Goblin Squad Member
|
The way I look at high level tiers of training or equipment or dedication bonuses, is that those are far down the road. As settlements grow in power, their rivals will begin to focus on hindering their DIs, their supply lines, they corruption or unrest levels, anything for the highest tied settlement to lose ground and access.
I'm not convinced we will see anything really high gear or skill training for more than a year after OE begins.
Being a highly effective combatant will involve maximizing "core" skills (similar to EVE) which are skills that transfer easily to any role and work equally well for both PVP and PVE.
All of this is of course subject to change, and it will change multiple times during EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what if a CE character or settlement does not want to be the content for others? You are saying their only advantage and purpose is to take down other settlements' DIs. What if they have no interest in that? What if they want to have a high rep, well developed settlement and behave in a way that is still CE but does not produce reputation loss?
I could be a chaotic evil merchant, and be a notorious price gouger. I might give preferential pricing to you for wearing a green hat on Tuesday, but not any other day and not on the third Tuesday of the month on even number months and on odd months in leap year. Is he insane? Yes. Is he greedy (evil), yes. Is he doing anything to lose reputation, no!
Now to the main point of the post. What if there is a Chaotic Evil settlement that doesn't want to be content for others? The short answer is "Well that's too damn bad." but let me explain why that is the answer.
First, lets address why it makes sense to mechanically block chaotic evil settlements from ever being as good as a lawful good one can potentially be.
A truly chaotic evil settlement would have almost nothing in the way of limitations on behavior. As detailed above. Chaos means anarchy. If you live in a chaotic settlement then there is little to nothing in the way of laws, and the ethics system basically boils down to "might makes right."
Running a chaotic evil settlement that would be as strong or well organized is a lawful-good one would be virtually impossible.
Think about it for a second. How is a leader determined chaotically? How are rules set chaotically? They aren't. In a truly chaotic organization the leader is whoever can intimidate or inspire people to do what they say. A common chaotic evil practice is "if you kill the leader then you are the new leader" because strength is the only value they respect. It's not democracy, it's anarchy.
There's just one catch about that. The fact you are chaotic-evil in-game doesn't mean you aren't running an extremely lawful system from the meta-game and that allows chaotic evil settlements to function much, much, much more smoothly than they really should be able to.
I realize there is the "don't s%$* where you eat" rule and that just because you do lawless evil things to other people doesn't mean you have to be lawless and evil within your own group. But someone willing to cut another man's throat for money is much more likely to cut an ally's throat when convenient. People who are truly chaotic and evil generally lack much more restraint than a non-chaotic evil player controlling a character of that alignment.
Secondly, why is it good for the game to slap this kind of limitation down?
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.
That in a nutshell explains the modern world. That is why in every major nation, things such as murder and theft are illegal. Why war is generally viewed as a bad thing, and nations that are too warlike generally fall to alliances of many nations working against them. Why criminals are tiny minority. Why murderers make up a statistically tiny portion of the population.
Unfortunately in gaming all of this is greatly changed by two things.
1. Respawns- Just like how in real life criminals generally cannot be stopped before they cause harm, they cannot be in games either. But in real life when the majority who oppose their actions find them, they pay dearly. Sometimes with the loss of life, or permanent imprisonment. The consequences are so great that criminals are a statistically tiny portion of the population. In games where the heaviest penalties for criminal actions are incredibly light, far more people choose to behave in an anti-social manner.
2. The Choice to Leave- When the population is exposed to the much, much, much higher frequency of anti-social behavior many will simply up and leave. When they do so, the % of criminals in the population rises, as does the frequency of anti-social behavior. It's a self feeding loop.
Now I'm sure some are saying. "But reputation is the anti-social behavior mechanic." No it's not. Rep is the anti-a*~+&&* mechanic. Think about the things you can get away with as a chaotic evil player without losing rep. Walking up to someone, demanding their property, and killing them should they refuse. That's not exactly neighborly behavior. If someone did that in real life, everyone with any sense of morality would object.
