Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Avena, not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think that by "behavior" what you're trying to get at is really "motivation". The "why" of an action (which is imperceptible), vice the "what" of the action (whichthe computer can operate on).
@Avena Right now I understand what you are getting at
To answer in short yes I agree and have said similar before that a mechanical system cannot make decisions on motivations. This is why I believe basing penalties such as excluding you from your own settlement on such a system is a bad idea.
To me any system in any game will do some good and some harm to different aspects of the game. The premise is therefore simple a good system is one which provides more benefits than disadvantages. My opinion as you have probably guessed that this particular system brings more disadvantages than benefits.
There will be a range of opinions on this but as I have just pointed out as far as I am concerned I am no longer interested in tossing pro's and con's around on this issue
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
if you punch him he will punch you back if he is able to. He will try and punch you back immediately however if you were to punch him while he can't do anything for instance he is tied up he will remember and he will punch you back the next time he sees you.
This is a consistent reaction from the persona of the character
If I have to modify this behaviour because while I can punch you back immediately and it has no penalty but I can't punch you back tomorrow because the flag has worn off then that is having to subvert the true reaction my character should have or get penalised for a legitimate rp action.
If you join a NG settlement, either scenario will not carry with it significant threat of being "kicked out".
A NG settlement (or CC) can included CG, NG, and LG.
If we were perfections of moral character, we would not be mortals. Part of being LG is that you can falter, atone, and be forgiven.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you punch him he will punch you back if he is able to. He will try and punch you back immediately however if you were to punch him while he can't do anything for instance he is tied up he will remember and he will punch you back the next time he sees you.This is a consistent reaction from the persona of the character
This reaction seems to be consistent with a NN - CE alignment.
I'll state again since this is the true root of the issue: The gods tell you what alignment means; you don't decide what behaviors are LG, they do.
I will point out for the fourth or fifth time I have never said I was going to be lawful good so your point is largely irrelevant
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think, from the descriptions given by the developers, that we will see drastic alignment changes from just small acts. Your actions would have to be consistent over a longer period of time.
For instance, if you were consistently killing, then you will gradually shift alignment, but if, you were only killing in defense of yourself or others, and most of the time this should fall under either a bounty or attacker flag system, then you will suffer a very minimal alignment shift.
If you wish to be "good" then your alignment will adjust itself towards that goal based on your behavior the rest of the time, at least this is the information we've been given thus far. The acts of killing would average out over time compared to your other good acts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ZenPagan
I can understand your concerns even though I think that they sound like, mostly, rare situational cases. The alignment system is too tied up in the planning to just arbitrarily drop though. Maybe what we should do is suggest some ways to tweek the system to allow for some rare cases, like you have described, to be better handled.
Some problems: some of the timers, as proposed by GW seem a little bit off to me. Take the criminal flag for instance. Applied for breaking the law in a settlement. Stacks up for repeated offences but cancelled by death until you reach Brigand. Then it lasts only 24hrs but persists through death. Balance that with a 30 day Criminal Flag issued for loan contract default. Default on a secured loan. Seems a bit wonky even though there has been some word that a contract holder can drop charges if he wishes. Does not mean he will.
The Murderer flag and its penalties make it possible for a random killer "in game" able to get away with far more killings than a modern day "real world" serial killer. Kind of an apple to oranges comparison. Opinions will vary.
It goes on and on, so yes I can see your concerns.
Some of the timers are too short. The Enemies list duration is way to short as proposed. A guy can kill me every few days and not be annoying the crap out of me i.e. griefing? Bounty contracts should have a longer duration and should be able to be used by multiple hunters (unless specified for one only) at the same time. Any cop can serve a warrant.
In short, I agree that there are some problems with parts of the systems proposed. Yet they can still be used if tweeked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will point out for the fourth or fifth time I have never said I was going to be lawful good so your point is largely irrelevant
I guess I don't understand how the system can keep you from correctly RPing, then.
If you murder a guy that murdered your friend last week, then the laws of the gods will likely lead to a shift towards C and E. If you expect this, what is the issue?
@Bringslite
Flags lasting longer for a start would go a long way towards it however I doubt that will ever go through
At a minimum I would want attacker to last 15 minutes for anyone, 1 week for members of the attacked kingdom, 2 weeks for the members of the attacked players settlement.
@Bringlite
Bounties should last until collected or cancelled, same with assassination contracts
Criminal flagging should be related to a settlement, for example taking bluddwolf's name in vain his merry band might be flagged criminal to Pax Aeturnum. I would prefer this flag however to have to be set on by the settlement itself in response to a minimum number say 5 acts of banditry against its members. The criminal flag from this is only visible to members of the settlement/kingdom and on the flag can only be cancelled by the settlement or by no further acts of banditry against settlement members for a time. This means if bluddwolfs group doesn't want to be flagged they have to come to some accomodation with the settlement giving some nice rp.
