Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah, so *your* questions are deserving of answers, but *mine* are not. Got it.
My question came first, now to yours.....
If the LG cleric is traveling with CE companions and assisting them, of free will, either directly (healing during or after combat) or materially, carrying loot, than that Cleric should be penalized with alignment hits on both the lawful and good axis.
Reputation on the other hand should not be affected unless the cleric's activities are violating the flagging rules or are assisting active griefers in some way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the LG Cleric is traveling with a CN/CE band of Outlaws to heal them between their raids, should he remain LG?
What if he helps them by carrying valuables?
Larry McMurty's Lonesome Dove: ex-Texas Ranger Jake Spoon joins a group of men he met gambling to get through dangerous territory. He finds out they're murderers and horse-thieves when they commit the crimes in front of him, and threaten his life if he tries to stop them. He ends up hanged by his old friends, other ex-Rangers, when they catch up with the gang.
Book's as good today as it was 30 years ago :-).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Jazzlvraz,
This quote's a little old, and the link's broken, but it's a direct reference to the same book, and I think a clear expression of a very consistent message from the man at the helm:
Ride with an Oulaw, die like an Outlaw.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think my question and Bluddworth's question are the same question. It's just whether the cleric helps the thief 1 time or 100 times. In an MMO like PFO, the more relevant question is what happens when behavior is repeated multiple times - because it will be. I think that core/active alignment will correct for individual transgressions.
I sometimes have to remind myself that religions/alignment in PF don't correspond to real world religion or thought. If a LG helps a CE, then he is providing support to the CE's continuing actions, in a world where the struggle between alignments is real and immediate. Every time a LG cleric saves a CE thief, he directly aids the thief, contributing to theft, misery, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One man's Thief is another man's Hero.
On one side, you have a Thief stealing your lawfully accquired goods from your merchant empire.
On the other side, you have a Hero taking back the goods from a tyrant and a bully who made a cartel to corner the local markets.
There's no easy way to work out Alignment, since we all have our own takes on what is and is not an Evil/Lawful/Good/Chaotic act. All we can do is work within the framework of what Goblinworks gives us, and thus far they have stated that we can allow our Alignment to 'shift' naturally, or we can 'lock' our alignment in place and take the consequences of acting contrary to our chosen Alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Every time a LG cleric saves a CE thief, he directly aids the thief, contributing to theft, misery, etc.
The LG Cleric is also representing his values and beliefs. he may not be able to save the soul of the thief, but he is nourishing his own soul through his own actions. But, there is always the chance that the Thief will see the light and change.
I have often written of my idea of having a Paladin Order that has the core alignment of Chaotic Evil and an active alignment of Lawful Good. This I feel would make the "purest" form of Paladin orders, because the Paladin would have to continuously commit to act s that counter his natural urges to be Chaotic and Evil.
Compare that to a Paladin who sets his core alignment to LG and has an active alignment of LG. This Paladin can afford to slip towards Chaotic and or Evil and allow for the automatic shift towards his core to compensate for it.
My primary argument is that a game mechanic can not accurately cover the roleplaying variables possible within the imagination of the player. As I stated earlier, the mechanical system may also create false positives, whereas the TT has a DM / GM that can listen to the rationale of the player and make a decision if that action is truly outside of an alignment.
It is a good point to bring up that "frequency" is a very important factor. Coercion is yet another mitigating circumstance to explain why the shift of alignment, might not be justified.
The Barter System.... yes I want to bring this discussion back to that, should be affected only where frequency becomes an issue. Where alignment is supposed to be an unknown, then trade P2P should not effect alignment. Only if it is provable that a player is using P2P trade to circumvent the flagging system or alignment system, should alignment shifts or reputation hits be levied.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Barter System.... yes I want to bring this discussion back to that, should be affected only where frequency becomes an issue. Where alignment is supposed to be an unknown, then trade P2P should not effect alignment. Only if it is provable that a player is using P2P trade to circumvent the flagging system or alignment system, should alignment shifts or reputation hits be levied.
I don't think we need to have proof that character X knows character Y's alignment. The concept of core alignment presumes that characters are acting according to their core alignment in the background.
So I'm considering a trade with someone of unknown alignment. While we're talking over the trade, he says bigoted things about a passing dwarf, kicks an urchin, fondles a matchgirl. Maybe he only does one of these. Maybe he does these after the trade is completed.
