Goblin Squad Member
|
I know there is a thread on Evil Kingdoms, but since this doesn't pertain exclusively to that alignment, I thought it might warrant a new thread (I also didn't want to muddy the Evil Kingdom discussion).
Given that reputation is a publicly visible rating derived from your "known" behavior, shouldn't a settlement operate more on a reputation system than an alignment system? Where a player's actions, for good or ill, influences their reputation, shouldn't the laws that a settlement toggles on or off and chooses to enforce or not enforce similarly affect the settlement's reputation? People choose to do business with reputable companies, while having no clue what the alignment of the people employed happens to be. You choose to visit safe towns rather than those with high crime rates, but would you say everyone living in that unsafe town is evil? Sure, you could assign lawfulness to toggling on more laws and chaos to enforcing less, but isn't it possible that a settlement's managing characters could be of nearly any alignment and still take actions to ensure a positive reputation for their settlement? Isn't it possible that the mayor of your town does a masterful job of keeping the streets safe and the businesses humming while being a devil worshiper in his free time? Reputation deals with his town's profitability, regardless of his personal hobbies.
Unless you're hanging corpses from the ramparts and sacrificing virgins in the town square, I find it difficult to assign an alignment to a whole community or to easily envision those of opposing alignments being automatically barred from a settlement unless game mechanics become that overtly obvious. It would seem easier to assign bonuses and minuses to a settlement based on easily tracked "actions" of the settlement - what laws they toggle, the amount of resources they expend for hiring NPC guards or constructing safer walls/banks/etc., what level of taxes they levy, and so on.
Just an idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm already on record of being more in favor of having a reputation system, then an alignment system. I view alignment as an artificial limitation on role playing, where as reputaion is a true reflextion player interaction and role playing.
However, I believe that there should be both pros and cons to having either a very high or a very low reputaion.
Having a very low reputation, in a low reputation settlement, should give you access to both presitge and power, that others would not have access to. Same goes for having a High in a High reputation settlement.
The Cons for both however, is that they may find themselves locked out from the neutral or certainly the opposite skills, perks, etc.
After having read the vlogs and posts for these last two months, I can really see an balance issue between the various axises in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Problem is there is great potential for conflict and intrigue where the alignment of my settlement is vulnerable. If I do not have a care that my settlement's alignment stays where it is then I could be out a home and all that I have worked for might be lost, other than who my character is and what little I managed to thread on eviction.
Too much potential content would be lost if we gave up settlement alignment.
Having a very low reputation, in a low reputation settlement, should give you access to both presitge and power, that others would not have access to. Same goes for having a High in a High reputation settlement.
See I totally agree that while "good" players strive for a high reputation for themselves and as a key to unlock upgrades to crafting and other skill training within the settlement.
"Evil" on the other hand should strive for a low reputation. It makes sense that they would be the reverse of good, but if their settlement has a low reputation it won't get to unlock the advanced training. Likewise if I had a dealing with that player and was happy with the results, I would give him a + reputation which would it end up being a bad thing...?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Valandur - Though I understand why those who wear their alignment on their sleeve would have low reputation (either the obviously Lawful Evil dark lord or the Chaotic Evil maniacal killer), what about the people who want to keep their alignment less obvious for all the benefits they gain by doing so? Can't you have an evil aligned person with a high reputation? If you're not the one swinging the sword or looting the body, but they're the one calling for the hit and making the profit, you could still appear very reputable to the community (the settlement) while actually being very evil.
The question is, "But how would the system track that?" My answer would be that it can't and that it shouldn't. I keep coming back to my argument that alignment should not be a game mechanic.
Being - What specific content would be lost without alignment? I hope you know me enough by now by my posts to know I would not be flippant simply for argument's sake. My question is genuine - what content not already possible by player choice and natural consequence would be lost by removing game tracked alignment?
but isn't it possible that a settlement's managing characters could be of nearly any alignment and still take actions to ensure a positive reputation for their settlement? Isn't it possible that the mayor of your town does a masterful job of keeping the streets safe and the businesses humming while being a devil worshiper in his free time? Reputation deals with his town's profitability, regardless of his personal hobbies.
Unless you're hanging corpses from the ramparts and sacrificing virgins in the town square, I find it difficult to assign an alignment to a whole community or to easily envision those of opposing alignments being automatically barred from a settlement unless game mechanics become that overtly obvious. It would seem easier to assign bonuses and minuses to a settlement based on easily tracked "actions" of the settlement - what laws they toggle, the amount of resources they expend for hiring NPC guards or constructing safer walls/banks/etc., what level of taxes they levy, and so on.
Just an idea.
(The following is just my personal opinion used to explain my way of seeing what Hobs is discussing)
Sure often this is the case. In fact I believe that the majority of politicians, especially on a national level, are actually LE masquerading as LG or LN. There are so many dark secrets behind the shiny facade politicians present to the public. So many of them have had to make deals and accept things that would horrify the public if they knew. The perversion of the justice system is one effect of the political structure that's taken over the country which allows the rich and connected the ability to evade justice, to get away with criminal acts that would see a common person imprisoned for a long time (an excellent example of this is the Doc. "The Smartest Guys in the Room". Rather then go on, I'll simply say that it's very possible to be one alignment while maintaining the illusion of having the opposite alignment.
My understanding of reputation on a settlement level is that a settlement takes the total reputation of all it's residents and derives a figure which it applies along with other factors to reach a settlements reputation score. Obviously the smaller a settlements population, the greater impact an individuals shift in reputation would be to the settlements reputation score. What we don't know however is the percentage that residents reputation has on the formula settlements use to determine their reputation.
Like the alignment system though, I doubt that a single characters actions would effect a settlements score easily. Likely that character would have to drastically go against a settlements stated alignment/reputation on a daily basis for quite some time, an example would be if a settlement was CG, a resident would have to perform LE acts on a daily basis for several weeks before it would reflect in a change to a settlements alignment. A CC that set its mind to changing their settlements reputation or alignment could accomplish this given say a week of intense action.
The times I mention are guesses based on what little has been said on settlement level figures like reputation and alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yea, I think the alignment system is being designed around a system, rather than being designed around the players. Which kinda gives me this nanny-state vibe. I too agree that it really should be all about reputation. And I like the idea of bad guys WANTING to get high negative reputation.
What about a seperate reputation system for each alignment type (good evil chaos law neutral) that function more like a faction system. You would want to get high repuation in whatever 2 alignment types you wanted too. We could still have the flag system thats in place, and still have penalties (bans)in place for griefing and senseless mass random killing. Your alignment would determine what training you could have. It doesnt make sense to me that I need a "good reputation" to get max chaos training and other chaos related bonuses. But it would make sense that having a high Chaos rep would get make this. And doing this would cut you off from other training and alignment related bonuses. So going out and doing a lot of criminal acts (as long as its not griefing and mass RPKing)would give me high rep in chaos, instead of me having to be choatic but ONLY in a certain way (S.A.D.)so that I can get high rep (that is on the same measure of judgment as LG????).