But in moderation, those kind of things are good for the game. It supplements the war/feud systems (which will provide the majority of the PvP content) by providing action, excitement, a sense of danger to everyone. It creates rivalries and reasons to fight. That's not being an a%#*&%*. Not unless you take it too far.
The problem is that too many people do take it to far, and show absolutely no restraint. In Freelancer we had a term called "breaking your toys". It's a term we used when someone pounded another group so hard, so consistently, that they left the server. It was usually used in a negative connotation to imply the group who was "breaking their toys" was destroying their own content.
Having the alignments that can behave in an anti-social manner will cause some players who might have otherwise chosen that role not to, but still leaves the viable option of doing so. If the downsides are balanced properly, it also limits anti-social behavior to the extent that chaotic evil groups wont "break their toys" by driving all the non-PvPers out of the game.
This is then counterbalanced again by something that will stop lawful good factions from breaking their toys.
Settlement Alignments have two mechanical effects aside from controlling settlement membership.
Corruption: Corruption measures how much inefficiency there is in your settlement, decreasing income from taxes and other fees. Corruption starts high for Chaotic settlements and low for Lawful settlements, but as laws are broken in the settlement its Corruption increases. So a Lawful settlement that enforces its laws poorly can end up with more Corruption than a Chaotic settlement (which is required to set fewer laws).
Unrest: Unrest measures how unhappy your NPCs are, causing them to work less hard and decreasing crafting and training efficiency so they take longer. Unrest starts high for Evil settlements and low for Good settlements, but, like with Corruption, Unrest increases when vile deeds are committed. Thus a Good settlement that does not patrol its borders for necromancers and the like may end up with higher Unrest than an Evil settlement (because peasants in an Evil domain are somewhat inured to the immorality of their rulers).
Stomp on too many hornet's nests, and you will get stung to death.
It's a freaking brilliant system, if balanced properly.
TL-DR: Weaker chaotic evil settlements make sense because their non-chaotic evil meta-game leadership would allow them to be unrealistically successful otherwise. It's also a good game mechanic because it will weed out a lot of the less dedicated criminals, preventing an over-saturation that could drive away players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's a freaking brilliant system, if balanced properly.
This is the key! But you should recognize that "CE settlements will suck" does not imply it is being developed to be balanced.
What would be a better way of saying it is, "CE settlements will have different advantages and disadvantages that other alignment based settlements will not have, nor suffer from".
The DI of a chaotic settlement should not decline because it is not lawful enough. It should decline if its leaders are trying to hinder the actions of its citizens too much. The "Nanny State" would never be tolerated in a chaotic settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's a freaking brilliant system, if balanced properly.This is the key! But you should recognize that "CE settlements will suck" does not imply it is being developed to be balanced.
What would be a better way of saying it is, "CE settlements will have different advantages and disadvantages that other alignment based settlements will not have, nor suffer from".
The DI of a chaotic settlement should not decline because it is not lawful enough. It should decline if its leaders are trying to hinder the actions of its citizens too much. The "Nanny State" would never be tolerated in a chaotic settlement.
It all depends upon your definition of balance. By the positions you have taken in the past you seem to want it to be balanced with LG in every way except with lesser restrictions. That is neither balanced nor healthy for the community.
CE settlements don't have a problem with the "Nanny State". They have a problem with the state period. Both liberals and conservatives are lawful for the most part. Libertarians are primarily neutral. Anarchists are chaotic. They take a penalty because there is almost a complete breakdown of order and no sense of moral decency within them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or CE is disadvantaged for mechanical and not historical or rp reasons.
CE, even high reputation CE, has the least considerations before taking action. They literally only have reputation to lose, and that only if they have something to prove. Honestly if the DI of their settlement at high reputation is equal to what it would be at low, there would be no reason to bother with reputation either.
Otherwise they do what they want, when they want, to whom they want. I think it likely if CE was not hindered, it would be the flavor of the year everyone is railing about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. Without Rep considerations, C has an unhindered ability to do criminal acts (stealing). E has an unhindered ability to do evil acts (killing). Taken together, CE would be the only reasonable alignment unless it is balanced with mechanically disadvantages.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The balance could be as simple as crafting or organizing plans (construction), take longer or they might cost more resources, but there would be no hard cap on DI or crafting / training tiers.
