Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh and though I know your list was not meant to be exhaustive, Bluddwolf, I think you left off an important one to mention:
"You're harbouring known bandits" ;)
"I want you to leave our caravans alone, is justifiable."It was third on my list, which I think is more than fair considering what #1 and 2 were.
I think you are are starting to believe your own propaganda, that I don't want to take responsibility for my banditry.
Harbouring bandits and actively attacking caravans directly are two different things. But I was really just trying to get in some good natured ribbing, sorry you took it seriously.
I don't do propaganda, by the way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stumbled upon this looking for something else. I remember reacting very positively to it at the time, and I'm curious what others think of it now.
Evil societies in the game should have unique and cool things they could accomplish. But accomplishing those things should require betrayal, deception, murder and pain & suffering inflicted on others.
The "others" should often be members of the evil society.
So getting ahead in an evil Settlement means that you're constantly making enemies out of your peers. Sure, you may be strong enough to keep squashing them when they seek to take you out, but you're going to be forced to keep dealing with challenges to your power. The more 'evil' you do, the more those challenges should spread.
Want to advance that Temple to Rovagug so that characters that cast divine spells granted by Rovagug can get a new spell level? Well Rovagug wants blood on his altars. A lot of blood. And it turns out that the blood of the worshipers of Asmodeus is PARTICULARLY desired by Rovagug...
I especially like the idea that Evil societies might have a built-in mechanic that allows "leadership" to change by Betrayal rather than by Vote. This would also create a very strong incentive for Evil players to infiltrate and overwhelm an otherwise Good (or Neutral) Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I especially like the idea that Evil societies might have a built-in mechanic that allows "leadership" to change by Betrayal rather than by Vote. This would also create a very strong incentive for Evil players to infiltrate and overwhelm an otherwise Good (or Neutral) Settlement.
This goes back to the discussion that the values in an evil society are the opposite of those in a good society.
You should have a high reputation in an Evil society for having a low reputation in a good society. Nowhere in the proposed systems of alignment / reputation / flagging are evil acts rewarded.
Where is the LE Enforcer Flag, where they get benefits for killing "Good Aligned" players?
These Dark Knights would seem to be the perfect counter balance and enemies of CG Rangers, being polar opposites in alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You should have a high reputation in an Evil society for having a low reputation in a good society.
I completely agree! I imagine KitNyx would, too. In fact, there should be some kind of score - not Reputation, but something like it - that is unique to each other Character and Organization that you've interacted with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stumbled upon this looking for something else. I remember reacting very positively to it at the time, and I'm curious what others think of it now.
I especially like the idea that Evil societies might have a built-in mechanic that allows "leadership" to change by Betrayal rather than by Vote. This would also create a very strong incentive for Evil players to infiltrate and overwhelm an otherwise Good (or Neutral) Settlement.Evil societies in the game should have unique and cool things they could accomplish. But accomplishing those things should require betrayal, deception, murder and pain & suffering inflicted on others.
The "others" should often be members of the evil society.
So getting ahead in an evil Settlement means that you're constantly making enemies out of your peers. Sure, you may be strong enough to keep squashing them when they seek to take you out, but you're going to be forced to keep dealing with challenges to your power. The more 'evil' you do, the more those challenges should spread.
Want to advance that Temple to Rovagug so that characters that cast divine spells granted by Rovagug can get a new spell level? Well Rovagug wants blood on his altars. A lot of blood. And it turns out that the blood of the worshipers of Asmodeus is PARTICULARLY desired by Rovagug...
The first line resounds particularly: Because it takes wits to deceive, set up a betrayal as well as working double-crossing and raw deals etc.
Finally the carrot of spilling blood for powers is very fitting!
In fact a different set of challenges than the LG's coordinated cogs in a wheel. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I especially like the idea that Evil societies might have a built-in mechanic that allows "leadership" to change by Betrayal rather than by Vote. This would also create a very strong incentive for Evil players to infiltrate and overwhelm an otherwise Good (or Neutral) Settlement.This goes back to the discussion that the values in an evil society are the opposite of those in a good society.
