Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you are sitting at the border of lawful good, neutral good, lawful neutral, and true neutral but are just a tiny bit inside the lawful good border you cannot be described as "kinda lawful good" but instead must be described as fully "lawful good" the same as a paragon of those virtues who never does anything evil or chaotic.
That's exactly the kind of black and white thinking Ryan was describing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And that is the point. There is no ambiguity there. You either are or you are not.
If a class's abilities declined as you decreased in your alignment, then yes, you lawful good abilities could be described as "kinda" lawful good. That is not what has been described.
You either are or you are not, there is no kinda. That is not what has been described to us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't recall that, but I may have missed it, regardless that's not based on alignment that's based on archetype. Non-alignment ability based archetypes wouldn't be affected by what you described... so yes, you can still kinda be an archetype, but you either are your alignment or are a different alignment. There is still no room for ambiguity in the realm of alignments.
Unless all archetypes have alignment based abilities, which unless I missed something, isn't the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the most recent blog:
Some abilities, like Paladin feats and skills, are only available to characters of certain alignments. You can only learn and slot those abilities if both your Active and Core Alignment match the Alignment requirement. Also some of these abilities may require abnormally high or low Alignment scores, such as a Paladin ability that requires 7000 in both axes.
I would say it's making a rather great assumption to say that there will be absolutely no effects of alignment on non-alignment restricted roles just because we don't have any info about such affects yet. We also don't know any of the crafting skills that will be included other than architecture and only a couple of the gathering skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd agree on not making that assumption.
What I am stating is based off of known information. Currently, there is no information supporting alignments affecting non-alignment based archetypes.
Hence me asking the question that started all of this, how can you be "kinda" Lawful Good. To which Mr. Dancey did not reply, so it still leaves the audience wondering what he was talking about when he said "play loosely" with alignment.
He gave no response thus neither confirming nor denying anything either of us has said. I'm not saying you are wrong Andius, I just don't see evidence to support what you are saying for non-alignment based archetypes, but agree that we should not make assumptions about a system that is still being designed.
So I ask again, how can you be "kinda" lawful good?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How is one more enlightened than the other? In each case, you are killing someone on the chance that they are a threat.One is killing you on my property. The other is killing you on a public space. That's the difference. I have a moral right to protect my home and property against de facto hostile forces. I don't have a moral right to whack people any where at any time because they might be dangerous.
Ryan, for clarification, when the window is open is it *only* the settlement owners that are allowed to do the attacking?TBD. The whole system is TBD.
You realise that if you allow anyone to attack in a settlement vulnerability window, you have invalidated your argument with Alexander_Damocles, right? Because if I am just hanging around someone else's settlement and then attack all comers with no rep hit, that is hardly the "enlightened" behaviour of defending my property.
If you make it a FFA, I see other problems. I am pretty sure that in game I am going to want to trade with Pax (Why do I always want to capitalise that? Do I see Pax as an airport, subconsciously?); they have made it clear that they want to establish the best market in the River Kingdoms and - whether it is the best or not - I am going to want to visit it. I am also pretty sure - and I hope I am not putting words into Pax worthies' mouths here, but it's a safe bet - that they are going to want to have the highest DI available for their settlement, being confident in being able to defend themselves. This means their Window of Vulnerability will probably be a very large one. I may not (due to time zone and play time considerations) be able to visit their market at any other time than the time when such a window is open.
This presents me with a problem. Once I have established my bona fides with Pax in game - however that may happen - and they are happy for me to be in their settlement during the window, I am still going to be wary of going there, since I know that any Bludd, Xeen or Milo can jump me on my way in or out without penalty, regardless of the fact that they are not Pax members (why SAD at all when you don't even need to?). This is not conducive to bringing people to trade, quite the opposite, so in fact, the more successful a settlement becomes, the less safe its market becomes. Counter-intuitive in my book. So either the FFA needs to be restricted to the settlement members only, or the windows need to be small enough for it not to overly affect trade etc (which brings lots and lots of other problems, such as ridiculously short siege times, and I think most of us agree that having the windows open longer means more PvP = good for the game).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If PfO alignment system is millions (15,000^2 =>225,000,000) -- wow! --, tThen why are settlements and nations limited to 9 values; and one step (defined as a shift of 2449 or 7449.
