Two bits of artwork have been added to the blog post :)
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since there was talk earlier in the thread about non-evil assassins, and plenty of talk about possible factions here, I'd like to drop this little line from Calistria's entry in Gods and Magic:
"Those who carry a grudge pray for her favor, as do the rare non-evil assassins pursuing a justified debt."
Might be worth consideration for the developing team.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's definitely a way to interpret it.
At the same time (and not necessarily contradicting Deacon's post), it could also be used as a method for non-evils to gain assassin-style abilities. Even if the thread-breaking is inherently evil, these assassins may not necessarily have to get the exact same benefits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you might be focussing too hard on the individual parts here (but as I say, Im not sure I understand so apologies if this is wrong!). If you want to PvP without consequence in PFO you will have to do it in one of the following ways;
1) Catch a flagged character (criminal, heinous, etc).
2) Start a feud, literally giving you the chance to choose which enemies are meaningful to you.
3) Start a war, again giving you the chance to choose with whom to fight.
4) Join one or more factions in order to take on one or more enemy factions.
5) Stand and Deliver (within its limitations).
6) Assassination (again, within its limitations. More on that another time!)
7) Pick up some bounties.
8) Take ownership/management of one or more elements of a PoI and defend them from attackers (who have initiated an attack).Any other PvP is griefing [[ edit - too dogmatic/incendiary a term - its not 'griefing' but its PvP behaviour that only has meaning for the killer and that meaning is more often than not the maniacal joy of killing. Sometimes its for looting a player, and in such instances the benefits of potential loot should be weighed against the loss of rep/alignment. There is an appropriate trade off]]. Attacking a player without provocation or sanctions will result in reputation and alignment loss. It's basically murder. Players who engage in a lot of this behaviour will find their reputation is adversely affected, and so is the reputation of their company or settlement. Eventually their company or settlement will suck.
I am curious what would be considered griefing?
Because it sounds like you've pretty much just ruled that every form of pvp isn't griefing.
Is the intent to not have griefing for real, or go the eve route and go with the "theres no griefing in PFO because we don't consider anything to be griefing because we've got artificial "penalties" for "griefing" in the game"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summersnow,
At some point you will be killed in Pathfinder Online. It will happen. If that is not acceptable to you, Chutes and Ladders is still a fun little game. But as much as I do not like to get killed, ganked, griefed, scammed, looted, trolled or otherwise taken advantage of, I'm still going to play Pathfinder Online. It seems pretty cool. I will die too at some point so you will have company.
Just because someone kills you in a way you do not approve of doesn't mean it is griefing. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a way to die I would enjoy. If I think of one, I'll post it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yae! I like those armors very much.
There's really not that much information on factions, but it seems to me that factions are a means to start a continual war. If someone wants to build a long lasting settlement around an alignment and the factions are alignment tied, so they can't tie themselves to any factions or otherwise they allow the opposite alignment groups to wage continual war against them... Is this a valid fear?
It seems to me that with the six ranks of faction standing the end game just begun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, after a long enough period of consistent practice and success, is it possible for a settlement/kingdom/etc. to become it's own faction? Those who are PF lore purists might say no, but this is not PF and in Gobbocast Episode 9, the Devs actually mentioned that though most of the lore would flow from PF to PFO, something truly noteworthy might flow in the opposite direction. Even if that's not possible, I would hope that PFO would be unique enough, especially with the players being the content, to create its own lore (by the efforts of its players), separate from PF lore.
For instance - I'm certain there will be at least one NPC faction dedicated to Asmodeus. What if the planned player settlement of Golgotha dedicates itself to Asmodeus as well, but over the course of several years, their practices, methods, philosophies, etc., though all still fitting Asmodeus, are meaningfully different from the existing NPC faction for the same deity? Could they, given enough time, consistent practice, and long-term stability as a settlement/kingdom/etc. become another faction option for LE players?
When players can create enduring content as meaningful and creative as anything the game provides and appealing not only to its original members/participants, but to new players, that's the very height of "the players are the content". When what we make becomes more entertaining, beneficial, and immersive than what the Devs provide, in my opinion, we've hit the pinnacle of sandbox.
Just a thought.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I get from this with regard to those who elect to not participate in any of the 'sanctioned' PVP routes, but who still elect to venture out of the safer areas are in no way, shape, or form any safer from PVP than anyone else. If anything they will be even more at risk since they won't have any factional associates to help them, and would be a valid target for everyone, despite the alignment/reputation hits their attackers will suffer.This just means the attacked will have to decide if the cost is worth the potential gain, whether the gain is in fun, revenge, sport, competition or any other type of personal reward. since there is a cost, many "casual RPKers" if there is such a thing, will have to make that decision each time. As the negatives pile on, eventually he might say "Not worth it this time." and resist the urge.
