Goblin Squad Member
|
Many individuals have had questions pertaining to the alignment system and few grievances have been voiced to my knowledge. I come before the boards to address a grievance.
In relation to settlements and Company charters I keep reading this one step alignment rule. As it was so stated, members of a charter company and a charter settlement must be within one step on the alignment path of the company/settlement. This does not make sense to me. It is as if it dictates that a L/G Paladin can not work well with a C/G Ranger or Rogue. Or the mere thought that a L/G settlement would not be able to host a TN merchant. I believe it should be determined by the settlement or company in question on which alignments it wishes to restrict.
My justification is this:
If a L/N settlement were to exist that would mean that both L/G and L/E would be able to cooperate but a L/G settlement member would not be able to cooperate with a C/G character? In addition if a N/G settlement were to exist then L/G and C/G champions would exist within the settlement. This seems more restrictive and counter-intuitive to the social environment that PFO wishes to establish.
Solution:
I believe the solution to this dilemma is a simple one. Charter heads should be able to dictate what restrictions prevent members from joining their respective companies/settlements.
Your thoughts? I plan on getting on the PFOFAN Teamspeak later to address this issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've seen nothing to indicate that a Settlement will not be able to allow people more than one step away.
The Pax Mercatorum intends to have its gates open to all except the most infamous of individuals (very low reputation).
Not to disrespect anyone, but It wasn't until I re-read the blogs that I discovered this.
All Politics Are Local Politics
Player-run settlements are the centerpiece of the Pathfinder Online design; they also begin with a charter.
A character proposing a settlement must define several aspects of the settlement in its charter:
The settlement's name
The location of the settlement's hex
The settlement's alignment—characters must be within one alignment step* to join or remain a member of the settlement
The settlement's tax rate
Allocation of settlement votes:
Feudal: One character has all the votes
Oligarchy: A limited group of characters have votes as apportioned by the charter
Democracy: Every member of the settlement has an equal vote
The membership policy of the settlement
Open: New members are automatically approved for membership
Restricted: New members must be approved by a majority vote
Closed: New members must be approved by a unanimous vote
Approved: New members must be approved by a designated existing member
Now on the Charter Company aspect. I am assuming (Dangerous I know) that the same rule applies, for how would it look when a company establishes a settlement together and then has to tell certain members that they cannot live in their own company's home.
This can be founder under the Put It in Writing Blog topic from 2012 07 03.https://goblinworks.com/blog/
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Somewhat related, will you be able to tell someone's alignment easily or will you have to use spells or skills to do so?
Each player has three axes of personality: law vs. chaos, good vs. evil, and reputation. A player's reputation is clearly visible to others, while alignment is harder to determine at a glance.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My justification is this:
If a L/N settlement were to exist that would mean that both L/G and L/E would be able to cooperate but a L/G settlement member would not be able to cooperate with a C/G character? In addition if a N/G settlement were to exist then L/G and C/G champions would exist within the settlement. This seems more restrictive and counter-intuitive to the social environment that PFO wishes to establish.
Hey Deacon, welcome to the boards.
I don't clearly understand your concern. If there is a fairly even spread of characters across the possible alignments, then any given settlement will be able to have members from 1/3 to 5/9 of the population. Characters who can't be members can still be allowed to use the training, crafting, and market facilities.
I think that is supportive of a good social environment, while ensuring that alignment, and therefore character actions, have some meaningful consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One-step is correct, but I do not think you should see that as a major issue. Why? Because, if your members believe in a similar creed, and act based on that creed, then you will all be fairly close in alignment (whatever that alignment may be).
I think it is useful to flip your approach to alignment. Instead of writing in stone what your alignment will be before entering the game, allow your actions in-game to dictate the alignment of your settlement. I suggest have a somewhat loose idea of your settlement's alignment prior to launch, and then settling on an alignment through your members actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you Agree that as a L/N city the Paladin can work with the L/E Necromancer, but not the C/G Fighter for Freedom?
I have never seen a city or been part of an adventuring party where everyone was within one step on the alignment scale.
I understand the differences in the alignment system on this game verses the TTRPG. But expecting me to believe that a L/G city cannot have one greedy merchant is a little ridiculous. At that point its ruining my immersion.