Alignement shifts should take at maximum 10% move towards alignement boundaries
Also all actions should cause these to be triggered if you want to go down this route.
example
If attacking an unflagged player gives you a shift to chaotic should not failing to attack a player with a criminal flag also shift you from law towards chaos?
The thing that made be go from I don't like it but can live with it I suppose to "No this is just not tolerable" was
1) the short length of the flags and therefore the windows of opportunity to react and
2) The size of the alignement change, which as calculated by Grumpy Mel indicated that a mere 2 kills could move you from maxed out lawful status down to neutral. No one has yet indicated the flaws in his calculation so I have had to assume they are correct
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignement shifts should take at maximum 10% move towards alignement boundaries
This idea seems like a dream for griefers and even just good natured murderers. Too far in the other direction will solve nothing. The difference between LG and CE vs. TN and CE is not measurable in equal percentage values. For example a TN PC is closer to CE than a LG PC is.
If attacking an unflagged player gives you a shift to chaotic should not failing to attack a player with a criminal flag also shift you from law towards chaos?
This is one more thing that I have trouble with. It forces players to act in a way that could be suicidal, it forces huge requirements on software in terms of situational recoignition, it also forces one RP reaction on all PCs. Exactly one of the major conflicts you have with the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I concur with the sentiment that if attacking an unflagged character shifts the attacker toward chaos, so too should failure to attack a criminal-flagged character. Unfortunately I cannot avoid questioning the practicality of such a mechanic.
It seems obvious that if you are not within range to attack that criminal-flagged the alignment hit should not apply, and requiring the computer to calculate distances for every unflagged character is adding computational overhead.
It is also questionable whether merchants and their customers engaged in a complicated transaction should suffer such a shift if a criminal shows up during their incomplete transaction.
If a speedy criminal attempting to evade capture races through a town of unwitting players heavily engaged in other forms of entertainment you could conceivably end with the entire settlement shifting alignment toward chaos.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This conversation is definitely focused on the edge-case.
@Dario, I'm saying I think my example is more likely to actually occur in-game. I think it's going to be extremely unlikely that an "average Good" player is "accidentally" involved in killing 4 other average Good players.This is why I don't have much to say on this subject.
Whether or not that is the case, I think LG groups will find it handy to have one person that can 'detect alignment' so they can better judge whether or not another group is approaching them 'aggressively.' If they are a group of neutrals or CE thugs, it won't make too much of a difference if they determine that the best course of action is to act against their alignment and attempt to murder them preemptively. If they are goods, they have a pretty good idea that they won't attack (especially if it takes weeks or months to recover their alignment).
While it may only take 3-5 murders to drop from Good to Neutral, that is based on the victims also being Good.
If the victims just murdered your friends, they are likely not even close to Good, or they were Good (but are now neutral for the murders) and had very good reason to do it. So, now you must also make the choice of whether you have a good enough reason to murder them. If you murder them, however, you WON'T drop out of Good.
If they are not good, it will take a killing spree of several unflagged groups to lose your alignment. Any CE murderers are likely flying flags anyway for the bonuses, knowing that their alignment isn't much of an obstacle for anybody wishing to stay LG.
The instances where you drop your alignment for murdering just a 'few' persons will be few and far between. And it makes sense to me in those cases.
@Bringslite that is exactly my point the alignement system forces people into playing in certain ways.
Either actions are assessed or they are not. Inaction is also a form of action. This would also actually catch me as I won't be attacking people because they are flagged but because I have an rp reason to do so. I come across you in the wilderness and you have done nothing to me or mine and I have no reason to get upset with you then you are safe from me even if you have the heinous flag.
The last statement in the previous post and my response to it here is tongue in cheek however.
It is true I would be reasonably happy with large extension to the flag times and lessening of the alignement penalties.
I am not sure what the point about TN being closer to CE is maybe I am missing something. But if you attack an unflagged player getting a 10% shift on the chaos and evil lines doesn't seem to lenient. You would still likely cross over before you had killed more than a handful of players if you were trying to grief.
Most griefers who want to pk in any case will just do so then grind their status back and do it again. This is certainly what happens in Eve with security status. I can assure you though if you have harsh alignement penalties where by 2 kills can take the most lawful character to neutral what you most definitely will have are griefers who have the aim of making you suffer alignement loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Most griefers who want to pk in any case will just do so then grind their status back and do it again. This is certainly what happens in Eve with security status. I can assure you though if you have harsh alignement penalties where by 2 kills can take the most lawful character to neutral what you most definitely will have are griefers who have the aim of making you suffer alignement loss.
