This is not really applicable though . Chaotic evil settlements may well suck but there is nothing to stop them training elsewhere. Indeed I fully expect people to run CE alts to do the combat to get round alignement restrictions. I am sure there main chars settlement will be inclined to train the alts
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, Ryan had clarified the issue over CE being "gimped". It is not so much that CE will be limited in its ability to function within settlements or that a CE would have a hard time training.
It is if you combine CE + Low Reputation, that is when you would find yourself severely gimped.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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 the 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.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I would push for 'corner' aligned settlements to have four possible member alignments (and three alignment-specific types of things: One law-chaos, one good-evil, and one corner specific), 'edge' aligned settlements to have six member alignments (but only one alignment-specific set of benefits), and neutral settlements to have five member alignments and no alignment bonuses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To me its a great system as it covers intent. My intention is to be a CN bandit. And while Im certain Ill never have any problems maintaining chaos (breakin the law breakin the law!). My intent on G vs E is to be N for the simple fact I will be following the money. So good or evil never really comes into it so much. So my Core will be CN, but my active might shift from time to time to CG or CE, by virtue of my actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the brilliance of "Core Alignment" is that it covers all the things you do "in character" that the game can't measure.That's great and all but at the same time it rewards you for them even if you don't do them.
Alignment isn't a reward, it is a measurement. Chaotic and or Evil is not a consequence, it's a reflection of your role playing that kind of a character ( same holds true for Lawful and Good, or Neutral).
Thus s why some people here on the forums have a problem with the system as it is proposed. There are perceived, game mechanic disadvantages being attached to role playing certain alignments, without any mentioned advantages. In the absence of known trade offs, it sounds like an unbalanced game mechanic, and that is never good in an MMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Advantages to Maintaining Alignment
Ability to use skills and spells limited to certain alignments.
Ability to use certain flags limited by alignment.
Ability to maintain citizenship in a settlement.
Ability to roleplay instead of roll play one of the "defined" 9 philosophies that each person in the Pathfinder universe must choose from.
Roleplaying a PC in the Pathfinder universe means more than choosing an alignment just because you want a class feature or it sounds cool or to be difficult to your friends/guildies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am pleased with the way they have changed the drifting mechanism. It seems to allow you a means by which you might migrate back to what you believe your character is, even when you stray now and again (as happens so often in real life).
I still feel the alignment restrictions thus far outlined seem too limiting to the builders of settlements, especially with the one-step rule. Though allowing membership by people further on the fringes from your settlement's designated alignment may cause hits to your settlement indices, there could be ways in which your settlement players could make up for these so as to keep your NPC's happy and your settlement healthy.
I'm mainly looking at how neutral is affected by the current structure. I found this description of alignments (woo-hoo...I finally made a link that worked) and it made me think about a recent PFO - Fan TS chat. I believe it was Bluddwolf who pointed out that in a true neutral settlement, you could have two rather opposed alignments (along the chaotic/lawful axis) living together - chaotic neutral and lawful neutral, without breaking the current one-step rule. My question then would be, if the true neutral settlement leadership can stomach the potential bickering between the LN and CN elements of their community, or the NG and NE, why not from those on a diagonal one-step?
I anticipate that some will argue that those located diagonally would be viewed as doubly radical - falling outside neutral on two axes. However, if you have both CN and LN, and NG and NE in your TN settlement, you already have all those opposing philosophical axis elements.
Just a thought.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Still don't love the idea of alignment. I really wouldn't have an issue with it, if it doesn't interfere with my personal progress. Im not talking money or low availability. Im more worried about high level trainin and there even being any training. Because Chaotic seems to be extremely unpopular. As long as I can get training, Im not sure I care too much who can join what settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
General idea behind Alignment refresh:
There are also external consequences for a person's status within the alignment system. Some characters can lose important class features if they stray too far from a defined alignment—notably paladins and clerics. But there are forces in the universe who may be paying attention regardless of what path in life your character has chosen, for in Pathfinder, there are gods.
The gods of the Pathfinder world are strongly aligned. In fact, they are virtually the definition of what each alignment represents. There are several gods in some of the alignment positions who are each different expressions of the alignment they represent. And these gods are Paying Attention. How one lives a life is not theoretically related to how one spends eternity, it is a demonstrable fact. The gods are also a meddlesome bunch, and they grant and withhold favors to those who espouse their faiths and follow their teachings—including adherence to the god's preferred alignment, although many are fickle, so that one may never assume anything about a god's intentions or actions.
These effects will manifest in many ways in Pathfinder Online. Players will select an alignment for each character during character creation. Actions players take will tug at each character's alignment, shifting it this way and that. A prolonged series of minor actions, a few significant actions, or a single monumental action could shift a character's alignment into a whole new position.
Alignment will affect the kinds of religious services that the character can receive. Healing, restoration, and resurrection from some forms of death may require divine intervention. Alignment will affect the character's relationship with social organizations, and may cause a character to be ejected from them if the character's alignment diverges from the expected norm of that organization. NPCs may be more or less willing to interact with characters based on their alignments. The gates of some settlements may be open or closed to a character based on alignment.
