Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
That argument's result is that every character perpetually has an FFA around them all the time. Since that is the state that the system started and evolved from, the more likely case is that the argument constructed against the proposed alignment/rep system is bass ackwards.
The player character can always at anytime attack any other player character. There are consequences involved with doing so.
Maybe the mechanic about FFA during a settlement's vulnerability window needs work, but that is what we are here for.
But moving from a murder simulator to something better that will appeal to the killer's perspective, the PVE players perspective, and the RP'ers perspective is not going to resolve back at satisfying only the killers perspective just because they are a little put out about not having every advantage and can find corner cases to misconstrue
|
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.
Except the flag system has been mostly scrapped.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Xeen
PvP Flags Revisited
With the introduction of factional instead of alignment-based conflict, the flag system has seen a significant rethink. Again this will be covered in detail in another post (I'm aware I've already gone on for a long while in this one!) but here's a quick overview to whet your whistle:
The alignment-based flags have been removed in favor of the "for the cause" flags of factional combat. Benefits associated with the Enforcer and Champion flags are now tied to alignment score and to factional membership, and the Assassin and Stand and Deliver special abilities have been moved to skill-based functionality, rather than flag-based functionality. The Criminal and Heinous flags remain, however, so that individuals who wish to police the game-world and punish evil or lawless characters can do so (another interesting area for PvP combat).
|
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 am presently awaiting a clarification from Stephen Cheney (I sent a PM) asking if the SAD mechanic and other Bandit / Raider activities are still tied to Chaotic (as was the SAD when there was the Outlaw Flag)or if specific alignment requirements were removed or not assigned.
If SADs, Ambushes, Intimidation or other skills or feats associated with Banditry or Raiding don't require a Chaotic X alignment, even though they may be chaotic activities, then we (UNC) would switch our company alignment to Lawful Neutral as was our original intent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So rather than attempting the impossible, how about some practical ideas how to make the system you dislike better?
Or you can spend two years voting among yourselves 42 times to defund the Rep system instead of using that two years productively.
|
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 am presently awaiting a clarification from Stephen Cheney (I sent a PM) asking if the SAD mechanic and other Bandit / Raider activities are still tied to Chaotic (as was the SAD when there was the Outlaw Flag)or if specific alignment requirements were removed or not assigned.
If SADs, Ambushes, Intimidation or other skills or feats associated with Banditry or Raiding don't require a Chaotic X alignment, even though they may be chaotic activities, then we (UNC) would switch our company alignment to Lawful Neutral as was our original intent.
Lets just do Lawful Evil, May as well get the all powerful advantage.
So rather than attempting the impossible, how about some practical ideas how to make the system you dislike better?
Or you can spend two years voting among yourselves 42 times to defund the Rep system instead of using that two years productively.
If that was addressed to me (and I wasn't sure if it was as it may have been aimed at bluddwolf and Xeen)
The simple answer is it really at the end of the day doesn't matter to me what systems they implement and how badly or well they implement them. The simple truth is that the more complex the system the easier it is for people like me and my group to find ways to use those systems against the unsuspecting and make those systems work for us rather than against us.
Should we join you in game we will use your alignment as a weapon against you and we will use your reputation as a weapon you and it will be totally within the bounds of the game.
The simpler and more consistent the system the less points of leverage we have to do so. By all means carry on arguing for more complex systems and exceptions if you like. *shrug*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So rather than attempting the impossible, how about some practical ideas how to make the system you dislike better?
Or you can spend two years voting among yourselves 42 times to defund the Rep system instead of using that two years productively.
Many people have given many suggestions to make the Rep system better.
First, say what it is meant to do, definitively.
Second, don't muddle it up with any other system, make it stand alone.
Third, make it simple to understand and apply to everyone equally
Fourth, make it as less restrictive or limiting as possible.
Fifth, observe and measure its effectiveness (data analysis)
Sixth, recalculate if needed
Seventh, reinforce it positively first and often, and negatively when needed but severely.
