Goblin Squad Member
|
Good work on alignment drift.
I believe, since you can pick your core alignment and since you automatically drift back to that alignment, that penalties for breaking alignment should be harsher and unknowable to stop people trying to game the system. Anyone can make a mistake. Make two mistakes and you may start drifting, 3 or more and you should be well on your way to a long wait back to core alignment. 500 points a mistake just seems a lot of leeway when you have 5000 per category, especially when you can even change your core alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the purpose of settlement membership, is the "one step" counted as your core alignment or your current active alignment? For example, if Deianira's core alignment is CG and she joins an NG settlement (one step) will she lose her settlement membership if her active alignment drifts to CN (two steps)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I definitely agree. I have no issue with elements of chance or faith to turn the tide.Sure, that sort of thing will always be gamed to some extent, but it would be nice if even the people gaming it had to rely on pretty fuzzy estimates.@Kakafika: Yeah, it should also be hard for players to calculate just how much things are affecting their alignment. I don't want people going, "Okay, so at the currently recovery rate, if I do these three actions, I can murder someone every 38 minutes without loosing my alignment."I hate to say it but weather they have it set or not, or even make the numbers known or not, there will ALWAYS be people who make it their life to "figure out the numbers" and min/max the game. Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree with you and would like to see that sort of thing minimized, but it will be there.Even something with an element of chance that you don't explicitly know the details of can be gamed. First you gather a decent statistical sample to get a rough feel. Then you analyse that in order to get rough estimates of how things work. Then play with numbers to see how much you can safely game it before you really have to worry about the random elements affecting you.
It just takes longer to figure out how to game the system when there's randomness.
If somebody is willing to go to that much trouble for an estimate (and they will be), then I say "Have fun." I'll just play my character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here‘s an idea. What if every time you did an “evil“ thing, the penalty got worse? So the alignment hit for murdering someone would be 500 + 50*the number of people killed in the past month.
Of course, you may have to reverse it with extremely large numbers. While there‘s a large difference between 3 and 4 murders, there‘s not much between 900 and 901. It just ends up as another body on the side of the road.
and monks who abandon their lives of discipline and community should likewise suffer the loss of special abilities arising from their devotion to a philosophy greater than themselves.
Not that GW can't go this way with PFO, but to be clear, in the tabletop this dynamic does NOT apply to Monks. What tabletop says is: So a Monk can become Chaotic ('multiclassing' into Barbarian, etc) and continue using all their Monk abilities, but cannot progress them unless they are Lawful. This is in contrast to Barbarian Rage, which you cannot do if you have a Lawful Alignment (although other Barbarian Class Features besides Rage will still work).
While your character's core alignment determines which alignment-restricted skills he or she can train, the character's current active alignment determines which alignment-specific feats or abilities can be slotted. For example, a paladin can train her smite evil ability at any time based on her lawful good core alignment, but if her active alignment is currently neutral because she killed characters without justification, she won't be able to actually use her smite evil ability until her active alignment returns to good. Characters who spend a lot of time with their active alignment and core alignment out of sync may find it easier to change their core alignment to match the alignment they're actually demonstrating.
I like the general drift in terms of Active/Core Alignment being important for training/using Aligned abilities, but I think the specific here could be implemented differently. For the Monk, they should be able to USE any (or most) Monk abilities regardless of their Active Alignment, but they should need a Lawful Active Alignment in order to further train Monk abilities. Likewise, Paladins SHOULD need Lawful Good Active Alignment in order to train Paladin abilities, as well as to use them. IMHO, if you are not of the appropriate Alignment (Active + Core), you should not be training Aligned Class Abilities, Atonement should be your sole concern re: those Classes. Barbarians should need both to be non-Lawful for both training and using any Rage-centric abilities.
Of course, in the mean time there is certainly non-Aligned abilities (from Fighter or general trainers) that you could train in and improve your character... And if you have to spend a bit of time 'Atoning' in actual deeds, it sounds like you will be able to 'cash in' your increased character level with a trainer at a later point (once your alignment is compatable), which hardly seems like any sort of imposition if you wouldn't be able to use those abilities anyways until your alignment is compatable (per the Blog). Even if GW wants to go with a harsher ruling on things like Monk abilities than tabletop, I think it is just more straightforward to require compatable Active Alignment to train, allowing training but not usage just seems pointless and conflicting with fluff. If class abilities aren't forced to be gained instantly at level up, rather there is a delay before going to a trainer, there is no real problem with getting your Alignment 'fixed' and then training at which time you will also be able to use the training.