How about letting these groups pick a coordinate (for system/nation) and members need to be within +-5000 of each? Or +/- 2500 on one axis and +/- 5000 on the other (choice on founding)? Current plan has LG as 5000,5000 but members can be -2449,2501 (7500 and 2500 away) or 2501,-2449, but not 2000,2000 (3000 and 3000 away).
Progtraming the +/- 7500 is not much more work than +/-1. It is not like planing for an 8080.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
TBD. The whole system is TBD.You realise that if you allow anyone to attack in a settlement vulnerability window, you have invalidated your argument with Alexander_Damocles, right? Because if I am just hanging around someone else's settlement and then attack all comers with no rep hit, that is hardly the "enlightened" behaviour of defending my property.
Perhaps the easiest thing is to limit any relaxation of the rep & alignment system to Settlement members. The whole point of the discussion is to avoid people standing around watching their work get destroyed without being able to respond. There's a converse problem of naked newb armies being used for DEFENSIVE abuse but that may be controllable by policy rather than mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps the easiest thing is to limit any relaxation of the rep & alignment system to Settlement members. The whole point of the discussion is to avoid people standing around watching their work get destroyed without being able to respond. There's a converse problem of naked newb armies being used for DEFENSIVE abuse but that may be controllable by policy rather than mechanics.TBD. The whole system is TBD.You realise that if you allow anyone to attack in a settlement vulnerability window, you have invalidated your argument with Alexander_Damocles, right? Because if I am just hanging around someone else's settlement and then attack all comers with no rep hit, that is hardly the "enlightened" behaviour of defending my property.
Ryan, if you make rep loss a flat rate for killing anyone outside of the ways in which you want to see PvP conducted you eliminate the advantage of using the naked noob army. A settlement or an attacker would be better off using veteran characters to defend or attack.
You had said previously that the Rep system is not designed to defend noobs or create a protected class, then make it so. Noobs have their hand held in the starter settlements. They will most likely get recruited there and escorted to their new settlement.
The other advantage to the flat rate of rep loss is the game system has to make fewer calculations. It doesn't have to look at differentials, it just access a x amount of rep loss.
Complex problems can sometimes have simple solutions and systems are better off being simple, less loopholes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, wow, two things sticking with me.
Do some people here not get how you can be any alignment, like LG, measured in numbers and do little chaotic or non-good things sometimes but your numbers are still in the LG range?
---
Second is an assumption I've been making based on the information I've read and I've been confused why no one else is there with me so if I missed something please fix me.
A Chaotic Evil settlement, full of CE and NE with some CN. They have tons of pvp in raids and wars and feuds to test weaknesses of enemy settlements. They're not interested in receiving trade with outsiders and NBSI the entire hex during Settlement Vulnerability. They SAD travelers in their area if they don't like them. It's just not a good place to go if you're not invited.
But they all follow their alignments without playing games of Random Murder Death Ball. They all have high reputations. Corruption and unrest are something of an issue but well-managed and the residents are overall supportive of the leadership because it's in their interest to have a strong settlement.
High rep, full open Vulnerability window, defense completely within the TBD bounds, why can't the CE settlement get the top facilities again?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In my mind, I have completely decoupled alignment from any objective morality, subjective morality, or tabletop roleplay context.
From what I have read alignment is a system designed to segregate people into differing power organizations, and then balancing them against each other.
With that consideration in mind, alignment makes perfect sense. Yeah, I might want them to balance it as it hits a live environment. I would have that same wish for any system.
This
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In my mind, I have completely decoupled alignment from any objective morality, subjective morality, or tabletop roleplay context.
From what I have read alignment is a system designed to segregate people into differing power organizations, and then balancing them against each other.
With that consideration in mind, alignment makes perfect sense. Yeah, I might want them to balance it as it hits a live environment. I would have that same wish for any system.
What is left out of this representation is factional NPC behavior. If your settlement takes its NPC guards from the Hellknights for example, but your settlement drops out of alignment with them then there will likely be negative consequences regarding the 'window closed' defenses of your town, most likely resulting in increased costs, possibly increased vulnerability.
I suspect the Faction side of the game will be more critical than some expect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In my mind, I have completely decoupled alignment from any objective morality, subjective morality, or tabletop roleplay context.
From what I have read alignment is a system designed to segregate people into differing power organizations, and then balancing them against each other.