The other differences are availability of skills. A chaotic based alignment (G, N, or E) would not have access to Lawful based skills. The opposite should be true as well.
I for example do not believe that Chaotics should have available to them formation combat. They should be limited to skirmishing and the zerg. Skirmishing or zerges should have some inherent disadvantages versus a formation. But, if the formation is some how broken, then the advantage will shift in the other direction.
@ Andius,
There is likely to be gradation within the alignment axis. You are not either all or nothing Lawful, Chaotic, Good or Evil.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have observed many times the syndrome of people acting badly then being surprised with negative consequences because they think that everything that is not forbidden is permitted. Ensuring that people know that becoming Chaotic and Evil will seriously degrade their character's powers is a way of communicating that arriving at that alignment indicates you've been bad.. This should help transparently communicate that things which are bad are not always forbidden, and give the player some feedback to moderate their behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have observed many times the syndrome of people acting badly then being surprised with negative consequences because they think that everything that is not forbidden is permitted. Ensuring that people know that becoming Chaotic and Evil will seriously degrade their character's powers is a way of communicating that arriving at that alignment indicates you've been bad.. This should help transparently communicate that things which are bad are not always forbidden, and give the player some feedback to moderate their behavior.
It won't surprise me, at all. This is the key feature of PFO in my mind; at least, it's the feature that got me most excited when I first started reading the blog and these forums. And for whatever reason it seems to be at the heart of the (thankfully few) feuds I've managed to find myself in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have observed many times the syndrome of people acting badly then being surprised with negative consequences because they think that everything that is not forbidden is permitted. Ensuring that people know that becoming Chaotic and Evil will seriously degrade their character's powers is a way of communicating that arriving at that alignment indicates you've been bad.. This should help transparently communicate that things which are bad are not always forbidden, and give the player some feedback to moderate their behavior.
So no one should ever set their core alignment to CE. If they want to play CE, choose CG and let their actions take them partly through CN, then stop, play CG for a while until they get to their core again.
Now I understand why you felt that CG would be the most populated alignment, along with NG(?). But, I think that maybe you should modify that to include the core alignment, in which case NG would not be that common, unless they set their core at LG.
@ Drakhan, you don't develop core alignment, you choose it. Your active alignment is developed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius,
There is likely to be gradation within the alignment axis. You are not either all or nothing Lawful, Chaotic, Good or Evil.
Right but what I'm saying is those groups generally fall within those broad categories.
Lawful means laws are held in some degree of reverence simply for being laws though that degree varies, neutral means you see no real value in laws themselves like the many libertarians who believe you should only use the minimum possible to preserve a civil society but can still disagree on what that minimum is, and chaotic means you hold laws in a certain degree of contempt like anarchists, many criminals, and some tribal societies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Drakhan, you don't develop core alignment, you choose it. Your active alignment is developed.
You're completely missing what I'm talking about. I'm talking about alignment in general. People don't wake up one day and decide upon a "core" alignment. And unless I missed something major, your "active" alignment is all you get. I doubt you'll see anyone at CE claiming their "core" alignment is LG but they've just fallen from the path.
Then again, my characters tell me what they're going to do; I have little control over them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Drakhan, you don't develop core alignment, you choose it. Your active alignment is developed.You're completely missing what I'm talking about. I'm talking about alignment in general. People don't wake up one day and decide upon a "core" alignment. And unless I missed something major, your "active" alignment is all you get. I doubt you'll see anyone at CE claiming their "core" alignment is LG but they've just fallen from the path.
Then again, my characters tell me what they're going to do; I have little control over them.
But the way the discussion of alignment is going, in some cases by Ryan, players will be choosing their alignment for the perceived mechanical advantages or the lack of disadvantages.