There's probably room for a few additional mechanics to 'care' about Core Alignment in lieu of/in addition to Active Alignment, besides just those mentioned. Maybe a higher-Rank version of Detect Alignment would also show Core Alignment? (and maybe even some measure of 'Alignment Churn'/Alignment History )
Will it be possible for the unlawful paladin to convert to an anti-paladin?Remember there are no "classes" in PFO. When classes are mentioned, they are used in reference to a path of skills and feats following that archetype...
Sure, but I think the substance of his question still stands: Would 'Paladin Abilities' be able to be switched/converted to 'Anti-Paladin Abilities' if you become CE? This doesn't even have to be a 100% conversion (which would piss off the old-school Anti-Paladins who didn't just convert once it got cool), it could be giving you partial credit for Paladin Abilities. Of course, the real tabletop lore basis for this idea is a LG Paladin turning LE and becoming a Blackguard (which converts Paladin abilities into Blackguard ones). I think the Paladin->Blackguard conversion has more of a basis than a Paladin->Anti-Paladin conversion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Pryllin
@Golnor
As pointed out by kakafika
the "I Shot A Man In Reno Just To Watch Him Die" post they talk about reputation and alignment scaling with the difference between people.
So if we figure 500 Loss on the Good/Evil axis as a base-line that number will increase or decrease depending on who you kill.
(random Numbers) Say you kill someone who is at -7500 obscenely evil yet with no flag allowing you to kill him with no penalty, then you may lose perhaps 10-50 points.
Or
If say you kill someone with 7500 obscenely good again with no flag allowing you to kill him with no penalty, you may instead lose something like 2500 or 5000 points.
Again those numbers are pulled out of no where but to give the concept for scaling penalty for the difference of alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Deianira, and @Bluddwolf, I would think the Settlement would necessarily have to be looking at your Active Alignment.
That's my hope, as otherwise it's ripe for gaming the system - set your core alignment to match the settlement and then you're good to go regardless of your subsequent actions - but wanted a clarification.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The settlement looking at your active alignment makes sense, as there would be a large number of population adjustments to the roster for a settlement based on current alignment.
And I like that there are consequences for killing non-hostile NPCs and civilians. That is a pretty big deal, as most games use NPCs as decorations and little else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that having characters automatically drift towards their Core Alignment is an excellent solution to a lot of problems that have been brought up.
The fact that once you reached an alignment you want or set it in the beginning and the fact that you can choose to change your core alignment rather than have to once you deviated too much seems like a problem to me. This may be the EvE player talking but in a sandbox the solution to keeping or restoring the status quo should never be "not do anything for a while".
Your core alignment value is set in the center of each of these ranges. ...Over time, your active alignment's values drift back toward your core alignment "target" values. Not only does your alignment recover from deviations, but it's also hard to keep your alignment "maxed out" for long.
Is there any mechanical effect of having an alignment "maxed out"? Otherwise, the only benefit I see is that people who keep their alignment relatively "maxed out", i.e. they are continually acting strongly in conformance with their alignment, have a larger allowance of "wrong acts" before they get shifted to another alignment... vs. somebody whose alignment never goes further than the 'midpoint' of their Core Alignment (Neutral's midpoint being it's apex, but that's it's unique attribute). That seems an admirable goal, but I think it be addressed other ways...
IMHO, alignment drift should never drift further than it needs to to place you in the same Alignment category as your Core Alignment, i.e. one wrong action and you are out of that alignment again (although you would drift back slowly, of course). That means that if your Core Alignment is Neutral in some part, that depending on from which alignment direction you are drifting from (Good/Evil, Law/Chaos) will determine where your drift ends (at the Good/Evil, Law/Chaos 'edge' within what counts as Neutral). This in effect is even stronger of a distinguisher between those depending on alignment drift to reach their Core Alignment, vs. those who are "maxed out" in their alignment, vs those who are in the middle of their alignment but not totally maxed out.
I think the best approach might be combining the approaches: if alignment drift will cause your Active Alignment to shift categories to the same one as your Core Alignment (or likewise for a specific alignment axis as component of your Core Alignment), then the drift stops as soon as your Active Alignment 'crosses the line' into that new Alignment. For the 'extreme alignment axes (not Neutral), if your Active Alignment goes beyond the mid-point of the alignment, then drift will slowly take you back to the mid-point of it (assuming no new actions pushing you to the extreme). That prevents people from staying at extremes for long periods of time without 'defending' that position by their actions, but isn't giving people who grossly violate their alignment enough to actually shift alignments a 'free ride' back to the mid-point, they will be 'on probation' with a rating just barely inside their Core Alignment... As is, a LG character could remain LG by never taking LG actions, but mostly just taking Neutral actions (or actions that sum up to that) and rely on alignment drift to keep them well within LG. With this change, alignment drift will help them keep towards LG and even cross the line into LG, but ANY CE action will cause them to revert to Neutral (unless they actually do some LG actions to move further towards LG).
