Goblin Squad Member
|
@Sadurain:
Short Version: A long-winded way of saying CE is going to be a real s-hole and scary place to be in character and possibly in dog-eat-dog player interactions. If that's true then it does suggest it makes sense that CE is hobbled in it's DIs and in it's skill-training on offer. But the opportunities for players play "in-character CE with different priorities of such settlements and emphasis on pvp as you like it gameplay etc - it's got a place.
If you think og CE as akin to Anarchists eg those post-apocalypse movies with humans that have degenerated into monsters in their behaviour? If CE is a place where slaves are used, then when they die their bodies are turned into zombies, captives are tortured or used for nefarious magics for their dark deities and where the only order comes from the brutal exercise and "frequent demonstration" of power: It's no wonder that CE would thematically be a cess pit. And DI would be low, without order to create infrastructure of social, law, political and moral rules. Hence knowledge would be lost, resources would be scarce and conditions would not be conducive to innovation, advancement or improvement: As such their economies would remain basic, too. Much more day-to-day, hand-to-mouth priorities.
I think it's a fallacy that creative break-throughs come from either strict order or equally alluring, complete disorder: It's tempting to think it's one or the other and when it's not the current one it must be the other!
Fundamentally you do have to get members of a society to coordinate in some ways eg time of day set aside for work, agreeing to a fiat currency's value, social conduct and so forth. Dogma may stifle innovation (egs of such extreme societies exist in rl) but it only reduces the potential of such societies, whereas broken societies (again some rl egs) have lost that potential, that culture's knowledge has dissipated.
So it's a long-winded way of saying CE is going to be a real s-hole and scary place to be in character and possibly in dog-eat-dog player interactions. If that's true then it does suggest it makes sense that CE is hobbled in it's DIs and in it's skill-training on offer. But the opportunities for players play "in-character CE with different priorities of such settlements and emphasis on pvp as you like it gameplay etc - it's got a place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is very much missing what an early medieval shieldwall is all about. It is not about self-sacrifice at all. You do not sacrifice yourself for your companions, you rely on them to protect your flanks (and head) while you concentrate on protecting your front.
Shield walls--or spear walls, or pike squares, or defensive fighting positions, or any TTP that relies on cohesion--only works if everyone is willing to place themselves at risk for others. The moment one person decides to throw their shield down and run away--place their welfare above the groups--the wall is broken and everyone else is screwed. So you are right, any group of goofs can form a shield wall, spear wall, pike square, dig fighting holes, etc. and then get cut to ribbons. Absent the kind of incredibly difficult, time-consuming acculturative work that historically cohesive fighting forces--Spartans, Wehrmacht, US Marines, etc.--are known for, cohesion based TTPs like shield walls are relatively ineffective.
On the contrary, I think you misunderstand. You seem to suggest that a Chaotic character cannot cooperate with others, and will not join a formation even when it is in his own best interests. You apparently have the idea that a Chaotic character must at all time act with no regard to anyone around him.Chaotics act in concert with others in just about every game played. A Chaotic character becomes part of an adventuring party and acts with them. He doesn't run off by himself to adventure alone (unless it is a solo adventure). He works in conjunction with the spellcasters, warriors, and support roles, contributing his own skills and abilities to the group as a whole and relying on the others to do likewise. Why is this different to acting in a simple battlefield formation?
You are hung up on CE being a malevolent loner, and forgetting that, unless incredible stupid, a character of Chaotic alignment will happily cooperate when it suits him. Being part of a shieldwall in battle is one of those situations. Whether Evil, Good or Neutral, a Chaotic is not so...
No worries that you have your own personal definitions for alignments, but remember, we're not playing your house rules game. In Pathfinder, CE means:
A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
This is just one of those things where you may not like it, but there it is: CE sucks in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't you guys (I'm looking at you Bluudwolf) let go of alignment as a way to define your character?
GW is proposing to use alignment and reputation to try and mechanically limit the amount of social problems in the game. They want to 90% of the bad players and mechanically box them out, leaving a much smaller number of social problems that GMs and the community can solve socially. That's very reasonable.
We all get that you don't plan to play to a D-bag--you want to be a valuable (antagonist) member of the community. Ok great, then just do that. Don't worry about how chaotic evil is defined--just play your character. GW is just as clearly trying to create a system where people like you can help provide for meaningful PvP. The goal here is for random gankers to be unable to train effectively, be mechanically disadvantaged, and therefore either go away or be irrelevant. The design goal also includes people like you to do SAD, rob people, on occasion make the bold call that cutting people down in cold-blood is worth that huge hunk of star metal, and so on.
