Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
When Paizo did the RPG superstar competition and asked the 32(or 16? I don't recall exactly) people who made the cattle-call to design an archetype/variant of any class for the River Kingdoms, two or three of them made paladins with alternate alignment restrictions.
Don't assume that all the Paladin Role features will require LG alignment when the Paladin Role becomes available.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well thats the thing a paladin in a LN settlement wont have access to the same things as easy as a paladin in a LG settlement. However he will have different advantages than the other paladin. To get his training perhaps he needs to interact with the LG settlement and get to the point where he can buy training from them. I see that as positive as it enforces one of the key goals of PfO; Player interactions.
What will his advantages be though? More than likely he will have better access to trade in general. A LN settlement is much much more likely to allow all people in to trade, even those CE folks. The second is that he will have access to a wider range of options from a metagame stand point.
A LN settlement could have a LE company, that LE company could comprise of nothing but assassins who are used to 1) discourage some competition to the LN settlement and 2) Allow the neutral and good members of the settlement to settle scores without getting their hands dirty 3) access to possibly other evil only (undead/demonic) benefits. So if i was a LG paladin in an LG settlement my rep would probably take a huge hit if it was known that I was sending assassins against people i didnt like. That reputation hit will heavily affect someone in a LG settlement as LG settlements will probably have high reputation requirements. The paladin in the LN settlement doesnt have that problem since by and far anyone in his settlement could have made that contract, and if he is called out and takes a rep it it wont hurt as bad since a LN settlement probably has lower rep requirements due to allowing free trade.
its a trade off between what kind of benefits the player wants. but remember that thus far there are only really two classes with heavy alignment restrictions. That is the paladin which will require high (+7000) alignment in order to use some abilities, and the cleric which is required to be in 1 step of their god. Barbarian and Monk each have alignment restrictions but as far as we know they dont have to maintain a high alignment score to use their abilities they just need to avoid going lawful/chaotic.
So you want to be a paladin and your buddy wants to be a necromancer. DO IT. Just make your company LN. Thats all you have to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When Paizo did the RPG superstar competition and asked the 32(or 16? I don't recall exactly) people who made the cattle-call to design an archetype/variant of any class for the River Kingdoms, two or three of them made paladins with alternate alignment restrictions.
Don't assume that all the Paladin Role features will require LG alignment when the Paladin Role becomes available.
My personal opinion on paladins are as follows. I think the traditional paladin is too restrictive. however thats a legacy from when being a paladin meant you were rather powerful (due to the ability score requirements and such) and from the traditional backstory of them. However i HOPE that in PfO paladins end up being champions of their deity.
So a paladin who follows a LG god has to maintain a LG alignment and must maintain +7000 in the appropriate alignments. For a paladin following a CE god they must maintain a CE alignment with +-7000 in the alignments. Thier smite/detect/heal abilities should be based off of that.
If a paladin falls (does not maintain their alignment) they cannot just train smite evil and switch that out, they would need to perform an atonement before they could access paladin abilities again.
however if GW does that? no idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have always considered Paladins to be paragons of their God, rather than of Good and Lawfulness. Similarly, I always thought the concept of an anti-Paladin was stupid. So I would be perfectly fine if Paladins have to keep their alignment within the range of their chosen God rather than Good and Lawful.
But that runs counter to the stance taken by D&D 3E and, in turn, Pathfinder. So I doubt that that is what we will get.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... 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.
Bingo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Reputation and Alignment system seems to be shaping up nicely. Both of these systems, especially Alignment, are some of the main reasons why I supported and continue to support the project.
I also appreciate the folks that can get into the weeds with the details, and help make the mechanics stronger. I am not really one of those people, and so it is much appreciated!
It should be noted that there's nothing stopping you from PLAYING the game with a diverse group of alignments. Form an ad hoc party and go have fun.
Apart from the game is a game that revolves around settlement warfare and territorial domination. Can't play that as a diverse group of alignments. Without that the rest of the game is hardly worth playing frankly
*Please note the final sentence relates to my opinion and may differ for others
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have as not talked to my Eve group about the game apart from the fact I am looking at it as a prospective new game and will report back when I have a feel for it. Likewise other members are looking at other games for the same reason.When I feel I have a good handle on how the game will be then we will chat and discuss. I suspect that most of the groups really focussed on a Pathfinder mmo are already here and now it is groups like mine that having played EvE for a number of years are looking for new pastures that they need to start enticing in. GW has the problem of course that there are many games in the pipeline that we(groups like mine) can go to.
