Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that if you want it, you should have to work for it. Unfortunately, if game mechanics make the only means for training highly unlikely (chaotic evil trying to create a settlement), I'm not sure that's a case of certain players not being willing to work for what they want/need.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hobs
Earlier you asked if I was frustrated with you. I replied that I wasn't sure that I was frustrated with anyone.
I have changed my mind. Not about you. :) I am A little bit frustrated. Everyone can clearly see that the sky is falling, but I keep looking up and I can't see it...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what will happen is, "extreme" character alignments will have to get their training from more than one settlement.
Chaotic Evil characters will have to get their Chaotic training from CN settlements and their Evil training from NE settlements, if there are no Chaotic Evil settlements to provide them with both.
I have little doubt there will be CN settlements, about half of all of the settlements in the River Kingdoms are CN. The River Kingdoms as a whole is essentially CN.
Chaotic Good is possibly in the same boat as CE, but maybe not so much.
There will be no shortage of player run Lawful Good, Neutral and Evil settlements.
I'm quite tired of the alignment questions. I'm going to try to leave them alone for a while.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just want to say that I am by no means trying to not work for my training. In fact, I think I will be working more than most, just because of the nature of MY profession. I was raised with the concept that anything worth doing and worth enjoying is worth the effort to achieve. I hate having things handed to me as it lowers its worth and value. If I earn something, it makes it more enjoyable than something just handed out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is chaotic?
Sorry I have not read through pages and pages, I think there is a basic misunderstanding about chaotic. It is free from law, not law breaking. A chaotic is driven by a different code than local law. In a sense it is just as lawful as LAW, but not the same law. Some refer to Batman. He is for good and for justice/retribution, not following the written law of the land. Law is about settling cases, not proper justice.
I have been expelled from a group because my character was not happy giving up the treasure he could not use to the rest of the party, but not given items to sacrifice to the gods for the benefits he provided. SO he took some items and made proper sacrifice as required by his belief. This is about the time most characters had two item an he had none. He was a proper chaotic pattern. It did not depend upon rules of the party but what must be done according to higher order.
The players did kick me out of the group without reason. I accepted that without defense. That is chaotic acceptance (though if character was in the world,one more item would have been stolen and sacrificed to have proper 'equality').
IT IS NOT ABOUT VIOLATING LAWS. It is about ignoring them, when one can get away with it.
There is not Chaotic idiocity just as there is no LG idiocity. Breaking laws where one gets caught is not part of being chaotic!
I also advocate that communities should not be LG, N CE required. Most communities will have a focus and as long as there are not active, in community, antisocial behavior; they can be residents.
A CE culture is not one that everyone goes around killing neighbors without reason. There will be rules, but by not by force of law but by raw force (Godfather). Following CE is taking what what can when one can or one can extort. THink of warlords.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SO how are LE and CE different?
LE communities are corruption driven. THere RE nominal rules, usually from a higher authority , but maybe in name only. While paying and enforcing rules, corruption controls how they are enforced.
CE communities have less specific rules and controls are more the whims of rulers. Actions of 'citizen' are more what they want to do and how to buy off (corruption) the powers that be. This sounds like the LE, but ther eis not really a system of rules, more don't upset warlord. And position is payoff and duty to warlord (not respected, but as necessary, but never never get caught).
IN LE, how is minor corruption seen to better inform/support the leader.
Hope this is not too confusing.
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@AvenaOats: I'm pretty much a page late but anyway.
While my point was ultimately limited to "When there is something to earn the player has to earn it an if there is something to loose the player has to loose it. Also the counteracting of the loss should not consist if doing nothing while waiting until the status quo regenerates so to speak."
On the topic of the access to skill vs freedom of action I tend to agree with Bluddwolf. The freedom of action will no doubt be limited by other game mechanics that are supposed to discourage griefing.
I don't see what alignment has do do with a players access to training(in a general sense),Every settlement can allow every player access to there trainers regardless of alignment, the price is also set be the settlement not by alignment.
When it comes to law based settlements Vs Chaotic based settlements and there level of advancement... well that seems very straight forward. The lawful town that works as a team towards a common goal will do better than the chaotic town that can't agree who is in charge let alone what to do first. One town works together and gets the job done the other is... in chaos.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless there are any settlement building mechanics that benefit lawful groups directly, like better NPC defenders, lower construction costs or upkeep or similar, settlement building will to a large extent come down to how much money and material the group of players can farm and donate.
