Goblin Squad Member
|
I suggest, rather than perpetuating Paizo's lexical tomfoolery, that we use words like dystheism (belief that god is not good or worth worshiping) or eutheism (hatred of god) to more precisely fit the ideas being suggested.
Not that there is any reason to suggest any of it negates alignment. Alignment in these situations remains, as it always has been, a propensity to follow or ignore law, traditions, codes, etc. (law vs chaos) on one axis, and to follow or ignore a sense of compassion about the well being of others (good vs evil) on the other axis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agnosticism is the absence of belief in a god, atheism differentiates from agnosticism in believing in the absence of a god. Although sometimes agnosticism and atheism are lumped together, and only in such a broad generalizing way can it be said that atheism is just the absence of belief...
No, agnosticism addresses knowledge, atheism addresses belief. They are different things. Those who actively believe there are no gods also lack a belief in gods, and are therefore a subset of the wider group.
'Atheist' comes from from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos, “godless, without a god”). In the context of a world were there isn't credible evidence for god(s) that could indicate a lack of belief, but in a world like Golarion where there is evidence for their existence, then it only requires a lack of worship.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, that would explain why we're having this discussion. I don't think that's a correct use of the word atheism, but it explains Bludd and your responses; I didn't know people used the word to mean other things, so that's why I was saying atheism wouldn't be something for a rational, sane person.
I think both definitions are quite clear: atheism is in fact a disbelief, not a lack of belief. You may use it in a different way, as might the people who wrote the Pathfinder setting material, but I'd rather use words as they're defined and universally understood, to avoid confusion. YMMV.
Edit: Wikipedia also agrees that atheism can encompass a lack of belief, so I guess it's used that way more frequently than I understood (before someone decries Wikipedia, I'm not using it as a source for facts, so don't harp too hard). Oh well, this whole discussion is over such a trivial thing it's amusing.
What was the topic again? Oh yeah, alignment and reputation. I think we got a little bit off topic. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agnosticism is the absence of belief in a god, atheism differentiates from agnosticism in believing in the absence of a god. Although sometimes agnosticism and atheism are lumped together, and only in such a broad generalizing way can it be said that atheism is just the absence of belief...No, agnosticism addresses knowledge, atheism addresses belief. They are different things. Those who actively believe there are no gods also lack a belief in gods, and are therefore a subset of the wider group.
'Atheist' comes from from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos, “godless, without a god”). In the context of a world were there isn't credible evidence for god(s) that could indicate a lack of belief, but in a world like Golarion where there is evidence for their existence, then it only requires a lack of worship.
athe·ism noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
The Greek etymology you quote is not wrong, but it's not correct to apply it that way to Golarion. It means without gods be it through ignorance or choice to disbelieve. In Golarion that may be remotely possible, but dystheism or eutheism are far more likely.
And etymology, while fascinating, is no replacement for current definition.
And for the record:
1ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen
Don't forget to factor in this part...
"Every four straight hours the character earns Reputation, the amount earned increases slightly (currently by .25), up to a limit of something like 10 points per hour. So if a character behaves for four hours, he'll start earning 1.25 Reputation per hour instead of 1."
So essentialy after 1.5 days of inactivity you start gaining at 10 per hour....end up being around 7200 per month given the cited figure...assuming nothing done positive or negative to effect that.
Ahh, I factored it as a total bonus of .25 after 4 hours. I didnt not bring it up by .25 every 4 hours till I reached 10... let me redo the math.
I looked at it as only a bonus of .25 total, and you get the rest of 10 with higher rep... but I guess you would never reach a bonus of 10 even if you were at 7500... Sorry was a long day at work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, so a complete lapse of math skills for yesterday. I guess pulling a robot from storage after a year and troubleshooting a laundry list of problems to get it operational will do that...
So here is better math...
With an increase of .25 per 4 hours starting at .25 for the first 4 hours... it will take 160 hours to reach 10 points per hour, while increasing rep by 786 pts.
With a -6714 rep at 10 per hour it will take 671 hours (round up to 672 for effect).
So a grand total of 831 hours or 34.625 days... (again round up to 35 days for effect)
This system does not bother me at all. I actually now like the rep system. It is punishing if you are persistent as a murderer but forgiving enough when you stop.
