makes them targets for everyone, good and evil players alike.

It needs to be better balanced to make it so people can play as necromancers if they wish too.

Agreed, mostly. And this is compounded by the fact that the more pets we raise the more villanous we become until we get the villian flag which is good for 24 hours.

This kinda assumes that a pet will be an essential part for playing a necromancer. If it isn't, ie: the class is viable enuff to stand on it's own, then pets become something we only pull out now and then rather than a regular basis. In which case, the system ain't broke, and we are really thumbing our noses at convention and will have to learn how to live with the bullseye on our cloaks.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
Andius wrote:
Before I read this I just want to say congrats to Mbando for being the first community member not employed by GW to name a blog.
I think we all owe a debt to Mr. Johnny Cash ;)

Hear! Hear!

Goblin Squad Member

Snowbeard wrote:
Banecrow wrote:

Because as long as you have the undead you created you keep the heinus. It does not just go away after you create the undead you keep it for as long as that undead is around.

It is totally unfair to people who want to play a necromancer. It is all penalty and singles out a play style that people do like and just makes them targets for everyone, good and evil players alike.

It needs to be better balanced to make it so people can play as necromancers if they wish too.

Agreed, mostly. And this is compounded by the fact that the more pets we raise the more villanous we become until we get the villian flag which is good for 24 hours.

This kinda assumes that a pet will be an essential part for playing a necromancer. If it isn't, ie: the class is viable enuff to stand on it's own, then pets become something we only pull out now and then rather than a regular basis. In which case, the system ain't broke, and we are really thumbing our noses at convention and will have to learn how to live with the bullseye on our cloaks.

Necromancy is a subdiscipline of Wizardry. A wizard who raises the undead as his minions is what is being called necromancer. A Necromancer who does not raise undead is a wizard.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bein a necro w/o undead minions is a wizard with bonus in spells he maybe will not risk to use , as it stands now. But I'm sure GW team will work on that or clarify stuff latelly.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Although if you really want to be an effective necromancer, a cleric of an undead friendly god is the way to go. Even a pale master is less effective at pure necromancy than an evil cleric, and Pale Master isn't a pathfinder class. A good runner up would be an Undead bloodline Sorc.

Mystic Theurges will probably be the best necromancers, followed Clerics, then Undead blood Sorcs, then Wizards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
Necromancy is a subdiscipline of Wizardry. A wizard who raises the undead as his minions is what is being called necromancer. A Necromancer who does not raise undead is a wizard.

From the PFGuide: "The magical field of necromancy is one of the eight schools of magic recognized on Golarion today. It deals with the manipulation of the essential life force which infuses all living things. Its darker aspect is the creation and control of undead creatures. Wizards who specialize in necromantic magic are known as necromancers" Bold is mine

I read that to say that creating and controlling undead is just an aspect of the school, not a requirement of the school. If it is not a requirement, if it is not an essential part of being a necro, then a necro wouldn't have to use them to ply his trade. If he choose to bring them out, oh well, suffer the possible arrows. If a pet wasn't required to be viable in the class, then there wouldn't be a need to rely on the pet and voila, then no problem to being a necro.

Goblin Squad Member

Imbicatus wrote:

Although if you really want to be an effective necromancer, a cleric of an undead friendly god is the way to go. Even a pale master is less effective at pure necromancy than an evil cleric, and Pale Master isn't a pathfinder class. A good runner up would be an Undead bloodline Sorc.

Mystic Theurges will probably be the best necromancers, followed Clerics, then Undead blood Sorcs, then Wizards.

Ah, youse kids nowadays with your specialization... Once undeath was simple, elegant...


Maybe it's time to start a necro thread? "...And then I brought him back again, just to say HI" :P

Evil clerics could be candidates for the Heinous flag if they summoned an evil planar creature, right?
Edit cleric part
Edict lyrics

Goblin Squad Member

The heinous flag business here is really making me upset. The flagging system in general seems pretty nice and well thought-out, but I feel that the heinous flag needs some serious re-thinking.

Neadenil Edam wrote:

I am not clear why people are so upset about heinous.

You raise undead and get flagged for a few minutes while they are out collecting goods for you. Nobody sees.

I would EXPECT this to be the case. Of course if you are witnessing someone raise the dead, I could see it as being similar to witnessing someone commit a criminal act. You could deal with that person's actions without consequences. However, this appears NOT to be the case:
Goblinworks Blog wrote:
... such as raising and controlling undead ... Characters using undead for example will have the Heinous flag the entire time they are using undead....

.

.
And just as Murael posted about earlier:
Goblinworks Blog wrote:
... Anyone may kill a Heinous character without fearing reputation or alignment loss....