That is a false community as well. A true community has its bad eggs, and it requires more effort to sustain, but its a true community. I halfway understand having a limitation like this on a charter company. But a settlement? Maybe I am the one over thinking it, but I see far to many problems with 1 alignment step. Go find 4 or 5 people for a TTRPG game and request that they all remain within 1 alignment step of each other. Either your going to get an earful of how your not letting them express their individual characters the way they want or they're going to conform and create characters that just fit the bill with as little creativity as possible.
All that I'm saying is, as a settlement leader or charter company leader I should be able to control types of people that I wish to allow within my community.
If someone wants to start an all paladin nation or settlement, by all means have your fun, but do not ask that I restrict my immersion and play because its easier.
Restated Justification:
I have yet to find an alignment limitation this large since being a paladin or cleric of a specific deity. And I reiterate, I have also found no alignment rule like this for Charter Companies, I am just assuming. But, lets take that assumption away. You work with an organization and are the member of a Charter company under them. They have finally established a settlement and choose the majority alignment for the alignment of their city. Their city is now L/G. As a C/G crusader of freedom that you are, you find no place within your Charter Companies Home.
Secondly, I hate to bring up the issue of balance, but so be it. If a settlement were to choose a cornerstone alignment (L/G, C/G, L/E, C/E) they receive less alignment options for those that can join. Cornerstone alignments would only receive three choices, compared to the other alignments. L/G would get the cream of the crop of N/G and L/N but what about TN? Off limits.
While selecting L/N provides L/G, TN, L/E a total of four choices. And, TN would provide 5 choices.
A restated Solution:
Select an Alignment for your settlement, and just like a player, that alignment can shift based on the actions of the settlement. But allow the heads of the settlement to determine who is allowed within the settlement.
An Alternate solution would be to allow 2 steps on the Alignment Path.
@Will Cooper-
A supportive and cooperative community can form from anything. This is merely a limitation on a good community. How would it not still be a rewarding system if the settlement leadership were able to restrict the alignments they didn't want verses the current method?
I've been around, I just don't see the point of getting Riled up like this normally. I just find this to be a rather large flaw.
@ Elorebaen-
A creed could be anything from "protect those weaker than you" to "destroy all evil". And even by acting those out you are guaranteed to have an assortment of alignments.
Which is my point. Organizations are going to have an assortment of alignments, and those organizations that do allow an assortment of alignments are going to have a more balanced community. And, it would be rather nice, if that community had one home.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Yeah he is notorious for that. Encyclopedic.There's a reason I put a very high priority on infiltrating his company, and it has absolutely nothing to do with doing any harm to said company.
To be fair, said infiltration consisted of two steps: 1. Wanting to. 2. Complete an application.
The restrictions of alignments on each social group are of concern to us all. One compromise position I can find would be to allow either a small percentage (5-10%) or small number of the residents of a settlement to have excessive alignment variance; there are lot of complicating factors in that solution.
A different solution would be to penalize the settlement (by reducing the alignment-based bonuses) for each character (or charter company?) misaligned.
Either way, one could be evicted for changing alignment, but that would be an active decision by the settlement leader, not an automatic penalty for crossing an alignment threshold.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, said infiltration consisted of two steps: 1. Wanting to. 2. Complete an application.Yeah he is notorious for that. Encyclopedic.There's a reason I put a very high priority on infiltrating his company, and it has absolutely nothing to do with doing any harm to said company.
Done and done. Long ago. To be fair, it was pretty straightforward.
I made this suggestion a while ago for settlements
Basis of the idea
As alignement is something the majority wish to keep a method of allowing settlements to be the arbiters of who they have as members without avoiding the consequence of the alignement of the members
All numbers used are not reflective of actual numbers but purely for ease of illustration and the system of axis used is I believe what goblinworks has in mind
I am only going to use good to evil to demonstrate for simplicity sake
The good evil axis is as follows
Good Neutral Evil
100==============================0=======================-100A settlement has 10 characters as members and their position on the axis of good evil is noted
char A +90
char B +70
char C +20
char D -50
char E +30
char F +80
char G -70
char H +90
char I +90
char J +60settlement alignement on good evil axis therefore is sum of alignements/members or 410/10 = 41
There are requisites for various buildings such as for instance a paladin chapter house(required for the ability to use paladin skills) is a good value of no less than 75
Other buildings may not stop working but work less efficiently depending upon the alignement for instance a forge might work less efficiently the the further from 100 points lawful you get.
