Goblin Squad Member
|
Way back in January,
@Danneth Sky - There is no good reason to play a chaotic evil character except if you like being other people's content.
I think the strongest opposition that Lawful Good Settlements will face will come from Lawful Evil Settlements.
I think that many players will find that their choices often funnel them towards Chaotic Good social structures, thus those communities will often be the largest, most diverse, and most active.
I see most of the "neutral" positions on the alignment grid as either a delicate balancing point that you have to work hard to maintain so that you can be a bridge between other, larger social structures, or a temporary waypoint as your character's actions pull them towards one of the four corners.
RyanD
Ryan has also said that LG will have strong mechanical disadvantages due to the temptation to use force, and that he expects there to be a active funnel ride to the garbage heap of CE-suckage.
So the model is that you mostly end up in social structures in one of the four corners: the majority of anti-social players in the CE-suck, the overall majority of players reasonably social but very force of arms-centric in CG, and then a minority in mechanically powerful but socially difficult LG. Not exactly sure about the LE corner.
Some questions for Ryan or Stephen:
1) Is that still your vision?
2) What about LE, will they have any drawbacks comparable to LG, or will LE be a pretty large/easy to maintain alignment?
3) Would POIs be a likely spot for LG or other specialty alignments? It sounds like maintaining a LG alignment would be easier for smaller social structures, so maybe a CC of LG characters might run a security POI (Watchtower or Manor) for a CG settlement.
Thanks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suspect LG and LE will functionally balance. CE and CG will form high pop bases for twin pyramids that culminate in LE and LG respectively. If CE is too onerous then most likely CE-CL will be weighted more heavily in the midsection (NE).
I would much rather power were a triad rather than bilateral, but TN does not seem to garner significant investment at the design level. It may well be that I have a TN RP bias limiting my consideration.
A three way power contest is more dynamic than a bilateral struggle. If I commit my forces against one I open myself to the other., whereas in a bilateral system I don't have to worry so much about covering my back because my only enemy is in front of me.
But there are four corners to this square I suppose and CG is as contrary to LG as LE is. I am hoping that TN can function as the fulcrum of political power, and the pressure will accordingly be upon any significant TN characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would much rather power were a triad rather than bilateral...
I agree. It's like modern political quizzes that ask you ridiculously biased questions that are totally meant to classify you as either a Democrat or a Republican. On those scales, there's a hefty chunk of people who seem to make no sense. But when you add questions that allow the quiz-taker to identify their love of Freedom (i.e. Libertarian options), then that chunk of people who seem to make no sense suddenly make very clear sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...There is no good reason to play a chaotic evil character except if you like being other people's content.
This can be interpreted as you will be mechanically affected and socially afflicted.
It can also be interpreted as sharing the game area with similar like-minded scum. That could turn out to be very fun microcosm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would much rather power were a triad rather than bilateral...I agree. It's like modern political quizzes that ask you ridiculously biased questions that are totally meant to classify you as either a Democrat or a Republican. On those scales, there's a hefty chunk of people who seem to make no sense. But when you add questions that allow the quiz-taker to identify their love of Freedom (i.e. Libertarian options), then that chunk of people who seem to make no sense suddenly make very clear sense.
I'm a firm proponent that the two-party system is ruining America, but there is no viable third option. The Libertarians are the closest to what I would like to see, but they have no chance of gaining enough support to be taken seriously. The Democrats and the Republicans are controlled by the most extreme elements of each group, and there is no option for those of us who like most of the country are socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
/end political threadjack
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The libertarians are no more their own masters than tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.
I have a bias there I will admit: I very much dislike what these social engineers have done to our language. Liberal is liberating. Conservative is farsighted and sensible. 'Libertarian'... sorry but I am seeing a stew of Neitsche & Rand overseasoned with social Darwinism.