I'm not saying they are not doing any of these, but some they are clearly not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mmkay, so I apologise if this derails the current topic of discussion, however the thread that I would otherwise post this question in was locked, and this thread is at least tangentially related.
I have a question regarding the One-Step Rule that I would love some clarification on. Right now, you have to be one step away from the alignment choice of both your settlement and your company. From the sounds of it, the same rules apply for companies to be sponsored by settlements? Within a Lawful Good settlement, only LG, NG and LN companies can be sponsored?
Assuming the above is correct, what is the relationship towards a settlement of a character who is within a sponsored company, but doesn't fall within that settlements alignment range? For example, I am a Chaotic Good Ranger. I am a member of the Neutral Good company The Green Hoods. They decide to become sponsored by the Lawful Good settlement of Shinyville.
Is my ranger forced out of The Green Hoods? Is the Hoods' ability to join up with Shinyville barred until they purge their out-of-alignment-range members? Do I misunderstand the relationship between settlements and sponsored companies?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So how is someone going to be "kinda" Lawful Good?The preponderance of their actions over time will be lawful and good but not necessarily by a substantial degree.
How would this be exemplified through character actions? I get that they would do enough LG actions to stay LG while still committing actions not indicative of LG. That would be an obvious answer still, you said "play loosely with the idea of Alignment." What does that mean mechanically for the game?
@Pax Areks you understand that such shades of gray are the reason the alignment system in Pathfinder Online is not 9 points but millions, right?
That is all well and good. Still, one point separates LG from NG or LN. What do you plan to do with the wiggle room you have given us? Some abilities that are tied to archetypes such as Paladin, Monk, Barbarian have alignment requirements. What about a fighter?
How does a pure fighter archetyped character get affected if his alignment is "kinda" lawful good as opposed to "really" lawful good?
I can see how a paladin might lose one or more abilities, but for the non-alignment based archetype what does it matter?
Hence, how can someone be "kinda" lawful good? For a paladin that might matter, but what about everyone else?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Say what it is meant to do, definitively.
Provide a vector orthogonal to the Chaos/Law, Evil/Good grid which indicates how selfish or community-focused the character is.
Second, don't muddle it up with any other system, make it stand alone.
It is orthogonal to, and thus a part of, our extension of the classic alignment system.
Third, make it simple to understand and apply to everyone equally
When you take selfish acts, you will lose rep. When you take acts that benefit the community you gain rep. Logging in and playing in a non-selfish way is de facto community-positive.
Fourth, make it as less restrictive or limiting as possible.
Restrictions and limits are features, not bugs. This is arguable. But we aren't going to have the argument. There are other games that may have different standards. We're not emulating those games.
Fifth, observe and measure its effectiveness (data analysis)
Constantly. Every similar metric and context metrics as well.
Sixth, recalculate if needed
Crowdforging
Seventh, reinforce it positively first and often, and negatively when needed but severely.
We'll be arbitrary and capricious as needed.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Hence, how can someone be "kinda" lawful good? For a paladin that might matter, but what about everyone else?
I think you are stuck on the idea that alignment must be an intrinsic rather than extrinsic characteristic.
You are "kinda" lawful good if, when you are considering an actions' consequences, you realize that taking that action may shift you closer to or over the boundary to another alignment, and that extrinsic concern shapes your decisions.
It's possible that we could have intrinsic mechanics, like the healing you get from a divine source has a bias depending on how close your alignment is to the divine source's alignment, or actions you can take not because your alignment is X/Y, but is strongly X/Y.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Say what it is meant to do, definitively.
Provide a vector orthogonal to the Chaos/Law, Evil/Good grid which indicates how selfish or community-focused the character is.
Second, don't muddle it up with any other system, make it stand alone.It is orthogonal to, and thus a part of, our extension of the classic alignment system.
Third, make it simple to understand and apply to everyone equallyWhen you take selfish acts, you will lose rep. When you take acts that benefit the community you gain rep. Logging in and playing in a non-selfish way is de facto community-positive.
