Alignment as a faction wheel


Pathfinder Online

251 to 300 of 533 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

And do we really think settlement laws will be so thorough as to add virgin sacrifice to the normal festivities?

I know that is an extreme example, but looking from the perspective of this being a game, I still don't see the need for this allowance.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
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?

Yes, breaking laws pushes your alignment towards Chaos. You break a law, your Law/Chaos axis is pushed towards Chaos.

Quote:
Committing acts that are crimes in territory controlled by a settlement gets you the Criminal flag and decreases your Law vs. Chaos rating. Settlements can set a number of laws based on their Settlement Alignment.

For someone who doesn't want Chaos points, you don't want to be breaking any local laws.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Morbis wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
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?

Yes, breaking laws pushes your alignment towards Chaos. You break a law, your Law/Chaos axis is pushed towards Chaos.

Quote:
Committing acts that are crimes in territory controlled by a settlement gets you the Criminal flag and decreases your Law vs. Chaos rating. Settlements can set a number of laws based on their Settlement Alignment.
For someone who doesn't want Chaos points, you don't want to be breaking any local laws.

Then it sounds like the problem lies with that ruling. If that is not subject to change (yes, I know everything is at this point), then I must logically support any system like that suggested by Nihimon, that tried to remove or diminish the false law = Law equality.

But, It would only remove the alignment hit, not the criminal flag.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
What hit would the Paladin currently take?

My understanding is that the game system as described so far applies a -Lawful hit whenever any law is broken. I'm suggesting each law should also have a Good/Evil rating and that a Lawful Good character would only take a -Lawful hit if the law was also Good.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
What hit would the Paladin currently take?

My understanding is that the game system as described so far applies a -Lawful hit whenever any law is broken. I'm suggesting each law should also have a Good/Evil rating and that a Lawful Good character would only take a -Lawful hit if the law was also Good.

Convinced, thanks for bearing with my density.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Morbis wrote:
Have we seen any evidence of proactive laws so far?

I'm not sure. It seems likely that there might be laws that require a donation to an Evil church, for example.

Pax Morbis wrote:
The sacrificing a virgin thing seems to be taking this argument to an absurd degree to try and make a point.

Indeed.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KitNyx wrote:
Pax Morbis wrote:
Quote:
Committing acts that are crimes in territory controlled by a settlement gets you the Criminal flag and decreases your Law vs. Chaos rating. Settlements can set a number of laws based on their Settlement Alignment.

Then it sounds like the problem lies with that ruling. If that is not subject to change (yes, I know everything is at this point), then I must logically support any system like that suggested by Nihimon, that tried to remove or diminish the false law = Law equality.

But, It would only remove the alignment hit, not the criminal flag.

I completely agree that violating a local law should still apply a Criminal flag.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remain unconvinced, and I have not yet heard how this would be balanced on a mechanical level not to give one side an advantage.

The little evil church, virgin sacrifice, and slavery laws are essentially roleplay fluff to me. If you want to roleplay a character that does not agree with that action, they should avoid that settlement. If the taint of the settlement is not able to be cleaned from your nostrils, feud or war with them.

Giving someone a mechanical pass to come into sovereign territory to break laws with a removed consequence seems like folly.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why not allow 'evil' characters a pass on 'good' laws as well. Just as a paladin should not be beholden to laws which require escaped slaves be returned, a blackguard should not be beholden to laws requiring that slaves be freed.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:

I remain unconvinced, and I have not yet heard how this would be balanced on a mechanical level not to give one side an advantage.

The little evil church, virgin sacrifice, and slavery laws are essentially roleplay fluff to me. If you want to roleplay a character that does not agree with that action, they should avoid that settlement. If the taint of the settlement is not able to be cleaned from your nostrils, feud or war with them.

Giving someone a mechanical pass to come into sovereign territory to break laws with a removed consequence seems like folly.

It is innately balanced because settlements choose what laws they want to enact...and conversely remove. As such, they are able to see the alignment of the laws they enact. If they feel their laws are girting them too tight (or too little), they are free to remove them.