You may be confusing alignment in PFO as some aspect of role playing your character. Alignment in PFO is a mechanic designed to determine winners and losers. Now there maybe gradations of winning or losing, but in a mechanical system one alignment will stand on top and the other (CE) will be at the bottom. The only thing that is unclear is which Lawful, Neutral or Evil will stand on top.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Drakhan, you don't develop core alignment, you choose it. Your active alignment is developed.You're completely missing what I'm talking about. I'm talking about alignment in general. People don't wake up one day and decide upon a "core" alignment. And unless I missed something major, your "active" alignment is all you get. I doubt you'll see anyone at CE claiming their "core" alignment is LG but they've just fallen from the path.
Well said, this is a point I have tried to make several times.
Then again, my characters tell me what they're going to do; I have little control over them.
I love this! So true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have observed many times the syndrome of people acting badly then being surprised with negative consequences because they think that everything that is not forbidden is permitted. Ensuring that people know that becoming Chaotic and Evil will seriously degrade their character's powers is a way of communicating that arriving at that alignment indicates you've been bad.. This should help transparently communicate that things which are bad are not always forbidden, and give the player some feedback to moderate their behavior.
Perhaps if this is really the case, then one should not be able to choose Chaotic Evil as a core alignment at all?
Pathfinder Society itself restricts Evil alignment options, so having discouraged alignments is not out of the ordinary for the Property itself. Though this likely should have been discussed much earlier on and in more detail.
I tend to still support the ability for folks to try to play CE without losing reputation.
As to the original post, I tend to support largely the system the devs have laid out. The only thing I would rather see would be the All-of-One or None-of-One settlement residence options instead of one-step alignments. Such as We could declare No Evil in this settlement, but allow LN or CN in a NG settlement. My favorite would be to declare a Core Alignment for settlements and have ultimate freedom on who to invite or restrict and then an Active Alignment that gets tugged by the populace. In such a system, alignments that match the Core Alignment would experience more weight in the Active Alignment measurements - giving a tendency towards desired settlement alignment but not pure protection of it if you go allowing hundreds of CGs in your LE settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have observed many times the syndrome of people acting badly then being surprised with negative consequences because they think that everything that is not forbidden is permitted. Ensuring that people know that becoming Chaotic and Evil will seriously degrade their character's powers is a way of communicating that arriving at that alignment indicates you've been bad.. This should help transparently communicate that things which are bad are not always forbidden, and give the player some feedback to moderate their behavior.Perhaps if this is really the case, then one should not be able to choose Chaotic Evil as a core alignment at all?
Pathfinder Society itself restricts Evil alignment options, so having discouraged alignments is not out of the ordinary for the Property itself. Though this likely should have been discussed much earlier on and in more detail.
I tend to still support the ability for folks to try to play CE without losing reputation.
As to the original post, I tend to support largely the system the devs have laid out. The only thing I would rather see would be the All-of-One or None-of-One settlement residence options instead of one-step alignments. Such as We could declare No Evil in this settlement, but allow LN or CN in a NG settlement. My favorite would be to declare a Core Alignment for settlements and have ultimate freedom on who to invite or restrict and then an Active Alignment that gets tugged by the populace. In such a system, alignments that match the Core Alignment would experience more weight in the Active Alignment measurements - giving a tendency towards desired settlement alignment but not pure protection of it if you go allowing hundreds of CGs in your LE settlement.
This would also allow the "suddenly homeless" to find temporary or permanent refuge while still retaining or maintaining their current skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment in PFO is a mechanic designed to determine winners and losers.
I sincerely hope we end with a pool of folks who are able to successfully put aside the mechanics of alignment in favour of living with their characters in Golarion instead. Suspension of disbelief--usually through ignoring mechanics--is what allows me to stay interested in a game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may be confusing alignment in PFO as some aspect of role playing your character. Alignment in PFO is a mechanic designed to determine winners and losers. Now there maybe gradations of winning or losing, but in a mechanical system one alignment will stand on top and the other (CE) will be at the bottom. The only thing that is unclear is which Lawful, Neutral or Evil will stand on top.