To the best of my understanding, the game design means you will be a worthy, effective adversary for good guys like me--you're not going to get whupped regularly because of the design system, but because I'm smarter than you ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why don't you guys () let go of alignment as a way to define your character?
I think this is relevant to everyone who might be picking their alignment first and then building the character. LG, CE, CG or LE - there's plenty of examples in the threads.
In my opinion, alignment in TT was built on theory and guesswork, and very subject to the whims and desires and negotiations of a multitude of TT groups. Each new variant of the game built haphazardly upon the foundation that was in place for alignment. But if PFO redefines the alignments into 3-dimensions, and makes action drive alignment instead of the other way around... We all might start from scratch, build our characters, and then find what alignment we fall into.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Shield walls--or spear walls, or pike squares, or defensive fighting positions, or any TTP that relies on cohesion--only works if everyone is willing to place themselves at risk for others.
Using that logic, every warrior involved in any formation must be Lawful. That does not make any sort of sense. If you apply Pathfinder/D&D alignment to real life, about a third of the population will be Chaotic. That means that about a third of soldiers will also be Chaotic. From the close formations of Biblical times to the drilled lines of the C19th, soldiers throughout history have used formations. By your definition, none of them could be Chaotic. The only way to make your definition suit history is to define every single soldier in every single army that used formations as Neutral or Lawful.
Your bringing up of the Pathfinder definition of CE does not help your argument. It does not say that Chaotic characters will not join organisations or become part of a formation. All it says is that they will do so for their own reasons, which is exactly what I have been saying.
Your games may choose to cast a Chaotic character as some insanely random loose cannon, flicking a coin to choose what to do next, but if you look at most games you'll see that people don't play Chaotic characters like that.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of muddying the waters a little dont forget that alignment and rep are not the only checks in game. They are two of the most prominent mechanical checks, of course, but there are some non-mechanical forces at work too.
As Andius pointed out after Ryan mentioned how skills are earned and kept : "That's going to hand A LOT of power to the owners of powerful settlements."
Possibly. But also into the hands of settlement members. And, (and this will become clearer when we finish toying with the VC/Settlement relationship stuff) also into the hands of affiliated VCs and such. Alignment will have noticeable effects in-game, but the primary source of PvP in PFO is settlement/VC/Player nation conflict, which is largely alignment agnostic. Settlements and VCs will choose their permitted alignments and there may be many who choose to allow CE players to join. If you are at war numbers are important, not so much philosophy (unless its a factional war...) CE players can be a valuable member of a settlement or VC PROVIDED they are a valuable member of that settlement or VC.
To clarify that tautology - if you contribute you will very likely find a home. If you are disruptive, you are less likely to find a place for yourself. CE is an antisocial alignment. It is selfish and callous. It just so happens that this is precisely how one might describe the actions of griefer, but there does not need to be a direct correlation between the two (as Stephen stated a few posts back).
Consider that the guiding principal, then factor in Reputation as the scale on which 'contribution' (or potential contribution) is measured. Low rep players are little value to anyone because they are disruptive. Middling or high rep players are valuable because they contribute without being disruptive. Regardless of alignment.
So what are the disadvantages of being CE?
- Restricted access to those settlements who choose not to allow CE players.
- No access to skills that require a lawful or good alignment.
- No access to most good/lawful factions.
Thats basically it.
What are the disadvantages of having a low reputation?
- Extremely restricted access to most settlements and therefore training and trading.
- Reduced likelihood of settlement membership.
- Limited opportunities for VC membership.
- Limited opportunities for group play.
- Becoming a prime target for anyone who wants to make a kill and therefore extremely dangerous travel around the game world.
- Extreme difficulty in obtaining and holding onto gear and loot.
So yeh - CE players have it ok. Its a$@+&+~s who will struggle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the real hit to Chaotic Evil is that it is the destination alignment for jerks, in that every inappropriate act moves them step-by-step towards low reputation and Chaotic Evil alignment. No other alignment has that issue by game design.