In a world where alignment is meaningfully absolute and there is magic that can detect it, there are issues of security and trust which are therefore deeply impacted as well. Knowing where one's companions stand on the alignment graph is important. On the other hand, where would we be without espionage, betrayal and sabotage? A way to obfuscate or mislead others about one's alignment is a necessity. The cat-and-mouse game of alignment detection will be at the heart of many intrigues.
Summary of the above:
1. Skills + Alignment
2. Gods influence (how?) - divine magic/favors?
3. Affects religious leaning/healing/restoration etc
4. Settlement membership
5. Settlement enmity/alliance?
6. Detection and deception?
=
So I think it can be in the game. But I wonder how the population will evenly reflect all alignments or at least proportionally? Maybe only 1-step alignments is where a character can find skill-training is a key limit I hazard to guess? The skill-training and aligment and settlement membership all seem to connect very strongly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bringslite,
In that I have agreed with nearly everything I've ever seen you post, I hope I'm not one of the people frustrating you. :)
As for Neutral settlements, whether you're viewing TN as the balance of all philosophies, as the middle path, as not influenced by law/chaos or good/evil or lacks conviction or bias towards any of the four, or simply as someone who "is doing what seems like a good idea" (quoted from the link in my last post)...all of these seem to point towards TN being able to "put up" with pretty much every other alignment. Key phrase here is "put up" with, not allow to lead their settlement. You can be tolerant of other people's view points without wanting to hand them the reigns of power and direct the course of the settlement.
Another take on a TN settlement is that of a haven for those who wish to escape the factional wars and strife of a world made up of competing settlements and nations. Such a settlement could be a place where people of any alignment can find refuge and peace as long as they promise not to do anything that harms the settlement. In this way, such a settlement might contain people practicing the traditions and religions of every nation, or those who desire to forget them both. Instead of the usual settlement filled with people sharing the same general alignments, convictions, and common direction (such as in a guild from most other MMOs), this kind of settlement would be a microcosm of the world itself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hobbs,
Not sure if I am one of the frustrated that I refer to.
Having said that, is there anything really wrong in letting "players" choose what alignments are allowed to be citizens? There are advantages to more uniform settlement alignments, so let them choose and let the "chips" of those "decisions" fall where they may.
I am open for anything and I can see your point about TN. I also have some little qualms about no CG rangers in my LG town. What, no scouts?
I will argue when people use: "We never ran our TT that way!" and "No MMO I ever played had alignments and for good reason!" or even "My friends/guildies want to be CE and now they can't join my LG city!". That is because I find those arguments to be without much substance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the brilliance of "Core Alignment" is that it covers all the things you do "in character" that the game can't measure.That's great and all but at the same time it rewards you for them even if you don't do them.
Better to reward you for doing something when you didn't than to punish you for not doing something when you did.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the idea of "core" and "active" alignment, especially if your active alignment affects actual gameplay. In effect, core alignment may get you in the door, but how you've been acting for the past week determines everyone's reaction to you today.
Nonetheless, I think there should be some stratification system and variation for the alignment hits for different leveled NPCs, PCs, and others. Instead of everyone being an all-or-nothing either zero or 500 alignment shift, have sliding scale type situational modifiers (level comparison, active alignment comparison, current actions of both parties, flag status, etc etc). That way the range could be from say 0 - 1000 alignment points for a particular NPC depending on what he was doing.
For example:
1000 evil points for killing him while praying at his diety's altar inside a sanctuary, but 0 evil points for killing him while he's attacking as part of a larger battle/war effort. Maybe 300 points if you kill him accidentally in a drunken tavern brawl fight, 500 for killing him in an alleyway ambush as part of a quest, and 700 for killing him asleep inside his own house as part of a theft.
Of course a situational sliding scale would be more difficult to implement and keep accurate, but it would reduce the aforementioned calculation of "I'll do 18 good quests so I can murder that shopkeeper who is ripping me off."
Of course, the obvious problem here is that a TN settlement suddenly becomes the go to alignment, because it allows all possible characters to join with the moderate Tolerance level of 2. But then they still lose out on the benefits of the Lawful and Good alignments.
So then that's not so obvious because there is signifigant incentives to go for edge alignments. And an edge alignment actually only has 1 less allowed citizen alignment than TN (4 vs. 5), with corner alignments having 3 (with benefit of 2 edge alignments for settlement). A TN being able to integrate more alignments into it's citizenry doesn't translate to them actually having a larger population, when other settlements also can attract those characters and will indirectly be offering the benefits of the edge alignments as they affect the settlement. A TN Settlement will need to surpass other settlements in population by X amount just to equal the benefit of edge/corner alignments.
In line with my idea of allowing more 'customizing' of the 'allowed alignment matrix' per settlement, i thought: with the starting point of what is described, why not allow REMOVING one alignment normally allowed (1 step away) to allow adding one alignment normally not allowed that is diagonal to the settlement alignment? By the standard calculus, the diagonal alignment was 'not quite' close enough in alignment even though 'some distance' from the chosen alignment is allowed. Removing the normally allowed alignment (1 step away, so '1' unit) leaves 1 unit which can be added to the diagonal vector, which means the diagonal vector now has 2 'units', MORE than enough to include the diagonal alignment... ???