With that consideration in mind, alignment makes perfect sense. Yeah, I might want them to balance it as it hits a live environment. I would have that same wish for any system.
What is left out of this representation is factional NPC behavior. If your settlement takes its NPC guards from the Hellknights for example, but your settlement drops out of alignment with them then there will likely be negative consequences regarding the 'window closed' defenses of your town, most likely resulting in increased costs, possibly increased vulnerability.
I suspect the Faction side of the game will be more critical than some expect.
Actually you just made his point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This I posted in another thread, but it applies here:
This was the one redeeming feature you didn't bring over from eve, the ability to buy training pretty much anywhere. perhaps you should re-evaluate that.The theory is, if you can get training from "anywhere" then many players will opt out of joining PC settlements to avoid unwanted PVP potential as it is in EVE being a member of an NPC corporation.
However, they could use the Factions to do what you want and still not allow you the opt-out.
If Factions also trained, and you needed to rise up in ranks within the faction to unlock upper tier training, while exposing yourself to the PVP of equally dedicated opposing faction players, this might work.
Then what are the settlements for?
NPC settlements would only offer tier 1 crafting, a market for tier 1 goods and Faction training halls.
PC settlements would offer all levels of crafting, a market to handle all goods,as well as training and access to Faction Hall(s) of the settlement's choice.
There are trade offs for being a member of one and not the other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually you just made his point.
I wasn't arguing with him, Xeen. I pointed out that the evaluation by some folks, such as... oh, let's not name names... that 'factions will be irrelevant to PvP' overlook the described plan that it will be NPC guards from the various factions that defend each settlement during the non-PvP window, and that the settlements have to pay upkeep for those NPC guards. So reducing a settlement's standing with a faction will have real PvP consequences, and reducing the power and influence of their faction will have real PvP consequences in-game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll take a chance at saying something on topic.
Give settlements an Alarm button to push. Bells sound, gates close, NPCs fortify and whatnot. When the settlement is Vulnerable but not being attacked they're open to visitors and trade if they want to be. Normal rules and laws are in effect like any old day in town.
Once trouble shows up (250 naked noobs surrounding a siege batallion?) there's a reasonable way for players to sound the Alarm and go into their wartime footing. Rep mechanics change the ways that have been discussed and a predetermined wartime law code goes into effect so a force can't simply weaken the city by breaking laws and being evil just outside arrow range. Anyone entering the hex during Defcon Stabby Stab gets immediate notice (preferably by a NPC running by shouting, but a haze affect and "You feel war in the air" message could suffice).
Are there any corner cases I missed where an intelligently populated settlement that remotely pays attention could still get jiggered?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd just like to point out that it is up to the players to decide whether to kill the lone newb who just ran all the way from newtown only to arrive at your gates at window time. It isn't as if there are turrets with automated cannon that will burn down anything unallied at (Windowtime +.001).
I'd just like to point out that it is up to the players to decide whether to kill the lone newb who just ran all the way from newtown only to arrive at your gates at window time. It isn't as if there are turrets with automated cannon that will burn down anything unallied at (Windowtime +.001).
Why do you believe there should be a difference between
I don't like the way you are loitering beside the road and eyeing my merchant caravan therefore I will get my guards to preemptively strike against you because your little band of thugs is undoubtedly bandits
and
I don't like the way you are loitering in the fields outside my town and eyeing my city therefore I will get my guards to premptively kill you
Frankly I don't care which way the system goes but it should be consistent. Killing people for no reason other than suspicion should either be an evil chaotic rep losing act always or it should never be so.
Frankly a lot of you want things both ways, you are wanting to have severe penalties for killing you and at the same time you want to be able to kill who you want with no penalty
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since we are using Nascar as an analogy, your reputation system is like going to a Nascar race and handing out speeding tickets.The reputation system is the quality of the driver. Some drivers suck, some drivers are great. The driver's decisions moment to moment during the race determine the difference between sucking and being great.
Ryan,
You have given at least 4 or 5 different definitions of what the reputation System is or is not. I can pull up the quotes to show this.
When I had said previously that the "rep system is a measure of how "good" you play". You jumped on that saying it was completely wrong, because you mistook my meaning of "good" to mean how skilled the player or character was and not a good the player played within the system as desired by GW. The mistake in my wording aside, your argument that it is not how skilled the player / character is is contradicted in this post cited above.
