Goblin Squad Member
|
From an in-character perspective they are being calmed and persuaded. This isn't compulsion, this is your character persuading them to stop attacking you. As they begin to question their actions they become less effective at combat. Damage breaks them out of it because it's hard to stay in a peaceful state of mind while you are getting sliced open.It is completely within the realm of pacifists to convince other people to give up violence. Why would someone give up violence themselves if they don't feel those values are worth preaching?
It is not needed to calm my opponent, only to persuade them that their corse of action is either futile or that it will not result in what they intended. If though evasion and other techniques it becomes obvious that my opponent can not defeat me, will he not be more receptive to another course of action?
If he should defeat me, and I quickly return and confront him again, asking him again to seize what he was doing.... Will he not begin to question my motives? If he asks me, why do you do this, you know I will kil you again? I have won! Because in questioning my willingness to risk my life, he will question his own actions.
Now we had to this a third party. I am not acting in my interest, but I am trying to defend someone being attacked. Now my interference may give the victim a chance to recover, or escape. Even in my death, I will have succeeded.
Finally, in cases where I turn my opponent's attacks back onto him. I would bring him to the brink of death and then only use active or passive defenses. Meanwhile trying to convince my opponent that the fight was in fact over. If he agrees, I would freely heal him and send him on his way. If he turns on me again, I would defeat him with his own attacks, but then offer to guard his remains, so that he can retrieve his items.
If he asks me, why would you do such a thing? I have won.
Pacifism is internally believed and externally demonstrated. Harad Navar, may be able to shead more light on this or perhaps a different light on it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you want to play a defensive style pacifist, then play a defensive pacifist. Just because you have the option to increase their peace rating doesn't mean you have to use it.
However I find it very unlikely that there will be a role that will allow you defeat your opponents using their own damage. It would be far too powerful in the hands of someone who isn't opposed to mixing in a few offensive abilities.
Unless perhaps it was added as a different path opened up by the Vow of Pacifism. ;)
Edit: Or added as a separate Vow of Non-Aggression. I disagree that your character is a true pacifist. You are using their attacks to harm them. Intentionally harming someone isn't pacifism even if you are just redirecting their own aggression.
Perhaps you would be interested in looking at where I drew the basis of a Vow of Pacifism:
In that format it kind of combines higher diplomacy with higher defense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This may seem simplistic, but sometimes simple is better. You're describing a system meant to promote pacifism, but you want a mechanic that forces that "peace" on others. Forcing your desired state of mind onto others is not a passive action - it is more akin to mind control. Forcing those who are taking aggressive acts to instead be passive (forcing their arms to stop swinging swords, their hands to stop casting spells, etc.) - is more akin to body control spells, like a specialized form of paralysis or hold person.
You're actively, some would argue aggressively, forcing your desired behavior on other players. How can that be passive? In your reply to Qiang Tian Zsu, you stated, "If you want to play a defensive style pacifist, then play a defensive pacifist." What other kind is there? How can you be actively passive without acting against someone? I would go further and state that if you turned an attacker's damage back on themselves, that you still are not truly being pacifistic, since you're knowingly doing something that will injure another.
Pacifistic players would neither attack another (even with pacifying spells) nor defend themselves, since doing so usually means fighting back - which causes injury. In the spirit of passive resistance, they would point out the wrongfulness of the act being perpetrated against them and most likely get injured or killed. Given our immortality in the game, they could possibly even return to the scene as Qiang mentioned (or I often did in UO with my true pacifist) and try again to convince the aggressive party to see the errors in his own ways. Convince - not force.
To actively force other players to act differently than they intend with their characters and call it being passive seems mislabeled.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Short-guy
I think the the problem here is a disconnect between metagame and in-character perspective.
Anyone saying this system "forces" people toward pacifism is viewing it from a metagame perspective.
From an in-character perspective they are being calmed and persuaded. This isn't compulsion, this is your character persuading them to stop attacking you. As they begin to question their actions they become less effective at combat. Damage breaks them out of it because it's hard to stay in a peaceful state of mind while you are getting sliced open.
It is completely within the realm of pacifists to convince other people to give up violence. Why would someone give up violence themselves if they don't feel those values are worth preaching?
