Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spartans had training and trust in each other, Persians feared the whip...given like numbers, who would have won and why?Is not about whip vs trust.
The better trained / armed ones win.
Then perhaps I am claiming that in general it is more likely/easier for a lawful culture to develop both lawful citizens...and better trained soldiers...and better arms. I am extending that to say they are better at formation warfare.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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...
You said it yourself, you didn't break alignment. Coming up with creative ways to solve problems is playing the game. If you had decided to feed you party to the dragon, then you probably would have been hit the alignment railroad.
What's important to remember here is that alignment comes from waaay back in the dark ages of RPG's when role playing was nascent and people were nowhere near as good at it as they are now. I understand full well that alignment is disregarded or house brewed at most gaming tables nowadays...today's rp'ers don't need it anymore and when it is used it's usually a play on the mechanic as a puzzle to be solved by the players.
Which is why I find it brilliant to dust off alignment and try to use it to railroad behavior for a new set of players that needs to learn to role play: MMO players.
The veteran role players will continue to play their intricacies as they always do. This system is to maintain an ABC structure of behavior for good and evil.
|
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)...
I was thinking Viet Cong -vs- ARVN or Lt. George N. Bascom -vs- Cochise. Problems with the analogy is that in their own way the Viet Cong were certainly disciplined and I suspect the Apache were as well.
|
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)...I was thinking Viet Cong -vs- ARVN or Lt. George N. Bascom -vs- Cochise. Problems with the analogy is that in their own way the Viet Cong were certainly disciplined and I suspect the Apache were as well.
I agree, I am having a hard time identifying a LX force vs a CX one...maybe the Romans versus Germanics at the beginning of Gladiator. TO me CX does not mean you cannot fight for a common cause, just that you would not think doing it orderly (such as in formations) would be more effective than not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Apache are a fairly good example, more NX in general than CX, but in battle they were very much self-oriented. For a good CX battle with formations look at Helms Deep and imagine trying to command the orcs.
As has been stated many times before, CX does not mean Chaotic Stupid. Selfish, possibly self-centered, undisciplined, potentially erratic, and unpredictable, sure. I plan on playing a CN bandit, a highwayman. This does not mean that I'll fail to lend my blade to a formation if it's in my best interest. The key there is that it's in MY best interest. If it's in my best interest to support a common cause, you can bet that I will be there in the thick of things, but I am most certainly not a soldier, and would expect to be less effective in such a role than someone that trains for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Apache are a fairly good example, more NX in general than CX, but in battle they were very much self-oriented. For a good CX battle with formations look at Helms Deep and imagine trying to command the orcs.
Good one. But I would say there was magic influencing their abilities and alignment from C to a more L position...as soon as the ring was destroyed, they all returned to C...and no more formations.
As has been stated many times before, CX does not mean Chaotic Stupid. Selfish, possibly self-centered, undisciplined, potentially erratic, and unpredictable, sure. I plan on playing a CN bandit, a highwayman. This does not mean that I'll fail to lend my blade to a formation if it's in my best interest. The key there is that it's in MY best interest. If it's in my best interest to support a common cause, you can bet that I will be there in the thick of things, but I am most certainly not a soldier, and would expect to be less effective in such a role than someone that trains for it.
In the example you described above I would say as described your character is less chaotic and more neutral. I would expect neutral to be able, but less effective in formations than lawful, just as you described. Similarly, I hope Neutrals are able to fly all flags, just less effectively. The extremes are more fervent in their roles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...But I would say there was magic influencing their abilities and alignment from C to a more L position...as soon as the ring was destroyed, they all returned to C...and no more formations.
...
More fear than magic I think. A Neutral Evil mastermind might well use Fear to promote discipline in the ranks of Chaotic foot soldiery.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would expect neutral to be able, but less effective in formations than lawful, just as you described. Similarly, I hope Neutrals are able to fly all flags, just less effectively. The extremes are more fervent in their roles.
This brought an interesting question to mind....
Although all Lawfuls can use Formation Combat, would there be a varying degree of effectiveness granted or denied based on whether it is LG, LN or LE?
Same would go for Enforcers, Outlaws or Travelers....
They all need Lawful, Chaotic or Neutral alignment in order to use their flags, but was is the impact of their secondary alignment axis?
Would not a Chaotic Evil Outlaw have an advantage over a Chaotic Good outlaw?