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment isn't a reward, it is a measurement. Chaotic and or Evil is not a consequence, it's a reflection of your role playing that kind of a character ( same holds true for Lawful and Good, or Neutral).
Thus s why some people here on the forums have a problem with the system as it is proposed. There are perceived, game mechanic disadvantages being attached to role playing certain alignments, without any mentioned advantages. In the absence of known trade offs, it sounds like an unbalanced game mechanic, and that is never good in an MMO.
Sure, and if was just a measurement I wouldn't have the same problem. But if you attach, as you mentioned, advantages (in case of Lawful and Good) to it is certainly becomes a reward. In the same way that ingame currency is a reward because you can spend it on things that give you direct advantages.
Better to reward you for doing something when you didn't than to punish you for not doing something when you did.
I fundamentally disagree with a statement. This is a general statement and in no way aimed at your persona so if this comes of as ad hominem, forgive me.
This design philosophy is responsible for the casualisation of the MMORPG genre and other game genres as well, hurting the longevity of games. The notion that one should reward players even if they have not explicitly earned the reward.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Papaver: What's your thoughts on this:
Alignment Trade off: Freedom* (to pvp in part.) vs Skill-Training Settlement DI quality access/price ?
Also put another way how about: Tending towards ->LG => bigger carrot vs tending towards ->CE => bigger stick ? I guess Reputation will have a modification on that general relationship, multiplying it.
I think the idea is to moderate power by social stock and the even that up by money if you choose an alignment where you have more pvp but have more requirement to pay for "power" ie skill-training? I am guessing some sort of basic relationship like that with the more extreme the pvp the less the access to power?
This is my understanding of Alignment (a sizeable chunk determined by cond./uncond. pvp and more) + Settlement + Skill-Training.
Blud says it's a measurement (of one's character) and not a reward. But I say it's a measure of social interaction which establishes population groupings which determines access and price to power (ie skill-training and dev index). It is a measure of character reflected socially not psychologically so much (perhaps G-E does this the most?). But maybe the duality of core and active alignment helps achieve this role of "what is your psychological character" (IC personality)?
*When I say freedom to pvp I mean as if FFA pvp anytime, anyplace any player (unconditional pvp) without respect to the conditional pvp (ie flags). Also I use pvp in a very baggy sense, I could extend to "laws of settlement" which are part of that antagonistic player + player interaction (working against) - as opposed to cooperative player + player interaction.
Anyway maybe that is clear as mud!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats,
*When I say freedom to pvp I mean as if FFA pvp anytime, anyplace any player (unconditional pvp) without respect to the conditional pvp (ie flags).
Yes this would be an advantage for a CE character, but this is not the case in-game. FFA PVP will open the door to griefing, and even if the CE character is role playing a psychopathic baby killer, he would still be labeled a griefer by the Devs / GMs.
Your "carrot and stick" suggestion is if I understand it correctly is giving a carrot to LG and taking the stick to CE. Again I say, alignment is not how players play with each other (reputation does this), it is how players play their character.
LG does not deserve to be rewarded for being LG, just as CE does not deserve to be punished for being CE. They are both equally legitimate alignments for players to play. They are both equally useful to the greater gaming community.
We need to separate or convince the Devs to separate the two parts of skill training.
Skill Access = Alignment Based
Skill Leveling = Reputation Based
Any Alignment + High Reputation = Equal / Balanced Skill Training
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Discussion thread for new blog entry Goblinworks Blog: Evil Minds that Plot Destruction
A Question for the Devs:
Are the long term flags based on Core Alignment, on Active Alignment or both must be in sync?
Examples:
Core: Chaotic Neutral
Active: Chaotic Evil
Long Term Flag Access: Outlaw and Assassin
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats,
*When I say freedom to pvp I mean as if FFA pvp anytime, anyplace any player (unconditional pvp) without respect to the conditional pvp (ie flags).Yes this would be an advantage for a CE character, but this is not the case in-game. FFA PVP will open the door to griefing, and even if the CE character is role playing a psychopathic baby killer, he would still be labeled a griefer by the Devs / GMs.
Basically if you have a player who has pvp'ed as if the pvp flags are not there, indiscriminately then it's tending towards playing as if it were FFA pvp - hence the relationship of a CE-low-rep player having the "stick" of settlement choice/social interaction stymied.
Your "carrot and stick" suggestion is if I understand it correctly is giving a carrot to LG and taking the stick to CE. Again I say, alignment is not how players play with each other (reputation does this), it is how players play their character.
LG does not deserve to be rewarded for being LG, just as CE does not deserve to be punished for being CE. They are both equally legitimate alignments for players to play. They are both equally useful to the greater gaming community.
The opposite LG, has had to be disciplined, deliberate and take disadvantages of not being able to pvp at will: Hence these actions are indeed positively reinforced = skill-training/Settlement DI.
To state that alignment is not this, is false: The flags constitute the basis for alignment therefore it comprised of the above. Stick and carrot are one way to describe it: I would not say it's a great description because reward/punishment seems overly-loaded emotionally (implicating fairness via all choices being valid: They are but not as viable long-term vs short-term). Look at the mechanism and describe it impassionately and it does exactly what it says if we were to table all the flags by player A vs Player B: Alignment, Attacker, Area that all forms the alignment, at least Active alignment.
