We know a few things about how settlements interact with the alignment mechanic, from a limitation on who can be members, to certain effects (lawful/good reducing costs vs. chaotic/evil, although it isn't clear if each axis uses a different means to that end or the same one). I think I and many others have been assuming that there will be further differentiators, but we have been mostly guessing as to those up to this point... So, I have a few questions that GW developers could hopefully answer here or in a future blog:
What are the other effects of alignment upon settlements?
Certain class abilities are obviously, or not so obviously, linkable to alignments, e.g. Assassination. These will require the character wanting training to themselves have either Active/Core Alignment compatable with the ability, but the assumption has been that training facilities themselves may only be constructable in suitable settlements. If so, does this mean the settlement alignment itself needs to be X alignment, or would X alignment simply need to be within the 'compatable alignment' matrix of the settlement (same as for it's members)? Would this differentiate between low-level training and high-level training?, i.e. the former is compatable with a broader array of settlements? Would this be mainly be implemented as mere differences in 'efficiency' or training capacity, or thru hard caps in what the facilities do? Are all 'class' ability training facilities forseen to be 'aligned' or only some? Are all alignments forseen to have roughly equal number of alignment 'associated' ability training?
Will the settlement alignment provide other benefits besides training and 'costs' of the settlement? Perhaps some benefits would be provided via buildings/improvements/points of interest which are only compatable with, or are enhanced by, specific alignments. These could grant always on buffs, or conditional buffs, to all members of the settlement, to members who specifically have that alignment (or component), or could specifically affect members with specific 'class' abilities (e.g. increasing the effect of good clerics' channel energy). These would be obvious differentiators and reasons to join a specific settlement, vs. other ones you are 'compatable' with. Some of these could even have 'negative' effects, such as a Lawful building which increased the value of any Chaotic alignment shift flowing from members' actions (making them act more Lawful), although that example probably would have some balancing 'benefit'.
As so far described, every settlement has a chosen alignment, and an alignment matrix of allowable member alignments (basically a cross around the chosen settlement alignment, or possibly other options such as 'all of one' or 'none of one' or even 'just one alignment allowed', although the benefits for more restrictive matrixes aren't clear). But that only sets up a minimal link between the settlement alignment and it's members alignments (active and core). Based on what we know, it seems more than plausible for a Settlement to be officially LG but none of it's members are actually LG. Is there anything planned to address this somehow, i.e. make it relevant what the balance of actual member alignments within a settlement is? I could see a system akin to Core/Active Alignment, either thru averaging member alignment tiers/scores, or thru determining the most popular/populous alignment within the Settlement... What would that distinction (Core/Active Settlment Alignment) be relevant for, if it exists? Perhaps a similar dynamic to character training, but Core vs Active determine whether an alignment-linked facility can be built vs. operate once built? (perhaps meaning a Settlement could retain Alignment linked facilities from days when it was of a different alignment, which it couldn't currently build from scratch, but can continue to operate, although perhaps at lower effect based on the current official settlement Alignment score(s)).
Everything so far about alignment has been in terms of what alignment 'tier' (good/neutral/evil/etc) a character or settlement is, but are there plan to make the actual alignment axis scores themselves count? In other words, for there to be some substantial difference for a character who is MAXED Lawful Good versus just barely being Lawful Good (obviously the latter is more in danger of 'falling' into a different Alignment, but I am asking about characters who ARE within the same alignment tier for sake of comparison). For characters, I could see specific class abilities working more strongly for somebody who is MAXED Lawful/Chaotic/whatever vs. somebody who is merely meeting the minimum qualifications to use them.
For Settlements, everything so far doesn't indicate that there IS any alignment axis score for them, they simply have a 'chosen' Alignment which determines member compatability (and other possible repurcussions), but is there any plan for Alignments to have an actual alignment SCORE in any way? Would this be via averaging members' score, or some other means? How would a specific numeric alignment rating impact Settlements, as opposed to their chosen Alignment 'Tier'?