Fourth, make it as less restrictive or limiting as possible.Restrictions and limits are features, not bugs. This is arguable. But we aren't going to have the argument. There are other games that may have different standards. We're not emulating those games.
Fifth, observe and measure its effectiveness (data analysis)Constantly. Every similar metric and context metrics as well.
Sixth, recalculate if neededCrowdforging
Seventh, reinforce it positively first and often, and negatively when needed but severely.We'll be arbitrary and capricious as needed.
As it relates to the alignment system, if there are gradations of impact on the DI based on where along the axis scale you occupy that would be acceptable. The only time there would be a major impact is on the final point where alignment is actually changed. It us expected that at some point, one point will make all of the difference.
As I explained in another thread:
0 - 2500 Chaotic, mildly
2501 - 5000 Chaotic, randomly
5001 - 7490 Chaotic, unpredictable or unreliable
7491 -7500 Chaotic, You Crazy Bro!
In thus the difference would be unnoticeable between 5000 and 5001. You would however notice the impact difference between 2500 and 6000. Within the range you are not just, either chaotic or not.
The only exception would be the difference between Chaotic 0 and Neutral 1.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I could see alignment opening up new healing abilities. Tying it to magnitude would definitely result in most healers becoming +7000, -7000, and 0 in their respective alignments though. Then again that might make sense for clerics and paladins. Druids, not as much.
Clearly there should be a sixth orthogonal metric for Druids and allied neutrals ranging from neutral neutral (0:0) to True Neutral (+7000).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Third, make it simple to understand and apply to everyone equallyWhen you take selfish acts, you will lose rep. When you take acts that benefit the community you gain rep. Logging in and playing in a non-selfish way is de facto community-positive.
Last time Ryan said something along these lines, when you take actions to benefit the community, I read community in lower case. Like my community was my company or settlement. This time I read Community in upper case. Like the Community was all of PFO, not just my buddies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hence, how can someone be "kinda" lawful good? For a paladin that might matter, but what about everyone else?I think you are stuck on the idea that alignment must be an intrinsic rather than extrinsic characteristic.
If being a paladin hinges on being lawful good, which it does as lawful good is a prerequisite for attaining those abilities as you have said yourself, how is a paladin's alignment not intrinsic?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the system can reliably link your actions to their consequences, there's no functional difference to the two scenarios of the basic 'trolley problem'. Whether you pull a switch to divert the car or push someone onto the track to stop it, killing one person to save five would always result in the most good and the least evil.
To make a system which is always consistent and quantifiable, you need an external mechanic which is itself exempt from the consequences of the system and which enforces the letter of the rules.
To make a system which considers context, you need participants within the system who are capable of judging situational ethics and may themselves face consequences generated by the system they create.
I express this as "morality requires mortality" (mortal in the sense of having limitations, not necessarily just a limited lifespan). However, the game code and the computers running it are an external mechanic running a quantifiable system. Our only access to situational judgement lies in convincing the developers to change a mechanic, but they can't be non-mechanical.
This actually meshes well with the D&D/PFRPG alignment systems in which Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are quantifiable things unto themselves, as evidenced by the ability to detect them even when there's no action being performed which would change them. An unholy sword still registers as Evil when it's sitting on a shelf.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
If being a paladin hinges on being lawful good, which it does as lawful good is a prerequisite for attaining those abilities as you have said yourself, how is a paladin's alignment not intrinsic?
Perhaps strongly lawful good. Or perhaps Paladin abilities vary based on the strength of lawful and good.
In any event: Corner case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps strongly lawful good. Or perhaps Paladin abilities vary based on the strength of lawful and good.
In any event: Corner case.
I think you are stuck on the idea that alignment must be an intrinsic rather than extrinsic characteristic.
How are we suppose to think about something that is fundamentally tied to a character as extrinsic in the case of the Paladin archetype?
How does a fighter that is strongly lawful good differ from one that is barely lawful good? That would not be a corner case.
Obviously, slipping out of alignment could possibly lead to the disabling of abilities trained at a settlement they are no longer within one step of. Is that what you are referring to as extrinsic considerations? I would still say that alignment would be an intrinsic characteristic although not as intrinsic for a fighter as a paladin.