You should have a high reputation in an Evil society for having a low reputation in a good society. Nowhere in the proposed systems of alignment / reputation / flagging are evil acts rewarded.
Where is the LE Enforcer Flag, where they get benefits for killing "Good Aligned" players?
These Dark Knights would seem to be the perfect counter balance and enemies of CG Rangers, being polar opposites in alignment.
Agree:
Reputation is atm emphasis on the the reference from how positive you are to interact with. For a relative measure between E/C's how nefarious you and hence your standing among your peers and deities' boons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stumbled upon this looking for something else. I remember reacting very positively to it at the time, and I'm curious what others think of it now.
I especially like the idea that Evil societies might have a built-in mechanic that allows "leadership" to change by Betrayal rather than by Vote. This would also create a very strong incentive for Evil players to infiltrate and overwhelm an otherwise Good (or Neutral) Settlement.Evil societies in the game should have unique and cool things they could accomplish. But accomplishing those things should require betrayal, deception, murder and pain & suffering inflicted on others.
The "others" should often be members of the evil society.
So getting ahead in an evil Settlement means that you're constantly making enemies out of your peers. Sure, you may be strong enough to keep squashing them when they seek to take you out, but you're going to be forced to keep dealing with challenges to your power. The more 'evil' you do, the more those challenges should spread.
Want to advance that Temple to Rovagug so that characters that cast divine spells granted by Rovagug can get a new spell level? Well Rovagug wants blood on his altars. A lot of blood. And it turns out that the blood of the worshipers of Asmodeus is PARTICULARLY desired by Rovagug...
One way to think about CE is that it's potentially the more gambler's preference, people who like risk, who like to test the limits, who like harsh consequences and impactful repercussions - namely higher tolerance to loss/set-backs or the risk of such? Definitely not for the faint of heart, but perhaps some players who may not start in CE, could transfer to CE as they seek more risk and more freedom to exercise such on other players.
Additional to this I hope CE in terms of lore and flavor, has some possibly fairly adult themes eg torture, slavery, execution, horror and so on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alright sorry if I am repeating what someone else have already said, but I have already read through two pages of these ramblings and I don't want to go through four more.
Firstly I don't think chaotic players need to be any less organized than anyone else. Joker in the dark knight anyone? That stuff was pretty organized.
Lord of the rings, demon wars, warcraft, Conan is just a few settings I can name with organized chaotic evil forces. Chaotic evils is not some insane man crouching in some corner. It can be! Likewise a lawful good guy can be a racist duche.
For example I plan to play my chaotic character as a more civil cleric of Lamashtu. He wants to help his fellows grow stronger to better serve her name and he will care for and train recruits to better do this.
Even in the mosters revisited it stated that gnoll clerics of Lamashtu (for those keeping track that is a chaotic evil race worshipping a chaotic evil goddess) are mainly healers and see to it that there are no difficulties with child deliveries.
Those heartless bastards!!!!
Likewise in that same book it states that murder is absolutely illegal in their culture.
Damn those evil beasts!!!
My character loves his fellow man. He will do everything in his power to help his cause. Though he will do it all for his evil goddess. He will crush anything and anyone who does not benefit his goddess.
Ryan Dancey said in a earlier discussion that a evil playstyle is simply higher risk with higher rewards. A lawful evil can build a farm. The chaotic evil would burn it to the ground and take it by force. But what if the lawful guy sent guards in that kills all of the chaotic forces?
I think it is as simple as that. I don't think chaotic evils need or will have massive penalties to them. It just a matter of taking risks, going on the offensive, while the lawful folks tend to their farms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ all
How will the GMs or the community differentiate between low reputation characters that got their low rep from breaking rules ( ie griefing) or from frequent PvP and or from playing their alignment within the rules, but still taking reputation hits?