Players of lawful characters may be more directly invested in settlement building, but I don't see why a group of players of chaotic characters couldn't get together to farm materials and make a grand settlement.
All it takes is for one large focused guild to decide they want to play as mainly chaotic and the members can all chip in to the construction of their village/city/nation. I would think that there is great promise for PvP-centric guilds for example in creating large chaotic settlements as a base for their warbands/barbarian tribes.
Chaotic does not necessarily imply unfocused, especially on a guild level.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to throw this in there. I'm seriously considering a CE (possibly low rep too) character alt.
I don't often alt tbh, but if I can have a character who living in the lawless wild west so to speak where strange customs spring up and the law of the blade/wand earns you respect, I can see this being very interesting, plus an unlimited supply of fellow scum to pvp on: It sounds very dramatic and interesting alternative character experience and hence gameplay experience and no doubt full diverse range of characters and hopefully very removed from the LG bastions of power.
Unless there are any settlement building mechanics that benefit lawful groups directly, like better NPC defenders, lower construction costs or upkeep or similar, settlement building will to a large extent come down to how much money and material the group of players can farm and donate.
Players of lawful characters may be more directly invested in settlement building, but I don't see why a group of players of chaotic characters couldn't get together to farm materials and make a grand settlement.
All it takes is for one large focused guild to decide they want to play as mainly chaotic and the members can all chip in to the construction of their village/city/nation. I would think that there is great promise for PvP-centric guilds for example in creating large chaotic settlements as a base for their warbands/barbarian tribes.
Chaotic does not necessarily imply unfocused, especially on a guild level.
Yes this is all true,from a players point of view.
Now put on your GM hat. A group of all chaotic players want to build and run a city....|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see what alignment has do do with a players access to training(in a general sense),Every settlement can allow every player access to there trainers regardless of alignment, the price is also set be the settlement not by alignment.
When it comes to law based settlements Vs Chaotic based settlements and there level of advancement... well that seems very straight forward. The lawful town that works as a team towards a common goal will do better than the chaotic town that can't agree who is in charge let alone what to do first. One town works together and gets the job done the other is... in chaos.
First Bold:
A Lawful based settlement will not be able to construct an advanced chaotic structure for training chaotic based skills. This is at least my understanding of the settlement alignment system.
It is even questionable and not likely that a TN settlement will be able to build L,C, G, or E based structures to train those skills to advanced levels. If that were the case, than almost everyone would build a True Neutral settlement.
Second Bold:
This maybe true unless you consider that a Chaotic based structure will function better within a Chaotic system. That same structure may not work as well in a Lawful settlement, under a Lawful system.
As a teacher I have taught many students who function better and produce a better result, when given the choices to go outside of the initial structure of the assignment. That is the very point of an Independent Study.
I have had other students who would accomplish next to nothing, unless they are given a step-by-step process to follow. If I deviate from that process, they actually panic and stop doing the assignment all together unless I step back into the process and guide them back on track.
Relating this back to alignment. Chaotic is not the absence of attaining a certain goal in a prescribed time frame. Chaotic is using a different set of procedures or a lack of rules in getting there.
Lawful is not always the most efficient way of getting to a goal. Sometimes the adherence to rules clouds our judgement and makes us not see a more efficient way to accomplish the same result. If you have ever worked for the Government or served in the Military, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
I don't see what alignment has do do with a players access to training(in a general sense),Every settlement can allow every player access to there trainers regardless of alignment, the price is also set be the settlement not by alignment.
When it comes to law based settlements Vs Chaotic based settlements and there level of advancement... well that seems very straight forward. The lawful town that works as a team towards a common goal will do better than the chaotic town that can't agree who is in charge let alone what to do first. One town works together and gets the job done the other is... in chaos.
First Bold:
A Lawful based settlement will not be able to construct an advanced chaotic structure for training chaotic based skills. This is at least my understanding of the settlement alignment system.
It is even questionable and not likely that a TN settlement will be able to build L,C, G, or E based structures to train those skills to advanced levels. If that were the case, than almost everyone would build a True Neutral settlement.