"The Reputation system is the quality of the driver"
Which meaning of "quality" are you shooting for?
Quality of skill?
Quality of Moral Character?
Quality of being a Team Player?
If the Reputation / Alignment systems are a muddled mess in their vision, they will be an unworkable disaster in their application.
I can only imagine how screwed up this will get if you try to intertwine the Influence system into both Reputation and Alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd just like to point out that it is up to the players to decide whether to kill the lone newb who just ran all the way from newtown only to arrive at your gates at window time. It isn't as if there are turrets with automated cannon that will burn down anything unallied at (Windowtime +.001).Why do you believe there should be a difference between
I don't like the way you are loitering beside the road and eyeing my merchant caravan therefore I will get my guards to preemptively strike against you because your little band of thugs is undoubtedly bandits
and
I don't like the way you are loitering in the fields outside my town and eyeing my city therefore I will get my guards to premptively kill you
Frankly I don't care which way the system goes but it should be consistent. Killing people for no reason other than suspicion should either be an evil chaotic rep losing act always or it should never be so.
Frankly a lot of you want things both ways, you are wanting to have severe penalties for killing you and at the same time you want to be able to kill who you want with no penalty
I have a choice whether or not to kill (or die trying) anyone in the game anywhere and at any time. I will make my choices according to what I value. An open PvP window is only one factor. But it is one factor, and any difference between two sets of conditions is a difference nonetheless, whether the player deems it significant or not.
The player can kill wherever and whenever. Whether he or she does should depend upon their awareness of conditions and their varying senses of value.
I have no idea where you are getting your assertion that I want my choices to be inconsequential. That would be absurd.
I'd just like to point out that it is up to the players to decide whether to kill the lone newb who just ran all the way from newtown only to arrive at your gates at window time. It isn't as if there are turrets with automated cannon that will burn down anything unallied at (Windowtime +.001).Why do you believe there should be a difference between
I don't like the way you are loitering beside the road and eyeing my merchant caravan therefore I will get my guards to preemptively strike against you because your little band of thugs is undoubtedly bandits
and
I don't like the way you are loitering in the fields outside my town and eyeing my city therefore I will get my guards to premptively kill you
Frankly I don't care which way the system goes but it should be consistent. Killing people for no reason other than suspicion should either be an evil chaotic rep losing act always or it should never be so.
Frankly a lot of you want things both ways, you are wanting to have severe penalties for killing you and at the same time you want to be able to kill who you want with no penalty
I have a choice whether or not to kill (or die trying) anyone in the game anywhere and at any time. I will make my choices according to what I value. An open PvP window is only one factor. But it is one factor, and any difference between two sets of conditions is a difference nonetheless, whether the player deems it significant or not.
The player can kill wherever and whenever. Whether he or she does should depend upon their awareness of conditions and their varying senses of value.
Which fails to answer the question
This is not a moral question it is merely a game mechanic. Why should the game mechanic treat the two differently.
Even if it were a moral question...by Danceys moralisation defence about being able to defend your property by premptive force it doesnt work out because in both cases you are premptively defending your property but only one gets punished.
People here are always bleating about their being consequence to their choices. The consequence of lawful alignments for a settlement is you can't kill people out of hand because they look suspicious without taking a hit. Take away that with the shallow justification being used and you are removing one of the consequences of running a lawful settlement.
As I said I really don't care which way they do it but it should be consistent
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I said I really don't care which way they do it but it should be consistent
They (Dancey and Devs) has to clearly define the role of both the Reputation system and the Alignment system. They should be separated from each other, because they should be meant to do different things.
Then and only then can there be some consistency.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, wow, two things sticking with me.
Do some people here not get how you can be any alignment, like LG, measured in numbers and do little chaotic or non-good things sometimes but your numbers are still in the LG range?
---
Second is an assumption I've been making based on the information I've read and I've been confused why no one else is there with me so if I missed something please fix me.
A Chaotic Evil settlement, full of CE and NE with some CN. They have tons of pvp in raids and wars and feuds to test weaknesses of enemy settlements. They're not interested in receiving trade with outsiders and NBSI the entire hex during Settlement Vulnerability. They SAD travelers in their area if they don't like them. It's just not a good place to go if you're not invited.