It would work like this:
If you have high Law, you have low chaos. and the reverse
If you have high evil, you have low good. and the reverse
Neutral would be either a function of the difference between good vs evil, or law vs chaos. Whichever is the higher value.
Extreme corners would have high rep in LG or CE, but low reps in their opposites, and never higher than a medium rep in Neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A settlement is a place for players of the same/similar/overlapping social gameplay preference to collaborate, or as the case may be: "bar fight!"
The alignment is therefore an aggregate of the members: This in turn dictates the options of the settlement eg "Temple to dark, slimey tentacled underworld gods" and training facilities and archetype types eg paladin.
The reputation is more for increasing or decreasing the range of players in and out ie security customization or relaxing barriers to trade or for a settlement to be more inclusive of their friends?? I guess.
But overall alignment uses x2 measures to "fix" the total alignment. I think reputation is just accentuating ie x3 low measures aka Chaotic-Evil-BadRep really must be a scummy place for the 3rd and final measure ie reputation to kick in based off player ratings? Hence the harshest reduction in favorable infrastructures eg training facilities.
So it seems reputation WILL be powerful, but more powerful when it's most required? vica-versa for LG?? For eg, a CE with a high reputation: What does that do?
=
Back to Alignment: Fundamentally it seems the pathfinder world or Golarion with it's antagonistic Gods is reflected in the alignment and that alignment is an eternal difference/conflict of the "soul"? Hence it does seem appropriate to reflect Alignment as the key denomination of a settlement's character, based on it's inhabitants? Apologies if I have misunderstood the Pathfinder lore on that account.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm always willing to admit that I'm not the most informed on these topics...so if this has been said already, please point me to the appropriate blog/article/etc.
Has it been said whether or not the members or at least the leadership of a settlement will be notified of whose behavior is sliding the settlement away from its established alignment? If I were living in a LG settlement and someone kept acting in a way that was about to change my home's alignment and some of the privileges I enjoy by living in that alignment settlement, I certainly want to know. I know this sounds more game mechanic dependent than I usually am, but if one mechanic is going to control the environment in which I live (and thereby curtail my actions if I want to live there), then I want access to the other mechanic that will tell me who is causing the problem. Otherwise, I have a feeling you're going to see spies work their way into a settlement, join as a member, then undermine the settlement by purposely acting in a way that will alter that settlement's alignment.
I'm always willing to admit that I'm not the most informed on these topics...so if this has been said already, please point me to the appropriate blog/article/etc.
Has it been said whether or not the members or at least the leadership of a settlement will be notified of whose behavior is sliding the settlement away from its established alignment? If I were living in a LG settlement and someone kept acting in a way that was about to change my home's alignment and some of the privileges I enjoy by living in that alignment settlement, I certainly want to know. I know this sounds more game mechanic dependent than I usually am, but if one mechanic is going to control the environment in which I live (and thereby curtail my actions if I want to live there), then I want access to the other mechanic that will tell me who is causing the problem. Otherwise, I have a feeling you're going to see spies work their way into a settlement, join as a member, then undermine the settlement by purposely acting in a way that will alter that settlement's alignment.
Good question! I've given a little thought to this, so I've been watching for any word b a Dev on this topic, I've seen nothing yet about it.
If you suspect that someone's delicately taking actions to alter a settlements alignment or rep, I would start by finding the most likely place where gossip happens, then just hanging around there listening for word of anyone doing odd stuff. If you suspect someone of this sort of thing, you can page through their reputation information. Chances are they should have some later entries that aren't consistent with previous sort of behavior. Especially if, along with reputation score, players can add a brief sentence describing the good or bad event that caused the reputation entry, like EBay has when you buy or sell to another person.
It would take forever to go through everyone's reputation journal, so any way you can narrow the field of possible players you suspect, then you can check out their reputation info.
I'm interested in any ideas on this topic btw ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From a completely game mechanical function, the settlement leadership could have a screen that lists all the settlement members, any awarded settlement titles or privileges, current alignment, and actions that triggered flags or deviant alignment "points" (not sure how they intend to quantify a character's alignment affecting actions). This would seem a rather straight forward method, but do we want settlement members' behavior to be this transparent and trackable? Personally, I'm not sure.
Would it be enough that the settlement leadership get a warning that someone's actions have been contrary to the alignment of the settlement and leave it to players to play detective? I don't suppose it would be too difficult to look at the "who's on line" list and determine the culprit. But do we want even that...or is alignment sabotage something we want to permit, where its only indication is the slow creep of the settlement's alignment away from it's original listing?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm always willing to admit that I'm not the most informed on these topics...so if this has been said already, please point me to the appropriate blog/article/etc.
Has it been said whether or not the members or at least the leadership of a settlement will be notified of whose behavior is sliding the settlement away from its established alignment? If I were living in a LG settlement and someone kept acting in a way that was about to change my home's alignment and some of the privileges I enjoy by living in that alignment settlement, I certainly want to know. I know this sounds more game mechanic dependent than I usually am, but if one mechanic is going to control the environment in which I live (and thereby curtail my actions if I want to live there), then I want access to the other mechanic that will tell me who is causing the problem. Otherwise, I have a feeling you're going to see spies work their way into a settlement, join as a member, then undermine the settlement by purposely acting in a way that will alter that settlement's alignment.
The general truism about alignment/reputation and players/settlements does seem to be as you and a few are suggesting to paraphrase: "Just how will it really play out?"
And for settlements a big example is just how will alignment shifts and capitulations of settlement power actually occur and how severely/frequently?
In terms of notification:
alignment is based on the average of members / warning mechanism
And Settlement functions generally:
Settlement Alignment and territory
Settlements, War, Training and Alignment
Attracting new members to settlements
Reputation & Alignment on Settlements
These are a few quick posts that seem to discuss around Settlement Alignment system. There's a few discussing precisely Reputation, in the blogs on Settlement, a quick "search" should generate.
Characters with low reputations may also find they're not wanted in certain places. Settlements can set a minimum reputation to enter the city; players who don't meet the requirement are warned, and become trespassers if they continue to enter. Settlements may also be selective about permitting players with low reputations to join, since maintaining a high minimum settlement reputation is key to building several prestigious and useful structures.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not that I intend to run or even be a part of a low reputation settlement, there should be a trade off. Without a trade off then the penalty for being the counter weight to the forces of good, will be discouraged.
There seems to be a few premature assumptions at work here, in the minds of some of the Devs and the Croudforgers here on the forums:
1. That griefing will be widespread unless there are extreme measures put in place to prevent it.
2. That the majority of the player base will gravitate to playing evil, unless there are severe penalties for that style of role playing.