Low rep IS breaking the rules, they define the rules. We will simply need to tweak those rules so that they draw the appropriate line.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How will the GMs or the community differentiate between low reputation characters that got their low rep from breaking rules ( ie griefing) or from frequent PvP and or from playing their alignment within the rules, but still taking reputation hits?
I think the primary way we'll lose rep is by attacking unflagged people. I haven't seen many other ways to lose rep in the stuff I've read. Normal flagged-on-flagged PvP won't cause rep losses, will it?
If we engage in a lot of flagged-on-unflagged PvP, then we're probably attacking people weaker than ourselves. What happens when we get low rep? Our settlements might be at some disadvantage. We can be attacked when we're unflagged with little rep loss to our attackers. So what we did - can now be done to us.
Reputation is a karmic system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ all
How will the GMs or the community differentiate between low reputation characters that got their low rep from breaking rules ( ie griefing) or from frequent PvP and or from playing their alignment within the rules, but still taking reputation hits?
Low rep IS breaking the rules, they define the rules. We will simply need to tweak those rules so that they draw the appropriate line.
tweaking these rules should include removing all reputation impacts from PVE activities and from the proper use of the flagging system (awaiting Revamp for more details).
PVE activities I'm specifically referring to: Necromancer controlling Undead or Trader / Settlement Manager dealing with slaves.
I will discuss these in more detail in the form of a suggestion in the Flag revamp thread, a bit later.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd, I seem to remember one (cultural) solution for CE settlements is to stipulate all members put "open pvp" flags on at all times?
Though I think what we're talking about in general terms regarding Reputation:
1) It's framed in reference to type (who/where/how) of pvp and frequency checking your pvp then coming out with a Reputation score as well as modified by other players (iirc).
2) If you are CE and merrily slaughtering other CEs, that should be rewarded in a certain way or at least recorded (ie infamy rating?). Atm it seems you'd still stack up a lot of low rep and no mention of your infamy?
There's ways to think about systems:
1. From it's reverse
2. From it's inverse
2. From it's absence?
Gah, I need a refresher on these: Reverse, Converse, Inverse. Maybe framing it as such helps?! Wiki answers: What is the difference between inverse converse and reverse?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2) If you are CE and merrily slaughtering other CEs...
I believe the intent is to punish players for killing other unflagged players without regard to either character's alignment. I don't think it's a good idea to let CE slaughter CE without consequences any more than it would be to allow LG to slaughter CE without consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2) If you are CE and merrily slaughtering other CEs...I believe the intent is to punish players for killing other unflagged players without regard to either character's alignment. I don't think it's a good idea to let CE slaughter CE without consequences any more than it would be to allow LG to slaughter CE without consequences.
Yes, I keep losing site of that, very true. Maybe what Ryan is saying in that quote will cover such as "infamy" then, via increasing your Evil axis by eg slaughtering other CE's of other, specific deities? That way those "rivals" have their zero-sum escalation (vendetta/hyper-retaliation) by opting in if they so wish ie start bending the knee at the altar of [insert: bloody-thirsty deity].
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
tweaking these rules should include removing all reputation impacts from PVE activities and from the proper use of the flagging system (awaiting Revamp for more details).Are you suggesting that all the +Rep gains from using the Long Term Flags should go away? Just curious.
I'm suggesting that Rep loss should not take place as long as long term flags are used properly, and against those not flagged in an even more restricted way.
I view reputation solely as a measure of a player's playing within the rules of the game, when interacting with other players in PVP combat.
There should be no reputation loss for any PVE action, or non combat player interaction that does not violate the stated actions "We Want to See" or act in one of the actions "We do not want to see".
Alignment shifts are another story, but they have to be as complex and understanding of what actions can legitimately constitute "within the spectrum of that alignment." A Good aligned cleric healing anyone who enters his/her care is never committing and evil act, regardless of the alignment of the character setting foot in the doors of his church. If his "church" is the great outdoors, then so be it.