Although, someone please check my math again... Coffee has not kicked in and I have only been awake for a little over an hour.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A person who wants to do evil things but maintain a good rep and alignment is going to have to be sneaky. You wont be able to hit kill someone in the heat of battle and get away with it, you will be auto flagged and chat logs will out you quick. You are going to have to do things like use middlemen and throw away characters to interface with say a group of mercs to take out your crafting rival...however i do think that some evil folks will be deep undercover cops. They will never let their true intentions be known for years then BAM.
Sounds to me like you're conflating being Evil with being a jerk. YOu can kill tons of carebears penalty-free within the context of being at war. A 6000 rep assassin who never breaks a single GW rule is still one evil mofo. Slaving and anything to do with necromancy too. Remember if you just put "Evil" on character creation you're always going to get pulled towards -5000 GvE anyway so you can just exist in the world and most of the time mechanics won't alter your numbers anyway; you just rp the Evil (hire a LE merc company to take care of your crafting rival, totally within the rules).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And for the record:1ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
This is a slightly better definition:
ag·nos·tic[ ag nóstik ]
1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood
I'm agnostic and the friends that I have that are agnostic usually believe the bold part I made above. Though this is a moot point since Gods clearly exists in Golarion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This system doesn't influence the former. It does the latter. Players who want to pick an alignment for roleplay reasons will be segregated away from the larger group that is capable of picking an alignment for mechanical benefit.
Emphasis mine. I believe this is where the rub is. The alignment system is setup to reflect how you play, and this may be very different from what you "picked" outside of the game.
If the group has a similar playstyle then presumably they will all be in the general vicinity of alignment, whatever the exact alignment will be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't it moot if there are gods/goddesses beyond the material plane but known to act on it directly and indirectly?
This contrasts with our own world where "God" cannot be defined and hence as a word cannot lead to communication bases on shared understanding. Hence it is better not used in communication imo.
But in PFO, deities (not dirties spell-check!) are as real as a refreshing glass of water.
As some others have pointed out (some great ideas) it may be a better idea to reward alignment homogeneity instead of restricting settlement citizenship to one step. Allow buffs or other mechanical benefits to settlements whose alignment standard deviation is low. This represents a more focused group who works toward goals rather than a rambling group. You could apply this to race and religion as well and it would provide an interesting depth to the game.
You could take it further and provide a term and rating.
Alignment Focus Rating
Racial Focus Rating
Religion Focus Rating
At certain ratings benefits/buffs are received.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm agnostic and the friends that I have that are agnostic usually believe the bold part I made above. Though this is a moot point since Gods clearly exists in Golarion.
Supernatural beings of great power with the desire to meddle in the affairs of lesser beings exist in Golarion, clearly. If those beings are truly gods and worthy of worship is something has yet to be proven.
Of course, if you don't worship any gods, then Pharasma will feed your soul to Groetus to keep him away from the boneyard, so you are probably better off believing in something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The source was a wiki. That could have been written by anyone. Do we even have a source where Paizo uses the term incorrectly?
And you're some random guy on a forum. The article has a list of eight sources, which you would know if you bothered to go to the link instead of reflexively complaining that it has 'wiki' in the URL. The books referenced are Paizo products, and they are using the term correctly because it's their IP to define. 'Atheist' just means 'without god(s)' and in a setting where there is evidence for the existence of such things, that just indicates the lack of worship. It doesn't even address why someone doesn't worship them, it just says that they do not.
On Earth, claims of divine magic and such don't stand up to testing, so the term addresses belief.I think both definitions are quite clear: atheism is in fact a disbelief, not a lack of belief.
You just said that A is not A. Please review the 'Law of Identity' and the 'Law of Non-Contradiction'.
No, agnosticism addresses knowledge, atheism addresses belief. They are different things. Those who actively believe there are no gods also lack a belief in gods, and are therefore a subset of the wider group.
'Atheist' comes from from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos, “godless, without a god”). In the context of a world where there isn't credible evidence for god(s) that could indicate a lack of belief, but in a world like Golarion where there is evidence for their existence, then it only requires a lack of worship.
