Rovagug is dead in the water, it has been dead in the water since the first version. The fact that TSV and TEO continue to flog a dead horse says a lot for their sadomasochistic equine necrophiliac tendencies.
But hey it takes all sorts and I believe you should be entitled to pursue an alternative lifestyle no matter how bizarre
Is there a need for such labeling/insult/name calling? Is that one of the strengths of your "conversational prowess"?
You were doing well in defending yourself, asking good questions, and debating approaches before all that.
Outspoken opinionated people are great. When it turns mean, is when it loses credibility.
Greetings bringslite
Yes you are correct I should be the bigger person however...
I have been met by a lot of hostility since I delurked here and sorry I have taken the view I will kick back and kick back hard. This is not what I wanted to do but this forum frankly has some people who will try and bully you into quiescence. Not going to work with me.
I do not believe you can point at a me responding in an initially hostile style to any organisation before there members have gone on the attack first. I accept my opinions do not match every ones and I am up for a lively debate without any sort of personal or group attacks. That is not however how I have been received by many and they have gone on the attack. Where I have been attacked I have hit back. I do not believe in a turn the other cheek doctrine.
While I realise this may not make you happy you will notice you challenged me without making it personal and I have replied without rancour in a straightforward, honest and polite manner. I treat people how they or their organisations treat me.
Sorry. While you're finding the terms of the "first" Treaty of Rovagug could you also find a post where I or any other TEO member says something rude to you without you provoking us first?
As I said the first treaty forms the first post of a mighty long thread on here and is either searchable or you can follow the link provided by Pax Morbis
as to where you say something rude or provoke me did you not say
Am I to understand you are volunteering brighthaven for our first test of strength. Does 'Lord' Andius know of your kind offer?Is that rude? Not in my book
You seem to presume to know me much better than you do. Probably the first thing you should learn is that TSV are not members of Brighthaven, and I am not it's leader. TSV and TEO have an alliance that predates the every other active group's presence in the PFO community, and it has been understood from the beginning that we will likely live in separate settlements unless both parties decide it would be to our mutual advantage to live together.
Right now we see no need to do so and much advantage in having two settlements with separate alignments.
But make no mistake . If you test TSVs strength you will feel the full wrath of ours.
I ask a question do you Andius know that brighthaven is being offered as a first test of strength...in reply to someone telling me to bring it on.
You then challenge me as to how much I know about you and I posted what I know. Sorry if that upsets you but you did challenge...to quote your words "You seem to presume to know me much better than you do."
Sorry if I took you up on the challenge but did you really think I wouldn't? Should you care to point out where I was in error I will be glad to correct it after stringent checking you aren't bending the truth. Afterall I don't want to appear to be unfair
Why would we threaten Phaeros when Brighthaven is going to be easy(in my opinion)? When conquering territories you do not necessarily take the weakest first you take those that the others are most likely to coalesce around. For whatever reason some of you believe Andius of TEO is a military genius. Whether we believe that to be true or not it makes sense for us to first remove his base of operations should we decide you and your ilk are the correct people to target first
The point you're missing is there are no terms. That topic was an invitation to a convention where terms could be written. Anyone who claims to have read the "first" Treaty if Rovagug is either being dishonest or daft.
And those terms were roundly rejected the first time round in these forums. Most people wanted nothing to do with them if you believe that I am wrong go ahead and prove it....start a new treaty of rovagug thread and see if you can get it through this time.
Can I assume as you havent mentioned the "" could you also find a post where I or any other TEO member says something rude to you without you provoking us first? " question you now accept that it was one of the things that was your fault and that you challenged me by asserting I was a liar in claiming to know your PVP history and thatof TEO?
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rovagug is dead in the water, it has been dead in the water since the first version. The fact that TSV and TEO continue to flog a dead horse says a lot for their sadomasochistic equine necrophiliac tendencies.
But hey it takes all sorts and I believe you should be entitled to pursue an alternative lifestyle no matter how bizarre
Is there a need for such labeling/insult/name calling? Is that one of the strengths of your "conversational prowess"?
You were doing well in defending yourself, asking good questions, and debating approaches before all that.
Outspoken opinionated people are great. When it turns mean, is when it loses credibility.