What you are getting here is a lot of opinions. Read the blog, starting at the bottom December 11 2011. Two years of presentation, element by element of the development group. I can not tell what you think you won't get.
There are several level of groupings and you may need to read about that also in that blog. Below Kingdoms, Settlements, Venture Companies there are still the adventure groups (parties) which are just a loose group of players adventuring (PvE) together. There are no alignment or rep restrictions on who adventures together. Yes, per the DnD or PfO culture, a Paladin would be unlikely to associate with assassins and necromancers. If you want to play out of character, that is your option. The formal structures make it awkward. But informal groups have no such restriction.
GW is not saying you can't play. They are saying here is the set of rules (well not yet); here is the structure of what is being built, how the charter gains skill, feats, abilities, and advances the roles to be played.
I have as not talked to my Eve group about the game apart from the fact I am looking at it as a prospective new game and will report back when I have a feel for it. Likewise other members are looking at other games for the same reason.When I feel I have a good handle on how the game will be then we will chat and discuss. I suspect that most of the groups really focussed on a Pathfinder mmo are already here and now it is groups like mine that having played EvE for a number of years are looking for new pastures that they need to start enticing in. GW has the problem of course that there are many games in the pipeline that we(groups like mine) can go to.
What you are getting here is a lot of opinions. Read the blog, starting at the bottom December 11 2011. Two years of presentation, element by element of the development group. I can not tell what you think you won't get.
There are several level of groupings and you may need to read about that also in that blog. Below Kingdoms, Settlements, Venture Companies there are still the adventure groups (parties) which are just a loose group of players adventuring (PvE) together. There are no alignment or rep restrictions on who adventures together. Yes, per the DnD or PfO culture, a Paladin would be unlikely to associate with assassins and necromancers. If you want to play out of character, that is your option. The formal structures make it awkward. But informal groups have no such restriction.
GW is not saying you can't play. They are saying here is the set of rules (well not yet); here is the structure of what is being built, how the charter gains skill, feats, abilities, and advances the roles to be played.
Once again I will reiterate. I have NOT asked them to change it merely observed that it will make it more difficult to persuade all members of the group that we should come play the game
Why does everyone have such a problem with the statement? Where is the contentiousness it is nothing but a simple statement of fact for my group.
If I had come in demanding it be changed I could understand the annoyance but I have not done so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Once again I will reiterate. I have NOT asked them to change it merely observed that it will make it more difficult to persuade all members of the group that we should come play the game
Why does everyone have such a problem with the statement?............Maybe you don't realize that you have said it like 8 times in different posts so a lot of people will think you want to argue about it, maybe you do , I don't know . If you don't want to argue about something you shouldn't keep repeating it over and over after someone differs with you, I mean it looks like you are asking for help with a problem but if nothing anyone says matters then we are just bugging you with a response to the issue. No one is trying to annoy you as I see it , just help with what looks like a problem you have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't see exactly what your issue is. A LN settlement can contain every known character role, although bandits and maybe barbarians may have a bit of trouble staying TN instead of CN. Why would your group not be okay with just joining/creating a LN settlement?
Once again I will reiterate. I have NOT asked them to change it merely observed that it will make it more difficult to persuade all members of the group that we should come play the game
Why does everyone have such a problem with the statement?............
Maybe you don't realize that you have said it like 8 times in different posts so a lot of people will think you want to argue about it, maybe you do , I don't know . If you don't want to argue about something you shouldn't keep repeating it over and over after someone differs with you, I mean it looks like you are asking for help with a problem but if nothing anyone says matters then we are just bugging you with a response to the issue. No one is trying to annoy you as I see it , just help with what looks like a problem you have.
And most of those posts have been replying to people who have made assertions that are patently untrue such as the one claiming it was no different to selecting faction in wow. Indeed my first mention of this even was in response to someone saying that it wasn't a tight enough restriction after I pointed out there reason for liking the system didn't actually make sense as it would still be allowed.