This is right on! In fact there is loads of suff in the thread that is right on.
I think the faction discussion might obfuscated things a little, but as Nihimon pointed out very little has changed with regard to PvP options. The world is still a dangerous place and its still very possible to get a knife in your back or put a knife in someones back unprovoked. No difference there. No difference to the harshness of the consequences either - they can be tough, but its up to each player to manage them. The basic rule is if you meet someone with whom conflict is not sanctioned you can decide whether you want to take the rep hit for doing it. Behave that way consistently and things will become problematic for you.
It is probably still true to reiterate the old mantra "those who do not risk PVP can expect the slowest gains for their time". I dont want to be too dogmatic about that because we havnt finished all the escalation stuff and it might be possible for a really dedicated and talented escalation only player to power through as successfully as as a PvP'er. The core of the game (as Ryan state) is PvP though, so there we go. You cant get a better guarantee than that.
These new systems are purely designed to refocus PvP. What I've tried to do is ensure that there is enough meaningful PvP (and by that I mean PvP with mechanical, RP, world shifting, and rewarding consequences) so that those who want to fight will focus on that kind of PvP, and not running about the woods ganking everything they see. Its about incentivising desirable behaviour, rather than limiting behaviour across the board.
We are NOT protecting players from attack or preventing attacks on innocent players. Not at all. But what we are doing is incentivising 'better' kinds of PvP that drive the WHOLE GAME forward, instead of just the maniacal, lonely, sociopathic ambitions of PvP gankers. Those players will exist and can exist, but we dont want another pure Darkfall PvP bloodbath. We want a world that reflects Golarion where combat and magic are the main sources of power but order, rules, loyalties, alliances, conventions, and social codes prevent the descent into total, uninhabitable anarchy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Tork Shaw
I agree with everything you have written but with one concern. I hope you are using Ganking, when you really mean Griefing.
Ganking has legitimate, tactical uses. Griefing is never acceptable, and should be punished with whatever consequences you can devise.
If someone is running about the woods griefing everything they see, then what happens to them because of the griefing is in GWs hands.
If someone is running about the woods ganking everything they see, then it may be a legitimate method, but against unsanctioned targets it will cause rep hits for doing it. Behave that way consistently and things will become problematic for you.
I think ganking works better than griefing. He might have just said killing, but ganking (used here as fighting with extremely good odds) is a widespread tactic used in pvp. Especially when one is riding around killing people in a group - it's faster, more mayhem per mile. Griefing is something else - it won't only get you rep and alignment losses.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Running around the woods using excessive force to kill everyone you see" probably shouldn't result in a ban, because that policy would lead to too many false positives.
However, it is not a desired play style, and the incentive structure is being built to discourage it.
The in-game incentives don't care about the behavior that will be identified as griefing, because players who grief other players will be removed by Customer Service. There is, however, a very large space between griefing and desired behavior, and one objective is to have as few players as possible operating in that space.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know the game is under development, but enticing players to do pvp is not a good thing. Hampering what goblinworks thinks is unwanted pvp is a good thing. As I understand it, this is a pvp game at the core. People that need no incentive to do pvp will take up this game. To further entice them to do pvp is a folly imo, that will bring problems called ganking, griefing, banning etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I've tried to do is ensure that there is enough meaningful PvP (and by that I mean PvP with mechanical, RP, world shifting, and rewarding consequences) so that those who want to fight will focus on that kind of PvP, and not running about the woods ganking everything they see. Its about incentivising desirable behaviour, rather than limiting behaviour across the board.
This is exactly the kind of thing I really, really love reading - as often as it can be said. This is what attracted me to PFO in the first place, and hearing it repeated is like that little thing your wife does that reminds you - even after ten years - why you fell in love with her in the first place.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know the game is under development, but enticing players to do pvp is not a good thing. Hampering what goblinworks thinks is unwanted pvp is a good thing. As I understand it, this is a pvp game at the core. People that need no incentive to do pvp will take up this game. To further entice them to do pvp is a folly imo, that will bring problems called ganking, griefing, banning etc.
I think this is a question of design philosophy and psychology and it sounds like we differ on this one. I am a firm believer in positive reinforcement and the importance of incentivising players to good behaviour rather than punishing them for bad behaviour. There is always going to be a little of both though, of course.
