Ah ok, I missed that post. Well I support leaving NN as an option for settlement alignment. The melting pot mix of alignments that will make up a N settlement will definitely make for interesting gameplay! :D
Goblin Squad Member
|
NN settlements will obviously have more diversity, but they are also more vulnerable to spies and stealth takeovers by alignment shifts of members.
For example, if you have a NN settlement, with 25% True Neutral, 25% Neutral Evil, 25% Lawful Neutral, and 10% Chaotic Neutral, and 15% Neutral Good. Lets say your CN members go into banditry and shift to CE. They are no longer members. The NG members drift off, and now you are 33% NN, 33% NE, and 33% LN. You are dangerously close to being LE as a settlement now, evicting all the NN people and turning off all of your druid features.
Heh that's true. It would require some close monitoring by the leadership if they wanted to keep control of the settlement.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
I think that the concern was that if NN was within 1-step of the corners, then every rational Settlement would be NN so they could have everyone join. I'm pretty sure that was the context of that discussion so I don't think this is a change.
Being Neutral was never a problem. Just having a Settlement that served as a join function for all alignments.
Making NN a 2-step move on the alignment graph means that you address that problem and I think we talked about that at some point in some detail.
I recall it being discussed in the video FAQ. I believe Stephen covered it.
In this Thread
Areks: Alignments have been a hot topic on the forums for a while now. So I just wanted to know how exactly are the alignments of characters, settlements, and kingdoms all going to factor into one another.
Stephen Cheney: Essentially, if you have a Lawful Good settlement, it can be part of a Neutral Good or a Lawful Neutral kingdom. And you could also be one of those alignments if you're in the settlement. So, your maximum reach for a settlement is going to be across the main axis. So, if you're Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, and then Chaotic Neutral, you could have a Lawful Neutral person, a True Neutral settlement, and a Chaotic Neutral kingdom, for example.
Illiyendier: My question is about alignment and Lawful Good settlements.
Stephen Cheney: So, your alignment - with the example of a Paladin being the exception - is usually going to be restricted to one axis. Barbarians have to be non-Lawful, and Druids have to have at least one of their axis poles Neutral so they can be Neutral Good or they can be Lawful Neutral. That means that a Neutral Good Barbarian could be part of your Lawful Good settlement, and a Lawful Neutral or a Neutral Good Druid could be part of your Lawful Good settlement. The issue is, they're going to have a pretty tough time maintaining that specific alignment to keep from going all the way to Lawful Good but keep from drifting too far away from the settlement. And also, your settlement might not be able to have training facilities that can teach
them the skills they need to know. For example, it might require a Chaotic town to teach Barbarian skills. So you'll want to ally with another kingdom that can possibly teach them that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
NN settlements will obviously have more diversity, but they are also more vulnerable to spies and stealth takeovers by alignment shifts of members.
For example, if you have a NN settlement, with 25% True Neutral, 25% Neutral Evil, 25% Lawful Neutral, and 10% Chaotic Neutral, and 15% Neutral Good. Lets say your CN members go into banditry and shift to CE. They are no longer members. The NG members drift off, and now you are 33% NN, 33% NE, and 33% LN. You are dangerously close to being LE as a settlement now, evicting all the NN people and turning off all of your druid features.
Actually mathematically speaking you're then only about 1/3 of the way from NN to LE. You'd have to lose all your NN members as well to reach the tipping (half-way) point, at which point it could be argued that to the remaining NE and LN members it doesn't make much difference either way. The Lawfulness is balanced both by the NN and NE members, and the Evil is balanced by both the NN and LN members. You're far more likely (even if it's not very likely) to shift towards a "single-neutral" alignment than one of the corners, and even then only if that alignment accounts for the majority of your residents.
Of course that doesn't mean a settlement shouldn't keep an eye on the trend of its residents' collective alignment.
CEO
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Druids in Pathfinder are not (exclusively) loners who live in the land.One of the most powerful kingdoms in the River Kingdoms is Sevenarches, a kingdom ruled entirely by Druids.
Lisa
Thanx Lisa for this information. Seems Sevenarches was once elven, now run by human druids. Located in the south of River Kingdoms, a far distance from west side of Echo Wood, where PFO begins it's life. Guess it would be a very long for PFO to reach Sevenarches. See it also has big forest Wilewood in it's territory.
Though I wonder how this is going to help the druids by Echo Wood.
I just wanted to point out that druids can have settlements. Just because they worship nature and all doesn't mean that they have to stay far away from urban areas. I mention Sevenarches, not because it is a place that I expect PFO druids to live in, but as an example of how a druid settlement has already been done in Golarion.