I also stated pretty clearly about 4 posts ago that I wasnt asking for it to be changed and that if we played it would be within whatever restrictions the game had and that it may be a problem in getting people to look at the game. Nowhere in that statement did I ask for solutions I made a statement. If people insist on banging on about it yes I am going to answer.
@Shane I don't believe LN does allow for all skills from my understanding of the blogs, there were certainly skills that it was said were chaotic in nature therefore I assume you would need a settlement that allows chaotics to train them in. Though naturally that may have changed I guess. Frankly the blogs are a mess and it is often difficult to work out which parts are still relevant, which have been superseded and which have been modified by further development comment on the forums. Especially for someone who has come along at this point. There is a huge amount of material to process on these forums
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's a good point; your settlement can't train the bandits. barbarians, etc. if it's LN. Still, they can be a part of the settlement as long as their alignment stays away from the Chaotic side. They'd just have to take measures to counteract the chaotic shifts so that they end up somewhere in the middle.
The training bit would probably be too big a problem for anyone trying to fit a character type that needs a chaotic settlement for training. In light of that I do agree that it is a harder game to accommodate absolutely everyone in. If you play with a group that wants very different things out of the game, then it may not be the right game. Hard to say anything more concrete than that without specifics, both in game design and in your group's interests.
The blog may be hard to understand after the fact. It's the product of many individual snapshots during development, and you never get the entire big picture of the current plan because they can't include that much every blog post. However, please realize that nothing said in the development blogs is truly final (despite how it's treated as holy word by some), and what you should really take from it is the intentions instead of the specifics. Just the fact that GW has such a blog should already tell you how dedicated they are to keeping us in the loop. Practically since they began designing the game they've told us what's up; they've thrown out ideas, listened to feedback, adjusted their goals and expectations, and kept us entertained. They care about their player base, and they show it.
Edit: Thanks for taking the time to check out the game; it's still quite a ways away, so don't make any definite decisions about loving or hating it yet. :) (That last bit not necessarily directed only to Steelwing)
The blog may be hard to understand after the fact. It's the product of many individual snapshots during development, and you never get the entire big picture of the current plan because they can't include that much every blog post. However, please realize that nothing said in the development blogs is truly final (despite how it's treated as holy word by some), and what you should really take from it is the intentions instead of the specifics. Just the fact that GW has such a blog should already tell you how dedicated they are to keeping us in the loop. Practically since they began designing the game they've told us what's up; they've thrown out ideas, listened to feedback, adjusted their goals and expectations, and kept us entertained. They care about their player base, and they show it.
Edit: Thanks for taking the time to check out the game; it's still quite a ways away, so don't make any definite decisions about loving or hating it yet. :) (That last bit not necessarily directed only to Steelwing)
As I said I am not making any hasty decisions. If I decide its a game the group might enjoy I will take it back and try to sell them on it whatever the restrictions. I am in no hurry because I have till well into EE to make up my mind as I know the spartan game they seem to be implying for the majority of EE would make most of my group go "WTH is this you dragged us into".
Before anyone says yes I know all about training and no we wouldn't regard it as a problem because we know from Eve experience that the behind the curve theory is largely a myth that is mostly bandied about by people who want to excuse their failure and can be easily overcome by a group who plays with their brains
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before anyone says yes I know all about training and no we wouldn't regard it as a problem because we know from Eve experience that the behind the curve theory is largely a myth that is mostly bandied about by people who want to excuse their failure and can be easily overcome by a group who plays with their brains
Well said :) PFO in EE will be a hard sell to people that are not strongly interested in it - even then waiting for more features may appeal to people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have always considered Paladins to be paragons of their God, rather than of Good and Lawfulness. Similarly, I always thought the concept of an anti-Paladin was stupid. So I would be perfectly fine if Paladins have to keep their alignment within the range of their chosen God rather than Good and Lawful.But that runs counter to the stance taken by D&D 3E and, in turn, Pathfinder. So I doubt that that is what we will get.
The wiki entry on the original word/usage is interesing of Paladin
The paladins, sometimes known as the Twelve Peers, were the foremost warriors of Charlemagne's court, according to the literary cycle known as the Matter of France. They first appear in the early chansons de geste such as The Song of Roland, where they represent Christian valor against the Saracen hordes
[...]
