Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment has always been a limitation on role playing and it was and still an unnecessary element in any form of RPG (PnP or Video Game), a design flaw from the very beginning in my opinion.
In an MMO it translates terribly and is even more restrictive than in a PnP RPG. Reputation is the only system needed.
For those that ask, "What about the Dieties and Clerics / Paladins".
Deities have spheres of devotion and follower classes. The alignment I not necessary. If you follow a Deity that supports love and peace, then its Clerics and Paladins promote love and peace. If a Deity is the God of Greed and Lust, then Thieves will flock to worship this Deity.
Let the players play and their reputation will tell you if they are naughty or nice.
*laugh* I have to admit I disagree with you on almost everything in this post.
First, alignment is a force within the fantasy universe, no different than physics in ours, and represents the will of very powerful beings (deities) in conflict. It is also a guide for RPing, to know where your character fits within that struggle. I am definitely not making any claims that the alignment system is perfect or does not impose some limitations but...in my opinion, limitations equal challenge equals reasons to play (fun).
Bottom line, there is an easy explanation for anyone who feels their alignment seriously restricts their game play, they chose the wrong alignment.
I do agree with you however that a hybrid locality and organization based reputation system is in order for the simulation of social systems, but I would argue it is also in order (in addition to alignment).
Finally, to thieves. I have no official corroboration (nor does your claim), but looking at human history, I bet if we added up all the people who have ever stolen things (thieves), modern bankers aside, I think we would find that the majority of them, the huge majority of them, would be more interested in a god of love and peace...and full belly, rather than one of greed and lust.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand some of you feel chaotic and evil players shouldnt get reputation. Hell it doesnt make any sense to me either. The problem is if chaotic and evil have no way to get rep, then they cant get training. And therefore cant be competitive. Unless y just want lawful and good to just be able to face stomp the chaotic and evil?
Personally, id be in favor of finding new anti griefing tactics and re doing the reputation system to include a negative spectrum of rep that worked well with things and training chaotics and evils need.
Short of tha, if you take away things like SAD and a couple flags, then there isnt much left to give you rep being chaotic or evil other than war. That really only leaves gaming the system by refusing positive alignment shifts as you do "good deeds" to gain rep. Which is just dumb, id rather gain reputation as silly as this sounds through doing criminal behavior, totally natural for a bandit.
Im open to other suggestions, but basically those suggestions have to include ways to ensure bad guys can get the settlements, support, and training they need. And if your first reaction is that bandits and the like shouldnt be able to progress or that it should be ridiculously hard, then just dont even respond. If I am a bandit and do not grief, then I should be able to have that playstlye, and not at the expense of progression.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
Who is that response to?
As you suspected it was you again, Bluddwolf.
Are you suggesting that the alignment system compared well to thousands of years of social experimentation in the real world?
Where else do you suppose people attempting to model a believable world for fantasy role play got their ideas?
Are you going to divide the universe again to insist that it is only a game, so real world considerations have absolutely nothing to do with what was intended to model it?
A model of a thing does relate to what it models else it is not a model.
Alignment does exist in the real world as a cultural force. Good, Evil, Law, Anarchy are all cultural ideals used by human beings to self-direct their actions.
Ever had a good idea? How about a bad decision?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
beneficial=good, malevolent=evil, and harmless=neutral. Lawful=law, illegal=chaos, and normal=neutral. Are you going to divide the universe again to insist that it is only a game, so real world considerations have absolutely nothing to do with what was intended to model it?
Being,
Are you a representation of just two of those axis?
I have always argued all the way back to 1977 (D&D Basic Set) that my characters can not be defined by just two of those axis.
Most of my characters were CN(Evil) or CN(Good)
My characters have always been too free spirited or non conformist to ever follow anything close to Lawful Good or Lawful Evil. Chaotic Evil is just not my style either. I might actually try LN(Good) for a Monk character I have in mind.
I myself might be impossible to put into even three letters. I'm sure one would be Chaotic, but the other would be Lawful, and I try to be Good as I can....
Lawful Good (Chaotic) or Chaotic Good (Lawful or somewhere mashed up together... Alignments are just too limiting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being,
Are you a representation of just two of those axis?
I have always argued all the way back to 1977 (D&D Basic Set) that my characters can not be defined by just two of those axis.
Most of my characters were CN(Evil) or CN(Good)
My characters have always been too free spirited or non conformist to ever follow anything close to Lawful Good or Lawful Evil. Chaotic Evil is just not my style either. I might actually try LN(Good) for a Monk character I have in mind.
I myself might be impossible to put into even three letters. I'm sure one would be Chaotic, but the other would be Lawful, and I try to be Good as I can....
Lawful Good (Chaotic) or Chaotic Good (Lawful or somewhere mashed up together... Alignments are just too limiting.
Are Good and Evil the primary metrics of the moral and ethical value systems of Western Civilization for the last several thousand years? Yes they are. Should we therefore dispose of them because someone does not find those universals comfortable to their individual self-image? I think not. Do I like being 'typed' or categorized according to a couple of extremes? Of course not, but I nevertheless don't mistake my like or dislike as governing human nature either.