Anyone who refuses to harm others is a pacifist. My suggestion is defensive, you jus defend yourself through persuasion and instead of dodging/enduring attacks.
Also I hope the comment about redirecting attacks wasn't aimed at me. I agree it isn't pacifism and wasn't the one pushing it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The vows that you use as the basis of your idea, are all internal not external. They do not inhibit or restrict the actions of others, they only give you a slight +2 bonus to diplomacy checks.
The information I use for the basis of my interpretation of pacifism can be found here: Pathfinder Monks
By using my feats and skills, while at the same time attempting a dialogue with my attacker, I hope to demonstrate the futility in his attacking me.
I personally hope that PFO will have a system if non lethal combat, or a brief hit point range where my opponent will be incapacitated, rather than just dead. To me, this would be the ideal system for a pacifist to function within. But, in the absence if that, I will make due with what skills and the combinations of skills that gives me the closest representation if that outcome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Qiang.
Actually you are incredibly wrong. From the Sacred Vow, Vow of Peace:
This sacred vow grants significant supernatural benefits, but its cost is high. First, you are constantly surrounded by a calming aura to a radius of 20 feet. Creatures within the aura must make a successful Will save (DC 10 + one-half your character level + your Cha modifier) or be affected as by the calm emotions spell. Creatures who leave the aura and reenter it receive new saving throws. A creature that makes a successful saving throw and remains in the aura is unaffected until it leaves the aura and reenters. The aura is a mind-affecting, supernatural compulsion. Second, you gain a +2 natural armor bonus to your AC, a +2 deflection bonus to your AC, and a +2 exalted bonus to your AC. This exalted bonus does not apply to touch attacks and does not hinder incorporeal touch attacks. Brilliant energy weapons, however, do not ignore it. It does not stack with an armor bonus. If you also have the Vow of Poverty feat, the natural armor, deflection, and exalted Armor Class bonuses granted by that feat all increase by +2. If a creature strikes you with a manufactured weapon, the weapon must immediately make a successful Fortitude save (DC 10 + one-half your character level + your Con modifier) or shatter against your skin, leaving you unharmed. Finally, you gain a +4 exalted bonus on all Diplomacy checks.
That format doesn't screw around, it uses strait up compulsion. I'm simply suggesting diplomacy work against the character's resolve instead of the player's.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, I was neglectful in not delving deeper into multiple links, so I based my statement on surface information.
The key word in what you presented, in my opinion, was "creatures". Regardless of how you try to rationalize or justify the merits if your proposed system, as a game mechanic, forcing players to lose control of their characters is typically avoided.
@Hobbs
You are in fact correct, not all of the feats in the Flowing Monks abilities are pacifistic, but they are more so than most.
Besides, as a role playing consideration, if my character has achieved a perfect representation and demonstration of pacifism, then his journey will have been completed. It is only through his mistakes and flaws, that he will learn to finely tube his life internal and external and achieve perfection.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Please elaborate on your statement. Which playstyles is it hindering and how?You could do that from a metagame or in character sense. You could promote the ethics of non violence through chat, or give them monetary reasons to cease aggression. Either alternative will succeed or fail on it's own perceived value.
I don't see the need to translate it into a mechanic, and agree that the inclusion of it could hinder play styles.
Unless I have misread the premise (which I could be guilty of), this ability to pacify an attacker removes or adds a barrier to his/her intent.
I do think there is a possibility there might be a similar hindrance to combat through some crowd control. Those magical misdirects I would hope would be a short time based debuff similar to stuns and mesmerizations.
If your pacification system is intended to do much the same, then I redact my statement. I would say additional systems would be unnecessary, but it would not be taking away the ability for criminals to be criminals (for example)
Any system that works outside of a small window of game time, with a longer cool down (often used in MMO's to control the battlefield in key moments), seems restrictive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The key word in what you presented, in my opinion, was "creatures". Regardless of how you try to rationalize or justify the merits if your proposed system, as a game mechanic, forcing players to lose control of their characters is typically avoided.
I think you are blowing what I'm suggesting seriously out of proportion. I would define "losing control of your character" as a system where you are forced to just sit there and watch your character. For instance in games that allow you to mind control opponents and throw them off a cliff, or stun/daze type abilities that leave your character just sitting there in a stupor unable to respond.