The Greek etymology you quote is not wrong, but it's not correct to apply it that way to Golarion. It means without gods be it through ignorance or choice to disbelieve. In Golarion that may be remotely possible, but dystheism or eutheism are far more likely.
And etymology, while fascinating, is no replacement for current definition.
Dystheism or eutheism are reasons why someone does not worship, and those described by those terms are a subset of a larger group. In the context of a world where divine powers are demonstrable, 'without god' only means lack of worship or having no patron(s). There may be some who don't think the gods are worthy of worship, but they are a subset of a wider group who don't worship for a variety of reasons.
On Earth, where there's a lack of credible, demonstrable evidence, atheism indicates a lack of belief. That is a current definition.
There have been times when it just meant that someone was outside of the dominant belief system, and even meant civil disobedience in times when a pharaoh or emperor claimed to be, or be descended from, a god. It's often been used as a slur by those who are implying a lack of ethics or morals, and it still gets used that way often enough today. Those who accept and use the term self-referentially are using it in the simplest, broadest sense. Those few who believe-in-a-lack also have a lack-of-belief, and are therefore a subset. Draw a Venn diagram and their circle would be completely enclosed by a larger circle of those who simply lack belief in god(s). If we need a term for active 'belief in the absence of god(s)', I suppose you could call that negatheism, and label that subset circle as such.
Definitions do shift, and there are colloquial and precise uses of many words. Consider the term 'gay' which just meant 'happy' or 'merry' in the Flintstones theme and 'Deck the Halls'. It then became a euphemism for homosexuality, then was used as a slur for the same, and is now being reclaimed by those who identify as homosexual but reject the idea that the identification is deserving of a slur. The modern use of the term 'atheist' in its simplest, broadest sense is similar.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just a thought but once mechanics have been tested and to a more final stage. An alignment/rep reset could be done for EE players.Other games can do talent point and soul point resets server wide.
This is a possibility to be considered. Go!! lol
That is a good suggestion, but "Some People" would cry! pick up their ball and go home. They would declare that EE amounted to nothing more than a murder simulator, and that they had been duped into thinking PFO would be that "special little snow flake" they hoped for.
I personally would rather have people understand that PFO is a harsh place, where if you don't travel its environment smartly, you will die and die often. My view us more in line with what the Devs have stated, in my opinion.
The River Kingdoms = Soft in morals, not soft in will, body or skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, if you don't worship any gods, then Pharasma will feed your soul to Groetus to keep him away from the boneyard, so you are probably better off believing in something.
If you love your fellow mortals and don't fear post-death nonexistence any more than you feared pre-birth nonexistence, then doing your small part to hold back entropy itself is a laudable final service.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people are objecting to the rule of being one step away in alignment to join a settlement, and giving reasons that I suspect are not the only reason they don't like it. Is the problem that the groups that have formed to start settlements will have to tell their members what alignments they can have ? So the problem isn't so much the one step rule but the disruption to what you have accomplished in forming groups. You don't want to lose anybody that has joined because of the new lack of alignment choices. That is understandable but we should not try to change core game mechanics that we haven't even play tested.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It will ultimately hurt LG, particularly Paladins, and Clerics most.
Imagine, there is only one LG settlement of any real power. It churns out the most highly skilled and equipped Paladins. Several evil alignment settlements grow tired of this self righteous scourge.
But, the Paladins are twice marked immortals. They can not be exterminated, but their settlement can. A concerted effort of several evil settlements could gimp every Paladin on the server with just one stroke.
That is the inherent weakness of the 1-step alignment. There will be too few places for the corner alignments (except for LE) to go to.
Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil are special cases. Lawful Evil is popular and organized in the meta game. Chaotic Evil is expecting to be crappy on an individual basis, but rely on shear numbers to spread their chaos. Chaotic Evils may also find Neutral Evil settlements to call their home.
Chaotic Good, will probably find a home in NG settlements, without too much trouble.
Which brings me to my conclusion that Lawful Good might be the most hurt by the 1-step. Yes, Lawful Good could find a home in a Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral settlement, but there are three issues with that:
1. In a Neutral Good settlement, LG would have to tolerate Chaotic Goods.
2. In Lawful Neutral settlements, LG would have to tolerate LE.
3. I've rarely known LGs to accept not being at the pinnacle of a society, and in either above case they would be secondary.