It seems like it would make sense to have an alignment drift 'cooldown', that for a certain period of time after commiting an act contrary to alignment, alignment drift is suspended. The only problem I see there is with Neutral alignments, but perhaps Neutral core alignments (/components) would be exempted from the cooldown? (making it relatively easier to maintain a Neutral alignment, but that seems plausible to me) ...And perhaps alignment drift should only 'kick in' when you are actually logged in and playing, not working 24/7 like skill training?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The blog looks good, I just have one suggestion, and another that builds off it:
{for the purposes of this post Lawful-Chaotic/Good-Evil}
Don't let core alignments start out at high values, the core alignments should start a true neutral, or low in the alignment. For example:
L/G: 3000/3000
TN: 0/0
C/G: -3000/3000
NE: 0/-3000
This gives you enough to make one bigger mistake, and clean it up easily. Also you can have alignment specific skills that require a higher shift, and people can't automatically use them. For instance, the starting paladin skills would require 3000 good, but once you move past the first tier, they require a higher good alignment.
The idea is that you can't passively work towards a level you haven't already reached.
Idea 2:
Players should set 2 things: their Core, and Target alignments. The core would automatically set its self towards the target as you shift your active alignment.
So if you are at 4000/4000 Core and Active and your Target is 6500/5000, and you commit a good act that gives you 500 points, setting your active to 4000/4500, your core is automatically shifted to 4000/4500.
OK, one more idea:
Don't allow Core Alignments to go past a certain limit, so if you want skills that require a high level of 'good' you need to 'keep up the good work' I'm thinking maybe the |6000-7500| range.
I want characters to be forced to continue acting in their alignment, it shouldn't be "Do 50 good things and you are set". It shouldn't be a 'grind' the whole way, but the top alignments should require dedication and some upkeep. Nothing more than an hour a week to stay steady.
OK another idea:
Doing evil things as good(past a threshold) should give a high shift.
Doing evil things as evil(past a threshold) should give a small shift.
Being -7500 evil, should be just as prestigious for opposite reasons than being 7500 good, You shouldn't be able to shift evil easier, because the alignment system is being used as a pvp penalty. Once you hit -4000 evil, those shifts should get smaller for killing people without justification. And helping the innocent should get you on the fast track out of evil. This also makes TN a good juggling act, you have to balance your actions, you can't just say you are TN but only do LG things, and still shift TN, you have to take some chaotic with you law, and evil with your good.
Out of all this, the main idea, is quick to get to the low scores of the alignments, and slow to hit the high magnitudes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Brilliant mechanics! I like the solution of drifting towards your core alignment - a great blog overall
However, I also have some questions regarding Settlements:
1) Can we confirm that the "active" alignment will be regarded towards the Settlement alignment?
2) How will the Settlement alignment be enforced? I mean, will NPC guards automatically attack/chase (?) non-compatible alignments or the PC settlement owners must first cast a spell to detect alignment and then take actions? (Or there will simply be a message "you cannot enter/join this Settlement" and an invisible wall?)
3) Personally, I'm not sure about this "1-step" enforcement. It will mean that there cannot be much alignment deviation among guild members if they want to establish a settlement and all-members participate :(
2) How will the Settlement alignment be enforced? I mean, will NPC guards automatically attack/chase (?) non-compatible alignments
Alignment re: Settlements and PCs is in the context of joining as a member of a Settlement. Possibly also re: Charted Companies chartering under a Settlement. Settlements can allow anybody they want to enter their territory: UNLESS they pass a law barring a specific character or group of characters (e.g. by nationality/settlement), then those characters are not Trespassers. GW has been clear that allowing broad groups of people to enter your territory should be the norm for Settlements wanting to be successfull in commercial terms. It's also clear that Alignment is not normally 'visible' and thus actionable, so I doubt it will be a default means to exclude people from your Settlement, although if you have the magical means it seems reasonable to extent Detect Alignment capability to NPC guards.
About the one-step rule, I'm still not sure about the issue of 'diagonal' alignments. Allowing diagonals to count as one step allows for broader Settlements (especially TN settlment allowing everybody as members), but it also seems like it has less 'strangely harsh' exclusions, like a NG settlement kicking out LG/CG members who stray to N but not NG members who similarly stray to N. Perhaps the solution is not imposing a single simplistic rule, but allowing selectable rules of membership re: alignment, which may vary their 'rules' based on the settlement alignment (e.g. TN vs. edge N's vs. corner alignments) and which may allow the settlement select one direction to favor at the expense of others...? Possibly this choice could even have impact on the status of the Settlement, e.g. a more restrictive choice could grant higher benefits/capabilities/options for alignment-specific things. A TN Settlement open to everybody might have less (/less powerful) 'True Neutral' specific settlement options/bonuses, than a TN Settlement which requires all members to have at least one axis in Neutrality at all times.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I like about this is that good character's just can't go around killing people when they have a bad day, well they can but then they will no longer be good. I think it's a fantastic improvement from other mmos.