The Flagging Revamp, I hope accounts for many different types of activities. I also hope that instead of having reputation hits as a consequence of using them correctly (no matter how small a hit), they always increase reputation in a small way. This way GW will have positive reinforcement for the behaviors they wish to see.
I am working on several ideas for suggestions for the new Flag Revamp. I'll post them in the Flag revamp thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
He will crush anything and anyone who does not benefit his goddess.This strikes me as a hard-to-achieve goal akin to religious folks today who say "any moment you're not actively worshipping the Lord, you're sinning". I do, however, wish you, as them, luck in your pursuit.
Hard to achieve yes, but a worthy goal none the less. I thank you for your kind words and look forward to seeing you in the river kingdom.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Firstly I don't think chaotic players need to be any less organized than anyone else. Joker in the dark knight anyone? That stuff was pretty organized.
Ryan Dancey said in a earlier discussion that a evil playstyle is simply higher risk with higher rewards. A lawful evil can build a farm. The chaotic evil would burn it to the ground and take it by force. But what if the lawful guy sent guards in that kills all of the chaotic forces?
I think it is as simple as that. I don't think chaotic evils need or will have massive penalties to them. It just a matter of taking risks, going on the offensive, while the lawful folks tend to their farms.
I think CE will already have many advantages lawfuls, and to a lesser extent, neutrals will not have. CE gets to do whatever, whenever, to whomever and the alignment (in theory) will be pushed towards CE (as long as the actions are evil in nature). It does make sense that formation combat would be less organized than a highly trained army standing in perfect formation.
Think the final battle in Spartacus (the old one). Spartacus led an army of freed slaves and gladiators. Disciplined in their own skill set, but not in formation combat. The Roman Legions led by Crassus were, in contrast, perfectly formed up and marched in formation. Many on both sides died, but the Romans won, in part because of the strength of the unit structure. Lawful won, Chaotic lost.
Now think of the first major battle scene in Braveheart. At the Battle of Stirling Bridge the Army of the Earl of Surrey (3,000 cavalry and around 8,000 infantry) was soundly defeated by a ragtag army of Scottish warriors led by William Wallace and Andrew Moray (with perhaps 4,000-5,000). The movie was different from reported history, but using military tactics, trapped the bulk of the English army on Stirling Bridge which collapsed, drowning many of the Soldiers and dividing the army on either side of the River Forth.
Chaotic forces can win, but not normally in a traditional formation combat scenario. Guerilla warfare is their best option. Therefore it makes perfect sense to "handicap" the formation combat rules for CE forces.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This keeps on being said, "Chaotic Evil characters can do whatever they want". Does this mean that reputation does not count in a CE settlement?
What does chaotic evil actually look like? Is it characters fighting other characters with no regard to flags? Is that what really amounts to being "evil"?
PFO is a fantasy based MMO RPG and the backbone of the genre is combat! Sure it may be good vs. evil, but everyone is killing everyone else in this genre.
When I hear about the exploits of a really powerful CE PC, I want to say to myself "Damn, that is one evil M-F'er". I don't want it to be, "What he do? Ahh... he killed a couple of noobs in the starter zone.... Damn, is that all?"
What is going to be the "Evil Content"? I'd hate to see another City of Villains "evil - light" where the bad guys, kill other bad guys and that is what makes them bad guys.
I want over the top "Evil", where there is no shade of grey. You do it, you see it or you hear about it and you say, 'Wow, that was really evil!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with bludd here. People seem set on CE meaning you have complete freedom. Yes freedom from the alignment penalties for your actions, sure I agree with that. But what is key here is the reputation loss. Reputation rules the game. With a low reputation, you can't train, enter towns, or advance your character. So "Doing whatever" DOES HURT CE, because we lose rep with all that freedom.
The proper use of flags is what separates those acting like the a-holes we don't want in game, and those who are RPing and providing content for the others.