I don't think you understand Alignment.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
I tend to still support the ability for folks to try to play CE without losing reputation.
So far most of the things that are being considered to have alignment repercussions towards CE have negative rep repercussions. I don't know if we'll ever have a away to take CE acts without Rep loss. Seems like an extreme corner case with low utility value.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they want to play CE, choose CG and let their actions take them partly through CN, then stop, play CG for a while until they get to their core again.
Right. They should roleplay a character that struggles against giving in to its darkest nature. 100% agree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You may be confusing alignment in PFO as some aspect of role playing your character. Alignment in PFO is a mechanic designed to determine winners and losers. Now there maybe gradations of winning or losing, but in a mechanical system one alignment will stand on top and the other (CE) will be at the bottom. The only thing that is unclear is which Lawful, Neutral or Evil will stand on top.I don't think you understand Alignment.
If you understood alignment and how it is being used in PFO, then you would agree with my call (previously) to only have "Active Alignment", so that your character's alignment is what his actions were. With no automatic drift to a core alignment that was chosen simply as a mechanic.
A settlements core alignment is made up by the collected alignments of its citizens,but it can be manipulated by its settlement leaders, not by barring certain alignments. Instead they can manipulate it by only supporting the desired alignments through the structures that they build. When those alignmed characters realize that settlement can't offer them services in their alignment based skills, they will leave or choose not to become citizens in the first place.
This way settlement culture will be reflected in its alignment based features and settlement leaders will be responsible to meet the needs of its people.
All of this is far more meaningful then mechanics and favoritism driving certain alignments to the top and others to the bottom.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I tend to still support the ability for folks to try to play CE without losing reputation.So far most of the things that are being considered to have alignment repercussions towards CE have negative rep repercussions. I don't know if we'll ever have a away to take CE acts without Rep loss. Seems like an extreme corner case with low utility value.
Relying on the Core Alignment drift definitely seems to be one of the few ways to do this. Though try to imagine a character that perpetrates Chaotic (SAD-based ambushes) and Evil (Raising Undead) separately as opposed to actions that are both Chaotic and Evil at the same time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think you understand Alignment.If you understood alignment and how it is being used in PFO, then you would agree with my call (previously) to only have "Active Alignment", so that your character's alignment is what his actions were. With no automatic drift to a core alignment that was chosen simply as a mechanic.
A settlements core alignment is made up by the collected alignments of its citizens,but it can be manipulated by its settlement leaders, not by barring certain alignments. Instead they can manipulate it by only supporting the desired alignments through the structures that they build. When those alignmed characters realize that settlement can't offer them services in their alignment based skills, they will leave or choose not to become citizens in the first place.
This way settlement culture will be reflected in its alignment based features and settlement leaders will be responsible to meet the needs of its people.
All of this is far more meaningful then mechanics and favoritism driving certain alignments to the top and others to the bottom.
This is how I know you don't understand alignment. All you see are the meta-game results you get for choosing an alignment. I see you ignoring the lore of Pathfinder and its roots (despite the lip service you give of basing your company and characters in it) for the sake of gaming the system to give you what you want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is how I know you don't understand alignment. All you see are the meta-game results you get for choosing an alignment. I see you ignoring the lore of Pathfinder and its roots (despite the lip service you give of basing your company and characters in it) for the sake of gaming the system to give you what you want.
A majority of non-Pathfinder followers will take this route when they discover the game as well. Even among the tabletop following, there are a number of power-gamers and min-maxers who view every aspect of the mechanics in this way. They craft their character stories around an idealized combination of abilities top-to-bottom. I think what becomes most contentious in our debates here is that alignment is infrequently made so critical in the min-maxing scenario unless foreknowledge of a campaign plot or theme spells it out. We are not used to seeing alignment be frequently min-maxed and as such it is usually one of the more definitive roleplay aspects.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On a somewhat related note, I've been having a conversation with Andius about Alignment and a thought occurred to me.