^ This is a terrible, terrible mechanic. This is certainly treating necromancers as though they were griefers, and I frankly think this is bogus. I can completely understand an alignment hit for summoning and controlling undead. Of course - it's an evil act! But to suffer reputation loss from players freely killing the necromancer, seems rather silly. It is practically the same as punishing a character's reputation for their evil acts. In this particular case, it seems that the Reputation axis is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the Good-vs-Evil axis. I don't think these should directly correlate at all. I feel that a powerful, evil necromancer for example, could easily have a great reputation. "Infamous" if you will.

In short, I would like to play as a necromancer. This would probably result in a Lawful Evil character. However, I don't want to become a complete social outcast or to have a s***ty character, just because I want to have some undead minions. I think this completely goes against the spirit of the Pathfinder tabletop game, and I'm deeply saddened by this. I feel like if I were to play as a necromancer character, I would be treated like a random-murderer.

Proposed corrections:

  • In regards to the Heinous flag, leave reputation out of it completely. Heinous should be strictly a "good vs. evil" subject, and should have nothing to do with a person's reputation.
  • The heinous flag should not be persistent while controlling undead. If the undead minions die off, let the necromancer summon new ones, causing another shift towards evil, and flagging him/her for a short period again.

  • Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Snowbeard wrote:
    Being wrote:
    Necromancy is a subdiscipline of Wizardry. A wizard who raises the undead as his minions is what is being called necromancer. A Necromancer who does not raise undead is a wizard.

    From the PFGuide: "The magical field of necromancy is one of the eight schools of magic recognized on Golarion today. It deals with the manipulation of the essential life force which infuses all living things. Its darker aspect is the creation and control of undead creatures. Wizards who specialize in necromantic magic are known as necromancers" Bold is mine

    I read that to say that creating and controlling undead is just an aspect of the school, not a requirement of the school. If it is not a requirement, if it is not an essential part of being a necro, then a necro wouldn't have to use them to ply his trade. If he choose to bring them out, oh well, suffer the possible arrows. If a pet wasn't required to be viable in the class, then there wouldn't be a need to rely on the pet and voila, then no problem to being a necro.

    If you look at the Sorc/Wiz spell list, most necromancy spells do not deal with making or controlling undead, and some specifically destroy undead. Most of the spells in the Necromancy school deal with weakening or dealing damage to living creatures via direct manipulation of their life energy or souls. Unpleasant, but not inherently evil. Even something like Soul Bind that lets you imprison a soul forever doesn't have the [evil] descriptor.

    Goblin Squad Member

    This looks really good, although I (like apparently a lot of people) have concerns with alignment drift.

    Find some things you want to encourage, like working in communities or doing little side missions or killing monsters, and make those award law/good. Instead of discouraging ganking and encouraging inactivity, you can discourage ganking and encourage interacting with the game in a positive manner.

    The flags all sound great, though. The Heinous flag in particular is something I can get behind, reminding us that there are things our characters do that... really just aren't okay in-character.

    Cheers!
    Landon

    Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

    I'm in the 'what are the necromancers freaking out about' camp. I don't see anything at all out of line or unexpected with the way heinous works and undead.

    Look at it from a tabletop RPG perspective... you stroll into a town in the River Kingdoms of Golarion with a small pack of zombies in tow. Do the town guards;

    A: Say, 'Hey how you folks doing?'
    B: Pay no attention
    C: Kill you on sight

    If you didn't pick 'C' then you are playing in some very unusual tabletop games. Do the guards get a bad reputation and drift towards evil for killing you and/or the zombies? Again, not in any gaming group I've ever played with.

    Raise and control undead as canon fodder in dungeons or when you are already planning to be in a fight to the death... just as a necromancer would in a tabletop RPG. Just don't wander around the countryside with them. Problem solved.

    The heinous / undead rules are fully in keeping with the setting of the game. Now, if PFO were set in Geb it might be a different story.

    Goblin Squad Member

    DarkOne the Drow wrote:

    Nice progress on the flags, at least something for the neutral characters. Though like many have noted, it is going to take a lot of work to remain neutral on lawful-chaotic axis, having to commit plenty crimes just to negate the automatic becoming lawful for no aggressive action. Just going about one's own business of looking after nature and making things.

    Stephen has already addressed this. There is will be limit that you can set, such that the auto-increase doesn't occur beyond the limit you have decided upon.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Banecrow wrote:

    Ok the idea of having your alignment move towards a direction is interesting. BUT please let the player choose the alignment they want their character to move towards when off line.

    Say I am playing a druid, I sure as hell do not want my alignment to be LG just because I went on vacation for a week and couldnt play. A druid has to maintain some sort of Neutral alignment. Same applies to paladins and such.

    Let the players choose their prefered alignment and have it naturaly shift towards that when you take time off from the game.

