Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are reasons for chaos and reasons for evil. Law is the concept of adding civil order for the greater good. Chaos is the concept of removing the burdens of laws and structure for the greater good. In good, the 'greater good' is your community as a whole. In evil, the 'greater good' is you and only you. Neutrality is a balancing act between those.
Chaotic Evil is the antipaladin. They believe in freedom, but only freedom for those who have the power to take it. If you aren't powerful enough to take freedom for yourself, then you don't deserve it and can be enslaved by those who are powerful. They rebel against laws, because rules are for slaves, not for those with the power to be free.
Gaining and maintaining power involves a lot of fighting. You take things from others to show you're more powerful than they are. You have to defend your territory from those trying to take things from you. You slight those that are lesser than you to show they are below you. You punish slights that you've received from those who are lesser to maintain that authority.
Chaotic Evil isn't about being a jerk. It's about having, holding, and expanding your power and freedom regardless of what happens to anyone else (and sometimes because of what will happen to someone else).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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 ;)
@Tork - That was probably the most fulfilling response to questions I've had concerning the game in a long time. You've almost completely alleviated my concerns with the alignment system, and the remain concerns will only be alleviated come EE.
What I liked most about that second paragraph was that the message I got was that chaotic evil will have the tools to play chaotic evil and be successful as long as they aren't d**ks. Anyone who is a d**k will likely not last long because settlement survival depends on trade, which can be regulated via Rep, and d**ks will have low rep.
Another take away is that alignment and reputation are major systems, but they aren't the only major systems so they may not have as significant an impact as we are all believing.
Makes me wish I was a fly on the wall at GWHQ!
@Nihimon - You are correct, very happy indeed!
@Bluddwolf - I think the sentiment was more along the lines of CE will double cross anyone to get ahead including CE. In the end, if you've got five CE warlords wrapping up a campaign, and one looks weak chances are the other four will favor their coffers over their alliance. That's not evil-light. That's classic CE. At the same time, if group A is stirring up a ruckus and goes to far, Group B and C may boot them from the settlement because they just lost a valuable trading partner that was vital to an upcoming feud / war. They may take those lost goods or their value from the hides of Group A.
Again, I wholly believe this is classic CE as in both instances CE isn't focused on CE vs CE or even evil vs evil, it is CE for its own self interests after or before actions against non-evil, which exactly as you, Bluddwolf, and Tork both pointed out is something that evil SHOULD be doing and can be SUCCESSFUL doing.
The take away is CE is expected and will be allowed to do whatever is necessary to get them ahead. That point cannot be understated. Running around and ONLY RPKing will probably lead to a low Rep and that is bad, thus will be counter-productive to getting ahead. However it is to the point to where you will likely have to actively search out and avoid flagged PvP players to look for those unflagged players to RPK. I mean, RPKing flagged players isn't a faux pas because after all, they are flagged.
What GW has done right with this blog is incentivizing flagging for PvP to the point where you are more likely to come across a "viable target" than a "non-flagged target."
I hope that is a trend that we continue to see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Gaining and maintaining power involves a lot of fighting. You take things from others to show you're more powerful than they are. You have to defend your territory from those trying to take things from you. You slight those that are lesser than you to show they are below you. You punish slights that you've received from those who are lesser to maintain that authority.
Chaotic Evil isn't about being a jerk. It's about having, holding, and expanding your power and freedom regardless of what happens to anyone else (and sometimes because of what will happen to someone else).
Couldn't have said it better myself!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see a viable even prosperous CE settlement (even if there is only one in the game for a long time) in a symbiotic relationship with a nearby neutral or probably LE settlement.
The CE settlement gets things done. Wars, feuds, assassinations, even attacking unflagged travelers time to time when its a good tactical play in the bigger conflict. Mostly there will be enough ready targets through war/feud/faction to keep players busy so their reps will be respectably high; but CE is probably the least worried about taking a rep hit for advancement too. Their DI is lower because of the nature of chaos and evil combined and most of it is used in protection. The LE settlement has higher DI, more available and advanced economic an training facilities for players from both settlements, etc.