These systems you will notice are not designed to encourage people to take up PvP they are designed to direct PvP. Coming from Darkfall I understand all too well a player's temptation to gank and grief and in my opinion the most significant cause of such behaviour is a lack of other meaningful options. If it doesnt matter who I kill I will kill everyone and anyone, and that is exactly what we want to avoid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is the intent to not have griefing for real...
Remember they'll have live GMs with the power to enforce the rules, without those rules being laid out in specific anywhere, for the exact purpose of making sure no one can go just up to the edge without crossing over. Part of the GMs' duties will be to listen when you wish to tell them about someone's actions that you deem unacceptable.
You may or may not like the answer, or the subsequent actions; the GMs, we're told, will be both arbitrary and capricious. Sounds a bit like the gods, doesn't it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like what I see in this blog and have a question. Suppose I want to join a faction so I can have more combat, will there be some kind of place where that faction's combat is likely , or will I just have to wander around at random? I mean some place where you are likely to meet your faction's enemies. It seems like factions are meant to be a way to get in a quick fight so having some reason to go to a specific place to fight would make it easy.
edit. Great looking armor!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tork -
1- What kind of incentivising behavior will there be for those that fall into the favorable reputation Chaotic Evil alignment and factions area?
2- Which view of CE is more in line with what we will see in PfO?
3- Can you describe what a successful setllement that supports primarily CE characters will look like, and what will a less functional settlement that supports CE look like, or will there even be a difference? Will something functionally similar to Menzoberranzan be viable in PfO?
There are two very different views of CE going on right now. These are my interpretations, so Nihimon and Andius feel free to correct me if I get it wrong.
1. CE gets to kill anyone at will without consequence so they shouldn't be given any advantages because that is enough. Griefers are going to end up here so if you choose to play a CE style you are well aware that it's going to suck beforehand and that is your own choice.
2. All CE players aren't Rovagug incarnate. They place their own interests above the majority, manipulate or outrightly defy any social order in place (chaotic) and they have no morals (evil). They aren't running around killing everyone but they are extremely untrustworthy and will kill you if they can benefit from it. People believe this is a viable playstyle.
I seem to have won a few people over when I invoked the CE Drow of Menzoberranzan. They are a (dys)functional society. They have order, but it is bereft with chaos. They are a great and powerful society but will never reach their optimum potential because of the infighting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this is a question of design philosophy and psychology and it sounds like we differ on this one. I am a firm believer in positive reinforcement and the importance of incentivising players to good behaviour rather than punishing them for bad behaviour. There is always going to be a little of both though, of course.
These systems you will notice are not designed to encourage people to take up PvP they are designed to direct PvP. Coming from Darkfall I understand all too well a player's temptation to gank and grief and in my opinion the most significant cause of such behaviour is a lack of other meaningful options. If it doesnt matter who I kill I will kill everyone and anyone, and that is exactly what we want to avoid.
I feel there's a lot of incentive already in the thrill and misery of pvp and of course character looting is a big incentive. But I'll have to see what the factions bring. It seems a little bit like choosing to serve a certain order paints a big target on the forehead or gives your opponents more tools to take you down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Items 1 & 2 seem entirely consistent with pretty much everything that's ever been said about PvP in PFO. The only real change I see is item 3, and that seems perfectly reasonable to me as a way of getting people to quit wanting to play Chaotic Evil as an RP choice so that Goblinworks could follow through on their plans to make it suck to be Chaotic Evil.I really hope this isn't the case. We've talked this over and over, I really hope GW treats all players desired playstyles equally.There may be subtle nuances in my wording that conveyed unintentional meaning. I think Tork Shaw's words can stand alone, and clearly convey Goblinworks' ongoing commitment to this utterly consistent message.
Attacking a player without provocation or sanctions will result in reputation and alignment loss. It's basically murder. Players who engage in a lot of this behaviour will find their reputation is adversely affected, and so is the reputation of their company or settlement. Eventually their company or settlement will suck.See, I totally interpreted this as CE will be fine as long as they aren't a bunch of griefers. I greatly appreciate the clarification Nihimon! I'm sure GW is will land it somewhere between our opinions that we both find suitable.
But how do you become CE unless you've been "griefing"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Rafkin First: Killing of unflagged people is not always griefing. I imagine griefing might occur in the context of killing unflagged people, killing flagged people, or not in the context of killing at all. It's deliberately not a hard definition.