Whatever - I don't know his alignment, but maybe I take the alignment/rep hit anyway. I don't know his alignment, but I do know there was something... wrong? His worldview is different from mine; he's not like me. When I deal with him I understand that I'm dealing with another side.
And again, one trade is not going to slip me to the dark side. It's going to nudge me a little and my core alignment will correct for it in a little time. 100 trades will matter.
added: Having said that, trade shouldn't be a cheap way to detect alignment, so the system needs to either time delay it, have a random chance of the shift to confuse things, or maybe something else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a Champion attacks an unflagged Good or Neutral character, she will lose the Champion flag, get the Attacker flag, and take Evil and Rep hits (plus Chaos if it's a crime). If a Champion attacks an unflagged Evil character, he takes only a Rep hit (plus Chaos if it is a crime at that location).
When a Champion is ravaging his way through a settlement of unflagged crafters, does he get a warning every time he starts to attack a Neutral or Good character? Does everyone get a generic warning when starting an attack? Do we just get warned if that particular attack will shift alignment?
Likewise on trades. Maybe we just get a generic warning when trading character to character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was trying to provide a concrete example of an economic situation where people had a product that they were not willing to sell for coin or skymetal, but were willing to trade for another, similarly rare and valuable, product.
We can always find small, obscure cases where conditions of adjacency, production equality, desire to avoid detection in the money economy, etc. make it possible and desirable to trade in the barter economy.
I don't know that your example is a good one though (Bluudwolf's is a good one, because collectors don't have inequality of production concerns). If I understand your example, selling a material component sets them back in one goal (building their settlement). In this case, circumstances will determine whether or not someone wants to sell (and be last to complete). Settlement A might very well decide to sell and wait to complete, if the price is high enough--that's called a price premium. if all the actors have the same desire to complete (identical demand), and all have equal access to new rare items (identical supply), then no one has an incentive to buy or sell.
Unless you meant items that will never be produced again? Unique/ultra-rare items can lead to weird corner cases, but don't really tell us about barter system efficacy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At first, I was a little concerned that dealings with CE characters would damage alignment. The more that I read these points, however, the more sense it makes. The frequency thing that Urman pointed out (I believe it was He, if not apologies) makes a lot of sense.
We may not know that our trade partner is evil or chaotic but the Gods (or whatever force manages alignment) do. Perhaps it is not the "intent" of our actions, but the "result" of the action that matters. When you trade with, heal, or aid in some way an apposed alignment, the "result" is that you facilitate their ways and means. Your "intent", in some cases, may have been good or bad but the result is the opposite.
Of course, CE characters should also shift a bit for trading with LG... ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In EVE, almost everything you find has a game-generated estimated value. You can never count on getting that amount on the market, but it gives players a rough estimate of the value of unfamiliar items. Given that we'll all be unfamiliar with the relative value of items during EE, an estimated value property for each item might bee useful in PFO, too.
"You traded the Exceptional Cow for beans? You fool!"
"You traded the Beans of Growth for a cow? Get out of my sight!"
So should this estimated price, provided its even visible to players and not only present in GW database somewhere, be displayed on the trade window/barter window and thus encouraging the barter to result in a zero sum or should any indication of the items objective value be removed so the trade/barter is encouraged to happen on what the stuff is worth to the player at the time of the trade/barter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wonder what this supposed consensus means for those that were planning on helping new players, as good Samaritans, and as a reward for helping nobodies you get a hit to alignment and reputation.
It effectively destroys any notion of player to plater trade, which is really quite frequent if you consider the trade chat window LTB and LTS chatter.
Alignment shift is not a really big deal, because as many said, the auto shift to core will recover it. But it does render alignment meaningless under the Good Sam circumstances I pointed to.
The Rep loss is very objectionable. Why should someone receive a penalty reserved for violating the flagging rules or out right griefing, for trading with other players ( alignment known or not).
Here is a question, are Neutrals ( Chaotic, True or Lawful) exempt from the proposed reputation loss? As neutrals they should be able to trade with anyone, without consequence of reputation. They should be able to trade with good, neutral or evil without an alignment consequence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a Champion is ravaging his way through a settlement of unflagged crafters, does he get a warning every time he starts to attack a Neutral or Good character?I hope the answer is "Yes, but you can disable the warning in the Settings".