Of course I don't accept that I am only defined by those, but I also recognize that they apply. Alignments are not limitations but descriptions, metrics. Structure is not a cage, but a trellis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As much as I'm not a big fan of alignment systems. It seems to be pretty central to GW's design of PFO. So I rather suspect any idea of getting rid of it is pretty much a non-starter at this point.
Probably a more productive route is to try to suggest modifications to the current design mechanic to offset some of the potential flaws of said system.
P.S. I rarely use Alignment systems when GM-ing myself for many of the reasons cited....but it's not really neccesary to use that kind of abstraction in a human moderated system where the GM can be much more granular in judgement (e.g. God X would really be displeased with such and such an action because it goes against their specific mores and goals).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think people are exactly being punished for playing chaotic evil. CE is just what you become when you do not restrict your behaviour in any way. You kill and steal whenever you can get away with it. Running a settlement without laws (chaotic) will be costly due to corruption; the society is inherently unstable and it takes a lot of effort to hold groups together by direct intimidation. Economically, that higher upkeep cost is offset by the wealth gained by theft. Lawful communities are not so free to make a coin by any means necessary, but they're more organized and have fewer problems with internal fraud and other corruption. Certain skills like poisoning may only be trainable in evil settlements, and barbarian rage powers would need to be trained in chaotic towns. Paladin training may require a city that is both Lawful and Good, which could be rather hard to maintain unless you're highly selective about who you let in.
BW: I guess others have expressed the point I was making, that being less criminal could make you less hated, but I don't see how it makes you loved. The rep system does have metagame elements, but I don't like the idea of completely divorcing it from the in-world public opinion element. Maybe there could be 'infamy' points that provide a sort of who's-who of villainy, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All societies are not urban and it must be pointed out and the moral dimension is to some degree subjective.
The Ancient Greeks would leave unwanted children on a hill-side to die, they viewed this as birth control, to us it would be a near unpardonable evil.
Likewise nomadic Native American Indians wouldn't carry passengers, the sick and the old were expected to keep up with the tribe. This was down to sheer pragmatism and the necessity to ensure the tribe survived. This meant the individual 'right' to survival was sublimated, to ensure the collective strength of the people.
How that society judges the sublimation of individual rights would probably indicate how chaotic/lawful (whether it is structured or not) and good/evil (the relative mutual vs individual benefit within society).
On an individual level the same thing applys - how easy is it for us to sublimate the rights of others and advance our own at their expense? Do we do this using a structure (e.g. the law, or being part of a large company)? Or do we do this in an opportunistic, individual level?
As the video points out we are all capable of evil, or heroism.
Jared Diamond's latest book: The World Until Yesterday, makes the point that "tribal communities" had different dynamics than our more modern centralised-authority nation states. Both good and some bad. He has a good point. One thing nation state does do v well, is the collection of information into knowledge domains that cuts out ridiculous and tragic practices eg sacrificing humans for the rising sun etc. Albeit according to Jared Diamond, the law system leaves a lot of emotional resolution to be desired. Anyway, thought it ties in with what you describe above regarding the elder, younger and weaker members of a community albeit in some respects they are treated in very humane ways that eg Western Society does not have a great reputation for. /tangent
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think people are exactly being punished for playing chaotic evil. CE is just what you become when you do not restrict your behaviour in any way. You kill and steal whenever you can get away with it. Running a settlement without laws (chaotic) will be costly due to corruption; the society is inherently unstable and it takes a lot of effort to hold groups together by direct intimidation. Economically, that higher upkeep cost is offset by the wealth gained by theft. Lawful communities are not so free to make a coin by any means necessary, but they're more organized and have fewer problems with internal fraud and other corruption. Certain skills like poisoning may only be trainable in evil settlements, and barbarian rage powers would need to be trained in chaotic towns. Paladin training may require a city that is both Lawful and Good, which could be rather hard to maintain unless you're highly selective about who you let in.
BW: I guess others have expressed the point I was making, that being less criminal could make you less hated, but I don't see how it makes you loved. The rep system does have metagame elements, but I don't like the idea of completely divorcing it from the in-world public opinion element. Maybe there could be 'infamy' points that provide a sort of who's-who of villainy, though.
I agree with most of what you are saying. However, the part that does punish the bad guys is the reputation system. I dont mind it being more expensive and harder to run a more shady settlement. What I mind is if its hard for bad guys to get reputation. And why would bad guys want a "good" reputation again? Remember rep = training, and training = being competitive. I do like your idea about an infamy points system, its similar to my idea or negative rep. Which would be equal but opposite of positive rep. Now as long as I have plenty of oppertunity to gain rep as a criminal, I dont have an issue from a training and settlement PoV, though it still wouldnt make sense for a bandit to get or need reputation. The problem is im just not convinced that many people will normally contract out my services or for that matter submit to SAD. I hope I am wrong, because I want to play as a bandit and get progression from playing that way. And yes I want to be a non griefing criminal. Im not asking to be able to get progression for being an ass that kills everyone that I see. Im asking for progression for responsibly RPing as a criminal. If that means we need an infamy point system, so be it .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree completely. Meta-game incentives to attack someone don't make sense in an alignment based world.Alignment has always been a limitation on role playing and it was and still an unnecessary element in any form of RPG (PnP or Video Game), a design flaw from the very beginning in my opinion.