Keep this in mind for all those who still think being CE is freedom to act as we please.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with bludd here. People seem set on CE meaning you have complete freedom. Yes freedom from the alignment penalties for your actions, sure I agree with that. But what is key here is the reputation loss. Reputation rules the game. With a low reputation, you can't train, enter towns, or advance your character. So "Doing whatever" DOES HURT CE, because we lose rep with all that freedom.
The proper use of flags is what separates those acting like the a-holes we don't want in game, and those who are RPing and providing content for the others.
Keep this in mind for all those who still think being CE is freedom to act as we please.
TBH I predict a lot of people wanting to indulge in CE fantasies will have one CE character who trashes stuff and and acts like a jackass and one or more other characters (possibly on a separate account and IP address) that are "respectable" and gather or trade financing the escapades of the "evil cousin".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I predict a lot of people wanting to indulge in CE fantasies will have one CE character who trashes stuff and and acts like a jackass and one or more other characters (possibly on a separate account and IP address) that are "respectable" and gather or trade financing the escapades of the "evil cousin".I agree with bludd here. People seem set on CE meaning you have complete freedom. Yes freedom from the alignment penalties for your actions, sure I agree with that. But what is key here is the reputation loss. Reputation rules the game. With a low reputation, you can't train, enter towns, or advance your character. So "Doing whatever" DOES HURT CE, because we lose rep with all that freedom.
The proper use of flags is what separates those acting like the a-holes we don't want in game, and those who are RPing and providing content for the others.
Keep this in mind for all those who still think being CE is freedom to act as we please.
If that does turn out to be a popular play strategy, I believe that the two+ supporting toons will likely end up more fun and progressing much faster. They will likely do more "positives" for the community than the "negatives" of the dark indulgences of the bad guy Alt.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want over the top "Evil", where there is no shade of grey. You do it, you see it or you hear about it and you say, 'Wow, that was really evil!"
Like this?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want over the top "Evil", where there is no shade of grey. You do it, you see it or you hear about it and you say, 'Wow, that was really evil!"Like this?
although funny, that is evil-light...... I am thinking more like Bricktop from the movie Snatch, kind of evil.
Or if you want an MMO connection, play a Jedi Knight all dark side choices on Tython. When you kill your Twil'ik lover because she betrayed you..... That was worth 150 Dark Side points, I believe the highest reward you could get in one action.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When I play Evil it isn't really 'charge around killing innocents' evil, but far more, 'I'm more important than you lot so your wishes are secondary to mine'.
My NE character was subtitled 'Neutral Selfish'.
Although I love the concept of the Evil Witch it is more the callous and enigmatic witch of legend, uncaring of the plight of the general populace, than the Wicked Witch of the West. Although I do want a cage of flying monkeys.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Correct... Reputation needs to be removed from the conversation of Alignment.
There does need to be a rating of how well your character represents the beliefs, values and activities that your settlement is founded on.
If reputation itself has alignment it would solve myriad problems but probably introduce others.
If high reputation chaotic evil is going to be possible there will need to be some ways for characters of all professions to gain reputation. The inclusion of reputation and alignment penalties for trading with chaotic evil characters seems unfair. Will there be such penalties for trading with others of different alignments?
If by losing 'good' reputation you gain 'evil' reputation Anathema's problem is solved. 'Neutral' reputation can be focused on economics and your reliability in contracts.
Would this undo the original intent or purpose of reputation altogether?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My NE character was subtitled 'Neutral Selfish'.
I hope nothing terrible happened to your previous avatar's bird, Sadurian.
I think Neutral Selfish could be applied to Snatch's Brick Top, too. If you're not familiar with the movie, I just re-watched it after Nihimon brought it up, and it's every bit as good as I remembered; it deserves its cult following.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is hearkening back to some of the conversations on the first couple pages, but when I think of CX vs LX in terms of battlefield combat partisan vs regiment is what comes to mind (or if you go low rep CE vs LX it's gibbering hordes vs regiment). CX should have formations that can be used to their benefit, they should be much more limited in options and effects. CX is more self-centered while LX is group-centered.