Must..stop...<nnnngggg....>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ravenlute:
(from the May 22 blog):
Active alignment represents your character's actual, objective alignment, as determined by the measurable and observable choices he or she makes in play. If your character aspires to be good but you murder someone for no reason, your character's active alignment takes a hard swerve toward neutral (hey, maybe it was an honest mistake). Make a pattern of that behavior, and your character's active alignment soon turns full-on evil. Killing people is almost never a *good* act, but there are plenty of times when it's justified and therefore doesn't automatically shift you toward evil—for example, if you're defending yourself against an attacker, fighting in a war, battling evil monsters, or putting a stop to another character's heinous behavior.
Neitsche & Rand
Those two philosophers are directly opposed to one another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Aside from Lawful Evil, which according to Ryan, will have all of the advantages of LG and none of the weaknesses, I think LN will come in a close second place.
But if we consider that a settlement could have 1000+ citizens, it doesn't seem reasonable that all settlements won't support a more homogeneous demographic.
All large settlements will have a touch of evil, if not among its common citizenry, most certainly in the hearts and minds of some of its leadership.
Conflict and power will corrupt the player and sooner or later, regardless of alignment, the urge to do whatever it takes to win will take hold.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Aside from Lawful Evil, which according to Ryan, will have all of the advantages of LG and none of the weaknesses, I think LN will come in a close second place.
But if we consider that a settlement could have 1000+ citizens, it doesn't seem reasonable that all settlements won't support a more homogeneous demographic.
All large settlements will have a touch of evil, if not among its common citizenry, most certainly in the hearts and minds of some of its leadership.
Conflict and power will corrupt the player and sooner or later, regardless of alignment, the urge to do whatever it takes to win will take hold.
This is the very definition of that funnel towards CE that Ryan talks about. I think more realistically, players will moderate themselves to some degree if CE is made a difficult alignment to succeed with. I think given that assumption, we will see NE and LE being major alignments in the distant future.
Resisting the pull towards evil will be one of the fun elements for me, and I hope to find a solid role in helping to convince and strengthen others in their resolve to do the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Aside from Lawful Evil, which according to Ryan, will have all of the advantages of LG and none of the weaknesses, I think LN will come in a close second place.
But if we consider that a settlement could have 1000+ citizens, it doesn't seem reasonable that all settlements won't support a more homogeneous demographic.
All large settlements will have a touch of evil, if not among its common citizenry, most certainly in the hearts and minds of some of its leadership.
Conflict and power will corrupt the player and sooner or later, regardless of alignment, the urge to do whatever it takes to win will take hold.
This is the very definition of that funnel towards CE that Ryan talks about. I think more realistically, players will moderate themselves to some degree if CE is made a difficult alignment to succeed with. I think given that assumption, we will see NE and LE being major alignments in the distant future.
Resisting the pull towards evil will be one of the fun elements for me, and I hope to find a solid role in helping to convince and strengthen others in their resolve to do the same.
Normally I could care less about alignment outside of TT, but in this case I sincerely hope good has a strong hold in the River Kingdoms.
So, yay!
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Is that still your vision?
Pretty much.
2) What about LE, will they have any drawbacks comparable to LG, or will LE be a pretty large/easy to maintain alignment?
My thinking on this is that LE will likely be mercenaries. They will have a lot of pressure towards the Evil axis and there will be a lot of value to them in worshipping Evil gods. But they will want to have access to advanced Settlement structures so they'll want to maintain a fairly high reputation, and will therefore likely avoid the kinds of things that would drive them from law to chaos. Plus they'll want to be known as groups who are scrupulously honorable - nobody wants to pay a mercenary and then have them turn on the client.
I think the LE mercenaries will be who you call when you need to go to war against the LG knights and their vassals.