It is partially my distaste for such systems that drives my desire to see alternate forms of crowd control implemented.
When fully pacified, you can move and use any non violent abilities such as healing, defensive buffs, speed buffs etc. normally. That leaves your character the option to retreat or even to continue trying to assist your allies. Not sitting there staring at the screen going "I can't even do anything!!!"
The most ridiculous example is EVE Online's electronic counter measures that break your lock on your target and leave you unable to target again for their duration. Using a powerful ECM ship such as the Scorpion battleship, you can effectively lock your opponent out of a fight as it blocks all targeted abilities (everything except drones, and 2 kinds of weapons that are almost never used) including repairing/buffing allies and your own electronic warfare (crowd control) abilities.
The great thing about the peace rating system is it is a similarly powerful system but it doesn't leave your opponent helpless and unable to respond. VoP characters can be meaningful crowd control without the rage inducing helplessness common in other titles that have crowd control characters.
Unless I have misread the premise (which I could be guilty of), this ability to pacify an attacker removes or adds a barrier to his/her intent.
I do think there is a possibility there might be a similar hindrance to combat through some crowd control. Those magical misdirects I would hope would be a short time based debuff similar to stuns and mesmerizations.
If your pacification system is intended to do much the same, then I redact my statement. I would say additional systems would be unnecessary, but it would not be taking away the ability for criminals to be criminals (for example)
Any system that works outside of a small window of game time, with a longer cool down (often used in MMO's to control the battlefield in key moments), seems restrictive.
For most characters who take diplomacy and a few peace rating skills it's a shortish duration effect. Longer duration than a stun but only about 20 seconds or so if your opponent is at full health and nobody tries to break them out of it. They do still suffer the penalties of going back down the peace rating system after this, but this is balanced as it takes a bit of effort and multiple abilities or multiple characters working together to get them up that high. And of course at no point in the peace rating system is the character left entirely helpless, in contrast to things like stun effects.
For VoP it is a long duration effect. So is death. Unless the player you are facing is being driven by a taskmaster, in a barbarian rage, has a super high will save and low health etc. it's slightly easier for a VoP character to drive someone over 125 peace rating / "Go in peace" them, then to kill them. But not much easier, and they suffer no death penalties / can't be looted / don't have to recover their body. In fact after their peace rating falls back down below 100 they are free to attack characters who haven't taken Vow of Pacifism.
Thinking about the implications of that mechanic it might also be prudent to add that a VoP character can't use any more peace rating abilities on them during the duration of the "Go in Peace" effect (10 minutes.)
The important thing to remember with the VoP mechanic is that it is an alternative to killing people. There is still a fight that takes place, and the criminals you are concerned about it harming, are no more helpless against it than they are against a blade.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Eldurian Darkrender,
(notice, I use your actual name)
First, I'm not sure I see the need to quote yourself in response to my post - I read what you wrote the first time. In both instances, though you may wrap your suggestion in softer, more gentile terms, such as "calming" and "persuading", you're still advocating for the ability to force a character to act in a manner other than how their player wishes them to act.
You suggest that this ability is actually a representation of how well your character is calming and persuading, yet instead of attempting to be that calming and persuasive via your character's speech (what you as the player decide to type), you are suggesting that there should be some game mechanic to enforce your success. True, there are already several skills/abilities in Pathfinder that work in this manner (i.e. your character's speech influences NPC reactions), with diplomacy likely being the closest to what you desire. Here's the brief description of it:
"You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. If you succeed, the character's attitude toward you is improved by one step. For every 5 by which your check result exceeds the DC, the character's attitude toward you increases by one additional step"Diplomacy
This sounds a lot like your proposed peace rating system, with higher scores resulting in greater effect. However, as I bolded it so as to make it stand out, diplomacy only affects NPC's. When I've discussed such PF abilities (e.g. diplomacy, intimidation, etc.) with other players, the overwhelming opinion has been that such skills might find their way into PFO, but with limited use, since there will be so few NPC's. The idea of being able to force other players to act as you want simply by speaking to them just didn't seem to tickle anyone's fancy.