Would not a Lawful Good Enforcer have an advantage over a Lawful Neutral Enforcer?
Lawful Evil Enforcers would clearly have an advantage as Outlaw hunters, because they would not be hesitant to destroy or kill whatever or whom ever stands in their way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an analogy that occurred to be as I re-read the last bit of this and considered formations some more. Formation fighting is almost a mini-game, let's use Dance Dance Revolution as an example. Lawful get to play this game on 'Easy' due to their easy acceptance of orders. Neutral play on 'Medium', no benefits, no hindrances. It is what it is. Chaotic play on 'Hard' due to their free spirited ways. Anyone can participate, but your actions and philosophy in-game dictate the 'level' at which you must play.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Lawful Evil Enforcers would clearly have an advantage as Outlaw hunters, because they would not be hesitant to destroy or kill whatever or whom ever stands in their way.
Why is that an advantage? What could possibly stand in the way of hunting outlaws that a paladin hunting those outlaws would hesitate to destroy?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is that an advantage? What could possibly stand in the way of hunting outlaws that a paladin hunting those outlaws would hesitate to destroy?Lawful Evil Enforcers would clearly have an advantage as Outlaw hunters, because they would not be hesitant to destroy or kill whatever or whom ever stands in their way.
The answer to your question should be obvious .
Is it a lack of understanding of what the alignments actually mean or is it that you can't accept that evil may have an advantage over good or neutral?
There is even a mechanical advantage in PFO's alignment system ( as it is currently described) that is also an obvious answer to your question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Decius I'd think the difference between LG, LN, and LE Enforcers might be minor. The Enforcers are tailored to kill Criminals (and the long-term flag Brigands, I'd guess). They have no special attacks against chaos or Outlaws specifically. Neither LG, LN, nor LE Enforcers will take chaos, evil, or rep hits for attacking flagged outlaws or criminals, but Enforcer flag will drop as soon as they attack an unflagged character. So flagged Enforcers vs. flagged Outlaws, I think is a wash, LG vs. LN vs. LE.
Now if the outlaws shed their flags, the LE type would be able to attack them and take a rep hit, while the LG and LN types would suffer the evil hit and the rep hit (LE suffers a evil hit too, but don't care). Now, if the outlaws are CE-, the evil hits and rep hits will be small, but they'll accumulate.
In general, though, Enforcers are sort of tied to their settlements - because they are focused on criminals, not Outlaws. Outside of settlements where no laws apply, no one picks up a criminal flag. The LG type might be better served to fly Champion outside their own borders, but that depends if they're looking for CE or CN outlaws. LN can't fly the Champion flag.
(edited to discuss LN as well)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would expect neutral to be able, but less effective in formations than lawful, just as you described. Similarly, I hope Neutrals are able to fly all flags, just less effectively. The extremes are more fervent in their roles.This brought an interesting question to mind....
Although all Lawfuls can use Formation Combat, would there be a varying degree of effectiveness granted or denied based on whether it is LG, LN or LE?
Same would go for Enforcers, Outlaws or Travelers....
They all need Lawful, Chaotic or Neutral alignment in order to use their flags, but was is the impact of their secondary alignment axis?
Would not a Chaotic Evil Outlaw have an advantage over a Chaotic Good outlaw?
Would not a Lawful Good Enforcer have an advantage over a Lawful Neutral Enforcer?
Lawful Evil Enforcers would clearly have an advantage as Outlaw hunters, because they would not be hesitant to destroy or kill whatever or whom ever stands in their way.
Perhaps, but I do not think that is an alignment issue as much as a faction issue. Even among Lawful, some factions might prefer formation combat over others. For instance, shaolin monks are necessarily lawful, but might prefer "honorable" individual combat over formations. Spartans on the otherhand might be good at individual combat, but they excel at formation combat. There could be good or evil versions of either. I d not think this benefit needs to be quantified as some in-game mechanic, because it will show in the skill at formation combat...the increased abilities and skill gained through practice, training, and experience are the benefit.
So, I think the mechanic for formation combat should be available equally to all Lawful aligned characters. Since neutral is a "balance" of lawful and chaos, I think they should be able to participate in formations with reduced or no benefit. To illustrate, formation x might require y number of units, the larger and more complex the formation, the more the benefit. Since we only have y-4 lawful characters on at the moment, we fill the remaining 4 spots with neutrals. They fill the spots to create formation x, but the result is only a benefit to the collective as if x were a y-4 sized formation (complexity bonus is still given).