In an MMO it translates terribly and is even more restrictive than in a PnP RPG. Reputation is the only system needed.
For those that ask, "What about the Dieties and Clerics / Paladins".
Deities have spheres of devotion and follower classes. The alignment I not necessary. If you follow a Deity that supports love and peace, then its Clerics and Paladins promote love and peace. If a Deity is the God of Greed and Lust, then Thieves will flock to worship this Deity.
Let the players play and their reputation will tell you if they are naughty or nice.
It would require a lot more work to create a game as you suggest and I honestly don't know if it could be possible. Paladins actions define him as a paladin, if we forget the deities. Because the paladin acts in a certain way a deity blesses him. Alignment in PFO represents that behavior, a system designed by GW. Reputation is a meter of player interaction but also represents character behavior. It's not a perfect system, but I at least can't really think of any better.
If there was no alignment, what would define paladin behavior? Or could they just go on killing everyone with their lawful good deitys blessing?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How does reputation = training? I haven't seen anything indicating that rep would be spent to buy training, though reputation could be used as a metric for determining what settlements you're welcome in. The settlements more concerned with reputation are also likely to be more concerned with lawfulness and/or goodness. If you're wanting to be a barbarian that hacks first and asks questions never, the chaotic settlements you train in probably won't care much about what your rep score is like, since your gold spends the same regardless of the blood on it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All societies are not urban and it must be pointed out and the moral dimension is to some degree subjective.
The Ancient Greeks would leave unwanted children on a hill-side to die, they viewed this as birth control, to us it would be a near unpardonable evil.
Likewise nomadic Native American Indians wouldn't carry passengers, the sick and the old were expected to keep up with the tribe. This was down to sheer pragmatism and the necessity to ensure the tribe survived. This meant the individual 'right' to survival was sublimated, to ensure the collective strength of the people.
How that society judges the sublimation of individual rights would probably indicate how chaotic/lawful (whether it is structured or not) and good/evil (the relative mutual vs individual benefit within society).
On an individual level the same thing applys - how easy is it for us to sublimate the rights of others and advance our own at their expense? Do we do this using a structure (e.g. the law, or being part of a large company)? Or do we do this in an opportunistic, individual level?
As the video points out we are all capable of evil, or heroism.
I use the terms settlement, town, and city because those are the core of life in PFO. The societies are pioneer ones, but not foraging ones. Territorial ownership will be a source of conflict, as it nearly always is in lifestyles that let you sit and wait on your food.
I'm not going for the postmodern relativism, though. Yes, the past had horrors, some of which we've outgrown, some of which we're still working on. For example, second-class citizenship is an improvement over outright slavery, but that doesn't make it okay or a stopping point. In the real world we can judge a system of morality based upon how well it fulfills a stated objective, but in Golarion alignments are objective energy states, to which even the deities are ultimately subject. In PFO, the dev team and the code they write act as a sort of meta-deity who determines which actions cause some of that Good, Evil, Chaotic, or Lawful energy to stick to your soul. It is therefore objective in the "external to mortal concerns" sense, in addition to the "serves a stated objective" sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rep is not traded for training, but joining settlements and using training facilities may require a minimum reputation.
Right, and those who are likely to provide training to evil and/or chaotic characters are less likely to be concerned with reputation. Running a chaotic town will be expensive since it's less efficient and prone to corruption, so they probably won't find it affordable to shut people out based on reputation any more than they would based on alignment. Lawful, good, high-repute money and chaotic, evil, disreputable money spend the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rep is not traded for training, but joining settlements and using training facilities may require a minimum reputation.Right, and those who are likely to provide training to evil and/or chaotic characters are less likely to be concerned with reputation. Running a chaotic town will be expensive since it's less efficient and prone to corruption, so they probably won't find it affordable to shut people out based on reputation any more than they would based on alignment. Lawful, good, high-repute money and chaotic, evil, disreputable money spend the same.
No, it's been suggested by the devs that to build and operate the training facilities, your settlement will have to have a minimum average reputation. It's not about what the settlement owners are willing to put up with, it's what the NPC trainers will put up with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thank you for explaining it for me Dario.
@ Keovar
He is correct. The devs have said that good training halls and facilities in a settlement would be dependent on the collective rep. So..... lower rep means you want get access to the best training.
So this presents a few problems:
1. Yes I could just buy over-priced training from another settlement, but if my rep is low they might not want to deal with me, and even if they did the NPC trainers might not either.
