Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
spin-off from the factions blog thread.
If a settlement formally commits to a faction (or more), it seems obvious that could unlock faction-specific buildings. That's not the topic.
Topic is: what when say a LN settlement has so many LE or NN members who are members of the Norgober (NE) church that it becomes a significant part of the population? Should a Norgober-specific building (ie assasin trainer) then be unlocked? Should that building be built and governed by the settlement (ie like all other settlement buildings), or by a council of the highest ranked faction members?
Idea up for tearing apart:
-High ranked faction members (say lvl 4+ or 5+) can set up a 'faction council' within a settlement that enables building faction buildings, sabotaging enemy faction buildings etc. Some options might be good for the settlement, others maybe good for the faction at the expense of everyone else.
-The availability and/or cost of options could be affected by number or percentage of faction members in the settlement, and by other factions present. However I feel a solitary high-ranking priest should have the power to build a shrine on his own if he can finance it.
-I think settlement leadership should have the power to tear down faction buildings (but not without pissing off the faction). Enemy factions should also have the power to eventually destroy the building.
-This system could even be linked to the settlement rep/rank system. For example maintaining rank 6+ privileges in a church could require you to manage a temple building in a settlement.
Ideally "settlement faction councils" would allow many more players to take part in the settlement politics game, as faction councils would have some (minor) influence on development of the settlement. It would allow churches and other factions to compete for influence without conquering settlements and making them theocracies. Golarion lore has factions for druids, adventurers, paladins, assassins, monks, merchants, bandits, lumberjacks, necromancers and more.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Why would a settlement not allied with a faction permit the construction of a building for the exclusive use if that faction?
Are you thinking of settlements as towns, where the town sets zoning laws, or as forts that grew big enough that they required a town to support the fort?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would seem to me that settlements not specifically tied to one faction are likely to have citizens from many factions (Edit: I could be entirely wrong with this first point, I'll concede that). Another consideration, the factions are not meant to be vying for territory, and thus their training buildings will likely be entirely inside the player settlements (probably excepting the big NPC starter factions, if they work on the same system). These things taken together would, at least in my eyes, point to having multiple faction buildings inside the same settlement, provided the conditions are right in a given settlement.
My personal opinion as to unlocking buildings is that a specific percentage or number of factional players in addition to whatever the normal requirements are would be unnecessary. The way I see it, the restriction on allowing multiple factions to build whatever would come in the fact that if you allow one faction to build inside the settlement, you probably have pissed off at least one other. This could lead to settlements which have many faction buildings, all making complaints to the local government about the leeway their rivals are getting and all of them trying to backstab and manipulate their way into more power. Wouldn't that be a fun place to live. :)
In this case, I'm thinking of settlements as towns, where the local government has authority over the factions and tries to resolve their disputes as best it can. However, I suppose it could work similarly for the second example given. Say you start with a relatively politically neutral starting fort. A settlement springs up around it, and as players tied to factions show up, the rulers say, "Sure, why not, you can join." Eventually the factions might gain more power, and the same basic scenario as the previous paragraph comes into play.
Maybe these sorts of scenarios won't pop up as much as I think they will. However, I think as a constant stream of new players enters the world, settlements will be directly competing for more bodies, and being open to a lot of factions seems like a plan some might take to increase their inflow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would a settlement not allied with a faction permit the construction of a building for the exclusive use if that faction?
because a sizeable chunk of the members may belong to that faction. It may well be in a trading towns best interest that the gorumites have access to special training.
Are you thinking of settlements as towns, where the town sets zoning laws, or as forts that grew big enough that they required a town to support the fort?
yes/no, more like the factions take the initiative and the town must react by stopping or allowing it (although in lawful towns there may be an application procedure...).
A settlement with hundreds of player memebers should not be completely micromanaged imo. Players with no hope of being settlement leaders would still their small scale political games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I definitely feel like a settlement should be allowed multiple factions as long as none of those factions are in opposition to eachother. Maybe you could use a building slot to create a significant structure for a single faction, or just a faction embassy type building with offices for minor NPCs of many factions. If your settlement is really into factions you might have a Cathedral of Sarenrae, an Eagle Knights Barracks, and a general embassy.
I also feel like opposing factions should be able to do things in your territory to spread their influence or negate part of the influence of yours. Like if I build a secret shrine to Rovagug it would lower the Sarenrae influence of perhaps overpower it and spread a bit off Rovagug influence if it was low enough / the shrine was strong enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see why a settlement can't allow people from opposing factions to build in their settlement. I mean, yes the factions hate each other, but in Golarion usually the Aspis Consortium and the Pathfinders aren't killing each other in broad daylight. There are laws and customs in civilized areas to prevent this sort of thing, at least usually to stop overt factional warfare at any rate. Translating to PFO, as long as the settlement can maintain the peace (or even if they can't!), I don't think there should be a built-in mechanic forbidding them from constructing buildings for opposing factions. This could lead to a whole host of fun player interactions, from trying to bribe, coerce, and muscle governmental power to shut down the other faction to assassinations within the settlement to a three-way open war between two factions and the city guards. Really, it might be a risky proposition, but I don't think it should be expressly forbidden. As long as a player settlement feels they can keep the order, why shouldn't they be allowed to let in opposing factions?
