@Decius who talked about building such a settlement? Go back and look at what I proposed how is that for an idea? It is on page one of this thread. It keeps the alignement idea but puts the decisions in the hands of the settlement players as to what they want to do.
The alignements of members dictate what buildings they can use and if settlement members then wish to expel people it is a player decision. A meaningful player interaction in fact rather than kick by automated system
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...People play mmo's to be part of something with their friends. If you are going to prevent them from being part of the same settlements as their friends you had better have a pretty convincing advantage to it.
The only one preventing a player from being part of the same settlement is the player himself. If the player wants to be part of an LG settlement then that player has to use a little self control. If they don't it isn't anyone else causing the known consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats
IC = L vs C, G vs E
OOC = Reputation
I am not arguing against alignment that is a social or ideological difference that is role played in character. I'm arguing that there should be no negative game mechanics associated with playing within the role of your alignment.
I also don't have a problem with certain, select skills being tied to one of the alignment axis. These should be few and found in the upper tiers of skill training.
I have a problem with players being forced to do activities that they normally would not do, just to maintain and alignment for mechanical reasons. That to me is not meaningful role playing, it is articifial conformity to a system to avoid arbitrary penalties.
What could be the reasonable justification as to why a true neutral character can not be a citizen in a LG or CN settlement? But, within the same system a LG and a LE company can belong to the same settlement?
It defies all logic.
No the thing preventing him is a stupid system. There is a reason carrots always work better than sticks. Using a flawed system to trigger those sticks just makes things worse.
Why do you insist on wittering on about lg settlements this has nothing to do with lawful good settlements it applies to all settlements of any alignement even Chaotic evil ones.
Frankly though how anyone can actually envisage a large settlement that is not lawful something though in itself is risible.
Alignement is a poor system that won't work as you think it will
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No the thing preventing him is a stupid system.
No, the player has responsibility for his behavior within a known environment.
If everyone in your settlement is going to St. Ive's but you decide to drive on the wrong side of the road the consequences belong to you, not the road.
There is absolutely no need for the system to exclude him from a settlement with his friends. Therefore it is a stupid system.
There are no advantages to a system which automatically exclude that are not better met by a player driven choice system of exclusion therefore it is a stupid system.
You in all your wisdom have yet to show me one advantage from this system that couldn't be achieved without the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are not the only one whose benefit defines 'advantage'.
And would I were wise.
Advantage can accrue to the game dynamic as well as to individuals. I believe just about everyone who has been reading here understands that some of us do not want to have to deal with regulatory mechanisms that affect our influence on the game, but regulation that promotes structure and consequence is an advantage.
The alignement system would be to my advantage actually as I am not likely to be doing much player killing.
The alignement system does deter meaningful pvp whilst at the same time doing nothing to curb meaningless pvp
The alignement system does not promote structure in any reasonable way it promotes the production of totally unrealistic homogenous communities
The regulation mechanism is deeply flawed and will be most likely to drive off the players you want to keep because they are the ones who are the people wishing to play with their friends to build things. Those hear just to have a laugh and pwn noobz are not going to be that interested in building settlements
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
None of us knows how everything works in the game, or what affects what. We do not have a clear grasp of how alignment consequences integrate into the whole except in very broad and sketchy stokes.
We do know that for some reason the developer has this regulatory system designed and is sure enough about it that they revealed it to us rather early on.
It is one thing to protest, as you have, and that is fine. However to pronounce the judgment that it is a stupid system is to form a judgment based on ignorance. Would it not be more accurate to say you fail to see reason for it than to pronounce it stupid?
You have no more information than I have whether such a system has good reason, but the designer has, and the designer is sure enough to reveal it as a system that will be present.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The alignement system would be to my advantage actually as I am not likely to be doing much player killing.
The alignement system does deter meaningful pvp whilst at the same time doing nothing to curb meaningless pvp
The alignement system does not promote structure in any reasonable way it promotes the production of totally unrealistic homogenous communities
The regulation mechanism is deeply flawed and will be most likely to drive off the players you want to keep because they are the ones who are the people wishing to play with their friends to build things. Those hear just to have a laugh and pwn noobz are not going to be that interested in building settlements
The alignment system on its own, perhaps. Add to that reputation, flags, player crafted equipment, training is done in settlements and possibly other mechanics GW has in mind and I think you have plenty of incentive to play "nice". I honestly think that it will be harder to do "bad" PvP in this game than many others. In order to do most anything it seems organization is required.