But they all follow their alignments without playing games of Random Murder Death Ball. They all have high reputations. Corruption and unrest are something of an issue but well-managed and the residents are overall supportive of the leadership because it's in their interest to have a strong settlement.
High rep, full open Vulnerability window, defense completely within the TBD bounds, why can't the CE settlement get the top facilities again?
It's the poor training for Chaotics that has my feathers ruffled. Chaotics are being treated with more disdain than Evil! The worst alignment in the game right now is Chaotic Good! No freedom to do what you want AND you get bad training.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's the poor training for Chaotics that has my feathers ruffled. Chaotics are being treated with more disdain than Evil! The worst alignment in the game right now is Chaotic Good! No freedom to do what you want AND you get bad training.
Actually, I see Chaotic Good as the best alignment for those forced by game mechanics to be Chaotic. Chaotic Good at least gives you 5000 base Good to burn through, followed by 7500 Neutral before you finally hit Chaotic 7500 Evil 1.
So if you really want to be Chaotic and specifically Chaotic Neutral, set your core to CG and play it loose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which fails to answer the question
This is not a moral question it is merely a game mechanic. Why should the game mechanic treat the two differently.
Even if it were a moral question...by Danceys moralisation defence about being able to defend your property by premptive force it doesnt work out because in both cases you are premptively...
You don't seem to be considering the case, Steel. The mechanic is only that it is possible during a vulnerability window to kill any interloper without repercussion.
Then there is the moral choice whether the defenders actually kill the interloper. Were it totally mechanical then yes there would be no meaningfulness involved, only a necessary mechanical consequence. The interloper has a meaningful choice to walk there, yes. I'm saying you don't have to kill him and that makes it a meaningful choice if you do or if you refrain from doing.
The game mechanic treats every case exactly the same: it is the players' choices that give it meaning and variability. Just because you can do something does not require fulfilling the most negative potential.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I see Chaotic Good as the best alignment for those forced by game mechanics to be Chaotic.
Nobody is forced by game mechanics to be chaotic, your continual assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. That's like saying the ruler forced the board you cut to be too short. Reputation mechanics measure your behavior. Reputation doesn't force you to behave the way you do as if you were some pitiful helpless victim.
Which fails to answer the question
This is not a moral question it is merely a game mechanic. Why should the game mechanic treat the two differently.
Even if it were a moral question...by Danceys moralisation defence about being able to defend your property by premptive force it doesnt work out because in both cases you are premptively...
You don't seem to be considering the case, Steel. The mechanic is only that it is possible during a vulnerability window to kill any interloper without repercussion.
Then there is the moral choice whether the defenders actually kill the interloper. Were it totally mechanical then yes there would be no meaningfulness involved, only a necessary mechanical consequence. The interloper has a meaningful choice to walk there, yes. I'm saying you don't have to kill him and that makes it a meaningful choice if you do or if you refrain from doing.
The game mechanic treats every case exactly the same: it is the players' choices that give it meaning and variability. Just because you can do something does not require fulfilling the most negative potential.
The game mechanic does not treat both cases the same
If the merchant premptively attacks to protect his property (the caravan on the road)even if right about the threat he receives the penalty of reputation loss and alignment shift
If the settlement member premptively attacks to protect his property (the settlement) he receives no penalty whatsoever
How can you argue the game mechanic treats both exactly the same.
Both are the same situation that is to say a premptive attack against a perceived threat (real or imagined) to protect your property
The mechanic treats them entirely differently.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you want to be able to SAD someone you are.Your wanting to SAD is completely your choice. You aren't a victim of your choices or are you?
You are not forced to play the game either, so if you get ganked or griefed its was your choice.
See how that works? Faulty logic has a way of folding back in on itself and you end up making your opposition's point for them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The game mechanic does not treat both cases the same
If the merchant premptively attacks to protect his property (the caravan on the road)even if right about the threat he receives the penalty of reputation loss and alignment shift
If the settlement member premptively attacks to protect his property (the settlement) he receives no penalty whatsoever
How can you argue the game mechanic treats both exactly the same.
Both are the same situation that is to say a premptive attack against a perceived threat (real or imagined) to protect your property
The mechanic treats them entirely differently.
Those two cases are entirely different from one another. Your construal that they are the same is only your construal.