Would actions officially taken by the Settlement (which could include alliances or agreements with other settlements) impact it's members own alignments (and reputation)? (whether or not they are themselves attacking, etc) That would lead to some members shifting alignments, and some portion would either be shifted to where they are kicked out of the settlement, or the Settlement would be forced to shift their official Alignment (to match the actual policies they have pursued). Is anything like that planned?
Goblin Squad Member
|
does this mean the settlement alignment itself needs to be X alignment, or would X alignment simply need to be within the 'compatable alignment' matrix of the settlement (same as for it's members)?
My understanding isn't definitive, but is that to bring the quality of a facility to maximum, such that the very best assassins can gain from training there, the settlement will have to exactly be of the optimal alignment. If the settlement is only compatible then that last tier of training may be unavailable to them.
Now there is a factor of Law that suggests the best facilities will be in lawful settlements, but it seems oddly inconsistent were it so in all cases. Specifically Barbarians, assuming we have the barbarian skills, should be able to achieve their optimal training in a high reputation Chaotic settlement.
Or so it seems to me.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Since the top-tier training could take 2+ years to become relevant, I suppose that training might be linked to development indexes. Training facilities that correspond to your exact alignment (e.g. LG for a paladin temple) become available with DIs of X, while the same facility becomes available at a higher DI for adjacent alignments (a LN or NG settlement would require a DI of X+N to build the same temple).
Alignment could also affect the amount of DI that a given structure provides, as well as the availability. A LG settlement would never get a benefit from a slave market, while a LE settlement would get full benefit and a LN one could get a partial benefit. (No comment on other alignments on this specific case).
Upkeep cost has also been suggested as alignment-specific: Perhaps the black market which trains various rogue skills is cheaper to maintain in a chaotic settlement, as well as providing higher benefits?
I'm also going to throw out the unrelated idea that companies could require charters from multiple settlements, and that having a charter from (or residency in) a settlement would be required to acquire things like warehouse or shop space, or allow for reduced user fees on the settlement market, or other benefits. CCs with alignments very different from the settlement's could have some additional downside to granting a charter.
That's a great point re: real time-scale of top-tier ability training, that a cap to top-tier access just won't be relevant for quite some time. So I'm pretty sure there will be some other means to differentiate settlements of different alignment in that sphere, whether 'delayed progression' (as you suggest), different 'efficiencies' (capacitities to train X characters in Y time)... Or, of course, more qualitative differences rather than just 'more/less of exactly the same thing' (albeit delayed progression is a bit more than just that).
I'm definitely interested in how a settlement's actual alignment composition (in members) will matter vs. it's chosen alignment... I would hope that a settlement with a large number of actual True Neutral characters (perhaps Druids, Clerics of TN Gods) would be somewhat different than one with relatively few TN characters but simply many characters of opposed alignments with TN as the 'centerpoint' (i.e. NG/NE, LN/CN). Especially if different alignment matrixes, beyond the 'adjacent but not diagonal' rule are made available, there will become several different options for settlement alignment/matrix while including most of the same alignments, e.g. normal adjacent rules centered on NG including LG, CG, and TN, or 'all of Good' possibly with ANY Good alignment as it's official alignment while including CG, NG, and LG. The effect of actual membership composition as well as the specific benefits/effects of the alignment's official alignment will be crucial differentiators between those options.
If training 'efficiency' (how many people can be trained by a given structure) is linked to settlement alignment, then perhaps some of the more dubious settlement alignment strategies that are at-odds with the actual predominant character alignments of the settlement membership might be made unworkable: if you have a huge amount of good aligned characters who need to train their good aligned abilities, you will NEED a good aligned settlement to train all of them. if the characters choose 'classes' that don't involve alignment-linked abilities it won't be an issue, but that is somewhat giving up one of the advantages of a good settlement with many good characters, exclusive/advantageous access to those abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An interesting thread. I was occupied with this issue since i read
...A settlement can remain competitive with a low rating in law, good, or reputation (or average ratings in all three), but the penalties add up such that a settlement that caters to low-reputation chaotic evil characters will be at a fairly significant disadvantage compared to other settlements, and such characters may have a hard time finding a place to train, trade, and craft....