GW makes alignment intrinsic when it places alignment limitations on settlement citizenship which is where you receive training, which can be lost if you stray outside the alignment limits of the settlement. If there were no restrictions, then yes, I could see alignment being extrinsic, but what you have said and what Lee has said in the blog, speak counter to that. Stephen did say something contrary a while back but I would assume the most recent blog posts would be the authority on the matter.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[How are we suppose to think about something that is fundamentally tied to a character as extrinsic in the case of the Paladin archetype?
Corner Case
How does a fighter that is strongly lawful good differ from one that is barely lawful good? That would not be a corner case.
Why does it have to differ at all?
If you're at the bar, and you've had a few drinks, you have meaningful decisions to make.
A: Leave
B: Stay
B(i): Stop drinking
B(ii): Keep drinking
B(ii)(1): Drive anyway, you'll be careful
B(ii)(2): Call a cab when you're ready to leave
B(ii)(3): Dwarf girl with beard looks hot. Maybe she'll take you home.
B(ii)(4): Plan to sleep under the pool table
B(ii)(5): Lost weekend
Etc. etc. etc. Meaningful choices derived from the potential of a continuum from "sober" to "blackout drunk", and not necessarily defined by, but significantly impacted by the difference between "legally ok to drive" and "not legally ok to drive".
For most characters, most of the time, their alignment has no effect on what they do, mostly because players will play them according to their alignments. Some of the time, they won't, and those will be meaningful choices. The first straw on the camel's back is required to make the last straw have consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan I think it is understood that there are choices involved in an alignment, and there are gradations within an alignment. Will there be gradations of abilities that are based on alignment?
If I'm a lawful good cleric and my alignment in both axis are at 6500, will I have noticeably better spell effects compared to another cleric of the same deity, if his alignment is 2500 for both axis?
Or is alignment and it's impact on alignment based abilities an all or nothing thing?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment is intrinsic based on game mechanics and extrinsic based on player choice, because the actual choices a player makes change/do not change the characters alignment he is playing. By making a further analysis on the nature of alignment, one could say it transcends both intrinsic and extrinsic natures of thought because it is so prevalent. It's all about a meaningful choice.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first straw on the camel's back is required to make the last straw have consequences.
This: the metaphorical camel can carry a lot of straw, but while the straw in in the haystack it's impossible to tell the last one from any of the others.
That means that the one act that pushes a character over the edge is probably going to be one that a lot of other people are doing without changing alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will there be gradations of abilities that are based on alignment?
...
Or is alignment and it's impact on alignment based abilities an all or nothing thing?
I like the first one. Say you have a paladin of Iomedae who has trained lay on hands. If she's at maximal Good & Law, then her LoH operates at maybe 150% of normal, being at the central 'core' point of each would be the normal 100%, and if she's on the border of slipping into neutrality on both axes, the ability operates at 50%. Any further slips will turn it off, since it's a divine-powered supernatural ability.
Clerics have more flexibility, but their divine powers could still have a gradient of effect based on how far they are from their 'optimal' point. Sarenrae, for example, wants you to be as Good as you can be, but as impartial between Law & Chaos as possible so her optimal point is +7500 Good and 0 L/C. Because there's more flexibility, there's also less variance, so a heal cast at +7500 Good is maybe 125% effective, while being on the verge of slipping into NE operates at 75%. She's less concerned with the L/C axis (she doesn't have both the Law & Chaos domains, she has neither) so distance from the centre may have very little effect unless you're strongly skewed toward one and also low on Good. Spells and other supernatural powers shut down if you slip into LN or CN just as they would for falling to NE, but there would be more of a toggle and less of a gradient.
For the monk, their Law score might affect the strength of their supernatural abilities like Ki powers to a small degree, but they never lose them (they just can't train new ranks in Monk-specific stuff if they're no longer Lawful.