Chaotic characters should not be able to participate in formation combat. Neutral characters alone should be able to utilize formations to get complexity bonuses, but not "size bonuses" (all formations would only count as size 1).
Similarly, there should be some Good mechanic, with similar dynamics that provides groups of Good characters an advantage over "everything else equal" non-Good forces. Neutrals should be able to partake in that group, without providing bonuses. To illustrate with a possibility, Good/Neutral groups/parties should get a slight increase to HP regen rate. The bigger the group, the bigger the rate increase. This increase denotes the will and desire to help each other.
Evil characters should not be able to partake in this benefit.
(EDIT: I think flag requirements for alignment should be similar, ie. Bandit flags should be available to Chaotic characters, offering full benefits. They should also be available to neutral character with much reduced effect. Assassin flags should be available to evil characters with full benefits, neutrals with much reduced effects, etc...)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think bonuses should necessarily be tied to alignment.
The model I was assuming at the moment was...
Settlements will have trainers. Availability of trainers and efficacy of trainers will be tied to DIs and settlement alignments, such that large Evil settlements can host Evil only skill training at max levels. Smaller settlements, or large neutral settlements would have less effective Evil skill trainers.
Once you have a skill trained, you can use it unless... your active alignment prevents slotting it. Once trained, it is either you can use it or you can't.
Your ability to seek training (and thus the level you can train to) is limited by how welcome you are in the settlements that have such training available.
I don't think we need any additional Bonus or Penalties for skills beyond that.
Whether Formation-Combat is a Lawful skill or not is still uncertain (we have assumed yes but I do not think it has been stated). It does beg the question - we believe there will be positive alignment skills based on earlier dev statements. But will there be the flip side of Any Non-Chaotic, Any Non-Good, Any Non-Evil, etc?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think bonuses should necessarily be tied to alignment.
Do you consider the following "bonuses tied to alignment"?
In general, we're pretty sure that MMOs are a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior...
So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums.
If so, and if you think that the game should not do that, then I strongly disagree with you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think bonuses should necessarily be tied to alignment.Do you consider the following "bonuses tied to alignment"?
If so, and if you think that the game should not do that, then I strongly disagree with you.In general, we're pretty sure that MMOs are a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior...
So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums.
That is a post that predates Core and Active Alignments. The shift is no longer towards Lawful and Good, with the option to turn off that slide. It is now a drift back towards your core alignment, no matter what that is.
Your strong disagreement should not be with Lifedragn, but with the Devs and the Core / Active Alignment system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon: You misunderstood my statement as a general blanket opinion whereas it was targeted at KitNyx's formation examples.
Let me clarify: Bonuses to skill usage, not in regard to overall Mechanical Advantage/Disadvantage.
Using the Formation Combat as an example.
A Lawful Character would be more likely to be welcome into settlements with higher level trainers than non-lawful characters.
If both a Lawful Character and a Neutral character have Formation Combat 3 and assuming they can both slot it, they should be equally effective at Formation Combat when correcting for gear/player skill. The Lawful character should not get a +1 Bonus to whatever training he has because he is Lawful.
Alignment and Reputation should be gates to Training and Slotting skills. I do not believe they should have direct impact on skills that qualify to be trained/slotted. A Lawful, High Reputation character should have more access to seek training for the skill in settlements most likely to offer it up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment and Reputation should be gates to Training and Slotting skills. I do not believe they should have direct impact on skills that qualify to be trained/slotted. A Lawful, High Reputation character should have more access to seek training for the skill in settlements most likely to offer it up.
The Caveat I would add is that unless ALL alignment specific skills worked this way. If a Neutral or Evil Character could still Smite Evil, though with growing penalties the further they are away from good, then I would support Alignment bonuses/penalties on skills.
What I am advocating is consistency in the skill training / slotting / usage rules. Having some skills that can be slotted at penalty for alignment vs. not being able to slot skills at all for alignment is something I would like to see avoided. We should pick one route and stick with it, or we will have endless argument over which skills should be Exclusive vs. which should be At Penalty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon: You misunderstood my statement as a general blanket opinion whereas it was targeted at KitNyx's formation examples.