Since i am part-time DM and part-time powergamer in my pathfinder TT group, i worried instantly about LG settlements composed of pretended LG chars, acting LE, NE, CE etc. just for the powergamings sake, waging war on everyone, because there are no reputaion and alignment penalties for killings in wartime.
Besides, putting all alignments at an disadvantage in comparison to LG felt wrong. In reality, lawful nations can manage their affairs better then chaotic ones, yes. But a game should be about fun, not realism. Gamers would be disappointed when they realized their CN barbarian settlement will never be as succesfull as their LG neighbor, just because they choosed the "wrong" alignment.
Maybe Quandary thought about something similar:
...then perhaps some of the more dubious settlement alignment strategies that are at-odds with the actual predominant character alignments of the settlement membership might be made unworkable...
Sorry if i did not get your point. To many words for my limited english. ;)
...I'm definitely interested in how a settlement's actual alignment composition (in members) will matter vs. it's chosen alignment...
I like this idea very much. Settlements could have core and active alignments, too. To some degree, every member could shift into the core alignment of her settlement. Possibly conflicting with his own core alignment. The active alignment of a settlement would be calculated on base of the active alignments of its members. The more "pure" the active alignment would be in comparison to its core alignment, the more bonuses the settlement would get and superior buildings could be build.
With regards
Dergard
...then perhaps some of the more dubious settlement alignment strategies that are at-odds with the actual predominant character alignments of the settlement membership might be made unworkable...Sorry if i did not get your point. To many words for my limited english. ;)
I was just meaning a Settlement with XY Alignment (for whatever benefits that brings) which doesn't have any Members of XY Alignment, just Members with (X+/-1)(Y+/-1) Alignment, which is 'compatable' per the normal rules. I don't have a problem with them being potential members, but if that is the entire membership, or the vast majority, I would hope there is a signifigant difference vs. XY Alignment Settlement who DO have alot of Members of XY Alignment.
I guess the question could also be expanded to Kingdoms, even if that isn't even coded for in the initial release... The relationship between how many Settlements you actually have of the Kingdom's own alignment, or if there even ARE any Settlements of the specific Kingdom alignment within the Kingdom (i.e. when the Kingdom Alignment is just a 'middlepoint' of more diverse Settlments) has similar issues. What Kingdoms can do that Settlements cannot and the role/effect of Kingdom Alignment kind of defines the scope of what needs to be dealt with here.
Off hand, it seems plausible that each Settlement's DI is 'aligned', so a Kingdom with many Settlements of different stripes will not be able to do the 'higher end' Kingdom-specific stuff that is Alignment-linked (although there may be plenty that is not Alignment related at all). On the other hand, a Kingdom with Settlements all of the same alignment (or alignment component) should have a very high amount DI rating that qualifies for 'aligned' purposes.
It did sound like there has been some evolution on the conceptual role of Settlements, so that they may now control/extract DI from a larger area than just adjacent hexes... Information on how that's envisioned to work would be appreciated, but more broadly, if that is the case, then the line between a Settlement and a Kingdom begins to erase (i.e. if one Settlement can control hexes equivalent to those that 2 smaller Settlements comprising a Kingdom control). I don't see anything wrong with that, and in fact I don't see why a single Settlement shouldn't be able to do everything a Kingdom could (assuming sufficient DI), Kingdom specific rules really only need to be if you have groups wanting to continue to administer multiple Settlements with some level of independence within a larger Kingdom, if that isn't wanted or relevant, then just continuing with the same Settlement administration structure seems fine... Either can do similar things, based of DI indexes (with multi-Settlement Kingdoms containing different Alignments having their DI 'aligned' according to the Settlement controlling/contributing it).