2. This is to say nothing of the fact that if its too hard for Chaotics or Evils to get positive rep gains doing activities that are in sync with their alignments (assassins, bandits), then having a Chaotic or Evil settlement with good facilities and competitive training will be practically impossible. This doesnt include problems that might occur from being in bad (read griefing) company that would always be jeopordizing your settlements rep.
3. Bludd and I have both been asking on the forums off and on to gauge interest in grouping up to create a Chaotic settlement and have been met with mostly cricketes. On a few places that have listed planned CC/settlements I see some Evil and some Good, a lot of flavors of Neutral, but only 2 Chaotics (and one is an elf only that doesnt seem to have any interest in banditry). If I cant find any settlements that do chaotic training I cant improve my craft as a bandit. And therefore cant be competitive. And.... I just want to have character progression, kinda crucial to the whole rpg thing.
4. I could just start my own, so that I can be in charge of my own training, but that seems a little bleak given 1,2 and 3.
Now I can do number 4, but only if I can find enough like minded people and things like SAD and shady contracts work well, give good rep bonuses, and outpace the bad rep hits ill have to take in my line of work. I hope number 4 can work, I really do.
Frankly I dont have a lot of faith there are enough Chaotics out there willing to commit to a Chaotic community from the deafening silence I have received. Im guessing theyd rather play it safe with some Neutral or Good settlement. If the community is as carebear as it seems (judging from the anti-griefing hysteria), not much hope in shady contracts. If people are well prepared or would rather put up a fight than submit to SAD, then there goes that as well. Which only leaves War. Which probably wont happen for a while and even if it does I doubt it would be a frequent thing as larger settlements spring up and they get fat and comfortable with thier boundries.
I hope this more fully explains my worries and position. Please, someone show me the light at the end of the tunnel. Prove me wrong, god knows I want to be. All I want is to be able to play as non-griefing bandit and be able to be rewarded both in loot and in training for acting as a bandit should.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for explaining it for me Dario.
@ Keovar
He is correct. The devs have said that good training halls and facilities in a settlement would be dependent on the collective rep. So..... lower rep means you want get access to the best training.
He made an assertion and you're echoing it, but I'm going to need a link to a quote before I accept that it is the case and that you're interpreting it well.
This is to say nothing of the fact that if its too hard for Chaotics or Evils to get positive rep gains doing activities that are in sync with their alignments (assassins, bandits), then having a Chaotic or Evil settlement with good facilities and competitive training will be practically impossible. This doesnt include problems that might occur from being in bad (read griefing) company that would always be jeopordizing your settlements rep.
If your activities hurt other characters, your rep should be lower, because reputation is a measure of public opinion. Act like a thief, people call you a thief.
Again, I'm going to need evidence that you require positive reputation to get access to all skill training, including skills that let you perform neutral, chaotic, or evil actions. If access to Good skill training is what you want, you should of course maintain a Good alignment and positive reputation; the paladin trainers are going to sell their skills to the enemy, after all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your activities hurt other characters, your rep should be lower, because reputation is a measure of public opinion. Act like a thief, people call you a thief.
Like Robin Hood or Grey Mouser. Those low reputation scoundrels!
Reputation gating isn't really about what your town wants. There are just buildings that you can't install or keep running if they're going to have disreputable folks around them. For whatever reason, they don't have any problem with charming bandits and gentleman assassins, but don't want to deal with kill-happy paladins. Maybe the people that you have to hire to work there just hate drama, and don't care about ideology.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for posting the quote Jiminy.
@ Keovar
Im not going to post any links but I think that quote should be more than adequate. Also if you read the current top 10-ish threads Stephen and Ryan have piped in a few times to clarify things. The most recent clarification that goes along with this discussion is that reputation should not be thought of as a moral scale, but the devs intend it to act as an indicator of how well you play your role with others (regardless of being bandit or savior). So I can get and should get high rep for playing bandit well (not griefing and as GWs intended). Dont think of it as your characters opinion of my chars bandit. Think of it as a system rating for proper and appropriate player interaction per role.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Bludd and I have both been asking on the forums off and on to gauge interest in grouping up to create a Chaotic settlement and have been met with mostly cricketes...
I have it on reliable authority the crickets just want a new, more chaotic home to go sing in, and that is why they wanted to meet with you. They want to know whether you will exterminate all the shrews there who would otherwise eat them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the implication being that they are silently waiting in the wings? LOL I hope so, otherwise it will be a lonely kingdom with just me and Bludd and a handful of others. Hmmm I wonder how many hats Id have to wear? Butcher, Maint. Man, Treasurer, Dog Catcher, Outlaw, Graffiti Artists, Propaganda Consultant...... so much to do so little time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just thought of a new char name: The Booze Bandit! Hi-oh Silver away and such!
EDIT:
Im picturing the goblin in my avatar dressed up like the Lone Ranger, on Roy Rogers horse (Trigger), with a keg strapped on Trigger's back, riding franticaly way from a Brewery, chased by an angry mob of Epic Brewmasters.