Yes, No settlement can build everything, but they can let you use everything that they have built.A L/G town can let a C/E player train at any of there buildings
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IT IS NOT ABOUT VIOLATING LAWS. It is about ignoring them, when one can get away with it.There is not Chaotic idiocity just as there is no LG idiocity. Breaking laws where one gets caught is not part of being chaotic!
No. That is Neutral on the law-chaos axis. Neutral is "fudging your taxes". All things equal you will obey the law, but if the advantage is big enough and you think nobody is watching you will break the law.
Chaotic means that the law is NOT A FACTOR in your decision making. You are going to do what your moral axis says you should do and the if the laws are in the way you are going to find a way around them.
That's why chaotic settlements or chaotic characters within a settlement are rare. Chaotic settlements are usually just barbarian tribes, monster groups or bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's why chaotic settlements or chaotic characters within a settlement are rare. Chaotic settlements are usually just barbarian tribes, monster groups or bandits.
The River Kingdoms are obviously the exception rather than the rule:
Daggermark: Pop: 27,460 CN
Gralton: Pop: 9,200 CN
Mivon: Pop: 10,870 CN
Pitax: Pop: 8700 CN
Deadbridge: Pop: 4,113 CN
Riverton: Pop: 572 CN
Urigen: Pop: 1,213 CN
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But even barbarian tribes, while no actual laws for say, follow rules, like the strong survive. Keep in mind, as mentioned above, that chaotic behavior isn't break every rule/law you can find. As Avari3 said, Laws are not a factor in your decision. You do as you please, mainly following your good/evil axis. That is why most descriptions of CN are insane and 100% random. They are neutral, so they don't favor one way or the other and the chaotic alignment just adds to it. CG is more "end justifies the means" so they do good and are good people, but laws don't matter as long as they are doing good. CE is again, more end justifies the means in that they don't follow structure or any code or rules, they just do. LE will do research and set up the perfect crime, maybe even act behind the scenes and not be associated with the event at all, CE will just stab you in the face and walk away. Using assassin as an example of evil characters, the LE assassin will stalk his prey, find out his patterns and the perfect time to strike and how. The NE will do what is convenient, quick and messy or slow and controlled. CE, while not stupid and reckless, is very much more inclined to walk up stab in face throw the blood at any on-lookers, and walk away. That is my views on law/chaos axis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It appears that it would be quite "normal" for players to build chaotic aligned settlements in the game. It is the style of the region. Whether there is a chaotic player pop large enough or dedicated enough is really up to that population itself.
I trust GW to make advanced skill training for chaotics as possible as all others, and not insurmountable to establish. The rest will be up to the players themselves.
GW has gathered a great team of skilled and experienced game designers.
Maybe we should have a little faith. Perhaps too many of us are expecting a perfect product when EE begins. Remember EE will not be a finished product and if it has some "wonky" mechanics, they will be adjusted.
In any case, advanced skill training is years away from being needed. We will all know if we want to play this game by then.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's why chaotic settlements or chaotic characters within a settlement are rare. Chaotic settlements are usually just barbarian tribes, monster groups or bandits.The River Kingdoms are obviously the exception rather than the rule:
Daggermark: Pop: 27,460 CN
Gralton: Pop: 9,200 CN
Mivon: Pop: 10,870 CN
Pitax: Pop: 8700 CN
Deadbridge: Pop: 4,113 CN
Riverton: Pop: 572 CN
Urigen: Pop: 1,213 CN
That's good news to me! CN is far and away my fave alignment, I really hope it's viable in this game so I can have one of my chars play it.
That said, the description of Daggermark isn't very CN at all. Sounds NE all the way. A kingdom ruled by its guilds is not chaotic, I don't see that at all. I think they just put in CN because its the biggest city in a CN country. There is plenty of of things in the Golarion setting I am not a fan of. The whole thing seems rushed and not very good to be honest.
Mivon and Pitax are MUCH better examples of CN settlements. The other classic CN settlement I forgot to mention is frontier towns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That said, the description of Daggermark isn't very CN at all. Sounds NE all the way. A kingdom ruled by its guilds is not chaotic, I don't see that at all. I think they just put in CN because its the biggest city in a CN country. There is plenty of of things in the Golarion setting I am not a fan of. The whole thing seems rushed and not very good to be honest.