The crafting, trade, and character advancing for both groups happens more out of the LE town which benefits from the specialized protection of the CE town. And the meaningful "activities" that both towns are involved in are based more out of the heavily fortified and free to do anything to get ahead CE town. LE-ville doesn't break laws itself from events that benefit it, and they just don't ask many questions about how the CE town did the thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
THANK YOU. It's Chaotic Evil, not Chaotic Stupid.
You do what you want, when you want, and you have a sadistic bent. That doesn't mean you burn down an orphanage every day, it just means you will under the right circumstances.
I've never agreed with the belief that CE automatically makes you a rabid animal, incapable of any self-control.
Any successful serial killer is CE - think about that. Some of them hide in society for decades, killing people off, never getting caught. Because they're smart, and they don't want to die (or maybe they just enjoy being around to torture people with fear), they cover their tracks and bide their time.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, one thing about evil is that there's a whole spectrum of motivations behind it. I feel like the core is generally, "I have no compunctions about doing any kind of awful thing, including and especially killing and debasing other innocent sapient beings, that forwards my agenda." But that agenda might be something small and petty ("I kill people because it's how I feel powerful") to something that would be laudable if you went about it through different methods ("I want peace and prosperity for my country, so I will climb over thousands of dissenting corpses to ensure I am the tyrant that makes that possible").
And even the really petty evil folks are capable of having several agendas, with "I am still alive, free, and prosperous" ahead of some of the worse ones. Only the true maniacs jeopardize that agenda with their more obvious ones; most evil individuals are only going to do the terrible stuff if they think they can get away with it: either because they're too powerful to stop or because they won't get caught.
For most evil individuals, the law vs. chaos spectrum really isn't about broad principles (you'll do what you want whenever you feel you can... what do large scale ethics really mean to you?). Instead, LE individuals feel like, more often than not, strong laws that everyone has to follow help them get away with their desires more often, because they know the laws don't happen to impede them in particular (possibly because they've already twisted them to that end). CE individuals, however, find those same laws stifling; they have ambitions that don't fit nicely within any likely law.
So a CE society is unusual in demihuman civilization. It becomes a whole set of implicit rules: "Do whatever you want... but if what you want pisses off someone more powerful than you, you're in big trouble." For the people in the middle, it's an ongoing dance to try to figure out where fulfilling their own desires would get in the way of someone above them (e.g., "can't just stab the shop clerk and take what I want, because this shop is owned by the mayor and he'll hurt me"). Under a strong enough set of leaders, with goals that don't conflict too much with one another or upset neighbors too much, the society absolutely can flourish. But you'll constantly have individuals within the organization making it harder by thinking they can get away with something that's contrary to the leaders' goals, and maybe or maybe not getting caught, but certainly causing problems.
At least that's one of the alignment interpretations that I tend to use in my tabletop games :) .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not see the successful CE settlement leader being like The Kurgan. The successful CE settlement leader is totally ruthless and will sacrifice almost anything to achieve the leader's goals. Besides being ruthless, that leader always, always thinks outside the box. That character is not random, but able to visualize a situation from all sides, even sides he may have to look very hard to find, because "there is always a viewpoint everyone else has missed".
In chess there is the Queen Sacrifice. The CE leader will not only sacrifice the Queen, but both bishops, a rook, and a knigt to allow a pawn to assassinate the opposing King. That way when the leader takes all the remaining pieces, that leader has gained many more resources than if both sides had slugged it out in a linear manner with only pawns left when one side wins.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It appears that assassination is not in and of itself bad so long as it is within specific contexts, such as factional conflict or war.
Im just starting to get caught up with this thread (yesterday was my kid's 1st Bday so planning and setting up and just plain busy....) but this comment struck me as requiring a response from me.
yes, which in most cases it is absolutely evil and wrong (since you killing in cold blood for money) there are a few rare and far between instances of "good" reasons to kill. Think something like the "Punisher" while I wouldn't classify him as an assassin for say, it is the concept I am more looking at, killing "bad guys" is a good thing, but he himself is a bad guy cause he is killing and blowing stuff up.