I would certainly hope not, if this was the case it would function effectively as a poor mans detect alignment. In addition attacking the wrong unflagged person is part of the risk the champion takes. A setting that stops you attacking the wrong person is just wrong on so many levels
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would certainly hope not, if this was the case it would function effectively as a poor mans detect alignment. In addition attacking the wrong unflagged person is part of the risk the champion takes. A setting that stops you attacking the wrong person is just wrong on so many levelsWhen a Champion is ravaging his way through a settlement of unflagged crafters, does he get a warning every time he starts to attack a Neutral or Good character?I hope the answer is "Yes, but you can disable the warning in the Settings".
Nihimon's suggestion enables the tyranny of the good aligned character to act without consequence against unflagged evil characters. Meanwhile, elsewhere he complains that bandits would consider attacking unflagged characters, instead of just reserving PvP for characters who want to PvP.
The double standard and mechanically imbalanced two faction system of Law and Good vs. Chaos and Evil if followed through on, will render certain alignments unplayable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon's suggestion enables the tyranny of the good aligned character to act without consequence against unflagged evil characters.
Could you elaborate why? And could you post the "other statements" so that the readers can decide for them self if it's a double standard or not. I really don't like being presented a conclusions and taking the presenters word for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Papaver
I prefer the latter. Players that want to know an average price should do their own research.
I agree. I'd rather not have the system try to impose any kind of price controls.
*****
Why should someone receive a penalty reserved for violating the flagging rules or out right griefing, for trading with other players ( alignment known or not).
Ride with an Outlaw, die like an Outlaw.
*****
I would certainly hope not, if this was the case it would function effectively as a poor mans detect alignment.
To be clear, then, you're problem is not with my suggestion, but rather with Ryan's:
You will be notified before an action you take has a meaningful alignment consequence.
*****
Nihimon's suggestion enables the tyranny of the good aligned character to act without consequence against unflagged evil characters. Meanwhile, elsewhere he complains that bandits would consider attacking unflagged characters, instead of just reserving PvP for characters who want to PvP.
Seriously? At least when I call someone out for what they've said, I provide links and quotes to prove it. You might as well just say "Nihimon has been on a rampage trying to get Ryan to remove PvP entirely" - it would be about as accurate, and about as well supported.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would certainly hope not, if this was the case it would function effectively as a poor mans detect alignment.To be clear, then, you're problem is not with my suggestion, but rather with Ryan's:
You will be notified before an action you take has a meaningful alignment consequence.
With all respect, Nihimon, Ryan probably used the word meaningful for a reason. Your interpretation of meaningful, my interpretation of meaningful, and Ryan's definition of meaningful may all differ. I'm not sure you need to get up in ZenPagan's grill over that interpretation.
ZenPagan's right - if we got a warning each time before we start an action, we'd be able to determine some alignments without any magic at all. That might be Ryan's intent. I'd bet it isn't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure you need to get up in ZenPagan's grill over that interpretation.
Hrm... Didn't realize I was getting up in his grill.
I was merely pointing out that the "poor mans detect alignment" aspect is a natural result of any system that includes warnings.
Is what ZenPagan was saying substantively different if the alignment-modifications are "meaningful"?
Is there really a good argument to be made that an alignment hit for killing another player isn't "meaningful"?
ZenPagan's right - if we got a warning each time before we start an action, we'd be able to determine some alignments without any magic at all.
Yep. Lots of people were pointing that out at the time. I don't know what Ryan or the designers plan to do about it. The point I'm making is that this is a result of the system Ryan has described, not of some new suggestion I'm trying to add on to that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why should someone receive a penalty reserved for violating the flagging rules or out right griefing, for trading with other players ( alignment known or not).
I agreed with this point, which I said 'frequency' of action is an important factor.
What I have been writing about is the alignment, but particularly the reputation hit, for infrequent or even one - time P2P trades impacting the character in a negative way.
This has nothing to do with my plans of playing a CN bandit. I could't care less about a chaotic shift (yes please) or even an evil shift, for trading with evil on a regular basis.