Etymology:
The recorded instance of the word paladin in the English language dates to 1592, in a poem written by Samuel Daniel. It entered English through the Middle French word paladin, which itself derived from the Latin palatimus. All these words for Charlemagne's Twelve Peers descend ultimately from the Latin palatinus, most likely through the Old French palatin. The Latin palatinus referred to an official of the Roman Emperor connected to the imperial palace on the Palatine Hill; over time this word came to refer to other high-level officials in the imperial, majestic and royal courts. The word palatine, used in various European countries in the medieval and modern eras, has the same derivation.
By extension "paladin" has come to refer to any chivalrous hero such as King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table.
History:
The paladins figure into many chansons de geste and other tales associated with Charlemagne. In the above-mentioned Fierabras, they retrieve holy relics stolen from Rome by the Saracen giant Fierabras and (in some versions) convert him to Christianity and recruit him to their ranks. In Le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne they accompany their king on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Constantinople in order to outdo the Byzantine Emperor Hugo. However, their greatest moments come in The Song of Roland, which depicts their defense of Charlemagne's army against the Saracens of Al-Andalus, and their deaths at the Battle of Roncevaux Pass due to the treachery of Ganelon.
If this was the original source material the salient features could be more or less suggested:
- Knights in High Office
- Acting according to noble state or "holy"* sanctioned decree
- Connections to the concepts of "Chivalry" (analogous perhaps to Bushido?)
- Foremost Warriors of a "court/imperial structure".
*depending upon your viewpoint naturally
Sage Warriors might be a good "interpretation" of Paladin possibly? Or "Protectors of the state's head = knowledge"?
Well said :) PFO in EE will be a hard sell to people that are not strongly interested in it - even then waiting for more features may appeal to people.
Before anyone says yes I know all about training and no we wouldn't regard it as a problem because we know from Eve experience that the behind the curve theory is largely a myth that is mostly bandied about by people who want to excuse their failure and can be easily overcome by a group who plays with their brains
The problem being that the funding for those new features will rely on the profit generated from EE. I've been thinking about this recently, and I'm starting to feel like PFO will be a dead-end, given their budget...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem being that the funding for those new features will rely on the profit generated from EE. I've been thinking about this recently, and I'm starting to feel like PFO will be a dead-end, given their budget...Well said :) PFO in EE will be a hard sell to people that are not strongly interested in it - even then waiting for more features may appeal to people.
Before anyone says yes I know all about training and no we wouldn't regard it as a problem because we know from Eve experience that the behind the curve theory is largely a myth that is mostly bandied about by people who want to excuse their failure and can be easily overcome by a group who plays with their brains
EVE launched for less, something like 4m€ iirc. Staying small but slightly profitable should be fine. It just takes longer to get those features. But during that time it might be fun crowdforging things in and that could make the game better for the players who play it instead of the usual catering to the most players possibly approach of design and development (ugh!).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem being that the funding for those new features will rely on the profit generated from EE. I've been thinking about this recently, and I'm starting to feel like PFO will be a dead-end, given their budget...
The game was fully funded through Open Enrollment before the kickstarter , the 1 million raised from Kickstarter was to increase the speed of development.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
im not too worried about PfO. My feeling is that GW has a financial plan and its not just something they wrote on a napkin. The thing that encourages me mostly is that GW has a realistic view on their growth. they know they arnt going to start with 1m+ subs and keep a bunch of those. They are looking at EVE which started with not a large amount of subs and slowly grew.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this was the original source material the salient features could be more or less suggested:
- Knights in High Office
- Acting according to noble state or "holy"* sanctioned decree
- Connections to the concepts of "Chivalry" (analogous perhaps to Bushido?)
- Foremost Warriors of a "court/imperial structure".*depending upon your viewpoint naturally
Sage Warriors might be a good "interpretation" of Paladin possibly? Or "Protectors of the state's head = knowledge"?
Not that this has anything to do with how PFO should portray paladins, but I have a literary interest in the three matters/heroic literature in general.