While a small CX group might be able to more easily defeat a small LX group due to a heavier reliance on solo abilities and equipment, the formation benefits for LX should scale faster than CX.
5 CX vs 5 LX is mostly a wash as far as formation benefits go. In such a small group individual skill and prowess is key and the formations are manageable for nearly any commander and if both sides maintain their formations it could go either way.
10 CX vs 10 LX things start to weigh more in favor of the LX side. A LX commander has more options and a higher bonus modifier than a CX commander (regardless of the alignment of their underlings) and if formation discipline is maintained and the correct counter formations used the LX have a better chance of victory. 12 CX vs 10 LX may be a more fair fight.
20 CX vs 20 LX sees a much more decisive advantage for the LX provided they can maintain formation discipline and the correct formation selection. At this point the CX would probably need to go for a headshot and take out the commander (and hope the sub commanders are not as skilled) or bring 5 - 10 more bodies to throw into the meat grinder.
How far this can scale really depends on how combat itself will work out in terms of range, positioning, line of sight, and targeting. The short of it is a highly skilled (character and player), experienced LX commander should be a force multiplier to be reckoned with. From the line grunt's perspective it should be easier for an LX character to maintain formation than a CX character (bigger glowie circle to stand in? Less jitter or shifting in the formation indicator?). From the commander's perspective the LX has more formation options and the ability to include more people in the formation, increasing the effect of their ability multiplier.
I would even see the potential for alignment shifts towards law for participating in battle formations (relative to the size of the group)
This would make LX armies something to be feared when they are engaged, and CX groups would likely limit themselves to minor skirmishes, hit and run tactics, baiting, and attacks of opportunity rather than a stand-up brawl. It would also make LX groups more of a threat to structures than the more rag-tag CX hordes.
So the disadvantages for CE in this case are fairly clear, and if griefers et all will naturally/mechanically gravitate to this point, it will make it much more difficult for them to compete at the larger settlement-level game. If you are a LE commander but your force is comprised of gibbering CE reprobates you are going to have trouble maintaining the same level of formation discipline than you might need due to the fact that your rank and file need to spend so much more attention and effort simple maintaining the formation than your LX foes. You would have to hope that those CE assassin mercs you hired can eliminate or reduce the effectiveness of the opponent's commander to even things up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never said they cannot act as a group. They can all dogpile on, cram as many warm pixels in there as they can. They do have trouble, by their nature, with acting in concert. In EVE terms these would be the folks who seem to be unable to consistently shoot the primary target while in a fleet. They can be in the group, be told to act in Y formation, but in order to do so effectively they will have to work harder at it than someone who doesn't spend their days violating the local wildlife. Their LE taskmaster can beat on them afterwords. Anyone who has been in a medium sized fleet in EVE will probably have stories about rabid FCs chewing on people who can't follow orders (align, shoot primary, hold on gate, broadcast for reps, etc).
I also left RP entirely out of the equation, and I did look at it from the griefer's POV. This is entirely mechanical. Most griefers, through their actions, will be on a slope down to the CE low rep spectrum. This hampers their ability to be useful in large-scale combat and relegates them to mob tactics. If the griefer wants to be LG (or, more likely, LE), then they need to be very, very careful with how they grief, which also limits their targets and their impact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not accept every belief that Ryan Dancey says as gospel. I disagree with his view of what alignment means. He is no better an authority on meaning than any of us.
If GW is designing an aspect of the game to suck, that is poor gaming design.
You're wrong Bluddwolf. The Curse of Gary Gygax (alignment) is and always has been a GAME MECHANIC. It is specifically designed to keep the players from ruining the DM's designs by acting like arsehats. Alignment is and always has been a railroading tool for player behavior in an open ended game.
