Goblin Squad Member
|
I keep saying, and people keep not hearing, that LAWFUL EVIL will be the place for players who want to be really powerful bad dudes. CHAOTIC EVIL will be the place for a%+~*##s.
So that quote has quite a few people upset and I think it needs it's own discussion for awhile.
Just how disadvantaged do people want to see CE characters be? Lets talk in terms of a CE settlement like Acheron that only allows high reputation CE characters to live there.
What kind of skills would you like to see them have / not have?
How should their alignment effect their development indexes?
What kind of things should the have that lawful and good settlements won't?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the main disadvantage I want to see CE settlements have is little to nothing in the way of formation combat skills. I mean honestly, what kind of chaotic evil group can line their guys up in a well ordered formation and work in perfect harmony with the guy next to them? That takes discipline, trust, patience, and a whole slew of other traits I don't think many CE character's posses.
I think this could be the main balancing factor. If CE settlements have a disorganized mob while other alignments have a well organized army it's going to make it very hard for them to take or defend their settlements.
They'll still be able to be good bandits / assassins / generally bad people but their towns will have to hold on through overwhelming numbers and/or not ticking any large and organized forces off enough to come root them out.
Lesser crafting / economic skills would be fine too as a chaotic evil settlement is the kind that would have an economy propped up on stolen goods as opposed to one run by hard work and sound policies.
What I really don't want to see is (high reputation) chaotic evil settlements not have the skills they need to operate well on their own, or in a disorganized mob.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thank You!!! I totally would support this Andius. It makes since to me that a CE settlement would be bad at formation combat. And it would be ok because it only effects things on a settlement level for the most part. What I don't want to see is my personal (not group/settlement/nation) progression being screwed over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd sort of rather we look at this from alignment bands (C vs. N. vs. L) in a lot of cases. If we talk about formations, for example, do CG and CN have the same difficulty as CE? I think they might. Maybe they all are limited to "mob" and "skirmisher" formations. And the NX alignments get additional formations (maybe a shield wall) + the CX formations, and the LX types get the NX formations as well as their own (pikes!), but not the CX ones. If a LX settlement wants skirmishers, they hire them or borrow them from an ally.
As far as training, the notional high-rep CE settlement should be able to train any archetype that can be CE. So not the L monks or the LG paladins, of course.
As far as alignment affecting DIs: I think CX settlements should be less organized; less efficient in mobilizing their commoners. LX settlements should be the most efficient.
XG settlements should be the best for attracting and maintaining commoner population numbers. XE should be the worst; they'll drive off commoners. XE can use slavery, of course, which no other settlements can.
So the CE will have two hits there: they have less population because no commoner wants to be brutalized, and they aren't good at effectively mobilizing the population they do have.
Now, at first glance, it appears that LG has it best - and they might, if you looked just at industry. But they can only bring that to bear in real war. In the various discussion of reputation and alignment hits, it becomes clear that they will have serious limits to how much their combatants can do without suffering alignment and rep slippage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the suggestion is not so scary if of the 9 Alignment Type of Settlements, the "best state each could be in" is modified by Reputation ie High-Medium-Low, then you have an increase in the range from 9 types of settlements to '27' (if my maths is not deserting me ie 9 alignment combinatios of 3 with 3, per 3 categories of reputation)?
So, CE is always going to have it's "differences" and particularly DI and other areas deficiencies (at the cost of flexible of eg combat opportunities?) but even with these settlements there could a range to that, via Reputation. Probably even wider for LG corner case?
In terms of the specifics, then, Reputation could modifier particularly vital infrastructure features of settlements ie
If we had a list per major system: With most critical, most influential etc: Then the top-bottom; TOP/BEST would be shaded off from all but eg LG + high rep and the bottom would have a ceiling with optional below that for reputation modifiers.
CE might have:
1. Higher maintenance costs for shoddy infrastructure and vile, poorly skilled, common folk/zombies (!)
2. Lower DI indexes
3. No mass combat ability (save your own skin!) ~ as Andius suggests
4. Lower Skill-Training facilities, unless they're evil-chaotic specific? (lower because the best left where they pay you more and actually pay on time and with coin - not stolen, mouldy grain or at the end of a knife... etc...etc... whereas plenty of human sacrifices can be performed for occult magic in CE settlements to fuel something or other.
