Goblin Squad Member
|
honestly GW doesnt need to justify it. Alignment in PfO isnt about moral choice because much of alignment has to do with intent.
Stealing to feed your family isnt evil, stealing a families food meaning to starve them out is. The game cant tell the difference between the two, to the game all it can know is "does this item belong to you, yes or no. Did you take the item without it being exchanged or dropped, yes or no".
The result is alignment is mostly a social mechanic designed to force a choice on players about what type of settlement and thus what group of people (faction) they should/can join.
Want to play in LG settlement but your group wants to have LG and LE players, you need to make a choice. Have the LE players play LN or LG, drop those players, or change your settlement choice to LN.
So in a TT setting it makes perfect sense that people of wildly different alignments can be in charge and part of the settlement, but PfO has to force the choice and they have to define something like alignment with clear cut mechanics.
I don't think it "has to" but rather simply a mechanism it's "choosing to" use. There are plenty of faction vs faction or kingdom vs kingdom games that make no reference or no mechanical reference to alignment whatsoever. In Planetside2 or DAOC there is no reference to alignment... but characters still manage to belong to factions that fight each other. Even in a themepark game like LOTRO not every foot-soldier fighting for the Free Peoples would be considered "Good" alignment wise let alone "Lawfull Good". Some are right awfull sob's indeed...they just rather not be servents of Sauron or Saruman.
PFO is choosing to go the route of using "alignment" in segregating the populace into different factions. It certainly has the option of doing so, whether that works out well for it or not remains to be seen. But it doesn't litteraly need to go that route to get faction based PvP. It could have gone another route had it wanted. I'm not trying to argue for it to change at this point, since it seems built into it's core design assumptions but I do feel compelled that it wasn't the only design choice open to it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it "has to" but rather simply a mechanism it's "choosing to" use. There are plenty of faction vs faction or kingdom vs kingdom games that make no reference or no mechanical reference to alignment whatsoever. In Planetside2 or DAOC there is no reference to alignment... but characters still manage to belong to factions that fight each other. Even in a themepark game like LOTRO not every foot-soldier fighting for the Free Peoples would be considered "Good" alignment wise let alone "Lawfull Good". Some are right awfull sob's indeed...they just rather not be servents of Sauron or Saruman.PFO is choosing to go the route of using "alignment" in segregating the populace into different factions. It certainly has the option of doing so, whether that works out well for it or not remains to be seen. But it doesn't litteraly need to go that route to get faction based PvP. It could have gone another route had it wanted. I'm not trying...
Thats because in DAOC and Planetside 2 your social structure is defined by what faction you join. In PfO there is no hard faction that prevents you from being on the same side as someone else..
The thing is that in those games morality is not an issue because they do not have DnD's alignment system in it.
And sure PfO could have done it different, i mean there are those npc factions that could have been used as the base.
however i think that alignment was meant less to act as a means of controlling behavior, but as a means of forcing social choices. So they arnt looking to make factions, but they are looking to force people to split up and one of the considerations players have to take into account is what alignment do you want to play. So am i going to join this faction or that faction (in essence). However where it is different than say PS2 is that even among people with the same alignment, you are still rivals. Two LG settlements can still fight each other over territory, the good/evil is a choice of what kind of mechanics people would like to use.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Has anyone distilled, anywhere, the issues characters will face if they are part of a chartered company where their membership falls within the company's alignment, but they are outside the alignment of range of the sponsoring settlement? Other than not actually technically being citizens, are there any real consequences other than those set by the settlement itself?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as I know, the only consequence of falling out of the alignment threshold of your Settlement is that you can no longer enter it and therefore can't train or get support of your roles.
You could still remain in your Company if you meet their alignment requirement and have access to their POI.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can not find specific recent reference (I am not Nihimon and do not have Andius seeking to KOS).
But there was recent dev post that if a company became a sponsored company, all who are not in one step of settlement would have to leave.
Companies which are not sponsored, can have looser arrangements with settlements and will have no alignment restrictions. (Now if I could just have a POI shrine to support domains to top tier while getting cleric training at other settlements).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I know, the only consequence of falling out of the alignment threshold of your Settlement is that you can no longer enter it and therefore can't train or get support of your roles.
You could still remain in your Company if you meet their alignment requirement and have access to their POI.
Don't conflate "physically being in the settlement" with "being a member of the settlement". A settlement's declared alignment has nothing to do with who can physically enter the location (unless they deliberately choose to set an alignment-based trespassing policy).