Buildings may require minimum or maximum (eg assassins guild may require a maximum of -50) from one or both axis the other axis being lawful - neutral - chaotic
This way it would be down to players who is part of their settlement and it may be in their interests to tell bob to stop being so evil or be kicked out thus putting the players in control and not a mechanical system.
Something like this I could certainly live with and I think it maintains consequence without getting rid of player choice
Forgot to add updates would happen every 24 hours, settlement leaders would be able to see the alignement contributions so know who to have a talking to
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@zenpagan:
What if the settlement leaders don't get to see alignment contributions of individuals? I see a lot of fun potential for the good settlement trying to find out who the rotten eggs are that are dragging the city down.. inquisitions, investigations, inspections and so forth.
|
@zenpagan:
What if the settlement leaders don't get to see alignment contributions of individuals? I see a lot of fun potential for the good settlement trying to find out who the rotten eggs are that are dragging the city down.. inquisitions, investigations, inspections and so forth.
As I understand it, the only way one can conceal any aspect of your identity is by using a Disguise. Depending on the skill and the equipment you have you can set certain parameters, and it will rename you, and make you look like a nondescript NPC style goon, the kind that wander around all over the place constantly inside of a settlement anyhow. I am bad at sourcing bit I KNOW Nihimon would beat me to finding it before I ever try but it was discussed in the Blog.
So you disguise as an according Aligned NPC, neat, you can walk around free as long as you dont blow your disguise or get caught, at that point if you don't match the Alignment requirements, you'd get a Criminal or Tresspassing flag and you'd have a short amount of time to make your way out, hide and use another Disguise, or see problems with the local authorities, perhaps even other Players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Carbon
Disguises do not make you look like NPCs. You are still a PC. You are designed to have generic middle-of-the-road metrics on the observable scales, to make you an otherwise uninteresting PC.
When you wear an outfit with the Disguise keyword, a few things happen:
•Your displayed name (over your head and in chat) gets changed to a procedurally generated generic name for your race and sex. Your facial features won't change, but, as noted earlier, it's a lot harder to identify someone purely by features in a video game anyway.
•Your flags, war status, and alliances are hidden to both other PCs and NPC guards. To everyone, you'll look pretty unthreatening.
•Your displayed Reputation will be set to approximately the minimum required to enter the nearest settlement (so guards won't attack you for poor Reputation).
•To any other kind of inspection mechanics, you'll have generic responses designed to not be very interesting but hopefully not make it very obvious that you're in Disguise.
•You can use certain town services you might otherwise be barred from (like the markets), but others (like training) continue to be unavailable. This distinction is mostly based on the in-world time requirement: It's theoretically easier to pop into shops in disguise than to make it all the way through a training montage.
•When you go into stealth mode, you'll have a generic walking animation rather than an obvious stealth crouch so you can minimize your exposure to the sight of distant characters, but nearby characters who can penetrate your Stealth might not see anything weird about you being in stealth mode.
Bullet 4 implies that disguises will affect alignment too, which I actually hope isn't true. But that's a separate argument. There are unlikely to be a large number of non-functional NPCs wandering around anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I won't beat this horse much, but alignment systems have always been counter productive to role playing. It is one thing to become an alignment, it is another to be confined to one.
Other than alignment specific skills, there should be few if any limitations to skill advancement, based on alignment.
A settlement's alignment should be based on its managers alignments, not its citizenry. Citizens will leave if the availability of alignment based skills that they want are scarce. This is not an enforced alignment system, it is organic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I won't beat this horse much, but alignment systems have always been counter productive to role playing. It is one thing to become an alignment, it is another to be confined to one.
If I understand, then this is exactly why I advocate that PCs must not decide their alignment at character creation but discover it through their actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I won't beat this horse much, but alignment systems have always been counter productive to role playing. It is one thing to become an alignment, it is another to be confined to one.
Other than alignment specific skills, there should be few if any limitations to skill advancement, based on alignment.
A settlement's alignment should be based on its managers alignments, not its citizenry. Citizens will leave if the availability of alignment based skills that they want are scarce. This is not an enforced alignment system, it is organic.
I agree with OP and with this. This is a potential hazard in the plan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only real problem I foresee with the Alignment restrictions on Settlements is that PFO wouldn't support some of the Settlements you see in some of the Adventure Paths.