    This has been addressed by Stephen: "And there will be an option to say "Nope, I'm happy where I am, thanks, you can keep your points" for people that want to stay Chaotic, Evil, or some shade of Neutral. "

    Goblin Squad Member

    LordDaeron wrote:
    I don't think alignment should change when we are offline AT ALL. So if I have a CN Char and have real life issues that prevents me to play, lets say, for a month, Will I come back to find out my char is now LG???? No way, makes no sense!

    Seems to be addressed already. Stephen: "And there will be an option to say "Nope, I'm happy where I am, thanks, you can keep your points" for people that want to stay Chaotic, Evil, or some shade of Neutral. "

    Goblin Squad Member

    GrumpyMel wrote:
    I would still like to see a mechanism for a victem/target of an attack VOLUNTARLY wave reputation/alignment hits on thier attackers. That would cover any situations not covered by these mechanics and where both sides consentualy agreed to the encounter...or just fealt the Attacker was playing according to the spirit of the game rules if not the letter. YMMV.

    There already seems to be an option to offer Rep/Align to other players, so this situation is already covered.

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    CBDunkerson wrote:

    I'm in the 'what are the necromancers freaking out about' camp. I don't see anything at all out of line or unexpected with the way heinous works and undead.

    Look at it from a tabletop RPG perspective... you stroll into a town in the River Kingdoms of Golarion with a small pack of zombies in tow. Do the town guards;

    A: Say, 'Hey how you folks doing?'
    B: Pay no attention
    C: Kill you on sight

    If you didn't pick 'C' then you are playing in some very unusual tabletop games. Do the guards get a bad reputation and drift towards evil for killing you and/or the zombies? Again, not in any gaming group I've ever played with.

    Raise and control undead as canon fodder in dungeons or when you are already planning to be in a fight to the death... just as a necromancer would in a tabletop RPG. Just don't wander around the countryside with them. Problem solved.

    The heinous / undead rules are fully in keeping with the setting of the game. Now, if PFO were set in Geb it might be a different story.

  • Depends on the town. In a lawful evil town, why would the guards even turn and look at a player strolling into town with a small pack of zombies? My concern is: it sounds like settlements will suffer greatly without high reputation. A lawful-evil settlement should not suffer terribly because of the raising and controlling of undead.
  • With things like the "villain" flag, your suggestion to using undead strictly in dungeons is invalid. The effects of what you do deep inside the dungeon would persist with you, even when headed back to town. Again, a player that is villainous should not have a problem strolling into a lawful evil settlement.
  • Another evil player should suffer consequences for randomly killing another evil player. Just because a wizard was using "ten" undead inside a dungeon, and then comes back to his/her evil settlement, another evil character should not be allowed to freely kill the wizard without any penalty.
    What I'm really saying is: Reputation should be left out of it.

  • Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

    I say keep the heinous flag but give them a bonus if they are flagged for an extended period of time like the assassin, enforcer, outlaw, traveler, and champion.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Aou wrote:
    , just because I want to have some undead minions. I think this completely goes against the spirit of the Pathfinder tabletop game, and I'm deeply saddened by this. I feel like if I were to play as a necromancer character, I would be treated like a random-murderer.

    *blinks* I am not sure what world you are utilizing PFRPG, but in Golarion having undead minions will make you an outcast unless perhaps you are in the nation of Geb.

    just to be clear. If indeed these particular designs have the effect that you mention above, then they are right in line with canon.

    Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    CBDunkerson wrote:


    The heinous / undead rules are fully in keeping with the setting of the game. Now, if PFO were set in Geb it might be a different story.

    I think that if players want to be able to create a settlement based on Geb in the game they should be able to. Settlements can instate their own laws, so if a LE settlement states Undead an Slaves are okay, and Heinous flagged people are off limits, then if you gank someone who IS under the Heinous Flag, then you should still get the Criminal flag and the Law/Chaos alingment loss, even though you would be immune to Rep loss and Good/Evil alignment loss.

    Good settlements should want to declare a war on evil settlements who say this is ok to bypass the criminal flags, and that is a desired effect, because large scale player wars are a desired goal of the game.

    Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

    Aou wrote:
    Depends on the town.

    It really doesn't. Walk into Pitax or Daggermark with a bunch of undead and you're still gonna get ganked.

    Aou wrote:
    With things like the "villain" flag, your suggestion to using undead strictly in dungeons is invalid. The effects of what you do deep inside the dungeon would persist with you, even when headed back to town.

    Only if you do ten things which give you the heinous flag without waiting a minute between them. I'm not sure whether controlling ten skeletons at the same time is ten heinous actions or just one, but either way it still seems like you'd have to work at it to get the 'villain' flag.

    Aou wrote:
    What I'm really saying is: Reputation should be left out of it.

    Um, it already is. The 'Heinous' flag has no impact on the reputation of... anyone. It doesn't change the reputation of the person who has it or anyone they interact with.