I'm not saying role-playing the life of a villain should be easy. If you want to role-play the bad guy, expect a hard life. At the same time, however, by making Chaotic Evil the one alignment that the system purposely pushes the jerks towards, it makes it that much more difficult to separate the poor Chaotic Evil role-players from the Chaotic Evil migrating jerks. I'm just hoping that there will be enough opportunity left by maintaining high reputation (e.g. equally beneficial perks for playing chaotic evil as other alignments might enjoy, different but equal settlement/organization structures/tools/benefits, etc.) to make Chaotic Evil a viable alignment choice.
Settlements and VCs will choose their permitted alignments and there may be many who choose to allow CE players to join.
hmm can you clarify this Tork....currently I think our understanding is that the only settlements that CE can actually join are CN,CE and NE.
The above however sounds almost as if you have ditched the one step alignment requirement for being a member of settlements
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Tork Shaw
If I understood you correctly, Settelment wars will be mostly based on non alignment issues.
CE VCs or even individuals, with moderate or high rep, have a value to those settlements in warfare. I'm assuming that this is because most CE players are more experienced at PvP, that being essentially their bread and butter.
Specific to the circumstances of settlement warfare, are there plans for CE companies to bring something unique to the table, making them valuable mercenary hordes to employ?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlements and VCs will choose their permitted alignments and there may be many who choose to allow CE players to join.hmm can you clarify this Tork....currently I think our understanding is that the only settlements that CE can actually join are CN,CE and NE.
The above however sounds almost as if you have ditched the one step alignment requirement for being a member of settlements
It sounded like it to me as well, but maybe an exemption for warfare.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Settlements and VCs will choose their permitted alignments and there may be many who choose to allow CE players to join.hmm can you clarify this Tork....currently I think our understanding is that the only settlements that CE can actually join are CN,CE and NE.
The above however sounds almost as if you have ditched the one step alignment requirement for being a member of settlements
Nein. I cannot ;) Well, I can try... The choice of alignment for settlements/VCs is possibly slightly more fluid than simply 1 step. It is possible that we will need to allow a settlement to choose which of the 9 alignments they permit, and to allow them to be much more permissive. I'm still playing with this a bit (as I battle with VC/settlement relationships) but a single step restriction is potentially going to be too harsh - particularly early on in the game's life.
The difficulty with this from a settlement's perspective, however, and the reason they are probably going to want to choose a limited selection of alignments (if they end up with the choice) is that there are factional consequences. A settlement's alignment will CERTAINLY determine the kind of factional alliances and therefore the kind of factional buildings they can have in their settlement. If lets say 40% of the players want to be clerics of Sarenrae (I dont think is the case by the way I'm just using it as an example!) then it makes sense for settlements who want to attract high populations and become centres of trade to build a shrine to Sarenrae - for which there will be settlement alignment requirements.
Thanks a lot Tork that is certainly going to put a new spin on many things
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
CE VCs or even individuals, with moderate or high rep, have a value to those settlements in warfare. I'm assuming that this is because most CE players are more experienced at PvP, that being essentially their bread and butter.
Ya, I would think that many people going for PvP builds would choose evil alignments. Not all, but maybe more than half. PvP builds could have major advantages in settlement warfare.
Of course, the CE character might belong to a settlement outside of the conflict, but there should be plenty of room for mercenaries to participate in a fight.
While you are feeling talkative Tork
How will settlement alignments be determined under this system?
Can we assume the one step difference will be abolished for kingdoms too?
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Tork Shaw
If I understood you correctly, Settelment wars will be mostly based on non alignment issues.
CE VCs or even individuals, with moderate or high rep, have a value to those settlements in warfare. I'm assuming that this is because most CE players are more experienced at PvP, that being essentially their bread and butter.
Specific to the circumstances of settlement warfare, are there plans for CE companies to bring something unique to the table, making them valuable mercenary hordes to employ?
You understand correctly. Well, by design. Its possible that actually players decide they only every want to have alignment wars, but that seems so very, very unlikely. Settlements and VCs will have desires and intentions that go far beyond their alignment and it is on these lines they will most likely fight. Territory, resources, revenge... you name it.
As for 'something unique to the table' - that depends on the players/VC. Their skills and abilities are what is important. Maybe SOME of these are related to their alignment, but that is largely incidental.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While you are feeling talkative Tork
How will settlement alignments be determined under this system?
Can we assume the one step difference will be abolished for kingdoms too?