The same could be said about rogues and other "Shady types" as not all rogues are evil and greedy, some just master the roguish art of trap-finding and disabling, or something like a modern day locksmith. Helping people that lose their key to their home or belongings.
Anyway, I digress. I am happy to see assassination losing it's "EVIL ONLY" tag and being opened just a bit more. Not saying good people should be able to be "assassins" but neutrals with evil tendacies should be ok.
<mutters to himself> "Maybe this means I could actually be more CN and still satisfy my assassination desires....."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just want to post something I read after looking into the assassin prestige class in the pathfinder rulebooks.
"Alignment: Due to its necessary selfishness and callous indifference toward taking lives, the assassin class attracts those with evil alignments more than any others. Because the profession requires a degree of self-discipline, chaotic characters are ill suited to becoming these shadowy killers. Neutral characters sometimes become assassins, frequently thinking of themselves as simple professionals performing a job, yet the nature of their duties inevitably pushes them toward an evil alignment."
Posted the whole thing so it could be read as a whole and not just as a part. I'm still new to the TT Pathfinder, and only have a handful of games under my belt. I was looking into becoming what it takes to actually become an assassin according to Paizo. Also highlighted the main point I wanted to put out. Mainly to get your guys input on what you think if GW follows through with this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tigari The bit about neutrals sort of conflicts with the alignment requirements of the prestige class: any evil. So does that bit against chaotics. I do think there could be room for other-than-evil assassins in TT, and they might be encouraged to be LE or NE, but that's between the player and GM.
In PFO, with 1000s of players, how common should the neutral and good assassins be? If it's possible and provides significant mechanical benefit, they won't be rare at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tigari The bit about neutrals sort of conflicts with the alignment requirements of the prestige class: any evil. So does that bit against chaotics. I do think there could be room for other-than-evil assassins in TT, and they might be encouraged to be LE or NE, but that's between the player and GM.
In PFO, with 1000s of players, how common should the neutral and good assassins be? If it's possible and provides significant mechanical benefit, they won't be rare at all.
But a Good character should very rarely utilize these skills if they have them. Else, the alignment should slide towards evil from frequent use. I would hope the alignment system can manage that. The challenge of being Good is that you are not willing to go to any length to accomplish your goals. I would say that it is possible to be a Good assassin, just difficult to remain Good over time without heavy moderation on using your abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the TT rules, I think they wanted to keep it simple, and just say "Any evil" but then added the other stuff in there for GM's if they did want to make an acception. And they didn't say that CE couldn't be assassins, just that they are "Ill suited" for them. Theirs always exceptions.
I think that It should be extremely difficult to be a good or Neutral assassin. Make them have to really want to be an assassin AND maintain their alignment.MAYBE 3-4 out of every 100 assassins should be good or neutral.
I don't think it should be super beneficial for them. The act of assassination (IN MY OPINION) should slide you towards evil, if even a small amount. So you would have to do extra work to maintain your alignment.
I also think that the signing of a contract should be evil (smaller then the actual assassin of course). But is it not evil to pay to have someone killed, then to actually kill them yourself? All an assassin is, is a weapon. It's like your buying a new sword or dagger with the intent to kill, but this one is living, breathing, and probably costs much more :D.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
CE characters have fewer choices of settlements, potentially, and may find it harder to find groups open minded enough to take them on
I would love an answer to this question because I think it has important implications for player interactions in the world:
Will my alignment be displayed for all to see?I know someone from GW said a while back that aligmnent will be 'hidden' but from the way discussions are going it sounds to me like everyone's assuming they will be able to see everyone else's alignment.
Bonus question: will there be methods of displaying false alignments and detecting other players' alignments?
Thanks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
CE characters have fewer choices of settlements, potentially, and may find it harder to find groups open minded enough to take them onI would love an answer to this question because I think it has important implications for player interactions in the world:
Will my alignment be displayed for all to see?I know someone from GW said a while back that aligmnent will be 'hidden' but from the way discussions are going it sounds to me like everyone's assuming they will be able to see everyone else's alignment.
Bonus question: will there be methods of displaying false alignments and detecting other players' alignments?