3. That having game mechanic penalties is appropriate for participating in legitimate activities in the game.
Again, I have no intentions of playing an evil character, but PFO is going to desperately need them in order to keep this game interesting.
Solutions:
It is fine to segragste skills and settlement structures based on alignment and or reputation, but there should be equal advantages and disadvantaged for all play styles (excluding griefing or using exploits).
A Necromancer should gain a major advantage for raising the dead, in exchange for the Heinous Flag and the reputation hit.
A settlement that is so pious in its reputation should not have access to certain structures that may have practical benefits but are somewhat neutral or especially evil. For example a pious settlement may not be as ready for martial services because the community has grown complacent through long lasting peace.
Balance is the key word here. I'm getting the impression that it is a current goal to not have balance, and that is never a good starting point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree Bluddwolf. I have expressed similar concerns previously. GW however has made its decision, I don't see them changing it much from here on. I hope the proposed system works or can be tweaked post go live. For myself I think the settlement penalties (access to training facilities of varying degrees of crappiness) for chaotic, evil and yes, neutral settlements need to go.
Here is my prediction if things proceed as currently proposed:
Evil aligned characters may be popular to start with but when people see the difficulties involved they will just play good aligned characters and occasionally step out of line to reach certain objectives. Most people who play 'evil' characters would play this way anyway (on account of most of them not being stupid) so their play style will not be inhibited.
Some people have a different sense of what is fun and those people will be less swayed by the punitive measures so continue on their evil aligned ways. The anti-griefing objectives may or may not be met but in either case a significant amount of flavour will be lost from the game.
I don't think people will enjoy 'being other peoples content' if it means they will hamstring their development. This could be an option for some if the game ends up being Free to Play at some point, god forbid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have some of the same concerns as Bluddwolf and Meadhros, but as the latter put it, I'm one of those with a different sense of what is fun and will be less swayed by punitive measures. However, that comes with a caveat - if I play evil, it will be to provide others with an enemy from a RP standpoint. I will be too busy with Hobs as a community servant to try to create something as time consuming as an evil settlement with my evil alt.
Here's a thought, and maybe it's been presented elsewhere. It wouldn't be the first time I've missed a previous post of the same topic. Instead of settlement trainers being all-or-nothing propositions, what if their presence cost "X" amount of coin and that amount increased or decreased based on the alignment of the settlement? Yes, CE settlements would still be at a disadvantage compared to LG - let's be realistic, if people are getting cut down in the streets on a regular basis, your settlement is going to be less appealing to that NPC trainer. But unless the trainer's alignment is prohibitive (e.g. a paladin trainer will only set up shop in a LG settlement), it would seem possible to attract that reluctant trainer by sweetening the pot.
I don't think we've heard for certain how settlement up-keep will work (stay with me...this is related), though I've read many people's comments hoping that it will require resources instead of cash, or at least as well as cash. What if part of the monetary up-keep for settlements came in the form of paying your trainers? What if trainers of skills in keeping with your alignment cost little or nothing (they're just happy to find a suitable home with "free" room and board), while trainers with skills farther afield from your alignment cost more to attract. Certainly, many skills are alignment neutral, but to convince those trainers to live in a wild west CE town would still take some monetary encouragement.
Just an idea that might provide a middle ground to the all-or-nothing, no soup for CE problem.
GW however has made its decision, I don't see them changing it much from here on.
This could be an option for some if the game ends up being Free to Play at some point, god forbid.
GW has shown that their proposed plans are subject to change and amazingly Have changed when enough of the player base expresses a differing opinion on a system or interpretation of a rule or method of application. If you've lived through someone like Brad McQuaid's "it's going to be this way and it won't change", or Blizzard's harmonized "no one can lose" type of game creation, then the path GW is taking is nothing short of astounding!
0.o ummm, GW has stated numerous times that PFO will be a mix of subs + f2p.
I don't think we've heard for certain how settlement up-keep will work (stay with me...this is related), though I've read many people's comments hoping that it will require resources instead of cash, or at least as well as cash. What if part of the monetary up-keep for settlements came in the form of paying your trainers? What if trainers of skills in keeping with your alignment cost little or nothing (they're just happy to find a suitable home with "free" room and board), while trainers with skills farther afield from your alignment cost more to attract. Certainly, many skills are alignment neutral, but to convince those trainers to live in a wild west CE town would still take some monetary encouragement.
Just an idea that might provide a middle ground to the all-or-nothing, no soup for CE problem.
That's an interesting idea! I don't know if it would totally solve the problem, but it's certainly something to consider. It makes sense and could be factored in along with settlement morale and conditions within a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's an interesting idea! I don't know if it would totally solve the problem, but it's certainly something to consider. It makes sense and could be factored in along with settlement morale and conditions within a settlement.
I don't think we've heard for certain how settlement up-keep will work (stay with me...this is related), though I've read many people's comments hoping that it will require resources instead of cash, or at least as well as cash. What if part of the monetary up-keep for settlements came in the form of paying your trainers? What if trainers of skills in keeping with your alignment cost little or nothing (they're just happy to find a suitable home with "free" room and board), while trainers with skills farther afield from your alignment cost more to attract. Certainly, many skills are alignment neutral, but to convince those trainers to live in a wild west CE town would still take some monetary encouragement.
Just an idea that might provide a middle ground to the all-or-nothing, no soup for CE problem.
I don't think I would be in favor of this. I think that opens the door to removing the "meaningful" part of player choices that the current design is shooting for. If we went this route, becfore too long alignment would be seriously devalued as means for fostering meaningful choice. If there is a route for players to not have to decide, they will take it, which then leads to a vanilla environment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment does not foster meaningful choices, it restricts them. The reputation system is a reflection of how the player is playing his or her character. By using alignment as a restrictive tool against player access to skills and or settlement advancements, players are being artificially and punitively encouraged (forced) to avoid those choices.
I m not talking about anti-griefing. I'm talking about players having their characters behave and act in a manner that reflects their role playing choices.
Preventing a character from having access to certain skills in certain settlements is fine. But having certain settlements restricted in advancements that limit the player are not. There should be no game mechanic, based on alignment, that should make training take longer. As long as training is tied to real time, and there is a subscription, that equates to one play style costing more real world money than another.
As I stated earlier, but I'll say it a bit differently here, Balance is key! I have never seen or heard of an MMO that was being developed to incorporate a planned imbalance in order to curtail players from working within the system of the game.