If the evil merchants start getting upset because their evil law to sacrifice a virgin on Tuesday is eating into their bottom line...as opposed to their good counterparts who only have to pay a small fine to remove their criminal tag (which I hope is an option in many cases). They will either petition to have the law removed or fine increased.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Pax Charlie George wrote:

I remain unconvinced, and I have not yet heard how this would be balanced on a mechanical level not to give one side an advantage.

The little evil church, virgin sacrifice, and slavery laws are essentially roleplay fluff to me. If you want to roleplay a character that does not agree with that action, they should avoid that settlement. If the taint of the settlement is not able to be cleaned from your nostrils, feud or war with them.

Giving someone a mechanical pass to come into sovereign territory to break laws with a removed consequence seems like folly.

It is innately balanced because settlements choose what laws they want to enact...and conversely remove. As such, they are able to see the alignment of the laws they enact. If they feel their laws are girting them too tight (or too little), they are free to remove them.

It is still a system that allows two alignments to break some laws with no alignment change, and one lawful alignment that incurs a shift to chaos with any law he breaks.

That to me still seems imbalanced. Regardless of the individual laws being broken.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Why not allow 'evil' characters a pass on 'good' laws as well. Just as a paladin should not be beholden to laws which require escaped slaves be returned, a blackguard should not be beholden to laws requiring that slaves be freed.

This was the argument I was attempting to answer when I posted this:

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.

The Law and Chaos axes are not mirrors; they're not the same at both ends. In both cases, one end is highly constrained and the other is completely unconstrained.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:

It is still a system that allows two alignments to break some laws with no alignment change, and one lawful alignment that incurs a shift to chaos with any law he breaks.

That to me still seems imbalanced. Regardless of the individual laws being broken.

Under the current system, Lawful Good is at a significant disadvantage because they are severely constrained on both axes. They cannot do Good acts that violate the Law, and they cannot do Lawful acts that violate Good.

If Lawful Evil had the same freedom to violate Lawful Good laws that I'm suggesting Lawful Good characters should have to violate Lawful Evil laws, then Lawful Evil's mechanical advantages would be even greater.

In other words, Lawful Good is constrained to be both Lawful and Good. Lawful Evil is only constrained to be Lawful.

Goblin Squad Member

Lawful evil is completely unrestrained?

I thought they also had to abide by lawful good laws, or utilize systems both them and LG share.

I also thought Lawful Evil did not have the settlement advantages that a LG settlement would have.

Have I missed something?

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:

Lawful evil is completely unrestrained?

I thought they also had to abide by lawful good laws, or utilize systems both them and LG share.

I also thought Lawful Evil did not have the settlement advantages that a LG settlement would have.

Have I missed something?

I don't think so, I agree with you here. It's absurd to make a LE character lose his abilities because he fails to rescue a virgin as required by law in a LG settlement. That's a reduction to absurdity, but it captures the essence of the argument.

And then you have to consider it across the plane:

It's absurd to make a LG character lose his abilities because he fails to steal money to give to a virgin as required by law(?) in a CG settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am starting to think this is a joke. Is this a joke?

Is this real life?

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:
Lawful evil is completely unrestrained?

I don't think I ever said that.

Nihimon wrote:
Lawful Evil is only constrained to be Lawful.

________________________________________________________

Pax Charlie George wrote:
I also thought Lawful Evil did not have the settlement advantages that a LG settlement would have.

That's not my understanding. Rather, I was under the impression that Lawful Evil would have all (or most) of the Settlement advantages, while additionally not being constrained to be Good.

Lawful Evil will get all the upside of being able to use force to solve problems, and will have awesome Settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:

I am starting to think this is a joke. Is this a joke?

Is this real life?

This made me laugh! I am not sure how many perspectives are being argued here.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
It's absurd to make a LE character lose his abilities because he fails to rescue a virgin as required by law in a LG settlement. That's a reduction to absurdity, but it captures the essence of the argument.

It sounds like the essence of your argument is that Evil is an ideal that characters aspire to for its own sake. I understand that argument, but I disagree with it. It rests on the assumption that both the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axes are just mirrors of each other, and that assumption seems wrong to me.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Pax Charlie George wrote:
Lawful evil is completely unrestrained?

I don't think I ever said that.

Nihimon wrote:
Lawful Evil is only constrained to be Lawful.