3) Would POIs be a likely spot for LG or other specialty alignments? It sounds like maintaining a LG alignment would be easier for smaller social structures, so maybe a CC of LG characters might run a security POI (Watchtower or Manor) for a CG settlement
I think Settlements are going to be very involved in micro-managing the points of interest in the territories they can control or influence. I think at least for a long time they're going to be production or trade focused systems so the objective will be to run them at maximum efficiency. I don't know if that will intersect with the alignment systems much.
In general I think that it is likely that there won't be highly concentrated groups of single alignments. I think most social groups will be a melange of alignments, and that they'll have a bias but won't be homogenous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe that a four-cornered power structures will tend to stasis.
Balance is too easily found.
A three cornered power structure may be too few power blocs to remain politically interesting for very long.
If CE dies out after awhile that would leave a dynamic system assuming CG is numerous and popular. If CE does not die out persuadable Neutrals might hold promise, rather like the independent vote that can be either kingmaker or spoiler.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that there is unlikely to be much settlement warfare purely on alignment grounds. War is a costly undertaking and for the majority of settlements it will be pursued for tangible reasons of benefit such as access to resources. Prevention of action by other settlements etc.
There may be some faction warfare along alignment lines but that is largely irrelevant pvp that changes absolutely nothing in the river kingdoms. There may also be some raiding done purely for rp reasons on alignment rivals I guess. My prediction though is that the vast majority of settlement warfare will be done for purely pragmatic gain. On that basis thinking of the alignments as the corners of a power structure in the rvr vein is not going to be true
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On that basis thinking of the alignments as the corners of a power structure in the rvr vein is not going to be true
That sounds likely. But it seems to me that there is very likely to be a significant amount of PvP on "moral" grounds. I expect there will be more than a few Settlements that make it a point to attack "evil-doers".
@Nihimon
I am sure there will be settlement wars due to alignment. I also think they will be relatively few compared to settlement wars for pragmatic reasons.
PVP on moral grounds is a different kettle of fish and some people have already announced their intention. That sort of PVP though will tend to be "small gang" and out post raiding. The true world changing pvp remains however the settlement wars which is the only sort of PVP I was referencing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That sort of PVP though will tend to be "small gang"...
What makes you think that?
... the settlement wars which is the only sort of PVP I was referencing.
Yeah, that's what I was talking about, too.
I expect there will be more than a few Settlements that make it a point to attack "evil-doers".
Settlements that indulge in costly wars for no pragmatic gains will in my opinion have the life expectancy of a soap herring. There will be a few and they will soon realise that they are crippling themselves with nothing to show for it if they are waging war purely because those guys are evil/good/lawful/chaos.
However until the settlement warfare starts we can argue back and forth without either of us being able to prove our case so I suggest you just add both predictions to your database of your predictions then we will see who is right a year after OE. Things should be apparent by then.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There may be some faction warfare along alignment lines but that is largely irrelevant pvp that changes absolutely nothing in the river kingdoms.
While I agree that the reasons for war will be rooted in economics more than alignment, we do not at all know that factions will be irrelevant PvP that changes nothing. The lore may well change with history, and factions may be a significant or even crucial contextual element.
In short I disbelieve your premise that factional PvP will be irrelevant. The assumption is not merited.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I could see Good settlements using alignment as an excuse to cover an expansionist agenda; I don't necessarily disagree with a Good settlement that goes to war with the Evil guys with the primary purpose of claiming new land, but a secondary purpose of destroying the Evil powers. They've gotta have some way of staying competitive too.
There may be some faction warfare along alignment lines but that is largely irrelevant pvp that changes absolutely nothing in the river kingdoms.While I agree that the reasons for war will be rooted in economics more than alignment, we do not at all know that factions will be irrelevant PvP that changes nothing. The lore may well change with history, and factions may be a significant or even crucial contextual element.
In short I disbelieve your premise that factional PvP will be irrelevant. The assumption is not merited.
Faction warfare will not change the factions in any way. Were they to do so there would be howls of protests from the Pathfinder faithful and for this reason alone I fully expect Paizo to insist that factions from Pathfinder are not subverted in any way shape or form.