For a bit of reductio ad absurdum, I think we can all agree that a Paladin and a Necromancer shouldn't be cooperating to build a stronghold, and that if the game mechanics didn't prevent this scenario, players would do it. LE and CG are at least as incompatible as the paladin and the necromancer. NE and NG are hard to imagine together as well.. where would you draw the line if not at the one-step difference?
Forgive the late response to this....just catching up after seeing the game mentioned in lotro forums
Isnt this argument totally invalid I would assume from what I have picked up so far a lawful neutral settlement would be able to have LG citizens who are paladins and LE citizens who are necromancers.
Now it may be lack of understanding of the Pathfinder system (maybe necromancers can't be LE for example) but doesn't the above sort of negate this particular argument for why one step is necessary
Aha a chance to find out if I have understood it by explaining it
one step I believe is a move of one position along either the Law to chaos axis or a move of one position along the good to evil axis.
To find the number of steps add up all the individual steps along each of the axis
therefore
Lawful Good to neutral good is one step because it is a change of one position along the law chaos axis
Lawful good to Chaotic good is two steps as it is a move of two steps along the law chaos axis
Lawful good to True neutral is two steps because it is one step along the law chaos axis and one step along the good evil axis
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's x & y adjacent only. Not diagonal. Hence (edit) NN can't 1-step with LG.
LG - LN - LE
NG - NN - NE
CG - CN - CE
eg NN can go n,s,e,w only. (middle case)
LG can go NG or LG only. etc. (corner case)
CN can go CG, CE or NN only (side case)
@Steelwing
Greetings and welcome to the forums. You may find the so-called "Nihimonicon" a useful reference for various things. I'm not very familiar with pathfinder so I'm sure another can answer your questions more precisely if the above is inaccurate or requires more elaboration.
Edit: Yup I think you've got it.
Edit: typo! Thanks Steelwing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can someone link an alignment chart that shows the one step concept, please ?
Here's the wiki page for the CG deity Desna. Scroll down a bit and on the right side you'll see an alignment matrix with three boxes shaded. Those are the allowed alignments for Desnan clerics who, like all clerics, must be within one step of their deity's alignment (in her case, CG). Note that a diagonal move (in Desna's case, from CG to N) counts as two steps.
It's x & y adjacent only. Not diagonal. Hence LN can't 1-step with LG.
LG - LN - LE
NG - NN - NE
CG - CN - CEeg NN can go n,s,e,w only. (middle case)
LG can go NG or LG only. etc. (corner case)
CN can go CG, CE or NN only (side case)
@Steelwing
Greetings and welcome to the forums. You may find the so-called "Nihimonicon" a useful reference for various things. I'm not very familiar with pathfinder so I'm sure another can answer your questions more precisely if the above is inaccurate or requires more elaboration.
Edit: Yup I think you've got it.
Sorry you say LG can't allow LN? but that seems to me to be only one step Good to neutral while keeping the Law chaos axis static in position.
Did you perhaps mean to type NN?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lawful Good is one step from Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good
Neutral Good is one step from Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, and True Neutral
Chaotic Good is one step from Neutral Good and Chaotic Neutral
Lawful Neutral is one step from Lawful Good, True Neutral, and Lawful Evil
True Neutral is one step from Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, and Neutral Evil
Chaotic Neutral is one step from Chaotic Good, True Neutral, and Chaotic Evil
Lawful Evil is one step from Lawful Neutral and Neutral Evil
Neutral Evil is one step from Lawful Evil, True Neutral, and Chaotic Evil
Chaotic Evil is one step from Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some people are objecting to the rule of being one step away in alignment to join a settlement, and giving reasons that I suspect are not the only reason they don't like it. Is the problem that the groups that have formed to start settlements will have to tell their members what alignments they can have ? So the problem isn't so much the one step rule but the disruption to what you have accomplished in forming groups. You don't want to lose anybody that has joined because of the new lack of alignment choices. That is understandable but we should not try to change core game mechanics that we haven't even play tested.