For example, Pathfinder Chronicles: Guide to the River Kingdoms (PFRPG) talks about Pitax, a CN Settlement with Authority Figures that are NG, NE, and LE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Heres one for ya. The problem with this is I dont see anyone looking at making a "Free Settlement". One in which anyone and everyone is welcome. This type of settlement would only ask for loyalty, no bad acts against citizens or the settlememt, defense of settlement if necessary, and no questions asked on any activities that dont harm citizens or settlement. In return, all alignments accepted, goods, services, and all training available. The only real restriction being reputation. This type of settlement would run less like a government and more like a business.
But I dont see this type of settlement working because of the current alinment system. Which is a shame honestly, cause Id join a settlement like this. Some people might claim it would be to OP and unbalanced. Anymore than Chaos or evil settlements being small in number or non existant? I want to be CN bandit. How do I do that and succede in personal progression, if there is no Chaotic settlement? I suppose I could buy training from a settlement, but wait................ They wouldnt have any chaotic training in a non chaotic settlement now would they...........
This right here is a perfect example of the harm it alignment based settlments could potentially do. Here is my what if to devs: what if there are no Chaotic settlements? Is my personal progression to be punished because of my intended alignmnent? For alignmnent to affect settlment progression is one thing, but for it to effect personal progression is another. Now if I can get max chaotic based alignment training from a neutral settlement, then that would work. I dont see a shortage of those. Lets put the shoe on,the other foot. What if you want to be a Pally, but there are no LG settlemens, nor can you garner support for one? I dont know that these extreme circumstances will happen but if they do, whats the plan to fix this? Or is not having any paladin advanced training because everyone wants to be some veriation of neutral, working as intended. Id appreciate it if no one replied with its unlikely to happen. Thats not the question,thequestion is what if itdoes?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure if I condone or condemn these alignment restrictions over all. However, I do support diversity in settlements. I would say that ideally settlements and faction leaders would be able to choose if they want to restrict alignment or not, and by how much.
A problem I foresee though is that alignment is supposed to be rather unapparent to others without the use of spells and the like, but having settlements and factions with mechanically enforced restrictions will kind of make that a null point. Trying to enter or join a restricted place or group will at least partially reveal your alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about this? Anyone can join any settlement regardless of alignment, with approval from the settlement leadership. The Settlement Alignment is no set by the leaders, but is determined by the aggregate alignment of all members. Settlement alignment is what sets the availability of trainers and what type of NPCS are providing guard duties. There is room in a LG settlement for a NE merchant as long as he obeys the laws, but if there is an entire NE consortium given free reign, then don't be surprised when the Knight of Iomeade leave and the Paladin trainers go with them. Now the settlement will either be forced to clean house or scramble to make a new alliance with NPCs such has the Hellknights that are less exacting in order to secure their borders outside of the PvP window.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm intrigued by the decision to use alignments - it's been well over a decade since I've played a tabletop game with alignments, and it'll be a first for me in an MMORPG.
I can see why going "two steps" is currently off the table; the corners of the alignment grid (CE, CG, LE, LG) represent something close to extremes of morals, behavior, respect for authority and for others, and so forth. I suspect most settlements will fall along the neutral axes, as these seems to be more moderate in approach, and both the law-and-order corners and the anti-authoritarian corners have some room to breathe.
That said, it IS restrictive, and if a character's alignment isn't meant to be immediately apparent, I'm left wondering how either settlement or chartered company alignments are to be enforced - or even decided upon to begin with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SWtOR is an MMO that has a lightside/darkside system, which is like a one dimensional alignment system. It doesn't affect much beyond what high tier gear you can get though.
Deciding what alignment your faction should be is easy, you're free to tell people your alignment, leaders/founders of a faction can simply go:
"We should be neutral good."
"I agree."
"Alright, it's decided then."
Of course it'll be more complicated with various character alignments and such, but simple discussion will generally be the means of deciding such things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me the undecided question is the exact benefits of being a settlement member, i.e. a charter signatory. I believe that members of the settlement should get breaks in training costs, the right to own property (buildings) within the city, protection by the NPC guards, and protection during war. If these are true (and I have no basis for them actually being true), then are these benefits worth enough for your character to join a settlement. If so, then one of the costs of those benefits is the alignment restrictions.