If enough gankers group up and create their own CE settlement and economy then they could indulge in their activities but if they go through all that trouble then the game mechanics have actually steered them towards city building, crafting&gathering and cooperation. Now they have a developed settlement they probably don't want to lose, an economy they need to keep up and they will be playing essentially as a warlike tribe of raiders... which is way better than what you get in most game and could actually provide meaningful interactions with their neighboring settlements.
This is what I hope for, come EE we'll see if it plays out like this (or you'll see, I was too late for Kickstarter) X(
I am basing it on the system as so far described. This is crowdforging and we are led to believe that things are not set in stone. I use the term stupid both because I genuinely think it is deeply flawed but also as a form of verbal punctuation to convey the depth of that conviction.
Where you are correct is to say the developers are able to implement any system which they wish. Until those systems are set in stone, and I do not believe this one on the eviction from settlements is as yet, then I am free to argue the case as are you.
As I have already indicated I do not mind trying to forge a game I wish to play. If the game turns into something I do not wish to play then I will simply not play it and have lost nothing by trying.
As to saying we do not have enough information to base a judgement off sorry I do not agree. I am quite ready to refine my judgement if they give further information but it is not unreasonable to make interim judgements on data so far
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment will create meaningful choices and forcing the player base to split has interesting emergent developments.
This out of everything here embodies what I also believe. Alignment is not a way of controlling characters, it is a way of describing them, and always will be. In terms of MMO tech, this is trivial for the system to handle.
Actions have consequences.
@Carbon
Actions also have motivations
Alignement is a product of both
Inaction also have consequences but the people arguing for alignement dont want those to apply and inaction could also be coded for.
@Wurner there are already two large open settlements that plan to provide training to all comers that I am aware of. Chaotic evil characters will have no problem getting trained.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I am quite ready to refine my judgement if they give further information but it is not unreasonable to make interim judgements on data so far
It is merely inaccurate and the pejorative is unnecessary. I believe it is unreasonable to form a judgment of a complex system before it is understood. It would be reasonable to identify your skepticism about what we know so far, but forming any judgment from a state of unknowing is exactly prejudice, by definition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Wurner there are already two large open settlements that plan to provide training to all comers that I am aware of. Chaotic evil characters will have no problem getting trained.
If that is what they intend to do and not block out players who have reached bottom reputation then I can't see that they will attract or retain enough "decent" players to ever grow influential. Who wants to aid the people that are ruining the game experience?
Perhaps the settlements you are thinking of will allow players of any alignment to enter but not any reputation? This is why I mean that when all of the systems are taken together and not looked at in isolation, a picture of a good system starts to emerge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is merely inaccurate and the pejorative is unnecessary. I believe it is unreasonable to form a judgment of a complex system before it is understood. It would be reasonable to identify your skepticism about what we know so far, but forming any judgment from a state of unknowing is exactly prejudice, by definition.
Frankly you are doing what Deacon accused you of here attacking the poster.
The implication being I assert something is stupid is from an ill informed prejudiced state
You have all the way through asserted the system is good, I take it you are admitting this is from an ill informed and prejudiced state? No? Thought not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Wurner there are already two large open settlements that plan to provide training to all comers that I am aware of. Chaotic evil characters will have no problem getting trained.
I've seen several groups assert a desire to do that, but I'll be surprised if that actually happens. Setting aside the subject of reputation that Wurner has already mentioned, training facilities have a finite number of training slots that refresh over realtime. A settlement that wishes to provide adequate training to its members will have to limit the training available to others, either by reducing the pool of folks who can use it through restrictions, or by raising the price to reduce then number of people willing to pay for it (as well as increasing their own revenue).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats
IC = L vs C, G vs E
OOC = Reputation
I am not arguing against alignment that is a social or ideological difference that is role played in character. I'm arguing that there should be no negative game mechanics associated with playing within the role of your alignment.
I also don't have a problem with certain, select skills being tied to one of the alignment axis. These should be few and found in the upper tiers of skill training.
I have a problem with players being forced to do activities that they normally would not do, just to maintain and alignment for mechanical reasons. That to me is not meaningful role playing, it is articifial conformity to a system to avoid arbitrary penalties.
What could be the reasonable justification as to why a true neutral character can not be a citizen in a LG or CN settlement? But, within the same system a LG and a LE company can belong to the same settlement?
It defies all logic.