Greetings bringslite
Yes you are correct I should be the bigger person however...
I have been met by a lot of hostility since I delurked here and sorry I have taken the view I will kick back and kick back hard. This is not what I wanted to do but this forum frankly has some people who will try and bully you into quiescence. Not going to work with me.
I do not believe you can point at a me responding in an initially hostile style to any organisation before there members have gone on the attack first. I accept my opinions do not match every ones and I am up for a lively debate without any sort of personal or group attacks. That is not however how I have been received by many and they have gone on the attack. Where I have been attacked I have hit back. I do not believe in a turn the other cheek doctrine.
While I realise this may not make you happy you will notice you challenged me without making it personal and I have replied without rancour in a straightforward, honest and polite manner. I treat people how they or their organisations treat me.
I don't have any problem with lively debate, and I value your new and unique point of view. It is obvious (to me) that you have researched quite a bit or all there is out there about PfO. That is great. We need new blood all the time. Coming in educated and opinionated is providing terrific value to this "Collaborative Assumption Festival"
It would be a shame if one of your opinions, hard questions, or even thought provoking statements were "removed" by the moderator because they include some silly jab.
P.S. I do appreciate that you responded to my "initial post" without rancor. I am not trying to seem like I feel I am a forum cop (In Academy). Just voicing an opinion.
Do you not go by the self styled Cognomen Lord Andius? Is typing the name you wish to be known by is provoking in your mind why do you use it instead of a name you won't be provoked by?
Just because you perceive including 'lord' in quotes your culture considers rude does not make it so in most cultures....indeed in most cultures gifting yourself a title that you have no right to is considered a little suspect.
A clue here ...your little corner of the world is not the entire world and what offends you doesn't necessarily offend everyone. If someone post something that offends me that I am not sure is offensive everywhere I generally pm them and ask them if they would mind desisting. If you had done so I would have complied while at the same time explaining why I put it in quotes because it is a title that you shouldn't be claiming.
I don't have any problem with lively debate, and I value your new and unique point of view. It is obvious (to me) that you have researched quite a bit or all there is out there about PfO. That is great. We need new...Rovagug is dead in the water, it has been dead in the water since the first version. The fact that TSV and TEO continue to flog a dead horse says a lot for their sadomasochistic equine necrophiliac tendencies.
But hey it takes all sorts and I believe you should be entitled to pursue an alternative lifestyle no matter how bizarre
Is there a need for such labeling/insult/name calling? Is that one of the strengths of your "conversational prowess"?
You were doing well in defending yourself, asking good questions, and debating approaches before all that.
Outspoken opinionated people are great. When it turns mean, is when it loses credibility.
Greetings bringslite
Yes you are correct I should be the bigger person however...
I have been met by a lot of hostility since I delurked here and sorry I have taken the view I will kick back and kick back hard. This is not what I wanted to do but this forum frankly has some people who will try and bully you into quiescence. Not going to work with me.
I do not believe you can point at a me responding in an initially hostile style to any organisation before there members have gone on the attack first. I accept my opinions do not match every ones and I am up for a lively debate without any sort of personal or group attacks. That is not however how I have been received by many and they have gone on the attack. Where I have been attacked I have hit back. I do not believe in a turn the other cheek doctrine.
While I realise this may not make you happy you will notice you challenged me without making it personal and I have replied without rancour in a straightforward, honest and polite manner. I treat people how they or their organisations treat me.
I have not as yet had a post moderated here and I suspect I won't because frankly I consider my insults tend toward the non offensive end of the scale. However I shall bear what you say in mind bringslite.
I will not ever promise not to fight back however because that way I would just make myself a target
This thread was interesting for a while, and now it is not.
My apologies for boring you :)
I do tend to agree though
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see. So the most reasonable course of action for you seemed to be to pull a title I use in another game that requires two names and use it in a unrelated forum... in quotes. That apparently was not intended as an insult, it's just the easiest way to address me?
I have an island to sell to anyone who believes that.
By the way the title "Lord Andius" was chosen because people had trouble typing "Andius Meuridiar" when I briefly tried the EU server.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm starting to wonder if things which cause a -rep change should also cause Chaos or Good shift.