Neither can evil characters, since you lose not only goodness but also reputation which hopefully will be an attribute you want to keep as high as possible. I too think it could be great.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Great Blog. I definately like this alignment system better than the old one.
That being said Im still worried about lack of training due to unpopular alignments. Maybe between this blog and the settlement indexes a dev could clarify something for me. I know certain indeces and good reputation will be required for training certain classes.
What I dont know is if every archetype class will also require specific alignment or if that only applies to classes like Paladin? Put another way, will a settlement have to be chaotic to offer rogue training or just have to have good civilization index?
Rogue's have no alignment restrictions in Pathfinder. It's the Pally at LG, the Monk at any Lawful, the Barbarian at any non lawful, Druid at any Nuetral and Cleric must stay in line with chosen deity.
The other is assassin, but it looks like that will be a flag instead of a prestige class.
I have a couple thoughts on this blog. First, I'm still not sure how you become Good or Lawful. If I want to change my core alignment from NN to LN for instance, what do I have to do to drift towards Lawful so I can change my core? Since you don't drift towards those alignments how do you get there?
Second, I would suggest to my fellow crowdforgers not to get too mixed up with specifics like indexes and how quickly the shifts are. This alignment deal is sure to change many times throughout beta and even after launch. No doubt in my mind tweaking this as it is play tested with larger and larger populations is part of the plan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your character also gains (or loses) alignment points and moves toward core alignment maximum when you activate a long-term PvP flag, such as Assassin, Champion, Enforcer, Outlaw, or Traveler. Spending time actively representing your core alignment tenets and standing ready to defend them is a good way to "live your beliefs."
This "live your beliefs" component, seems an interesting angle to look at.
Atm, the Core Alignment acts as the pivot around which the character's actions over long-term are hinged. And the Active acts as the latest update on that. Which is good.
This is sliding BETWEEN alignments (x-axis: +/-). I'm curious if "live your beliefs" could be y-axis per Alignment with only "+" direction ie proactively "live your beliefs" and that is wiped if you slide x-wise no matter how high it goes? Don't know if that measure could be utilised somehow**? IE truly living your Core Alignment there is positive representation (incentive even) of this?
** : Could be based on time spent in that alignment, which merely reflects how consistent the character has been?
=
The other question with Alignment and Settlements is that there are 9 Alignments: So how will Settlement distribution of Alignments end up? Why would someone have a CN Aligned Settlement as opposed to a CE Settlement? Would it be fair to assume a Bell Curve with extreme outliers of CE-LG and Neutral be the middle/peak for Settlement-Alignment representation of the player population? Or will Settlements basically turn from a smooth curve to:
LG (high) NN (high) CE (high) and all the other alignments more or less transitional and (low) representation? Though LE sounds like it will be a popular alignment and perhaps CE will be (low). But I don't see what "standing" the other Alignments serve, atm?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the solution to keeping or restoring the status quo should never be "not do anything for a while".I think the brilliance of "Core Alignment" is that it covers all the things you do "in character" that the game can't measure.
This, I think this is the whole concept behind the Core Alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea behind the core alignment, it settles the whole problem I've always had with alignments, being the intent behind the deed, not the deed itself.
What does disturb me however is the alignment restriction on a guild. It seems needlessly problematic. Me and my friends had discussed how our characters would interact. I want to be evil, some wants to be good and one guy wants to be neutral, because he is boring that way. All in all we could think of multiple ways the lot could fit in a group together and we are good to go!
Except now 70% of my friends an I are bared from each other by our sheer alignment. I am not completely against the idea, but I think it should be something up to the ruler of that specific city.
Take Star wars for example. In the old republic, lightside users are actively hunted down and killed by Sith for their heretical ways. But in the legacy era, darth krayt, the current lord of the Sith allied himself with the Jedi order, embracing the fact that good, evil, none of it mattered as long as the galaxy is his, he doesn't care about his soldiers personal believes.
Likewise isn't Sarenrae all about forgiveness? Wouldn't it make sense for a City devoted to her to embrace people of all alignment, to guide, aid and offer redemption where they can?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What does disturb me however is the alignment restriction on a guild. It seems needlessly problematic. Me and my friends had discussed how our characters would interact. I want to be evil, some wants to be good and one guy wants to be neutral, because he is boring that way. All in all we could think of multiple ways the lot could fit in a group together and we are good to go!