A caravan is always open game for a SAD. It has no window of opportunity, only opportunity. Perceived threat is irrelevant. The mechanics of moving goods in the open along that path is the merchant's choice. Utterly different except that somehow you derived this one shared characteristic, the defense of property, into the whole measure of the nature of both settlements and caravans when that is a fallacious premise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would play another alignment, but I want to use the SAD mechanic so I have to be Chaotic.
So that is your choice. You are responsible. You are not forced into your alignment you chose it. Wanting is not necessity unless you are a slave to your desires and whims, in which case you are definitively chaotic by your nature.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are not forced to play the game either, so if you get ganked or griefed its was your choice.
See how that works? Faulty logic has a way of folding back in on itself and you end up making your opposition's point for them.
Except that isn't faulty logic, Bluud, and the choice to gank or grief was in the party who ganks and griefs. They are the responsible party for that. I am the responsible party for being willing to effectively defend myself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would play another alignment, but I want to use the SAD mechanic so I have to be Chaotic.So that is your choice. You are responsible. You are not forced into your alignment you chose it. Wanting is not necessity unless you are a slave to your desires and whims, in which case you are definitively chaotic by your nature.
My choice was to use the game mechanic that GW created. Which requires me to be chaotic. I did not choose the alignment, the alignment is a requirement of a game mechanic.
So back to your first post, the game mechanic forced me to be chaotic.
Dancey's justification for not taking rep hits for killing people in the vicinity of your settlement was that it was only fair you be able to take the initiative in protecting your property.
Both are cases of doing that.
All you said was they are different because caravans can always be attacked and settlements can only be attacked sometimes. Why does that justify premptive attack for settlements and not caravans.
The two are inconsistent viewpoints especially when taken in light of Dancey's justification.
Frankly you are just trying to justify why you should be able to kill with no consequence.
Choosing to be a lawful settlement is a choice...the consequence of that is you are not to free to kill people because you don't like the look of them without risking loosing that status. Arguing otherwise is arguing that you shouldn't have to tolerate consequences for your settlements choice to be lawful
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dancey's justification for not taking rep hits for killing people in the vicinity of your settlement was that it was only fair you be able to take the initiative in protecting your property.
Both are cases of doing that.
All you said was they are different because caravans can always be attacked and settlements can only be attacked sometimes. Why does that justify premptive attack for settlements and not caravans.
The two are inconsistent viewpoints especially when taken in light of Dancey's justification.
Frankly you are just trying to justify why you should be able to kill with no consequence.
Choosing to be a lawful settlement is a choice...the consequence of that is you are not to free to kill people because you don't like the look of them without risking loosing that status. Arguing otherwise is arguing that you shouldn't have to tolerate consequences for your settlements choice to be lawful
Your exactly right, The whole reason for the reputation system and why Chaotic Evils will suck.
Chaotic Evils have more freedom therefore they will suck by design, because if not they will be all powerful.
Lawful's must be forced to play their alignment no matter what. If they are not receiving penalties for not playing their alignment... May as well lift the nerf on Chaotic Evils... as they are playing the same way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The game mechanic does not treat both cases the same
If the merchant premptively attacks to protect his property (the caravan on the road)even if right about the threat he receives the penalty of reputation loss and alignment shift
If the settlement member premptively attacks to protect his property (the settlement) he receives no penalty whatsoever
Those two cases are entirely different from one another. Your construal that they are the same is only your construal.
A caravan is always open game for a SAD. It has no window of opportunity, only opportunity. Perceived threat is irrelevant. The mechanics of moving goods in the open along that path is the merchant's choice. Utterly different except that somehow you derived this one shared characteristic, the defense of property, into the whole measure of the nature of both settlements and caravans when that is a fallacious premise.
Sorry, but I'm with Steelwing here. The window of vulnerability for the caravan is effectively the entire time he's on the road. A preemptive attack against a threat to a caravan on the road and a preemptive attack against a threat to a caravan parked in a settlement hex during it's vulnerability window is pretty much the same action.
I think making settlement hexes FFAs during their vulnerability windows makes a hash of the logic behind the alignment and rep systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which fails to answer the question
This is not a moral question it is merely a game mechanic. Why should the game mechanic treat the two differently.
Even if it were a moral question...by Danceys moralisation defence about being able to defend your property by premptive force it doesnt work out because in both cases you are premptively...