-Lisa
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Druids in PnP can be any neutral, they do not have to be TN.
The five valid Druid alignments are TN LN CN NG NE .
The reason why a Druid specific settlement may wish to be TN is it allows Druids of any valid alignment to join. Any other settlement alignment will exclude some Druids.
The alternative of course is to simply say that in the PFO game region druids do not have any class specific settlements of their own, the nearest TN "Druid Grove" is somewhere off the edge of the map.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that the concern was that if NN was within 1-step of the corners, then every rational Settlement would be NN so they could have everyone join. I'm pretty sure that was the context of that discussion so I don't think this is a change.
Being Neutral was never a problem. Just having a Settlement that served as a join function for all alignments.
Making NN a 2-step move on the alignment graph means that you address that problem and I think we talked about that at some point in some detail.
You're absolutely right about the 2-step concern being a major part of the discussion, but I think we were right to think you were talking about not allowing True Neutral even if there was only 1 step.
With some context added back in to your quote that I referenced above:
For that reason I think we'll have to exclude true neutral from the alignment options for the organizations.Can we get a clarification, please?One of those two statements is an error. I'm just not sure which one I think should be wrong. :)I think the issue of Neutral being 1-step away from all alignments is the error.
Otherwise, all the big successful Settlements will be Neutral, and anyone who proposes starting a Settlement that isn't Neutral will face a huge uphill battle.
RyanD
Well won't true neutral settlements still end up with the most people anyways? Neutral good, Lawful neutral, true neutral, chaotic neutral, and neutral evil will all be allowed by the one step rule.
And I don't mean to seem all over the idea its just something that I actually have feed back about so figured I'd share it.
[my emphasis]
From Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing:
The settlement's alignment—characters must be within one alignment step* to join or remain a member of the settlement...
*An alignment step refers to the distance between any two alignments on the standard nine-space alignment grid, where all alignments are one step from true neutral.
From Alignment Steps:
Note that diagonal “steps” count as two steps.Can we get a clarification, please?
I was under the impression that Lawful Good would be considered two steps from True Neutral, until I read Ryan's statement to the contrary. But then I read the link he provided and it seems to be contradicting him.
From Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing:
Can we get a clarification, please?One of those two statements is an error. I'm just not sure which one I think should be wrong. :)I think the issue of Neutral being 1-step away from all alignments is the error.
Otherwise, all the big successful Settlements will be Neutral, and anyone who proposes starting a Settlement that isn't Neutral will face a huge uphill battle.
RyanD
From Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing:
Can we get a clarification, please?One of those two statements is an error. I'm just not sure which one I think should be wrong. :)I think the issue of Neutral being 1-step away from all alignments is the error.
Otherwise, all the big successful Settlements will be Neutral, and anyone who proposes starting a Settlement that isn't Neutral will face a huge uphill battle.
RyanD
Well won't true neutral settlements still end up with the most people anyways? Neutral good, Lawful neutral, true neutral, chaotic neutral, and neutral evil will all be allowed by the one step rule.
And I don't mean to seem all over the idea its just something that I actually have feed back about so figured I'd share it.
From Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing:
For that reason I think we'll have to exclude true neutral from the alignment options for the organizations.
Well won't true neutral settlements still end up with the most people anyways?
[Edit] I don't mean to be a pest. I'm not at all trying to "call you out" for making changes, or anything like that. As I say over and over again, I've just been paying way too much attention. As I've also said before, I think your baby is beautiful :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not sure what the issue is.
A TN settlement would be two steps away from all the corner alignments.
It is the only settlement that specifically bans the four extremes.
By banning TN for settlements you are effectively saying all settlements must allow at least one of the corners in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan, since you are following this thread, I have a suggestion for settlement interaction:
You may be familiar with Pirates of the Burning Sea, and in that MMO players had the abilities to smuggle goods into the port towns that would either stabilize or destabilize the town's population. The morale of the NPC population was a major factor in the town's ability to prevail or fail when under siege.
I would like to see this type of a system in PFO. This would allow us to have true smuggling and allow for a non combat means to interact with the war mechanics of the settlements. As I stated above, the actual mechanic would be either a buff or a rebuff vs. the morale of the settlement being interacted with. This system should also be included in the player to player contract system, where we could accept contracts from settlements to either support them or disrupt their enemy.