I can't conceive of anything that would be +Law or +Good and -Rep, but I can think of several things that I expect to be +Chaos and +Evil and -Rep.
I like the idea of low reputation players causing harm to settlements that have them as citizens, but I feel that making CE settlements have to deal with almost all of the lowest reputation characters is the opposite of having meaningful choices for other alignments.
I see. So the most reasonable course of action for you seemed to be to pull a title I use in another game that requires two names and use it in a unrelated forum in quotes. That apparently was not intended as an insult, it's just the easiest way to address me?
I have an island to sell to anyone who believes that.
By the way the title "Lord Andius" was chosen because people had trouble typing "Andius Meuridiar" when I briefly tried the EU server.
*sigh*
I chose the name deliberately to show you I knew of your exploits in other games nothing more and nothing less. As I was telling you that I was aware of your pvp experience in other games for some reason it seemed appropriate to demonstrate some knowledge.
Continue to be annoyed over this if you choose to but I am finished with this conversation
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to wonder if things which cause a -rep change should also cause Chaos or Good shift.
I can't conceive of anything that would be +Law or +Good and -Rep, but I can think of several things that I expect to be +Chaos and +Evil and -Rep.
I like the idea of low reputation players causing harm to settlements that have them as citizens, but I feel that making CE settlements have to deal with almost all of the lowest reputation characters is the opposite of having meaningful choices for other alignments.
I don't take credit for noticing this, but I had a pretty rational scenario explained to me once in teamspeak.
Basically, what if Chaotic Evil is not mechanically disadvantaged primarily to modify behavior. What if it is a mechanical balance of a popular pvp zerg play style that would otherwise have a strong advantage if no restraints were in place?
The ability to kill in large roaming packs at will is as massive strength. That is balanced by it being disadvantaged so as to not make it the default win condition of the game.
In that light it is balancing that alignment in line with the others with more constraints.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to wonder if things which cause a -rep change should also cause Chaos or Good shift.
I can't conceive of anything that would be +Law or +Good and -Rep, but I can think of several things that I expect to be +Chaos and +Evil and -Rep.
I like the idea of low reputation players causing harm to settlements that have them as citizens, but I feel that making CE settlements have to deal with almost all of the lowest reputation characters is the opposite of having meaningful choices for other alignments.
I thought that the settlement leadership sets the minimum reputation. There are possibly many meaningful choices there (We don't yet know the difference between a highest rep CE settlement and a lowest rep., nor do we know the gradations.)
I'm starting to wonder if things which cause a -rep change should also cause Chaos or Good shift.
I can't conceive of anything that would be +Law or +Good and -Rep, but I can think of several things that I expect to be +Chaos and +Evil and -Rep.
I like the idea of low reputation players causing harm to settlements that have them as citizens, but I feel that making CE settlements have to deal with almost all of the lowest reputation characters is the opposite of having meaningful choices for other alignments.
I don't take credit for noticing this, but I had a pretty rational scenario explained to me once in teamspeak.
Basically, what if Chaotic Evil is not mechanically disadvantaged primarily to modify behavior. What if it is a mechanical balance of a popular pvp zerg play style that would otherwise have a strong advantage if no restraints were in place?
The ability to kill in large roaming packs at will is as massive strength. That is balanced by it being disadvantaged so as to not make it the default win condition of the game.
In that light it is balancing that alignment in line with the others with more constraints.
While large roaming packs or zergs are always a potential problem I thought the offset for this was that settlements required siege weaponry to take and formation combat.
If that is true does it necessarily need an alignment nerf as well as during a war there are no alignment or reputation hits so all alignments from lawful good to chaotic evil are equally able to use zerg tactics
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it seems to me that Steelwing has three sorts of posts.
- Some are discussion of what he would like to see.
- Some rail against the lack of immediate response from debs when he asks questions. (we seem to get much quicker responses, I guess 8-). And
- some much more aggressive, belligerent discussion.
I have been chastised and will not speak of it again. But I ask reconsideration.
I do acknowledge that Steelwing is part of the society. I am not sure what she wants.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm starting to wonder if things which cause a -rep change should also cause Chaos or Good shift.
I can't conceive of anything that would be +Law or +Good and -Rep, but I can think of several things that I expect to be +Chaos and +Evil and -Rep.