Second: People can start the game as CE. They can become CE by alignment shifts over time - some combination of criminal/chaotic acts and evil acts. Killing unflagged peole will likely be a common path towards CE, but not the only one, I expect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to have won a few people over when I invoked the CE Drow of Menzoberranzan. They are a (dys)functional society. They have order, but it is bereft with chaos. They are a great and powerful society but will never reach their optimum potential because of the infighting.
I personally think the Drow are an example that doesn't replicate well into a player settlement or nation, mostly because their supreme leader is a capricious god who has a hand in picking the winners and losers in that society.
I think it more closely resembles a faction with a busy puppetmaster. So in PFO this might be like having Ryan Dancey secretly behind one of the CE factions, giving missions that require intra-faction feuds and killings when Ryan wishes, and capriciously rewarding or condemning subgroups.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel there's a lot of incentive already in the thrill and misery of pvp and of course character looting is a big incentive. But I'll have to see what the factions bring. It seems a little bit like choosing to serve a certain order paints a big target on the forehead or gives your opponents more tools to take you down.I think this is a question of design philosophy and psychology and it sounds like we differ on this one. I am a firm believer in positive reinforcement and the importance of incentivising players to good behaviour rather than punishing them for bad behaviour. There is always going to be a little of both though, of course.
These systems you will notice are not designed to encourage people to take up PvP they are designed to direct PvP. Coming from Darkfall I understand all too well a player's temptation to gank and grief and in my opinion the most significant cause of such behaviour is a lack of other meaningful options. If it doesnt matter who I kill I will kill everyone and anyone, and that is exactly what we want to avoid.
The design philosophy is about giving people reasons to paint said targets on their forehead. To make consent to PvP desirable. By drawing more people into consenting PvP the environment becomes a target-rich area for those who wish to engage. The benefit is that those who do not wish to consent are more likely to be left alone.
There was mention of less pvp-oriented factions that will exist, so you are not necessarily locked out of faction play. I imagine Pathfinders would make a prime example of a solid PvE oriented group, but the devs may have other ideas.
And if you are willing to paint a target on your head to promote the cause of a faction, it makes those factions and purposes seem more meaningful because you are willing to take the risk to further the cause.
Personally, I am not too gung-ho about PvP myself. So it may be a while before I settle in with any factions, if I ever do so. And I am okay with that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like what I see in this blog and have a question. Suppose I want to join a faction so I can have more combat, will there be some kind of place where that faction's combat is likely , or will I just have to wander around at random? I mean some place where you are likely to meet your faction's enemies. It seems like factions are meant to be a way to get in a quick fight so having some reason to go to a specific place to fight would make it easy.
edit. Great looking armor!
If they're your enemy faction, it would behoove you to do a little research and find out what settlement they're based out of. For PvP to be meaningful, I would hope it would include a little footwork on the participants' part.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they're your enemy faction, it would behoove you to do a little research and find out what settlement they're based out of. For PvP to be meaningful, I would hope it would include a little footwork on the participants' part.
I could imagine also being able to go to your local faction taskmaster and asking a chance to prove oneself. Being told to deal with some $EnemyFactions members. Pretty sure they're based out of $Settlement. It's up to the player to take his character that direction and scout around, find out who these characters are and if he can take them out.
I would think, though, in a place where people don't die permanently, many such missions should be more about attacking a character's position, underlings, facilities, etc, rather than just killing someone who won't stay dead. The Secret World did a good job of being aware of the nature of PCs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2. All CE players aren't Rovagug incarnate. They place their own interests above the majority, manipulate or outrightly defy any social order in place (chaotic) and they have no morals (evil). They aren't running around killing everyone but they are extremely untrustworthy and will kill you if they can benefit from it. People believe this is a viable playstyle.
Areks, you and I have discussed this a little in other threads, but I'm still having a hard time picturing this sort of playstyle working in PFO.
It sounds like most significant and worthwhile accomplishments in PFO will require cooperation at the company or settlement level. I just can't see 5-10 characters that all reject social order and are extremely untrustworthy being able to cooperate long enough to get anything done.
Even if the players are all friends already, and say "hey, lets all play CE together and form a company" there has to be some sort of agreement that they'll be jerks to everyone else and not really be CE towards each other, which means they're not really playing CE.
Playing a "non-griefing" CE character makes sense if you think about one individual, but it really starts to break down if you try to expand it to the company or settlement level.
As Urman says, I don't think Menzoberranzan will be able to be replicated in PFO, keeping a settlement together will require too much organization and trust to be compatible with a CE play style.