I don't believe we've seen any official quotes on this topic, but my speculation would be that any members of a company who are more than one step away from the settlement alignment, when the settlement offers that company a charter, either get autobooted on acceptance or must be manually booted before the company can accept.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And have there been any specifics on the effects of having core and active alignments out of sync?
There has been no word on it except that they are considering what to do. I think there were hints that only one step (active) from core would not hurt much unless you are reliant on alignment based feats.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stephen Cheney corrected me in a recent post, but he saud they have not yet begun to work on the alignment system. This tells me that there is room for crowd forging.
I'm personally hoping that alignment has no impact other than for gating certain abilities. I hope that settlement services and therefor citizenry is based on the organic supply vs demand controls, and not an artificial "funnel" for forcing alignment.
What I mean by this is, if a settlement does not support your training needs with its structures, you will search for one that does. A settlement manager will hopefully listen to the demands of his / her population and provided the needed services. What this would mean is:
If I'm CG, I could still be a citizen of a LG settlement because I have made the meaningful choice that the good alignment based training is more important to me than the chaotic. The settlement manager has decided that, although he will not build chaotic based structures, his settlement may still need characters with chaotic based skills to function. At the same time, a chaotic evil character will find no training support in that settlement and the manager will have no demand to require it.
|
I'm personally hoping that alignment has no impact other than for gating certain abilities. I hope that settlement services and therefor citizenry is based on the organic supply vs demand controls, and not an artificial "funnel" for forcing alignment.
I understand wanting this function, and I support that aspect of the Alignment system, but I think there NEEDS to be room for opposing Alignment PC's to have a go at each other, without fear of damaging their Rep, or their preferred Alignment/Playstyle. Whole nations going at each other for conquest wont mean quite as much when the players do not really care about another PCs Alignment.
This is not to say I want a KOS type situation, but that playstyle is just as legitimate as any other. Factions may also have a large role in this as well, as you say gating into specific training to support a diverse range of Roles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I'm CG, I could still be a citizen of a LG settlement because I have made the meaningful choice that the good alignment based training is more important to me than the chaotic. The settlement manager has decided that, although he will not build chaotic based structures, his settlement may still need characters with chaotic based skills to function. At the same time, a chaotic evil character will find no training support in that settlement and the manager will have no demand to require it.
I don't understand.
The scenario as I read it: A CG player joins a LG settlement, meaning no chaotic training or support will be available to him. The LG settlement allows him to join because they want characters able to use chaotic abilities.But since there are no chaotic structures, how can he use chaotic abilities?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I'm CG, I could still be a citizen of a LG settlement because I have made the meaningful choice that the good alignment based training is more important to me than the chaotic. The settlement manager has decided that, although he will not build chaotic based structures, his settlement may still need characters with chaotic based skills to function. At the same time, a chaotic evil character will find no training support in that settlement and the manager will have no demand to require it.I don't understand.
The scenario as I read it: A CG player joins a LG settlement, meaning no chaotic training or support will be available to him. The LG settlement allows him to join because they want characters able to use chaotic abilities.But since there are no chaotic structures, how can he use chaotic abilities?
So far there has been no definitive answer about training in a settlement that your character does not belong to. My hope is that you can train anywhere that has the services that you need and where your reputation will allow you to enter. This will also provide your settlement with a source of income, by charging a rate for training slot usage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A settlement can potentially support nearly EVERY role up to the max level. Members of classes will have to travel to train but will hold onto any of the skills their home settlement supports. Let me say that again - A SETTLEMENT CAN SUPPORT NEARLY EVERY ROLE UP TO THE MAX LEVEL. Players with vastly different reputations, however, will NOT be able to live at the same places - reputation will limit which settlements allow you to join.
I was thinking that support buildings would be limited to settlements of the corresponding alignment (in case they support alignment-specific abilities). When reading what Tork said again he doesn't touch upon that at all. In my thinking, the reason he left that out is that alignment restricts who can live where, making which support structures you can build irrelevant.
This isn't me saying that you shouldn't discuss other options, I'm mostly just trying to figure out where things are at as of now.
Edit: There's also this:
I mentioned up above that although there is 1 step leeway on most things (and as a result the 'non-lawful' class restrictions become effectively meaningless) there WILL be restrictions on training that go above and beyond the class descriptions in the Core Rulebook. We have much greater granularity than that so while Paladins will most likely be able to live in a settlement alongside Barbarians that settlement they will not both be able to train there. Its likely, for example, that Paladin Chapter houses will only be able to be built in LG settlements. Paladin support structures will probably be allowed in settlements with an alignment 1 step out from that, but the Paladins who live there will need to travel to train.