I am struck by the size of the task GW has taken on. The original alignments were Law vs. Chaos, with Good vs Evil was added on later. Alignment seemed to be simple idea in its origin, an alliance tag in a fantasy wargame. It got carried into and through the various incarnations of D&D and PF gaining baggage along the way. Some of the reasoning for alignments might have been balance or other solid design decisions; some it might have been just random design decisions like "spears do 1-6 damage, swords do 1-8" which is carried over to other games: swords are now known to be better than spears just because that's the way it has always been.
With respect to Daggermark being CN: I think sometimes alignment has filled in for law level, societal organization, and a host of other things that the rules don't spell out.
To use alignment within the game, GW is having to define alignments in ways that they can be recognized by a computer. At the same time, they are defining development indexes for settlements separately, so alignment won't be a stand-in for development. I wonder if this might actually be the most coherent look at alignment to date.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not sure how this works. I propose that there are not 9 separate cultures, but variations on 3, LG ( laws age good and will be informed), LE (there are laws, but corruption rules), and Chaotic (a warlord rules). Between these are variants. between LG and LE, how much corruption is present. Either LE or LG, and warlord how much corruption is present or how much does warlord have and implement good rules. All will have murder as illegal. differences on how it is prosecuted or not.
I posted on this before, but have lost where/when I did. Sorry!
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not sure how this works. I propose that there are not 9 separate cultures, but variations on 3, LG ( laws age good and will be informed), LE (there are laws, but corruption rules), and Chaotic (a warlord rules). Between these are variants. between LG and LE, how much corruption is present. Either LE or LG, and warlord how much corruption is present or how much does warlord have and implement good rules. All will have murder as illegal. differences on how it is prosecuted or not.
I posted on this before, but have lost where/when I did. Sorry!
Lam
I've wondered about "the whole 9 nine yards" concerning alignment. ;) I read your other posts:
LG-HighReputation:
I think if you look at the scales of numbers used atm: ie +7500 in Lawful/Good (& Reputation) that is the most extreme case of discipline and abiding by rules (flag system) and choosing the good flavor/waving that flag of peaceful cooperation advertised and delivered - and other players have rated these people, then you have the top extreme case which translates acrosst the whole game:
Settlement development
Trade being playing fair
Skill services on offer wide
cooperative atmosphere
durable settlement and high activity of organisation and player sociability
This is a result GW very much wants so they will incentivize it. Also because a lot of players will want this result if they are enjoying the game a lot. This stability and complexity and building part of the game I think is best served by this Alignment. If players want to enjoy the atmosphere of the game in a friendly and cooperative (and high safety!) place then this is the Alignment that will support that for those people. I'd guess they will carve out a section of the map and defend it very effectively for all the above purposes.
CE-low-Reputation:
At the other extreme it's a toss up for CE low rep being a sort of penalty system or allowing people to play this role as they see fit. I think the devs are still working on this given the recent interview. But let's look at you the player: If you are low ie -7500 in Chaotic, Evil and low rep then you will have settlement membership to similar low people and that translates as breaking settlement laws, pvp'ing more frequently, attmepting to con players more and double-crossing in a contract or trade and generally looking to use FORCE to achieve in-game goals most expediently - as well as likely black markets and so on.
The impact of this is that this is viable but needs some "containing" ie the settlement options won't be as strong as the opposite eg above. Secondly there's 2 general types of players: RP'ers and generally people who want to pvp as much as possible; scam as much as possible and break rules and experiment with ways to affect the game world by stomping on what others have made, taking what others have earnt instead of building it themselves (a fair strategy if you can achieve it tbh). So both play styles need catering to but pvp'ers need higher costs for this risky behavior (ie a normal RL solution is that they kill each other or remain poor due to evil management eg Mugabe in Zimbabwe). So the devs are sort of deliberating on this atm.
LE: They have a lot of the advantages of Lawful Good Settlements eg organisation, but as Evil they might cut corners eg use "slaves" to augment the productivity of the "common people/folk" to reduce costs and generally try to impact rival settlements with more aggressive means, offensive, diplomatic and underhand?
=
In terms of the whole 9 alignments... Maybe it's more realistic to look at them in terms of clusters of the population that are blobs if the devs had a real-time data collection alignments and mapped clusters over a superimposed grid. You'd get stable blobs forming the more settlements of an alignment are formed, but again even settlements will change alignment, be destroyed and change in population and so on.