We know in mmorpgs that it's very tempting for any player to think: "Look it moves: Kill it." And if everyone is doing this... everyone is the same alignment and the same niche player base.
I am not sure how reputation will work at the moment. I have a few guesses. Possibly sitting on top of alignment and extending the above basis? **Possibly alignment will be less emphasis on access and reputation will more emphasis on access? Alignment might just be costlier? Again extent seems to be alignment and maybe reputation also? For eg we know Settlements can tailor reputation min to enter a settlement - So I guess within alignment steps that operate and can access each other's skill-training in the market, then that is a way for settlements to determine who they trust more narrowly within different social spheres?
**Edit: Access of skill-training via Alignment: Need to check how this works and what limits there are if any? Can a CE player go to a LG settlement and pay through the roof (if they have the money) for skill-training there for eg?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bringslite,
In that I have agreed with nearly everything I've ever seen you post, I hope I'm not one of the people frustrating you. :)
As for Neutral settlements, whether you're viewing TN as the balance of all philosophies, as the middle path, as not influenced by law/chaos or good/evil or lacks conviction or bias towards any of the four, or simply as someone who "is doing what seems like a good idea" (quoted from the link in my last post)...all of these seem to point towards TN being able to "put up" with pretty much every other alignment. Key phrase here is "put up" with, not allow to lead their settlement. You can be tolerant of other people's view points without wanting to hand them the reigns of power and direct the course of the settlement.
Another take on a TN settlement is that of a haven for those who wish to escape the factional wars and strife of a world made up of competing settlements and nations. Such a settlement could be a place where people of any alignment can find refuge and peace as long as they promise not to do anything that harms the settlement. In this way, such a settlement might contain people practicing the traditions and religions of every nation, or those who desire to forget them both. Instead of the usual settlement filled with people sharing the same general alignments, convictions, and common direction (such as in a guild from most other MMOs), this kind of settlement would be a microcosm of the world itself.
Something that I find interesting and a bit amusing. The alignment grid (with a little imagination) can be viewed as a central point, TN, with 8 radiating arrows to the other alignments. The symbol for Chaos.
One of the symbols for Law is a balanced scale. Which I would argue, seems more like Neutral. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Something that I find interesting and also a little amusing. The alignment grid can also be viewed as a central point, i.e. TN, with 6 arrows radiating from It's center. A recognized symbol for Chaos. ;)
In the grid form = Organised Chaos?!
We need to separate or convince the Devs to separate the two parts of skill training.
Skill Access = Alignment Based
Skill Leveling = Reputation BasedAny Alignment + High Reputation = Equal / Balanced Skill Training
Had a deliberation on this. I don't think it will/can work like this. CE's type of Reputation will be different from say eg LG's type of Reputation?!
Now if a CE is constantly ganking other alignment players, they'll lower his rep by contrast.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We need to separate or convince the Devs to separate the two parts of skill training.
Skill Access = Alignment Based
Skill Leveling = Reputation BasedAny Alignment + High Reputation = Equal / Balanced Skill Training
Had a deliberation on this. I don't think it will/can work like this. CE's type of Reputation will be different from say eg LG's type of Reputation?!
Now if a CE is constantly ganking other alignment players, they'll lower his rep by contrast.
You are still not understanding the difference. PVP is not exclusive to CE, nor is it related to having a low Reputation.
I can rob and kill all day long and still have a Chaotic Neutral alignment and a High Reputation. Even if I allowed my Active Alignment to drift to Chaotic Evil, I can still have a High Reputation.
You are also not understanding the difference between Skill Access and Skill Leveling. Skill Access can be and perhaps should be tied to Alignment. Skill Leveling should not be tied to Alignment, EVER! Instead Skill Leveling should be tied to Reputation.
This way if you are playing a role, what limitations you experience are based on your legitimate choice of alignment. Your skill leveling is unaffected by your alignment choice. No favoritism of one alignment over another.
Your reputation, if low, will punish you for not following the player interactions that the Devs want to see. Therefore your Skill Leveling may be limited (slowed) due to low reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
I agree that if they want to legitimize the play styles of all alignments then the reputation system should be the way that skill "training" is penalized.
In the matter of Law being more organized than Chaos, that is also true. If GW wants to represent this, how could we suggest they establish that "flavor" of alignments, better?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
I agree that if they want to legitimize the play styles of all alignments then the reputation system should be the way that skill "training" is penalized.
In the matter of Law being more organized than Chaos, that is also true. If GW wants to represent this, how could we suggest they establish that "flavor" of alignments, better?
Switch "training" with "leveling" and we are in agreement.
Training can be a gateway and / or a ladder. This is why I split it into Skill Access (Gateway) and Skill Leveling (Ladder).
GW can establish flavor of alignment through Skill Access. A Chaotic Good ( Ranger-esque) character will have access to skills that a Lawful Good character will not. Reputation has nothing to do with skill access, or at least it shouldn't. Once a skill is gained, it can be leveled. That leveling will continue, unhindered or uncapped, provided reputation is moderate or high.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
I agree that if they want to legitimize the play styles of all alignments then the reputation system should be the way that skill "training" is penalized.