Smuggling could have a number of skills, including both those that help a smuggler and those that detect one. These skills could be broken down into Chaotic (Smuggling) and Lawful (Detect Contraband). I can envision those using "Champion Flags" having a similar ability to the Stand And Deliver mechanic, to search for illegal contraband, and to confiscate it. Smugglers on the other hand would have specialized skills to help conceal their contraband from the searches of these customs agents.
I hate to reboot my old question, but the discussion in this thread devolved into yet another discussion of the alignment system, and off the topic of settlement mechanics.
So, setting both alignment and Druids aside (there are two other threads specifically for Druids)......
What kind if settlement NPC interaction will we see or we would like to see?
I will also add my other post, that got buried as an attachment to this, fir your discussion.
Back to my idea about settlement interaction, and more specifically regarding the morale of the NPC population.
I would hope that the NPC population does have a morale rating, that would grant either positive or negative (buffs and rebuff) for the settlement.
Settlement managers will not only have to be concerned with keeping PC adventurers happy, but also the NPC population. This morale rating could then be manipulated through the actions of PCs, the settement's leaders, its members or outsiders.
As I suggested above, the example of smuggling and how it could impact a settlement in preparation of war or even under siege of war. Smuggling in goods that support the settlement, would boost its morale. There could also be those that smuggle in goods that support internal opposition, eroding support for the settlement's government, applying a rebuff for its defenses versus a siege.
NPC morale does not have to be a factor in just warfare. It could have effects on its markets, its law and order, its ability to build advancements, etc
Yes I anticipate the argument that this runs the risk of becoming "Settlement Management Online", but many of the modifications and decisions could be done through the use of passive skills and or community toggles that can be adjusted when needed. The manager than can create preset combinations and hit key them for specific situations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since all the other Settlement types only have 3 valid Alignments, I wonder if it makes sense to do the same for Neutral. For example, you could allow only NG, NN, NE or only LN, NN, CN.
Hm? A NG settlement could NG, LG, CG, and NN.
A NE settlement could have NE, LE, CE, and NN.The corners only allow for 3, and not NN.
What kind if settlement NPC interaction will we see or we would like to see?
Glad you brought this up again Bluddwolf. A thread on eating as a mechanic a while back, there was an idea of how to boost NPC morale that I thought would be good to add here.
The thought was, in order for a settlement to operate efficiently, the NPCs need food. It's would be kept in the settlement storehouses end automatically consumed by the NPCs. There are different tiers of food that can be used by the settlement, they are created from standard foodstuff raw material and have the appearance of barrels or crates.
If you give the settlement tier 1 foodstuffs they will operate at a standard morale and standard efficiency. If however you give the NPCs tier 2 or above foodstuff, their morale lev will go up and their efficiency will increase until the food has been consumed.
As for how much the different tiers raise morale and efficacy I'm leaving up to the Devs as we just don't have the numbers yet.
So there's another way to effect a settlements morale.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlement managers will not only have to be concerned with keeping PC adventurers happy, but also the NPC population. This morale rating could then be manipulated through the actions of PCs, the settement's leaders, its members or outsiders.
As I suggested above, the example of smuggling and how it could impact a settlement in preparation of war or even under siege of war. Smuggling in goods that support the settlement, would boost its morale. There could also be those that smuggle in goods that support internal opposition, eroding support for the settlement's government, applying a rebuff for its defenses versus a siege.
NPC morale does not have to be a factor in just warfare. It could have effects on its markets, its law and order, its ability to build advancements, etc
Yes I anticipate the argument that this runs the risk of becoming "Settlement Management Online", but many of the modifications and decisions could be done through the use of passive skills and or community toggles that can be adjusted when needed. The manager than can create preset combinations and hit key them for specific situations.
I'm ok with this in general, as long as:
- It's relatively balanced. That is, that it's roughly as easy/cheap to deliberately raise morale as to lower morale, though they may be through entirely different mechanics
- It can be made illegal by settlements to import morale-lowering "stuff". (I think that's probably a given since it's called "smuggling".)
- It doesn't outweigh more straightforward and obvious morale factors, like if residents are getting enough food & services, war weariness in the population, dangerous monster encampments nearby, etc.
IMO, player actions directed against each other with equal options is fine, good, challenging, and entertaining - not so much if it's asymmetric by nature (as opposed to asymmetric in execution) and too easy for one party to annoy others without recourse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since all the other Settlement types only have 3 valid Alignments, I wonder if it makes sense to do the same for Neutral. For example, you could allow only NG, NN, NE or only LN, NN, CN.