Seems LE will be a big "blob" and a flexible blob might exist over the Neutral alignment options. No idea what the distinctions will be between them but possibly fairly loose could be emphasis on trading in Neutral maybe? CE might be a smaller blob and that would not be a bad result if their collective efforts are disproportionately disruptive.
Anyway that's a projected thought on alignments as 9 discrete units vs flexible change of alignment over the population. We'll have to see how it pans out. I guess over time the devs will be able add to necessary balance of incentives for each alignment to attract different parts of the population for different reasons and also for different shifts in alliances?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What Id like to know is can a LG settlement train LN and NG buildings/trainers/etc to its highest level or does the alignment of a top-end building/trainer have to match the settlement EXACTLY in order to be built? If the answer is yes, then I dont see much of an issue.
It would also be useful to understand what exactly are the buildings/trainer that are limited by alignment? Beyond the Core Rules specific stuff (LG Paladins, LX Monks, etc), Ive seen some theories and suggestions proposed, but nothing definite.
Between those two points, it may not be as big of an issue as it sounds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why chaotic settlements or chaotic characters within a settlement are rare. Chaotic settlements are usually just barbarian tribes, monster groups or bandits.The River Kingdoms are obviously the exception rather than the rule:
Daggermark: Pop: 27,460 CN
Gralton: Pop: 9,200 CN
Mivon: Pop: 10,870 CN
Pitax: Pop: 8700 CN
Deadbridge: Pop: 4,113 CN
Riverton: Pop: 572 CN
Urigen: Pop: 1,213 CN
RK is definitely a unique area. But I think we should also keep in mind that the PFO system for alignment, while very much connected to the idea in PFRPG is still a different beast. So, what is shown in source books for the overall alignment of a place, probably/most likely would not line up with the PFO game mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To use alignment within the game, GW is having to define alignments in ways that they can be recognized by a computer. At the same time, they are defining development indexes for settlements separately, so alignment won't be a stand-in for development. I wonder if this might actually be the most coherent look at alignment to date.
Yeah, nice post. Remember that alignment is THE rule set for Roleplaying in PF/D&D. We have books full of combat maneuvers and spells but the requirements for role playing are contained in those vague 9 alignments. Vague and philosophically challenging as the alignments are, they are a basic framework for role playing a character in a fantasy game and GW is now trying to codify it.
Quantifying behavior on a mass scale is pretty challenging. All we have seen so far is games that divide good/bad, this is one big and brave step further. Whatever else PFO ends up being or not being, the chance to be there for the "crowdforging" of this is what excites me the most. I don't even have any unrealistic notions about what crowdforging actually means. My voice will be heard by the designers and that's enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How can a city which is mostly controlled by rogues (Chaotic) be anything but chaotic? Poisoning and assassinations aren't legal, its just that none have the power to stop them. So since the law enforcement is too weak to stop the chaos, the chaos (aka the guilds) reigns which means that the settlement is chaotic.
Rogues are not by definition chaotic. Rogues do not even have a non lawful alignment restriction like Barbarians do. Assassins OTOH, are do have the evil restriction so right off the bat a city run by them is evil on the good/evil axis. The highest levels of an elite assassins guild are not likely to be chaotic. The highest levels of an elite assassins guild that govern a tightly run city with organized militia are not likely to be chaotic either. They are probably Lawful or Neutral on the law/chaos axis.
Daggermark is NE. I'm willing to take on Lisa Stevens over this (lol)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen alot of people on this thread say they don't think chaos will work because there will essentially be no unifying force to make things work. to that I bring up an oft-repeated saying of my friend "It's Chaotic Neutral, not Chaotic Stupid." Chaos in general does what's in it's best interest, and if that means working together, fine, but laws won't play a part in decisions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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?
If you have "lawful skills" (pala, hellknight, monk) and like walking around with the enforcer flag, then losing access to those abilities (due to alignment drift) is a big deal and you will have to watch your behaviour.
OTOH if you focus on "chaotic skills" (barbarian, bandit) and like to ambush traders, then you are extremely unlikely to lose access to those skills due to careless behaviour (and if it happens, it is very easy to slide back into chaos).The anti-paladin has the freedom of disobeying the paladin code.
If you are a simple fighter, alignment should not make too much of a difference.
SUGGESTION to devs: instead of allowing NN settlements to include everyone, allow NN characters to join any settlement (ie allow LG/CG/LE/CE settlements to include NN players). This allows crafters, traders and new players to move more freely between settlements.