Except now 70% of my friends an I are bared from each other by our sheer alignment. I am not completely against the idea, but I think it should be something up to the ruler of that specific city.
Lawful Nuetral will probably be the most popular alignment for settlements. Good-Evil spectrum covered, advantages of lawful settlements and True Neutrals accepted.
I'd also like to harp that I'm happy that this system will finally root out the Chaotic Good "posers". CG has always been the most misplayed alignment. People treat it like "I'm good but I have bad hair days". That's NOT Chaotic Good. Chaotic Good is the vigilante archetype and it inherently comes with the inability to conform to society's laws. The properly played CG is shunned by society and lives with the consequences of that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Say if we run an evil, war like organisation. No one can roleplay as a good guy spying on us, or a misguided Knight who has joined us but doesn't agree with our stance. So many options are removed automatically.This limits roleplay, it doesn't improve it.
(edited for clarity)
I think this blog, by introducing core and apparent alignments, actually solves those problems in a very clever way.
If it works like most seem to believe, that the apparent alignment decides what settlements you can and can't join, the good guy can join you if he is apparently evil. He will constantly have to keep up this facade by performing evil deeds because his apparent alignment will slowly drift towards his core alignment. This is just like undercover cops working in criminal gangs in the movies!
Likewise, the misguided knight, by associating and playing with the evil guys will take part in actions that drive his apparent alignment towards evil, thus letting him be a part of the settlement even though his core alignment is not compatible.
I think that situation will provide for great RP!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something that I think a lot of people raging over being separated from their friends are missing. You can still be in an organization with your friends. A kingdom comprised of three settlements can include the entire alignment grid. All the current system says is that people of significantly divergent alignments cannot live elbow to elbow with each other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention your guild is outside the game as much as or more than in it. You are a large guild so your guild has two settlements. They are of different alignments. The can coordinate their efforts, they simply are of the alignments that best cover the interests of your members.
Should be no big deal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Something that I think a lot of people raging over being separated from their friends are missing. You can still be in an organization with your friends. A kingdom comprised of three settlements can include the entire alignment grid. All the current system says is that people of significantly divergent alignments cannot live elbow to elbow with each other.
+1
It's actually an easier and more fruitful work around than having light side/dark side mirrors of the same guild or worse yet; Horde/Alliance guilds on different servers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is what I mean, peoples first concern will be more about maximum grid coverage rather than legitimate roleplay sense. Its going to be an OOC decision rather than an IC one.
As I said I will be running a large guild, moving one over from another game. My major concern now is how I am going to be able to get them all in without the game mechanics screwing us over. So three settlements of the neutral tree seems the most efficient.
And again, you also cover another point. How some alignments are stupid and make no rational sense. Chaotic neutral or Chaotic Evil have often been described as the cheap alignments that allow plays to basically do anything without any real roleplay as their characters are basically insane.
Then there is the whole evil ruler argument, that if a...
Preaching to the choir my friend. My first day on theses MB's I called alignment "The curse of Gary Gygax". Any attempts to equate alignments to real people or even well rounded fictional characters is useless. It is a gaming system designed to enforce Role play back when Role play was a novel idea.
I have always hated it...until now.
Just like table top back in the 70's, online MMO play needs this implemented. It will not be perfect but it WILL integrate ROLE PLAY of good and evil into the game design. Using it as parameters for a settlement takes it one step further than the crude reputation/criminal flags of games past. Choosing good/evil for your settlement is just a more formalized with consequences way of choosing to be a gank or non gank guild.
Remember also we do not have all the info. Even when we do it will change over time and play testing. All Lawful kingdoms will probably have their own perks for example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Chaotic neutral and chaotic evil are not anything goes, the characters can still have goals and values, they are not necessarily madmen. The chaotic neutral resents law and organization, the chaotic evil does as well with the addition of enjoying stepping on other people to get to where they want. Plenty of opportunities for quality RP and decent behavior towards other players within those alignments.
Playing the game "badly" and OOC misbehavior will be ranked by reputation, not alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just like table top back in the 70's, online MMO play needs this implemented. It will not be perfect but it WILL integrate ROLE PLAY of good and evil into the game design. Using it as parameters for a settlement takes it one step further than the crude reputation/criminal flags of games past. Choosing good/evil for your settlement is just a more formalized with consequences way of choosing to be a gank or non gank guild.