This is a restriction that exceeds those in the PFRPG, and this is deliberate. Settlements will have to make these meaningful decisions. This is not meant to complicate the issue of alignment, its meant to increase diversity across settlements and to encourage inter-settlement relationships.
While he says "Paladin support structures will probably be allowed in settlements with an alignment 1 step out.." while discussing an example, the general gist of it sounds pretty definitive to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A settlement can potentially support nearly EVERY role up to the max level. Members of classes will have to travel to train but will hold onto any of the skills their home settlement supports. Let me say that again - A SETTLEMENT CAN SUPPORT NEARLY EVERY ROLE UP TO THE MAX LEVEL. Players with vastly different reputations, however, will NOT be able to live at the same places - reputation will limit which settlements allow you to join.
This is where I hope the system remains. Alignment as a gate to skills that are alignment based and Reputation as a gate to enter the settlement or to receive training beyond a certain level. This would then be further differentiated, not by a settlement's alignment, but by what structures (alignment based) the managers decide to build and support.
The assumption that this would lead to all settlements being TN, is not based on any evidence but also rejects the notion that the PFO player base will care nothing about role playing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agree with Bluddwolf here. Reputation should be the deciding factor if you can enter a Settlement or not. Using Bluddwolf's example of a CG aligned character entering a LG Settlement to seek training or even to trade is perfectly acceptable and preferred if his reputation allows him to enter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There aren't going to be "alignment based" skills or feats. That sort of training has been rolled into the NPC faction system. So if you want to train for a chaotic career like banditry, you'll have to find a settlement which has built a faction house for an NPC thieves guild.
We haven't heard anything about whether "support" options exist for factional training.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stephen Cheney corrected me in a recent post, but he saud they have not yet begun to work on the alignment system. This tells me that there is room for crowd forging.
I'm personally hoping that alignment has no impact other than for gating certain abilities. I hope that settlement services and therefor citizenry is based on the organic supply vs demand controls, and not an artificial "funnel" for forcing alignment.
What I mean by this is, if a settlement does not support your training needs with its structures, you will search for one that does. A settlement manager will hopefully listen to the demands of his / her population and provided the needed services. What this would mean is:
If I'm CG, I could still be a citizen of a LG settlement because I have made the meaningful choice that the good alignment based training is more important to me than the chaotic. The settlement manager has decided that, although he will not build chaotic based structures, his settlement may still need characters with chaotic based skills to function. At the same time, a chaotic evil character will find no training support in that settlement and the manager will have no demand to require it.
Bludd, I would have the same preference in that regard but I'm not hopefull that GW will backtrack on thier proposed plans for alignment. It seems too central to thier game design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Grumpy Mel,
They haven't even started working on the Alignment System, which means there would be no walking backwards, there is only moving forwards.
Secondly, if Alignment was central, it would be a part of MVP. Now a Dev may come in and say, "No it is still central to our plans", but it is equally possible that it isn't and they are just saying that to appease those who believe it should be.
I'm hopeful they consider my proposal for how alignment could or even should work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There aren't going to be "alignment based" skills or feats.Are you sure? I was under the impression that some of the Paladin Feats would require you to maintain Lawful Good alignment. You're generally pretty accurate, so I'm hoping you can provide a reference.
The NPC faction (eagle knights?) offering that training can certainly make alignment one of their requirements for allowing you to join or progress in their faction. So the net effect is that you still have an alignment requirement to get the training you want, but the mechanical presentation is that this is training you get by being an eagle knight, not by being LG.
On phone, can't easily find reference >8-[
Secondly, if Alignment was central, it would be a part of MVP.
So Settlements, Wars and banditry are not central? Okeydokey. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There aren't going to be "alignment based" skills or feats.Are you sure? I was under the impression that some of the Paladin Feats would require you to maintain Lawful Good alignment. You're generally pretty accurate, so I'm hoping you can provide a reference.
I'm cautiously hopeful that Paladin will only have a Lawful requirement, with Good/Neutral/Evil flavors. (which would make it a parallel to Barbarian)
I really wouldn't want them to spend time developing a role that is only available to such a specific subset.
Well, there is the Hellknight...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Over in the Cleric thread there is information that Cleric Domains are restricted to particular deities, and those deities are approachable via alignment.
The Anti-Paladin is the embodiment of evil. Lawful Evil is generally "Evil, but with standards", and is therefore impeded. Chaotic Evil is pure, selfish desires.
Personally, I'd see Neutral Evil as the best match, but eeeh.