Well met! Though Reputation has the price of "living up to it" so we shall have to see. ;)
Another way to look at L-C axis where a lot of the flags are tracking pvp activity, is it's like a stamina system for combat only attenuated out on a larger time-frame and refresh rate depending on what sort of pvp encounters you "click" and influencing your settlement/grouping options and some skill options instead of clonk-time in a given combat encounter to contrast the two. Mechanically that's a good way to see it I think? I'm not sure there is anything you can do to hasten it back towards Lawful other than not get involved in pvp and in particular pvp that has the costliest flags associated with it. That seems to be the general theme of it? I know there are some penance quests, but that's more for G-E, I believe?
In terms of which alignments can mingle in the same settlements: It's a product of the above^: The level of refresh on your pvp history (ie analogous to combat stamina refreshing and what you a player might have used various expensive skills - some refresh it slower as their cost, others more absolute cost but no effect on rate of refill). So maybe that analogy helps when applied to Alignment, playing with that idea, perhaps?
I could be talking out of my backside and have it all wrong, but that's how I the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've seen several groups assert a desire to do that, but I'll be surprised if that actually happens. Setting aside the subject of reputation that Wurner has already mentioned, training facilities have a finite number of training slots that refresh over realtime. A settlement that wishes to provide adequate training to its members will have to limit the training available to others, either by reducing the pool of folks who can use it through restrictions, or by raising the price to reduce then number of people willing to pay for it (as well as increasing their own revenue).@Wurner there are already two large open settlements that plan to provide training to all comers that I am aware of. Chaotic evil characters will have no problem getting trained.
I also believe that while a settlement can train non-members if they choose regardless of alignment, that the people they train should affect settlement reputation. If you allow people with negative reputation free access to your settlement, it won't be long before your settlement gains a negative reputation as a hive of scum and villainy. And since it has been stated that reputation will have the most severe impact on development indexes, then they will by necessity have to deny training some people or they will be be stunting the growth of the entire settlement.
@Imbicatus
While open settlements may gain non mechanic (ie in the minds of other players) rep for being open to all I don't think I have seen a quote to indicate that interactions like trade and training of non members in anyway affects that. Not to say there isn't one mind just that none spring to mind
@Dario
Yes it is possible that it won't happen for the reasons you mention. All we currently know is it will be possible to train non members and that there may be a limit on training slots. Without knowing any ballpark figures on number of slots and refresh rates etc it is not really possible to speculate on whether it is a possibility or not. I would therefore rephrase that there are at least a couple of large settlements that plan to be as open as possible for non member interactions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is merely inaccurate and the pejorative is unnecessary. I believe it is unreasonable to form a judgment of a complex system before it is understood. It would be reasonable to identify your skepticism about what we know so far, but forming any judgment from a state of unknowing is exactly prejudice, by definition.Frankly you are doing what Deacon accused you of here attacking the poster.
The implication being I assert something is stupid is from an ill informed prejudiced state
You have all the way through asserted the system is good, I take it you are admitting this is from an ill informed and prejudiced state? No? Thought not.
Describing the case is not an attack.
It isn't attacking you to point out the risk of prejudice as a reason why it isn't proper to form a judgment from a state of unknowing. I certainly didn't have in mind to attack either you (or Deacon) whether you felt attacked or not.
from Dictionary.com:
(noun)
1. opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge
2. unreasonable, hostile attitudes regarding a group
(idioms)
1. without dismissing, damaging, or otherwise affecting a legal interest or demand
(transitive verb)
1. to affect with a prejudice
(emphasis mine)
Basically I don't have to attack you if you are patently wrong. It isn't a matter of opinion but fact.
I haven't asserted the system is good. I can see benefits to what little I understand of it. It would be as prejudiced of me to judge it good as it is for you to judge it stupid. I can however afford the developer the benefit of the doubt under the presumption that the developer knows more about how it is to work than I do.
I also can point out that you are calling something 'stupid' when you don't know enough about it to make a judgment like that. There are implications, sure, but those implications are suggested by the case rather than my mere opinion.
@Being
So would you care to explain why it is fine for you to have an opinion of the system, that being that the system is a wondrous boon for the gaming community
whereas if I have an opinion based upon the same info it suddenly becomes based on ill informed prejudice? That is an attack Being not to say hypocritical.