I might be running out of words ;)
Settlement alignment I am just codifying the noo, actually. I did some work on that last week and will be continuing to chew it out next week. I think unfortunately it will be a few weeks before it goes proper-public in a post (cos theres a bit of a backlog of things to present) but as a super outline preview - however they are initially defined, settlement alignment will be affected by membership. So if you are aiming for a CE settlement but you incidentally end up with 50% CN membership you might find you struggle to maintain the evilness required for some of the mean structures you were hoping for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tork: You could make different CE settlements with different factional alignment choice of dark deities, be particularly ferociously aggressive with each other: I'm sure that would play into the hands of being CE?Players can do that , if you want to be especially aggressive against some CE settlement just do it.
They will likely return the favor in kind and you have you holy war.
:)
Yes, but providing them if they want crummy settlements with cool things they only get their that matches their environment (what the game is telling them) with what they want to hear: "Those thrice-accursed worshippers... send me their skulls, hearts and souls!!" Cue platform for ripping out beating hearts and feeding the demon deities' abominable material representative on this plane. Or keep it simple and make a nice consumable out of their soul essence. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) Just because a player's character is lawful does not mean that the player will always have that character obey the law. That player could make the lawful character break the shield wall and run just as they could with a chaotic character.
2) The payers define their characters and their actions. The game may judge those those actions represent a specific alignment. If so, rise above it and still overcome.
3) The Vietcong had a low rep with US forces, but a higher rep (maybe not the greatest, but still higher) with the populace. And they drove the US out and reunited Vietnam. They won the game even though they had low rep with their opponents.
4) It is just my impression, but it seems that many are trying to game the play rather than playing the game. That choice feels to me like living in scarcity. I intend to worry less about the rules and more about achieving my characters goals in spite of the rules. I will worry less about my alignment and more about freeing my kingdom.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And this is why it's a bad idea to offer to LG characters consequence-free PVP areas, a lot hinges on the player's ability to maintain that alignment.If the LG Player-character feels that as part of proper RP of their character, that they should not venture into this kind of area, no one is saying they have to.
If a LG PC can't resist the temptation of having such a place, then maybe they are not really Lawful Good.
It is precisely those who seek to play LG only for its mechanical advantages that are most likely to look for ways around its limitations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why don't you guys (I'm looking at you Bluudwolf) let go of alignment as a way to define your character?
GW is proposing to use alignment and reputation to try and mechanically limit the amount of social problems in the game. They want to 90% of the bad players and mechanically box them out, leaving a much smaller number of social problems that GMs and the community can solve socially. That's very reasonable.
We all get that you don't plan to play to a D-bag--you want to be a valuable (antagonist) member of the community. Ok great, then just do that. Don't worry about how chaotic evil is defined--just play your character. GW is just as clearly trying to create a system where people like you can help provide for meaningful PvP. The goal here is for random gankers to be unable to train effectively, be mechanically disadvantaged, and therefore either go away or be irrelevant. The design goal also includes people like you to do SAD, rob people, on occasion make the bold call that cutting people down in cold-blood is worth that huge hunk of star metal, and so on.
To the best of my understanding, the game design means you will be a worthy, effective adversary for good guys like me--you're not going to get whupped regularly because of the design system, but because I'm smarter than you ;)
We are past this issue because it has been cleared up. Our initial response was to the comment that the Chaotic Evil alignment in and of itself was enough to incur mechanical disadvantages. This would have amounted to having the penalties of a low reputation, even if we did not.
If that had remained the case, then it could be argued that there was no reason for a CE Player - Character, not to grief, because he and his settlement already had the disadvantages. For a few mi jets, I actually thought that might have been the design. Basically, creating a very limited (skill wise and settlement wise) class of antagonist that did not have to worry about alignment, reputation or settlement advancement. Then have this chaotic evil horde unleashed upon the River Kingdoms as a form of content. Essentially, GW was creating Frankenstein's Monster or Goodswarm, take your pick.
But then, Stephen Cheney stepped in and reiterated that CE + Low Rep would be severally limited, not just based on the alignment alone. Now we have added information from Tork Shaw, that further gives those that were going to play CE additional hope, that they (we) will not suck, by design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm glad you've come to terms with being whupped fair and square, Bluud ;)
Who whooped me, and at what?
I was arguing all along that CE alone should not have a mechanical disadvantage,or be predetermined to be low reputation.