I think the only way a CE company will be able to survive is the UNC's philosophy of "screw settlements, we just want to burn whatever we can, and get our training and market access from whomever we can intimidate or bribe." Even then, the leadership will need to be able to keep enough control over company members so that when they promise not to attack a certain settlement's merchants, they can uphold that promise, which again starts to make them look a lot more like LE privateers than CE brigands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just can't see 5-10 characters that all reject social order and are extremely untrustworthy being able to cooperate long enough to get anything done.
I believe that cooperating long enough to lose your Chaotic Evil status won't be a matter of an afternoon's play. All the alignments are broad ranges, so you'll have plenty of time to make sure you're enough of a jerk to people other than your Company to make up for whatever small amounts of non-jerk opportunities you miss while grouped with your friends.
No one's said that Chaotic Evil, or any other alignment, means all-day-every-day. I'm sure we'll see the occasional Paladin-committed cold-blooded murder without the character being instantly kicked out of the club.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Even if the players are all friends already, and say "hey, lets all play CE together and form a company" there has to be some sort of agreement that they'll be jerks to everyone else and not really be CE towards each other, which means they're not really playing CE.
Yup. If a group of real life friends can play together harmoniously for a month without one of them killing another one, they might not be role-playing CE.
Yes, some CE groups are held together by strong leaders. That doesn't mean they periodically sit down in a circle and work out their differences. That means that periodically one or two members of the group get disemboweled and left by the side of the road. (Edit: or demoted within the group - if people can't die, it might not be the best tactic to leave a people behind that you don't trust).
In a totally cynical game design, a CE company that never has internal fights would get randomly assigned player kill missions to leadership like "$Character1 took your rum ration. Kill and boot him or suffer $InfluencePenalty."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly, I'm tired of the hypothesising. I'm looking at a settlement ran by multiple CE companies that may end up back stabbing each other. Its not about inter-company turmoil, continued cooperation among CE companies would lead to a shift to NE or TN.
That's why I've been voicing my support for actual mechanics to incite the sort of backstabbing people say are ingrained in CE, as opposed to giving CE the short end of the stick, by simply putting them at mechanical disadvantage to simulate chaos.
That's why its important for players to see what successful CE sypathetic settlements look like and what bad ones will look like. Is it simply a difference in reputation? That's the main reason I directed those questions to Tork. As players we can guess all day, we can interpret the answers we've already received, but that's not going to answer the questions I've asked.
Lastly, I don't see Menzoberranzan being ran by Lloth, I see it being ran by the top ten or eight houses. Each vying to increase their stock by advancing up the ladder. I don't see that being to hard to replicate in game. Tier the returns of the settlement by the number of different companies involved. Again, I don't want to keep hypothesising. We've all done that to death =)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the question is: IS there a difference between -2500 and -7500 CE? ie a min min CE and a max max CE?
Also is there a difference between a CE with absolute alignment change = 0 and another one at the same CE rating between -2500 to -7500 where absolute change is perhaps 20,000 say +5,000 and -15,000?
I mean if you're labelled CE then you're in the same boat it seems at present without any distinction hence the contention between REAL CE and GRIEFER CEs?
Btw, I just love the idea expressed in Urmans post of Ryan masquerading as that evil god manipulating players against each other... classic. MMORPG need more "craziness" imho. :)
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Tork -
1- What kind of incentivising behavior will there be for those that fall into the favorable reputation Chaotic Evil alignment and factions area?
2- Which view of CE is more in line with what we will see in PfO?
3- Can you describe what a successful setllement that supports primarily CE characters will look like, and what will a less functional settlement that supports CE look like, or will there even be a difference? Will something functionally similar to Menzoberranzan be viable in PfO?
There are two very different views of CE going on right now. These are my interpretations, so Nihimon and Andius feel free to correct me if I get it wrong.
1. CE gets to kill anyone at will without consequence so they shouldn't be given any advantages because that is enough. Griefers are going to end up here so if you choose to play a CE style you are well aware that it's going to suck beforehand and that is your own choice.
2. All CE players aren't Rovagug incarnate. They place their own interests above the majority, manipulate or outrightly defy any social order in place (chaotic) and they have no morals (evil). They aren't running around killing everyone but they are extremely untrustworthy and will kill you if they can benefit from it. People believe this is a viable playstyle.
I seem to have won a few people over when I invoked the CE Drow of Menzoberranzan. They are a (dys)functional society. They have order, but it is bereft with chaos. They are a great and powerful society but will never reach their optimum potential because of the infighting.