I'm getting the sense that you really really dislike the idea of NN settlements, Nihimon. Everywhere I seem to look you are not satisfied with the information that they can exist. Can it be that having one more possible alignment to ally with is the problem or is it something else?
Could you share what it is that is bothering you?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since all the other Settlement types only have 3 valid Alignments, I wonder if it makes sense to do the same for Neutral. For example, you could allow only NG, NN, NE or only LN, NN, CN.I'm getting the sense that you really really dislike the idea of NN settlements, Nihimon. Everywhere I seem to look you are not satisfied with the information that they can exist. Can it be that having one more possible alignment to ally with is the problem or is it something else?
Could you share what it is that is bothering you?
A True Neutral settlement has 5 allowed alignments counting TN.
The other neutral settlements have 4 permissible alignments.The corner alignments only have 3 possibles (with two of those three being neutral-something).
That said there is some historical precedence to restricts on TN, for example pre-pathfinder Clerics of a neutral deity could not be TN unless the deity was also TN.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As someone who has enjoyed cooking back in UO, I find the idea of feeding the NPCs intriguing. I know people often have made the comment that they don't mind food buffs, but don'e want to be penalized for not eating. The idea of feeding NPCs to keep them happy and productive seems like another neat way to make food useful. If you don't supply food at all, would your NPC morale and efficiency be reduced? I don't see why not. It seems like another more realistic part of settlement upkeep, which I would like to see involving raw materials more than simply coin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Could you share what it is that is bothering you?
Oh, it's not really bothering me. I just remember Ryan expressing concern before that NN Settlements would have too many options, making them the "obvious choice" for most Settlements. I'm just brainstorming ideas for ways to balance it so that it's about even with other Settlements.
I guess part of it was also that I had already wrapped my mind around the "no true neutral Settlements" thing...
It sounds like there's a good chance that NN having 5 options, NX having 4, and XX having 3 is probably going to be pretty well balanced by other factors, so maybe it's not an issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Could you share what it is that is bothering you?Oh, it's not really bothering me. I just remember Ryan expressing concern before that NN Settlements would have too many options, making them the "obvious choice" for most Settlements.
Did he mean training options? That would only make sense if the "one step away" thing is also meant to apply to permissible training buildings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of needing resources to keep the town going. The requirements should not be prohibitively high to avoid this becoming a variation of SimCity but it would add emphasis on the 'working together' aspect of the settlement. It could even extend to needing consumables for higher tier buildings. For example, supplies of coal and flux for smiths, paper and ink for markets, oil and varnish for woodmakers, etc.
Its a balancing act, but could really bring out some flavor and provide some interesting choices for community leaders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Did he mean training options?
If you follow the links I posted, you'll get a pretty clear picture. We were discussing the Alignment Restrictions on Settlement Membership. At the time we didn't know it, but it's clear now that you'll be able to train at a Settlement's Training Facilities even if you aren't a Member of that Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am thinking the Diplomacy feat that will probably be available to Aristocrats may blur the lines to allow PCs to peacefully enter a settlement two steps away in the alignment. Without a high diplomacy check (in my envisioning anyway) NPC guards would aggro, just the same as if you were seen pickpocketing or attacking a citizen.
I believe PC settlements are able to set thier own laws. This could be Alignment X is always flagged as tresspasser (and that may be a popular one) but the settlement does NOT HAVE to have such a law if it does not wish.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Could you share what it is that is bothering you?Oh, it's not really bothering me. I just remember Ryan expressing concern before that NN Settlements would have too many options, making them the "obvious choice" for most Settlements. I'm just brainstorming ideas for ways to balance it so that it's about even with other Settlements.
I guess part of it was also that I had already wrapped my mind around the "no true neutral Settlements" thing...
It sounds like there's a good chance that NN having 5 options, NX having 4, and XX having 3 is probably going to be pretty well balanced by other factors, so maybe it's not an issue.
The way I look at it, it is self-balancing. Like all great strengths it carries its own weakness. We are describing a very complex political model in the NN town. LG towns will be a piece of cake relatively, especially considering how easy it could be to accept too many of a givenNX alignment and end up losing a fifth of your carefully balanced population overnight when the alignment shifts from NN to NX.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An NN settlement though it is open (potentialy) to a greater diversity of player is going to have some of it's own issues with internal cohesion and peace...so that probably self-balances the greater diversity. It's going to have polar opposites within it's own settlement. NG and NE as well as LN and LC are not likely to have the same natural inclinations or goals as one another. Keeping all those competeing interests in harmony and willing to continue working with one another is likely going to be a delicate balancing act.