If GW does not want CE characters, or Raising Dead or Using Slaves, then don't have them in the game! If they do include them, then there should be an equal advantage to offset the penalty for doing those things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Elorebaen,
I've read the term "vanilla-environment" used a number of times on these forums. Most often it seems to be calling neutral less desirable and sponsoring a world view that is somehow more engaging simply by having conflicting polar opposite alignments being the norm. To say that "meaningful" choices have to be black or white seems contradictory. If the choices tend to be between only good or evil, there are really very few choices. Instead, I like a whole spectrum of choices, which includes playing neutral. To me, playing neutral doesn't always mean staying out of the fight between good and evil - it can mean playing the opportunist between the two, or the mercenary who chooses a particular side for profit, or yes, it can also mean playing someone who simply doesn't care about the other two sides at all and just wants to go about his own business and pursue his own goals. I often find neutral characters far more complex, multilayered, and unpredictable - and thereby more interesting - than classically good or evil. That I like shades of gray, rather than black or white, doesn't seem like a "vanilla" choice to me.
If by "vanilla environment" you mean that you're afraid all settlements would eventually become neutral, though the majority might, I doubt everyone desiring to make a haven for good or a bastion of evil would give up that dream. If you're worried that if all settlements became neutral that we would have less conflict, I doubt it highly. Rather, I think you would find a far more conflicted patchwork of hexes. If we're all neutral, we're all fighting over the same resources, trade, territory, etc. and we can't feel safe because we have the same good alignment as our neighbors. Instead, diplomacy will be even more important. If we were all neutral by default, the community would then tend to label us good or evil based on our actions, not our predetermined alignment. So instead of playing cops and robbers with clear enemies, we would be playing a game of RISK where everyone has their eye on everyone else's piece of the pie. Now, I like cops and robbers too, but I don't think it will be any less bloody playing RISK.
As for alignments in general, I often find myself in agreement with Bluddwolf. I never like mixing In-Character/role-played issues with Out-of-Character/player or game mechanic issues, but the proposed alignment system may do just that in some regards. My real issue with imposing an alignment system upon role-players is that by forcing us to make a choice, you are limiting our choices. By choosing a specific alignment and penalizing us when we stray from it, you force my character to be far more one dimensional. I think character motivations and intentions are far too complex to pin point with a specific alignment. After all, if a sandbox is supposed to do anything, it's supposed to provide players with choice. I know - I still have choice via my freedom of action, but if I choose to stray a bit from my designated alignment with that action, even for good reason, the game will slide me in a direction that I must counter - very unrealistically for a role player - by intentionally doing an opposing action to slide me back to my starting point. I can play that game to maintain the alignment I think suits my character if I must, but I don't find having to do so a "meaningful" choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My real issue with imposing an alignment system upon role-players is that by forcing us to make a choice, you are limiting our choices. By choosing a specific alignment and penalizing us when we stray from it
It is even worse than that... They impose an alignment upon role players, and penalize us if we stick to it.
Assassins kill people for money or country. Thieves steal. Necromancers raise the dead. If we choose these roles to play, we are penalized for playing them. Now if it were just penalized in game, by being denied access to certain settlements or being barred from training Lawful or Good based skills, I'm fine with that. That passes the common sense test.
It is when they limit or penalize the player, the customer, that is where I have an issue with it.
A Chaotic Evil settlement should have the same high level training and structures available to a Lawful Good settlement. The only difference is that the highest level training will be related to Chaos and Evil. There would be very limited or no access to Lawful or Good training. That in its self is the trade off. That is the choice that has been made.
But to imply, and I do understand that these are still ideas being kicked around, that a CE settlement will be at severe disadvantages that may result in longer training times (lack of settlement advances that buff such things), that is penalizing the customer and not the character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf and Hobs pretty much said whats needing to be said here. I will say however, that having alignment offer benefits in the game that are seen as appropriate advantages for that alignment arent bad.
Two most important things to me are propper ballance and the use of positive re-enforcement over negative where it can be applied. So instead of penalties for not acting in alignment, you get bonuses for doing so (this needs to apply to both light and dark alignments though). Just like how they are planning on using consumable buffs (positive) instead of gear degradation/repair (negative) to make crafting relevant.
Positive re-enforcenment always trumps negative. You can catch more flies with honey that with vinegar. Thats not to say that there should not be any penalties. This is a PvP game afterall. But the use of these should be frugal and appropriate to the spirit of the game.
I will go one step further than Bluddwolf here. If GW does not want CE characters in a PvP world, then dont make a PvP game. Just like in other games where they make "useless" classes. Dont build a role or a class or a position or a feature in the game, if its effectively useless or pointless. All that gives is false hope and the illusion to players that this is a valid feature or playstyle. Then when they find out that it just doesnt work or majorly blocks them from participating in the game, they will understandable be angry.
Im sure some of you at least know what I mean. Where you play a class, you level it all the way to max, then try to participate in endgame events. But you are not invited nor wanted because your class is either useless, or there is another class that can do the same things as you only 2x better.
That's an interesting idea! I don't know if it would totally solve the problem, but it's certainly something to consider. It makes sense and could be factored in along with settlement morale and conditions within a settlement.
I don't think we've heard for certain how settlement up-keep will work (stay with me...this is related), though I've read many people's comments hoping that it will require resources instead of cash, or at least as well as cash. What if part of the monetary up-keep for settlements came in the form of paying your trainers? What if trainers of skills in keeping with your alignment cost little or nothing (they're just happy to find a suitable home with "free" room and board), while trainers with skills farther afield from your alignment cost more to attract. Certainly, many skills are alignment neutral, but to convince those trainers to live in a wild west CE town would still take some monetary encouragement.
Just an idea that might provide a middle ground to the all-or-nothing, no soup for CE problem.
I don't think I would be in favor of this. I think that opens the door to removing the "meaningful" part of player choices that the current design is shooting for. If we went this route, becfore too long alignment would be seriously devalued as means for fostering meaningful choice. If there is a route for players to not have to decide, they will take it, which then leads to a vanilla environment.
What I like about the post that Hobs made was the ability of a settlement to "rent out" storage space. Alignment doesn't enter into this in any way, not when only considering settlements renting out warehouse space.
Think of it like the mini-storage places, many people who have houses utilize such facilities to store extra stuff. Also, like a safety deposit box, it would be a place to store goods you don't want in your settlement in case the worst happens and you were to lose your settlements warehouse space as well as your settlement!
Obviously you would need to be able to enter the settlement to deliver and remove goods from your storage space so in that respect alignment does come into play somewhat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment does not foster meaningful choices, it restricts them. The reputation system is a reflection of how the player is playing his or her character. By using alignment as a restrictive tool against player access to skills and or settlement advancements, players are being artificially and punitively encouraged (forced) to avoid those choices.
I m not talking about anti-griefing. I'm talking about players having their characters behave and act in a manner that reflects their role playing choices.
Preventing a character from having access to certain skills in certain settlements is fine. But having certain settlements restricted in advancements that limit the player are not. There should be no game mechanic, based on alignment, that should make training take longer. As long as training is tied to real time, and there is a subscription, that equates to one play style costing more real world money than another.