In the matter of Law being more organized than Chaos, that is also true. If GW wants to represent this, how could we suggest they establish that "flavor" of alignments, better?
Switch "training" with "leveling" and we are in agreement.
Training can be a gateway and / or a ladder. This is why I split it into Skill Access (Gateway) and Skill Leveling (Ladder).
GW can establish flavor of alignment through Skill Access. A Chaotic Good ( Ranger-esque) character will have access to skills that a Lawful Good character will not. Reputation has nothing to do with skill access, or at least it shouldn't. Once a skill is gained, it can be leveled. That leveling will continue, unhindered or uncapped, provided reputation is moderate or high.
I believe that I grasp what you are suggesting. Is it not GW's position that access to the advanced skills require advanced facilities? Something that is better achieved and maintained in an ordered society?
So, chaotic societies will have a more difficult time, at least, maintaining those facilities. That is, if I understand what they have stated so far.
Was that not your point of contention? Please correct me if I am mistaken. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok pardon the 'quote wars', but just to briefly reply, it's clearer so I think we're talking along the same lines: :)
You are still not understanding the difference. PVP is not exclusive to CE, nor is it related to having a low Reputation.
I used CE as example in extremis and therefore as the clearest case:
The more PvP flags broken -> Great change in Alignment -> towards CE being the maximum (with lowered Rep).
I can rob and kill all day long and still have a Chaotic Neutral alignment and a High Reputation. Even if I allowed my Active Alignment to drift to Chaotic Evil, I can still have a High Reputation.
You can but it depends on WHO and WHERE and HOW frequently you PvP. I understand that just fine.
You are also not understanding the difference between Skill Access and Skill Leveling. Skill Access can be and perhaps should be tied to Alignment. Skill Leveling should not be tied to Alignment, EVER! Instead Skill Leveling should be tied to Reputation.
Access and Extent (and cost).
Those I think are the variables for skill-training that seem to be dependent on the settlement's Alignment and Reputation. So for eg, a really trashy settlement won't have the facilities for higher level skill-training: Because their DI indexes are too low because too many Low rep/low alignment players form/interact in that settlement.
Some skill-trees or extremes will be Alignment based eg Paladin (LG and Assassin (Evil?). Further egs:
There are also external consequences for a person's status within the alignment system. Some characters can lose important class features if they stray too far from a defined alignment—notably paladins and clerics.
I think possibly Access will be less emphasis on Alignment:
Characters with low reputations may also find they're not wanted in certain places. Settlements can set a minimum reputation to enter the city; players who don't meet the requirement are warned, and become trespassers if they continue to enter. 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.
Sounds more like Reputation based which is human controlled.
My question above is: "Are there ACCESS RESTRICTIONS on Skill-Training in settlements where your Alignment is greater than 1-step difference? I was wondering if that would be a "good thing". Maybe that is too restricting however on further thoughts. IE taking LG skill training being the very zenith, then only adjacent LN, NG could go to those settlements for those LG-specific. uber skill-training options.... /hypothetical thoughts
Your reputation, if low, will punish you for not following the player interactions that the Devs want to see. Therefore your Skill Leveling may be limited (slowed) due to low reputation.
I think you'll find it harder to find settlements that have access available for training and hence will have to pay more to those that do (ie demand/supply of market)? Not sure they said your training will be slower (if so could you provide a link?)?
=
On the subject of Reputation: I've browsed the blogs to reassess it: The devs say it IS primarily PvP based. But if you have a CE player who only pvp's say CE other players then their reputation may be low with respect to LG but relative to other CE players "high", especially if those players have their own "honor code" ie they choose the option remove reputation penalty or minimise it even if killed because they respect the player if they played well?? Alternatively if they form a settlement where they flag themselves permanently as criminal so criminal vs criminal I wonder how that would influence their rep?
IDK, I thought Reputation was going to be much more fluid social construct, I think I don't fully understand reputation's implementation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe that I grasp what you are suggesting. Is it not GW's position that access to the advanced skills require advanced facilities? Something that is better achieved and maintained in an ordered society?So, chaotic societies will have a more difficult time, at least, maintaining those facilities. That is, if I understand what they have stated so far.
Was that not your point of contention? Please correct me if I am mistaken. :)
If I have a Chaotic Neutral settlement, I should have access to advanced facilities and advanced skill level potential for Chaotic based skills.
By the same token, I will have very limited or no access to advanced facilities and advanced skill level potential for Lawful based skills.
This is using Alignment to allow for access to certain types of skills, but not to limit their growth once that access has been acquired.
If the system is designed that Chaotic Settlements take more time to level up skills, and that skills in general are capped, that will result in two negative effects:
1. If my skill are capped due to my alignment, then I will have to limit my PVP to players of less skill than my own. I will be outclassed by any player of the favored alignment. Therefore, I will have to prey upon the less skilled (noobs) because my capacity has been gimped.
2. Players will gravitate to the favored alignments and their settlements, and the min / maxing treadmill will last for years, before a bold few decide they have hit sufficient abilities to even attempt to pvp.