So it would seem that in PF, if you want to affect another player character's attitudes, intentions, mood, etc., unless you use a controlling spell, magic item, etc., the only way your character is going to convince my character to do anything is by saying something that I think my character might consider. Failing that, unless you force me to change my actions, I'm going to keep deciding to have my character act whatever way I choose. I see no reason why the rules should change for PFO. Actually, in an MMO - a game where the person I'm trying to influence might not know me from Adam - there seems even less reason for this to occur.
Yet, it seems that you want to be able to control my character's actions (force me to stop being aggressive), not with the skill of your character's own words (what you type), but by game mechanics, while somehow still claiming that you're not forcing me to do anything. Not only would this action be interfering with how I want to play my character, but it should be viewed as an aggressive action. Somehow, none of this strike me as very passive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Short Stuff
(Notice, I don't use your actual name.)
I felt the need to quote myself because I thought if you basked in the glory of my words a few moments it might enlighten you to the truths you are obviously failing to see.
You are comparing apples and oranges by quoting the tabletop rules for diplomacy. The tabletop focuses on a group of player going out and facing the world together. A world made up entirely of NPCs. A diplomacy skill that only works on NPCs is super useful there because everyone who isn't an NPC, is your ally. If the people in the party with the highest diplomacy could always get their way whenever the party had a debate, it wouldn't be any fun for anyone else.
This is Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying game where PVP is one of the most major features. A diplomacy skill that has no effect on players... isn't all that useful here. Entirely gimping some beloved roles like the charismatic paladin or the smooth talking rogue in one of the most major areas of the game.
Now lets ask a few questions. When your character takes a "fear" effect that gives them penalties. Are you afraid as a player? When you take a "sickened" effect, do you puke all over your keyboard? When you take a bleeding effect, do you have to wash the bloodstains out of your chair? When you get a "confused" effect, are you confused? (Well... more confused than normal that is.)
So why is it so hard for you to grasp that your character should be able to be pacified without you, the player, being pacified? Is taking penalties for being afraid somehow less damaging to your ego than the idea your character can be guilt tripped by some guy saying you shouldn't attack him? Roleplay with it! If you want a character that has an extremely strong mental resolve and cannot be swayed from their path by any means. Stack the hell out of your will save. Otherwise good roleplay means acting like you have been persuaded, just like you have to act afraid when you fail your save on a fear effect.
But all that aside, you seem to have a very skewed opinion of what a pacifist is:
Pacifist: Someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes
Doesn't say you have to be a nice guy. Doesn't say you can't pick someone's pocket. Doesn't say you can't call your neighbor a mean old hag. Doesn't say you can't overtax the peasant population. Doesn't even say you can't use compulsion.
Notice I never talked about an alignment restriction for VoP, and neither does the source I took the idea from.
Your ideals you feel a pacifist should follow are irrelevant. Your definition of aggression is irrelevant. If all I'm doing is using words to cause you to stop attacking me, unless those words are "FUS RO DAH!!!" it doesn't really matter if I'm convincing you politely, using some magic chant that forces you to throw down your weapon, or saying mean things about your mommy until you are crying too hard to hold a blade straight, it's not violence. It's something a pacifist could do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Short Stuff
(Notice, I don't use your actual name.)
I felt the need to quote myself because I thought if you basked in the glory of my words a few moments it might enlighten you to the truths you are obviously failing to see.
After reading the last few posts it has dawned on me, the best quote that applies to your idea.....
Ace: Your request is not unlike your lower intestine: stinky and loaded with danger.
Your VoP is just too powerful, and the more you describe it (ie duration) the more powerful it becomes.
If you wish to have a mind control ability, and yes it is a mind control ability even if you don't want to admit it or recognize it as such, there must be the same conventions that govern other skills or feats:
1. Affect must be comparable in strength to other skills or feats
2. Duration must also be comparable
3. Range of use must be set at touch, or a preset range that must be maintained
4. There must be a counter measure to prevent it
5. There must be a counter measure to break it
6. There must be a cool down before it can be used again
7. For PFO purposes, there must be a consequence for it failing
8. For PFO purposes, there must be a severe penalty if you violate it
I'll hone in on just one issue, duration of effect. I would argue that its duration should be between 1 - 3 combat rounds and that requires you to maintain (actively) that control for the same duration. Once the effects are over, that is when your cool down starts.