As I stated earlier, but I'll say it a bit differently here, Balance is key! I have never seen or heard of an MMO that was being developed to incorporate a planned imbalance in order to curtail players from working within the system of the game.
If GW does not want CE characters, or Raising Dead or Using Slaves, then don't have them in the game! If they do include them, then there should be an equal advantage to offset the penalty for doing those things.
I provided a link above [Reputation, Axis of Alignment etc], which can be useful for seeing that the devs are ahead of where you are thinking:
1) Degree of difference: Note this detail - explained according to x3 axis
2) CE + High Rep. Eg is discussed: Suggests RP potential?
3) See below.
=
Imo you're not seeing the bigger picture. Your discussion revolves around other mmorpgs concerning power progression. The above is a SOCIAL SYSTEM of progression eg aggregate of members. Secondly the even LG will have a tough ask to maintain a high reputation 3).
That said, regarding RP, you certainly have a valid concern. I think GrumpyMel has extolled this side of things very energetically! One of the keys in this system is to create a mechanism that deals with large numbers of players (population) that overall is approximately well represented by the alignment system at this scale, but atst the sample of players who exist in that that have breathing space to RP within the Alignment system and use their own imagination within that system.
How that is done is a good question: I think people are right to be concerned that it might choke the air out of the RP/Aligment/Moral Sense of self if the Alignment scales are too blunt. On the one hand we have intelligence regarding the alignment scales numerical system and on the other we have our moral sense of things: How content will players be with this reflection?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Avenaoats
Thank you for the link, that discussion predates my arrival here on these forums. Stephen Cheney's description if the system was not as anti - CE, where the impression was if you are CE, change your play style or suffer game mechanic and player account consequences (longer training time is a player account consequence).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment does not foster meaningful choices, it restricts them. The reputation system is a reflection of how the player is playing his or her character. By using alignment as a restrictive tool against player access to skills and or settlement advancements, players are being artificially and punitively encouraged (forced) to avoid those choices.
Maybe I am missing a part of the conversation. But the very fact that there are restrictions creates meaningful choices. Mother of invention and all that.
Those RP choices must at some point be based in what that character does in-game.
I m not talking about anti-griefing. I'm talking about players having their characters behave and act in a manner that reflects their role playing choices.
Preventing a character from having access to certain skills in certain settlements is fine. But having certain settlements restricted in advancements that limit the player are not. There should be no game mechanic, based on alignment, that should make training take longer. As long as training is tied to real time, and there is a subscription, that equates to one play style costing more real world money than another.
Hmm, I'm not sure I get the logic here exactly. I assume you are referring to our our current anemic view of the design for evil-character advancement? Are you saying, ceteris parabus, it shouldn't take longer? Aye, makes sense.
As I stated earlier, but I'll say it a bit differently here, Balance is key! I have never seen or heard of an MMO that was being developed to incorporate a planned imbalance in order to curtail players from working within the system of the game.If GW does not want CE characters, or Raising Dead or Using Slaves, then don't have them in the game! If they do include them, then there should be an equal advantage to offset the penalty for doing those things.
Bingo, we are talking about CE characters. My bad, I wasn't talking specifically about CE, but that's my fault for entering the conversation when I did. In other words you are saying that CE characters, or any other alignment should not, ceteris parabus, be required to have to wait longer for training. Makes sense to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Elorebaen,
I've read the term "vanilla-environment" used a number of times on these forums. Most often it seems to be calling neutral less desirable and sponsoring a world view that is somehow more engaging simply by having conflicting polar opposite alignments being the norm. To say that "meaningful" choices have to be black or white seems contradictory. If the choices tend to be between only good or evil, there are really very few choices. Instead, I like a whole spectrum of choices, which includes playing neutral. To me, playing neutral doesn't always mean staying out of the fight between good and evil - it can mean playing the opportunist between the two, or the mercenary who chooses a particular side for profit, or yes, it can also mean playing someone who simply doesn't care about the other two sides at all and just wants to go about his own business and pursue his own goals. I often find neutral characters far more complex, multilayered, and unpredictable - and thereby more interesting - than classically good or evil. That I like shades of gray, rather than black or white, doesn't seem like a "vanilla" choice to me.
If by "vanilla environment" you mean that you're afraid all settlements would eventually become neutral, though the majority might, I doubt everyone desiring to make a haven for good or a bastion of evil would give up that dream. If you're worried that if all settlements became neutral that we would have less conflict, I doubt it highly. Rather, I think you would find a far more conflicted patchwork of hexes. If we're all neutral, we're all fighting over the same resources, trade, territory, etc. and we can't feel safe because we have the same good alignment as our neighbors. Instead, diplomacy will be even more important. If we were all neutral by default, the community would then tend to label us good or evil based on our actions, not our predetermined alignment. So instead of playing cops and robbers with clear enemies, we would be playing a game of RISK where everyone...
My hope is that everyone will play interesting and well-developed characters. I hope we have every shade.
My fear with regard to a "vanilla environment." I believe that if you mechanically foster an alignment that allows you "the best of both worlds," or allows folks to avoid hard choices, then the (overwhelming) majority of MMORPG players will take that route and we will have created a "vanilla" environment. An environment that has no real character, no real flavor. Everyone would simply be neutral (exaggerating to make a point, obviously).
Moreover, the elements (diplomacy, trade, etc) you are relegating to Neutral can and should be done within the current system. Additionally, if a character is such as to play the way the want, cool, absolutely, but if the actions they are performing on on average good, or evil, then that is alignment they will pick up. Their choices will determine that. A character is free to make those choices, but those choices matter.
I want a rich and varied Golarion based world. One in which your actions really matter, and reflect the character you are playing in this world. I think in this, we see eye to eye, and honestly, those of us like you and eye, are probably not who these mechanical systems are built for as we will be roleplaying appropriately anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A Chaotic Evil settlement should have the same high level training and structures available to a Lawful Good settlement. The only difference is that the highest level training will be related to Chaos and Evil. There would be very limited or no access to Lawful or Good training. That in its self is the trade off. That is the choice that has been made.
But to imply, and I do understand that these are still ideas being kicked around, that a CE settlement will be at severe disadvantages that may result in longer training times (lack of settlement advances that buff such things), that is penalizing the customer and not the character.
They have given reasons for the ideas being kicked around about the seeming disadvantages for evil. Namely, there is typically a huge population of CE-esque players in the MMORPG-sphere that if given an inch will take a mile.
Now, we can simply ignore that, which would be foolish, or deal with the reality. Now the question becomes can we devise a system that provides for the rare few who are good at RPing evil characters and are a benefit to the community, while at the same time addressing reality?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I like about the post that Hobs made was the ability of a settlement to "rent out" storage space. Alignment doesn't enter into this in any way, not when only considering settlements renting out warehouse space.