I believe that a settlement charter can specify who is a trespasser in the city. If so, then the city can make it possible for characters with two alignment steps to have access to the settlement, but not memberships. They would pay higher fees, more taxes, and have to pay for lodging (no building of their own). If this is in error with previous dev posts please chime in.
I have some confusion about the OP phrase "working with". Working/interacting with characters of even opposite alignment is not forbidden by a settlement charter, just settlement membership and access to membership benefits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have some confusion about the OP phrase "working with". Working/interacting with characters of even opposite alignment is not forbidden by a settlement charter, just settlement membership and access to membership benefits.
Without knowing with which part you are referencing I will take a stab at an explanation. (I have been called long winded in explanations so be forewarned).
I was attempting to point out that I find it extremely odd that a TN merchant can not be a citizen(member) of a LG settlement. The settlement's policies may be lawful and their overall interactions good, but I don't believe it should handicap the merchant. I think it also damages a little of the immersion as well, not by much. I've been playing the TT pathfinder since I discovered it after DnD left 3.5 for 4.0 (FERPG I refuse to call it DnD it is FurrPig, Fourth Edition Role playing game). And in my time playing I have been in many towns were the overall settlement was one alignment but you would find odd-balls in town.
Is a LG guard expected not to protect and aid the tired and hungry C/G man seeking shelter? Or is the N/G "real estate agent" not going to sell property to a paying TN merchant? I am just examining these interactions and I find that the foundations of the settlement matter slightly more in determining its residents than the overall alignment of the city.
Another solution that my Order has discussed would be to have some sort of Law vs. Chaos and Good vs. Evil sliders that determine the overall alignment of the city, while still allowing the settlement leaders to determine the alignments that are accepted within the settlement. Such a system would allow the bonuses of a city's alignment to ring true, because if a majority of the members are Lawful, but there are is an even split of good and evil characters, then you would have a LN settlement. Basically every residents alignment contributes to the overall alignment of the city. So for those of you who still wish for an all LG city, you would just need to restrict the alignments you allow into your city. This should also prohibit "gaming" the system. So you could not claim your city is LG but allow the majority of your citizens to be NE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm, the way I have thought about it so far, though this might be far off from being accurate:
1. Players' actions have alignment/rep change scores according to their own state, the state of the player/mob they interact with and the context eg where they are and which laws possibly come in. These out of the 5,000 per Low-Medium-High/Good-Neutral-Evil x3 axis.
2. Each settlement can change which conditions characters can enter their settlement
3. Settlements can have members 1-step away only as a limit to the security of 2.?
So, fundamentally each player is responsible for their actions within parameter zones. They obviously lose membership if they choose actions that have that cost.
And addtionally a settlement that is not having members mostly within the same zones, will shift it's alignment too?
I think that sounds in keeping with each settlement's Social Role <-> Skill Training relationship in the game and each player's own CHOICE and RESPONSIBILITY? The various details are not clear to me, but that is my "big picture" view as I understand it, currently.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to keep in mind that a TN merchant in PO have killed and robbed innocent victims, just not as much as a chaotic or evil character. Such a person would surely not fit in a LG settlement?
That is an assumption on your part, and likely not a probable one either. I could be a TN merchant and not have killed a single thing, nor broken a single law. I spent my entire time just buying and selling items in the auction house.
The belief that a Lawful Good settlement would not tolerate a truly neutral, benign and potentially economically beneficial person in their settlement is Lawful or Good. It is in fact segregationist, and Evil at its core.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is an assumption on your part, and likely not a probable one either. I could be a TN merchant and not have killed a single thing, nor broken a single law. I spent my entire time just buying and selling items in the auction house.-snip-I was attempting to point out that I find it extremely odd that a TN merchant can not be a citizen(member) of a LG settlement.You have to keep in mind that a TN merchant in PO [EDIT: MIGHT?] have killed and robbed innocent victims, just not as much as a chaotic or evil character. Such a person would surely not fit in a LG settlement?
I think there was a missing word there?
It seems there's a couple of ways at looking at this:
1. LG requires more stringent conditions for longer to stay and reach?
2. 1-step difference is appropriate for ALL alignment states ie 3 by 3 (with less steps possible in the corners I believe?).
3. Neutral might have done a bit of killing done a bit of lawful behavior etc; be currently Neutral for no other reason than not done anything chaotic or lawful particularly according to the system.