Furthermore, if your mind control attack fails in its initial attempt, the opponent gains a resistance buff to additional attempts of your ability to mind control. A second attempt that fails would render the target immune to any further attempt of your mind control.
Just in case you missed this point.... Mind Control Attack. ... Nothing pacifist about it. Nothing persuasive or diplomatic about it either. Nothing lawful or good about it, if we consider alignment ( which I typically loath to do).
Ironically, the frequent use of your Peace Rating should grant you the Heinous Flag..... LOL, sometimes I crack myself up!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf. Have you considered purchasing reading glasses? They might really help you out in this situation.
Most of the points you are raising have already been addressed. I'm not going to go down your whole long list because most of it is just unreasonable demands that would gimp it beyond any usefulness.
1. Affect must be comparable in strength to other skills or feats.
The effect is more powerful than your average 3 second stun ability, but your average 3 second stun ability is an instant with a 30 second cooldown. In order to get the more impressive effects from peace rating you are have to dedicate a decent bit of your build to it, and a decent bit of time actually applying the desired effects. Not just kicking them in their soft bits on the way by. Otherwise it's just a light attack duration debuff that breaks after a bit of damage.
The only other crowd control system I've seen that is similar to this is the ECM system from EVE, which is actually far more powerful (Near complete character shutdown and not broken by damage.)
If you want to actually use it to remove someone from a fight, then you have to dedicate your character to that purpose, and you can't even effectively use it on a target who your allies are trying to kill as one of you will negate the other (Given VOP's best peace rating abilities are attached to healing effects and defensive buffs.)
Comparing it with other crowd control abilities isn't really fair in this scenario. You have to compare it with things that can kill you. As I said, it's slightly stronger but less harsh on you, and doesn't give them any loot.
In other words, switch the pacifying abilities for a sword, it takes a slightly shorter time to pacify you, then it would to kill you outright. Assuming you don't have high resistances or good counters to this ability. I feel this is pretty balanced.
I'm not sure what your fixation about alignment is, but you may want to see a therapist. As I said peace rating abilities and VoP are not restricted by alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your reading is not so good..... "I'll hone in on just one issue, duration of effect".... Perhaps it is not your reading, its your desire not to address the most important counter points.
You keep on using the EvE comparison, but that disrupt weapons targeting ability has a duration, and a limited range. It is also most effective when used in a specialized ship, and even then that ship has to dedicate at least 1/4 or 1/3 of its available slots to just do that one task. The EW frigate is also a fragile death trap and ridiculously easy to alpha strike. I can one-shot those from 56km with my 7 x 650mm IIs with standard rounds.
So let us try this exercise. Walk us through an encounter with one character using your VOP vs. a Fighter. Assume this is a 10 round fight, 60 seconds. Run the scenario twice, one in which the VoP succeeds in the first round, and one where it fails in the first round.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I had yet another movie connection to this proposed idea.....
When Thulsa Doom rests his hand on Conan's shoulder and dispels Conan's rage through mind control. Then suddenly the control fails, and Conan strikes.
So, so here are some ideas for your Vow of Peace ability:
Range: Initiated at first by contact. Then once contact is broken the duration clock begins.
Duration: Continuous during contact; 1 - 3 rounds after contact; unless broken by save or other means.
Effect: Victim may not attack while control is in effect.
Breaking Effects:
Damage to victim breaks control immediately and completely.
Damage to caster can also break control, immediately and completely
If control is broken, the caster is stunned for an equal amount of rounds that the control was in effect, or until damage is received.
Cool down: 30 seconds from time of break of last use.
There is no need for a rating that rises or falls, not even sure who this rating is applied to, it is so convoluted in its presentation.
I believe the confusion being created is purposeful, because clarity in the true agenda of the mind control attack would be quickly rejected by the majority of the forum readers here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your reading is not so good..... "I'll hone in on just one issue, duration of effect".... Perhaps it is not your reading, its your desire not to address the most important counter points.
Fine. I guess I'm not doing anything important anyway.
1. Affect must be comparable in strength to other skills or feats
2. Duration must also be comparable
This is a fairly unique system. It's a debuff that takes time and effort to apply and maintain, never fully locks the character down, and is quickly broken if the target is not near 100% health. It's most easily compared to damage, but not fully comparable to anything.
Why should it need to be? Are you against trying something new?