This second point is exactly what happened in EVE Online. Players developed the impression, rightly or wrongly, that PVP was not entry level and it was a real struggle for CCP to get players to go beyond the 14-day free trails. Even the introduction of the Player Corp run PVP training corps had courses that would train new members for months! Before saying, "you are ready now."
CCP also made a variety of additional changes to not only streamlined the New Player Experience, but also to get players involved in PVP at a lower threshold. Faction Wars was meant to do that, and although it still largely flopped, it did open up PVP to the frigate and especially the Destroyer (both entry level ships).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats,
If we are talking about the Scale Points of each alignment, as your alignment / reputation / settlement index scores... than that would work.
Let me sort that out, because it does not make sense that way...
Remember the Alignment Test?
I Had something like a Chaotic = 22 and Neutral = 21
If a Chaotic Neutral Settlement had to be made up of primarily CN citizens, and those citizens had separate scores for each alignment axis, than that could work.
Reputation could then be based on how well you play your alignment, and a CE could then have a high CE reputation, and a very low LG reputation. The settlement however, would still be able to build Chaotic and Evil based structures and support more advanced skill leveling as well.
Gosh I need to Keep It Simple...
GW, Do Not Punish Chaotic or Evil settlements or players for playing Chaotic or Evil characters.
Having access to different skills is not punishment. Having limits on facilities and levels of skill is punishment.
PFO is supposed to be a role playing game, isn't it? Then why punish an alignment and favor others?
The way it sounds now, LG and LE are grossly favored in the area of settlement development.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are correct in the traditional sense that lawful aligned characters and settlements, by their very nature, will be organized and use laws to control everything from it's citizens actions to the way training is done and given out, where chaotic characters and settlements are more included to follow their whims and go lawless, or unwritten laws. it would make absolute sense that lawful settlement would be organized enough to be very efficient and productive in training and services. However, consider the type of training that is "normal" for a lawful settlement: Paladin, monk, wizard, clerics of order and law. All of these "classes" require focus and discipline. They could not function without it.
Now, on the flip side in a chaotic settlement, you looking at training barbarians, free-roaming rangers, most rogues, and sorcerers. All of these classes rely on their feelings and how things feel, which may change from moment to moment and battle to battle. Hence the chaos of their actions. A barbarian relies almost exclusively on his rage and controlling it to be fearsome and effective on the battlefield. Anyone can swing an axe, but a barbarian can perform great feats of strength and damage with it. The angrier he gets, the stronger and more fearsome he becomes. The sorcerer is another great example. While the wizard studies for countless hours over books and formulas, the sorcerer controls magic with his will. Some use anger, others serenity, and others use lust for power. Using emotions and other non-orderly forms of control to fuel their strength and power describes perfectly the chaos they require to achieve these feats and methods of control. Looking into training, they may not be as efficient compared to their lawful counterparts, but they learn and function the same. A barbarian training in barbaric arts of combat will not need formal training or an instructor looking over his shoulder giving him "pointers," instead, he could just be left in a room by himself, or with another barbarian and left to duel it out. Think of it as "hands-on" training. Sorcerer would be the same way. They learn either by having a mentor, or by self-learning.
The point is that, at the end of the day, this is a game and for game mechanics there needs to be a balance and while we can RP and explain one way or the other, there needs to be equality or a give and take or else no one will want to play the "gimped" side. I vote to let the "rules" slide slightly, use RP to justify it, and lets move on as far as training goes. I feel the system proposed does this. Using alignment as a "members card" to acquire new skills, then using reputation to raise through that skill's levels/ranks ect, will help keep that balance and fairness to the game. It gives both C? and L? sides equal(ish) training opportunities and balances the alignment and reputation to promote the actions and desired interactions the devs want, while limiting those the devs don't.
As far as characters and alignment goes, yes CE would be within their RP and alignment rights to "randomly kill anyone and everyone" because they feel like it, however, again because this is a game and should be enjoyed by everyone, doing so would be considered griefing and will be punished both in game and out (bans and such by devs) through the reputation system. All 9 alignments are equal in that they can do anything and be anyone and go anywhere, it is a reputation that will really begin to restrict people from towns, venders, and training. That being said, remember that alignment is (RP wise) ment to be your moral compass. So if your LG (or any good for that matter) you don't just randomly go killing people or you take alignment hits and start the path to CE because those are CE actions. If a CE person decided to go good/lawful actions (like saving people and recuing puppies) then they will go towards LG as those would be LG actions. Both sides are equal in this. If you want freedom, that is a chaotic trait. If you want order and control, that is lawful. Good and evil are more/less self explanatory. (I hope)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Side note: I don't think (correct me if I am wrong) Bludd was referring to actual progression being slowed with a low rep, but referring to having a low rep will restrict access to settlements that would offer the higher level training and therefore slow down their leveling of those skills. It is my understanding (and hope) that there will be several "general" skills (like sword fighting 101) that can be learned and advanced by all, no matter alignment of the settlement offering the training. (say to skill level 200 or something. Higher training would require high level fighter building, and since fighter can be of any alignment, this should be available to all settlements) These skills would be able to be trained by anyone in any settlement, provided they have the rep to get into the settlement and the coin to buy the training. The main argument (I think) here is the specialized skills, smith evil (LG) barbarian rage (Chaotic or maybe neutral) assassin training (Unless this is exclusively all the NPC faction, but even then I would expect a reputation requirement to stay "in favor" with them for more training.) It is these skills that would be affected by alignment to train at first, but then reputation to get into see the trainer to raise the level of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is exactly what Ive been worried about. Equal access to advanced training. Its a little ambiguous but it seems GWs has possibly made all archetypes alignment based. So normally one would think as long as I have the coin, and rep I could get rogue training just about anywhere.