I like the idea of low reputation players causing harm to settlements that have them as citizens, but I feel that making CE settlements have to deal with almost all of the lowest reputation characters is the opposite of having meaningful choices for other alignments.
I don't take credit for noticing this, but I had a pretty rational scenario explained to me once in teamspeak.
Basically, what if Chaotic Evil is not mechanically disadvantaged primarily to modify behavior. What if it is a mechanical balance of a popular pvp zerg play style that would otherwise have a strong advantage if no restraints were in place?
The ability to kill in large roaming packs at will is as massive strength. That is balanced by it being disadvantaged so as to not make it the default win condition of the game.
In that light it is balancing that alignment in line with the others with more constraints.
While large roaming packs or zergs are always a potential problem I thought the offset for this was that settlements required siege weaponry to take and formation combat.
If that is true does it necessarily need an alignment nerf as well as during a war there are no alignment or reputation hits so all alignments from lawful good to chaotic evil are equally able to use zerg tactics
But pvp will not only occur in settlements, right?
Other alignments have to toe a line to whatever metric in wild lands, traveling in between sovereign territory, or choosing to hit an outpost prior to formal aggression.
CE has nothing to lose, they have lost it on the front end. Instead they are able to look for the easiest path between them and their goal.
I'm starting to wonder if things which cause a -rep change should also cause Chaos or Good shift.
I can't conceive of anything that would be +Law or +Good and -Rep, but I can think of several things that I expect to be +Chaos and +Evil and -Rep.
I like the idea of low reputation players causing harm to settlements that have them as citizens, but I feel that making CE settlements have to deal with almost all of the lowest reputation characters is the opposite of having meaningful choices for other alignments.
I don't take credit for noticing this, but I had a pretty rational scenario explained to me once in teamspeak.
Basically, what if Chaotic Evil is not mechanically disadvantaged primarily to modify behavior. What if it is a mechanical balance of a popular pvp zerg play style that would otherwise have a strong advantage if no restraints were in place?
The ability to kill in large roaming packs at will is as massive strength. That is balanced by it being disadvantaged so as to not make it the default win condition of the game.
In that light it is balancing that alignment in line with the others with more constraints.
While large roaming packs or zergs are always a potential problem I thought the offset for this was that settlements required siege weaponry to take and formation combat.
If that is true does it necessarily need an alignment nerf as well as during a war there are no alignment or reputation hits so all alignments from lawful good to chaotic evil are equally able to use zerg tactics
But pvp will not only occur in settlements, right?
Other alignments have to toe a line to whatever metric in wild lands, traveling in between sovereign territory, or choosing to hit an outpost prior to formal aggression.
CE has nothing to lose, they have lost it on the front end. Instead they are able to look for the easiest path between them and their goal.
Yes it is certainly true that not all pvp happens in settlements, neither will war and feud situations necessarily be about taking settlements. (I should note here as a declaration of interest we will should we come adopt the alignment most mechanically advantageous with least restrictions and I suspect that will be LE or LN)
The penalty for CE zerging will of course I assume be rep loss. It is this which seems to prevent zerging more than CE as it gates both settlement DI and training. Once again I am not sure you really need to do much to people purely because they wish to be CE. They will suffer just as much as others without high rep and the way they will keep high rep is to use wars and feuds which then enables both sides to use the zerg so everything equal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I'm starting to wonder if things which cause a -rep change should also cause Chaos or Good shift.
I can't conceive of anything that would be +Law or +Good and -Rep, but I can think of several things that I expect to be +Chaos and +Evil and -Rep.
I like the idea of low reputation players causing harm to settlements that have them as citizens, but I feel that making CE settlements have to deal with almost all of the lowest reputation characters is the opposite of having meaningful choices for other alignments.
I don't take credit for noticing this, but I had a pretty rational scenario explained to me once in teamspeak.
Basically, what if Chaotic Evil is not mechanically disadvantaged primarily to modify behavior. What if it is a mechanical balance of a popular pvp zerg play style that would otherwise have a strong advantage if no restraints were in place?
The ability to kill in large roaming packs at will is as massive strength. That is balanced by it being disadvantaged so as to not make it the default win condition of the game.