That's why I asked :)
If both a Lawful Character and a Neutral character have Formation Combat 3 and assuming they can both slot it, they should be equally effective at Formation Combat when correcting for gear/player skill. The Lawful character should not get a +1 Bonus to whatever training he has because he is Lawful.
I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to remove that option from the devs' toolkit.
Consider a spell with the Evil keyword. Isn't it reasonable that a character who is currently Evil-aligned might get a better result from it than a character who is currently Good-aligned?
Or do you see potential problems with using Alignment as a way to modify abilities? Your clarification served very well to help me understand what you think, but not why.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We should pick one route and stick with it, or we will have endless argument over which skills should be Exclusive vs. which should be At Penalty.
And you answered me again while I was typing my post.
However, I'm still not sure I agree. It seems unnecessarily restrictive to insist that all abilities are either boolean or scaling. It seems better to allow the devs to scale the abilities that make sense to scale, and to make other abilities boolean if that makes sense.
Endless arguments will ensue regardless...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think bonuses should necessarily be tied to alignment.Do you consider the following "bonuses tied to alignment"?
If so, and if you think that the game should not do that, then I strongly disagree with you.In general, we're pretty sure that MMOs are a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior...
So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums.
That is a post that predates Core and Active Alignments. The shift is no longer towards Lawful and Good, with the option to turn off that slide. It is now a drift back towards your core alignment, no matter what that is.
Your strong disagreement should not be with Lifedragn, but with the Devs and the Core / Active Alignment system.
It seems to me that the "advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums" has nothing to do with whether the character automatically shifts toward the same. In fact, I believe the Core/Active Alignment was designed as a way to allow those players who wanted to forego those advantages to stay Chaotic Evil.
And no, I don't disagree with the Core/Active alignment system at all. I think it's a very good thing, and not at all contradictory with there being advantages to being Lawful, Good, and High Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stephen Cheney argued that the old system would give mechanical advantages to staying at lawful and good. He did not say there should be mechanical advantages for being lawful or good.
That is two very different objectives. There may be mechanical differences between Lawful and Chaotic and or between Good and Evil, but not mechanical advantages.
I believe alignment should be a gatekeeper, granting access to various flags or skills that are alignment based. Alignment should not be the basis for granting advantages, otherwise, min maxers will gravitate to that alignment, but will behave very differently just short of falling out of that alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My why is an amalgamation of multiple minor concerns.
From a Software Systems Engineering viewpoint. Adding complexities such as this makes for excessive opportunities for bugs and balance tuning nightmares. There is already a lot of complexity to account for, and now we are asking for more.
Alignment is typically a reflection of your actions, not a source of power in itself. Getting better at casting abilities with the Evil descriptor should be a factor of having done some training towards that end. The actions involved to earn the merits required by said training should be very damaging to the Good aligned person's Good status. [A Necromancer has been attempting to reform his ways and currently pursues a good alignment. But a terrible war is threatening his homeland. In a desperate bid to save the living, he falls back upon old skills and begins raising those fallen in battle to return to the front as mindless shields.] The Necromancer's alignment will begin rapidly shifting back to evil as he performs these deeds in the name of the greater good, but I do not think his expertise is lesser purely because of his alignment. Maybe if he spent years in transition and his skills had time to decay, but not from pure alignment change.
Players tend to be optimizers. Instead of playing to a character vision, most people will begin playing to formulaic bonuses. It lends to the cookie-cutter talent trees of optimized builds you see all over the net.
And again - arguments over what should be Bonus/Penalty and what should be slot restricted. If Formation Combat is a Lawful ability and Smite Evil is a Good ability, then why should Formation Combat suffer a penalty for being slotted by Neutrals whereas Neutrals cannot slot Smite Evil at all. These are more obvious cases, but I can imagine a number of other skills leading to intense debate. I would prefer to have either one system or the other.
Let all characters use any skill they train regardless of current alignment and apply bonus/penalty or restrict ability to slot entirely based on alignment. Mixed systems is just unnecessary complexity at the moment.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Stephen Cheney argued that the old system would give mechanical advantages to staying at lawful and good. He did not say there should be mechanical advantages for being lawful or good.
That is two very different objectives. There may be mechanical differences between Lawful and Chaotic and or between Good and Evil, but not mechanical advantages.