While factions may suit your character rp the battles between their adherents we have no reason to believe will change the factions in any way shape or form. It will be static PVP that is meaningful to the world as Alliance versus Horde PVP is in WOW
"soap herring"?
It is one of many sayings that we in the uk use to denote an article of limited use or life expectancy.
Soap Herring
Chocolate fireguard
Snowball in hell
etc
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Faction warfare will not change the factions in any way. Were they to do so there would be howls of protests from the Pathfinder faithful and for this reason alone I fully expect Paizo to insist that factions from Pathfinder are not subverted in any way shape or form.
While factions may suit your character rp the battles between their adherents we have no reason to believe will change the factions in any way shape or form. It will be static PVP that is meaningful to the world as Alliance versus Horde PVP is in WOW
Belief is an assumption that may not enjoy factual basis. You believe it is so and it might be so, but it is as yet only a belief. Faction warfare may well influence and change the factions if it is designed to be so. Or do you have private knowledge of the agreements between Paizo and GW I am not privy to?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There may be some faction warfare along alignment lines but that is largely irrelevant pvp that changes absolutely nothing in the river kingdoms.While I agree that the reasons for war will be rooted in economics more than alignment, we do not at all know that factions will be irrelevant PvP that changes nothing. The lore may well change with history, and factions may be a significant or even crucial contextual element.
In short I disbelieve your premise that factional PvP will be irrelevant. The assumption is not merited.
Faction warfare will not change the factions in any way. Were they to do so there would be howls of protests from the Pathfinder faithful and for this reason alone I fully expect Paizo to insist that factions from Pathfinder are not subverted in any way shape or form.
While factions may suit your character rp the battles between their adherents we have no reason to believe will change the factions in any way shape or form. It will be static PVP that is meaningful to the world as Alliance versus Horde PVP is in WOW
Faction warfare will have no significant effect on the larger faction because neither the Church of Pharasma nor the Hellknights will significantly change their position in the large scale based on their interaction and influence in a small provincial territory dispute. The petty baronies and counties of the River Kingdoms have no influence outside of their territory.
That doesn't mean that within their territory in the RK, these changes aren't relatively important.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That doesn't mean that within their territory in the RK, these changes aren't relatively important.
It also doesn't mean that the petty baronial factions cannot be changed by in-game events. It is possible they will, even though the broad organization remains constant.
I don't think I am disagreeing with you Decius, but only trying to be clear. The assumption that Factional PvP will have no meaningful impact on factions in the River kingdoms is an assumption I do not believe we can adopt as canon yet.
What happens in the River Kingdoms may stay in the River Kingdoms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In addition, the factions may change the world around them, as well as changing themselves. It depends on how commited to making the faction warfare worthwile GW is; they could just leave it as meaningless free PvP, or factions could have goals, influence, and a whole slew of interesting interactions with player-grown settlements.
EDIT: To provide an example, maybe if the devotees of Rovagug gain traction in an area the equipment in that area degrades faster, as Rovagug's destructive nature seeps into the environment. People who control that area will obviously want that to stop, and they'll support whatever faction is fighting the devotees of Rovagug; but if/when the devotees gain traction in another land, that settlement might start supporting them. People will pump members of their settlements into the faction ranks in order to throw out little bonuses and penalties at each other and try and tip the scales just a little, and suddenly factions are playing a large part in the game. Just like everything else it would have to be carefully designed to minimize abuses and increase it's meaningfulness and fun.
Double Edit: I saw this idea first mentioned by Andius in another thread, so I'll give him credit for the general idea here.
Assuming factions are immutable due to not being allowed to violate official Pathfinder lore is the safe bet in the abscence of comments in either direction from the developers.
Most games with strong IP (lotro, old republic) etc institute heavy restrictions upon what the online worlds are allowed to incorporate and do in order to not change the official lore to much.