*cough* Signature request!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then I hope they call it something other than reputation because having someone steal the resources required for supporting my community...decreases our ability to play constructively as we had planned. Calling what you have concluded: "reputation" - is entirely counterintuitive and subjective.
Again, I will not give you plus to your "reputation" for stealing from me or mine and decreasing the productivity of our efforts
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bandits are going to have to rough up/kill their targets now and again to be taken seriously or they'll lose the fear factor that makes people accept SAD. Otherwise, you become road-side beggars.
Bandits are roadside beggars. They deem themselves too good to earn an honest living and must take what others work for. I judge them to be lazy good for nothings. (I am sure they consider themselves hard working entrepreneurs. Strange how the law doesn't share their opinion.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bandits are going to have to rough up/kill their targets now and again to be taken seriously or they'll lose the fear factor that makes people accept SAD. Otherwise, you become road-side beggars.Bandits are roadside beggars. They deem themselves too good to earn an honest living and must take what others work for. I judge them to be lazy good for nothings. (I am sure they consider themselves hard working entrepreneurs. Strange how the law doesn't share their opinion.)
Hey Now that hurts. Im not a lazy good for nothing. It takes effort and will to get up before noon from a hangover and find people to rob.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If your activities hurt other characters, your rep should be lower, because reputation is a measure of public opinion. Act like a thief, people call you a thief.Like Robin Hood or Grey Mouser. Those low reputation scoundrels!
Both of which have writers, not societies.
Reputation gating isn't really about what your town wants. There are just buildings that you can't install or keep running if they're going to have disreputable folks around them. For whatever reason, they don't have any problem with charming bandits and gentleman assassins, but don't want to deal with kill-happy paladins. Maybe the people that you have to hire to work there just hate drama, and don't care about ideology.
Gating, as in "you need to have X+ rep to enter", not "you need to spend rep to train". All he's really saying is that towns can set a rep requirement separate from their alignment requirement. If they want to keep their upkeep paid, they'll want to sell as much training as they can, and that means being as permissive as necessary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Both of which have writers, not societies.If your activities hurt other characters, your rep should be lower, because reputation is a measure of public opinion. Act like a thief, people call you a thief.Like Robin Hood or Grey Mouser. Those low reputation scoundrels!
I don't understand your point here. Those examples are both thieves, yet in the setting they exist in, they have a good reputation. Are you saying that 'fake or imaginary' characters are not good examples to put forth for a MMO?
Reputation gating isn't really about what your town wants. There are just buildings that you can't install or keep running if they're going to have disreputable folks around them. For whatever reason, they don't have any problem with charming bandits and gentleman assassins, but don't want to deal with kill-happy paladins. Maybe the people that you have to hire to work there just hate drama, and don't care about ideology.Gating, as in "you need to have X+ rep to enter", not "you need to spend rep to train". All he's really saying is that towns can set a rep requirement separate from their alignment requirement. If they want to keep their upkeep paid, they'll want to sell as much training as they can, and that means being as permissive as necessary.
Gating as I read it means you cannot install or maintain buildings that allow the training to occur. This means a low reputation settlement cannot train as well as a high reputation one. Doesn't matter if they're LG or CE, a certain level of reputation is required. If you use the 'they're thieves/assassins/evil, they deserve a low reputation' mechanic, then those play styles are seriously hampered which is not a good outcome for the game.
Reputation is a bit of a silly terminology, as the mechanic isn't really taking into consideration things like social awareness or values. It's more an OOC griefing tracker. Maybe we should call it OGT.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlements and training facilities
As discussed, it seems that only LG-aligned settlements may have 'Paladin Training Facilities'. From a storytelling point of view, this doesnt make sense. A NG or LN town may have a church of a LG deity that trains paladins. Part of the their duties may be to serve as a conscience for the city or try and sway them towards LG behaviour.
I can appreciate that there may be a desire to want to make each alignment specific settlement desirable, but it feels a bit like trying to force the issue.
I think it should be more along the lines of 'Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil towns have these options and are restricted from these options'. The combination of axes provides the total list of settlement options. (e.g. poison training is only in evil towns, Paladin training must be in non-Chaotic and non-Evil, Barbarian training must be in non-Lawful, etc)
Reputation
I appreciate the concerns raised/faced by our resident bandits. When, not if, I get mugged/robbed/attacked I doubt my first thought will be 'jolly good show! I should let everyone know what a fantastic mugger/bandit/thief/murderer that person was!' :P Given that 'legit' bandits are likely to be using the Bandit flag, I expect that most of the rep gain will be tied to that flag in one way or the other, whether passively or actively.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[1] Gating as I read it means you cannot install or maintain buildings that allow the training to occur. This means a low reputation settlement cannot train as well as a high reputation one. Doesn't matter if they're LG or CE, a certain level of reputation is required. If you use the 'they're thieves/assassins/evil, they deserve a low reputation' mechanic, then those play styles are seriously hampered which is not a good outcome for the game.