Thanks.
Detect evil, detect good, detect chaos, detect law, see alignment, undetectable alignment, and infernal healing (which after being cast on you makes you show up as evil for a short period of time. it does nothing to your actual alignment though). That's seven Pathfinder spells I can think of that will let you do that. I presume that's how you'll do it in the game as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Wurner I'd like an answer to that question as well. I've assumed that Reputation will be visible, but not the other two axes of alignment. Of course, we'll be able to figure out some parts of alignment by a character's faction memberships, maybe settlement membership, and maybe use of alignment-restricted feats.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would Reputation need to be visible? Alignment isn't yet I believe that it will tag you as Trespasser in a settlement where your alignment is not allowed (presuming that you are actually let it). I hope if Rep is displayed it is in some non-numeric display, like color or icon. This also brings up the question "Is faction membership displayed? And how?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will my alignment be displayed for all to see?
Unlike Reputation, alignment isn't immediately apparent on inspection. There are spells and abilities that allow you to discern a character's alignment, but without magic, you'll have to rely on careful observation to determine if someone is evil or simply misunderstood.
A player's reputation is clearly visible to others, while alignment is harder to determine at a glance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would Reputation need to be visible? Alignment isn't yet I believe that it will tag you as Trespasser in a settlement where your alignment is not allowed (presuming that you are actually let it). I hope if Rep is displayed it is in some non-numeric display, like color or icon. This also brings up the question "Is faction membership displayed? And how?"
From what was said (written) in the past, Alignment is not known unless a spell is actively used to Detect Alignment.
Reputation is known (visible)and therefore can be a basis for barring someone access. A person can use disguise to "hide" their name and reputation, but discovery would lead to the Trespasser Flag, and allow for you to be killed. You could not use the disguise ability to get to training you would otherwise be denied access to. This is how I remember it.
So, the question is, How will Disguise be factored in for issues of: Name; Company / Settlement; Faction and Reputation?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The question really comes down to if someone's faction memberships (beyond company/settlement/kingdom) will be readily apparent if they're not flying the flag "for the cause". So, if I'm a new player who has joined every faction available to me, can anyone else see that? Or is it hidden away?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Question: When compnay-v-company feuding for a particular landmark in a hex, lets just say a mine or tower, is it possible for a company to assume possession of that landmark as an outcome of a feud or does a company have to wage war against the settlement in order to gain control of that particular landmark?
Feuds... [allow] two companies to engage in meaningful PvP (perhaps over resources, for domination in an escalation cycle, or simply for the joy of combat)
While feuds are typically a company vs. company affair, a company can also declare a feud against an enemy settlement. This allows a company to launch a raid against holdings in the hexes controlled by rival settlements...
My guess is that a simple Company-Company Feud would only be sufficient to take control of a Hex POI if that POI was not tied to a Settlement. To take over a POI that was tied to a Settlement, you'll probably have to declare a Feud against the Settlement directly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My guess is that a simple Company-Company Feud would only be sufficient to take control of a Hex POI if that POI was not tied to a Settlement. To take over a POI that was tied to a Settlement, you'll probably have to declare a Feud against the Settlement directly.
Alternatively, a simple company-company feud would allow the attacker to raid the POI for coin or stored goods. If the current holder of the POI had to obligate some amount of Influence to hold the POI, then for an enemy to take control of the POI should require more - the Influence cost of a feud, plus the Influence obligated to stake a claim on the POI. It shouldn't be cheaper in Influence to take a POI in a feud than it would be to create the initial claim.
(As another alternative, perhaps we'd be required to stake a 'greater claim' to take over a POI, so that a good POI might have companies required to lock in more and more influence over time to maintain their claim. An auction system of sorts, with Influence as the currency.)
Also, shouldn't there be a way for a competing company *within* a settlement to take over a POI?
|
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.
I did not think people could start as CE. I thought I read it would take some work to become LG so I assumed we couldn't pick a starting alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are all the armor sets in the black and white picture supposed to represent the same armor 'type' (scalemail)? Do you plan to have that much visual variety for one single type of armor in-game from the beginning? That would be very nice!