The Deeds of the King are focused primarily on Charlemagne's duty as chamion of Christendom, and the role of the paladins in enforcing that. In both historical context and literary content, the foremost feature of the paladins is their Christian zeal and opposition to paganism:
Ready they make hauberks Sarrazinese,
That folded are, the greater part, in three;
And they lace on good helms Sarragucese;
Gird on their swords of tried steel Viennese;
Fine shields they have, and spears Valentinese,
And white, blue, red, their ensigns take the breeze,
They've left their mules behind, and their palfreys,
Their chargers mount, and canter knee by knee.
Fair shines the sun, the day is bright and clear,
Light bums again from all their polished gear.
A thousand horns they sound, more proud to seem;
Great is the noise, the Franks its echo hear.
Says Oliver: "Companion, I believe,
Sarrazins now in battle must we meet."
Answers Rollanz :"God grant us then the fee!
For our King's sake well must we quit us here;
Man for his lord should suffer great disease,
Most bitter cold endure, and burning heat,
His hair and skin should offer up at need.
Now must we each lay on most hardily,
So evil songs neer sung of us shall be.
Pagans are wrong: Christians are right indeed.
Evil example will never come of me."
Roland's great fault is in his eagerness to fight the Saracens and to do so without troubling his King leads to the death of many Franks (and his own)--ole Oliver was pretty "wroth" at him for that.
As the stories are developed further, and expanded on by Italian writers (e.g. Orlando Furioso), more fantastic elements are added, but the defining characteristic of the paladins is their Christian zeal--they are described as holy, Christian, under Heaven's protection, and so on. Even when they stray in duty, the narrative regularly circles back to matters of faith. When Orlando (Roland) is made with love for a pagan princess, his motives can be wrong, but still lead to Christian good:
"Orlando muttered with his lips closed and his teeth ground together; and you might have thought that fire instead of breath came out of his nose and mouth. He raised his sword Durindana with both his hands, and sent it down so tremendously on Agrican's shoulder that it cut through breastplate down to the very haunch, nay, crushed the saddle-bow, though it was made of bone and iron, and felled man and horse to the earth. Agrican turned as white as ashes, and felt death upon him. He called Orlando to come close to him, with a gentle voice, and said, as well as he could: "I believe on Him who died on the cross. Baptize me, I pray thee, with the fountain, before my senses are gone. I have lived an evil life, but need not be rebellious to God in death also. May He who came to save all the rest of the world save me!" And he shed tears, that great king, though he had been so lofty and fierce."
The only other quality that seems consistent about the paladins is their chivalrous conduct (e.g. Roland giving the giant Ferragus a pillow for his rest during their epic battle). Their fealty is varied--Rinaldo is always pissing off Charlemagne and getting banished, Roland goes mad with love, Oliver would rather be right than work cooperatively at times. Their prowess varies--contrast Roland and Rinaldo's puissance with Duke Astolpho and Maligigi's cunning and knowledge.
If we want to look back at source materials to understand paladin, I don't think sagacity is a good hook. "Holy Warriors" or "Crusaders" would do better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In my upcoming tabletop game we have a paladin(myself) and an inquisitor of the same deity. There is the potential for some fun roleplaying when it comes to two different approaches to solving the same problem.
"Realistically" my paladin should end up killing or arresting this inquisitor based on how I know my friend will be playing, however, we're not going to ruin the game by letting alignment get in the way.
I think the alignment system in PFO is going to do more harm than good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Realistically" my paladin should end up killing or arresting this inquisitor based on how I know my friend will be playing, however, we're not going to ruin the game by letting alignment get in the way.
Perhaps your paladin's morality is so flexible he's a LG fighter at heart. :)
I think the alignment system in PFO is going to do more harm than good.That's it's intention if you think about it. :)
Yup. Many (most?) players won't role-play within alignment guidelines voluntarily. So if alignment matters (ie, paladins, monks, barbarians, clerics.), it has to be enforced.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the alignment system is designed to create conflict between settlements, if you cant form a kingdom with a settlement next to you because of alignment , it is time to remove them.
People who decide to declare war for anything other than pragmatic gain will weaken themselves for no reason and soon fall by the wayside. If I was a settlement leader I would certainly be selecting from such targets first as the low hanging fruit
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the alignment system is designed to create conflict between settlements, if you cant form a kingdom with a settlement next to you because of alignment , it is time to remove them.