[2] Reputation is a bit of a silly terminology, as the mechanic isn't really taking into consideration things like social awareness or values. It's more an OOC griefing tracker. Maybe we should call it OGT.
[1] I read it this way also, that the alignment (+ rep) (+ specific choices of what to build (related to what's available, voted on, market forces)) will dictate what a settlement is both capable of and likely to offer.
This said, I don't agree with the vague statement that this must lead to "those play styles are seriously hampered"
a) It's too imprecise (there's a wide space here).
b) Comparing what is offered, to a linear progression scale seems to be a fallacy; that's not the intention: The intention is you aligment can SHIFT: When it does you are presented with new obstacles to overcome due to the decisions you previously took to gain some form of in-game advantage/goal.
c) As above Alignment/Rep are transient (unless you fix them if you enjoy being "evil" etc alignment - you found a niche that makes you happy for whatever reason (playstyle, friends, options open, rp, specialism etc).
d) Some players will enjoy these different challenges and ideally will find each other in the same alignment zone their primary connections and content?
These are my guesses. But I don't think linear progression is the be-all end-all for different characters. Eg a settlement that can't cope with a powerhouse LG (hypothetical) can cope with a rival idk CN or EN settlement and declare war and tricks and traps on them merrily. Just find a smaller fish to fight?
[2] It's part of tracking where griefing may draw closer to the fuzzy zone on one side of the evil + chaos + bad rep 3*axis pts. But it's (rep) also a way for players to trade and inform each other and interact with each other socially (ie reminds me of those rate it! apps). Sounds good, though I'm still not that clear how it will work entirely albeit within the flag + combat system I understand that.
@Oberyn Corvus: I think the Paladin eg is as you say extreme eg. The challenge for Paladin is high in all those 3*axis - but the reward is Paladin stuff. Only LG has the 3*axis and if only x1 settlement can be belonged to then that is the exclusive reason. I don't see why a Paladin may not be allied with other settlements and help out there however, for story reasons? Perhaps that would work?
But I think what you're saying equally about other alignment stipulations is workable for other egs less extreme:
eg "Any Evil" or "Non-Evil" and specific eg Paladin "LG only". :)
Just to finish on the eg of Bandit. I love the idea of players replacing mobs as the danger in the world for adventurers to overcome: No it should ONLY be: Kill that thing standing there. Now I would like to see:
1. "guards!"
2. "guards? - heck should have hired some... how many are there?"
3. "Ok we'll cough up, these guys look super powerful and we can take the hit."
4. Next time, these guys again, "guards, do the business..."
5. Next time again, "hold on, we can maybe come to a deal here..."
6. "Psst, rival merchants x are going thatta way - unguarded - ..." give us that special 70% discount if you rob them successfully for this tip-off, on our "current going rate"... ."
7. "Hey we got attacked by Bandit group B, who the %^&* are they!? Give us a rebate, you need to sort your bandit business out - it's becoming disreputable!"
etc.
So I think that side of the merchant is possible and the bandit I don't see as the top of the food chain playstyle, so long as you have people who love to work out spreadsheets, maps or whatever area of interest to focus on eg trade routes and racket monopolies etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This said, I don't agree with the vague statement that this must lead to "those play styles are seriously hampered"
I was responding to a comment from Keovar that effectively intimated that if you hurt other character (such as a thief, assassin or evil character would) that you should and would have a low reputation score. In my opinion, that statement means those two classes and that alignment would be hampered, and any corresponding settlements would be hampered, purely for playing their role in the game.
However, my read of the reputation mechanic means this will not be the case. Time will tell I guess.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know I had as different a take on reputation as other posters here seem to have. It caused me to wonder why we needed both alignment and reputation.
The difference seems to be that alignment is more of an in-character measurement of your character's behavior while reputation is an out-of-character measurement of the player's choices and behavior provided for all players to see. Alignment has in-character repercussions, where as GW's view of reputation is a means of controlling player behavior.
Before understanding the difference, I was also in the camp of thinking, "Why would robbing me give anyone positive reputation?" In a fully fleshed out world (i.e. all possible roles being played by players), GW sees the need for there to be people playing the role of bandits who rob people - rob, not kill as their only/favorite means of gaining the target's coin/goods. To incentivise such role-playing, they've created the Outlaw flag which provides you bonuses for playing the role correctly (i.e. the way GW believes it should be played). If played this way, the risk of travel is increased so as to make other roles equally important (e.g. personal bodyguards, caravan guards, road patrols, etc.), the economy has another factor in play, harvested/refined/crafted goods have another means of leaving the game, etc. Not only does it provide incentives for playing a the role of a bandit, but it disincentivizes people from stealing from each other via random player-killing - a behavior that plenty of people have complained about on this forum and GW wishes to control, if not totally remove from the game due to its detrimental effect on player fun and canceled subscriptions.