Stephen Cheney came in and stated that they would not be, correctly qualifying the "short-hand" statement made by Ryan Dancey, and clearing that impression up.
I honestly don't know what you are referring to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why don't you guys (I'm looking at you Bluudwolf) let go of alignment as a way to define your character? ...
Many posters here have maintained that the alignment system defines their character, and I have consistently tried to point out to them that instead alignment is only to describe their character. They make their choices, their choices define them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why don't you guys (I'm looking at you Bluudwolf) let go of alignment as a way to define your character? ...Many posters here have maintained that the alignment system defines their character, and I have consistently tried to point out to them that instead alignment is only to describe their character. They make their choices, their choices define them.
I agree with this Being, and honestly, I would play my character exactly the same way even if there wasn't an alignment system at all.
I typically play a pirate, bandit, outlaw biker or smuggler and they typically pan out as CN(G) or CN(E) if I were to put an alignment to them. In every MMO I have played with these archtypes (including SWG, EVE, Fallen Earth, PotBS, + many others) there was no alignment system, and none needed. I didn't even use alignment in AD&D 2nd Ed. because I found it to be unnecessary, and inhibiting to role playing.
So, as for PFO, my main character will do whatever comes his way. I have little doubt he will end up CN, but it would not surprise me if he does end up slightly CG. If I wanted him to be CE, that would be a bit contrived, I would be playing to the alignment and not as the character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And this is why it's a bad idea to offer to LG characters consequence-free PVP areas, a lot hinges on the player's ability to maintain that alignment.
If the LG Player-character feels that as part of proper RP of their character, that they should not venture into this kind of area, no one is saying they have to.
If a LG PC can't resist the temptation of having such a place, then maybe they are not really Lawful Good.
It is precisely those who seek to play LG only for its mechanical advantages that are most likely to look for ways around its limitations.
from what we know so far about the PFO War mechanics, there is no reputation loss during war (Screaming for Vengeance Blog) and we have this from Blood on the Tracks Blog:
Note that being at war adjusts a lot of the expectations of PvP, and those will be fully explained in a later discussion about war in PFO.
It's pretty obvious that many of those same consequences you don't want to see lost in FFA, will be close to if not the same in warfare.
IF they do end up the same, wouldn't those same LG players looking for ways around their disadvantages, equally flock to wars?
Personally, I think that the possibility that Enforcers and Guardians would flock to the situations with fewer consequences (Rep and or Alignment) to take the fight to where chaos (war) and evil (FFA zones) will be found in abundance,is a good thing.
It is not just us "bad guys" that want to fight for resources, land and power.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf, I meant my Goody-Two Shoes paladin is gonna whup your No-Goodnik bandit fair and square--it was a jest, a jape, I was jocular, I purported to be jocose.
Ahh, my misinterpretation, I placed your comment in the past tense. I was hoping that more of you Enforcers and Guardians would start speaking up and supporting all forms of PVP. Not just anti-banditry, but also warfare, skirmishes against other mercenary groups (VC vs. VC), and if there is one... an FFA PVP zone(s).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, you do realize that "PFO War" requires consent from both parties, right? No one's going to be engaging in consequence-free PvP against unconsenting opponents via the War mechanic.
It does? Can't settlement #1 attack settlement #2 even if #2 would rather remain at peace?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, you do realize that "PFO War" requires consent from both parties, right? No one's going to be engaging in consequence-free PvP against unconsenting opponents via the War mechanic.It does? Can't settlement #1 attack settlement #2 even if #2 would rather remain at peace?
It has been a while since war being consensual has been spoken or written about. The War Blog has still not come out yet.
War requiring consent of both parties is.... I'm searching for the words...unworkable if the goal is for most PVP to be settlement vs. settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, you do realize that "PFO War" requires consent from both parties, right? No one's going to be engaging in consequence-free PvP against unconsenting opponents via the War mechanic.
If this were true, which it isn't, but if it were it would be horrible game design.
Perhaps you're confusing this with settlements being able to set time windows within which they can be attacked? and how the narrower that window the greater the restriction on the settlement's development index?
Non-non-consensual war isn't war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can't settlement #1 attack settlement #2 even if #2 would rather remain at peace?
Sure they can. But that's not the "War Mechanic".