If Ryan comes out and says factions will mutate over time due to player actions and have an impact then I would be the first to agree that faction warfare is now meaningful.
Claiming it is meaningful on the grounds that they may do something like it though to me at least seems a little like wishful thinking. I look at what happens in other games with strong IP and I think its safer to bet on it not being that way until Ryan comes out and tells us otherwise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assuming factions are immutable due to not being allowed to violate official Pathfinder lore is the safe bet in the abscence of comments in either direction from the developers.
Still, it seems reasonable to think the relative power of Factions within PFO's area might change over time based on player actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Claiming it is meaningful on the grounds that they may do something like it though to me at least seems a little like wishful thinking. I look at what happens in other games with strong IP and I think its safer to bet on it not being that way until Ryan comes out and tells us otherwise.
If I must, I would remind you that I did not suggest faction PvP would be meaningful & etc., I objected to your assertion as patent fact that it would not be meaningful. I do not know either way, but I do know that I do not want to assume something is fact unless there is evidence that it is more than an assumption. I maintain it is possible that factional conflict will be meaningful to the broad online game and not limited to small group RP significance.
It could be that faction warfare is only intended by GW as 'local color' as you appear to prefer, but in that case why would it be counted an element of the minimum viable product?
I would prefer it if factions were pve only frankly. Faction warfare is as far as I am concerned the very antithesis of meaningful PVP. Join a faction and you can freely beat up the members of another faction with no consequences. If people want to play that sort of game there are a myriad of faction based theme parks that have that sort of PVP. It is PVP for the purpose of PVP and nothing else, nothing to gain.
I also don't believe that factions warfare is part of a MVP. They have said there will be faction warfare but I don't think they have said when as yet. I would be extremely disappointed if they put it in before settlement warfare as thats the important one
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We know too little about it to assume the systems are discrete, and I don't want to simply dismiss what could be an important part of the game sight-unseen. There has been very little revealed about what they have in mind.
The odds against winning the lottery are very slight, but if a ticket were handed to me I would check the numbers on it before throwing it away.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
In addition, the factions may change the world around them, as well as changing themselves. It depends on how commited to making the faction warfare worthwile GW is; they could just leave it as meaningless free PvP, or factions could have goals, influence, and a whole slew of interesting interactions with player-grown settlements.
EDIT: To provide an example, maybe if the devotees of Rovagug gain traction in an area the equipment in that area degrades faster, as Rovagug's destructive nature seeps into the environment. People who control that area will obviously want that to stop, and they'll support whatever faction is fighting the devotees of Rovagug; but if/when the devotees gain traction in another land, that settlement might start supporting them. People will pump members of their settlements into the faction ranks in order to throw out little bonuses and penalties at each other and try and tip the scales just a little, and suddenly factions are playing a large part in the game. Just like everything else it would have to be carefully designed to minimize abuses and increase it's meaningfulness and fun.
Double Edit: I saw this idea first mentioned by Andius in another thread, so I'll give him credit for the general idea here.
The point is that effects limited to the RK area are perfectly compatible with there being no noticeable difference in PFS games.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can virtually guarantee you there will be Settlements that declare war and fight people even without declared wars for "no reason". The reason is that PvP is fun, and some people think it is really fun when the other side is weaker and can be dominated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can virtually guarantee you there will be Settlements that declare war and fight people even without declared wars for "no reason". The reason is that PvP is fun, and some people think it is really fun when the other side is weaker and can be dominated.
It's really creepy when you say that using that avatar.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't be surprised if settlements have arranged wars with certain rules of engagement, like not razing settlements past a specific point, just to experience the joys of warfare. This has taken place in many other games, and I think the systems being developed here will make it something that both sides in an arranged conflict could get behind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't be surprised if settlements have arranged wars with certain rules of engagement, like not razing settlements past a specific point, just to experience the joys of warfare. This has taken place in many other games, and I think the systems being developed here will make it something that both sides in an arranged conflict could get behind.