So with respect to a TN not a citizen in a LG settlement, it's a probability case: The probability is that the LG has fulfilled sufficient criteria dependably. The TN has not and could be a reprobate; they may not be but the fact they could... Additionally the TN is I think a member of a settlement with MORE steps to other alignments that can be members so that is their advantage/disadvantage depending on how you view it??
But when you have a settlement the collective alignments of everyone becomes more and more significant in relation to the potential development index I think, hence LG is more stringent in it's membership criteria, I gather?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not see any benefit in a hard coded alignment restriction to being a member of a settlement (or chartered company for that matter). All I can see this type of game mechanic achieving is pushing people who would like to play together away from each other (and in general players engaging in most forms of PvP towards chaotic / evil settlements/CCs, which I doubt is GW's goal).
There are other less obtrusive methods, which can be used to encourage players to maintain their alignment within one step of their settlement's alignment (however that is determined), for example:
* granting bonuses (e.g. to the development index) to homogeneous settlements
* imposing penalties to settlements with members straying too far from the settlement's alignment (e.g. multiplied by each additional step)
* imposing limitations (e.g. higher training fees, restricted access to facilities) for members straying too far
If we want to maximize meaningful player interaction, let the players decide whether they want to keep ”black lambs” in the settlement, potentially giving them the opportunity to redeem themselves (whatever that may mean for a particular settlement), or just kick those straying outside the one alignment step boundary for the overall good of the settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think I need some clarity around the difference between Tresspasser and Criminal in a settlement. As I understand it, entering a settlement with alignment and/or reputation restrictions will get the character a Trespasser flag. I am not sure that this means that the NPC guards will automatically attack the Trespasser. I believe that all characters will see the Trespasser flag on the offending character, which will allow settlement members to attack without getting the Attacker flag or reputation hits. However, attack should not be automatic by the guards. After all they let that character in didn't they? I think that there should be some way to allow the "trespassing" character access to settlement services and only get the criminal flag when they do specific things: draw a weapon, cast a spell, attack a settlement member, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Fruben: The cost of "straying" is points deduction and if sufficient crossing to a new alignment and clawing back over TIME. I think the reason Alignment is definitive for Settlements is perhaps it takes say 4 months to built that wizard tower and idk 300 + x DI pts per months to maintain where x is dependent on the settlement's alignment perhaps? I presume a settlement would LOSE the building 100% if it's alignment shifted and if it eventually shifted back it would have to build that wizard's tower over 4 months from stratch maybe?
In terms of LG and PvP, I wonder if Diplomatic skills will lead to contracts with other settlements over terms of peace and engagement and if those are broken the diplomats can thrash out conditions even "declarations of war"?!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't buy into the idea that alignment is a mere tool of any kind, most especially segregation. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are the domains of gods. Deities. There is no moral relativism to it. Players will not be able to assert their opinion of 'good' is as valid as anyone else': the alignments are ideal absolutes, and as such are not tools, are not means to some other end, they are ends in themselves. You use a tool for the sake of something else. In relation to alignment the tool is your behavior, not the ideal.
In Golarion the deities provide imperative mandate. The players provide behaviors and those measurable behaviors are the instruments by which they attain alignment.
Many appear to have that backwards, imagining that alignment will dictate behavior. Instead what you choose to do will define your alignment as compared to an absolute ideal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't buy into the idea that alignment is a mere tool of any kind, most especially segregation. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are the domains of gods. Deities. There is no moral relativism to it. Players will not be able to assert their opinion of 'good' is as valid as anyone else': the alignments are ideal absolutes, and as such are not tools, are not means to some other end, they are ends in themselves. You use a tool for the sake of something else. In relation to alignment the tool is your behavior, not the ideal.
In Golarion the deities provide imperative mandate. The players provide behaviors and those measurable behaviors are the instruments by which they attain alignment.
Many appear to have that backwards, imagining that alignment will dictate behavior. Instead what you choose to do will define your alignment as compared to an absolute ideal.
Amen...as previously argued, alignment is part of the physics of the Golarion universe.
To address the OP, I could see something like what Decius suggested; combining the skills of the members of government and the choices of government type to dictate the percentage of variation allowed.
Another point that keeps coming up concerning alignment, monstrous races...I could see this alignment creep being a good way to balance them. For instance, Goblins, if GW ever decided to add them, would have a fast CE alignment creep. They would have to constantly be doing Good deeds to counter the creep, but the important part is...those willing to do the work, could (and the constant effort would keep them rare).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I understand the current system, a lawful good settlement would never have to halt construction of a paladin training camp due to alignment drift. The settlement has an alignment, lawful good. PCs more than one step from LG will have their membership revoked, but the settlement will remain LG.