3. Range of use must be set at touch, or a preset range that must be maintained
Just like a martial character has a variety of ability with different ranges and areas of effect, so do these abilities. It's not just one "Boom! You can't fight!" type ability. Any more than attack is a "Boom! You're dead!" ability. As I've spelled out in great detail throughout this topic.
What is your reason for wanting to maintain a preset range?
4. There must be a counter measure to prevent it
There are just as many counter measures to prevent it as there are to prevent damage. Will saves in place of AR. Silence, stun, and other effects that can prevent it from being used. As I already stated earlier in this topic.
5. There must be a counter measure to break it
Damage, taskmaster abilities, barbarian rage, simply letting the timer wear off. There are a great deal of ways to break it, as I've spelled out for you many times.
Unless you are talking about the "Go in peace" ability. There is no breaking the "Go in peace" ability because it is essentially a death penalty with the intention of allowing the player who used it to carry on about their day without you continuing to attack them. Just as if they had killed you.
6. There must be a cool down before it can be used again
Abilities will have cool downs just as if they were attack abilities. Though most of the shorter cooldown abilities will be exclusive to VoP characters as regular characters are not intended to be able to keep you in a pacified state for very long. They are the burst DPS of peace rating where VoP are the sustained DPS. Or more accurately, Peace Per Second. As usual, I've already answered this question for you earlier on in the topic.
As far as the "Go in peace" ability. A VoP character can't affect your peace rating during the same timer that prevents you from damaging them. And they of course can't use harmful effects on you ever. Once you can attack them again, they can pacify you again. Just like if someone kills you, and you come back, they can kill you again.
7. For PFO purposes, there must be a consequence for it failing
Same penalty as a failed attack. The ability and time used to activate it are wasted. You've already asked this question before, and I've already given you that answer.
Why do you feel more is needed?
8. For PFO purposes, there must be a severe penalty if you violate it
Violate what? The vow? A cooldown (I would advocate for real life months) before you can take it again. Having to redo anything required to initially take the vow, and possibly a penance. Or course I already said this all in the OP.
Edit: So every single one of your points has already been addressed. Most of them in the OP and in posts that were direct replies to your questions. Unless you can stop making me repeat myself, I think we're done here. It's not really important to me that you support this idea, and the answers you're seeking are already here for the literate. A group you may want to consider joining. Or perhaps you're just getting forgetful in your old age?
So let us try this exercise. Walk us through an encounter with one character using your VOP vs. a Fighter. Assume this is a 10 round fight, 60 seconds. Run the scenario twice, one in which the VoP succeeds in the first round, and one where it fails in the first round.
Do you realize how much number crunching you are asking me to do? I would have to calculate the attack penalties, for each step of the peace rating system, the curve that makes it harder to raise peace rating as it gets higher, etc. This would take at least an hour or two to complete, and I really don't think you would get much from it anyway. You obviously haven't gotten much from anything else I've written.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you realize how much number crunching you are asking me to do? I would have to calculate the attack penalties, for each step of the peace rating system, the curve that makes it harder to raise peace rating as it gets higher, etc. This would take at least an hour or two to complete, and I really don't think you would get much from it anyway. You obviously haven't gotten much from anything else I've written.
If it requires you that much numbers crunching to do one skill or feat use, within two possible scenarios, think of what GW will say when these calculations will have to be done thousands of times.
A point of clarification is requested concerning Peace Rating:
Who's rating is it, the caster or the target?
From my understanding of what you have slowly revealed, but maybe I still have it wrong, the Peace Rating increases:
1. When the caster is being attacked, each additional attack increases his peace rating making it more possible for him to cast the "Go in Peace" spell.
2. When the attacker continues to attack, each attack increases his peace rating, making him more vulnerable to the "Go in Peace" spell.
As I have written, I don't see any down side to this ability. When it is used it always works better, unless completely broken. But you said early on, that breaking it would be difficult because you wanted to avoid the use of Friendly Fire breaking it. Yes, you have since rolled back on that assertion, but I don't think because you saw a flaw in it, but because we pointed out the over powered nature of it.
Some of us have requested: Non lethal combat; Subduing Damage; Unconscious or Bleed-out timers. All of these have either been ignored or said to be undesirable by GW Devs. Why should Go in Peace be any different?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You guys must be bored. Block after block of text over a system that has a non existent chance of being included in this game.