~
Isn't it the case then you'd have to go to other Settlements as an outsider if they let you in (Reputation) to payer higher fees for skill-training?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lower income/crafting is understandable , it will encourage CE to do banditry in order to catch up thus creating jobs for lawful guards as the things should be.
But if CE settlement is undefendable, it will just be obliterated.
BTW shouldn't all alignments be on equal footing?
A lack of formation combat wouldn't make it undefendable just harder to do so.
Also you have to think about it somewhat like fighting in the Middle East. You can quickly and easily crush the hornet's nest but that won't stop the stinging.
I would imagine after taking a settlement like Acheron you would have a lot of vengeful bad guys raiding and sabotaging your structures and killing/robbing your players. Crushing that nest may not be worthwhile unless you know you're going to get swarmed anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
BTW shouldn't all alignments be on equal footing?
The working theory behind making CE settlements 'lesser' than others, is that the individuals that make up that settlement do not have to worry about alignment repercussion for their actions. They can (and will) do anything, whenever the whim strikes them.
Lawful and Good individuals do not get this luxury. They have to work at maintaining their alignment in that they cannot resort to force as the first option in any encounter. If they do this repeatedly, they will soon slide towards Chaotic and Evil.
I however agree with you in that CE settlements need to not be a pushover in kingdom warfare. They need some bonuses to counter the other settlements more powerful structures.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also you have to think about it somewhat like fighting in the Middle East. You can quickly and easily crush the hornet's nest but that won't stop the stinging.
...
Crushing that nest may not be worthwhile unless you know you're going to get swarmed anyway.
While I was typing my previous response, running through my head was 'ZERG'. This is what CE makes me think of - the hordes of demons being pushed on by the strength of larger and more powerful demons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The working theory behind making CE settlements 'lesser' than others, is that the individuals that make up that settlement do not have to worry about alignment repercussion for their actions. They can (and will) do anything, whenever the whim strikes them.
Lawful and Good individuals do not get this luxury. They have to work at maintaining their alignment in that they cannot resort to force as the first option in any encounter. If they do this repeatedly, they will soon slide towards Chaotic and Evil.
There is problem here. CE have to worry about his reputation so they aren't really free.
What i dont understand is where is the point of handicapping alignments , for limiting the undesired behaviour there is reputation sistem.
Welcome to the fighting that has been taking place on the forums for a while lol.
Check out the UnNamed Company.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest disadvantage that a CE settlement faces is that Ryan Dancey and or the Devs want to disadvantage them.
Instead of holding them to the same Reputation requirements that other types of settlements have, the CE settlement must also deal with an alignment based one.
Ryan Dancey used the example that a LG settlement will have a difficult time to maintain that settlement alignment, because the members will have a hard time maintaining the strict requirements of the alignment. However, the LG settlement is not limited in its DI, unless the players actually don't maintain it.
In the case of the Chaotic Evil settlement, the player's actions will not break through the mechanical limitations on DI, no matter what they do or how well they play or in maintaining a high reputation.
If they start down the road of favoring one thing over another, they open the door for the min/maxers.
Alignment is supposed to be an RP element. It is for social flavor, and although it should create noticeable differences, those differences should not amount to major advantages or disadvantages.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The working theory behind making CE settlements 'lesser' than others, is that the individuals that make up that settlement do not have to worry about alignment repercussion for their actions. They can (and will) do anything, whenever the whim strikes them.
Lawful and Good individuals do not get this luxury. They have to work at maintaining their alignment in that they cannot resort to force as the first option in any encounter. If they do this repeatedly, they will soon slide towards Chaotic and Evil.
There is problem here. CE have to worry about his reputation so they aren't really free.
What i dont understand is where is the point of handicapping alignments , for limiting the undesired behaviour there is reputation sistem.
As it stands, reputation is a measure of how a player plays their character within the rules and spirit of the game - it's not a measure of their PvP actions within the rules.
That said, it does need clarification and is a hotly discussed topic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The biggest disadvantage that a CE settlement faces is that Ryan Dancey and or the Devs want to disadvantage them.
Instead of holding them to the same Reputation requirements that other types of settlements have, the CE settlement must also deal with an alignment based one.
He used the example that a LG settlement will have a difficult time to maintain that settlement alignment, because the members will have a hard time maintaining the strict requirements of the alignment. However, the LG settlement is not limited in its DI, unless the players actually don't maintain it.
In the case of the Chaotic Evil settlement, the player's actions will not break through the mechanical limitations on DI, no matter what they do or how well they play or in maintaining a high reputation.