If something odd happened, and the majority of the settlement members moved more than one step from LG, the remaining minority would be the only settlement members left. If every PC lost their membership, and the settlement didn't instantly disappear, the NPC builders would finish building the paladin training camp (and then sit around for lack of anyone to order them to build the next project, I guess).
I don't think the devs have addressed whether a settlement with no PC members would instantly dissolve, or if it would simply be extremely vulnerable to a takeover during subsequent open PVP windows.
If GW were to switch to a system where settlement alignment were determined by current member alignment, rather than set at the time of settlement founding, then the question of lost paladin training camp construction materials would have to be addressed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I understand the current system, a lawful good settlement would never have to halt construction of a paladin training camp due to alignment drift. The settlement has an alignment, lawful good. PCs more than one step from LG will have their membership revoked, but the settlement will remain LG.
It may not be that cut-and-dried.
As I understand it, the Alignment of a Settlement is determined by the Alignment of its Members. A Lawful Good Settlement would allow Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good Members as well. If the overwhelming majority of Members of a Lawful Good Settlement are Lawful Neutral, I believe there is a possibility that the Settlement itself might actually change Alignment to Lawful Neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The last I saw, the settlement's alignment was laid out in the charter, not derived from it's membership.
A character proposing a settlement must define several aspects of the settlement in its charter:
•The settlement's name
•The location of the settlement's hex
•The settlement's alignment—characters must be within one alignment step* to join or remain a member of the settlement
•The settlement's tax rate
•Allocation of settlement votes:
◦Feudal: One character has all the votes
◦Oligarchy: A limited group of characters have votes as apportioned by the charter
◦Democracy: Every member of the settlement has an equal vote
•The membership policy of the settlement
◦Open: New members are automatically approved for membership
◦Restricted: New members must be approved by a majority vote
◦Closed: New members must be approved by a unanimous vote
◦Approved: New members must be approved by a designated existing member
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I had the impression that alignment wad determined at settlement founding. I have no citation for that, so I may easily be wrong.
Edit: Ninja-cited by Dario.
Edit 2: I love the idea that some races might have an inherent alignment creep toward a different default state than the core races. I agree that a system like that, especially without the option to turn off the alignment drift for those races, would cut down on the number of Drizzt-clones, goblin paladins, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I understand your opinion and cherish the opportunity to hear it, I completely agree. Deities are bound by their alignment. But, on a more literal matter, I will not be playing a Deity, nor do I believe any of my members will. Mortals are not bound by the alignment system. They may change and their actions are fluid. It is much more difficult for deities to do these things. You may have a Lich that atones or a Paladin that falls. Thus is the way of mortal kind. (And apparently Undead....)
And since the TT system is being used in this particular instance, I request that others do some research. Cities in the TT work as cities within the real world. There is a community of individuals bound together for a number of reasons, whether it be trade, industry, protection, or destruction. Very rarely do settlements within TT operate similar to the settlement design for PFO. And they are normally small communities focused around a single structure, such as a Monk monastery, or Paladin citadel.
I think the point of this suggestion for conversation was missed. It truly limits the capabilities to build a diverse community within a settlement. Communities established under the current alignment restrictions of a settlement will not be diverse.
The alignment system in question for PFO, will represent what you have, already done. It does not necessarily represent what your intentions are. What of the TN merchant working towards NG but he has yet to attain that status?
I think another thing in question that many have missed is how the alignment of the settlement itself should interact with others. A LE settlement may see that everyone needs its strict guidance in life to support the settlements goals, thus it would even accept NG members.
I believe the responsibility for managing a settlement in such a way is better left in the hands of a player. This is a sandbox game, an environment for our community to perform to the best of our abilities how we envision our characters.
While I understand the opinions contrary to me, I ask a few questions. Why does it appear that the alignment system is designed more to promote conflict between players than as a system to address that player's morality? Why does it appear that this alignment system is severely restrictive to a players interactions with the world around him/her compared to the TTRPG? And finally, why do you believe that the alignment system has been oriented away from a tool of role-play?
As always, I enjoy reading all the comments in relation to this subject as it further educates me.