This is not an esoteric discussion. It's a mechanic designed to keep the sand in the box. Always has been.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I fear that I've not been as clear as I had hoped.
About the other part , this kind of mechanical limits are bad.
There is no mechanic that makes G character give up 20% of his income for charity , or debuff L character stats when there is no superior to bark orders.What i liked in your post is the commander thing.
Do you think that they should be specific "commander" skills that give bonuses to formations?
That sounds cool.
First off, debuffs are 'bad', carrot > stick, and all that. There's absolutely nothing preventing CX characters from being a part of an organized formation, only that in order for them to be effective they need to work harder than someone who is more adept at responding to orders (LX). This is not a mechanical limitation, rather a procedural one, and one that is not limited to CE since the G -> E axis plays no part in this. Consider it an abstraction on the character's personality that represents their ability, not the player's, to respond to orders.
With that out of the way, on to the second part. The way I envision the commander, more or less, is a character who possesses certain skills and who has attained specific 'merit badges' that are then used to grant a multiplier to the people under their command. The specific multipliers could be tied to the skills, badges, and/or formations. As an example, a commander may have level 3 in their particular command skill, and attained a merit badge that allows him to order a 'turtle' formation. This is a purely defensive formation that grants a huge (potential) bonus to defense against ranged AOE (arrow volley, fireballs, etc), something approaching 100% damage reduction, possibly variable on skill level or badges earned.
Their underling's job is to follow the orders, in this case something as simple as 'stand on your glowing circle'. This circle could be sized differently and have a jitter applied according to your L -> C axis (and possibly modified by the commander's 'cat-herding' skill or badge). A high CX character may have to dance around a bit to stay in formation while the high LX character just stands still. The percentage of those in the formation who are successfully in said formation directly affects the effectiveness of the formation. If everyone is in formation, it's 100% of the potential bonus, but if half the folks are unable/unwilling to form up, the potential bonus is dropped by that percentage.
I could see LX vs CX commanders having different badges and options available to them, but given the very nature of formation combat, LX should have an advantage over CX in a brawl or some other stand-up fight. The main advantage CX would have is more mobility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is there an assumption that there will be any difference between CX and LX formation bonuses? Is it wishful/suggestive thinking?
Why is there an assumption that CX and LX won't all be mixed up in the same formations on the same side a good deal of the time?
For me at least it is logical. Being able to perform these formations sounds like they will be a dance by placing/keeping your character within "the colored square". These squares represent aids which abstract the fact that it is assumed your character went and did actual formation training at some point.
Now consider which alignment, Lawful or Chaotic would be more prone to dedicate themselves to training...and then consider which would be more willing to follow instructions in the name of a greater good...which maintaining formations would require. The chaotic person is more likely to pursue the short term gains and avoid what they see as stupid moves on the part of their formation commanders.
That at least is why it makes sense to me. I think there should be huge bonuses granted LX formation combat over what I hope is a CX inability to form formations in the first place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can see the logic in different or less formation buffs for CX, if it is going to be a Tolkienesk battlefield all of the time. Is it practical to have only pure CX or LX units, or to expect that they will be mixed and individual alignments will be tracked and factored with everything else?
If it is a matter of the Commander's bonus, who will ever field a CX Commander?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's no reason that CX and LX, and NX for that matter couldn't be in the same formation. There's no absolutes in the setup, LX grunts just have an easier time in formation. As for the differences between CX and LX commanders, most of the benefits would probably be from badges or benefits that are simply unavailable to Chaotic types. You could, however, have leadership badges for CX commanders that focus more on small group skirmishing rather than large war-bands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, I would argue CX cannot be part of a mixed formation...it is a consequence for being CX, you are less able to be ordered...but this is where I have to agree with Bludd and say Outlaw flags (or other CX only flags)should have some guerrilla use in escalations and warfare, even formation combat...maybe a skirmisher mob circle versus the dance of formations.