I completely disagree with you. I think the alignment system support RP, but not guild wide. Quick example one of my friends wants to play a neutral merchant for our evil guild city... and now he can't. Why wouldn't a neutral party work for a admittedly evil organization, if they paid him handsomely for his services? And this suddenly applies to everyone! Merchants, cooks, even civilians must now all be evil to exist in this city. It doesn't make any sense story or RP wise what so ever.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just like table top back in the 70's, online MMO play needs this implemented. It will not be perfect but it WILL integrate ROLE PLAY of good and evil into the game design. Using it as parameters for a settlement takes it one step further than the crude reputation/criminal flags of games past. Choosing good/evil for your settlement is just a more formalized with consequences way of choosing to be a gank or non gank guild.I completely disagree with you. I think the alignment system support RP, but not guild wide. Quick example one of my friends wants to play a neutral merchant for our evil guild city... and now he can't. Why wouldn't a neutral party work for a admittedly evil organization, if they paid him handsomely for his services? And this suddenly applies to everyone! Merchants, cooks, even civilians must now all be evil to exist in this city. It doesn't make any sense story or RP wise what so ever.
This is not the case. If your settlement is LE you can have LN, LE, and NE Members. If it is NE you can have TN, LE, NE, and CE members. If your settlement is CE you can have NE, CE, and CN members. Neutral characters can join an Evil settlement, they just have to match up on the Law-Chaos axis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I completely disagree with you. I think the alignment system support RP, but not guild wide. Quick example one of my friends wants to play a neutral merchant for our evil guild city... and now he can't. Why wouldn't a neutral party work for a admittedly evil organization, if they paid him handsomely for his services? And this suddenly applies to everyone! Merchants, cooks, even civilians must now all be evil to exist in this city. It doesn't make any sense story or RP wise what so ever.
It takes a certain kind of neutral to actually be able to stay long term in an evil settlement. I actually agree with that from an RP perspective. There are options available. A lawful Neutral character can be in a Lawful evil settlement. A chaotic Neutral character can be in a chaotic evil settlement. Neutral evil and NN are compatible as well.
Again, please forget about the merchants and the cooks. This isn't about hyper realism in a game where players shoot fireballs from their bums. It's about forcing a player to play the alignment he wants the advantages of in an MMO environment.
I'm for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is not the case. If your settlement is LE you can have LN, LE, and NE Members. If it is NE you can have TN, LE, NE, and CE members. If your settlement is CE you can have NE, CE, and CN members. Neutral characters can join an Evil settlement, they just have to match up on the Law-Chaos axis.
To play off this a bit, if your settlement is Lawful Evil, your residents must either be lawful enough to obey all the rules so the guards don't kill/arrest/maim them, or evil enough to be able to get away with the rules they break.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just like table top back in the 70's, online MMO play needs this implemented. It will not be perfect but it WILL integrate ROLE PLAY of good and evil into the game design. Using it as parameters for a settlement takes it one step further than the crude reputation/criminal flags of games past. Choosing good/evil for your settlement is just a more formalized with consequences way of choosing to be a gank or non gank guild.I completely disagree with you. I think the alignment system support RP, but not guild wide. Quick example one of my friends wants to play a neutral merchant for our evil guild city... and now he can't. Why wouldn't a neutral party work for a admittedly evil organization, if they paid him handsomely for his services? And this suddenly applies to everyone! Merchants, cooks, even civilians must now all be evil to exist in this city. It doesn't make any sense story or RP wise what so ever.
Doing jobs for evil people would make your apparent aligment more evil. I believe there was mention of quest rewards affecting apparent reputation so here's a scenario: a neutral merchant sells goods to the evil settlement, thus aiding them in commiting their evil. The consequence is that the apparent alignment of the merchant turns towards evil. If the merchant persists in trading, his apparent alignment will turn sufficiently evil to allow settlement in the city. All the while, he is still neutral "in his heart"(core alignment).
Now I don't think trading with evil people should give bad alignment through game mechanics but you can do evil quests to maintain an apparently evil alignment and use imagination and RP to bridge the gap.
If you look at apparent alignment in this way then it is possible for good people to live in evil settlements and vice versa.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is not the case. If your settlement is LE you can have LN, LE, and NE Members. If it is NE you can have TN, LE, NE, and CE members. If your settlement is CE you can have NE, CE, and CN members. Neutral characters can join an Evil settlement, they just have to match up on the Law-Chaos axis.Just like table top back in the 70's, online MMO play needs this implemented. It will not be perfect but it WILL integrate ROLE PLAY of good and evil into the game design. Using it as parameters for a settlement takes it one step further than the crude reputation/criminal flags of games past. Choosing good/evil for your settlement is just a more formalized with consequences way of choosing to be a gank or non gank guild.I completely disagree with you. I think the alignment system support RP, but not guild wide. Quick example one of my friends wants to play a neutral merchant for our evil guild city... and now he can't. Why wouldn't a neutral party work for a admittedly evil organization, if they paid him handsomely for his services? And this suddenly applies to everyone! Merchants, cooks, even civilians must now all be evil to exist in this city. It doesn't make any sense story or RP wise what so ever.