My LG Monk, on the other hand, was going to frequently trade P2P with those that are injured or new to the game. My plans included him handing out free healing salves, that he had crafted. I certainly don't expect that the reputation system should treat him like a griefer or flag rule breaker for doing so.
Please consider the discussion in the context of my last point, the one involving a Lawful Good character being a good samaritan. Both Andius and Hobbs, and many others, have both expressed an interest in being helpful to new players. Punishing them for it with alignment hits and reputation hits is counter productive.
Such punitive mechanics essentially kills any idea of a barter system as well, BTW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I have been writing about is the alignment, but particularly the reputation hit, for infrequent or even one - time P2P trades impacting the character in a negative way.
It seems to me that the way to mitigate the effect based on frequency is by having a granular Reputation hit. So, instead of losing 500, you lose 50, or 5 - whatever the devs decide on. I think this is the plan.
New Players won't have Low Reputation unless they've been bad, in which case I think it's perfectly reasonable to have some of that rub off on your Monk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*must...avoid...being dragged into...heated discussion*
Being a follower of Sarenrae (far more heavily on the "hope they repent" side than the "and if they don't, whack them" side), Hobs will likely be willing to heal any injured character that staggers across his path. Will he attempt to discern their alignment first - no. Frankly, I believe casting a spell on anyone to detect their alignment should be viewed as an aggressive act, so not being the attacker type, Hobs wouldn't be making a practice of it. If this altruistic, good Samaritan behavior gives me a reputation hit, I'm willing to live with that. However, in that I don't plan to fly any flags (the use of which seems to be the main means to raise reputation), I'm a bit concerned about how this behavior will eventually make me appear from a reputation standpoint.
In UO, to avoid the blue healer issue (unflagged people healing their friends who were in a fight while remaining invulnerable because they themselves were unflagged), those who healed a flagged combatant likewise became flagged, and thereby opened themselves to attack. It was a risk I was willing to take for my healer's conviction of helping anyone who was injured. I'm not certain if there could be a similar system in PFO where the healer was put at risk by their actions, without damaging their reputation. Again, the problem may be the issue of the game's inability to determine intent...in this case, the real intent or motivation of the healer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, in that I don't plan to fly any flags (the use of which seems to be the main means to raise reputation), I'm a bit concerned about how this behavior will eventually make me appear from a reputation standpoint.
From I shot a man in Reno...: "Reputation goes up by an accelerating rate each day players don't lose reputation for their actions, from gifts from other players, and through playing their role in the PvP flags described below." Bolded for emphasis.
(as of now,) It looks like those of us who do not attack unflagged characters frequently will be able to gain rep just going about our daily business.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*must...avoid...being dragged into...heated discussion*
Being a follower of Sarenrae (far more heavily on the "hope they repent" side than the "and if they don't, whack them" side), Hobs will likely be willing to heal any injured character that staggers across his path. Will he attempt to discern their alignment first - no. Frankly, I believe casting a spell on anyone to detect their alignment should be viewed as an aggressive act, so not being the attacker type, Hobs wouldn't be making a practice of it. If this altruistic, good Samaritan behavior gives me a reputation hit, I'm willing to live with that. However, in that I don't plan to fly any flags (the use of which seems to be the main means to raise reputation), I'm a bit concerned about how this behavior will eventually make me appear from a reputation standpoint.
This is the point that I was making, but perhaps when it comes from someone else it will be received differently. Not all of my postings come from my bandit's perspective or agenda...
Hobs and Qiang Tain Zsu will be very similar, although I was leaning more towards Irori as a Deity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So should this estimated price, provided its even visible to players and not only present in GW database somewhere, be displayed on the trade window/barter window and thus encouraging the barter to result in a zero sum or should any indication of the items objective value be removed so the trade/barter is encouraged to happen on what the stuff is worth to the player at the time of the trade/barter.
It will not matter if that price is in game or not it will STILL be readily available.
Taking EVE as an example, Eve, within the game itself, hard limits your view of market prices to your current region of 20 or 30 systems and there are literally dozens of regions.
However, in EVE, what do I do if I want to find the price of say a "small afterburner" if I think its cheaper in another region I cannot view in game?
Go here to find out --> Eve Market Example
Or maybe I am looking for a pirate battleship? --> Another Eve Market Example
It will be very hard to limit external sources of market knowledge.