Also, is gear being created with player controlled dyeing options in mind?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are all the armor sets in the black and white picture supposed to represent the same armor 'type' (scalemail)? Do you plan to have that much visual variety for one single type of armor in-game from the beginning? That would be very nice!
Also, is gear being created with player controlled dyeing options in mind?
We'll hopefully start off in rags or even sky-clad, seeing as it's going to take so long to develop our characters. :p
Good question though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are all the armor sets in the black and white picture supposed to represent the same armor 'type' (scalemail)? Do you plan to have that much visual variety for one single type of armor in-game from the beginning? That would be very nice!
Also, is gear being created with player controlled dyeing options in mind?
We'll hopefully start off in rags or even sky-clad, seeing as it's going to take so long to develop our characters. :p
Good question though.
I think 'city clothes' or 'civilian outfits' will be very much asked for by plenty of people if it's not there from the outset. While I don't see the need to have it at EE, it would be good to have it by OE.
Once that is in, it would be great to have a selection of different ones to choose from at player creation. Civilian clothes are obviously pure "fluff" and so could be sold at the item store (The Secret World sells clothes to their players for a few euros/outfit, a lot of players in the game buy and wear these)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm guessing "civvies" will be in relatively soon. iirc they're functional (= peaceful conduct in a settlement ie cowboys handing their firearms to the sheriff's safe-keeping) as much as aesthetic "letting your hair down" (saying comes from Sparta!)??
That said we don't have settlements from Day 1 EE, so maybe not right away in EE...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Slightly beside the point but we will have NPC settlements though, right? Anyhow, nice (and in my view: necessary) to have eventually but not at early EE.
That said we don't have settlements from Day 1 EE, so maybe not right away in EE...
I'm not sure, it depends. Maybe civvies day 1 in NPC settlements IS important to "train" people to act peacefully/expect to engage MORE SOCIABLY in settlements? That's a big speculation to make, but if there was any basis, then day 1 civvies would actually be higher priority if the functionality of them is as important as all that I'm supposing above?!
I'm just wondering what the effect is to get people thinking like that: Combat uniforms off - peaceful/social "uniforms" on, would have on players? A little touch like that might subtlely reinforce "down-time"/sociability time in settlement areas of the game?? Throwing some wild guesses around is quite fun if I don't end up looking too foolish!
=
On this subject more, I wonder if some sort of social reactions could be influenced by your fashionable clothes being worn or performing your duties of office with sufficient clobber being worn??
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think in Early EE, or EEE lol, we can expect everyone to be getting the hang of controls and interactions with NPC's. Learning the ropes.
Everything else will come, no need to rush that, get into what they developed for us to play with in the start... It wont take long in a sandbox.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think in Early EE, or EEE lol, we can expect everyone to be getting the hang of controls and interactions with NPC's. Learning the ropes.
Everything else will come, no need to rush that, get into what they developed for us to play with in the start... It wont take long in a sandbox.
Good one Xeen, I think I needed reigning in/cold bucket of water. I just re-read the MVP blog and it's good to concentrate on that target for now.
That said, I had another thought. Now Lawful Settlements might stipulate all players wear civvies and leave their weapons at the guard tower entrance, whereas Chaotic settlements might not have that option and if violence erupts - so be it with so many players walking around armed to the teeth?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
FYI, the link at the bottom of this blog post on goblinworks.com is bad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We'll hopefully start off in rags or even sky-clad
There's apparently a Lord-of-the-Flies style PvP game in closed alpha right now called "Rust", in which you do literally start off naked with nothing but a rock.
YouTube tutorial playlist
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We'll hopefully start off in rags or even sky-cladThere's apparently a Lord-of-the-Flies style PvP game in closed alpha right now called "Rust", in which you do literally start off naked with nothing but a rock.
YouTube tutorial playlist
I think the best way to make that game fun would be:
1. There should be no "starter zone" it should randomly choose a location on the map outside someone's shelter and with no other players or hostile NPCs within X distance and just spawn you into the world.