If they start down the road of favoring one thing over another, they open the door for the min/maxers.
Alignment is supposed to be an RP element. It is for social flavor, and although it should create noticeable differences, those differences should not amount to major advantages or disadvantages.
I can tell you it already points me towards the min/maxing.
I had no intention of playing CE till it came up that it will be the most difficult thing to play... So I will do it now, but with min/maxing in mind. My CE character will be anything that does not give me a disadvantage until I am ready to swing to CE.
How else can it be done if you cannot train?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"That said, it does need clarification and is a hotly discussed topic."I can see that.
:)Anyway they can outright ban the CE if they want but as long as one alignment have mechanical advantage over the others there will be ugly results.
Namely people will start with the favored alignment but wont play it as intended, and will try to loophole the system to keep the benefits.
To me, it seems as though GW is trying to strike a balance between character alignment and the alignment of the settlement/kingdom they belong to. CE is easy for individuals, but hard on settlements. LG is the opposite.
As for loopholes, I am one that would prefer alignment is dictated by RP and not a mechanic. However, as a realist I know this does not work within online games, as there will always be that handful of clowns that play a paladin type that go around striking down naked newbies for the lulz.
As long as GW strike a nice balance, I'll be happy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the case of the Chaotic Evil settlement, the player's actions will not break through the mechanical limitations on DI, no matter what they do or how well they play or in maintaining a high reputation.
What I'm reading, and it may not be what you meant, but what I reading is you describing lawful activity but calling it chaotic. DI is supposed to reflect the stability and productivity of a settlement, aka not chaotic.
To phrase it in terms of evolutionary science, it sounds like you're making the oft repeated argument that the strong survive and you just need to be competitive to thrive. That's a fallacious interpretation of Darwinism though which actually emphasizes three traits needed to thrive, not just competition. The other two are cooperation and compassion.
Sounds like GW is aiming for that quite accurately.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm stepping beyond the initial scope of the thread, and considering low rep CE as well. I'm thinking how CE might have numbers and eager players- they just happen to be low-rep. So maybe an evil nation has a high town and at least one low town, and the masses of bloodthirsty low-rep CE are citizens of low-town. It could be a nation that goes places.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have to try to look at this from GW's point of view. How does someone get to be Chaotic Evil? Other than the tiny percentage(in terms of an MMO) that will do it for roleplaying purposes, you become chaotic evil by being one of gank happy jerks that MOST MMO players don't want to play with. Or deal with. Ever.
The point of putting limitations on CE settlements is to discourage people from BEING CE. Even though they really DO make sense - the ruler of a CE settlement is generally an individually mighty being - an insanely powerful mage or cleric, a warrior who is too powerful for anyone to even consider fighting, an assassin who just makes anyone who even CONSIDERS messing with them disappear. People like this don't WANT their followers to be strong enough to challenge them for supremacy... at least in fiction. It is a bad place to be. If you really want to be CE for roleplaying purposes badly enough, there are loopholes to allow players to get around the problems. They're tough loopholes, though.
Intentionally. I'm sorry, but multiple checks and balances are important. Ryan Dancey talked about this in his most recent interview, how no one system can possibly control the tens of thousands of players in an MMO. The more that automatic systems, such as alignment and reputation, keeps problem players under control the easier it is for the GM's to focus on the real problems.
Honestly, I think Neutral Evil needs to be just as rough as CE.
It's a shame that GW needs to look at it from the point of view of 'how do we control the KSing, backstabbing, awful humans playing the game' and not just 'how do we make this the most awesome game ever!' Unfortunately, anyone who's ever played an MMO knows that the internet is full of jerks. PvP games make it much worse. Go play a few games of League of Legends in solo queue if you disagree. If GW doesn't do things like this, there won't BE a PFO in a few years because, in a game that's supposed to be mostly community driven content, no one will want to deal with the community.
I'm sorry, but the limits GW is proposing to keep CE communities under control are absolutely necessary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
reputation and alignment SHOULD BE KEPT SEPERATE. End of story.
Keeping them separate, sure. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences related to both that influence settlements.
They can indeed be kept separate and still influence similar, if not the same things. You could have a CE character with low reputation or one with high reputation, and each will have a different influence on their settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I had no intention of playing CE till it came up that it will be the most difficult thing to play... So I will do it now, but with min/maxing in mind.
You get to be Chaotic Evil by ganking people, betraying people, and generally acting like an a~#!&$~.
Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)
In Pathfinder Online, if your Settlement sucks, you will suck too.
Being Chaotic Evil in Pathfinder Online will suck.
So, you plan to be an a!*@+*$, and to suck.
And you think people are going to be intimidated by you, or fear you?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
reputation and alignment SHOULD BE KEPT SEPERATE. End of story.Keeping them separate, sure. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences related to both that influence settlements.
They can indeed be kept separate and still influence similar, if not the same things. You could have a CE character with low reputation or one with high reputation, and each will have a different influence on their settlement.
Ya. I think GW is doing pretty good with alignment, actually. People say that modeling the standard two dimensional alignment in an MMO can't work. GW made it three-dimensional with the reputation axis. Judging from the people shocked that there might be consequences for being low-rep CE... Maybe they've got an idea that works.
I think the people who work at seriously playing NE or CE could have some real fun with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can honestly say that I truly don't care.
Whatever system that Dancey's crew comes up with, it will be gamed by the gamists, the way I saw it happen in Lineage and Lineage 2.
I am totally of the opinion that alignment mechanics should be removed from PFO entirely. I'd possibly replace it with an Ultima/Everquest faction system instead.
Alignment is obviously a big part of Pathfinder, it'll intersect with various game systems and connect the lore as well gameplay and above all imho sits as a SOCIAL dimension in the mmorpg.
There's repercussions for Active-Core: "Evil-Minds Think Alike" blog:
Failing to live up to your standards can have serious consequences. While your character's core alignment determines which alignment-restricted skills he or she can train, the character's current active alignment determines which alignment-specific feats or abilities can be slotted. For example, a paladin can train her smite evil ability at any time based on her lawful good core alignment, but if her active alignment is currently neutral because she killed characters without justification, she won't be able to actually use her smite evil ability until her active alignment returns to good. Characters who spend a lot of time with their active alignment and core alignment out of sync may find it easier to change their core alignment to match the alignment they're actually demonstrating.
Alignment is also part of the multi-stage approach of as sorting players into compatible playstyles as well as the negative side of that coin: Detrimental conduct to the game and players.
Looking at the above Core vs Active and the comment of gaming the system, I wonder if the devs could use Core vs Active to game the "system-gamers": What that could mean is apart from the hobbling of skill usage above, the friction of a settlement not keeping to it's active alignment "angers the gods" - Aka - Devs, send in Dragons and other Hex wreaking monsters that could destroy such a settlement that is an affront to the gods, an apostasy!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Vailla: It's not as black and white as just that.
Short Version:
1. You are the audience watching 2 games for entertainment, in the front row.
2. You are watching players and GM around a table and listen to what they (player characters) SAY and the GM SAYS = you know what their alignment is.
3. You have a camera of your own on a 3D virtual world and watch what player avatars DO and what the GAME SYSTEMS DETERMINE = you know fairly well what alignment each is by their actions. Over time it might be refined so watching what players do becomes clearer and more effective/closer at what you gauge their alignment to be.
What Zanathos is saying is in online mmorpgs, there are already a population of CE players by definition of their behaviour. Now if GW provides them with Sanctioned culture (that is to say, very combatitive) in PFO as well as systems and guidelines what is simply breaking rules of the game eg anti-social conduct or exploitation etc, those CE players will really enjoy that part of PFO especially against each other. They also provide content for other players in Wild Hexes which will be contested very highly, attracted there by resources. To tar all pvp'ers with the same brush is I don't think accurate: They just don't have many options in mmorpgs as well as griefers using PvP as a primary tool.
You're saying your words that make your Alignment: But what game system are you talking about? In live-drama with real-time avatars in mmorpg virtual 3d worlds, as opposed to mental sub-creation of PnP, it's player's ACTIONS that determine Alignment. If you were the audience of the former, you'd rely on the words of the players and of course the GM, what they are SAYING - If you had a camera on the virtual world following a player - you would rely on what you see them DOING.
In PFO, there are rule-systems for your Alignment - as well as what you say your core alignment SHOULD BE and what your actions say your alignment currentlly IS.
Alignment fulfills a wider range of criteria than player-player interactions, which is only what Reputation "records and remembers" and updates - that's the difference. (side-note: Interestingly XBox appears to have a Reputation system being planned for player networks.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What Zanathos is saying is in online mmorpgs, there are already a population of CE players by definition of their behaviour.This kind[s] of players are highly unlikely to actually play CE, they will probably choose the most advantageous alignment.