Think of it like the mini-storage places, many people who have houses utilize such facilities to store extra stuff. Also, like a safety deposit box, it would be a place to store goods you don't want in your settlement in case the worst happens and you were to lose your settlements warehouse space as well as your settlement!
Obviously you would need to be able to enter the settlement to deliver and remove goods from your storage space so in that respect alignment does come into play somewhat.
Aye, that last part is the key. I dig the idea, though I could see it being a function of every type of settlement, not simply NN.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Elorebaen,
I never relegate diplomacy or trade to Neutral - other alignments are free to do so and profit as much as they can. Simply, by their position on the alignment spectrum, Neutral may be able to do it better or at least with a wider range of customers.
Whether that makes Neutral more desirable to play or a bigger target, we'll have to see.
Aye, that last part is the key. I dig the idea, though I could see it being a function of every type of settlement, not simply NN.What I like about the post that Hobs made was the ability of a settlement to "rent out" storage space. Alignment doesn't enter into this in any way, not when only considering settlements renting out warehouse space.
Think of it like the mini-storage places, many people who have houses utilize such facilities to store extra stuff. Also, like a safety deposit box, it would be a place to store goods you don't want in your settlement in case the worst happens and you were to lose your settlements warehouse space as well as your settlement!
Obviously you would need to be able to enter the settlement to deliver and remove goods from your storage space so in that respect alignment does come into play somewhat.
Ah ok, I see what you were thinking, no any settlement could have these warehouses provided they trained, or upgraded the required skill or facility.
I figure the warehouses could hold crafting materials, finished goods, not sure if coin could be stored here, but pretty much anything else.
I would certainly take advantage of this especially if I suspect a war may be in the future. Like tradeing, the goods would have to be transported to the settlement, but that just adds to gameplay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, we can simply ignore that, which would be foolish, or deal with the reality. Now the question becomes can we devise a system that provides for the rare few who are good at RPing evil characters and are a benefit to the community, while at the same time addressing reality?
Emphasis mine.
I think that the point of debate here is the 'reality' of griefers. When I first started following the discussion, I was all for measures to restrict griefers. The more I follow the discussion though, the less convinced I am that about the the severity of the issue. Are there going to be griefers? Yes. But those griefers are going to find a way to game the system no matter what you do.
Consider the following (based on info to date):
1) A griefer is usually considered CE
2) You gain E by killing
3) You gain C by breaking the law
4) You can increase your negative rep by trading rep
So basically, you have a griefer who is going to happily carry on doing what he wanted to do anyway and avoid a huge rep loss by getting his rep off another character. Doesnt sound like it solves the problem.
In WoW, on PvP servers, the biggest annoyance for me was corpse camping when youre trying to finish something (quest, gathering, exploration, whatever) and a high level character kills you in two hits and then just sits there waiting to do it again. This is the scenario of 'griefing' that comes to mind when I hear that term.
But this WoW scenario is NOT the standard case for PFO for the following reasons:
1) The power curve is shallower, so we shouldnt be seeing 2-hit kills or the impossible to hit characters.
2) You dont 'corpse run' in PFO. You could, if you wanted to pick up your gear, but you given the 'item turnover' mentality and threading mechanic you can write it off just as easily. Which means you dont need to return to where the griefer is. Go somewhere else.
3) There are no level-restricted zones in PFO (to my knowledge). Which means that instead of having only a couple of level appropriate options to go to, you can pretty much go anywhere you want.
If all else fails, make a batcall and get your buddies to pound him into the dust. This game is supposed to put an emphasis on community and teamwork after all.
Im in general agreement with Bluddwolf. Im fine with an alignment system and I understand that actions have their consequences. Im not comfortable with actions being pigeonholed into certain alignments, especially in a role-playing game (rather than an action/grindfest).
Just a couple of things. I'm not nit picking, just want to clarify a couple of points based on things I've read that the Devs have mentioned..
3) There are no level-restricted zones in PFO (to my knowledge). Which means that instead of..
Ryan has said that there will be level gaps between some hexes, where the level of mob increases more then just 1 or .2 levels. He did make sure to point out that players would be well aware when they are crossing over into such an area. I expect with the narrowed level gap that venturing into such areas might not be the automatic death sentence that it is in other games.
Im not comfortable with actions being pigeonholed into certain alignments
I'm not either really, but I've come to realize that this is the only way (that I see) that they have to enable the game to recognize and adjust a players alignment. I'm sure there will be plenty of times the game judges something a player does as "neutral" when the players motivation was actually "good", or "evil". Hopefully they will be able to use more stark (either/or) actions to shift alignment instead of assigning shifts to grey actions, at least as much as possible.
I see a lot of posts saying that alignment shouldn't be used the way the Devs intend to use it. I think that ship has sailed TBH. Not saying people shouldn't express their opinions, or even disagree with their plans, but in order to have a package of ways to discourage griefing, i believe they have decided that alignment tracking is necessary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment does not foster meaningful choices, it restricts them. ...
Hm. Even if it were true that alignment restricts freedom, which I take issue with, you also appear to imagine that restriction contradicts meaning, which is not the case.
Your choices define your alignment. If instead your alignment defines for you what you can choose, then you are living backwards. By 'living backwards' I mean that artificially determining what your choices can be based on how you value the advantages or disadvantages that accrue to an alignment is misprioritizing your values. Where XP accrues through time, and there is very little advantage to be had from your gear, then what should be meaningful is how you express your fantasy as your character, and not what advantage or disadvantage you expect to come as a consequence of alignment. In a world where there is very little advantage to be gained, how you live is the meaningful thing. If the whole object of being in Golarion is to interact with others then that is where your values will find meaning. Thus, your expression of your character's nature in the world defines his or her alignment rather than vice versa.
Restriction does not contradict meaning, it focuses meaning. A wise man said (paraphrase) the truly free man by his own nature defines the Law.
The most meaningful works of Art are strict in form and composition. Even a Jackson Pollack painting is strictly amorphous. An unstructured piece of music is cacophanous and discordant. And unstructured poem is gibberish: even 'free form' poetry seeks to incite impressions in a recognizable meaningfulpattern.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being,
I agree with most of your points, but something about having a game mechanic labeling me this or that alignment still chafes. More specifically, having to perform actions of an opposing nature to those I just performed simply to move my alignment slider back to center to maintain my current alignment forces me in-character to be acting in ways that have no other reason than to respond to out-of-character game mechanics. That makes me feel as if I'm forced to game the alignment system just to break even, which to a role-player, is bringing too much out-of-character cause into my in-character actions. Imagine the following situation in-game and in-character:
"Why did you just do 'action - X', fiend? That's not like you at all."
"Well, earlier today I acted as my conscience dictated, which didn't follow what I normally would do, but it was necessary under the circumstances. However, since the powers-that-be will judge me harshly by it and I will thereby seem more evil for the deed, I'm making up for it by doing 'action - Y'...understand?"