Alignment-restricted abilities (if cool & powerful) + the PVP flags should be enough incentive for adventurers to populate the whole alignment matrix. I may be stepping on some druid toes now, but at least one version of neutral should be the pragmatic trader who brings goods where they are needed without taking sides (the guy the Traveller flag seems tailored for).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... instead of allowing NN settlements to include everyone...
I may be missing some context, and you may have been saying something else, but this jumped out at me and I wanted to speak up.
NN Settlements will not be able to include everyone. According to the rules as we know them so far, NN Settlements will not allow LG, CG, LE, or CE members.
I would think that there is great promise for PvP-centric guilds for example in creating large chaotic settlements as a base for their warbands/barbarian tribes. haotic does not necessarily imply unfocused, especially on a guild level.Yes this is all true,from a players point of view.
Now put on your GM hat. A group of all chaotic players want to build and run a city....
What GM hat? There is no GM in PFO. The closest thing to it is GW, and they are explicitly allowing for large Chaotic Settlements. In fact, they're putting a significant one into the game from the very beginning, Thornkeep. I have the feeling that many people are just not really discussing PFO at all. There are general RPG discussion forums for that, really. Otherwise, this is the forum to discuss the specific PFO game.
Remember that alignment is THE rule set for Roleplaying in PF/D&D. We have books full of combat maneuvers and spells but the requirements for role playing are contained in those vague 9 alignments.
Uh... no. Alignments are a measurement, relevant for certain class mechanics, other game mechanics, and detect alignment spells, but not as to how you roleplay a character. If you are letting whatever alignment is written down on a character sheet dictate how you roleplay, you are metagaming, pure and simple. Certainly, especially for NPCs, using a published alignment as the basis is the most convenient approach, but starting from aligment and going to motivations/actions is NOT how it works, and certainly not something that the game tells us is the proper approach to roleplaying.
But I'm not really sure of the point of this debate, this is a computer game, the alignments are not unique to PFO, and plenty of PFO players will not particularly care about roleplaying in line with their given alignment (which of course, like the tabletop game, can change, which wouldn't make sense if all roleplaying were subsumed to the alignment, i.e. you always act in-line with the given alignment). Nothing about GW's system as so far described indicates that this is any sort of problem, people can play their characters however they want... In-game aligment will reflect their actions accordingly. That's it.
I don't think that after Open Enrollment, "most" people will actually play alignments according to pfrpg definitions anyway.
...And...? We still will have the explicit alignment shifts in response to explicitly defined actions, along with customizable alignment drift. Exactly as promised, nothing more, nothing less. That certainly seems sufficient to influence how people play the game, and 'stratify' different play styles in different realms of game mechanics (alignment/reputation), which is the apparent intent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I may be missing some context, and you may have been saying something else, but this jumped out at me and I wanted to speak up.
Nihimon, you are of course correct. The context is that I have seen several people arguing that NN settlements should allow everyone, for various reasons. I am suggesting something else.
My goal is to allow NN individuals to be 'politically neutral' without giving NN settlements an advantage. I want to see settlements of extreme alignments but simultaneously see crafters/traders/farmers/miners welcome everywhere if they ply their trade without a political agenda.
(incidentally my suggestion lets every settlement recruit 4 alignments except NN who can still recruit 5, but this is not the reason for my suggestion).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Quandary @Bringslite - seems a little cross-purposes conversations is all.
I mean Ninemoons is talking about theme/flavor -> eg chaotic settlement would reasonably be presumed to be (by a GM) LOW DI INDEX. This actually matches what GW have suggested will be in-game mechanic of the Settlement Systems.
Again I think the Alignment consideration that avari3 brings up is sort of delt with via Core vs Active Alignments, isn't it? Agree Alignment is measure of ACTIONS not INTENTIONS.
The final point I believe the direction GW want for PFO is settlement lines drawn up around a mechanism that is derived from Alignment differences but works differently: More according to mmorpg data such as (a big one being "meaningful" pvp):
Behaviors we want:
- Large PvP wars. (Thus wars eliminate all reputation losses.)
- Players able to defend themselves without concern. (Thus the Attacker flag.)
- Players to attack each other over resources, money, territory, etc.
- Most PvP to occur outside of settlements where there are no guards, laws, etc.