________________________________________________________

Pax Charlie George wrote:
I also thought Lawful Evil did not have the settlement advantages that a LG settlement would have.

That's not my understanding. Rather, I was under the impression that Lawful Evil would have all (or most) of the Settlement advantages, while additionally not being constrained to be Good.

Lawful Evil will get all the upside of being able to use force to solve problems, and will have awesome Settlements.

Ah I took that to mean that LE settlements will have awesome settlements, but that LG will have more awesomer settlements :P

I could have misunderstood that. I am certainly not immune.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:

I am starting to think this is a joke. Is this a joke?

Is this real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Rawn wrote:
Pax Charlie George wrote:

I am starting to think this is a joke. Is this a joke?

Is this real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Pax Rawn wrote:
Pax Charlie George wrote:

I am starting to think this is a joke. Is this a joke?

Is this real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide?

No escape from reality...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
It's absurd to make a LE character lose his abilities because he fails to rescue a virgin as required by law in a LG settlement. That's a reduction to absurdity, but it captures the essence of the argument.

It sounds like the essence of your argument is that Evil is an ideal that characters aspire to for its own sake. I understand that argument, but I disagree with it. It rests on the assumption that both the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil access are just mirrors of each other, and that assumption seems wrong to me.

No no, I actually continue to argue as you are, that Evil is nothing more than the absence of "Good considerations" and Chaos is nothing more than the absence of "Order considerations".

I also agree with your point, if LG should not loose alignment toward chaos for failing to follow a law that is quintessentially evil (sacrifice virgins). But, I also argue that it is just as absurd to make LE characters loose alignment for failing to follow laws that any normal person would consider "moral" or "good". I see the difference, and could just agree with you on logical grounds, but most people will not.

I think a better solution is to not allow laws that are quintessentially "of an alignment". Lets save those not for laws but for rep with religious factions. We will be given either a very simple clear-cut law making tool, or an even simpler law selection list. It is a simple matter to restrict the complexity of those individual laws (for instance, don't give us anything having to do with virgins).

I think we in the community should call unnecessary or overly complex laws - "virgin laws" from now on.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
It's absurd to make a LE character lose his abilities because he fails to rescue a virgin as required by law in a LG settlement. That's a reduction to absurdity, but it captures the essence of the argument.

It sounds like the essence of your argument is that Evil is an ideal that characters aspire to for its own sake. I understand that argument, but I disagree with it. It rests on the assumption that both the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil access are just mirrors of each other, and that assumption seems wrong to me.

No no, I actually continue to argue as you are, that Evil is nothing more than the absence of "Good considerations" and Chaos is nothing more than the absence of "Order considerations".

I also agree with your point, if LG should not loose alignment toward chaos for failing to follow a law that is quintessentially evil (sacrifice virgins). But, I also argue that it is just as absurd to make LE characters loose alignment for failing to follow laws that any normal person would consider "moral" or "good". I see the difference, and could just agree with you on logical grounds, but most people will not.

I think a better solution is to not allow laws that are quintessentially "of an alignment". Lets save those not for laws but for rep with religious factions. We will be given either a very simple clear-cut law making tool, or an even simpler law selection list. It is a simple matter to restrict the complexity of those individual laws (for instance, don't give us anything having to do with virgins).

I think we in the community should call unnecessary laws, "virgin laws" from now on.

I love this, therefore I love you.

It follows!!!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
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.

I just felt that I would repost this and acknowledge, "Message received". Alignment is a mechanic that is to be used to gauge how closely we are getting to Chaotic Evil as an alignment.

Ryan clearly states that the goal can be met if we set a core alignment, away from Chaotic Evil, and then to moderate our behavior before it reaches chaotic evil.

My follow up question is, instead of Chaotic Good being an alignment of choice for Core Alignment, wouldn't Neutral Good be better?

If I started off as Neutral Good, then I could coast through Chaotic Good and even a good part of the way through Chaotic Neutral, and never come even close to becoming Chaotic Evil.

If this were the case, now I see why Ryan, you had said you expected CG and NG to represent about 60% of the server population.

Now some may wonder why I just don't start with Lawful Good?