I don't agree with all of the actions of my nation or even my city, but somehow I manage to live with those much different from myself without being a criminal or feeling a need to harm people. I think a settlement should be able to chose to have wider or narrower bounds of acceptance.
The corruption and unrest mechanics already provide a reason to be somewhat narrow, as a settlement which wants the benefits of being on the Lawful and Good ends of the spectra is probably hurting itself by allowing members that are CE, CN, or NE regardless of the coin they bring to buy training in non-aligned skills. Allowing those diametrically opposed means inviting trouble which degrades the development index.
This whole 'determine alignment first, then see who that allows' idea seems to run counter to the 'act as you wish and see what alignment that produces' way personal alignments function. Unless you're running an inquisition to magically monitor the possibly-changing alignments of every citizen on a regular basis, how are you to know who's within one step anyway? Why not pattern the settlement alignment system after the personal one, with a core that describes your intent and an active that describes your results?
The 'within one step' rule for cleric alignments works similar to the way movement on a miniatures battlemat does. Diagonals count as 1.5, not just 1. They differ in the the final total though, since movement rounds down any .5 remainder but the alignment grid rounds up.
Something weird... say a LE settlement decides paladins are illegal in their territory. Would a paladin then lose Lawful points by entering to pursue a criminal?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's really starting to sound like the PFO theme song might be "I've Been Workin' on the Railroad". I mean, who would want to build a diverse, complex, and quirky world when we can just get down to the business of making a new Murdersim Online?
Unfortunately, there are options and complexities that work very well in a world created by a single person (a novel) or a small group (a campaign setting) and designed to accommodate 5-10 main characters or PCs that would be terrible design choices in a world created to accommodate thousands of PCs that all think they are the main character.
Obviously I dislike the system for the way it affects Pax and some of the things we've been workin on (a good aligned group - and how/why they fit into the whole). I pretty much assumed that went without saying. ;)
That's not the majority reason for me. I dislike the concept of alignment as a whole. I prefer realism within the boundaries of the setting. I don't like the current handcuffs of the proposed alignment system for any group. If it goes in as it is, so be it. I'll either live with it or not; doesn't much matter in the grand scheme, though I'd much rather have a system that works for everyone. I put forth a problem then thought about it and proposed a solution.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some people are objecting to the rule of being one step away in alignment to join a settlement, and giving reasons that I suspect are not the only reason they don't like it. Is the problem that the groups that have formed to start settlements will have to tell their members what alignments they can have ? So the problem isn't so much the one step rule but the disruption to what you have accomplished in forming groups. You don't want to lose anybody that has joined because of the new lack of alignment choices. That is understandable but we should not try to change core game mechanics that we haven't even play tested.I don't agree with all of the actions of my nation or even my city, but somehow I manage to live with those much different from myself without being a criminal or feeling a need to harm people. I think a settlement should be able to chose to have wider or narrower bounds of acceptance.
The corruption and unrest mechanics already provide a reason to be somewhat narrow, as a settlement which wants the benefits of being on the Lawful and Good ends of the spectra is probably hurting itself by allowing members that are CE, CN, or NE regardless of the coin they bring to buy training in non-aligned skills. Allowing those diametrically opposed means inviting trouble which degrades the development index.
This whole "determine alignment first, then see who that allows' idea runs counter to the 'act as you wish and see what alignment that produces' idea of personal alignments. Unless you're running an inquisition to magically monitor the possibly-changing alignments of every citizen, how are you to know who's within one step anyway? Why not pattern the settlement alignment system after the personal one, with a core that describes your intent and an active that describes your results?
Perhaps we need some more game lore for it to feel right, settlements could be built at the command of a god. The gods are running things and the settlement starts with the core alignment of the god , so each settlement is based on a deity or deities choice that then gives you your settlement alignment. That sounds better than , a bunch of guys were standing around in the woods and said "hey lets build a lawful neutral settlement", that is just silly to think it would happen that way. Wouldn't it be better to have an alignment restriction based on, settlements are founded by deity, instead of people saying "we want a chaotic evil town , lets go build one!" So it is the settlements 'god founder' that determines alignment ,or else you hit the road at the gods command .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isnt this argument totally invalid I would assume from what I have picked up so far a lawful neutral settlement would be able to have LG citizens who are paladins and LE citizens who are necromancers.