You have in fact clearly expressed in this thread and the other one that the system is good, so please do not try and pull the I am neutral card because you patently are not you are very much on the opposite side of the debate upon this
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also believe that while a settlement can train non-members if they choose regardless of alignment, that the people they train should affect settlement reputation. If you allow people with negative reputation free access to your settlement, it won't be long before your settlement gains a negative reputation as a hive of scum and villainy. And since it has been stated that reputation will have the most severe impact on development indexes, then they will by necessity have to deny training some people or they will be be stunting the growth of the entire settlement.I've seen several groups assert a desire to do that, but I'll be surprised if that actually happens. Setting aside the subject of reputation that Wurner has already mentioned, training facilities have a finite number of training slots that refresh over realtime. A settlement that wishes to provide adequate training to its members will have to limit the training available to others, either by reducing the pool of folks who can use it through restrictions, or by raising the price to reduce then number of people willing to pay for it (as well as increasing their own revenue).@Wurner there are already two large open settlements that plan to provide training to all comers that I am aware of. Chaotic evil characters will have no problem getting trained.
You hit the nail on the head: This is what I like about this basic system. There's many possible options for the devs to add more layers via the "big data" feedback to these basic ones.
In the blog:
Settlements may also be selective about permitting players with low reputations to join, since maintaining a high minimum settlement reputation is key to building several prestigious and useful structures.
There's already the member's reputation. I am not sure what the full restrictions on non-member training is (if there are any) but additionally the above suggestion is another interesting layer potentially, either way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Jiminy
Players belonging to different settlements in a chartered company and those settlements going to war is unlikely to happen.
Why would a settlement extend chartership to any company that has members of potential rivals in it? The only way multisettlement companies are likely to come about are if the settlements are part of the same nation
Or the settlement is weak or has some resource that is highly sought after and they have to quickly bolster their assets - such as mercenary companies.
Or the chartered company starts off as locals only, but over time these foreigners manage to infiltrate the company (by design or happenstance).
It will be rare, but I get you a set of goblin balls that it will happen.
@Avena one thing I dislike here is the name reputation....unfortunately there is the concept of metagame reputation and the mechanic reputation and it is easy to mix the two without meaning too.
@Jiminy frankly any settlement not ensuring the companies it sponsors remain settlement member only will be unlikely to survive, opinion I know but I suspect it will prove to be the case. Mercenaries don't have to be sponsored by the hiring settlement as I understand there will be mercenary contracts in play
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have not noticed, but may have missed it, but it seems to me that everybody has left out the circumstance call. For the greater good a LG paladin will work with say a CE necromancer. That is why I detest alignment in games, unless it's based upon your choices like in the Fallout games. Again if I missed it I'm sorry for bringing it back up.
I generally try to avoid Alignment discussions; they tend to generate a lot of passion, and I am oftentimes impolitic.
However, I think the misunderstanding at the heart of the quote above is the same misunderstanding at the heart of the OP.
You work together with people of opposing Alignments.
Off-screen: So, what about Lawful Good and I hang out with a Chaotic Evil character? How does that work?
Kaesh831: So, will alignment restrict my ability to play with other people in the world?
Stephen Cheney: So, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil characters - there's nothing stopping you from being in the same party. You won't be able to join into the same official group because those are usually restricted to one alignment step. It's possible you could both be a member of a kingdom by a transitive property, but that'd be really hard to do, and I'm actually not sure how you'd do it. But you can be in the same party.
And, the important thing about that is that you would be really poorly off if you're the Lawful Good guy, because the Chaotic Evil guy has many less restrictions on his behavior than you, so he could embroil you in fights that cause you to lose alignment. Conversely, however, if you're running around and there are a bunch of Lawful Good knights running around that you've got your alliance rating with really high for them, the Chaotic Evil guy might get attacked by them and you wouldn't be. And vice versa for his factions that he's got on his Chaotic Evil character. So, that could wind up ruining the alliances you have, or you could just stand there and watch your buddy get beat up because you don't want to ruin your alliance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
So would you care to explain why it is fine for you to have an opinion of the system, that being that the system is a wondrous boon for the gaming communitywhereas if I have an opinion based upon the same info it suddenly becomes based on ill informed prejudice? That is an attack Being not to say hypocritical.
An opinion differs in nature from a judgment. To form an opinion of a thing as questionable or promising is quite different from pronouncing it good or stupid. I see promise in it. You are skeptical, and those are well and good. To pass judgment that it is stupid is a judgment. Do you disagree?
You have in fact clearly expressed in this thread and the other one that the system is good, so please do not try and pull the I am neutral card because you patently are not you are very much on the opposite side of the debate upon this
You may be right: I haven't checked. Where did I pass a judgment please?