I believe alignment should be a gatekeeper, granting access to various flags or skills that are alignment based. Alignment should not be the basis for granting advantages, otherwise, min maxers will gravitate to that alignment, but will behave very differently just short of falling out of that alignment.
Meaningful differences are situational advantages.
And if the actions which are "just short of falling out" of one alignment are radically different from the actions that are "business as usual" for a different one, then there is a behavior difference between the two.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment is typically a reflection of your actions, not a source of power in itself.
Alignment in Golarian - or at least in Pathfinder Online - is directly related to the Deities. Why wouldn't it be appropriate for a Deity to grant more power to a character who is a greater paragon of that Deity's Alignment?
A Necromancer has been attempting to reform his ways and currently pursues a good alignment... I do not think his expertise is lesser purely because of his alignment.
If raising undead were purely a matter of expertise, I would agree. But I don't think it is.
Consider the flip-side. A Paladin is in the midst of a fall from grace, having just fallen from +7500 Good to +2501 Good because he embraced a lot of Evil recently. The Paladin's Lay on Hands ability is powered by a Deity (at least in this instance). Why wouldn't it make sense for the Deity to withhold some of that power?
Let all characters use any skill they train regardless of current alignment and apply bonus/penalty or restrict ability to slot entirely based on alignment. Mixed systems is just unnecessary complexity at the moment.
We already know that the devs intend to make certain abilities unavailable if you fall from a required Alignment, or if you lose access to certain Settlement structures. With that in mind, it seems the only acceptable option to you is all-or-nothing - you can either slot the ability, or you can't.
Personally, I think there might be value in having some abilities scale their effect based on how developed the required Settlement structure is.
My point is that the devs should have access to whatever tools they think are appropriate, and I don't see the value in artificially restricting them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stephen Cheney argued that the old system would give mechanical advantages to staying at lawful and good. He did not say there should be mechanical advantages for being lawful or good.
I'm still trying to understand the distinction you're trying to draw. It seems like you're making a distinction between staying versus being at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums. But that doesn't make any sense to me.
It's almost like saying there's an advantage for staying a virgin, but not an advantage for being a virgin. The words just don't convey any meaning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment is typically a reflection of your actions, not a source of power in itself.Alignment in Golarian - or at least in Pathfinder Online - is directly related to the Deities. Why wouldn't it be appropriate for a Deity to grant more power to a character who is a greater paragon of that Deity's Alignment?
From my readings thus far, I would argue that Deity alignments seem reflective of the concepts that deities espouse. I would argue that Cayden Cailean espouses the idea of Freedom, which is both Good and Chaotic. CN and NG Clerics of Cayden (following the one-step alignment restriction) are not typically represented as lesser, or weaker, followers in any of the lore I have followed. But I will admit my experience is more limited than others may be around here.
It is true that some of this is reflective of excessive table math being something to avoid. But I do not know if we want to introduce sliding power scales that would lead to alignment grinding just because we can have computers handle the math.
Let all characters use any skill they train regardless of current alignment and apply bonus/penalty or restrict ability to slot entirely based on alignment. Mixed systems is just unnecessary complexity at the moment.We already know that the devs intend to make certain abilities unavailable if you fall from a required Alignment, or if you lose access to certain Settlement structures. With that in mind, it seems the only acceptable option to you is all-or-nothing - you can either slot the ability, or you can't.
Personally, I think there might be value in having some abilities scale their effect based on how developed the required Settlement structure is.
My point is that the devs should have access to whatever tools they think are appropriate, and I don't see the value in artificially restricting them.
If the devs wish to take this complexity upon themselves, I will not argue against it. But I do not believe that the benefits of a mixed system outweigh the negatives so much that we should encourage them to embrace the idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stephen Cheney argued that the old system would give mechanical advantages to staying at lawful and good. He did not say there should be mechanical advantages for being lawful or good.
Cheney didn't argue anything. He stated "So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums."
Read the post. He's trying to build game mechanisms to incentivize better behaviour. He thinks this is necessary to counteract the tendencies of many players. He says that the rules may be strict early on, then ease off *if* he finds that his worldview is too cynical.