If you want to be absolutely sure of maintaining your alignment, then never attack first unless your opponent is flagged. Embrace the fact that you may die at any time outside of a settlement and don't carry anything you don't mind loosing.
There is a quote from Sisko in DS9 that comes to mind:
You're damned right you should've checked. You fired at something you hadn't identified. You made a military decision to protect your ship and crew, but you're a Starfleet officer, Worf. We don't put civilians at risk or even potentially at risk to save ourselves. Sometimes that means we lose the battle and sometimes our lives. But if you can't make that choice, then you can't wear that uniform.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is a quote from Sisko in DS9 that comes to mind:
You're damned right you should've checked. You fired at something you hadn't identified. You made a military decision to protect your ship and crew, but you're a Starfleet officer, Worf. We don't put civilians at risk or even potentially at risk to save ourselves. Sometimes that means we lose the battle and sometimes our lives. But if you can't make that choice, then you can't wear that uniform.
That is a fantastic quote.
lol if you don't think they will come up with ruse's to get you to fire first you are very much mistaken. Ask the thousands that have been tricked into it in eve by ninja salvagers, can flippers etc.
I can already think of two easy ways that would get most people flagged and the consequent alignement loss
Anyway this digression while fascinating has got off the point which is I was asked what may make the alignement system more tolerable which is which is what I answered
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lol if you don't think they will come up with ruse's to get you to fire first you are very much mistaken. Ask the thousands that have been tricked into it in eve by ninja salvagers, can flippers etc.
I can already think of two easy ways that would get most people flagged and the consequent alignement loss
Then point them out so that they can be addressed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're arguing for a consistant reaction to two different stimuli. One is a direct response to a danger to yourself or others. The other is the exercise of vengeance. That you cannot distinguish between two events as part of a single incident, and two events as elements of two separate instances is, frankly, a little concerning. If you really believe that an offense in the past should give you free rein to attack them ad infinitum, then you might as well remove all inhibitors to violence. If your character is LG and can't say "I want to attack them for their past transgressions, but the law/my code/my cooled temper prevents it." then he is ruled by his passions and willing to disregard the laws of morality that are as much a coherent force in the world of Golarion as gravity. That is not LG.
Dario,
I think what you are not seeing is a sense of arbitrariness in the restrictions imposed by an automated system. For example, why is it ok to attack someone 1 minute after an attack, but not ok to attack them 2 minutes afterward. You define one as "self-defence" and the other as "revenge"....but "revenge" is not an action, it's a motivation...and one that can't really be determined with any degree of accuracy by an automated system since they really can't measure the actors "state of mind". Furthermore trying to dictate to another player what thier beliefs or motivations are pretty much violates the most important principle of role-playing...and turns the individual into an actor not a role-player.
This is NOT to say that it is neccesarly a wrong design for an MMORPG to place such definate rules along violence. However, if the basis of your arguement is "LG can't work that way" as opposed to "the game needs this to be the way it is in order to function" then I'm going to have to find your arguement unsupportable.
Computer games have all sorts of mechanics that often force one to sacrifice RP-ing or try to "RP around" in order to fit within the confines of the game...and frankly this is one of them.
LG is not about following ARBITRARY rules but sensible rules logicaly designed to achieve a specific (beneficial) end.
It is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of LG for a character to say
"X has proven through past behavior that he will inflict harm upon others if given any opportunity to do so, so X must be eliminated whenever possible in order to prevent future harm to innocents"
If we look LN..."An Eye for an Eye and a tooth for a tooth" is a perfectly consistant set of rules, in fact I even believe there is an entire legal code built upon it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what you are not seeing is a sense of arbitrariness in the restrictions imposed by an automated system. For example, why is it ok to attack someone 1 minute after an attack, but not ok to attack them 2 minutes afterward. You define one as "self-defence" and the other as "revenge"....but "revenge" is not an action, it's a motivation...and one that can't really be determined with any degree of accuracy by an automated system since they really can't measure the actors "state of mind". Furthermore trying to dictate to another player what thier beliefs or motivations are pretty much violates the most important principle of role-playing...and turns the individual into an actor not a role-player.
Remember, the attacker flag goes away one minute after combat ends, not after you gain the flag (the beginning of the fight). How long after the fight ends do you have to wait before it's the instantiation of a new fight? At what point are you dealing with a new event?
In other words, at what point do you cease to be acting in defense, and begin to be the aggressor? I'm not saying 1 minute is the magic point, but personally, I don't think it's more than a few minutes on the outside.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Imbicatus,
It essentialy means subjugating the players own judgement about other individuals and situations to the judgment of the computer.
It's understandable that may be neccesary for the game to accomplish what it wants to accomplish...but it really does kinda suck from the perspective of players used to the freedom of PnP Role-Playing or games without similar Alignment dynamics.