    Goblin Squad Member

    I think a 'numberline' with neutral as zero, and 'buying off' past deeds is too simplisitc.
    The game should let all actions generate alignment similar to the 'Bartle' score, i.e. let all points be positive, everyone earns Law, Chaos, Good and Evil .

    Balancing to a neutral becomes a challenge, as it should be.
    Know alignment means getting a look at someone's scores...

    Meeting a true neutral would be rare, meeting a true neutral with 4 zeroes would be almost impossible.

    The scores would give fine control to abilities ( certain paladin powers require less than 'X' chaos points, less than 100 evil cannot accept assassin contracts, etc etc

    just my 2 copper

    Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

    Pinosaur wrote:

    ( certain paladin powers require less than 'X' chaos points, less than 100 evil cannot accept assassin contracts, etc etc

    just my 2 copper

    This would lock out certain abilities forever. Yes paladins fall, but they can atone and use them again. A Monk who becomes unlawful cannot train new monk abilities, but can use all the ones they already have, and can train again if they come back to law. Likewise if a Barbarian cannot rage with more than [X] Law points they can never rage again if there are no negative numbers.

    /not signed

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    CBDunkerson wrote:
    It really doesn't. Walk into Pitax or Daggermark with a bunch of undead and you're still gonna get ganked.

    Let me clarify: By "town" I'm not exclusively speaking of NPC settlements or cities pre-established by Pathfinder lore.

    CBDunkerson wrote:
    Only if you do ten things which give you the heinous flag without waiting a minute between them. I'm not sure whether controlling ten skeletons at the same time is ten heinous actions or just one, but either way it still seems like you'd have to work at it to get the 'villain' flag.

    "Characters using undead for example will have the Heinous flag the entire time they are using undead." In this scenario, the [wizard] summons undead that fights alongside for a while. The entire time, the [wizard] is heinous. Undead minion dies. [Wizard] summons a new one within one minute. Stack another TEN minutes on the timer. Sounds like he'll have "villain" in no time.

    CBDunkerson wrote:
    Um, it already is. The 'Heinous' flag has no impact on the reputation of... anyone. It doesn't change the reputation of the person who has it or anyone they interact with.

    It doesn't directly change the reputation, no. But if other players suffer no reputation loss for killing a heinous/villainous [wizard], then there is no penalty for (what I would view as) murder in cold-blood.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Aou wrote:
    It doesn't directly change the reputation, no. But if other players suffer no reputation loss for killing a heinous/villainous [wizard], then there is no penalty for (what I would view as) murder in cold-blood.

    Of course the necromancers don't feel their being treated fairly. "Oh, I should be left in peace to defile the dead, pervert the flow of nature, spit in the face of the Lady of Graves, and create an army of unholy minions! Why won't these adventurers leave me alone?"

    The gods and the people of Golarion, represented through the alignment and reputation system, think that's totally a legitimate reason to kill someone. Heck, killing necromancers is a Good act for Crusaders.

    But that doesn't mean you won't be able to find anywhere to practice your vile arts in peace, it just means nobody is expected to let you do it around them. If you find some like-minded people, I'm sure you'll be able to take care of yourselves.

    Cheers!
    Landon

    Goblin Squad Member

    RE: The Heinous/Villian Flag discussions

    In regards game balance/character viability...a large part of this depends upon just how rewarding and powerfull the activities that grant the flag are. That is an unanswered question at this point and they certainly could be used to balance out the disadvantages of those flags from a mechanical standpoint.

    In terms of in Universe Logic.

    It clearly makes sense to me that Good characters would not take any reputation/alignment loss (and probably get a gain) from attacking such characters. Heinous is kinda anathema to what Good society stands for pretty much accross the board.

    It IS an open question to me to how Evil societies would view such activities. Some Evil societies (E.G. Geb), have necromancy as a basis upon which said socities function. I'm not sure that would be true across the board for Evil socities. Undead and the like probably represent some problems/hazards for Evil socities from a purely practical standpoint. Undead getting out of the necromaners control and distrubing the function of a settlement, the spreading of disease from undead, etc. While I'm fairly certain Evil wouldn't have a philosophical problem with it, it may have a problem with it from the standpoint of pure practicality and since LE is all about practicality...it's an open question to me how they would view it?

    It may simply be akin to forcing everyone to drive on the right side of the road (in the US). There is no philosophical objection to driving on the Left side but allowing people to pick whatever side they want just doesn't work from a practical standpoint. YMMV.

    CEO, Goblinworks

    Mbando wrote:
    Andius wrote:
    Before I read this I just want to say congrats to Mbando for being the first community member not employed by GW to name a blog.
    I think we all owe a debt to Mr. Johnny Cash ;)

    Crowdforging. It's EVERYWHERE!

    CEO, Goblinworks

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    One quick note about "raising undead". That implies that we have a system where you have pets. It semi-implies that you have more than one. And it quasi-implies that your pets are able to meaningfully interact with the game world and other players.