For dating: that post from Cheney was Jan 25, this year. The flagging system was discussed almost that early, with the main post on flags on Feb 6. Those ideas are contemporary - it's the same time frame. And the Active vs. Core alignment post was only May 22 - a little later, but posts were coming pretty quickly there. And like Nihimon says, the core vs. active alignment slide has little or nothing to do with design considerations to encourage better behaviour.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The original goal was to encourage players to behave "lawful" and "good" but it recognized that in an MMO, most would not be able to all of the time. So a mechanic was devised to help the player by having his character automatically shift towards Lawful and Good or remaining Lawful and Good, if the character had a few transgressions.
The advantage of the mechanic was getting there and staying there, as long as the player accepted it and remained away from activities that would pull them out of it.
Once a character was Lawful and or Good, Stephen Cheney (in that quote) was not advocating that there be a mechanic that grants advantages for being Lawful and or Good.
With the introduction of the Core / Active Alignments, that was one of those crowd forged changes that moved the devs away from the concept that the ideal should be lawful and or good.
Alignment is a role playing construct, and should not be limited by unimaginative game mechanics. Just as mechanics can not accurate see all actions, discern the motives of an action, predict and action or judge an action.
This is why alignments are usually not used in MMOs, and were not used in most PnP RPGs either. Without a DM present, to judge the actions, a system will be wrong more often than it will be correct.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stephen Cheney argued that the old system would give mechanical advantages to staying at lawful and good. He did not say there should be mechanical advantages for being lawful or good.I'm still trying to understand the distinction you're trying to draw. It seems like you're making a distinction between staying versus being at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums. But that doesn't make any sense to me.
It's almost like saying there's an advantage for staying a virgin, but not an advantage for being a virgin. The words just don't convey any meaning.
I think this argument was made at the point where all characters were thought to be gaining points towards lawful and good over time by default unless actions were taken otherwise. This would lead to Being and Staying meaning the same thing.
Bluddwolf's interpretation could be correct in that Devs would like to incentivise players to stay within an alignment instead of try to bounce around for max benefit. And I am sure they would. But I really feel that the thinking from the devs is "People are more than willing to go Lord of the Flies without us doing anything, so we want to add incentives to draw people into other mindsets." It is kind of a depressing thought, but the message was that if we want to see players filling heroic roles, we need to give them reasons to be good and cooperate.
At the end of the day, the question becomes: If all things were equal, who would have the most success. If the answer is "People who do kill, loot, and steal most of the time" then you need to provide mechanical advantages to provide balance to different play styles that are desired to appear. Unless killing, looting, and stealing is the name of the game. In this case, it is obviously not. It is part of the game, but deeper elements are desired that cannot be accomplished with those actions alone. They are part of a greater whole.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TLDR for above:
There are plenty of rewards available for Chaotic and Evil through the benefits of greater victim arrays to pull loot from. Mechanical advantages for Lawful and Good are meant to provide reasons for players to strive in that direction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once a character was Lawful and or Good, Stephen Cheney (in that quote) was not advocating that there be a mechanic that grants advantages for being Lawful and or Good.
With the introduction of the Core / Active Alignments, that was one of those crowd forged changes that moved the devs away from the concept that the ideal should be lawful and or good.
I try to avoid speaking for other people, but I'd stake my reputation that Stephen Cheney would tell you that you're 100% wrong in both of those statements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf's interpretation could be correct in that Devs would like to incentivise players to stay within an alignment instead of try to bounce around for max benefit.
That's not remotely consistent with the words Stephen used to explain the reason for the mechanical advantages of staying at the Lawful, Good, and High Reputation ends of the spectrums.
I'm usually quite willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, but that reading is simply untenable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is kind of a depressing thought, but the message was that if we want to see players filling heroic roles, we need to give them reasons to be good and cooperate.
I don't think it's all that depressing, really.
There's a valid argument to be made that the people pursuing the "Lord of the Flies" strategy are simply responding rationally to the incentives that exist. The problem is that the incentives in video games are drastically simpler than they are in any kind of real social structure. I don't see it so much as having to create incentives for people to play Good, as it is instituting rational consequences.
The way I look at it, the Common Folk are practically omnipresent. You may not see them while you're slaughtering that harvester in the wilderness, but some Common Folk forester probably saw you, and talked about it with his Common Folk friends, and pretty soon all the Common Folk know what kind of person you really are, and treat you accordingly.
Once those very simple, very rational consequences are back in place, people will behave as if they're dealing with other human beings rather than as if they're dealing with computer simulations of characters. That'll be a good thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If both a Lawful Character and a Neutral character have Formation Combat 3 and assuming they can both slot it, they should be equally effective at Formation Combat when correcting for gear/player skill.