Areks - this answer is going to be unfulfilling, so I apologise. Much of what you ask here and what is being discussed around this post concerning alignment and its impact is going to have to come in another blog. We have not yet had the space to get out enough info about enough systems to be able to give you useful definitive posts on alignment impact. You really need to know what all the systems affected by alignment are before its possible to make a judgment about how much impact alignment has - does that make sense? Frex : I could give you an overview of how alignment affects faction membership but without everyone also knowing how alignment affects all the other systems its impossible to be able to even guess how balanced its effect on one single system is. The alignment debate is going to keep on raging, steeped in speculation, until you all get all the data, but there isnt much we do about that until we have all the data ready to hand over.
In short - this blog post was not about alignment so you'll need to wait for the alignment one to get deeper answers to your questions, BUT here are some overview answers in the mean time...
1) The incentives across the board will be similar. So the benefits of gaining a high faction standing with a LG faction will be commensurate with those for a CE faction. They will be themed to each faction, however... Earning rank 5 with Lamashtu for example (and these are JUST examples!) may grant you access to a special Will save bonus against mind control effects.
2) I'd say your second view is most accurate but this will be heavily player dependent. Reputation is the score that indicates how much of a d**k you are, not alignment. You could potentially be a N griefer, in theory, but you'd have a super low rep. CE do not get to kill anyone without consequence at all - they will take rep penalties like everyone else and rep penalties are in many ways a much bigger deal than alignment penalties. Reputation is your social currency - no one will want to play with a low rep player. You will never be trusted to group. You will probably never be invited to join a settlement. You will find it extremely hard to advance your character.
CE characters have fewer choices of settlements, potentially, and may find it harder to find groups open minded enough to take them on, but they are not necessarily griefers. The only significant difficulty with running such a settlement in PFO is going to be attracting enough players to keep it functioning. It takes a special kind of player to enjoy that much intrigue and tension 24 hours a day. Why do you think all those FR Drow player characters have left the underdark to seek pastures new ;) (hug me Eilistraee! Hug me!)
Heres an important point that I think is worth remembering - Role playing CE doesnt mean slaying everyone you meet for laugh. It means always putting yourself first and using any means necessary to reach your goals. Only the MOST POWERFUL CE creatures in Golarion actually get the chance to be cold blooded killers. The rest of the CE population understand that it is impossible to achieve almost any goal alone and that behaving like a maniac will get you absolutely nowhere except the grave. CE characters are not physically UNABLE to work within social convention or form partnerships, they are just quite happy to break those without a care on a whim. I dont mean that they just randomly attack their 'allies' out of the blue but I mean they may abandon a group in trouble, double deal, double cross, or even sell out their 'comrades' when they want. Attacking people willy nilly is insanity - not CE. Consider your Pathfinder characters - even if they are CE they dont go around stabbing everyone up all the time because that would simply get them killed and cast out. They are devious and underhand and untrustworthy, but they are not maniacs - Consider the relationship of Jarlaxle and Aremis Entreri - THIS will be a viable play-style in PFO, and this is how I personally see Menzoberranzan.
Now some might argue that there are CE creatures and characters who do simply want to kill in cold blood all the time for no reason. Ok, yes, from a narrative and character building point of view thats cool, but such a play-style does not make a good game for everyone else. Sorry. Just as being a serial killer gets you sectioned in this world so too in PFO it will see you outcast and in many ways robbed of your freedom. This is consistent with Golarion and its consistent with the desires of the overwhelming majority of gamers.
3) Not with ease, I'm afraid, no. Settlements are going to be super-complex beasts so exactly how they will function is going to be very much up to settlement leaders and managers.
I'd guess, however, that a CE settlement may involve a ruling council who manage an easy truce but who are forever meeting in small, secret groups to try and garner enough support for a coup.
They will have to maintain a pretty serious military capacity - possibly declaring regular wars or funding large scale mercenary operations. Similarly I imagine their individual sponsored companies will also be using a LOT of Influence to skirmish and harry other companies both as a demonstration of power and just for the hell of it. They will probably also be affiliated with a slew of evil factions earning them multiple enemies and making their holdings extremely dangerous territory for any non-allied factional members.
Despite their nefarious ways they will have to maintain a middle-ish rep in order to trade with other settlements, a vital part of maintaining a hold on an area. Decent rep will also give them the chance to forge tenuous alliances with neighbours in order to fend of shared escalation cycles and even to get close enough to eventually double cross friends and allies.