So as odd as it seemed to me before, to give someone positive reputation for their stealing, I need to keep reminding myself that we're not rewarding the character with positive reputation, but the player for playing a role the way GW has outlined it. As I said during my Team Speak discussion with several players the other night (two of whom plan to play bandits), my character might get robbed by them in-game and I might be upset in-character over my loss, but out-of-character, I definitely want them in the game, playing their role - it's a richer, more realistically dangerous world with them in it. More importantly, knowing that the person siting at the computer, controlling that bandit, is a player who still cares about me as a fellow player and with a concern for the PFO community, rather than a yahoo trying to make my life as a player miserable, makes all the difference. That I can hop into game chat or onto team speak, say, "Good job, you got me that time," and know there's nothing hateful or malicious coming from the bandit player reassures me that the bandit player will be right there beside me in any discussion of what's best for the game and the community.
That's my take on reputation - trying to reward the player for playing their role without trying to ruin the game, while penalizing those who don't and, by making reputation obvious to all players, making it harder for for them to hide from the rest of us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then I hope they call it something other than reputation because having someone steal the resources required for supporting my community...decreases our ability to play constructively as we had planned. Calling what you have concluded: "reputation" - is entirely counterintuitive and subjective.
Again, I will not give you plus to your "reputation" for stealing from me or mine and decreasing the productivity of our efforts
I find your lack of understanding of what "meaningful player interaction" in an Open World PvP MMO to be counterintuitive. I'm not saying this with a negative tone or intent to criticize you as a person. I'm just mystified that some people are still equating positive reputation to morality and then putting that into the self centered dynamic of, it is not reputable to me.
It is not about you or your settlement. It is about the game's intent of being an open world PvP sand box MMO. In order for the game to be successful, it has to have mechanics that reward what the Developers feel are positive interactions to support that intent.
This game is about settlement building, but with competition playing a major role in that effort. If you want no hinderence or you yourself do not want to hinder others, than an Open World PvP game is not for you.
Here is how I see it (and so far the Devs seem to agree):
When I take from you, I give to me and my settlement
If you want to keep what is yours, you have to hire people to protect it
Now I have to risk more to get your stuff, so I have to get better gear or hire more to be with me
Now we fight and we both either keep some, gain some or lose some
You pay who you hired, and so do I
They gained some, and give to their settlement
And so the cycle of conflict continues, over and over, sometimes with one group, than with another, but always a conflict.
The conflict is not always fought out in wars. It is fought out in every player vs. player interaction, combat or non combat.
Every time you harvest a resource, you have taken that opportunity away from someone else. Every time you trade an item on the market, you take a profit in doing so, which takes from some else. Every time your settlement expands you have taken available space from someone else. I could go on...... But I hope you get be idea.
Now I'm sure you will say, many of those competing interests are by choice, and you are correct. You may say, people are willing to accept paying more for something on the market, it is their choice. Yes you are correct if you say that.
Entering an Open World PvP game is a choice, that carries with it risks.
Final note: no one s forcing you to give positive reputation to anyone you don't want to. The game system grants positive reputation, no one said you have to. That is still your choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know I had as different a take on reputation as other posters here seem to have. It caused me to wonder why we needed both alignment and reputation.
More stuff...
Excellent summary Hobs!
That is how I am seeing it also. Hence my comment about the mechanic being named badly and should be called the "OOC griefing tracker". Even that is incorrect though, as it only reflects one end of the spectrum. Maybe 'RP karma' would be a better name? Something to reflect the RP of the player and not the character (which is governed by alignment).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know I had as different a take on reputation as other posters here seem to have. It caused me to wonder why we needed both alignment and reputation.
More stuff...
Excellent summary Hobs!
That is how I am seeing it also. Hence my comment about the mechanic being named badly and should be called the "OOC griefing tracker". Even that is incorrect though, as it only reflects one end of the spectrum. Maybe 'RP karma' would be a better name? Something to reflect the RP of the player and not the character (which is governed by alignment).
I agree that reputation might have been a poor choice of terminology, but it is not an RP score either. Otherwise a Necromancer should not lose reputation for raising dead, which is a PvE function as well as a PvP function. Nor should using slaves impact reputation because that is strictly PvE, unless they can also be used in PvP. Those two acts should move alignment to evil, very quickly, but not harm reputation unless used in PvP without appropriate flags.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This said, I don't agree with the vague statement that this must lead to "those play styles are seriously hampered"I was responding to a comment from Keovar that effectively intimated that if you hurt other character (such as a thief, assassin or evil character would) that you should and would have a low reputation score. In my opinion, that statement means those two classes and that alignment would be hampered, and any corresponding settlements would be hampered, purely for playing their role in the game.
However, my read of the reputation mechanic means this will not be the case. Time will tell I guess.
Ah, I should have read more of the conversation. Hmm, this is a good point: It's about the "extent" of "playing with fire" I hope to see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm just mystified that some people are still equating positive reputation to morality and then putting that into the self centered dynamic of, it is not reputable to me.