I would imagine it being something done between groups that feel relatively safe though. War, even on good terms in meta sense, will be expensive. Groups warring for fun may find themselves targeted by outsiders hoping to cause havoc on groups that are known to have already spent their "fun money".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't be surprised if settlements have arranged wars with certain rules of engagement, like not razing settlements past a specific point, just to experience the joys of warfare. This has taken place in many other games, and I think the systems being developed here will make it something that both sides in an arranged conflict could get behind.
And hopefully a third party will take advantage of their weakened state and devastate one and then the other, taking both settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't be surprised if settlements have arranged wars with certain rules of engagement, like not razing settlements past a specific point, just to experience the joys of warfare. This has taken place in many other games, and I think the systems being developed here will make it something that both sides in an arranged conflict could get behind.
Yeah for strategic reasons I am not a fan of WarSoft. If the stakes and the cost of war are high, then it needs to be more than just a practice session.
It is a nice idea, just not very feasible in games where the largest stakes are wrapped up in settlement politics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh I agree, I personally am an all or nothing type of warfare enthusiast. There needs to be a true risk, and the capacity for the ultimate reward of taking someone's lands, as well as the joys of pre-war skirmishes and that long sought after alpha strike to have truly enjoyable warfare for me personally. But I think that WarSoft may be something more gentle souls will use to experience the warfare mechanics without having to risk it all.
As bludd said I would fully expect that often those taking part in war soft exercises may find a second front opening on them while they are in a weakened state. Certainly hitting them when they have used up valuable resources and are busy elsewhere seems like a fine idea
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As bludd said I would fully expect that often those taking part in war soft exercises may find a second front opening on them while they are in a weakened state. Certainly hitting them when they have used up valuable resources and are busy elsewhere seems like a fine idea
On a side note Pax Pagan, "I find your lack of an avatar disturbing."
Is that part of Hobs' master plan? He will strip each of the ambassadors of their identities first. When he is finally done with his sinister plot, we are all just a faceless, soulless horde. We will be left with no hope in our lives, but for what is given to us by the Patron Saint of the Green Hat!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Most games with strong IP (lotro, old republic) etc institute heavy restrictions upon what the online worlds are allowed to incorporate and do in order to not change the official lore to much.If Ryan comes out and says factions will mutate over time due to player actions and have an impact then I would be the first to agree that faction warfare is now meaningful.
The last official dev information I heard on these two points was that factions would be slowly fluid and occasionally change things around based on the situations and goings-on in the RK. Also that Paizo was keeping open the possibility of two-way authorship where what we do in-game, if it fits and its good, could become part of official Paizo Pathfinder lore.
Nothing to imply a faction-based storyline (instead of settlements) couldn't be party to that if that's what players got behind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope the Law-Chaos (Good-Evil) Settlement distribution creates an interesting map from many interesting measures, such as this one for measuring corruption in the real world: Corruption Perceptions Index 2013
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As bludd said I would fully expect that often those taking part in war soft exercises may find a second front opening on them while they are in a weakened state. Certainly hitting them when they have used up valuable resources and are busy elsewhere seems like a fine ideaOn a side note Pax Pagan, "I find your lack of an avatar disturbing."
Is that part of Hobs' master plan? He will strip each of the ambassadors of their identities first. When he is finally done with his sinister plot, we are all just a faceless, soulless horde. We will be left with no hope in our lives, but for what is given to us by the Patron Saint of the Green Hat!
I notice you say this while wearing a green hat... ;)
Who can says what the master plan of the Hobs is?
I think we'll see a greater mix of alignments than the developers seem to deem credible. There are definitely pragmatists in our midst who see alignment as fluid and a reflection of their actions, but there are those who wish to play the opposite, allowing their goals to dictate their actions. Good will have its day in the River Kingdoms, and I think we'll see a fair number attempting to walk a more righteous path toward that end.