But that still doesn't make any sense. So your really saying that there would be no chaotic individuals in a lawful settlement?
Not a single one? Because what? We live in a mostly lawful world and guess what there are chaotic individuals all over the place. This entire idea just seems to bland and stripping away the more interesting parts of the setting.My favourite Pathfinder game OF ALL TIME was one where me and my party was stranded in this settlement, with three main factions. The evil crime group, the lawful soldiers and the neutral barbarians. We had to get along to achive as much as possible, comprimises had to be made, fun philosophical debates and issues was raised and it made the world feel all the more alive... Now imagine it was just all lawful guards... The whole drama about the criminal underground is gone. The facinating and fun barbarians are gone. It is just the lawful guards.
And yes a dull and bland place like that could exist. But just what is it that keeps those other groups from existing side by side here? Tell me that in concept of the story and RP, not alignments or meta game concepts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry to be harsh, but you are clearly looking to complain and not spending much time actually pondering the system. The example you gave is perfectly achievable in PFO: 3 bickering settlements within one kingdom as I and others have already pointed out.
And once again I insist, don't try to make real world comparisons. This is Dungeons & Dragons (pathfinder whatever). This is Pulp fiction and the baker's alignment is high irrelevant. In this setting NPC's get the same treatment R.E. Howard gave entire countries Conan would pass by: whole civilizations summarized, labeled and discarded in 2 broad stroke sentences. The Heroes and villains are all that matters here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But that still doesn't make any sense. So your really saying that there would be no chaotic individuals in a lawful settlement?
Not a single one? Because what? We live in a mostly lawful world and guess what there are chaotic individuals all over the place. This entire idea just seems to bland and stripping away the more interesting parts of the setting.
I've said it before, and it bears repeating. Having lots of laws does not make a place lawful.
My favourite Pathfinder game OF ALL TIME was one where me and my party was stranded in this settlement, with three main factions. The evil crime group, the lawful soldiers and the neutral barbarians. We had to get along to achive as much as possible, comprimises had to be made, fun philosophical debates and issues was raised and it made the world feel all the more alive... Now...
Out of curiosity, how large was that settlement? Because I"m guessing it was larger than the size of settlements in PFO. Subdivision in a larger city is much more likely than in a small village or hamlet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Out of curiosity, how large was that settlement? Because I"m guessing it was larger than the size of settlements in PFO. Subdivision in a larger city is much more likely than in a small village or hamlet.
Pure semantics. The dynamic is what matters and the dynamic that he is looking for is in the design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An Evil Cook! How would that work................
Greed-o-vision:
Come right in hated customer. Take a seat. Whats that? Someone put tacks in your seat. Oh dont worry about that I just paralyzed your body. Now stay right there and Ill bring out a true cullinary abortion....... Ah youre still here (snickers). Now hold still while I put in this funnel down your throat, I wouldnt want the taste to accidentally trigger your upchuck response. Here let me forcefeed you this disgusting and depraved dish. Isnt it horrible. Good......... Excellent. Now my nomal price for that dish is 4 gold, but for you ill just take all your money. Lets see, 2700 gold, that sounds fair. Ok all thats left is to knock you over the head, throw your body in a dark alley, and wish you good luck. What? Oh yea, didnt I tell you? Your food has a lethal poison with delayed action.
A few months later:
(Sigh) whats wrong with me? Well my business went under. I just dont understand what went wrong. I strived to offer the best in absolute evil customer service,........... Yet for some reason, I never get repeat business. Truly mind boggling?????
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry to be harsh, but you are clearly looking to complain and not spending much time actually pondering the system. The example you gave is perfectly achievable in PFO: 3 bickering settlements within one kingdom as I and others have already pointed out.
And once again I insist, don't try to make real world comparisons. This is Dungeons & Dragons (pathfinder whatever). This is Pulp fiction and the baker's alignment is high irrelevant. In this setting NPC's get the same treatment R.E. Howard gave entire countries Conan would pass by: whole civilizations summarized, labeled and discarded in 2 broad stroke sentences. The Heroes and villains are all that matters here.
And the example I took was from Pathfinder? And I don't think I am being overly harsh, because even if we do what you suggest, I still have to build three settlements before it can be accomplished.
Even then what I mentioned was three oppesite alignment groups forced to coexist in one settlement.