You don't seem to be considering the case, Steel. The mechanic is only that it is possible during a vulnerability window to kill any interloper without repercussion.
Then there is the moral choice whether the defenders actually kill the interloper. Were it totally mechanical then yes there would be no meaningfulness involved, only a necessary mechanical consequence. The interloper has a meaningful choice to walk there, yes. I'm saying you don't have to kill him and that makes it a meaningful choice if you do or if you refrain from doing.
The game mechanic treats every case exactly the same: it is the players' choices that give it meaning and variability. Just because you can do something does not require fulfilling the most negative potential.
The game mechanic does not treat both cases the same
If the merchant premptively attacks to protect his property (the caravan on the road)even if right about the threat he receives the penalty of reputation loss and alignment shift
If the settlement member premptively attacks to protect his property (the settlement) he receives no penalty whatsoever
How can you argue the game mechanic treats both exactly the same.
Both are the same situation that is to say a preemptive attack against a perceived threat (real or imagined) to protect your property
The mechanic treats them entirely differently.
This is still handing out speeding tickets at a NASCAR race. PFO was finally described as having PVP at its core. Once that was said, the only PVP or other activities that should incur a reputation hit are griefing, exploits or hacks.
If GW has decided that enough is enough, ban the player from the game code verification number. No IP changes. No Rerolls. No New Accounts. If you want back in, you have to buy a new Game Code and change IP, Email and reroll every toon. You also lose any of the perks gained from Kickstaters or other bought items.
The alignment / reputation systems are not designed to freeze you into the choice of being stupid or taking consequences for not being stupid. You perceive a threat, kill it! You perceive wrong, they kill you.
Welcome to Open World PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would play another alignment, but I want to use the SAD mechanic so I have to be Chaotic.So that is your choice. You are responsible. You are not forced into your alignment you chose it. Wanting is not necessity unless you are a slave to your desires and whims, in which case you are definitively chaotic by your nature.My choice was to use the game mechanic that GW created. Which requires me to be chaotic. I did not choose the alignment, the alignment is a requirement of a game mechanic.
So back to your first post, the game mechanic forced me to be chaotic.
I think it goes like this: You don't have to be chaotic to use the SAD mechanic, but using the SAD mechanic shifts your alignment towards chaotic. Though I don't know about lawful road tolls... Maybe PFO doesn't have those...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Caravans would then become battlewagons used to grief. Your construal of a Ryan's justification only makes the case for the rule. Your argument is specious.
And I wasn't arguing it should be the case that the caravan could premptively attack. I was arguing that the system should be consistent so either both can or neither can.
A settlement even during an open PVP window is not vulnerable to being taken by a small group of people you will still need an army on the field with siege engines. Why therefore do you feel they need to be able to premptively kill small groups of players or individuals
Spying can just as easily be done outside PVP windows so that is not a reason
Raiding POI's and outposts can just as easily be done outside PVP windows so that is not a reason
So come clean why do you feel you need to be able to kill small groups of characters near your settlement who can do no more damage inside a pvp window than they can outside.
(Before you claim an army may attack without declaring war that is not a reason either because any army trying to do so would end up with its entirety being at -7500 rep by the end of the battle and that is not a realistic scenario. I am pretty sure anyone wanting to take a settlement is going to be declaring war)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it goes like this: You don't have to be chaotic to use the SAD mechanic, but using the SAD mechanic shifts your alignment towards chaotic. Though I don't know about lawful road tolls... Maybe PFO doesn't have those...I would play another alignment, but I want to use the SAD mechanic so I have to be Chaotic.So that is your choice. You are responsible. You are not forced into your alignment you chose it. Wanting is not necessity unless you are a slave to your desires and whims, in which case you are definitively chaotic by your nature.My choice was to use the game mechanic that GW created. Which requires me to be chaotic. I did not choose the alignment, the alignment is a requirement of a game mechanic.
So back to your first post, the game mechanic forced me to be chaotic.
Nothing new has been stated for SAD, but to use the mechanic you must first be chaotic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can you link it? :)Nothing new has been stated for SAD, but to use the mechanic you must first be chaotic.
I could, but you can look it up as quickly. Go to the GW blog, scroll down to flags, the Bandit (I think is the name) Flag requires Chaotic alignment and allows you to SAD.
Its now a feat, but we have no other updates for it.