No it isn't. Alignment will never inform decisions of going to war. If I can't form an ingame kingdom with those people because of alignment, and there are no other pressing matters that concern me, then I will simply make moves to create out of game agreements with them. I will never say “Well I would open diplomatic communication with these people, but gosh darn they are Chaotic Good, and the game doesn't let me”. I'll just send them a PM on the forums, or in game, and work something out elsewhere.
@ Ryan Dancey
As Qallz suggested in another thread... Must someone be online for their Reputation to increase passively?
Xeen, there's no ambiguity in the post:
"Reputation ranges from -7,500 to 7,500, with starting characters having a Reputation of 1,000. For each hour of play time during which the character does not lose Reputation, he gains Reputation. "
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Ryan Dancey
As Qallz suggested in another thread... Must someone be online for their Reputation to increase passively?
Xeen, there's no ambiguity in the post:
"Reputation ranges from -7,500 to 7,500, with starting characters having a Reputation of 1,000. For each hour of play time during which the character does not lose Reputation, he gains Reputation. "
Well that depends on what your definition of the word is is.
LOL sorry had to say it since...
Is it your active play time or is it the games play time?
Does the gain only start after an hour of online play time with no rep loss? Does the reputation gain continue after you are offline?
I want them to elaborate, so the question was asked.
Lol. I'm more interested in knowing:
What are the OTHER things that give reputation AND how much reputation will YOU give me for these things Ryan Dancey?
How much?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the alignment system is designed to create conflict between settlements, if you cant form a kingdom with a settlement next to you because of alignment , it is time to remove them.No it isn't. Alignment will never inform decisions of going to war. If I can't form an ingame kingdom with those people because of alignment, and there are no other pressing matters that concern me, then I will simply make moves to create out of game agreements with them. I will never say “Well I would open diplomatic communication with these people, but gosh darn they are Chaotic Good, and the game doesn't let me”. I'll just send them a PM on the forums, or in game, and work something out elsewhere.
exactly and this is part of the meta game a lot of folks who are not used to sandboxes are going to have a really hard time with.
I think when people used to EVE and such get into PfO a lot of PfO folks are going to get taken out and pushed hard until they learn how to deal with the meta game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the alignment system is designed to create conflict between settlements, if you cant form a kingdom with a settlement next to you because of alignment , it is time to remove them.No it isn't. Alignment will never inform decisions of going to war. If I can't form an ingame kingdom with those people because of alignment, and there are no other pressing matters that concern me, then I will simply make moves to create out of game agreements with them. I will never say “Well I would open diplomatic communication with these people, but gosh darn they are Chaotic Good, and the game doesn't let me”. I'll just send them a PM on the forums, or in game, and work something out elsewhere.
Are you saying Pax Gaming has no interest in forming a nation of settlements if it requires war to get enough land to do so? You will just be scattered settlements allied in a meta game way? Or will Pax be carving out its own kingdom and then being the good neighbor after the damage is done. Gaming groups that come in will want land ,maybe lots of land. I don't have a problem with people that want to play the game as intended , you can be war oriented or peace thru alliance.
My example was about the need for land to form a nation of settlements, alignment was the reason diplomacy wont work for that goal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the problem with alignment. I think it just brings more dynamic, meaningful choices, fantasy realism, excitement and mystery into the game. It brings so much more into the table that we couldn't have without it. Characters are going to be different according to it, settlements are going to be different, settlements will have different kinds of advantages, there will be different consequences for different actions. The hardest choice will be whether to play with certain friends or with a certain alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the alignment system is designed to create conflict between settlements, if you cant form a kingdom with a settlement next to you because of alignment , it is time to remove them.No it isn't. Alignment will never inform decisions of going to war. If I can't form an ingame kingdom with those people because of alignment, and there are no other pressing matters that concern me, then I will simply make moves to create out of game agreements with them. I will never say “Well I would open diplomatic communication with these people, but gosh darn they are Chaotic Good, and the game doesn't let me”. I'll just send them a PM on the forums, or in game, and work something out elsewhere.Are you saying Pax Gaming has no interest in forming a nation of settlements if it requires war to get enough land to do so? You will just be scattered settlements allied in a meta game way? Or will Pax be carving out its own kingdom and then being the good neighbor after the damage is done. Gaming groups that come in will want land ,maybe lots of land. I don't have a problem with people that want to play the game as intended , you can be war oriented or peace thru alliance.