A lot of folks see Alignment as two simple axes, one Law/Chaos and the other Good/Evil. There's no real conception that adherence to the Law can be entirely contingent on the relative Good/Evil value of the Law itself.
The way I envision it, Lawful Good represents a subset of laws, and a Lawful Good character can have utter devotion to that particular subset of laws while being utterly dismissive of Lawful Evil laws. Therefore, a Lawful Good character should be able to break Lawful Evil laws without sliding towards Chaos.
It seems like a lot of folks would view that as Neutral Good, because of the willing to occasionally break laws in general, whereas I see Neutral Good more as a willingness to occasionally break even that particular subset of [b]just laws[/i] represented by Lawful Good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On a somewhat related note, I've been having a conversation with Andius about Alignment and a thought occurred to me.
A lot of folks see Alignment as two simple axes, one Law/Chaos and the other Good/Evil. There's no real conception that adherence to the Law can be entirely contingent on the relative Good/Evil value of the Law itself.
The way I envision it, Lawful Good represents a subset of laws, and a Lawful Good character can have utter devotion to that particular subset of laws while being utterly dismissive of Lawful Evil laws. Therefore, a Lawful Good character should be able to break Lawful Evil laws without sliding towards Chaos.
It seems like a lot of folks would view that as Neutral Good, because of the willing to occasionally break laws in general, whereas I see Neutral Good more as a willingness to occasionally break even that particular subset of [b]just laws[/i] represented by Lawful Good.
I see that possibly removing a consequence. If lawful good can break laws in lawful evil territory with impunity, why play any other alignment?
If lawful evil could do the same in lawful good territory with impunity, then we have removed a major consideration those on the lawful axis have to bother with.
Additionally, would lawful neutral players be able to break lawful evil AND lawful good laws? If so then they now have a severe advantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is how I know you don't understand alignment. All you see are the meta-game results you get for choosing an alignment. I see you ignoring the lore of Pathfinder and its roots (despite the lip service you give of basing your company and characters in it) for the sake of gaming the system to give you what you want.
Well in fairness to everyone involved here, I think we are all trying to figure out something that works in the meta and makes sense in the lore.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I have observed many times the syndrome of people acting badly then being surprised with negative consequences because they think that everything that is not forbidden is permitted. Ensuring that people know that becoming Chaotic and Evil will seriously degrade their character's powers is a way of communicating that arriving at that alignment indicates you've been bad.. This should help transparently communicate that things which are bad are not always forbidden, and give the player some feedback to moderate their behavior.
If a major goal of the alignment/reputation system is to discourage acting in a 'bad' manner, then every action that causes an alignment and/or reputation shift should be one that it determined to be 'bad' (In the sense that chocolate cake is unhealthy; not that only unhealthy people eat cake, but in the sense that people who eat only cake are probably unhealthy).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If lawful good can break laws in lawful evil territory with impunity, why play any other alignment?
I'm not suggesting that every law in a Lawful Evil Settlement is unjust.
I'm suggesting that each individual law also has a Good/Evil rating, and that Lawful Good should not be punished for breaking Evil laws. They should still be punished for breaking any just laws there.
If lawful evil could do the same in lawful good territory with impunity...
I would contend that the Lawful Evil is precisely the adherence to all laws, regardless of their Good/Evil rating. And that Lawful Neutral is the adherence to any Law that is not Evil, even if it violates Good.
In essence Lawful Evil is the set of all Laws, Lawful Neutral is a subset of laws that excludes those that mandate Evil acts, and Lawful Good is a smaller subset of laws that also excludes those that mandate a violation of Good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The way I envision it, Lawful Good represents a subset of laws, and a Lawful Good character can have utter devotion to that particular subset of laws while being utterly dismissive of Lawful Evil laws. Therefore, a Lawful Good character should be able to break Lawful Evil laws without sliding towards Chaos.
It's a useful character conflict, and similar conflicts will hit almost every corner case. Do I remain faithful to law or to good?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do I remain faithful to law or to good?