In that light it is balancing that alignment in line with the others with more constraints.
While large roaming packs or zergs are always a potential problem I thought the offset for this was that settlements required siege weaponry to take and formation combat.
If that is true does it necessarily need an alignment nerf as well as during a war there are no alignment or reputation hits so all alignments from lawful good to chaotic evil are equally able to use zerg tactics
But pvp will not only occur in settlements, right?
Other alignments have to toe a line to whatever metric in wild lands, traveling in between sovereign territory, or choosing to hit an outpost prior to formal aggression.
CE has nothing to lose, they have lost it on the front end. Instead they are able to look for the easiest path between
I have heard nothing about crime bombing settlements as being a rep loss condition, unless I have missed something (which is entirely possible). Would that not be an advantage of a Chaotic, in some cases of raid based crime bombing CE advantage that another alignment might not have to worry over?
Given I have less stake on the alignment debate. I don't look at it through the eyes of roleplay. It is just a mechanical system.
There are some tactics I do believe would be irrational not to jump into, if there were no associated costs in doing so. I look at alignment as a balancing act so that those things occur less than they would otherwise.
Goods, Lawfuls, Neutrals can all crime bomb, ambush raid, or otherwise be nefarious only if they:
1. Accept the disadvantages of slipping down the slope.
2. Keep a meta element active for such purposes. This has organizational and possible diplomatic fallout costs I am sure.
3. Hire such services out. Carries a similar diplomatic cost should the contractor leak out the hire or an internal agent gains wind of the operation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of low reputation players causing harm to settlements that have them as citizens, but I feel that making CE settlements have to deal with almost all of the lowest reputation characters is the opposite of having meaningful choices for other alignments.
Or the CE settlement has high rep and doesn't take them in either, no one does, because they don't want their DI buggered.
In a more perfect world it would be a LE city taking in high rep LE, NE and CE. Anyone that trashes their rep can wallow in the NPC settlements for a while to repair it, or be permanent jerk-ronin.
Thanks for that post I literally fell asleep just before that scrolling through the other tired showboating conversation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have heard nothing about crime bombing settlements as being a rep loss condition, unless I have missed something (which is entirely possible). Would that not be an advantage of a Chaotic, in some cases of raid based crime bombing CE advantage that another alignment might not have to worry over?
A crime bomb in my understanding would not carry a rep cost for the defender, but it would probably carry the potential, possibly unavoidable, of lowering the Development Index. As you know if a settlement's DI is lower than needed to support top tier training, then among other negative effects would be unavailability of said training. Additionally it is expected that upkeep costs and other overhead items will be more expensive. The vulnerability window should also be reduced. Now, potentially if a settlement has reputation that factors development index then certainly there would also be a rep hit, but I don't believe that has been made explicit. It seems, nevertheless, a reasonable inference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Except for me naturally as I assume I am exempted on the grounds that I was told in no uncertain terms by some that I am not a part of this community nor will i be until I drink the Dancey koolaid. Frankly I would rather gargle with my own vomit so I can only assume that I should not be expected to take the communit interest into account
It only becomes so if you believe that everyone should be acting in the interest of all other players. Which they won't, nor should they be.
Your bringing more logic to the table, welcome to the community.
I could care less whether others agree to that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it seems the crime bomb will be the only real equalizer Chaotics can employ against the lawful settlements. If chaotic settlements, if the ever exist, can not raise themselves they will bring others down, and perhaps meet somewhere in the middle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That continues to be my worry. Excessive player killing (evil) does not affect your training like banditry does (chaos).
The lawful evil character can kill players on his lawn with regularity. The CG character can rob them but can't defend his territory.
Chaos is getting the shaft. Even if they PvP by the rules.
That continues to be my worry. Excessive player killing (evil) does not affect your training like banditry does (chaos).
The lawful evil character can kill players on his lawn with regularity. The CG character can rob them but can't defend his territory.
Chaos is getting the shaft. Even if they PvP by the rules.
Player killing costs reputation though if done outside the strictures of allowbale rep free situations. My understanding is reputation is what knocks your ability to train for six far more.