I do like the idea of factional hideouts which can slowly influence an area. Opens up the factional PvP to a little more than just "we don't like those guys, we're gonna kill them".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
the only difference with this shane, is that the settlements will be run by like-minded people. "Clans", "Guilds", "Companies" whatever you want to call them from whatever game. Why would they do something they know may hinder their own "base"? Some may in the beggining, as a RP thing. but then they will be viewed as easy prey, and the settlement wont last long.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A settlement will be run by one company, but its members will belong to a large number of companies. I'm guessing 10 or 20 or more for even a smallish settlement. The owning company will have to make lots of decision about what gets built, but the member companies have to provide materials and labor - and something less popular might get less effort applied.
I could see non-faction companies proposing construction of say a tannery or a market (which they will operate for the settlement). And those companies might provide most or all of the materials as well as funds to pay laborers. I could see faction-aligned companies doing the same, and using a productive structure as a base. Like everyone knows that the Grey Goose Inn in Milltown is often visited by Pathfinders.
As the game progresses, many of the strongest settlements will not be conglomerates of independent companies; they'll be top driven with the entire settlement being one social entity, like Tigari describes. I don't know if that is enough reason to stop settlements from having member belonging to competing factions. It might not be smart to have lots of faction strife, but settlements don't need to be forced to take only smart courses of action.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The number of building sites in a settlement footprint will be limited, i.e., there will be only a specific number of building sites in any one settlement location. Settlement management will be very selective on who they allow to build and what they build as the settlement must allocate DI to building construction. I think settlement will be focused on structures that increase DI when they are completed. Individuals (say faction members) can construct buildings, but they will still need settlement approval to do so, and deposit the construction costs in the escrow in the settlement bank.
Factions (or companies dedicated to factions) can control resources necessary to provide the materials for building construction, and as such could influence the choice of buildings to be built. Concessions could be made for special privileges for faction members in exchange for a reduced material costs. I would also like to see the opportunity to build hideouts in settlement buildings. This would be ideal for faction meeting places.
I am not sure what the restriction will be for constructing soul bind points and where they can be built (and by whom). I think that companies (or factions) would want dedicated soul bind points. I think that these will be highly sought structures for any settlement. Can the owner of the soul bind point charge a fee to be bound to the point? I foresee another resource empire in the making.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmmm, I guess if the number of buildings in a settlement is very limited this would be much less likely to occur. I also guess that exact number is not something we will know for quite some time, so I can't say much more than that on this particular issue :P. However, looking at the blog post you linked, it's possible that a faction building could even be a Small Building; that would mean you could fit plenty of them in amongst your other things. Since we haven't had a blog post linking the factions into settlement building, we don't know the specifics of what will happen, and whether or not the space inside a settlement will be too restrictive for this scenario to occur very frequently.
Still, I stand by my argument that although constructing buildings for opposing factions is a bad idea, there should be nothing in game to stop a player (or group of players) from making such a bad idea. Hell, maybe they can make it work, and they become much stronger for having the diverse range of skills available. Who can say? The draw to a game like this is you make the decisions you want, and the consequences are yours. I feel like that should extend to city planning as well.
Edit: @Andius, there wouldn't even necessarily need to be a crazy chaotic settlement for this situation. If you make it illegal to kill people inside your settlement, then someone that does that becomes a Criminal, regardless of context. Sure, they don't take a reputation hit, but there is the possibility for other consequences in that PvP (such as exile from the settlement for a repeat offender). Also, if your faction frequently breaks the "no murder in the city" law, you'll likely find your settlement isn't going to keep you around. I think opposing factions could set up shop both in the most lawful settlements (where the laws and restrictions keep them off one another inside city limits) and in the most chaotic (where they're constantly feuding and killing inside the settlement).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think an important thing to keep in mind here is that Faction members are still people, and furthermore still citizens of whatever settlement they belong to. They'll have to make decisions on where, when, and whom they want to strike when operating inside a settlement, weighing risks and rewards just like everybody else.
Perhaps I'm off the mark here, but I think GW's intent in introducing factional warfare was not for it to be mindless PvP, but instead merely PvP with less consequences.
I personally hope that everyone needs to weigh risks and rewards to attacking people in game, and that no one should have an easy answer to this question unless they go out of their way for one; this is one of the best ways to create meaningful PvP and reduce the amount of killing "for teh lulz".
(To elaborate on "unless they go out of their way for one", I mean for example if they hunt in a relatively lawless area where the enemy faction is known to operate, or call out the enemies to duel outside the city, etc. I hope that we won't have people killing people of other factions inside well protected regions unless they have a really good reason.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it might actually be PvP with *more* consequences.
If I understand the bounty system, and some of the other persona non grata effects of 'un-lawful' actions. Consequences could be pretty severe.
I also believe that an assassin's guild could in-theory be operating within a settlement that houses an order of Holy Paladins... they'd just have to be well hidden, operate in a 'lawful manner' (or paying off the right bureaucrat) to stay off that organizations 'retribution-radar'
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry, when I said "less consequences" I meant less consequences for the individual kill. I do agree that factional warfare could lead to serious consequences for someone wantonly murdering in a settlement just because their enemies are there. However, I got the impression that GW wanted to move people who just plain like to PvP into factional warfare, so they could do so with fewer long-term consequences for killing people (as long as they're killing the right people).
The person who is not in a faction and kills a faction leader incurs any and all of the penalties for doing so, including a hit to reputation and alignment. A person who is a member of an opposing faction that kills the same faction leader would incur the same penalties, except the reputation and alignment changes. This is what I meant by "less consequences".