If being Lawful Good means you must also adhere to laws that require you to do Evil, then it will be impossible to remain Lawful Good. Therefore, it makes sense to assume that a Lawful Good character will only adhere to just laws. Evil laws are not the laws that a Lawful Good character respects.
[Edit] And it makes no sense to me that someone who is fanatically devoted to just laws should end up Neutral Good or even Chaotic Good because he is forced to break Evil laws.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then you are suggesting that LN and LG can disregard some LE laws, but LE can not reciprocate?
Is LE now to be marginalized into an undesirable category of player?
I am not trying to pick, I like the idea in the tabletop sense. What I am trying to do now is understand what consequences your idea has for mechanical balancing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If lawful good can break laws in lawful evil territory with impunity, why play any other alignment?I'm not suggesting that every law in a Lawful Evil Settlement is unjust.
I'm suggesting that each individual law also has a Good/Evil rating, and that Lawful Good should not be punished for breaking Evil laws. They should still be punished for breaking any just laws there.
If lawful evil could do the same in lawful good territory with impunity...I would contend that the Lawful Evil is precisely the adherence to all laws, regardless of their Good/Evil rating. And that Lawful Neutral is the adherence to any Law that is not Evil, even if it violates Good.
In essence Lawful Evil is the set of all Laws, Lawful Neutral is a subset of laws that excludes those that mandate Evil acts, and Lawful Good is a smaller subset of laws that also excludes those that mandate a violation of Good.
Law, as an alignment, really means Order. Either you believe (and act as if) life and the universe should be bound by order or you believe it should not be bound by order...or one sits somewhere in the middle. The nature of any given instance of order is of no consequence to the answer of the fundamental question.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If lawful good can break laws in lawful evil territory with impunity, why play any other alignment?I'm not suggesting that every law in a Lawful Evil Settlement is unjust.
I'm suggesting that each individual law also has a Good/Evil rating, and that Lawful Good should not be punished for breaking Evil laws. They should still be punished for breaking any just laws there.
If lawful evil could do the same in lawful good territory with impunity...I would contend that the Lawful Evil is precisely the adherence to all laws, regardless of their Good/Evil rating. And that Lawful Neutral is the adherence to any Law that is not Evil, even if it violates Good.
In essence Lawful Evil is the set of all Laws, Lawful Neutral is a subset of laws that excludes those that mandate Evil acts, and Lawful Good is a smaller subset of laws that also excludes those that mandate a violation of Good.
What about the LE characters who are devoted to unjust laws?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then you are suggesting that LN and LG can disregard some LE laws, but LE can not reciprocate?
Is LE now to be marginalized into an undesirable category of player?
LE has other offsetting advantages. Most notably, Good can't kill Evil without becoming Evil. Evil can kill Good and remain Evil. (caveats, yada yada)
Try to think of it along the Good/Evil axis as well. Should a Lawful Good character become less Good because they refuse to perform a Chaotic Good, that is an act that would require them to break a just law?
I'm arguing that Lawful Good is it's own thing. It's not just being Lawful and being Good. It's being a particular kind of Lawful and a particular kind of Good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Law really means Order. Either you believe (and act as if) life and the universe should be bound by order or you believe it should not be bound by order...or one sits somewhere in the middle. The exact instantiation of the order is of no consequence to the answer of the fundamental question.
This is the two axis viewpoint I referenced. I don't think it's adequate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The deeper meaning of law do not really concern me. My concern is the balancing of alignments that are supported as valid play styles by Goblinworks.
Thus far that is the whole spectrum minus Chaotic Evil. Giving extra definitions to appeal to a sense of fantasy realism is fine, as long as in that goal there isn't an invalidation of more alignments.
Additionally, I have no idea how intricate the laws of settlements will be initially, or over the course of the game's history.
To me, the simplest way to mechanically measure Law is by how often someone upholds or breaks them.
If Lawful players and entities want to stop an "evil" act, they already have a vehicle for that. Go to war with the offender, or feud with them.
I am willing to be swayed, but so far this is sounding like adding layers with a possible imbalance concerns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not sure what is being argued that is not already there. LG and LE are already vastly different and will have different playstyles, namely G vs E. I don't get the relevance of both believing in Order/Law.