My example was about the need for land to form a nation of settlements, alignment was the reason diplomacy wont work for that goal.
It seems reading comprehension is a dying art on these forums. The meaning is surely plain
If game mechanics prevent forming a kingdom within the game mechanics and they wish to still function as a kingdom they will simply use out of game channels to form the agreement and coordinate actions.
Instead of one kingdom declaring war on someone you will instead just get both settlements doing it. Goblinworks can put in whatever mechanics they like. Pragmatic groups will just step around them and circumvent them with the metagame
@Pax Morbis....nice to see at least one group here gets the sandbox and grats on your latest Paladin recruit :)
I see mechanical repurcussions of Alignment beings things like only Settlements/Nations of X/Y/Z Alignment can build certain buildings which, for example, buff their own Cleric' healing capacity when targetting/effecting either fellow Settlement/Nation-members or eligible-Alignment PCs or those that fit in both categories (perhaps higher benefit for fulfilling both categories?). The latter would mean Settlements with substantial 'investment' in a certain alignment CAN have a broad array of member alignments, but those members could find better 'direct' mechanical synergy in another Settlement with different 'investment' priorities (distinct from official Settlement alignment: a NG Settlement could have built lots of buildings/buffs catering to LG, for example... official Settlement Alignment can and should matter on some other mechanical levels, though). That said, there will be plenty of other counter-vailing reasons to include varied-alignment characters in the same Settlement, to balance against factors leaning towards one single Alignment focus/specialization. (and while some buildings/buffs may be 'picky' re: both Alignment axes, plenty of others could be much broader and just focused on one Alignment axis)
Nation-level functions would offer some mechanical advantages vs. a grouping of Settlements operating outside the Nation system. That doesn't prevent Settlements of broadly Aligned population, or non-Nation alliances of Settlements, it just provides a certain mechanical impetus to adapt to those categories which are central to the game. At the same time, if you don't have the capacity for certain types of building efforts, then you don't need to spend resources on building/maintaining that.
I think NPC-Faction aligned mechanics working similarly would make alot of sense, and may cut across Settlement/Nation/Alignment distinctions (albeit the latter seems likely to have some relevancy for many NPC Factions). Perhaps some buff that kicks in if a PC is a member of the NPC Faction and their affiliated Settlement has built a building dedicated to said Faction, with a further synergy to other PCs if they also have the same set-up (regardless if they are member of same Settlement or not, in which case the other PC is relying on another, second NPC Faction building in order to qualify). Not all members of a Settlement will be members of the same NPC Faction, although some Settlements could evolve to be 'built around' NPC Faction membership.
That buildings in Settlements may be built/maintained by smaller Companies with their own interest/perspective (not just the single unitary Settlement government) seems especially amenable to building NPC Faction buildings, e.g. when the Settlement as a whole is not interested in that Faction. In that case, perhaps the benefit of the NPC Faction building would only accrue to that Company, although the same type of building COULD be owned by the Settlement as a whole to benefit ALL elegible members across the whole Settlement (if they are eligible for the buff, i.e. members of said NPC Faction). Since Companies are smaller than the whole Settlement, the same type of building/buff should probably be cheaper for the Company scale version (and I think Company scale buildings will work fundamentally different than Settlement buildings, re: Dev Index, etc), although if multiple Companies would want to build the same building/buff, a Settlement level building would probably be more efficient even if not every Settlement members is benefitting... (->POLITICS!) ...Perhaps allow transferring/selling an existing building from Company to Settlement-as-whole (with need for additional 'upgrade'), to make a distinction between starting from scratch and upgrading from an existing Company scale building?
I see mechanical repurcussions of Alignment beings things like only Settlements/Nations of X/Y/Z Alignment can build certain buildings which, for example, buff their own Cleric' healing capacity when targetting/effecting either Settlement/Nation-members or eligible-Alignment PCs or both. Nation-level functions would offer some mechanical advantages vs. a grouping of Settlements operating outside the Nation system. That doesn't prevent Settlements of broadly Aligned population, or non-Nation alliances of Settlements, it just provides a certain mechanical impetus to adapt to those categories which are central to the game. At the same time, if you don't have the capacity for certain types of building efforts, then you don't need to spend resources on building/maintaining that.