@Being
A judgement is an opinion it is not a statement of fact. To try and pretend I am presenting it as fact while you are merely presenting opinion if sophistry and frankly juvenile.
I frankly see little further point engaging on this topic with you if you are going to descend to semantic word games like this to try and smear your opponent while trying to be all squeaky clean yourself.
I would certainly not have claimed nor have I ever claimed an assertion that a particular system is good, worse etc is someone stating a fact because it is patently not the case no more than someone asserting [insert singer of choice] is the greatest singer of all time is a statement of fact rather than opinion.
Quote from wikipedia as you are fond of them
Judgement (or judgment[1]) is the evaluation of evidence to make a decision.
The term has four distinct uses:
Informal - Opinions expressed as facts.
Informal and psychological – used in reference to the quality of cognitive faculties and adjudicational capabilities of particular individuals, typically called wisdom or discernment.
Legal – used in the context of legal trial, to refer to a final finding, statement, or ruling, based on a considered weighing of evidence, called "adjudication". See spelling note for further explanation.
Religious – used in the concept of salvation to refer to the adjudication of God in determining Heaven or Hell for each and all human beings.
Please note the bolded one and then look at where we are talking I think informal about sums it up really
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
A judgement is an opinion it is not a statement of fact. To try and pretend I am presenting it as fact while you are merely presenting opinion if sophistry and frankly juvenile.
Your inclusion of juvenile is pretty funny, considering.
So I take it you failed to find an instance where I passed judgment from a state of unknowing, whereas you are attempting to wriggle out of the argument while accusing me of hypocrisy yet pointing at me as if I were trying to paint you in bad light because I can't think my way out of a paper bag.
It is you who has drawn your portrait of ZenPagan. It is Deacon who drew his. What either of you think of me is just another part of your burden.
@Being whatever you say I am here to debate idea's, once you are ready to engage with idea's rather than sneer at others with your ad hominems then all well and good till then I wish you well
@Being
You do seem to be a little standoffish. This thread is to discuss the aspect of alignment in PFO, not how others act or see it. If I may make a suggestion, you (and everyone) should show how your views are different with hard examples. This way the thread stays on topic and doesn't devolve back into this character slandering game. I know you're not the only one doing this, but you are one of the most frequent posters doing so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Crimson: Worthy suggestions. That said I can understand why there is confusion, it's fleshing the concept still, so there's incomplete info which is interpreted differently, let alone any "hard egs" conveniently to hand beyond the blogs mostly.
At least the difference between this 'forum pvp' and pvp in game will be alignment and reputation (Now that took skill, eh?).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ZenPagan, I completely understand that you and your friends want to play PFO together. You probably want to play the same way you play in other online games.
So, you and your friends study the rules of the game and create your characters, but for some reason your friends choose alignments that make it difficult (or impossible) for you to interact with them the way you are used to.
I think that says more about your relationship with your friends than it dose the value of the mechanics of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting back to the Thread Topic:
One solution I can think of, for the problem I have with the alignment system is as follows:
Instead of the one-step diagonal counting as two-steps, let that count as one.
Using th 9 Alignment Chart:
A TN settlement would be open to all 9 alignments. I hope that does not make too much sense?
However, the draw back is that this TN settlement can only train all skills up to 250, and only Neutral skills to 300. Making it a "Jack of all Trades, and a Master of only One".
The primarily Neutral settlements (ie NG and NE) will have access to 6 alignments.
NG = CG, NG, LG, CN, TN, LN Excluding all of the Evil alignments
NE = CE, NE, LE, CN, TN, LN Excluding all of the Good alignments.
These settlements can train there non primary skills to 275, and their primary skills (N, G or E) to 300.
The Extremes:
CG = CG, NG, TN, CN
CE = CE, NE, TN, CN
LG = LG, NG, TN, LN
LE = LE, NE, TN, LN
These settlements can train non primary skills to 290, and primary skills to 300.
By having the system this way, you eliminate the one-step issue of not making any sense. Example:
A Lawful Neutral settlement can have a citizenry that is LN, LE, LG???
Using my proposed system above, a LN settlement could included: LN, LE, NE, TN, NG, LG. Excluding only the Chaotics, Good or Evil.
@Harad
I forsee little difficulty for me actually the character I intend playing will be doing little player killing. I do care however about the game being worthwhile to play for all people.