It's an open question whether it sucks enough of the fun away to be not worth playing for the player.
Personaly, I'm going to try to "RP-Around" the system and see if it's still fun. I can't say I'm particularly happy about it though...and I can't say that I don't think the Alignment mechanics will probably do more harm then good....but we'll see.
P.S. We'll still see ALOT of griefers...they'll just grief in ways that don't get them (or keep them) flagged...verbal taunts, harrasment, screen spam, use of alts to do dirty work, etc. There will be plenty of people that will be PURPOSEFULLY trying to draw your character into attacking/killing them for the sole purpose of dropping your alignment...and in ways that 99 percent of characters in a typical fantasy RP PnP campaign just wouldn't take... that will be one of the sad realities of PFO...we're just going to have to learn to deal with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I concur with the sentiment that if attacking an unflagged character shifts the attacker toward chaos, so too should failure to attack a criminal-flagged character. Unfortunately I cannot avoid questioning the practicality of such a mechanic.
It seems obvious that if you are not within range to attack that criminal-flagged the alignment hit should not apply, and requiring the computer to calculate distances for every unflagged character is adding computational overhead.
It is also questionable whether merchants and their customers engaged in a complicated transaction should suffer such a shift if a criminal shows up during their incomplete transaction.
If a speedy criminal attempting to evade capture races through a town of unwitting players heavily engaged in other forms of entertainment you could conceivably end with the entire settlement shifting alignment toward chaos.
In essence you are proposing a Good Samaritan law. You also give both the pros and cons of such a mechanic, for which I commend you.
Being that I would most likely be a criminal, at least in the minds of most, I have no objection to such a mechanic. I'm sure you understand a Good Sam mechanic has about as much chance as introducing a Ford F150 instead of horses.
The PvE crowd, who just wants to be left to do their own thing, would be most against this. If this were Aoril 1st, instead of Aril 25, I better understand this idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Imbicatus,
It essentialy means subjugating the players own judgement about other individuals and situations to the judgment of the computer.
It's understandable that may be neccesary for the game to accomplish what it wants to accomplish...but it really does kinda suck from the perspective of players used to the freedom of PnP Role-Playing or games without similar Alignment dynamics.
It's an open question whether it sucks enough of the fun away to be not worth playing for the player.
Personaly, I'm going to try to "RP-Around" the system and see if it's still fun. I can't say I'm particularly happy about it though...and I can't say that I don't think the Alignment mechanics will probably do more harm then good....but we'll see.
P.S. We'll still see ALOT of griefers...they'll just grief in ways that don't get them (or keep them) flagged...verbal taunts, harrasment, screen spam, use of alts to do dirty work, etc. There will be plenty of people that will be PURPOSEFULLY trying to draw your character into attacking/killing them for the sole purpose of dropping your alignment...and in ways that 99 percent of characters in a typical fantasy RP PnP campaign just wouldn't take... that will be one of the sad realities of PFO...we're just going to have to learn to deal with it.
I agree that it's not a perfect system, but it is a system designed to try to reduce RPKing and allow Meaningful PVP at the same time. My playstyle is going to be self-flagging with PVP flag but primarily exploring and doing PVE stuff. IF someone is clearly flagged, I may attack them, but usually I will avoid combat unless attacked. I expect to die somewhat frequently, at least until I can unlock higher abilities.
As for the griefers, If they are taunting verbally, If can't /ignore them, I can at least not read anything after their name. IF they get too annoying, I can turn off my chat window. If they are using abusive language or slurs, I'll report them and hope they get banned. If they wont give up then I'll just kill them and deal with the hit. As a monk I'll be more concerned with lawful vs good/evil anyway. Hell, I may go LE and become an Assassin, Monks share enough skills with Rogues to be effective at it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what you are not seeing is a sense of arbitrariness in the restrictions imposed by an automated system. For example, why is it ok to attack someone 1 minute after an attack, but not ok to attack them 2 minutes afterward. You define one as "self-defence" and the other as "revenge"....but "revenge" is not an action, it's a motivation...and one that can't really be determined with any degree of accuracy by an automated system since they really can't measure the actors "state of mind". Furthermore trying to dictate to another player what thier beliefs or motivations are pretty much violates the most important principle of role-playing...and turns the individual into an actor not a role-player.Remember, the attacker flag goes away one minute after combat ends, not after you gain the flag (the beginning of the fight). How long after the fight ends do you have to wait before it's the instantiation of a new fight? At what point are you dealing with a new event?
In other words, at what point do you cease to be acting in defense, and begin to be the aggressor? I'm not saying 1 minute is the magic point, but personally, I don't think it's more than a few minutes on the outside.
In a practical sense, I would say at least 5-15 minutes....though if I had my druthers it would be an hour or more.