Barbarian rage abilities could likewise be somewhat adjusted by distance from maximal Chaos, with the ability to rage and to train new barbarian-specific stuff turning off if they become Lawful.
For any later classes, the same pattern applies. If the alignment restriction is a matter of having the right mindset, the abilities would vary in small ways, and if there are divinely-powered abilities, the amount of variance depends on how strict your requirements are.
On the target side, there could be a small 5% boost to positive effects for matching the alignment of the deity and a 5% weaker effect to them for being opposite to it. If it's a negative effect, then it's a little better used against opposite alignments and weaker vs. matching ones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...{Removed lots of good stuff}...
For any later classes, the same pattern applies. If the alignment restriction is a matter of having the right mindset, the abilities would vary in small ways, and if there are divinely-powered abilities, the amount of variance depends on how strict your requirements are.
On the target side, there could be a small 5% boost to positive effects for matching the alignment of the deity and a 5% weaker effect to them for being opposite to it. If it's a negative effect, then it's a little better used against opposite alignments and weaker vs. matching ones.
This is something the TT game DCC does well. Clerics of the same alignment as their target are fine; those who heal targets of an adjacent alignment may be committing a sin and healing those who are of opposite alignment is almost always considered a sin [note there are only 3 alignments in DCC: Law, Neutrality and Chaos.] What this effectively means is that healing those of opposite alignment to you has a lesser effect. Should be easy enough to implement and would definitely make alignment more meaningful in the community as a whole.
Thoughts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I don't think that's right.
|
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.I don't think that's right.
Looking at it mechanically, Chaotic Good is two steps away from "suck"
I tend to agree with Nihimon, Chaotic Good probably wont get bad training, and will likely be supported in NG settlements.
I do wonder if Chaotic Neutral might be less desirable though, being one step away from the most mechanically disadvantaged alignment.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
CG is also 2 steps away from the most mechanically advantaged alignment, LG. :) It's a middle ground between total freedom of action and highest quality training.Actually the most mechanically advantaged is LN, followed very closely by LE.
That's an interesting position for you to have, considering that you changed to Chaotic when you learned of their mechanical advantages.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CG is also 2 steps away from the most mechanically advantaged alignment, LG. :) It's a middle ground between total freedom of action and highest quality training.Actually the most mechanically advantaged is LN, followed very closely by LE.
Your assertion that LN will be more advantaged than the Lawfully aligned extremes does not have an inarguable basis. It should be more accurate to identify your opinion as an opinion and not fact, Bluud.
Your reasoning might be sound, but it is still only reasoning and not a finding.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's an interesting position for you to have, considering that you changed to Chaotic when you learned of their mechanical advantages.CG is also 2 steps away from the most mechanically advantaged alignment, LG. :) It's a middle ground between total freedom of action and highest quality training.Actually the most mechanically advantaged is LN, followed very closely by LE.
Bandits arent exactly Lawful
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CG is also 2 steps away from the most mechanically advantaged alignment, LG. :) It's a middle ground between total freedom of action and highest quality training.Actually the most mechanically advantaged is LN, followed very closely by LE.Your assertion that LN will be more advantaged than the Lawfully aligned extremes does not have an inarguable basis. It should be more accurate to identify your opinion as an opinion and not fact, Bluud.
Your reasoning might be sound, but it is still only reasoning and not a finding.
At this stage of development, everything written by everyone (except for the developers) is opinion, conjecture or an expression of hope.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this stage of development, everything written by everyone (except for the developers) is opinion, conjecture or an expression of hope.CG is also 2 steps away from the most mechanically advantaged alignment, LG. :) It's a middle ground between total freedom of action and highest quality training.Actually the most mechanically advantaged is LN, followed very closely by LE.Your assertion that LN will be more advantaged than the Lawfully aligned extremes does not have an inarguable basis. It should be more accurate to identify your opinion as an opinion and not fact, Bluud.
Your reasoning might be sound, but it is still only reasoning and not a finding.
Most of what is written by the developers is conjecture, intention, or speculation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you should only need high Lawful or Good points to construct high-functioning settlements.