But If they tie it to my alignment, then I might not be able to get rogue training say from a LE settlelment because Im CN. If they tie it to settlement alignment I might not be able to get rogue training at any but some variation of Chaotic settlement (that's if ALL archetypes are tied to a specific alignment(s): rogue = C, pld = LG, rng = N and on and on with each class).
These are the questions I want to know. And while some things are known or implied a lot is kinda vague.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I've been reading all these posts about alignment as it relates to training - all the various arguments, the merits of the existing system, player proposals, etc. - it occurred to me that it might be helpful to look at it from the trainer's point of view. That is, depending on the alignment of the trainer, what is their motivation (besides the fee charged) for training you what they know based on their alignment, and more specifically, what is their motivation for being located where they operate?
I can see good aligned trainers wanting to move into well populated settlements so as to better help other good aligned people to - well - do good things and help other people. I can see evil trainers seeking the high, concealing walls of evil settlements, away from prying eyes, so as to train others how to go forth and further their evil ends. I can certainly see lawful trainers seeking out well-run, well-disciplined settlements to spread their skills and views and help make the world a more predictable place. I can even see neutral trainers, perhaps just looking for a quiet, "middle" ground settlement to do their thing without getting caught up in the politics and conflicts of the more extreme alignments. However, the one alignment branch that just doesn't seem to fit this mold, and the structure that GW is going with thus far, is chaotic.
To preface my "what if" suggestion for trainer alignment and location, here is a snippet from the site d20PFSRD.com
"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility."
Not even all the positive traits in that list sound like character traits of people who are likely going to be constructing stable settlements. Even the good aligned chaotic archetypes are not likely candidates for having the patience or interest in establishing and maintaining settlements (e.g. rangers seem more likely to live in their version of a hidden bandit camp than a persistent settlement and how long is your town going to stay standing with the wild brawls/parties of a sizable barbarian population?). Looking at the more nefarious traits of that list, chaotic evil persons would be those the town would banish rather than view as welcome a neighbor. Most of these chaotic types seem like loners rather than people seeking out a community - people wanting space and freedom, rather than the constant rubbing of elbows with the rest of humanity and the laws required to hold civilization together.
So why is this alignment being forced to follow the same settlement-centric rules for training? Why would chaotic aligned trainers seek out settlements if neither their alignment nor that of their intended "students" fit well into that environment? One alignment doesn't fit all, so why a one size fits all means for training?
I'm almost tempted to say chaotic trainers should be found out in the wild, as free living NPCs, who still expect a certain alignment, high reputation, and fee for their services, but are found in locations more in keeping with their temperament. True, that might seem unfair that others need to establish settlements and build them to the highest stages of development to "attract" the highest tier trainers, but on the flip side, once placed, you know where to find them. Perhaps not so with the free spirited trainers of chaotic alignments, and the best ones might be in some very hard to reach, nasty locations.
Just a thought.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now who is misunderstanding whom? I know, perfectly well, the differing philosophies of Law and Chaos, Good and Evil. Always interesting to read how another views them, so thanks for that. ;)
There has not been any mention of skill caps or longer training times, just for chaotics, that I have seen. Could be wrong, so forgive if I am...
My question really had nothing to do with those answers. GW seems to want to "highlight", if you will, the difference between the implied efficiency of Law vs. the implied inefficiency of Chaos. They seem to be doing this by making the advanced training facilities (for whatever skills) more costly to maintain for Chaos. I guess they assume that higher costs will make those towns more crappy by default of lack of gold, lower DI, other things...
Assuming you are against this, do you have any suggestion that changes this but maintains the law vs. chaos or efficiency vs. inefficiency flavor they are going for?
I am asking for an answer that maintains, not changes, GW's vision on that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let me toss into the mix that I agree with GW's contention that chaotic (especially chaotic evil) settlements, by the nature of their alignment, would find it more difficult to keep their indices as high as lawful and good settlements in that the unseen NPC residents would likely find life more stable, safe, and predictable if managed along those philosophical axes.
What I do not agree with is tying so important a game mechanic as skill training to settlements, which by their need to declare an alignment, may limit access to other players because of those players' alignment choices. It's one thing to explain that your alignment doesn't make the best social magnet nor give NPCs that needed sense of warm-fuzzy-community for having the best settlement, and another to say because of your alignment, you're going to have a harder time finding higher end training.
I think one of the underlying issues is that GW does not seem to have predicted that the players would be as adamant about every alignment being equally playable. In that role playing chaotic evil often seems to produced the same behaviors as what some call griefing, I don't think GW took into consideration that this settlement/alignment/training system would potentially penalize a portion of the player community - specifically those who wished to play CE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The question might be then, if more freedom does not net you any more benefit to balance out what you lose by being less efficient, how is being more free beneficial?