But that's kinda beside the point. Whether one is acting in "self-defence" or "defence of others" is both a state of mind and state of fact, neither of which has anything to do with a timer or a flag.
If one believes ones actions were neccesary to protect oneself or another (state of mind) and ones actions were, in fact, neccesary to protect oneself or another (state of fact) then the actions were not revenge but defense. Obviously a computer system can't really adjucate either, all it can do is adjucate whether a timer has ticked down since some command was last executed in the parser....however the "Cosmos" or "Dieties" which are pretty darn near omniscient should be able to adjucate both with fair accuracy.
So what we are left with, I would contend, is "this is a function of the limitations of the sysytem" NOT "this is an accurate assessment of your character within the context of the cosmology".
@Bringslite no I am not trolling I am giving you my opinion
Earlier you asked a question and I gave you a reasonable answer as to what I would find tolerable if the alignement system was to stay. Yes I put one tongue in cheek response about the non actions should get judged as well, maybe that misled you but I did admit it was done tongue in cheek the next post.
Perhaps if I put it another way it may help convince you
There are several issues for me
I dislike alignement systems in general because in my experience they cheapen the role play experience and make most characters less complex. People tend to think how should I react here as I am lawful good rather than have a well thought out background for the character which can be probed in rp to expose why a character acts the way he does. Working under the system I not only greatly restricted both in character actions but also have to try and make rationalisations for my behaviour that frankly will ring hollow
I like alignement systems even less when they miss out the bulk of what informs the reason for alignement change which is motivation and just concentrates on the action. Even more so when it doesn't judge all actions. I can do evil actions all day without an alignement change merely by stepping outside the implemented systems. For example paying someone else to do any killing for me without going through the contract system
However all of that I could ignore if it wasn't for the fact that it is quite likely if I rp my character correctly as a complex character that I will end up booted from my settlement. When a game mechanic that I consider bad also has the effect of dictating whether I can consort with friends then as I have said it is a dealbreaker. If the game goes live with the systems as stated I predict there will be huge complaints from people who haven't realised what the system means suddenly finding themselves booted from their guild. I do not think these will be the isolated incidents that have been claimed either and that GW will have to modify the system.
Anyway I am off for the rest of the evening so don't expect replies till tomorrow
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whatever system the devs end up with it will get huge complaints, there will be no way around that part. People will complain you are a miser in giving them a gift if they think you could have given more.
I doubt the prospect of people complaining is an argument for or against anything.
To be a game there must be rules. If one of us cannot agree to its rules then that one should not play that game.
The alignment system is there to delineate player actions. It is not there to control player actions beyond an attempt to systemically discourage griefing. Until it has player actions to measure it will be hit or miss whether it is measuring rightly, in the designer's estimation of rightness.
Once there are player interactions to measure we will be able to see the effects of those measures and know whether the delineations need modifications. I fully expect the developers would be the last to say their initial projections are adamant and immutable. If GrumpyMel's calculations accurately model the system then the effects will be identified and adjusted as needed I am sure of it.
Otherwise it is backwards to presume alignment mechanics will channel or coerce the way you play your complicated character. Instead those measures will determine where on the alignment scale your complicated character's simple actions place him or her.
The directions inscribed on your compass do not limit your journey, and are not affected by how complicatedly you think and feel along your way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite no I am not trolling I am giving you my opinion
Earlier you asked a question and I gave you a reasonable answer as to what I would find tolerable if the alignement system was to stay. Yes I put one tongue in cheek response about the non actions should get judged as well, maybe that misled you but I did admit it was done tongue in cheek the next post.
Perhaps if I put it another way it may help convince you
There are several issues for me
I dislike alignement systems in general because in my experience they cheapen the role play experience and make most characters less complex. People tend to think how should I react here as I am lawful good rather than have a well thought out background for the character which can be probed in rp to expose why a character acts the way he does. Working under the system I not only greatly restricted both in character actions but also have to try and make rationalisations for my behaviour that frankly will ring hollow
I like alignement systems even less when they miss out the bulk of what informs the reason for alignement change which is motivation and just concentrates on the action. Even more so when it doesn't judge all actions. I can do evil actions all day without an alignement change merely by stepping outside the implemented systems. For example paying someone else to do any killing for me without going through the contract system
However all of that I could ignore if it wasn't for the fact that it is quite likely if I rp my character correctly as a complex character that I will end up booted from my settlement. When a game mechanic that I consider bad also has the effect of dictating whether I can consort with friends then as I have said it is a dealbreaker. If the game goes live with the systems as stated I predict there will be huge complaints from people who haven't realised what the system means suddenly finding themselves booted from their guild. I do not think these will be the isolated incidents that have been claimed either and that...