Just like any CE entity on Golarion they will most likely be masterminded by extremely devious and ruthless rulers who will happily cut ties with a company that cant perform and expel members who bring down rep at the drop of a hat. Member players who behave in such a way as to draw the ire of other companies or settlements against whom their leaders have not sanctioned action will be cast from the city walls and hunted by settlement sponsored bounties or assassinated in their new homes by the cities 'problem solvers'.
Murder may be legal within the city walls, preventing city guards from acting to intervene in street violence but this violence will largely be between ambitious settlement members vying for power, rather than visiting traders.
This is all off the top of my head and I think mostly with info you guys have already got too. I'm totally projecting and this is not what YOUR CE settlement might look like, its what A CE settlement might look like. Despite all the double dealing and mania the feature that remains consistent is that a city needs trade and to trade effectively it (probably) needs a middling or above rep. CE settlements full of griefers will find themselves struggling. CE settlements who are forever declaring war, staring feuds, flying the flags of evil factions, and committing criminal and heinous acts all over the shop will do just fine. Well, maybe not fine, because oh my word how on earth will they ever agree what to build, but fine enough ;)
Phew. I went on a bit here. I'm going to need to focus a bit on other stuff for a while so I'll be a bit less waffly from here on!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what about the characters heavy on the evil and chaotic scales that have +4000 reputation? Stay involved with their legitimate settlement and company conflicts, do escalations, some nation building a bit of nation sabotaging in their Norgorber ways.
The flashing red sign I want up is: PLAYERS ARE NOT THEIR CHARACTERS.
Griefing is a player action it makes the person at the keyboard CE or whatever alignment, the alignment of the character has nothing to do with griefing. Because of that the alignment of the character shouldn't be connected at all to he consequences of undesirable player behavior (measured in reputation as I understand it).
It just bugs me to hear all this baggage about griefing laid on CEs when there are going to be good "bad guys" and some really crappy Neutrals and Goods.
Edit: I have a personal interest in there being lots of good evil characters in game or my NG and CG destiny's twins aren't going to have a lot to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
CE settlements who are forever declaring war, staring feuds, flying the flags of evil factions, and committing criminal and heinous acts all over the shop will do just fine.
I think that's the big take-away. Being mid/high-rep and CE will be doable; there is plenty of room for PvP there as well as some wiggle-room for some unsanctioned PVP.
For the record, I think settlements of all alignments will also have a challenge deciding what to build. If a company is expected to be large with 50 members, then settlements of 1000 members will have at least 20 member companies and very likely more. Does the barracks or the marketplace get built next?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does the barracks or the marketplace get built next?
I think this will be a really fun and excellent problem for a settlement to have. What better way to build interactions within the settlement than to get input (in an organized way....somehow) from your 1000 plus members and everyone throws their weight behind the final decision. (Getting everyone to push the rock in the same direction is a separate challenge.)
Military capabilities to survive, gathering, then refining, then crafting, the marketplace. Then some central administration, then I think an inn of some "civilized structure as a reward for everyone's hard work", then the cycle begins again at the next tier.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Powerful incite, Tork, on what may be coming down the line (unless it changes by then). PvP using reputation as a weapon. A very interesting challenge for advanced players. It will take even more skill then previously thought to pull a successful CE settlement out of the fire.
[edit: I was going to change the spelling, but I think it is actually appropriate.]
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And what about the characters heavy on the evil and chaotic scales that have +4000 reputation? Stay involved with their legitimate settlement and company conflicts, do escalations, some nation building a bit of nation sabotaging in their Norgorber ways.
The flashing red sign I want up is: PLAYERS ARE NOT THEIR CHARACTERS.
Griefing is a player action it makes the person at the keyboard CE or whatever alignment, the alignment of the character has nothing to do with griefing. Because of that the alignment of the character shouldn't be connected at all to he consequences of undesirable player behavior (measured in reputation as I understand it).
It just bugs me to hear all this baggage about griefing laid on CEs when there are going to be good "bad guys" and some really crappy Neutrals and Goods.
Edit: I have a personal interest in there being lots of good evil characters in game or my NG and CG destiny's twins aren't going to have a lot to do.