Letters of Marque
When two entities (characters, Companies, Settlements or Kingdoms) both set their relationship standing to "Hostile", a state of war will exist between them. Killing someone you are at war with (or burning down their Inn) is not a criminal act. It probably won't have alignment implications either.
however, because , and they'll lose the value of the safety of the security system - thus negating a lot of its value.
Wars are a "big deal", and we'll probably have to have several blogs to talk about things like how long you have to wait before a war goes into effect or can be cancelled, how it affects allies, how it affects reputation, etc.
But "War" is effectively the mechanical expression of the letter of marque idea. Except .
Just like the PvP discussion, there will be plenty of people who completely fail to understand the rationale for these constraints, and who will raise hell trying to get them removed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If this were true, which it isn't...
Oh, Bruisr, where has your faith gone?
The key thing you need to understand is that "War" allows consequence-free PvP anywhere, anytime. In addition, "War" is NOT required in order to attack another Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, so I understand they don't want people to be able to use war to grief, but it really turns the whole idea of war on its head.
On the other hand it's great for chaotic evil settlements who are worried about paladin settlements with maximum DI.
And it means we no longer need a treaty of Rovagug or anything similar, since your settlement can't be conquered if you simply refuse to go to war.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
... since your settlement can't be conquered if you simply refuse to go to war.If this were true, which it isn't, but if it were it would be horrible game design.
It seems like there should be a better term for the state that bypasses all of the protection than 'war', and 'war' should be the state required to attack and destroy a rival settlement.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Sense 1:
Letters of Marque
When two entities (characters, Companies, Settlements or Kingdoms) both set their relationship standing to "Hostile", a state of war will exist between them. Killing someone you are at war with (or burning down their Inn) is not a criminal act. It probably won't have alignment implications either.
however, because , and they'll lose the value of the safety of the security system - thus negating a lot of its value.
Wars are a "big deal", and we'll probably have to have several blogs to talk about things like how long you have to wait before a war goes into effect or can be cancelled, how it affects allies, how it affects reputation, etc.
But "War" is effectively the mechanical expression of the letter of marque idea. Except .
Sense 2 is the "I will obliterate your settlement from the world, and you cannot stop me." sense.
Sense 2 can exist independently of sense 1.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can't settlement #1 attack settlement #2 even if #2 would rather remain at peace?Sure they can. But that's not the "War Mechanic".
Letters of Marque
I'm pretty sure Bringslite's quote is a lot more recent, as I remember reading it myself - that one is well over a year old, I wouldn't put much stock in it.
@Bluddwolf, in the case that a unilateral declaration of war is possible (which I suspect it is), even if there's no consequences during the war, the actual declaration thereof will most surely have consequences for the declaring settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tuoweit, there's no discrepancy between my quote and Bringslite's.
Bluddwolf was making the claim that "there is no reputation loss during war". I was merely pointing out that he is wrong. The "no reputation loss" version of war requires both parties' consent. The "no consent required" version of war includes the normal PvP consequencs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tuoweit, there's no discrepancy between my quote and Bringslite's.
Bluddwolf was making the claim that "there is no reputation loss during war". I was merely pointing out that he is wrong. The "no reputation loss" version of war requires both parties' consent. The "no consent required" version of war includes the normal PvP consequencs.
Kind of makes sense as one of the "mechanical" challenges for LG (and other aligned) settlements and aggression.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tuoweit, there's no discrepancy between my quote and Bringslite's.
Bluddwolf was making the claim that "there is no reputation loss during war". I was merely pointing out that he is wrong. The "no reputation loss" version of war requires both parties' consent. The "no consent required" version of war includes the normal PvP consequencs.
That also clears up my misunderstanding.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The way I view it, if one of the parties does not consent to the war, they're purely defensive. To me that is more of a siege, or an assault. The First time they attack back,outside of defensive maneuver (can't expect them to just sit down and take it) they just consent to the war. They agreed they will fight back. Now, If they just use enough offense (in the defensive way, sorry if I'm confusing anyone)to get the enemy off their "door step" and they don't follow up, then it would not be war, just defending what you own. That's part of the River Kingdom laws correct? You only own what you can keep?
PS Also, in my own interest, using assassins (like myself and The Bloody Hand) would not be an open show of war (unless you get caught) :D. This should add some "flavor" to defensive actions vs assults and wars IMO.
EDIT: Sorry if this is out of context with the OP. Just after reading some of the posts, my own ideas popped into my head. I don't post much on the forums, so I try to post when I get ideas / opinions