Alignment fulfills a wider range of criteria than player-player interactions, which is only what Reputation "records and remembers" and updates - that's the difference. (side-note: Interestingly XBox appears to have a Reputation system being planned for player networks.)Alignment may fulfil a wide range of criteria than player-player interactions, but the point of the penalties is to limit precisely the disruptive PvP.
If you don't mind, I fixed the first quote: There's different types of players just as there are many more than just four types of "bartle" players eg "Killer" is just a headline category: Within there's different types of motivations for this ""type"".
I was describing the difference between Alignment and Reputation, not explaining it. But to elaborate: Alignment let's you choose who you play with and against, what sort of resources you will have available and so on. Why not just let players decide their own factions; it would be much simpler and straightforward? Because A) the lore of alignments is core to Pathfinder B) Interpreting Alignment as a what it really is, a social measure ingame (this could be elaborated alone): If you play the game socially you're generating value for the game and other players and that will be reflected in your power progression/money progression which in turn will devolve even more value into the game. The opposite of that is griefing and hence if you like to play with fire, your game space is more confined as to how much fuel you have to play and how much you have to fight over the smaller amount available... maybe that is a good analogy? Honestly the world left to the devices of CE would burn*!
*I saw this happen on a minecraft server once, with lava.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ya. I think GW is doing pretty good with alignment, actually. People say that modeling the standard two dimensional alignment in an MMO can't work. GW made it three-dimensional with the reputation axis. Judging from the people shocked that there might be consequences for being low-rep CE... Maybe they've got an idea that works.
I think the people who work at seriously playing NE or CE could have some real fun with it.
Where is this shock?
It was understood that the combination of CE + Low Rep would result in a truly gimped character and also settlement.
What is shocking that it has gone back to or misspoken again that it is now only CE that will gimp a settlement.
Min Maxer Progression of Alignment Based Skills: Future CE Assassin
CN to LE to CE
Learn your Rogue based skills first (maxed). The shift to LE and maximize your Evil based skills. Then when both Chaotic and Evil are maximized, switch alignment core and you are now a max skilled CE Assassin with little or no concern for Rep, because you have all of your training anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For military units I see no reason why limited formations (such as a shield wall) wouldn't work for Chaotics. It is all about self-preservation, after all, and is not dependent on intense drilling. I would hardly class C10th Vikings or Anglo-Saxon warbands as Lawful, yet they were experts in the shieldwall.
No phalanx or intricate drill, but basic formation should be possible.
For Chaotic settlements, I see no reason they wouldn't work. Chaotics might not respect the rule of law, but they respect superior strength. If the local lord demands you follow laws or he'll send his personal bodyguard to kick down your house, even a CE character will obey (albeit with an eye to becoming more powerful).
The difference is not which rules get followed, it is why they get followed. Lawfuls believe that following laws is the best way to live, Chaotics believe that the only laws that need to get followed are the ones that are properly (and probably violently) enforced. Chaotic settlements will be more brutal and haphazard, but that doesn't mean that they should be less effective. Slave labour, a magically created workforce, or simple self-interest can be very effective.
The Good/Evil divide is, frankly, fluff. It is irrelevant in this argument.
However, we all know that the development team are trying to make their own game rather than the one subscribers are asking for, so whatever mechanics they put into place we'll have to live with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't have any of the Pathfinder books but aren't drow chaotic evil with high functioning advanced communities?
Or is that just in BG2? Or are drow communities not really chaotic evil?
(While lore references may be used as arguments, they can't be the end-all argument to how game mechanics should work)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Drow are NE or CE, but your point that they had an advanced society is correct.
Chaotic is not an absolute term, it has variations of degree and it application.
From Free Spirited to Anarchy is an example of that range.
A chaotic settlement can have very few laws or rules or it can have many rules or laws but they are infrequently enforced or unevenly applied (arbitrary).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ AvenaOats
I don't disagree with this but it does not address the issue.
If you play the game socially you're generating value for the game and other players and that will be reflected in your power progression/money progression which in turn will devolve even more value into the game. The opposite of that is griefingAlignment penalties don't really reflect the value CE adds to the game. They just outright assume that CE is harmful.
CE settlement will offer great content for would be heroes(and villains ofc).
Why should the game lose it? To limit griefing ?
The reputation system can do that.The better approach is to reward/punish according to the value one offers to the game, not according to alignment.