I had not pictured formation combat occurring like this. I did not consider the use or reliance on formation skills to determine who could participate in formations (or the type of bonus they provide to the formation), that to me seems much more variable and tricky to code. What I had envisioned was a system like that described here.
In this case, participating in a formation is player skill, not a character skill. Therefore I had not considered character skills having any effect.
If however, it goes that way, I can agree with your points. I still think my suggestion suits the described dynamics and purpose better though. Formations were described as the mechanic that will empower smaller organized groups to stand against and defeat the more numerous CE masses...read goons. The only way to keep the "goons" from using the same mechanics, nullifying the benefit, is to restrict their access to the mechanic, or the benefit gained from it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If however, it goes that way, I can agree with your points. I still think my suggestion suits the described dynamics and purpose better though. Formations were described as the mechanic that will empower smaller organized groups to stand against and defeat the more numerous CE masses...read goons. The only way to keep the "goons" from using the same mechanics, nullifying the benefit, is to restrict their access to the mechanic, or the benefit gained from it.
Perhaps it was my mistake to assume there would be a skill involved. I believe there actually is a skill involved in leading a formation, but that too could be misinformation. There is a lot of speculative discussion on these boards and my memory is not good enough to associate with every blog post.
On the topic of "goons", my understanding is that they excel at what they do through mechanical exploits and they would be exactly the type of group to create new lawful good characters (especially if there is a F2P model) and march them in formation against foes. If no training is required to benefit from Formation Combat, then it will be a Pro-Goon methodology as novice characters can be thrown at the problem en-masse. My understanding of the Goons, from independent reading, is that they are organized. The sheer numbers look like chaos, but there is very solid method behind the madness. Of course, not having experienced it first hand, this is simply what I found on the internetz. We know it is always accurate after all ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the topic of "goons", my understanding is that they excel at what they do through mechanical exploits and they would be exactly the type of group to create new lawful good characters (especially if there is a F2P model) and march them in formation against foes. If no training is required to benefit from Formation Combat, then it will be a Pro-Goon methodology as novice characters can be thrown at the problem en-masse. My understanding of the Goons, from independent reading, is that they are organized. The sheer numbers look like chaos, but there is very solid method behind the madness. Of course, not having experienced it first hand, this is simply what I found on the internetz. We know it is always accurate after all ;)
I actually totally agree with you here and have argued as such elsewhere. But...since LG literally means that one is playing within the dynamics GW has determined to be "positive game-play", if the goons come play and stay LG so they can utilize formation mechanics, they are actually positive contributions to the greater community. I think (read...hope), newly created LG characters will not be able to compete against seasoned formations and/or seasoned characters in formation. Although, I hope any character can contribute to success...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, I believe the intent is that we'll train skills in order to get better at fighting in formations.
eing a soldier should represent as robust a development path as being anything else in the game. Specializing in it should be worthwhile, and time consuming. Trying to be a solider AND something else will always be slower than just being a soldier OR something else.
I also believe it's the training requirements that are intended to hobble goons. Basically, the goon mobs would be ineffective against well-trained formations. That means goons will have to actually invest in their characters before they're able to dominate the game. My understanding is that goons were successful because they could put together a huge zerg, not because they were particularly well-trained.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My understanding is that goons were successful because they could put together a huge zerg, not because they were particularly well-trained.
Your understanding is correct. The Goons used zerg / gank tactics in cheap T1 frigates (which in fantasy terms is the equivalent of a rusty dagger, and leather armor), but they would attack with numbers of 20 vs. 1 if need be.
As in real life, when the formation had shown one crack, the zerg would sunder it and the more organized army would fail.
The weakness of relying on the formation combat is that you are relying on players to hold the line. Unless your players have real world military discipline and or have a hard core PVP'ers mindset, your lines won't hold.
Ultimately it always comes down to numbers. Numbers is what wins the day, 90% of the time or more. No game mechanic can defend you against 20:1 odds, and probably not against a ratio much lower than that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually totally agree with you here and have argued as such elsewhere. But...since LG literally means that one is playing within the dynamics GW has determined to be "positive game-play", if the goons come play and stay LG so they can utilize formation mechanics, they are actually positive contributions to the greater community. I think (read...hope), newly created LG characters will not be able to compete against seasoned formations and/or seasoned characters in formation. Although, I hope any character can contribute to success...