Also I read all conan books and it was never that black and white. There was nearly always a good guy amongst the bad guys rank. Or how about the entire resistance movement against the opressive kingdom in the second book?
Again your using meta-game concepts as a argument which isn't what I asked for. You can tell me all day and night about the alignment tree, but that dosen't explain anything. You want a DnD example? Fine.
Never winter nights 2, when you go to the city of neverwinter, you literally meet people of all alignments. From Lawful good to chaotic evil. They all live in the same city. There has never been this restriction before in real life or in DnD. Never did I play a game of pathfinder and was suddenly stopped by the door, because of my alignment.
I see what you all are saying. But it is all such a clear made to game concepts and none of you have said how it works to compliment the setting and the story of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My favourite Pathfinder game OF ALL TIME was one where me and my party was stranded in this settlement, with three main factions. The evil crime group, the lawful soldiers and the neutral barbarians. We had to get along to achive as much as possible, comprimises had to be made, fun philosophical debates and issues was raised and it made the world feel all the more alive... Now...Out of curiosity, how large was that settlement? Because I"m guessing it was larger than the size of settlements in PFO. Subdivision in a larger city is much more likely than in a small village or hamlet.
No it was only six buildings all in all if I remember correctly. Regardless can't have been much more than that.
It was a outpost in wild lands, not a city.
An Evil Cook! How would that work................
Greed-o-vision:
Come right in hated customer. Take a seat. Whats that? Someone put tacks in your seat. Oh dont worry about that I just paralyzed your body. Now stay right there and Ill bring out a true cullinary abortion....... Ah youre still here (snickers). Now hold still while I put in this funnel down your throat, I wouldnt want the taste to accidentally trigger your upchuck response. Here let me forcefeed you this disgusting and depraved dish. Isnt it horrible. Good......... Excellent. Now my nomal price for that dish is 4 gold, but for you ill just take all your money. Lets see, 2700 gold, that sounds fair. Ok all thats left is to knock you over the head, throw your body in a dark alley, and wish you good luck. What? Oh yea, didnt I tell you? Your food has a lethal poison with delayed action.
A few months later:
(Sigh) whats wrong with me? Well my business went under. I just dont understand what went wrong. I strived to offer the best in absolute evil customer service,........... Yet for some reason, I never get repeat business. Truly mind boggling?????
Thank you for proving how stupid that sounds! And that is not meant to be sarcastic, I really do mean it. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pure semantics. The dynamic is what matters and the dynamic that he is looking for is in the design.
Out of curiosity, how large was that settlement? Because I"m guessing it was larger than the size of settlements in PFO. Subdivision in a larger city is much more likely than in a small village or hamlet.
It's actually not semantics, it's psychology. In a small town where everyone knows each other, deviation from the norm will result in individuals being ostracized. In a sufficiently large group, self-sufficient sub-units can form, or viewed another way, the number of excluded deviants becomes large enough to become a group of its own. In PFO, that takes place at the kingdom level, which can have multiple types of subgroups in the form of settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's actually not semantics, it's psychology. In a small town where everyone knows each other, deviation from the norm will result in individuals being ostracized. In a sufficiently large group, self-sufficient sub-units can form, or viewed another way, the number of excluded deviants becomes large enough to become a group of its own. In PFO, that takes place at the kingdom level, which can have multiple types of subgroups in the form of settlements.Pure semantics. The dynamic is what matters and the dynamic that he is looking for is in the design.
Out of curiosity, how large was that settlement? Because I"m guessing it was larger than the size of settlements in PFO. Subdivision in a larger city is much more likely than in a small village or hamlet.
No it dosen't. Again this settlement barely had six buildings. Yes everyone knew each other a lot more, and people could easily point out who did what. But the crime group rarely did anything to leave much evidence behind so the guards couldn't prove anything and by extention powerless to take action. Likewise the Barbarians had a vast different philosophical belif, but they weren't breaking any laws so the guards let them go about their businesses. They didn't just suddenly stop and say.
"Hey! your neutral! out with you, you damn neutral law abiding citizen!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is a difference between living in the borders of a community and being a member of the community. As it is, unless you set trespasser laws, Anyone can walk into any settlement and trade or use it's resources depending on the amount of restriction you place on non-members using them. Being a member is being a citizen. It has obligations, and it has requirements. In NWN2, how many of the CE characters would be considered desirable members of the community? None. They were tolerated as long as they didn't do anything that broke enough laws for them to be killed for doing it. If you decided to remove them, the no one else would really care.
Being a member of a settlement, means no only to you live there, but you are liked. You fit in with the majority of the people there, and they look out for you by giving you discounts and perks that aren't available to those who are just passing though.