Hmm.... My apology was for a post from Monday, I believe, where I wrote that I thought one possibility was that you were trolling. It had nothing to do with your post wherein you wrote that your answer was partly "tongue in cheek". I got that and I have never been told that I was a stupid fella (angry females notwithstanding). That being said, I applaud the grace with which you accept apologies. Truly you are generous and a forgiving soul.
Or not.
I don't think that any which way you put it that you will convince me. I really believe that you have put forth enough arguments from enough angles that I would be convinced if it were possible. I concede that I am just too stubborn, too blind to your logic, just too pre decided to even consider what you have to say.
I do not think that you can get through to me. Best of luck. I hope that you can find a game that you can enjoy. Me, I am going to give this one a try. It won't ever be "perfect" because nothing ever can be. I am sure that GW will fix things that don't work as they go. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"The alignment system is there to delineate player actions. It is not there to control player actions beyond an attempt to systemically discourage griefing. Until it has player actions to measure it will be hit or miss whether it is measuring rightly, in the designer's estimation of rightness"
Alignment shifts have little to nothing to do with griefing. You will get an alignment shift with every activity you do, and "no, chaotic and or evil shifts are not negative shifts". They are just different shifts from what you may wish to play.
The Reputation system is in place to discourage griefing or to reward meaningful pvp. Alignment should be strictly role playing and have no mechanic attached to it, that is counter intuitive. What I mean by that?
If I am CN, I understand why I would have a difficult time learning skills that are based on lawful or evil alignment. But that should not impact any other training or building structures in my settlement that has nothing to do with alignment. At this time, I think GW has awkwardly said as much, but we will wait and see.
Again, alignment and griefing are two separate issues and they should remain that way.
@ Bluddwolf
Programming an alignment system strictly for role-playing purposes w/no mechanical affect would be a gross waste of GW's time & resources.
Doing anything only for role-playing is a waste, since, in any mmo, there are a bare minority who actually do it. With GW's limited budget, they don't have that kind of luxury.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bluddwolf
Programming an alignment system strictly for role-playing purposes w/no mechanical affect would be a gross waste of GW's time & resources.
Doing anything only for role-playing is a waste, since, in any mmo, there are a bare minority who actually do it. With GW's limited budget, they don't have that kind of luxury.
Which is why no MMO bothers with alignment systems, not even DDO. They should not bother with alignment shifts. If there has to be an alignment system for the integrity of PFO RPG, then have it as static as it is in PFO RPG.
In all of the years I had played PnP D&D and later AD&D, it was so rare to have an alignment change. Eventually we even stopped using alignment altogether.
In an MMO, alignment is not used. The player's behaivior with his/her character is the measure of what the character is like. Other player's experiences with the player and with the character, became the "reputaion" of both in some cases. In other cases, the player is or was able to have a very different reputation for their chaacters, even though the same player controlled them. That is what roleplaying is all about.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How you played D&D or Pathfinder is unlikely to be how everyone else played it and has no bearing on whether alignment is good or not. If your group never used divine magic should we exclude it as well?
And just because previous MMO titles did not use alignment, similarly, has nothing to do with whether or not it could be an interesting mechanic for PFO.
It's interesting to me that people keep talking about how alignment will be "bad for role-playing" when that's something virtually no one will be doing anyway. Let's be real here, most players won't be interested and those of us who are would have a dang hard time even agreeing on what it even requires.
Alignment in PFO is going to have mechanical impact. Accept it and move on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bluddwolf
Repetition does not generate veracity. I think it is abundantly clear you don't want an alignment system, and I have been similarly repetitious with my counters to your assertions. Repeating ourselves does not help anything.
Dark Age of Camelot was probably the most successful example of PvP in MMO space, assuming we agree FPS shooters like CoD are not MMO. One of the reasons for the success of the DAoC PvP system was its use of a triadic dynamic now known as RvR or realm-versus-realm.
The alignment system proposed for PFO goes that one better, with four or potentially five 'realms': Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, Chaotic Good, and Lawful Good, along with Neutral as a possible fifth power. The potential dynamic between these contending alignments is tremendously significant.
If you remove real consequence from player choices by eliminating the effects of alignment shifts you also remove meaning from the game. You remove causes and you remove effects. If your remove cause and effect, remove consequence and responsibility, remove conflict itself and you also remove a major source of content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
And just because previous MMO titles did not use alignment, similarly, has nothing to do with whether or not it could be an interesting mechanic for PFO...
Actually many MMOs have had alignment systems, albeit they were usually simplistic, like 'us versus them', PC versus NPC, Realm versus realm, or good versus evil. They just didn't use the exact alignment system Bluddwolf channels Rush Limbaugh to oppose.
@KJosephDavis
I think judging from the forums that most are expecting there to be considerably more role players here than is common in mmo's I would not be so sure that it will not be non role players in the minority if I were you.