If the one-step system allows Paladins and Necromancers to join forces in creating a settlement, I would then argue that we need a more restrictive system, not a less restrictive one.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than arbitrary limits on membership, would it make sense for settlements to not provide most benefits to characters of the wrong alignment? Generic training might be possible for all characters, but alignment-restricted training and abilities would only be possible from appropriately aligned settlements to appropriately-aligned characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the issue you see in most of these games that I would like to avoid in PFO is groups that identify themselves by character race, alignment, etc. don't really exist unless you are forced into them by the game.
There will be at least one Dwarf only company in PFO, and if we can swing a settlement at some point, we plan to give it a shot.
Although, I'm kind of liking the "longing for a homeland" vibe more than actually achieving it, because running a settlement sounds like a ton of work.
Isnt this argument totally invalid I would assume from what I have picked up so far a lawful neutral settlement would be able to have LG citizens who are paladins and LE citizens who are necromancers.If the one-step system allows Paladins and Necromancers to join forces in creating a settlement, I would then argue that we need a more restrictive system, not a less restrictive one.
Unless there is a reason that necromancers can't be LE (and there may well be I am not familiar with Pathfinder) then currently a LN settlement will allow both
If you want a more restrictive system then I presume you want single alignment settlements and that to my mind comes with huge problems. For example I am sort of scouting out the game after seeing it mentioned on the lotro forums. If I like what I see I will go back to my group that I play with in other games (mainly Eve) and recommend we look at it.
The one step alignment system already has me wavering due to the fact I know the people I play with and there is going to be no one settlement that covers all the classes people will want to play and I am going to have to persuade people that they should give up their preferences as it is (not playing as part of a single group frankly will not be considered an option). Restricting it even further is going to make the game an even harder sell than it currently is and that is going to be a damn hard sell believe me
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Doesn't reputation and alignment (or one or the other) integrate into:
- Skill-training (mutually exclusive, temporal access, cost etc)
- Settlement membership/access
- Settlement specific building options
- Breaking blob player-organizations up?
- Moderating pvp frequency and discretion (and impacting that in a way that scales with player groups)
- Creating social consequences as well as power consequences (and likely economical cost consequences) for, in particular, pvp actions in combination with any of the above?
Etc.
I think the interconnections with other systems in the game are what give Reputation/Alignment the chance to influence choices for individuals and groups.
So the questions:
a) Is it a good idea?
b) Is it possible to implement?
c) How will it affect the game overall?
d) Hence will it warrant the design and investment to make the game more enjoyable than otherwise?
I think a) holds so far. I think b) will find out more info in EE. I think c) is very important to deter griefers in the strongest way possible (as well as disrupt "BigTown" dominating). d) time will tell but it's interesting for the pathfinder ip and interesting that alternative systems in games have not developed these systems (or intended to) to nearly the extent that PFO intends (eg factions, flags, ffa groups... plus?).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless there is a reason that necromancers can't be LE (and there may well be I am not familiar with Pathfinder) then currently a LN settlement will allow bothIf you want a more restrictive system then I presume you want single alignment settlements and that to my mind comes with huge problems. For example I am sort of scouting out the game after seeing it mentioned on the lotro forums. If I like what I see I will go back to my group that I play with in other games (mainly Eve) and recommend we look at it.
The one step alignment system already has me wavering due to the fact I know the people I play with and there is going to be no one settlement that covers all the classes people will want to play and I am going to have to persuade people that they should give up their preferences as it is (not playing as part of a single group frankly will not be considered an option). Restricting it even further is going to make the game an even harder sell than it currently is and that is going to be a damn hard sell believe me
Will somebody, anybody please , in this thread answer me how this is different from choosing a faction in any other PvP focused MMo? You get to choose your spot on 1/3 or 4/9 of a grid instead of having to pick one of 2 or 3 hard factions. Kinda similar to Fallen Earth where you pick 1 of 6 on the wheel and the entire group has to be within 1 of it.