- Players who are not PvP combat machines having some ability to discourage attacks via bounties, death curses, reputation loss, etc., but these should not be so onerous as to prevent PvP if the profit potential is there.
- Players able to play their alignment, but at the same time not grief players of opposite alignment. If one player is chaotic evil and another lawful good, each should not be able to abuse the other without limit or recourse.
Behaviors we don't want:
- PvP conflicts where the death of the target means no gain for the attacker, i.e. randomly killing people for no reason.
- Abuse of new players.
- Players cooperating to game reputation and alignment systems to their advantage.
- Players willfully committing crimes or evil acts under the shield of reputation or alignment penalties so onerous no one would try and stop them.
"There are other behaviors aside from these, but this hopefully gets you the idea."
One way to look is: INPUT: PvP predeliction -> (f) Alignment -> OUTPUT: Grouping type -> settlement type
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Uh... no. Alignments are a measurement, relevant for certain class mechanics, other game mechanics, and detect alignment spells, but not as to how you roleplay a character. If you are letting whatever alignment is written down on a character sheet dictate how you roleplay, you are metagaming, pure and simple. Certainly, especially for NPCs, using a published alignment as the basis is the most convenient approach, but starting from aligment and going to motivations/actions is NOT how it works, and certainly not something that the game tells us is the proper approach to roleplaying.
But I'm not really sure of the point of this debate, this is a computer game, the alignments are not unique to PFO, and plenty of PFO players will not particularly care about roleplaying in line with their given alignment (which of course, like the tabletop game, can change, which wouldn't make sense if all roleplaying were subsumed to the alignment, i.e. you always act in-line with the given alignment). Nothing about GW's system as so far described indicates that this is any sort of problem, people can play their characters however they want... In-game aligment will reflect their actions accordingly. That's it.
Metagaming? Role playing your alignment is meta gaming? Alignment comes from an age when that concept only meant looking at the module your DM was running. It's a set of rules designed in the infant stages of role playing and yes it was designed for people to follow them and play to them. Role playing has evolved quite a great deal since Gary Gygax came up with that, but that is the design. We know its not a straightjacket for RP, but to call using it for decision making meta gaming...you must be snorting ketchup
As for PFO, the game mechanics are forcing you to RP good/evil law/chaos. They are RP'ing indirectly. That's the point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My goal is to allow NN individuals to be 'politically neutral' without giving NN settlements an advantage. I want to see settlements of extreme alignments but simultaneously see crafters/traders/farmers/miners welcome everywhere if they ply their trade without a political agenda.(incidentally my suggestion lets every settlement recruit 4 alignments except NN who can still recruit 5, but this is not the reason for my suggestion).
I addressed the TN advantage if it allowed for all 9 alignments and applied the same concept to the others as well.
Basically, the more alignments your settlement is open to, the lower the training capacity, with the exception to the settlement's core alignment axis.
Using the 9 Alignment Chart:
A TN settlement would be open to all 9 alignments.
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.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Re: Alignment-restricted training and buildings.
There seems to be many interpretations on what 'alignment-restricted skills' means. A cleric blog might clear this somewhat (hint!), but what we seem to know at this stage is:
- A: some abilities can only be used when you are the correct alignment. Ex. smite evil, rage, the pvp flags...
- B: some abilities can only the trained when you are the correct alignment. Ex. detect/smite evil, rage, much divine magic, assassin skills, monk skills
- C: some training buildings are restricted to settlements of specific alignments (other restrictions will also apply such as rep and DI)
So far so good, but now the interpretation, speculation and confusion starts. I suspect this is still in flux, but I would love if a dev said what goals they want to achieve with this system, which would allow us to discuss on a better basis than personal preference and pnp-orthodoxy.
- A1: this will apply to only a few 'flavour skills'
- A2: this will apply to some of (or all of) the 'best' skills in game
- A3: this will apply heavily to some classes and not to others
- A4: some skills (monk?) may still be usable despite not being trainable
- C1: "trainer alignment" must match exactly: pala trainer only in LG
- C2: "trainer alignment" must be allowed: pala trainer in LG, LN, NG
- C3: the individual must (always) have the alignment/rep/prereqs to receive training, the building itself is not enough.
- C4: if settlement alignment changes, the trainer is disabled
- C5: requirements to unlock, maintain and use a trainer are not necessarily connected.