One of my favorite movie lines, from Tombstone, "My hypocrisy only goes so far'"

Goblin Squad Member

Here's a couple questions that I think can end this fantasy faster.

How fast will the slide toward chaotic evil be compared to restoring your alignment to chaotic good or neutral good?

If your core alignment and active alignment don't match, are there penalties?

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
It's absurd to make a LE character lose his abilities because he fails to rescue a virgin as required by law in a LG settlement. That's a reduction to absurdity, but it captures the essence of the argument.

It sounds like the essence of your argument is that Evil is an ideal that characters aspire to for its own sake. I understand that argument, but I disagree with it. It rests on the assumption that both the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil access are just mirrors of each other, and that assumption seems wrong to me.

No no, I actually continue to argue as you are, that Evil is nothing more than the absence of "Good considerations" and Chaos is nothing more than the absence of "Order considerations".

I also agree with your point, if LG should not loose alignment toward chaos for failing to follow a law that is quintessentially evil (sacrifice virgins). But, I also argue that it is just as absurd to make LE characters loose alignment for failing to follow laws that any normal person would consider "moral" or "good". I see the difference, and could just agree with you on logical grounds, but most people will not.

I think a better solution is to not allow laws that are quintessentially "of an alignment". Lets save those not for laws but for rep with religious factions. We will be given either a very simple clear-cut law making tool, or an even simpler law selection list. It is a simple matter to restrict the complexity of those individual laws (for instance, don't give us anything having to do with virgins).

I think we in the community should call unnecessary or overly complex laws - "virgin laws" from now on.

I think some laws might actually be universal, such as laws versus theft or murder. So a Lawful Good character could not go into a Lawful Evil settlement and begin killing slave traders without the shift to both Chaos and Evil. Not because slavery is not evil, but murder is equally or perhaps more so evil.

If the game mechanics starts to allow for the "Tyranny of the Good" then everyone will set their core alignment to some variant of good.

As soon as GW took alignment out of the realm of role playing, and placed it squarely into game mechanics, they took the table top / PnP mentality out and replaced it with the MMO mentality.

MMO players, the super majority of them, are used to games that don't spend a moment on role playing, have under developed lore or storylines that are largely seen as a nuisance, and the players just blast through the content to get to "End Game". End game is all about personal prowess of their characters, usually through the equipping of "epic" gear. In a majority of these games, gear is God, PVP combat is meaningless and the entire gaming experience is shallow and only engaging enough until the next MMO hits open beta.

I can only hope that choice of Faction will have some role playing involved with it. If it turns out to be another mechanical advantage mini game, or a segregation funnel, well then we might as well right off anyone looking to come to PFO for their RPG fix.

Goblin Squad Member

Most MMO based alignment systems give no penalties and even sometimes bonuses to your alignment when you kill reds/criminals/evil players. I'm all for using the MMO mentality when it comes to the ability to kill evil players. Except the bonuses have proven to make the good alignment too easy to play, so I'm fine with just a lack of penalty.

The outlined 24 flags when you take enough criminal and heinous actions should work fine though if people aren't fond of the "MMO mentality."

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

As soon as GW took alignment out of the realm of role playing, and placed it squarely into game mechanics, they took the table top / PnP mentality out and replaced it with the MMO mentality.

MMO players, the super majority of them, are used to games that don't spend a moment on role playing, have under developed lore or storylines that are largely seen as a nuisance, and the players just blast through the content to get to "End Game". End game is all about personal prowess of their characters, usually through the equipping of "epic" gear. In a majority of these games, gear is God, PVP combat is meaningless and the entire gaming experience is shallow and only engaging enough until the next MMO hits open beta.

I can only hope that choice of Faction will have some role playing involved with it. If it turns out to be another mechanical advantage mini game, or a segregation funnel, well then we might as well right off anyone looking to come to PFO for their RPG fix.

Are you saying that because MMO players are used to meaningless choices regarding alignment and faction, that making alignment and faction choices meaningful in a MMO is literally impossible?

Is it only things that have zero mechanical effect that can be meaningful roleplaying in your view?

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

Here's a couple questions that I think can end this fantasy faster.

How fast will the slide toward chaotic evil be compared to restoring your rep to chaotic good or neutral good?