This is my current understanding
Alignment limits the training halls that can be built and the level they can operate at
Reputation affects the individuals ability to train to the higher levels even if they have access to a training hall that can provide that higher level training
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment limits the training halls that can be built and the level they can operate atReputation affects the individuals ability to train to the higher levels even if they have access to a training hall that can provide that higher level training
That's the only part I don't really agree with. That's why you can fudge on killing and still get high level training but can't fudge on chaos without suffering bad training facilities.
That's the only part I don't really agree with. That's why you can fudge on killing and still get high level training but can't fudge on chaos without suffering bad training facilities.
Alignment limits the training halls that can be built and the level they can operate atReputation affects the individuals ability to train to the higher levels even if they have access to a training hall that can provide that higher level training
I tend to the "I don't believe you should make some alignments automatically worse" school of thought myself. Unfortunately it is not me you need to convince but Ryan
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To have an active chaotic alignment means at the very least that you (with some mechanically measured regularity) break the law in your own or other sovereign lands.
That will carry its own consequence, or at the very least raise an inquiry when applying to join a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes it seems the crime bomb will be the only real equalizer Chaotics can employ against the lawful settlements. If chaotic settlements, if the ever exist, can not raise themselves they will bring others down, and perhaps meet somewhere in the middle.
I think your "If This - Then That" argument does more to support the freedom of choice of chaotic neutral and evil than it does point to it's limitations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To have an active chaotic alignment means at the very least that you (with some mechanically measured regularity) break the law in your own or other sovereign lands.
That will carry its own consequence, or at the very least raise an inquiry when applying to join a settlement.
SAD'ing will make you chaotic. That's actually what you want to be chaotic for, banditry. If I play the Robin Hood and SAD constantly by the rules but never kill I will be Chaotic Good. My reputation will take hits from banditry and I will not get access to the highest training unless I can latch on to a NG settlement.
No high access for the quintessential well played ranger/rogue. This affects the playstyles of all our chaotic archetypes, ranger, rogue and barbarian.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To have an active chaotic alignment means at the very least that you (with some mechanically measured regularity) break the law in your own or other sovereign lands.
That will carry its own consequence, or at the very least raise an inquiry when applying to join a settlement.
SAD'ing will make you chaotic. That's actually what you want to be chaotic for, banditry. If I play the Robin Hood and SAD constantly by the rules but never kill I will be Chaotic Good. My reputation will take hits from banditry and I will not get access to the highest training unless I can latch on to a NG settlement.
No high access for the quintessential well played ranger/rogue. This affects the playstyles of all our chaotic archetypes, ranger, rogue and barbarian.
Robbing people is robbing people. SADing instead of killing will probably endear you to your marks more than primary ambushers (while possibly having less of a tactical toolkit) but the merchants will likely still consider your operations a threat to their income. Mechanics aside that game play will still have its associated costs.
I like the idea of banditry being in the game, I think I have made that clear in the past. That said the act itself will always carry a meta reputation cost. After all, no matter how nice you are about it, you are still talking about taking peoples stuff.
I speculate that the mechanical disadvantages will not hinder highway robbery. I fully expect it to be supported in small bands (in comparison to large alliances. In other words small in the tens to hundreds)
As to the class restrictions. We have been given only three that might likely be limited. Barbarian, Monk, and Paladin. All are builds likely to be brought in years down the road, and of that list only one is applicable to chaos. I expect if problems emerge with Barbarian it will be balanced as the associated skills are released to the player base.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To have an active chaotic alignment means at the very least that you (with some mechanically measured regularity) break the law in your own or other sovereign lands.
That will carry its own consequence, or at the very least raise an inquiry when applying to join a settlement.
SAD'ing will make you chaotic. That's actually what you want to be chaotic for, banditry. If I play the Robin Hood and SAD constantly by the rules but never kill I will be Chaotic Good. My reputation will take hits from banditry and I will not get access to the highest training unless I can latch on to a NG settlement.
No high access for the quintessential well played ranger/rogue. This affects the playstyles of all our chaotic archetypes, ranger, rogue and barbarian.
Actually I think there is the same way for CG rogues to be high rep as there are CN or CE, provided GW does not tie reputation hits to their most common activities.
SADs that are reject do not bestow rep hits, even if the rogue kills the victim.