CG & LE would be roughly equivalent, with the former getting along because they can generally count on one another and the latter having a system they can trust to hold things together. NN would work the same, with half goodwill and half structure.
LN, NG, and especially LG would hit the same Development Index cap as NN, LE, and CG, but they'd also have some 'insurance' so they're not as easy to disrupt by enemies sneaking onto their turf to cause corruption or unrest.
If the DI cap for alignment is 3, then a NE or CN settlement could reach 2, and only CE is so disorganized and brutal to be stuck with crappy DI 1.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The advantage to CE is you don't have to worry about things getting any worse. You attack the wrong settlement and lose your own ,so what , it was crappy anyway , just build another. A place to gather and decide who you will make an enemy out of next is all you need. Will the newbs want safety and security or the promise of lots of conflict without much commitment? CE may do quite well with recruitment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If CE were limited to DI 1, now matter what they do not to remain that low, they would do two things.
1. Not bother having a settlement of their own, they can get tier 1 training in starter settlement.
2. Race to the bottom of reputation, because there is no incentive not to.
Maybe they could just hang out in Thornkeep, but the numbers I gave were for illustrative purposes. Maybe NPC settlements are 0.5, or maybe their training is more expensive and/or gated by something else.
I'm just saying that it should not require a high degree of Law and Good to hit the DI cap. Enough altruism makes the rule of law unnecessary and a police state can keep egoism in check.
For objection 2, they're already likely to be close to the bottom rep-wise and don't have much reason to care unless they want to reform. They have the advantage of doing anything they want at any time and not having much to lose. CE is about instant gratification of wants above even the needs of others, it's not a great long-term plan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For objection 2, they're already likely to be close to the bottom rep-wise and don't have much reason to care unless they want to reform. They have the advantage of doing anything they want at any time and not having much to lose.If CE were limited to DI 1, now matter what they do not to remain that low, they would do two things.
1. Not bother having a settlement of their own, they can get tier 1 training in starter settlement.
2. Race to the bottom of reputation, because there is no incentive not to.
I think too many people are confusing a CE character with a player emulating CE. Only one has to be low rep by the current mechanics.
The thing a few of us keep trying to spotlight is CE can be despicable as an entity but not make trouble for other players how GW has defined and have high Reputation. By that reason alone there's no reason to assume they don't have just as much access as other high rep characters get to rep-defined services.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For objection 2, they're already likely to be close to the bottom rep-wise and don't have much reason to care unless they want to reform. They have the advantage of doing anything they want at any time and not having much to lose.I think too many people are confusing a CE character with a player emulating CE. Only one has to be low rep by the current mechanics.
The thing a few of us keep trying to spotlight is CE can be despicable as an entity but not make trouble for other players how GW has defined and have high Reputation. By that reason alone there's no reason to assume they don't have just as much access as other high rep characters get to rep-defined services.
Sure, corner cases are possible, but I did say "likely".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For objection 2, they're already likely to be close to the bottom rep-wise and don't have much reason to care unless they want to reform. They have the advantage of doing anything they want at any time and not having much to lose.If CE were limited to DI 1, now matter what they do not to remain that low, they would do two things.
1. Not bother having a settlement of their own, they can get tier 1 training in starter settlement.
2. Race to the bottom of reputation, because there is no incentive not to.
I think too many people are confusing a CE character with a player emulating CE. Only one has to be low rep by the current mechanics.
The thing a few of us keep trying to spotlight is CE can be despicable as an entity but not make trouble for other players how GW has defined and have high Reputation. By that reason alone there's no reason to assume they don't have just as much access as other high rep characters get to rep-defined services.
Nope, the creator of the game said CE will be LowRep-Sucky-a$!+!*%-jerks, there is no way around it. If you are CE in game, that means you must be CE in real life...
They will have no access to high rep services because at this moment there is no Settlement planned that is not Lawful. That alone puts them into a no high end (maybe no mid) training scenario. They will get NPC services at best.
If the game creator says they will be worthless to play... then they are going to be worthless to play.