It's in part poster child/short hand. It's a problem the devs have identified however. But I think CE is defined by the unsanctioned actions eg breaking laws and getting into scraps they're not selective about for eg. Enough of that in a short space of time and voila CE below -2500 on the index. In fact that is all part of the game and legit free choice but with meaningful choices because there consequences both ways. Really you have
- High CE: legit bad-ass dudes who are highly dangerous and unpredictable behaviour and enjoy the raw gameplay here
- Low CE: Perhaps natural denizens who bash other CEs mostly and enjoy this microworld and are IC real deal
- CE: Because they have borderline griefing tendency eg incessant attempt to gank that the flags have caught - it may not be griefing but it may not be very nice either. Hopefully in this case Reputation will compound being CE because players have rated most down for this sort of behaviour. It may be similar to the above High CE for the fun of it - ie breaking rules = fun for some.
I think Factions takes a lot PvP weight off the shoulders here so that's a release to distinguish combat prediction (Love to hate those guys aka "The scum!") and breaking rules sort of fun if that floats your boat and griefing who tinker with the system to "harass" and of course CEs who want all the above sans the actual griefing?
That's the picture emerging atm for me. One of the cool things for CE possibly is because you're at the bottom of the barrel (bar rep maybe) is social norms might emerge that are v interesting as it's a dog eat dog lifestyle). It's the sort of flimsy trust that works most of the time then breaks down suddenly and spectacularly! Maybe getting carried away thinking ahead but that sounds fun even if settlements are not as strong across multiple measures.
So I'm guilty of laying CE with the extra baggage but For the reasons above. Groups higher than this will have more rules to abide by if the system works and hence may be more attuned to kicking members who stray close to what other people feel is borderline behaving badly vs "playing badly". Hopefully it's been (lol tofu rice - auto-spell) productive!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One impression I hope the community is not getting or developing is that the only legitimate CE aggression is the CE vs. CE mosh pit with chainsaws scenario.
This in my opinion goes down that failed road that City of Villains went. "Evil" PCs spent almost all of their RP content fighting Evil snake-people aliens (or whatever the Hell they were). They never preyed upon the innocent, which the genre of COH/OV demanded.
Hoping for Evil vs. Evil is hoping for Evil-Light, "half the calories, not evil enough".
I'm not saying evil will not prey on evil, but it will most certainly prey on neutral and good as well. Evil seeks to destroy good, subjugate neutral and reign in and control evil in the powerful grip of an Overlord master.
I agree with those that have argued that CE is more viable as a small group or even solo character concept. I believe that CE, more than any other alignment, can be and should be played with a certain flare. Look at the Batman movies for example, the villains always out shined Batman (better writing, better acting, or Batman was intentionally flat).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You just described Lawful Evil.Evil seeks to destroy good, subjugate neutral and reign in and control evil in the powerful grip of an Overlord master.
Yes, I know, but I believe that evil (unless it is a force) aspires to be Lawful Evil, but for a variety of reasons not all can achieve it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One impression I hope the community is not getting or developing is that the only legitimate CE aggression is the CE vs. CE mosh pit with chainsaws scenario.
This in my opinion goes down that failed road that City of Villains went. "Evil" PCs spent almost all of their RP content fighting Evil snake-people aliens (or whatever the Hell they were). They never preyed upon the innocent, which the genre of COH/OV demanded.
Hoping for Evil vs. Evil is hoping for Evil-Light, "half the calories, not evil enough".
I'm not saying evil will not prey on evil, but it will most certainly prey on neutral and good as well. Evil seeks to destroy good, subjugate neutral and reign in and control evil in the powerful grip of an Overlord master.
I agree with those that have argued that CE is more viable as a small group or even solo character concept. I believe that CE, more than any other alignment, can be and should be played with a certain flare. Look at the Batman movies for example, the villains always out shined Batman (better writing, better acting, or Batman was intentionally flat).
I agree with this.
Perhaps over-reporting the convenience of CE vs CE is part of the reason. For CE's to take on others they'll obviously have more hurdles to jump ie bigger challenge - which in itself can be a temptation to challenge one's inventiveness - due to less resources or quality or access of these in CE settlements or higher prices on all these things? And the fact Reputation punishment going that direction can be harsher.
Lawful Evil are going to be the "Lee Van Cleef"'s of PFO (As Hardin suggests LE). CE might just be "The Ugly"?!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You just described Lawful Evil.Evil seeks to destroy good, subjugate neutral and reign in and control evil in the powerful grip of an Overlord master.
I think politics will be expressed in various leadership types. While the LE Overlord would be a tyrant who rules by maintaining a consistent level of fear where the underlings know full well what would mean their own demise, the CE Warchief would instead be a capricious despot controlling his constituent companies with the fear and political disruption of unpredictablity.