There are already simpler, trusted and true abilities in PFRGP that could do much the same but are balanced.
Almost nothing from the magic system from the Pathfinder RPG is balanced in a non-turn based PVP oriented MMORPG.
If the majority of spells and even the magic system from Pathfinder are not entirely redesigned for the release in PFO, this game will be unplayable.
Same goes for the skill system. If diplomacy from the tabletop is ported directly over to the MMO, it will be useless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You guys must be bored. Block after block of text over a system that has a non existent chance of being included in this game.
There are already simpler, trusted and true abilities in PFRGP that could do much the same but are balanced.
Yes, I have made this point but I will credit you for convincing me to depart from this topic. My final words are this....
Over Powered Mind Control Attack that is not Pacifist in anyway or stretch of the definition. Furthermore, it has no place in an Open World PvP environment that prevents someone from engaging in PvP without the same limitations of any other skill or feat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Of course they all have to be revamped. They already do have checks and balances built that can be part of that revamp, however. The proposed system is very interesting as an exercise but is simply too "over the top" powerful. And I am sorry, but redundant to other spells and abilities already existing.
Now that is enough. You shall not draw me into this debate with your dark charisma! =P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From my understanding of what you have slowly revealed, but maybe I still have it wrong, the Peace Rating increases:
1. When the caster is being attacked, each additional attack increases his peace rating making it more possible for him to cast the "Go in Peace" spell.
2. When the attacker continues to attack, each attack increases his peace rating, making him more vulnerable to the "Go in Peace" spell.
Wait.... where are you getting this?
When the caster is attacked, if they have peace rating on them at all, it is lowered. Of course this doesn't matter for a VoP caster as they effectively have a 100+ peace rating penalty 100% of the time. Peace rating gives penalties to aggression. There are no beneficial effects from having it on you
When an attacker attacks, it doesn't affect his peace rating at all, unless perhaps he's using attacks that sacrifice health, in which case his peace rating is lowered.
When the caster uses abilities that increase the attackers peace rating, the attackers peace rating is raised.
When the attacker takes damage, is targeted by abilities that lower their peace rating, and as time passes, their peace rating is lowered. All these lowering effects are further increased if they are in a barbarian rage.
When the attacker is at 125+ peace rating, then the caster has the option to effectively finish them off, with a "Go in Peace" ability. But only if the have VoP. And that ability only blocks them from attacking VoP characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When the attacker is at 125+ peace rating, then the caster has the option to effectively finish them off, with a "Go in Peace" ability. But only if the have VoP. And that ability only blocks them from attacking VoP characters.
Under what circumstances, other than the 125 peace rating, are required to carry out this "instant kill" ability. I say "instant kill" because you equated Go in Peace to a character death.
Can you effectively remove a fighter with 90% health, for 10 minutes (using your numbers), with just having met with the 125 peace rating?
@ Bringslite, yeah I know I keep getting drawn in. Leaving for beach and pool now, so I will be back In a few hours....
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm seeing indications of bad faith communication on many sides.
How would defensive pacifism be worse than offensive pacifism as proposed, given that defensive pacifism manifests as a timed effect on a target that reduces the effectiveness of attacks against that target, but poofs away if the target performs a combat action, enters a hostile area, refuses a Stand And Deliver demand, or otherwise gains an "involved" or similar flag?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Under what circumstances, other than the 125 peace rating, are required to carry out this "instant kill" ability. I say "instant kill" because you equated Go in Peace to a character death.
Can you effectively remove a fighter with 90% health, for 10 minutes (using your numbers), with just having met with the 125 peace rating?
@ Bringslite, yeah I know I keep getting drawn in. Leaving for beach and pool now, so I will be back In a few hours....
The 125+ peace rating is condition enough. Raising their peace rating to 125+ is about as hard as lowering someones health to 0. It's less of an instant kill and more a coup de grace.
Yes. You can remove a fighter at any amount of health from combat with yourself and other VoP players for 10 minutes. In fact it's easiest to do this on players with 100% health as the more damage you have on you, the faster you lose peace rating.