A lot of people who do not think this is going to cause them problems will in my opinion however find out that they are wrong. How many times are people going to accept being mechanically kicked out of their circle of friends before they start to just decide to go find another game? There is a good reason why other games, despite it being arguably better for the game, do not divide friends.
My point is still you can keep alignement without having a mandated kick mechanic and leave it to player choice, one where the settlement decides to accept the consequence or decides they need to remove you. This to me is providing player interaction, player choice and player consequence.
Replacing it with a flawed mechanical system (again an opinion) which can result in mechanical kicking therefore takes away that interaction, choice and the ability to decide between consequences.
People seem to be hung up on assuming that I am going to be the one being kicked from my settlement. I am not I just believe it shouldn't be down to a game mechanic to say "Hey you can't help these folk you have gamed with for years build an empire but you can go help those people you don't know over there".
One of the things that brings new MMO's down faster than anything (again an opinion) is the vanishing friends list. This is one of the ooc reasons I oppose this because I think it will irritate people
IC reasons for believing the idea to be flawed are as said before, homogenous settlements should really be the exception, the monastery, the paladins chapter house, the druids commune and grove. Most large settlements should be a mix of people the lawful aligned and the neutral certainly should all be able to mix in a single township. Chaotic aligned frankly aren't really your urban type in my opinion.
I would like to think that in a true LG settlement a CG character would be allowed so long as they obey the laws whilst within said settlement. Again I detest alignment restrictions, but find them in this style of game a necessary evil. I just hope it doesn't cause discourse in between the forces of good, because evil cares not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since we are on the general topic of alignments, can anyone point me to a hard definition of or explain exactly what "one-step" alignment differences are?
Here's where I referenced the source documents when Ryan first posted about Settlements requiring their Members to be within one alignment step.
The settlement's alignment—characters must be within one alignment step* to join or remain a member of the settlement...
*An alignment step refers to the distance between any two alignments on the standard nine-space alignment grid, where all alignments are one step from true neutral.
From Alignment Steps:
Note that diagonal “steps” count as two steps.Can we get a clarification, please?
I was under the impression that Lawful Good would be considered two steps from True Neutral, until I read Ryan's statement to the contrary. But then I read the link he provided and it seems to be contradicting him.
If you skim over that thread, you'll see Ryan respond to this directly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to think that in a true LG settlement a CG character would be allowed so long as they obey the laws whilst within said settlement. Again I detest alignment restrictions, but find them in this style of game a necessary evil. I just hope it doesn't cause discourse in between the forces of good, because evil cares not.
Under the current system, a CG character would be allowed to enter, conduct business, and socialize in a LG settlement (unless he was prohibited for some other reason determined by the settlement). He would not be allowed to become a member of the settlement without either an alignment shift on his part, or on the settlement's.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Once again we get a contradiction. If True Neutral is one-step from all alignments, then that includes diagonals. Then it goes on and says diagonals are two steps.
When we have to ask for clarification on what should be black or white issues, then there is a problem with the source.
One step or two steps for diagonal, there is no room for a grey area in the answer. One step, including diagonal, resolves the issues I have with the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can someone explain the 1-step and 2-step thing "like I'm five years old" ?/dummy's guide request also! TU! It's been nagging me also. As far as I can tell: adjacent = 1-step which applies to TN/NN so that gets NSEW compared to corners = 2 ; middle/edge = 3 ; TN/NN = 4. Is that right?!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Once again we get a contradiction. If True Neutral is one-step from all alignments, then that includes diagonals. Then it goes on and says diagonals are two steps.
When we have to ask for clarification on what should be black or white issues, then there is a problem with the source.
One step or two steps for diagonal, there is no room for a grey area in the answer. One step, including diagonal, resolves the issues I have with the system.
Ryan answered that, though, on the same page as Nihimon's linked post:
I think the issue of Neutral being 1-step away from all alignments is the error.
Otherwise, all the big successful Settlements will be Neutral, and anyone who proposes starting a Settlement that isn't Neutral will face a huge uphill battle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you read the first paragraph at the link in the quote, and look at the chart there, it should be clear.
Alignment Steps
Occasionally the rules refer to “steps” when dealing with alignment. In this case, “steps” refers to the number of alignment shifts between the two alignments, as shown on the following diagram. Note that diagonal “steps” count as two steps. For example, a lawful neutral character is one step away from a lawful good alignment, and three steps away from a chaotic evil alignment. A cleric's alignment must be within one step of the alignment of her deity.
I can't include the chart in a readable format, so I didn't include it at all.