Unless there is a reason that necromancers can't be LE (and there may well be I am not familiar with Pathfinder) then currently a LN settlement will allow bothIf you want a more restrictive system then I presume you want single alignment settlements and that to my mind comes with huge problems. For example I am sort of scouting out the game after seeing it mentioned on the lotro forums. If I like what I see I will go back to my group that I play with in other games (mainly Eve) and recommend we look at it.
The one step alignment system already has me wavering due to the fact I know the people I play with and there is going to be no one settlement that covers all the classes people will want to play and I am going to have to persuade people that they should give up their preferences as it is (not playing as part of a single group frankly will not be considered an option). Restricting it even further is going to make the game an even harder sell than it currently is and that is going to be a damn hard sell believe me
Will somebody, anybody please , in this thread answer me how this is different from choosing a faction in any other PvP focused MMo? You get to choose your spot on 1/3 or 4/9 of a grid instead of having to pick one of 2 or 3 hard factions. Kinda similar to Fallen Earth where you pick 1 of 6 on the wheel and the entire group has to be within 1 of it.
Choosing a faction in most MMO's does not limit your class choices basically, even SWTOR which has different classes for different sides ensures they are pretty much mirror classes in play style.
This is wholly different from having to tell someone sorry you cant be a Paladin/barbarian/rogue/assassin/ etc dependent on alignment. These are choices with a real impact on game play that choosing a faction in most mmo's does not present. In most mmo's faction is merely background colour not game changing.
Even WOW which originally had classes available to a single faction has revisited this decision and erased it (shaman and paladin).
You may consider it not an issue but frankly what you consider an issue isn't relevant to other people who will be looking at this and to a proportion of people this will be a very real issue and a huge sticking point
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless there is a reason that necromancers can't be LE (and there may well be I am not familiar with Pathfinder) then currently a LN settlement will allow bothIf you want a more restrictive system then I presume you want single alignment settlements and that to my mind comes with huge problems. For example I am sort of scouting out the game after seeing it mentioned on the lotro forums. If I like what I see I will go back to my group that I play with in other games (mainly Eve) and recommend we look at it.
The one step alignment system already has me wavering due to the fact I know the people I play with and there is going to be no one settlement that covers all the classes people will want to play and I am going to have to persuade people that they should give up their preferences as it is (not playing as part of a single group frankly will not be considered an option). Restricting it even further is going to make the game an even harder sell than it currently is and that is going to be a damn hard sell believe me
Will somebody, anybody please , in this thread answer me how this is different from choosing a faction in any other PvP focused MMo? You get to choose your spot on 1/3 or 4/9 of a grid instead of having to pick one of 2 or 3 hard factions. Kinda similar to Fallen Earth where you pick 1 of 6 on the wheel and the entire group has to be within 1 of it.
Can't say it is much different. It has been done many times.
I don't think it would be too bad to leave the choice of a perfectly efficient settlement vs. one that takes a handicap (so friends can play together more easily) to the players, would necessarily be a bad thing either. If it was done right. Opportunity cost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rather than arbitrary limits on membership, would it make sense for settlements to not provide most benefits to characters of the wrong alignment? Generic training might be possible for all characters, but alignment-restricted training and abilities would only be possible from appropriately aligned settlements to appropriately-aligned characters.
This would happen naturally, and without game mechanics.
If a settlement was 50% LN, 25% LG and 25 % CG. The settlement leaders would cater to the LN first and mostly. Followed secondly by the LG, because they at least share the Lawful axis. Then they would cater to the CG third, for their chaotic training, but equally for good training compared to neutral, because they both represent 50% of the communities need.
Settlement managers are forced to make meaningful decisions on what to build, when to build it, and at what tier to ultimately build it up to. They won't be able to easily ignore the needs of their minority, but they would certainly put them last.
No need for hand holding, let the managers manage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isnt this argument totally invalid I would assume from what I have picked up so far a lawful neutral settlement would be able to have LG citizens who are paladins and LE citizens who are necromancers.If the one-step system allows Paladins and Necromancers to join forces in creating a settlement, I would then argue that we need a more restrictive system, not a less restrictive one.Unless there is a reason that necromancers can't be LE (and there may well be I am not familiar with Pathfinder) then currently a LN settlement will allow both
If you want a more restrictive system then I presume you want single alignment settlements and that to my mind comes with huge problems. For example I am sort of scouting out the game after seeing it mentioned on the lotro forums. If I like what I see I will go back to my group that I play with in other games (mainly Eve) and recommend we look at it.