"Seems like a lot of work. Don't you have mining to do?"
"Yes I do, but unless I want to seem like an evil person, I need to do this first."
I have no problem with actions having consequences. I simply would rather have those consequences be more natural (other players won't trade with me, they don't trust me, etc.) and the work I have to do to recover from those consequences be more genuine and natural as well (prove by my actions that I am not what they think). By lopping off the heads of 100 goblins to appear more good by the game mechanic seems like gaming the system, which again, is having my character reacting with in-character action to game mechanic rules...which is something my character shouldn't have any knowledge of at all.
As a more personal example, to have access to more settlements to do my community service work, I'll likely have Hobs try to "maintain" a neutral alignment. I also plan on helping new players, including healing them and protecting them in their first adventurers, which might move me towards good. Will I now have to perform evil acts, which Hobs wouldn't do, just to maintain my neutral standing? By unknowingly healing an evil character who I see getting mauled by a monster, will I suffer an evil-tending hit to my alignment (I haven't heard anything about this...just guessing). Hobs' neutral world view comes from a desire to help those in need and doing so without passing judgement on them. This is something other players can discover and trust over time - a reputation-based decision, not alignment. Yet in the above scenario, I would have to game the system to allow me to continue to be the right alignment to enter certain settlements, even if the player-owners of that settlement trust my character. One is a matter of game mechanics, while the other is a matter of role-played reputation.
As another poster pointed out, most of these systems are designed to reward or penalize certain player behaviors or enable certain game mechanics (e.g. paladins keeping their holy powers). Most decent role-playing types aren't doing the naughty griefing behaviors that many of these systems are designed to discourage. I just wish those systems, whether reputation or alignment, didn't intrude on my role-played realism. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dislike being labelled either, Hobs: I'm seldom so elegant as to fit in any single category unless it is very general.
A label, whether it is accurate or not, does not define my nature or characteristic. The nature of my characteristic defines what that characteristic is.
Whether a label is apt or not is a characteristic of the label, not me.
I don't believe I am being obtuse so much as I am being authentic. If I am to be labelled chaotic evil in this game even though I am TN then that is part of the game world to define me so. I cannot be not-me, and it is alien to my character to pretend to be an alignment he isn't. Such an affectation would be unnatural and therefore difficult. Therefore I should expect that keeping up such a pretense will be difficult. I can choose to pay that price or pay another price which at least is directly attributable either to who I am or who my character is to be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To me a "meaningful" choice includes role playing my character according to the concept that I developed. I am fully accepting of the CN alignment that my character will be labeled with, because that is how I intended to play him. I did not pick an alignment and then think about, how do I play that?
This is why I'm suggesting that tieing settlement advances (buff and debuffs) to alignment, particularly those advances that speed up training time, I have a real objection to. If the Devs want to tie certain training to certain alignments, that is one thing. But, to tie something that has an impact on a players account is completely different.
When it is said that "a CE settlement is going to have an extremely difficult time in PFO", this comment should give all of us some pause. It implies a planned imbalance, and that is never a good thing for any game.
All I'm hoping for is balance. Evil settlements should reward low reputations and evil alignments; Good rewards good and high reputation; and Neutral rewards a balanced approach.
Good can still restrict access to Evil. If Evil wants to change, they can slowly rebuild their reputation and shift their alignment by going to the Neutral settlements first and begin their atonement. The reverse is also possible of course, but maybe slightly easier.
I was a pirate in EvE between 2004 - 2005. I had a -9 security standing and when my pirate clan went belly up, I decided to work towards getting back into empire space. It took me nearly 8 months but I managed to get back to positive standing.
During all of that time, I was never limited In my training, only in what systems of space I had access to. Being denied access was a result of my choices, not some arbitrary game mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hobs unless my reading comprehension has completely deserted me... where did you get the information of proactively shifting your alignment +ve ie towards Lawful Good? If you don't perform a -ve (loss of alignment or shift towards C/E, then BACKGROUND ticker slowly starts pushing your alignment back; unless you pause it).
Your alignment shifts -ve based on ACTIVELY breaking laws and DOING evil things eg raise undead. Avoid those things associated and you are therfore:
1) Not pk'ing indiscriminately or judiciously only.
2) Not breaking another settlement's "Laws of the Land" or reigning on your side of a contract somehow.
3) Not performing evil actions such as what is aligned with the evil god's testaments eg "#3 Thou shall raise undead"...
I'm sure that is how I read alignment as working?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being,
I'm likely to do the same - simply play what I feel is right for my character and let the mechanic assign me what it will (which will likely be a good alignment). That the system might keep me from having access to certain places where the residents have no idea what I do in my spare time (but the alignment mechanism does) is an issue I'll work around when I see it.
Again, not a game changer - just a topic to kick around.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is why I'm suggesting that tieing settlement advances (buff and debuffs) to alignment, particularly those advances that speed up training time, I have a real objection to. If the Devs want to tie certain training to certain alignments, that is one thing. But, to tie something that has an impact on a players account is completely different.
I honestly accept what you are saying has real impact - player be warned.
But to follow your line of reasoning: If you (pl. /one) is to design a game and grant players freedoms in how they interact: That increases the effect THEY have on OTHER players, by extension, by tying something that has an impact on a player's gameplay... which has an effect on other player's accounts, that sounds like an equitable counter-balance to me?
I think in many, many... many mmorpgs, players find much more reward/intrinsic motivation in working out clever ways to game a system so they can maximize THEIR impact on other players: It has more meaning than following the script of killing 10 rats over and over even if said rats look like dragons?
I may be wrong in my own appraisal of this, but that is how I see it and share that point of view with you? Perhaps it still seems to harsh?? Over to the devs! :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being,
I'm likely to do the same - simply play what I feel is right for my character and let the mechanic assign me what it will (which will likely be a good alignment). That the system might keep me from having access to certain places where the residents have no idea what I do in my spare time (but the alignment mechanism does) is an issue I'll work around when I see it.
Again, not a game changer - just a topic to kick around.
There was mention of a setting we may be provided which will allow us to limit how Good/Lawful we will permit our positive alignment creep. The same was not mentioned for the negative, which would have allowed, say, a Paladin to limit how far he could fall.
I think Avena was averring to this above.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've heard the same and I see the reason for allowing a good cap but not a evil one. Good actions will benefit other players. If you don't want the alignment "credit" of seeming good if someone detects your alignment, that's up to you. Certainly, capping how evil you can go would allow evil players the ability to seem less evil and thereby get away with things.
I suppose such a cap solves some of my issues. As for a slide in the other direction, I'm far less likely to do something that moves me towards evil...at least playing Hobs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment does not foster meaningful choices, it restricts them. ...Restriction does not contradict meaning, it focuses meaning. A wise man said (paraphrase) the truly free man by his own nature defines the Law.