@Being player choices have consequence in Eve you do not need an alignement system to make it happen. The meaning in this game is your in game reputation and the ability to change the face of Golarion. I think we will soon find when it goes live that the mechanical systems are very much of lesser concern to people consequence wise than reputation gained from player interactions, I am not talking of the reputation system by the way merely the word of mouth reputation
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is why no MMO bothers with alignment systems, not even DDO. They should not bother with alignment shifts. If there has to be an alignment system for the integrity of PFO RPG, then have it as static as it is in PFO RPG.
Alignment really is too tied into the plans and probably some early programming now to just scrap because a handful of people don't like it. Do you want a complete redesign and a release in 2016?
Should they design it with the flexibility for easy tweaks? Yes. The timers and the costs for actions seem off (to another handful of people). Hopefully they can be adjusted if they don't work as intended.
What KJosephDavis said. Whether individuals used alignment in their TT games or they will not play with the proposed system is not likely to decide whether GW will change their ideas until tested. The designers are not morons (far from it) they will do what makes the most sense and maintains their vision for PFO.
You know that "reputation" is largely what is going to allow you to play one of the PC classes that you want (which might get you banned from most MMOs) and alignment will let you play the other.
You are choosing to play a game with hybrid PFRPG rules. Some of the rules from that game are alignment rules. How will you make sure monks stay lawful, according to PFO rules? How will you make sure paladins play LG, according to PFO rules? Certain clerics stay within their deities sanctioned behaviors, according to PFO rules?
Alignment drift will not be so fast, nor will it be permanent. It is adjudicated and adjusted by your character's actions in the game, according to PFO rules. It doesn't limit your actions. It defines what the results of your actions are according to where you are on the scale.
The debate will go on forever and maybe it should. I can see good arguments from both sides. It is clear that both sides have totally different ways of looking at it.
@KJosephDavis
I think judging from the forums that most are expecting there to be considerably more role players here than is common in mmo's I would not be so sure that it will not be non role players in the minority if I were you.
I've heard the exact same before the launch of every major fantasy MMO and the sentiment is always wrong.
Tabletop gamers interested in role-playing form an insignificant percentage of the MMO population.
There may be substantial role-playing in Early Access. It will not last. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.
@KJosephDavis
There are many reasons for the decline of rp on most mmo's up to now some of which may apply to PfO and some not. My experience has been in most of these games the rp community starts off reasonably large then rapidly dwindles due to the following.
1) Non enforcement of Rp policies causes people to give up
2) Inability to run rp plots that actually have an effect on the game world
3) Hard to rp about having done something when everyone has done the same quest/killed the same lich king
4) RP griefers cause the rp community to be much smaller as people retreat into guild internal rp
From this list only 1 and 4 should be issues for PfO so depending on how Goblinworks polices any rp policies then yes I think that PfO has the potential not to follow the route you describe
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KJosephDavis
I think judging from the forums that most are expecting there to be considerably more role players here than is common in mmo's I would not be so sure that it will not be non role players in the minority if I were you.
@Being player choices have consequence in Eve you do not need an alignement system to make it happen. The meaning in this game is your in game reputation and the ability to change the face of Golarion. I think we will soon find when it goes live that the mechanical systems are very much of lesser concern to people consequence wise than reputation gained from player interactions, I am not talking of the reputation system by the way merely the word of mouth reputation
You are judging the RPers ratio from the 100 regular posters here vs. the 8000 kickstarter supporters vs. the general public? How big is your divination computer? Even the vast majority of TT gamers (that I have seen at play, not a small number) are not really RPers.
I have a funny feeling alignment status will be fairly important to paladins (a very popular class), assassins (a seemingly popular profession), druids (also popular), etc... these are just classes. People that enjoy training their PCs will also watch their actions to stay within their settlement's tolerances. I have a feeling people will be concerned about alignment as ruled by PFO.
1) There will be no enforcement of role-playing policies. Even if they wanted to do it, GW won't have the budget.
2) Role-playing plots still won't have an effect on the game world. Game play will.
3) Agreed, but this does not mean role-playing will increase.
4) This problem will still be one.
5) What Bringslite said.
However, it doesn't matter if I'm right or not.
Alignment is confirmed.
@Bringslite I am not just judging by this forum though, I am also judging by the forums of my guild and the other guild forums I am a regular visitor to.
There does seem to be a lot of rp interest in Golarion. It may well go as KJoseph predicts I am just suggesting that you can't necessarily judge a fantasy sandbox by looking at fantasy themepark games.
The main reason I am even answering this speculation is to counteract this attitude "Doing anything only for role-playing is a waste".
RP even if you do not partake of it yourself creates a richer environment for everyone and who doesn't like some form of "fluff" items whether they be pet's or player housing.