The one step alignment system already has me wavering due to the fact I know the people I play with and there is going to be no one settlement that covers all the classes people will want to play and I am going to have to persuade people that they should give up their preferences as it is (not playing as part of a single group frankly will not be considered an option). Restricting it even further is going to make the game an even harder sell than it currently is and that is going to be a damn hard sell believe me
We will find a work around for the alignment system. I wouldnt worry about that too much...
A kingdom has 4 settlements, each settlement has an alignment base
LN
CN
NG
NE
Everyone will fit into the kingdom just fine... Pax as an example will have everyone in their Kingdom with no problems, that is unless the settlements have to be one step away from the kingdom... Then they system is broken from the start.
There is no reason to restrict people from gaming with who they want in the way they wish.
So long as Settlements are not one step restricted from Kingdoms then we have nothing to worry about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Choosing a faction in most MMO's does not limit your class choices basically, even SWTOR which has different classes for different sides ensures they are pretty much mirror classes in play style.This is wholly different from having to tell someone sorry you cant be a Paladin/barbarian/rogue/assassin/ etc dependent on alignment. These are choices with a real impact on game play that choosing a faction in most mmo's does not present. In most mmo's faction is merely background colour not game changing.
Even WOW which originally had classes available to a single faction has...
There is no point in the grid where a barbarian can't get access. A Barb can be NG for instance. Paladins, as usual, are an exception and a special case in many ways. As are Assassins. Anybody who plays Pathfinder paladin or sin should be used to that by now.
I do agree that there should be inter-settlement training. But the alignmment faction warfare is the basic design of the game.
Choosing a faction in most MMO's does not limit your class choices basically, even SWTOR which has different classes for different sides ensures they are pretty much mirror classes in play style.This is wholly different from having to tell someone sorry you cant be a Paladin/barbarian/rogue/assassin/ etc dependent on alignment. These are choices with a real impact on game play that choosing a faction in most mmo's does not present. In most mmo's faction is merely background colour not game changing.
Even WOW which originally had classes available to a single faction has...
There is no point in the grid where a barbarian can't get access. A Barb can be NG for instance. Paladins, as usual, are an exception and a special case in many ways. As are Assassins. Anybody who plays Pathfinder paladin or sin should be used to that by now.
I do agree that there should be inter-settlement training. But the alignmment faction warfare is the basic design of the game.
I did point out I wasnt familiar with the pathfinder system the fact that some classes I cited were wrong does not change the point. Settlement alignement and the one step rule effectively cuts a groups players off from certain class choices thus changing the game play available.
Choosing a faction in most other major MMO's is mere background flavour.
As to your other point "As are Assassins. Anybody who plays Pathfinder paladin or sin should be used to that by now" frankly this is a pretty ridiculous point. The vast majority of players will not be Pathfinder TT players. They will come from EVE,Lotro,WOW,SWTOR,SWG and like me have no real knowledge or concern about pathfinder or its TT ruleset. They come looking because it is meant to be a fantasy based sandbox
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There will be no roles (there are no classes) in EE, or likely at the start of OE, that have alignment restrictions.
There might be some abilities that have alignment restrictions, such as (made up examples here) Lay on Hands being LG only, or Assassination being Evil only.
But that is the whole point of an alignment system. Gain access to some abilities, comes at a cost of others.
A Character has to choose between the tradeoffs of Heavy armor vs Light armor.
Likewise, a Settlement has to choose between the tradeoffs of Good alignment vs Evil alignment.
We don't argue that a Character should be able to cherry pick the physical resistance of Heavy armor along with the magical resistance of light, why should a Settlement be able to have it both ways on alignment?
Alignment restrictions on Settlements are a game-mechanics method of reflecting the reality that in non-artifical social environments, altrustic friendly merchants simply don't form partnerships with anarchist murderers.