How would defensive pacifism be worse than offensive pacifism as proposed, given that defensive pacifism manifests as a timed effect on a target that reduces the effectiveness of attacks against that target, but poofs away if the target performs a combat action, enters a hostile area, refuses a Stand And Deliver demand, or otherwise gains an "involved" or similar flag?
Unless I missed it you didn't list anything about the refusing a Stand And Deliver demand before. In that case it's not OP, it's just useless, as anyone who sees it on you will just prompt you to Stand and Deliver.
Well except in the case of players that wouldn't get an alignment penalty for attacking your normally. If it protects you from them it's OP, and if it doesn't... again... it's useless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The 125+ peace rating is condition enough. Raising their peace rating to 125+ is about as hard as lowering someones health to 0. It's less of an instant kill and more a coup de grace.
Yes. You can remove a fighter at any amount of health from combat with yourself and other VoP players for 10 minutes. In fact it's easiest to do this on players with 100% health as the more damage you have on you, the faster you lose peace rating.
So this gives you the power to stop someone (with no chance to break its effects, as per your description of Go in Peace) from attacking you, in the moments before you are defeated. If you fail, you are killed, and therefore you lose nothing you already were if you did not have this skill. If you succeed, then your attacker loses, even though he or she was actually winning. Worse yet, because they were winning exceedingly well, it makes it easier for them to lose!
Your problem is not what this power does, it is what it is called. It is not a Go in Peace ability, it is a Cheat Death ability. It is a, You can't Win ability.
It gets worse with each clarification, and you claimed this is not an anti PvP driven agenda, it most certainly is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your same logic could be applied to poison counters / getting milled in Magic. Or for that matter ability damage in Pathfinder. Your health is irrelevant in both those systems as they are an alternate means of victory.
When you think of yourself as "winning" because you are at 20 health, even though you are one poison counter from death, have a single card left in your deck, or have an ability score of 1, you are approaching it from the entirely wrong mindset.
When you are at 125+ peace rating, you have lost a different kind of fight, and your opponent enjoys an alternate victory. You had every chance to kill them before you reached that point, but you lost, fair and square.
I realize you are very set in your ways, but just because you can't wrap your mind around this system doesn't mean it's overpowered.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Under what circumstances, other than the 125 peace rating, are required to carry out this "instant kill" ability. I say "instant kill" because you equated Go in Peace to a character death.
Can you effectively remove a fighter with 90% health, for 10 minutes (using your numbers), with just having met with the 125 peace rating?
@ Bringslite, yeah I know I keep getting drawn in. Leaving for beach and pool now, so I will be back In a few hours....
The 125+ peace rating is condition enough. Raising their peace rating to 125+ is about as hard as lowering someones health to 0. It's less of an instant kill and more a coup de grace.
Yes. You can remove a fighter at any amount of health from combat with yourself and other VoP players for 10 minutes. In fact it's easiest to do this on players with 100% health as the more damage you have on you, the faster you lose peace rating.
How would defensive pacifism be worse than offensive pacifism as proposed, given that defensive pacifism manifests as a timed effect on a target that reduces the effectiveness of attacks against that target, but poofs away if the target performs a combat action, enters a hostile area, refuses a Stand And Deliver demand, or otherwise gains an "involved" or similar flag?Unless I missed it you didn't list anything about the refusing a Stand And Deliver demand before. In that case it's not OP, it's just useless, as anyone who sees it on you will just prompt you to Stand and Deliver.
Well except in the case of players that wouldn't get an alignment penalty for attacking your normally. If it protects you from them it's OP, and if it doesn't... again... it's useless.
You don't get to be a pacifist with the extraordinary ability to prevent violence and still demand that other people resort to violence when they would also prefer not to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... The idea of this thread is a one sided argument, and when asked to provide the same ability from the opposite perspective, he avoided it. Instead he provided counters that still suffer from the debuffing effects of his attack and even if the counter is successful, it still leaves the affects of the pacifist attack unchanged.
The original idea is not constructive if it is one sided. It is also not constructive if it is obviously not an idea that would even be considered within the generally known concept of the game. It is as unlikely as GW giving us jet aircraft for transportation in PFO.
Few in a conversation will offer to themselves their counter-arguments, and it is unusual to expect such of them. Examining the 'why not' is part of the function of conversation.
That the OP actually ventured his idea is in fact constructive.