Chaotic will still have to follow the proper use of various flags or be penalized by rep hits. Where is their freedom earning them a benefit?
My fishies are too chaotic to be interested in your lawful lure. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@blingslite and Hobs,
This is exactly the issue (in my eyes) that is being discussed and needs clarified. Chaotic aligned characters by their very nature would not operate a settlement or even in large groups for long. They wouldn't want to be tied to one place. Maybe a area, but not a single location. I do like the idea of "wondering trainers" but realistically, unless all chaotic characters trained tracking skills, or there was a system in place that "predicted" the trainer's location at a given time, which defeats the purpose, than how would training be accomplished.
I think the flag system is a well thought out and will potentially be an effective anti-griefing tool that will allow chaotics (especially CE) to properly RP their alignment while keeping the game fun and enjoyed by all. The training is the biggest issue here. I don't think there is a honest and real answer to this. The wondering trainer idea is great but as mentioned above, still has it's issues. I, personally, would be ok with fudging the rules a bit for game reasons and have chaotic settlements function (game mechanic wise) the same as lawful settlements, just with different buildings that focus and cater more to the chaotic nature of it's inhabitants. It isn't perfect but game wise it would work. Training for chaotic skills would be the same as lawful settlements and everything would be the same.
As I mentioned before, I think that some skills specific to classes that don't have alignment restrictions, like fighter and rogue, should be available at all settlements regardless of alignment. This is because of the commonness and variety of those skills. Classes that do have alignment restrictions should have those specific skills tied to those alignments. PAlly skills to LG, assassin skills to evil, ect. This way, everyone gets fighter types, and rogue types (remember not all rogues are evil and self-centered) but you won't find barbarians and assassins in LG settlements and you wont find pallies in anything other that LG, NG, LN settlements. That would be fair and fit the story for the game. I would even be ok with throwing in classes that don't have actual restrictions on alignment, but favor 1 side or the other, like arcane casters. Wizards should need to be lawful, where sorcerers have to be chaotic, but there is a personal preference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't worry too much. If there is a demand for chaotic training that is large enough, there will be a community that provides it. All settlements want player gold.
If the demand is too small to make it worth the investment of the buildings, then chaotic skills will go the way of the dinosaur.
Such is life.
If the chaotics want it bad enough, they will overcome the challenges put before them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Completely disagree with that Bringslite.
If Chaotic training simply isn't even available, then its broken and not really working as intended. This would make me extremely angry, and it might eventually force me to leave the game. I don't want that.
The other answer is I get N and G training as a NN or NG player, and play as a CN player. So if the idea is to stop me from being a bandit, it wont work. All GWs would be doing is making me do back flips to get advanced training in another alignment, but using it for banditry anyways.
I don't even want to play PLD. But I would defend their right as a player to be able to play as a paladin! If there are no LG training areas, then what? I know that's a big what if, but still. Lets please not punish personal progression if you are playing with good reputation. Hindering a settlement because of alignment is a different story.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does anyone really imagine that whatever GW does, it will make playing Chaotic alignments impossible or so difficult that they are completely ignored???
This is not their first time at bat nor do they completely ignore the concerns of the players that post herein.
The fact that they are not popping in on these alignment discussions means one of two possibilities IMO:
1. They plan to go with what they have shown us of their plans and they are letting us argue until it is out of our systems. Which leads me, further, to believe that their final plans will not be as terrible as foreseen.
or
2. The plan is not fully formed and they are listening to us and/or still developing it.
Either way, I really doubt it will result in the horrors being screamed out by the fearful populace here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Chaotic training simply isn't even available, then its broken and not really working as intended. This would make me extremely angry, and it might eventually force me to leave the game. I don't want that.
As this is a sandbox game, advanced training facilities for Chaotic skills will need to be built by players. That is how it is for every other alignment axis. Do we now expect welfare, game-provided, training for skills that are wanted by the players but not established by the players?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Chaotic aligned characters by their very nature would not operate a settlement or even in large groups for long. They wouldn't want to be tied to one place. Maybe a area, but not a single location.
Here's where I keep getting hung up: who is it that we envision inhabiting a chaotic settlement? Bandits, robber-knights, and associated ruffians? Maybe some frontier types that aren't comfortable with the onerous laws and restrictions of a NG settlement? By PF rules, are any base classes *required* to be chaotic?
If the chaotic settlements are mostly robbers' lairs, then they might be a bit less developed than your average village with its twice-monthly market. But that bandit-baronry might be able to forego building a market and granaries. They might skip a lot of the production and crafting facilities, choosing to smuggle in weaponry rather than make it themselves. A settlement focused on banditry really might not need as much development indexes if everything they build is devoted to security and training. A settlement of frontier people might have training and production and a small shrine to one god, but not a lot of security and not a big stone temple.
Down the road, the chaotic settlement council has to make decisions. To get bigger, maybe they need more development. Maybe they need to let the settlement alignment creep into neutral. Or maybe they ally with a nation that is willing to have an chaotic settlement as a buffer on their border.