On the topic of "goons", my understanding is that they excel at what they do through mechanical exploits and they would be exactly the type of group to create new lawful good characters (especially if there is a F2P model) and march them in formation against foes. If no training is required to benefit from Formation Combat, then it will be a Pro-Goon methodology as novice characters can be thrown at the problem en-masse. My understanding of the Goons, from independent reading, is that they are organized. The sheer numbers look like chaos, but there is very solid method behind the madness. Of course, not having experienced it first hand, this is simply what I found on the internetz. We know it is always accurate after all ;)
I find it an interesting conundrum for my neutrality if LG comes to dominate the game in your scenario. More dedicated to dynamic balance in the game than in the True Neutral alignment I believe my character would be essentially forced into an evil alignment in that case.
This would entail challenging my comfort zone. Might be a growth opportunity. It would be at least painful:
In agony
the seed bursts
to blossom
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As in real life, when the formation had shown one crack, the zerg would sunder it and the more organized army would fail.
The weakness of relying on the formation combat is that you are relying on players to hold the line. Unless your players have real world military discipline and or have a hard core PVP'ers mindset, your lines won't hold.
Ultimately it always comes down to numbers. Numbers is what wins the day, 90% of the time or more. No game mechanic can defend you against 20:1 odds, and probably not against a ratio much lower than that.
Armies vs. Disorganized Opponents
As an amateur military historian, my opinion is that the efficacy of skirmishers vs. trained military forces is wishful thinking on the part of some posters.
Units were still fighting in formation up to the Civil War (when artillery and accurate firearms finally made them so dangerous that they had to be abandoned for trenches and the static battle lines of the first World War). Formations were the best way to both defend and attack, and formation based combat was the norm from the battles of ancient Egypt through several thousand years of history because it was simply better than all alternatives.
The Romans rolled over every barbarian horde they fought - from the British Isles through middle Europe across north Africa, into the Levant, down the Nile, and around the Black Sea - with the exception of rare cases when they got themselves into battle in terrain where their formations could not be used to effect (Black Forest in Germany) or where the conditions they fought in were so hostile that their ability to maintain unit cohesion was degraded beyond the point where they could function effectively (deep in the desert of the middle east).
An army posts sentinels and stands watch. They don't let random bands of barbarians ride up unmolested and into their camp at night. Armies are trained to get up and get into formation quickly even in the chaos of a surprise attack. Armies use scouts to find and fix the location of nearby hostile forces so they don't expose themselves to an unexpected assault. Armies rely on intelligence gathered from many points to prepare for battle, understanding the terrain, the weather, the ability to protect supply lines, the order of battle of the opposing force, the reinforcements that may be available, the relative capabilities of the opposing commanders, etc.
There's a good reason that professional armies dominate wars. It's because they win them.
Regardless of your opinion of my opinion, Pathfinder Online isn't real, and we have control over the game mechanical advantages to fighting in formation to ensure that they overwhelm disorganized opponent forces, so it won't be theoretical, it will simply be fact: An army will beat a mob.
Ryan doesn't mention specific odds, but I expect he's considering things like the Battle of Rorke's Drift (real-life 20:1 odds) and intends to ensure that is the reality in Pathfinder Online.
As for "holding the line", it's a lot easier to do when you're not actually facing death.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless your players have real world military discipline and or have a hard core PVP'ers mindset, your lines won't hold.As for "holding the line", it's a lot easier to do when you're not actually facing death.
Well, it's true that you're not facing death. The players behind the characters still need the determination to stick around at the expense of whatever else they might do in game or out of game. I doubt it requires military experience, but wartime service in PFO might require commitment equal to a raiding guild in a themepark game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, it's true that you're not facing death. The players behind the characters still need the determination to stick around at the expense of whatever else they might do in game or out of game. I doubt it requires military experience, but wartime service in PFO might require commitment equal to a raiding guild in a themepark game.Unless your players have real world military discipline and or have a hard core PVP'ers mindset, your lines won't hold.As for "holding the line", it's a lot easier to do when you're not actually facing death.
I agree with Urman and I was going to add a question to this:
As for "holding the line", it's a lot easier to do when you're not actually facing death."
Then how do you account for the cowardice that we have probably all seen in an OPen World PVP MMO?