    Many of these things will have to be prioritized by crowdforging and may not be implemented for a long, long time (if ever).

    In general, I'm not in favor of characters having pets that meaningfully interact with the world except maybe for Druids.

    But that's just one man's opinion.

    RyanD

    Goblin Squad Member

    Landon Winkler wrote:
    Aou wrote:
    It doesn't directly change the reputation, no. But if other players suffer no reputation loss for killing a heinous/villainous [wizard], then there is no penalty for (what I would view as) murder in cold-blood.

    Of course the necromancers don't feel their being treated fairly. "Oh, I should be left in peace to defile the dead, pervert the flow of nature, spit in the face of the Lady of Graves, and create an army of unholy minions! Why won't these adventurers leave me alone?"

    The gods and the people of Golarion, represented through the alignment and reputation system, think that's totally a legitimate reason to kill someone. Heck, killing necromancers is a Good act for Crusaders.

    But that doesn't mean you won't be able to find anywhere to practice your vile arts in peace, it just means nobody is expected to let you do it around them. If you find some like-minded people, I'm sure you'll be able to take care of yourselves.

    Cheers!
    Landon

    Goblin Works has said time and time again they want meaningful pvp. This is about crowdforging, being able to create a world with a working economy.

    How does that work if you take one play style and basically say it is open season for them. Anyone can attack them without worrying about any consequences.

    I agree that certain acts SHOULD have concequences but I feel that GW has gone WAY too far. They have basically painted big targets on every player who wants to use undead. Does not matter that I do not go out and attack random people. Does not matter that all I may want to do is PvE. If I have undead anyone can just come up and attack you with no consequences. That is NOT meaningful PvP!

    Goblin Squad Member

    Ryan Dancey wrote:

    One quick note about "raising undead". That implies that we have a system where you have pets. It semi-implies that you have more than one. And it quasi-implies that your pets are able to meaningfully interact with the game world and other players.

    Many of these things will have to be prioritized by crowdforging and may not be implemented for a long, long time (if ever).

    In general, I'm not in favor of characters having pets that meaningfully interact with the world except maybe for Druids.

    But that's just one man's opinion.

    RyanD

    That is going to really 'up' the post count, Mr. Dancey. heh

    Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

    Ryan Dancey wrote:

    One quick note about "raising undead". That implies that we have a system where you have pets. It semi-implies that you have more than one. And it quasi-implies that your pets are able to meaningfully interact with the game world and other players.

    Many of these things will have to be prioritized by crowdforging and may not be implemented for a long, long time (if ever).

    In general, I'm not in favor of characters having pets that meaningfully interact with the world except maybe for Druids.

    But that's just one man's opinion.

    RyanD

    The biggest draw of playing classes like Druids and Necromancers is the 'pets' imo. I know masterminds were a favorite AT of many villains in CoH due to the pets. While this is an entirely different game, there are a place for pets in TT Pathfinder beyond the druid class, and I would hope that they are in the game in some way for Druids and Rangers at minimum.

    I've never been a fan of Domain Druids and Party-buff Rangers and likely would not want to play those classes if the pets were not there.

    That said, they can have a huge effect on an individual's power, and would likely be difficult to balance a class that has a powerful companion or disposable canon fodder damage sponges vs a character who is solo.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Being wrote:
    Ryan Dancey wrote:

    One quick note about "raising undead". That implies that we have a system where you have pets. It semi-implies that you have more than one. And it quasi-implies that your pets are able to meaningfully interact with the game world and other players.

    Many of these things will have to be prioritized by crowdforging and may not be implemented for a long, long time (if ever).

    In general, I'm not in favor of characters having pets that meaningfully interact with the world except maybe for Druids.

    But that's just one man's opinion.

    RyanD

    That is going to really 'up' the post count, Mr. Dancey. heh

    #1 - Is that related to some discussion on player-run bots for eg out-competing illegal bots ie functionally represented already eg doing menial tasks while we are logged off? I know SWTOR had the "Ship companions" doing this, which sounds very cool in that game (no idea if it was good as I never looked into that mmorpg).

    With respect to Undead, I like the idea that a mass of zombies/skeletons can simply overwhelm a player perhaps grabbing hold of them and dragging them off a cliff or drowning in some water. Directed by the necromancer of course (fairly sure that's a must/staple in a lot of undead movies).

    edit: ninja'd by Imbicatus. I assume the "meaningful" is proportional to how in-depth the particular "pet" system would need to be. For druids it needs be. I imagine for necromancer, puppets (chained or mindless) are simpler. The other poser for pet development I believe is pets can either be as per AI-Mobs trivially easy (or stupidly inconsistent when called upon) to defeat or god-like with a much much trickier balance applied? As said player plus NPC helper could be x2 as powerful or if synergy with pet end up 0.5 as powerful!?