\
Huh? The definition of Reputation is "overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general" from Webster. Society is comprised by individuals...all of which will be annoyed that you feel their stuff is your stuff. My whole objection was about forcing me to award a certain reputation. If:
Final note: no one s forcing you to give positive reputation to anyone you don't want to. The game system grants positive reputation, no one said you have to. That is still your choice.
...then I have no objection at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't understand your point here. Those examples are both thieves, yet in the setting they exist in, they have a good reputation. Are you saying that 'fake or imaginary' characters are not good examples to put forth for a MMO?Both of which have writers, not societies.If your activities hurt other characters, your rep should be lower, because reputation is a measure of public opinion. Act like a thief, people call you a thief.Like Robin Hood or Grey Mouser. Those low reputation scoundrels!
A reputation score is 'written' by the game's community as a whole. Do enough bad stuff to enough people and that add up to make you have a poor reputation. A novel character like the Grey Mouser has a single writer, and even a folk hero like Robin Hood has a series of individual writers. In neither case are the in-world reputations of the characters actually dependent upon the collective opinions of the society they exist in.
Reputation gating isn't really about what your town wants. There are just buildings that you can't install or keep running if they're going to have disreputable folks around them. For whatever reason, they don't have any problem with charming bandits and gentleman assassins, but don't want to deal with kill-happy paladins. Maybe the people that you have to hire to work there just hate drama, and don't care about ideology.Gating, as in "you need to have X+ rep to enter", not "you need to spend rep to train". All he's really saying is that towns can set a rep requirement separate from their alignment requirement. If they want to keep their upkeep paid, they'll want to sell as much training as they can, and that means being as permissive as necessary.Gating as I read it means you cannot install or maintain buildings that allow the training to occur. This means a low reputation settlement cannot train as well as a high reputation one. Doesn't matter if they're LG or CE, a certain level of reputation is required. If you use the 'they're thieves/assassins/evil, they deserve a low reputation' mechanic, then those play styles are seriously hampered which is not a good outcome for the game.
Reputation is a bit of a silly terminology, as the mechanic isn't really taking into consideration things like social awareness or values. It's more an OOC griefing tracker. Maybe we should call it OGT.
Then we need a clearer explanation for what Stephen meant by 'gating'.
I see no reason GW would put a restriction on the types of training buildings that can be built in a settlement unless it is necessary for the lore of the game, and most skills are neutral. If the players in charge of setting their town's policies only want to allow CE characters with high reputation, they could do so, but they'd probably need more sources of income to make up for having very few visitors there to buy training and goods.
As to the terminology of 'reputation', it will be called what the crowd calls it. A living lexicon is descriptive rather than prescriptive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A reputation score is 'written' by the game's community as a whole. Do enough bad stuff to enough people and that add up to make you have a poor reputation.
"Bad Stuff" is a little misleading, because we don't know what context you are using. Is it "bad stuff" in your or your settlement's point of view or is it "bad stuff" in the view of the game / Dev's point if view?
What bad stuff are you talking about?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What bad stuff are you talking about?Things which are likely to make people want to ding your reputation score. I thought that would be clear, given the context that you took those words out of.
Well, you are entitled to hide your intentions within vague statements. You are also entitled to lower your own reputation, to lower another's as well.
As I have said numerous times, my intentions are to play within the mechanics of the game and in the spirit of what the devs have said they consider to be "Meaningful PVP / player intereactions". If those same mechanics still allow you to take from my reputaion, at your expense, I have no problem with that.
There are a few vague statements in the Dev Blogs however:
"Any player that hurts you shows up on your enemies list. This list allows you to salute or rebuke the enemy (granting or reducing reputation, at the cost of your own)."
"Whenever you're killed and that killer shows up in your enemies list (you were attacked and weren't fair game)"
So, obviously what does "Hurts" actually include as a minumum action? The second question is, what makes someone "fair game".
How do these fit in with Behaviors we want:
Large PvP wars. (Thus wars eliminate all reputation losses.)
Players able to defend themselves without concern. (Thus the Attacker flag.)
Players to attack each other over resources, money, territory, etc.
Most PvP to occur outside of settlements where there are no guards, laws, etc.
Players who are not PvP combat machines having some ability to discourage attacks via bounties, death curses, reputation loss, etc., but these should not be so onerous as to prevent PvP if the profit potential is there.
Players able to play their alignment, but at the same time not grief players of opposite alignment. If one player is chaotic evil and another lawful good, each should not be able to abuse the other without limit or recourse.
So the main question that we both would probably like answered: If we follow these behaviors that they want, would we still end up on an enemies list?
Or is the enemies list reserved for those that kill or "hurt" you while doing Behaviors we don't want:
PvP conflicts where the death of the target means no gain for the attacker, i.e. randomly killing people for no reason.
Abuse of new players.
Players cooperating to game reputation and alignment systems to their advantage.
Players willfully committing crimes or evil acts under the shield of reputation or alignment penalties so onerous no one would try and stop them.
There are still many questions left about PVP and Consequences, even after three Dev Blogs.