The most meaningful works of Art are strict in form and composition. Even a Jackson Pollack painting is strictly amorphous. An unstructured piece of music is cacophanous and discordant. And unstructured poem is gibberish: even 'free form' poetry seeks to incite impressions in a recognizable meaningfulpattern.
Exactly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Valandur - Though I understand why those who wear their alignment on their sleeve would have low reputation (either the obviously Lawful Evil dark lord or the Chaotic Evil maniacal killer), what about the people who want to keep their alignment less obvious for all the benefits they gain by doing so? Can't you have an evil aligned person with a high reputation? If you're not the one swinging the sword or looting the body, but they're the one calling for the hit and making the profit, you could still appear very reputable to the community (the settlement) while actually being very evil.
The question is, "But how would the system track that?" My answer would be that it can't and that it shouldn't. I keep coming back to my argument that alignment should not be a game mechanic.
Being - What specific content would be lost without alignment? I hope you know me enough by now by my posts to know I would not be flippant simply for argument's sake. My question is genuine - what content not already possible by player choice and natural consequence would be lost by removing game tracked alignment?
I've tended to agree with you from the outset on this Hobs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being,
More specifically, having to perform actions of an opposing nature to those I just performed simply to move my alignment slider back to center to maintain my current alignment forces me in-character to be acting in ways that have no other reason than to respond to out-of-character game mechanics. That makes me feel as if I'm forced to game the alignment system just to break even, which to a role-player, is bringing too much out-of-character cause into my in-character actions.
If performing actions of an opposing nature are required to maintain a particular alignment are the norm, then I imagine we have some more crowdforging to do! =)
Given the natural alignment drift, and the way you can set a limit on that drift, seems to me it will be easier to stay the alignment you want then it may seem at this stage.
I have no problem with actions having consequences. I simply would rather have those consequences be more natural (other players won't trade with me, they don't trust me, etc.) and the work I have to do to recover from those consequences be more genuine and natural as well (prove by my actions that I am not what they think). By lopping off the heads of 100 goblins to appear more good by the game mechanic seems like gaming the system, which again, is having my character reacting with in-character action to game mechanic rules...which is something my character shouldn't have any knowledge of at all.
I am 100% in agreement with you, and given the community focus of the design, I think GW is as well. If killing evil NPCs is the only way to gain good alignment, then we definitely need to do some more crowdforging. But we know it isn't (alignment drift, temple donations, divine spells, etc), so no worries there, though, the more the merrier!
To be fair to the situation, if your character was in a situation whereby a tribe of goblins was attacking a village right in front of you, it would make sense that your character would be doing a good action helping the villagers fend off the goblins.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problems I have are multi-fold:
- The system due to it's automated nature is going to be VERY limited in it's adjucation of alignments with any sense of intuitiveness. Trying to get such a system to be more nuanced and accurate is going to be a VERY significant investment of development resources.
- The system controls, to large extent WHO our characters can associate with (by Alignment restrictions on CC's and Settlements/Kingdoms) thus the system may mechanicaly restrict my ability to play with the people I want to play with in the relationship I want to have with them. Note: Those other characters could have EXACTLY the same attitudes as my character and WOULD HAVE dealt with a given situation in EXACTLY the same manner as I but simply because they, by chance, didn't have the opportunity to do so and I did...the game adjucates them differently then me.
- It makes most settlements relatively UNIFORM in nature (unless they are true NN) which neither matches the source material (you never, in Pathfinder encounter a settlement that does not have at least some characters/areas of opposed alignments) and eliminates alot of the opportunities of intra-settlement drama and intrigue.
- What the results EFFECTIVELY mean is that RP-ing will be largely avoided for MOST players that might have otherwise any inclination to do so....and the intent of the system will easly be bypassed. Players will either experience time-sinks to grind back to the alignment they WANT to be...and/or if that proves too onerous, they will simply RAMPANTLY use Alts for every action that they might percieve moving thier interaction in a way they don't desires. Do something that my LG Paladin clearly percieves as justifiably actionable but the game engine is not nuanced to reckognize as justifiably actionable...no problem...I'll just logout and login with my CE Assassin and DO WHAT I WANTED TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE. The intent of the system will be entirely circumvented by that. You and I know that is what most people will do...when faced with such a situation. So instead of meaningfull consequences...we've just increased the incentive for meta-gaming and decreased the incentive for rp-ing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Being - What specific content would be lost without alignment?...
Anything that has to do with the deities of any specific alignment would no longer have an alignment to create conflict over. Extremist cities would all be amicable and placid, rather like SimCity I suppose, or at least what I imagine that to be like (Only played the very first, ages ago... it might have been the same year Gutenburg printed his book). No Law. No Chaos. No thesis, no antithesis. No structure nor conflict, no plot or subplot. Excellence would lose meaning and failure would be a myth.
We would be awash in grey, featureless liquid. Or is it just a flexible solid?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being,
Not meaning to step on Hobs toes here, but I am having trouble understanding your statement. What do you mean by "Extremist cities" and in what sense do you content they would all be "amicable and placid"?
Not to draw too heavy parralels but EvE is, as I understand it, competely lacking any Alignment system, even a self-selected one. Is it your contention that factions/systems there are all "amicable and placid"?
If not, why would it be so in PFO?
As I understand it Player Settlements will be free to declare War on each other in PFO but also not required to do so. War also absolves players of said settlements of any shifts in Alignment. Would not that absolution (and lack of a specific requirement for conflict) also effectively result
in the sort of "grey, featureless liquid" of your complaint? If not why?
Why is it that you consider "self-selection" so less meaningfull?
Also to what degree does the entertainment of the player factor into your equations? Specificaly if players are mechanicaly prevented from interacting with other players they enjoy interacting with (through CC & settlement restrictions) in a manner that is consentualy agreeable and fun for both...and they are forced to act under labels which they don't feel accurately describe their characters...how likely are they to continue to partake in an activity who's primary role is supposed to be entertaining them?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Self-selection, if you mean self-selecting alignment, is less meaningful because while you may self-select lawful good, then do not act as a lawful good character, your self selection was meaningless.
This game is supposed to represent Pathfinder, and Pathfinder has alignments. In PnP those are self-selected but you always run under the hopefully watchful gaze of a GM. PFO will have no such GM actively watching you. What it does have it a system that measures the things you do, so that by your actions you in fact ARE self-selecting and in the most meaningful way.
You are not cut off from those people you enjoy interacting with at all, except insofar as you actually do meaningfully self-select away from them.
The absolution of fault through the instrument of in-game war does not become such a gray liquid exactly because it is conflict, and as conflict can drive stories.
Eve has great events, but Eve does not have epic history in the sense of conflicts between good and evil, nor chaotic barbarian hordes trying to sack Rome. Eve has conflicts between transitory economic agents. If good and evil is involved at all it is evil on evil conflict.