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Necros and other villains, I don't see the big problem.

    Outcast from LG and CG settlements, well, yes. But you can still enter if you dismiss the zombies.

    -in a LE settlement it all depends on the law. If killing heinous people is a crime then the pesky Champions lose the champion flag, become criminals, and are executed by the Enforcers (perfect place to tornment paladins). Necros can live happily there, protected from crusaders by the law.

    -in a CE settlement you're as safe and protected as anyone else. Safer actually, if you can trust your minions. A Champion venturing into CE territory may have his alignment protected by his flag, but is risking his life.

    I'm sure one of the first player settlements we will see will be a LE one where necromancy is legal.

    Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

    Honestly, folks I don't think undead will be an issue for a LONG time. Animate Dead is a 3rd/4th level spell meaning at minimum it will require an equivalent to a 5th level cleric to cast it. I don't see anyone getting to that level of skill for approx 8 months. Even then, the pet system has to be in the game and the devs have to give us access to an animate dead spell.

    I just don't see it happening during EE and maybe not until well after launch.

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Banecrow wrote:
    Landon Winkler wrote:
    Aou wrote:
    It doesn't directly change the reputation, no. But if other players suffer no reputation loss for killing a heinous/villainous [wizard], then there is no penalty for (what I would view as) murder in cold-blood.

    Of course the necromancers don't feel their being treated fairly. "Oh, I should be left in peace to defile the dead, pervert the flow of nature, spit in the face of the Lady of Graves, and create an army of unholy minions! Why won't these adventurers leave me alone?"

    The gods and the people of Golarion, represented through the alignment and reputation system, think that's totally a legitimate reason to kill someone. Heck, killing necromancers is a Good act for Crusaders.

    But that doesn't mean you won't be able to find anywhere to practice your vile arts in peace, it just means nobody is expected to let you do it around them. If you find some like-minded people, I'm sure you'll be able to take care of yourselves.

    Cheers!
    Landon

    Goblin Works has said time and time again they want meaningful pvp. This is about crowdforging, being able to create a world with a working economy.

    How does that work if you take one play style and basically say it is open season for them. Anyone can attack them without worrying about any consequences.

    I agree that certain acts SHOULD have concequences but I feel that GW has gone WAY too far. They have basically painted big targets on every player who wants to use undead. Does not matter that I do not go out and attack random people. Does not matter that all I may want to do is PvE. If I have undead anyone can just come up and attack you with no consequences. That is NOT meaningful PvP!

    ^ This. All of this. Much better way of saying what I was pointing at.

    EDIT:
    To expand on this a bit further: I can totally accept the idea that a good-aligned character should see an undead-wielder as being a target, to some small degree. But only because said wielder is evil. But having NO consequences to this good character for attacking the undead-wielder... that is (as Banecrow said) NOT meaningful PvP.

    Goblin Squad Member

    I believe druid's companion is 1st level but that is one of two choices (the other being the selection of a domain, as Imbicitus said, just like regular clerics. It has its merits but then why not choose cleric?)
    An animal companion is in line with the later shape changing spells the Druid should gain if successful at maintaining a neutral alignment.

    Goblin Squad Member

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Ryan Dancey wrote:

    Many of these things will have to be prioritized by crowdforging and may not be implemented for a long, long time (if ever).

    In general, I'm not in favor of characters having pets that meaningfully interact with the world except maybe for Druids.

    They do take an awful lot of coding, from my understanding, and introduce a lot of bugs for how many people actually use them. But that's also just one man's opinion :)

    Banecrow wrote:
    I agree that certain acts SHOULD have concequences but I feel that GW has gone WAY too far. They have basically painted big targets on every player who wants to use undead. Does not matter that I do not go out and attack random people. Does not matter that all I may want to do is PvE. If I have undead anyone can just come up and attack you with no consequences. That is NOT meaningful PvP!

    I just can't get too worked up about it.

    I mean, I want to harvest materials and sell them... maybe craft some if that's fun. It doesn't matter that I don't want to PvP doing it and it's unlikely I'll ever attack anyone, I'm going to be involved in PvP. Goblinworks explictly wants people to attack me. They have a whole system set up to kill me if I cross certain lines.

    And I agree with that from a design standpoint. I'll even enjoy the game more because of the threat of PvP.

    Nobody's making me go into dangerous areas and nobody's making you raise undead. We're accepting the consequences when we take those actions. We're both opting in for the benefits it gains us. That's meaningful PvP.

    I want to move around the game freely without paying tolls or paying attention to borders. You want to conjure the dead. We can both get what we want, Crowdforgers willing, if we're willing to take the risks. I guess I just don't see the problem.

    Cheers!
    Landon

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Don't jump down my throat if you disagree, as this is just a passing thought, but what if instead of requiring alignment for those all of those self-set flags, the choice that flag is what direction your alignment drifts? So choosing Outlaw makes you drift towards Chaotic, Champion drifts you towards Good, etc.