To the last one (C5), that could mean that top rogue trainers may only be found in wealthy lawless cities, but anyone willing to pay might the trained regardless of their alignment and rep. A shrine to Abadar might also be found in the same chaotic wealthy city, but they would refuse to share any secrets with chaotic folks. An chapter house of paladins might only establish in a proven bastion of good, but will not necessarily give up and abandon fort if the government becomes corrupted...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I realize that we cannot help speculating on the highs and lows that we perceive of what we know about the entire system. They are still fleshing it out and working with all of the contradictions, concerns, and limitations that we believe exist and that they can foresee. Give them a chance and All Will Be Made Clear when all is clear. :)
Nice to see people giving examples of optional systems and others pointing out known questions and misconceptions. Far better that we take that approach rather than fight amongst ourselves about it being "unworkable", "unfair", "discriminative", "limiting", "stupid", "perfect as is", etc...
I really urge any that have not, to listen to Gobbocast Episode 9. It is an interview with 3 of the developers. It is pretty interesting. Quite obviously, those guys care as much or more about making this game really great, than we all do.
And of course: Another shout out to Areks and Krows for their good score and their great work! Thanks again Dudes! =D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I may be missing some context, and you may have been saying something else, but this jumped out at me and I wanted to speak up.
Nihimon, you are of course correct. The context is that I have seen several people arguing that NN settlements should allow everyone, for various reasons. I am suggesting something else.
My goal is to allow NN individuals to be 'politically neutral' without giving NN settlements an advantage. I want to see settlements of extreme alignments but simultaneously see crafters/traders/farmers/miners welcome everywhere if they ply their trade without a political agenda.
(incidentally my suggestion lets every settlement recruit 4 alignments except NN who can still recruit 5, but this is not the reason for my suggestion).
This moves the benefits of TN from the settlement level (any alignment can join a TN settlement) to the player level (a TN player can join any settlement). What is the offsetting disadvantage to playing TN? Because otherwise, unless you have a class reason to play another alignment (LG paladin, LX monk, CX barbarian...), there is no reason other than RP to choose anything other than TN, and a distinct advantage (more settlement choices) to choose TN.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A: some abilities can only be used when you are the correct alignment. Ex. smite evil, rage, the pvp flags...
B: some abilities can only the trained when you are the correct alignment. Ex. detect/smite evil, rage, much divine magic, assassin skills, monk skills
A small clarification based on the May 22 blog entry:
"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."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The context is that I have seen several people arguing that NN settlements should allow everyone, for various reasons. I am suggesting something else.
Okay, I thought it might be something like that. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
This moves the benefits of TN from the settlement level (any alignment can join a TN settlement) to the player level (a TN player can join any settlement). What is the offsetting disadvantage to playing TN?
This is a really good question.
The more I think about it all, the more I think the current plan is the right one. The corner-extremes will have the least diversity, but that's offset by having access to the most restricted training facilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For what it's worth, I don't think the developers are rigidly opposed to a less restrictive system, but I do think we're unlikely to see any changes to the current one until after the first settlements are in. One-step restrictions offer the lowest number of variables to test and balance (excluding zero-step restrictions). And it's always easier to loosen existing restrictions than to impose new ones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For what it's worth, I don't think the developers are rigidly opposed to a less restrictive system...
I think you're right. I keep coming back to this quote:
I like the idea of being able to set a Settlement's alignment to either "all of one" or "none of one" of the 4 alignment options.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm resisting the trend toward homogenous mediocrity and would prefer encourage distinct variety. My thought is that if you remove the distinctions between alignment we will end with a homogenous, lukewarm paste rather than a dynamic sociopolitical system. It isn't that I want more polarity, but if everyone, good, evil, chaotic, lawful is in every practical sense TN then there is no meaning to the TN alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm resisting the trend toward homogenous mediocrity and would prefer encourage distinct variety. My thought is that if you remove the distinctions between alignment we will end with a homogenous, lukewarm paste rather than a dynamic sociopolitical system. It isn't that I want more polarity, but if everyone, good, evil, chaotic, lawful is in every practical sense TN then there is no meaning to the TN alignment.
True Neutral is all things, and yet its own thing. It is not the melting pot if alignments, but the salad bowl. A blend of every alignment, including itself, but you can still see its individual components.