I do not think anyone should be useless. especially in the focus of the game, territory conquest...but I think there should be real meaningful consequences for ones actions and decisions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not accept every belief that Ryan Dancey says as gospel. I disagree with his view of what alignment means. He is no better an authority on meaning than any of us.
If GW is designing an aspect of the game to suck, that is poor gaming design.
You're wrong Bluddwolf. The Curse of Gary Gygax (alignment) is and always has been a GAME MECHANIC. It is specifically designed to keep the players from ruining the DM's designs by acting like arsehats. Alignment is and always has been a railroading tool for player behavior in an open ended game.
This is not an esoteric discussion. It's a mechanic designed to keep the sand in the box. Always has been.
I strongly disagree with this statement. The whole thing. Alignment does not "Railroad" anyone into anything. You can ask several of my old Dm's about how I did things as a NG or LN or even a LG (once) that completely screwed up him game plan. I saved the party once as a NG Halfling rogue who happened to know draconic and had a charisma of 18. It was quick thinking on my part to shout out under the guise of an authoritative figure belaying the orders given from the REAL commander. It caused confusion just long enough (as those receiving the order couldn't see the battle) for the party to move and intercept what could had been a "bad day" for us. My Halfling loved to talk his way into and out of things and specifically took feats and skills that added to this. He was a lover, not a fighter, and it lead to many a great laugh and (DM) frustration.
I was well within my alignment to do such things so trust me when I say that alignment is a guide to expected actions, but not a tunnel that can't be escaped. Just because your CE, doesn't make you dumb and unwilling to cooperate, just selfish and willing to work together until such time as they are no longer needed. If there is a benefit and, usually, a profit to be had, then whatever is needed to be done is done. If it means fighting in a formation, working with a pally (though extremely unlikely and the pally wouldn't do it but that is another story) or whatever, the CE will do it, all the while ensuring by whatever means that he/she comes out on top.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was well within my alignment to do such things so trust me when I say that alignment is a guide to expected actions, but not a tunnel that can't be escaped. Just because your CE, doesn't make you dumb and unwilling to cooperate, just selfish and willing to work together until such time as they are no longer needed. If there is a benefit and, usually, a profit to be had, then whatever is needed to be done is done. If it means...
I actually have to disagree with you, I do not see how what you did would have been restricted by any alignment. I would consider your actions as described to be fairly alignment neutral. But, I would say your final description of who can do what...specifically that you can do anything, describes by definition a neutral character, not a chaotic one. Chaotic is an extreme, one sample definition:
"Chaotic ... characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing about them is that they cannot be relied upon!" ~ Cook, David "Zeb," et al. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, 2nd Edition Player's Handbook. TSR: 1989.
(the quote above is specifically in reference to CN, but that to me was prototypical without the influence of good and evil, of course CG and CE will have those other influences).
Now imagine spartan combat where each man expected and acted as if beyond a doubt the person next to them was going to act as prescribed for any given formation. How could this be done well when the only thing you could trust about the person guarding your backside is that they could not be trusted to be guarding your backside?
Looks to me like people want their cake and to eat it too by trying to push CX into NX.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, I would argue CX cannot be part of a mixed formation...it is a consequence for being CX, you are less able to be ordered.CE isn't less able to be ordered , just less willing. And in most armies one's personal preferences matter very little.
Is not big deal anyway, but there should be similar limitations to the other alignment to balance the things out.
I agree with this, which is why I argued CX should have different but equal roles in warfare.
Now imagine spartan combat where each man expected and acted as if beyond a doubt the person next to them was going to act as prescribed for any given formation. How could this be done well when the only thing you could trust about the person guarding your backside is that they could not be trusted to be guarding your backside?Easy. When you know what the warchief will do to you if you
disobey ,you keep your objections to yourself and hold the line.
Spartans had training and trust in each other, Persians feared the whip...given like numbers, who would have won and why?