    I also think alignment drift should only happen if you're logging in OR logged out but also still training.

    Goblin Squad Member

    I really don't see Champions entering Evil settlements much outside of War. The flag really isn't neccesary in that context because settlements are defined entities which you can declare war against.

    Where it's really usefull is against unaffiliated individuals/groups acting in uncontroled territory as there was no way to declare War against them. It made it a very big advantage NOT to be an official member of a settlement, as you were largely untouchable as long as you played smart. The flag solves that loophole.

    If your part of a settlement, the settlement can either hold you accountable for your actions....or stand behind you and risk being held accountable itself. It provides you with political cover and shelter but bares some risk in doing so if you are really being aggressive toward someone. YMMV.

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Aou wrote:
    But having NO consequences to this good character for attacking the undead-wielder... that is (as Banecrow said) NOT meaningful PvP.

    There are "NO consequences" for an Evil character attacking a Champion...

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Banecrow wrote:

    Goblin Works has said time and time again they want meaningful pvp. This is about crowdforging, being able to create a world with a working economy.

    How does that work if you take one play style and basically say it is open season for them. Anyone can attack them without worrying about any consequences.

    I agree that certain acts SHOULD have concequences but I feel that GW has gone WAY too far. They have basically painted big targets on every player who wants to use undead. Does not matter that I do not go out and attack random people. Does not matter that all I may want to do is PvE. If I have undead anyone can just come up and attack you with no consequences. That is NOT meaningful PvP!

    The general feel of goblinworks for the game, is they are encoraging loads of different specializations with different uses. IE a set of gear that is awesome for killing Dragons, undeads etc... is not going to be so awesome for killing humanoid races etc...

    Undeads could be implemented as a very valuable tool for defending a lair etc... and a horrible tool for, going outside of your lair and adventuring with. Because you have a hammer, you can't say it is unfair that it doesn't seem particularly good at removing screws. I'm sure when they impliment abilities etc... They will have uses, but that does not mean they have to be usable in every possible scenario, or in every location.

    Think about the P&P game, It isn't exactly common to see or hear of necromancers, just walking around town with a crew of skeletons following them, when they reach the public eye, their undead should be hidden away.

    Goblin Squad Member

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    LordDaeron wrote:
    A company formed exclusively by nature's defenders would be amazing to see , actually!

    I was thinking that it might give someone pause to see shape-changed grizzly bears and their companion wolves charging at you, supported by healers who wield lightning. If that was unimpressive the deep cough of panthers in the brush on your flank might lend a bit of emphasis, yes.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Aou wrote:
    Banecrow wrote:
    Landon Winkler wrote:
    Aou wrote:
    It doesn't directly change the reputation, no. But if other players suffer no reputation loss for killing a heinous/villainous [wizard], then there is no penalty for (what I would view as) murder in cold-blood.

    Of course the necromancers don't feel their being treated fairly. "Oh, I should be left in peace to defile the dead, pervert the flow of nature, spit in the face of the Lady of Graves, and create an army of unholy minions! Why won't these adventurers leave me alone?"

    The gods and the people of Golarion, represented through the alignment and reputation system, think that's totally a legitimate reason to kill someone. Heck, killing necromancers is a Good act for Crusaders.

    But that doesn't mean you won't be able to find anywhere to practice your vile arts in peace, it just means nobody is expected to let you do it around them. If you find some like-minded people, I'm sure you'll be able to take care of yourselves.

    Cheers!
    Landon

    Goblin Works has said time and time again they want meaningful pvp. This is about crowdforging, being able to create a world with a working economy.

    How does that work if you take one play style and basically say it is open season for them. Anyone can attack them without worrying about any consequences.

    I agree that certain acts SHOULD have concequences but I feel that GW has gone WAY too far. They have basically painted big targets on every player who wants to use undead. Does not matter that I do not go out and attack random people. Does not matter that all I may want to do is PvE. If I have undead anyone can just come up and attack you with no consequences. That is NOT meaningful PvP!

    ^ This. All of this. Much better way of saying what I was pointing at.

    EDIT:
    To expand on this a bit further: I can totally accept the idea that a good-aligned character should see an undead-wielder as being a target, to some small degree. But only because said wielder is evil. But having NO consequences to this good character for attacking the undead-wielder... that is (as Banecrow said) NOT meaningful PvP.

    The way I'm interpreting this is that a Necromancer's leaning is a sort of evil choice that is comparable to a good choice eg Paladin. That does not mean they are equal and opposite choices. Good arguments can be made for each being distinctly emblematic of either good or evil, eg from what I know about the nature of necromancy in general (not necessarily pathfinder) is that this magic plays with concept of mortality - which always exacts a terrible price (sometimes this idea applies with eg time travel with the serious condition: "tampering can have woeful consequences".