Except for Dancey has never said any of that will be in game in anything I have read. Really you are going to assume an advantage based on absolutely nothing except a blind faith in Ryan Dancey? Ok you go right on with that line of thought
I think NPC-Faction aligned mechanics working similarly would make alot of sense, and may cut across Settlement/Nation/Alignment distinctions (albeit the latter seems likely to have some relevancy for NPC Factions).
Warfare costs money and makes you vulnerable to others through depletion of resources and being out of position. Taking part in NPC warfare which gains you nothing except an opportunity to PVP therefore seems a good way to spend energy better directed to furthering your settlement's position. Please don't let me stop you partaking however.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If game mechanics prevent forming a kingdom within the game mechanics and they wish to still function as a kingdom they will simply use out of game channels to form the agreement and coordinate actions.Instead of one kingdom declaring war on someone you will instead just get both settlements doing it. Goblinworks can put in whatever mechanics they like. Pragmatic groups will just step around them and circumvent them with the metagame
Surely they can't function as a kingdom with outside of game mechanics. They might form agreements and coordinate actions with mechanics outside the game, but they won't gain the benefits of the in-game mechanics of a kingdom. So they are handicapped for not taking over the settlement and changing it's ways and then forming a kingdom. If they do that, then we are a rollin'.
Surely they can't function as a kingdom with outside of game mechanics. They might form agreements and coordinate actions with mechanics outside the game, but they won't gain the benefits of the in-game mechanics of a kingdom. So they are handicapped for not taking over the settlement and changing it's ways and then forming a kingdom. If they do that, then we are a rollin'.
If game mechanics prevent forming a kingdom within the game mechanics and they wish to still function as a kingdom they will simply use out of game channels to form the agreement and coordinate actions.Instead of one kingdom declaring war on someone you will instead just get both settlements doing it. Goblinworks can put in whatever mechanics they like. Pragmatic groups will just step around them and circumvent them with the metagame
Once again point me at the benefits you get from being in a kingdom....I cant find it. They have hardly detailed settlements let alone anything to do with kingdoms
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@steelwing , I get the meaning , I just cant believe a group would give up sound defensive strategy , that goes for you too . Form a defensive alliance with a group half way across the map? The question is being used to express how incredulous I am , not that I need it explained again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@steelwing , I get the meaning , I just cant believe a group would give up sound defensive strategy , that goes for you too . Form a defensive alliance with a group half way across the map? The question is being used to express how incredulous I am , not that I need it explained again.
Timers cover the distance quite well.
In most cases you can make it home in time to do the real defense or attack. Distance isnt much of a problem for the prepared.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Once again point me at the benefits you get from being in a kingdom....I cant find it. They have hardly detailed settlements let alone anything to do with kingdoms
So there is no problem with the alignment except choosing between a certain alignment and between certain friends, is there?
@steelwing , I get the meaning , I just cant believe a group would give up sound defensive strategy , that goes for you too . Form a defensive alliance with a group half way across the map? The question is being used to express how incredulous I am , not that I need it explained again.
Who said anything about cross the map.
I sit in my settlement for the sake of argument call it LN, next door is a CN settlement. We are friendly and want to make a kingdom but we can't because of alignment.
So we step outside the game mechanics and use ts and emails work out details of our kingdom and act as a kingdom in game by just taking the appropriate actions individually.
You declare war on them we declare war on you and the two of us gang up on you.
We declare war on you they do the same and we gang up on you.
Really it doesn't matter what Goblinworks go on about alignment wise if we want to form the bond we will do and there is nothing they can do about it.
Does this make it clear?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So if you have to train at your own settlement isn't that going to curb the multiclass nature of the ability system?
Won't this lead to a lot of settlement hopping? I join settlement A so I can get some fighter skills then I join settlement B for some rogue skills.
Most of the basic stuff you can get from NPC's. Its only the high end stuff that will require a settlement. Also a settlement can facilitate every class so long as the training facilities are built. (except alignment restricted classes)