Not sure about wow North America but in Europe one of the servers most consistenly with a queue is Argent Dawn an rp server.TSW most full server when I played was Arcadia...an RP server same with Rift though I cannot for the life of me remember the name of it now,Lotro two of the busiest servers are Landroval and Laurelin again both rp servers
The RP is obviously offering something to the players that go there
With the limited budget GW has, developing anything at this point not related to content generation is a waste.
I've played on a lot of role-playing servers. The main thing they most often lack is role-playing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ZenPagan Of course you are correct to point out that the loss of alignment would not remove all meaning from player choices. It would be absurd of me to contend otherwise. It would however reduce the meaning and implication of their choices by that factor, and I contend the effect would be a noticeable decrease in meaning for player choices.
Consider the scenario where Being's Company of Paladins ride forth under their proud banner from their advanced settlement to patrol escalative hexes in the region.
With alignment requirements they are uniformly welcomed as they deploy to do good and remove the threat of invasion from the lives of people who were fearful of losing their pleasant and productive way of life to either the barbarian horde invading from the East or the gathering host of Hobgoblins to the south. They cheer the brave knights as those worthies gallop toward the future.
Without alignment requirements for Being's Company of Paladins then among their number might be some very nefarious types who sneak about when nobody is watching and behave viciously to new players. The new players remember these incidents, and associate Paladins with fear and loathing. When they see the knights ride forth the people turn away in dread.
The meaning has changed.
Consider what happens to the meaning of a battle when Paladins, without alignment restrictions, raise a platoon of zombies to hold the left flank, or torch a village suspected of welcoming gatherers of an opposing player settlement.
Or think of the changed meaning when a Druid sets fire to a forest to drive out an escalation of black bears.
Alignment has meaning in PFO. Remove it and PFO is less meaningful. Remove it from player consideration when they are making choices and those choices become less meaningful.
It may be that there are real life implications in this matter. Might it have cost us dearly, as a culture, to adopt the widespread belief that morality and ethics are merely relative, and are unrealistic?
Then look at the changes in our games in recent decades. Is there a meaningful parallel in your estimation?
Does the way we play have any effect on our reality?
In my considerations there appears to be enough of a question there to be serious about considering it a real question, however uncomfortable I might feel about its implications.
Alignement as the implementation so far described paints a world only in black and white. There is a reason why fantasy literature is moving in general away from the black hat vs White hat sort of plot lines and more towards the shades of grey approach.
As to real life we certainly in the civillised world at least do not have absolute decisions like this and almost without exception any civillised democratic governement recognises the fact there is no absolute morality but that acts have to be judged within the framework of motivation.
For instance the act of killing someone is only murder if it was done with intent. In your native america they then distinguish further by premeditation vs killing in hot blood. Real life already thankfully treats morality as relative because motivation is important.
To turn the question back to you and without judging your position in advance.
Do you think the world would be a better place if we went back to a system of absolute morality?
PFO is not the real world and I get enough gray shades on CNN for my taste. I've no problem with black and white morality in a game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Do you think the world would be a better place if we went back to a system of absolute morality?
I am not Taliban.
However Good and the Evil may well be better for us as fixed anchors or points of reference in the category of ideals and values, rather than considering them human creations that are convenient and changeable. When a human being is presented with an array of possibilities within the context of a sometimes chaotic reality the light of our ideals filter into many grey areas, and I believe when we attempt to form judgments we must recognize our shades of grey natures. But I do not hold that the ideals themselves have been altered by our perceiving of them through the filters of personal reality. Our perceptions differ from the effects we see, and those effects differ from the ideals we have held in mind for comparison.
But a human system remains a human system, and ideals are a poor fit for application in the world. Better that we aspire to grow more like the formal good and less like the formal evil than to use changeable conveniences for our values and guides.
The stars are not part of the ocean, but can be useful for navigating one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ZenPagan
You keep using EVE as an example in many of your arguments. EVE does not have an alignment system and, kinda, still has wide open RP right? Does EVE have paladins? Does EVE have Druids? Does EVE have evil or good spell casting? Does EVE have meaningful choices governed by alignment restrictions or is it just "anything goes" for anyone?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ZenPagan
You keep using EVE as an example in many of your arguments. EVE does not have an alignment system and, kinda, still has wide open RP right? Does EVE have paladins? Does EVE have Druids? Does EVE have evil or good spell casting? Does EVE have meaningful choices governed by alignment restrictions or is it just "anything goes" for anyone?
EVE is built as a social commentary on the perils of uncontrolled capitalism. There are security zones where if you engage in criminal behavior you will be killed, but the entire design of the world is an anything goes - if you can take it and keep it, it's yours mindset. There is no good and evil in the game.