    Anyway, the meat of the matter here: Paladin's seem to very specific in what pvp they get their clean hands dirty with whereas a necromancer needs to be secretive and cunning to dabble in their dark magic (ie heinous). I think the strong concern expressed is that one at least does not have such a weight of being flagged for pvp whereas the other does and both are serving their "roles"?

    1st: We don't know what the upside of reward is to counter the risk (known) of heinous flags
    2nd: Necromancy does sound like you are interested in getting your hands bloody sacrificing souls and animating rotting corpses?

    Goblin Squad Member

    Imbicatus wrote:

    Although if you really want to be an effective necromancer, a cleric of an undead friendly god is the way to go. Even a pale master is less effective at pure necromancy than an evil cleric, and Pale Master isn't a pathfinder class. A good runner up would be an Undead bloodline Sorc.

    Mystic Theurges will probably be the best necromancers, followed Clerics, then Undead blood Sorcs, then Wizards.

    Ah, yes. The old conundrum that Wizards are better at MAKING undead, but Clerics are much better at CONTROLLING undead.

    Of course, with a classless system, I presume an undead making/controlling Mystic Theurge will be pretty easy.
    Although, in Pathfinder, choose Necromancy as your chosen school DOES give you Turn/Control undead for free, so once again Pathfinder fixes that a bit.

    But yeah, people tend to use Necromancer a little wonky, since technically that's the name assigned to a wizard who chooses necromancy as their specialized school. That school has a lot of offer besides making undead. Indeed, since they can choose Turn Undead, you can roll a "necromancer" that focuses on using the powers of life and death to fight and destroy undead.

    Goblin Squad Member

    AvenaOats wrote:

    1st: We don't know what the upside of reward is to counter the risk (known) of heinous flags

    2nd: Necromancy does sound like you are interested in getting your hands bloody sacrificing souls and animating rotting corpses?

    1) Rather true. And, in light of Ryan's post, it may not even occur that often. But if they already have a section of the flag system that's dedicated to "these sorts of acts", then I'm sure it's weighing heavily on the Devs' minds. I'm just hoping that the rewards for opening myself up to PvP situation where there's no consequences for the attacker - the rewards had better be d*** well worth it.

    2) It wouldn't be great roleplaying without playing roles that are different in character from oneself, in my opinion. ;)

    Nihimon wrote:
    There are "NO consequences" for an Evil character attacking a Champion...

    Why wouldn't there be? There would be reputation loss for the attacker? Am I mistaken?

    Goblin Squad Member

    Aou wrote:
    Nihimon wrote:
    There are "NO consequences" for an Evil character attacking a Champion...
    Why wouldn't there be? There would be reputation loss for the attacker? Am I mistaken?

    From the blog:

    Quote:
    These flags work like other PvP flags: A person targeting the character unprovoked gains the Involved flag and does not lose any reputation or alignment upon fighting/killing the target.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Aou wrote:
    AvenaOats wrote:

    1st: We don't know what the upside of reward is to counter the risk (known) of heinous flags

    2nd: Necromancy does sound like you are interested in getting your hands bloody sacrificing souls and animating rotting corpses?

    1) Rather true. And, in light of Ryan's post, it may not even occur that often. But if they already have a section of the flag system that's dedicated to "these sorts of acts", then I'm sure it's weighing heavily on the Devs' minds. I'm just hoping that the rewards for opening myself up to PvP situation where there's no consequences for the attacker - the rewards had better be d*** well worth it.

    2) It wouldn't be great roleplaying without playing roles that are different in character from oneself, in my opinion. ;)

    One idea that arises, is possibly necromancers could "leech" the npc workers of settlements and how many/how successful they are at this translates into their own person free-labour market of undead minions that can be used for similar harvesting, animated elsewhere. If that were such a scenario, you'd rightly have a strong aversion to such parasitic practisioners sucking the productivity of your settlement down the drain?! ;)

    Goblin Squad Member

    Nihimon wrote:
    Aou wrote:
    Nihimon wrote:
    There are "NO consequences" for an Evil character attacking a Champion...
    Why wouldn't there be? There would be reputation loss for the attacker? Am I mistaken?

    From the blog:

    Quote:
    These flags work like other PvP flags: A person targeting the character unprovoked gains the Involved flag and does not lose any reputation or alignment upon fighting/killing the target.

    Oh, I was thinking something else - my mistake. But to address the original point: Champion flag is optional. It's essentially "looking for trouble." I would argue against the idea of raising/controlling undead being "looking for trouble." To me, gaining Heinous/Villain over a matter of PvE, only to suffer unprovoked PvP consequences in which there are no benefits whatsoever for the defender... seems a bit unfair. But to throw a "Champion" flag up and tell people, "Bring it on!" seems a deserving target.

    151 to 200 of 336 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.