2. Human flesh should be edible, and human bones should be a useable resource.
3. The difficulty of finding food and surviving NPCs should be such that it's insanely difficult to do so solo.
That way societies that work together for survival, and cannibalistic tribes naturally emerge. And neither go camp a starter area for food or recruits, because they don't exist. Running into another living human is always a joyous event for one reason or another unless they are better armed and aggressive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah he wasn't saying it was based off the book. "Lord of The Flies Online" is a term a few of us including Ryan Dancey have used to describe games that are meant to be utterly brutal / with no restrictions on player behavior.
It actually makes sense in the context of this game as it is a post-apocalyptic survival game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I did say it was LotF "style". :P
As to cannibalism, it might be in there, but even when they fix the wildlife so it isn't as oblivious as the deer Paul beat on, it'll probably still offer less fight than a player with a stone hatchet. Kuru and other prion diseases are pretty nasty too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whoa, sorry for the tangent, I was of course being hyperbolic. But ONE GOOD THING from starting simple is that there is more SPACE to grow more complex is really the idea I was working from. I mean that's the cool thing about day 1 learning how the UI works, where things are in the world and trying on a new skin for size etc etc. Hopefully that is a benefit of the steady update method of GW of growing the game additionally.
Yes, I'd come across that game before and forgotten about it, even popping by their forums. The maker did something else significant before that I've forgotten? That's it Gary's Mod creator.
Considering the topic of this thread, I think I'm more interested in the player-player relations and how those form the gameplay. Survival games are cool however and if in the future granular systems as that are part of exploring maybe huge procedural generation areas or even surviving a trip into a dungeon (food, drink, equip etc) that would be cool too.
Concerning Lord Of The Flies, by William Golding, that's usually the scenario to suggest things fall into anarchy or primal instincts of humans take over I suppose? A sort of version of that scenario was used for Battle Royale but to suggest that those primal urges are just the foundations for kids to learn to take their own responsibility and use that energy to fight for their place as civilized adults in a tough world as it would not "just happen" unless they changed their attitude ie the tacit subtext to that story criticizing the country's youth during the 90's iirc, obviously during a period of long recession. A clever twist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was thinking about factions and one thing that came to mind was identifying factional characters on a character level. Are they wearing sashimonos, armors or tabards to be identified by the opposing factions and are these actual items that make characters hostile to the opposing factions? I always feel there has to be a reasonable concreteness to make things justifiable. In this case some kind of visual identification would be in order I think.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was thinking about factions and one thing that came to mind was identifying factional characters on a character level. Are they wearing sashimonos, armors or tabards to be identified by the opposing factions and are these actual items that make characters hostile to the opposing factions? I always feel there has to be a reasonable concreteness to make things justifiable. In this case some kind of visual identification would be in order I think.
My two issue with that are:
1. We know you can join multiple factions.
2. I'd rather see people visually identified by their company/settlement/kingdom.
I'd prefer the visual identifiers for factions be logos beneath their names that are displayed in blue if you share that faction, grey if you don't, yellow if they are an enemy faction but you can't attack, red if they are a rank you can attack or set to "for the cause."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any identifying feature will need to be clear from a long distance without concealing any of the other visual cues.
I don't think anything other than a data tag will suffice, but I could be convinced otherwise.
Well there is the hostile state, but I was looking for an rp reason to be visible via a game mechanic(item, banner etc) to notice the fact that another character is a member of a hostile faction. In the case of companies, settlements and kingdoms I would see the rp reason to be visible hostile action/intent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My RP reasons are facial recognition and .... it's magic!!!
Seriously though it could be from having them described to us. An emblem or signet ring too minute to be worth rendering etc. sort of the same way we can visually identify their reputation. It's not beyond my syspension of disbelief.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that a member of a hostile faction should be shown as such by default. While this is an immersion-breaking factor, the heavy pvp-nature of the game requires a degree of labeling to prevent everyone from being a paranoid mess all of the time.
Enemy Faction/Company/Settlement (Basically no Rep Loss for PvP) - Red
Non-Enemy / Non-Friendly - Grey
Friendly / Ally - Green or Blue
Beyond that I am okay doing simple icons instead of names until more closely inspected.