Unwanted behaviour=> Low reputation=>limited character progression.
Only time for a quick response: I'll probably have a CE character who likes pvp, likes cheating other characters and burning down things that are not guarded: It will be fast and furious, quick and dirty route to tons of stories...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok maybe I am just getting hung up on wording. All I am hearing is talk about being CE is bad so don't do it. This upsets me because I had planned to be CE. I understand there needxs to be rules and a system in place to limit ganking/PKing/general a%#!@##dness. I have no intention of playing such a character, CE is just the alignment I am being forced into. To be honest, I want to be LE for RP purposes. But I digress. I understand and 1000000% agree with CE AND!!!!!! Low reputation being a bad thing, but I always hear CE alone, reguardless of reputation. If being CE and having high reputation won't be so bad, meaning won't limit my training or any other debilitating game mechanics, then that is fine. I don't mind working for my training, paying more for it, or even having to hunt around for different settlements to get each skill, but from everything I am hearing, then fact that I will be CE means I can't train at all is BS. That's what I mean by keep the systems separate. Let alignment determine WHAT you can train (As CE I am limited to barbarian/rogue/assassin skills, and restricted from good cleric/pally/monk skills) and let reputation determind how high you can train the skills your allowed to by alignment. Meaning low rep is maxed of at rank 1 or 2, while high rank can max the skill out (what ever rank that is)
That is all I'm asking, I have worded it several different ways in hopes to be understood. I seam to keep getting the same answer and that is the problem. I WILL have a high reputation in PFO, as a CE assassin. Don't punish me for that. Don't group me with the a@*#$+~s that come in and don't care about the game and just want to ruin everyone else's fun. I want to be the "good guys" content but I can't do that if I am limited in my character growth and will quickly no longer challenge them. Give me a chance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@"The Goodfellow"
I don't think that your high rep character will be limited in training, unless there is nowhere to train. There are not many settlements coming forth to offer Evil or Chaotic training on the other hand though. The players that want those opportunities might just have to get together enough to create those possibilities.
That is what "the good guys" have to do...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They just outright assume that CE is harmful.
I'm under the impression, rather, that they just outright decided that Chaotic Evil is something they don't want in their game...and their community. It might be more-properly said that, for anything they don't want in their game, they're going to design mechanics to move it toward Chaotic Evil...with ways to avoid ending up there if someone's willing to amend, correct, or reverse their behaviour, even if temporarily.
Never forget there aren't going to be hard-and-fast rules about temporary and permanent bans, either. I expect plenty of folks to get themselves gone without having gotten to Chaotic Evil first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
you become chaotic evil by being one of gank happy jerks that MOST MMO players don't want to play with. Or deal with. Ever.You become CE by selecting it when you create your character.
How about straight from the horse's mouth?
You get to be Chaotic Evil by ganking people, betraying people, and generally acting like an a~#!&$~.
You may not like this, but it is the way it works. Zanathos was absolutely right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What Zanathos is saying is in online mmorpgs, there are already a population of CE players by definition of their behaviour.This kind of players are highly unlikely to actually play CE, they will probably choose the most advantageous alignment.
Which is exactly why PFO has automatic systems that push them towards Chaotic Evil when they act like a+@~$&@s...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I had planned to be CE...I want to be LE for RP purposes.
Could you be satisfied with Neutral Evil, then? Nothing says you have to behave one way all the time; you can mix-and-match to avoid the snakepit...or a@#$%^&-pit...of Chaotic Evil.
I'm betting if Chaotic Evil sucks as bad as Ryan's said, and he's part of the team that's setting up just how bad it'll be, so he oughta know, then I see Neutral Evil settlements on the horizon. They'll be bad, but not hopeless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is exactly why PFO has automatic systems that push them towards Chaotic Evil when they act like a!@*#$&s...
His (Ryan Dancey's)lack of differentiation between role playing an alignment, having a preset alignment, and player reputation is astounding.
The "Horse's mouth", with a foot in it, still produces a muddled mess.
Basically what is being said is, "We will punish you for taking the alignment of CE."
Player Base Response: Min Max Chaotic and Evil based skills while functioning within one of the other alignments and then switch to CE when you are satisfied with your skill sets and levels. If there is a change, new skills, modified skills, easy fix... switch alignment again.
So much for alignment to be meaningful, it will have no connection to who your character is (in a role playing sense), just what desired mechanics he is built for.