SADss that are accepted, gains rep for the rogue.
Raiding Outposts or POIs do not incur a rep hit. Read Going A-Viking and Hostility Blogs in conjunction with each other.
Raiding Caravans is not described in a Dev Blog yet, but Ryan had said it was reasonable to believe that it would be the same as outposts (paraphrased).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've not had a lot of discussion about low-rep Lawful Evils, have we?
Yeah. We tried talking about LG Paladins for a bit but all the Paladins could do without a rep hit was stand there, rigidly with their arms out to the side away from their private parts. One sneezed when the cleaning lady tried to dust his helmet and his rep went through the floor. That made him KoS and he decided to join the UNC just so he could scratch when he itched.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We've not had a lot of discussion about low-rep Lawful Evils, have we?Yeah. We tried talking about LG Paladins for a bit but all the Paladins could do without a rep hit was stand there, rigidly with their arms out to the side away from their private parts. One sneezed when the cleaning lady tried to dust his helmet and his rep went through the floor. That made him KoS and he decided to join the UNC just so he could scratch when he itched.
Paladins should be an uber role only the elect should gain access to and from time to time given directives by GW HQ directly to go out and "cleanse" the scum (bots-one-shot eg, griefers dossier hunt and destroy etc) of the River Kingdoms to make the world a better place for everyone else... /fixed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I play the Robin Hood and SAD constantly by the rules but never kill I will be Chaotic Good. My reputation will take hits from banditry and I will not get access to the highest training unless I can latch on to a NG settlement.
That's exactly what Robin Hood did.
His own "settlement" sucked. It was a bunch of guys hiding in the deep woods with no permanent structures.All his supplies and gear came from thievery or donations from sympathetic but more lawful allies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NEVER!! **charges back into the Paizo Forums waving his keyboard like a broad sword** =)
Sighs heavily as he digs out his diplomatic toolkit and readies to soothe over the ripples caused by his bosses keyboard wielding rampage muttering under his breath "I know I said use your keyboard when you need to send a message but that wasn't what I meant"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Paladins should be an uber role only the elect should gain access to and from time to time given directives by GW HQ directly to go out and "cleanse" the scum (bots-one-shot eg, griefers dossier hunt and destroy etc) of the River Kingdoms to make the world a better place for everyone else... /fixed.We've not had a lot of discussion about low-rep Lawful Evils, have we?Yeah. We tried talking about LG Paladins for a bit but all the Paladins could do without a rep hit was stand there, rigidly with their arms out to the side away from their private parts. One sneezed when the cleaning lady tried to dust his helmet and his rep went through the floor. That made him KoS and he decided to join the UNC just so he could scratch when he itched.
I think the Paladin role should simply be so very difficult to excel in that we have very few players able to really make an OP one... but I think it should be possible to make an OP one even if the player was unlikely to be able to maintain that state.
It would just be wonderful to see someone really do it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I play the Robin Hood and SAD constantly by the rules but never kill I will be Chaotic Good. My reputation will take hits from banditry and I will not get access to the highest training unless I can latch on to a NG settlement.That's exactly what Robin Hood did.
His own "settlement" sucked. It was a bunch of guys hiding in the deep woods with no permanent structures.
All his supplies and gear came from thievery or donations from sympathetic but more lawful allies.
Didn't keep Robin Hood himself from being an epic archer. I'd think most would call Friar Tuck a high level cleric etc,...
And I agree chaotic settlements should suck in other ways, collecting taxes etc. But you should be able to get the highest level training for Rogues, Rangers and Barbarians in them, right?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I play the Robin Hood and SAD constantly by the rules but never kill I will be Chaotic Good. My reputation will take hits from banditry and I will not get access to the highest training unless I can latch on to a NG settlement.That's exactly what Robin Hood did.
His own "settlement" sucked. It was a bunch of guys hiding in the deep woods with no permanent structures.
All his supplies and gear came from thievery or donations from sympathetic but more lawful allies.
And he and his men were able to train in the wilderness and became some of the best archers and swordsmen in the land.
If bandits, barbarians and other non city / settlement types were able to train outside of the settlement system, we probably would choose that over joining settlements.
I'm hoping that Factions may also be a source of training, at least for mid-level training.