I'm making the argument that a Lawful Good character should not be punished for violating Lawful Evil laws, nor for violating Chaotic Good principles.
The two axis system treats all Law as a single entity, and all Good as a single entity. I think this is inadequate.
Lawful Good should only be punished for violating Lawful Good laws and principles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Law really means Order. Either you believe (and act as if) life and the universe should be bound by order or you believe it should not be bound by order...or one sits somewhere in the middle. The exact instantiation of the order is of no consequence to the answer of the fundamental question.This is the two axis viewpoint I referenced. I don't think it's adequate.
Ah, got it...but not convinced it is necessary, or even that it adds anything. In fact, if I have a LN settlement, I expect characters to follow the laws I set (and no matter the alignment of those laws) whether their particular god condones it or not...or I'll send them to go discuss it with their god.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Robin Hood was still Chaotic Good, even though he was breaking the laws of a Lawful Evil government. You shouldn't get a pass on the consequences of not following the law just because you don't believe in them.
Imagine how boring that story would have been had that been the case.
Sheriff: "Robin Hood! Get him!"
Soldier: "Sorry sir, we cannot, he rightfully does not believe in our laws pertaining to person property."
Sheriff: "Damn..."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... not convinced it is necessary, or even that it adds anything.
What I see it adding is a way for Lawful Good characters to remain Lawful Good. It's absurd to make a Paladin lose his abilities because he fails to sacrifice a virgin as required by law. That's a reduction to absurdity, but it captures the essence of my argument.
Lawful Good is the pinnacle of both axes. It requires Lawful actions only if they're also Good, and it requires Good actions only if they're also Lawful.
Neutral Good requires Good actions as long as they don't mandate Chaos. Chaotic Good requires Good actions regardless of any other factor.
Lawful Neutral requires adherence to the law as long as it doesn't also require Evil. Lawful Evil requires adherence to the law regardless of any other factor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
echoing the above. If a LE settlement permits slavery for example, and that's their law, then the LG type who wants to be true to order *and* stop the slavery must change the law (which might mean war). A CG can choose to violate the law and smuggle slaves to freedom. The LG can't. That's the difference between LG and CG. If you want to pick and choose your laws, go chaotic, or at least neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I see it adding is a way for Lawful Good characters to remain Lawful Good. It's absurd to make a Paladin lose his abilities because he fails to sacrifice a virgin as required by law. That's a reduction to absurdity, but it captures the essence of my argument
Then that is what I am missing, why would the Paladin (who is obviously a member of a LG settlement) lose his abilities when passing through a LE settlement, even if he violates their laws? Doesn't that just raise the LE settlements Corruption to have such stupid laws? What hit would the Paladin currently take?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have we seen any evidence of proactive laws so far? The sacrificing a virgin thing seems to be taking this argument to an absurd degree to try and make a point. Every single example law we have seen has been reactive; you cannot go here, you cannot kill him, you cannot raid this. All things that the Paladin can easily chose not to do.
Then that is what I am missing, why would the Paladin (who is obviously a member of a LG settlement) lose his abilities when passing through a LE settlement, even if he violates their laws?
I think that the laws of the local hex are those that apply alignment modifier. Just because you are a member of a settlement that has raiding as lawful doesn't mean you would not receive chaos points for raiding in someone elses hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
echoing the above. If a LE settlement permits slavery for example, and that's their law, then the LG type who wants to be true to order *and* stop the slavery must change the law (which might mean war). A CG can choose to violate the law and smuggle slaves to freedom. The LG can't. That's the difference between LG and CG. If you want to pick and choose your laws, go chaotic, or at least neutral.
Ah...so the issue is really trying to get past the fact that law != order...but in the current system it does. If my settlement (or even just my character of any alignment) does not believe in slavery, I should be able to free slaves. I agree with this.
Does the current system punish people for violating laws? I thought it only increased the settlements corruption and allowed their members to kill me without reputation hits. Am I wrong?