If your core alignment and active alignment don't match, are there penalties?

Are you asking me, anyone, or Ryan?

If me, the first part... Chaotic is not the problem. The Chaotic + Evil, according to Ryan is where the problems start.

It really doesn't matter how fast the decline is if you stop while still in the mid Chaotic Neutral range. It is also not just the natural shift towards core that allows you to recover. Any player can engage in PVE activities that likely (we don't have specifics yet) will shift them towards the alignment of choice.

As for the possibility of there being any sort of penalty (debuffs or similar) for being apart in your core and your active, there was a passing comment by either Ryan or (Stephen or Tork) that that was being discussed, but it did not seem that one step would have too much impact if any.

If they said that two-steps would have a debuff or force your core alignment to shift, then like much of everything else we would have to weight the costs vs. the benefits of that.

I thin just now how strange it would be if both your core and active alignments were CE and you switched your core to Lawful Good, to redeem yourself. You would suffer debuffs while doing so?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bludd, there seems to be a lot of loose threads tied together in your statement.

For one, how does the alignment system relate to the theme park raiding mentality?

For second, how does the alignment system kill roleplay? Roleplay happens in themepark games centered on group content after all.

Goblin Squad Member

The view is that part of the role of Good is to actively fight Evil. And that in a game where Lethal Force is the only way to get that done, assuming lack of Non-Lethal and Containment abilities, then Good is not able to do its job in the eyes of some.

I am not fully on board with that view, but I can understand the position that those arguing it are coming from.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

The view is that part of the role of Good is to actively fight Evil. And that in a game where Lethal Force is the only way to get that done, assuming lack of Non-Lethal and Containment abilities, then Good is not able to do its job in the eyes of some.

I am not fully on board with that view, but I can understand the position that those arguing it are coming from.

But Good can do that on a settlement vs settlement level, can't they? Have I missed some new information?

I was also under the impression that the law axis is what hinders evil vrs good small skirmishes (outside of feuds, factions, etc). Is lawful evil allowed to attack good character at whim without chaos shift?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Are you saying that because MMO players are used to meaningless choices regarding alignment and faction, that making alignment and faction choices meaningful in a MMO is literally impossible?

Is it only things that have zero mechanical effect that can be meaningful roleplaying in your view?

What I'm saying is that if those mechanical effects are based on granting advantages or disadvantages, then they will be min-maxed and therefore have no role playing meaning.

I don't view playing a role, and role playing as the same thing.

Alignment should be about differences in acceptable actions within that alignment, in gated skills allowed to that alignment(perhaps even exclusively) and in the social perception of your character's nature.

You should view a Chaotic Neutral with suspicion, and take the word of a Chaotic Good as gospel. You may be proven wrong, but that is not on you, it is on them.

When alignment is used to cap power, then you great majority of MMO players will disregard the meaningfulness of alignment and roll what they feel is the greatest advantage.

It is just not with alignment, think of what would happen if a race were clearly advantaged in PFO. Do you think most MMO players will choose one of the disadvantaged over the advantaged, just for the sake of role playing?

PnP players might, but not most MMO players.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

The view is that part of the role of Good is to actively fight Evil. And that in a game where Lethal Force is the only way to get that done, assuming lack of Non-Lethal and Containment abilities, then Good is not able to do its job in the eyes of some.

I am not fully on board with that view, but I can understand the position that those arguing it are coming from.

I have advocated for this, a number of times. I am in favor of non lethal combat, at which point a subdued character is treated as dead for purposes of looting and instead of respawning as if they were killed, they respawn elsewhere.

I advocated for Andius' idea of the Apprehend mechanic. This would be the lawful version of the SAD. If it turns out the SAD is still tied to the chaotic alignment, I would continue to advocate that lawful aligned characters have this at their disposal.

They say, when looking to start a business the three most important things are: Location, Location, Location

Well a similar thing should be said for developing an MMO. The three most important things are: Balance, Balance and Balance.... and when you think it is balanced, balance again.

CEO, Goblinworks

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
I don't view playing a role, and role playing as the same thing.

I would suggest to you that from the outside looking in, there is no observable or meaningful difference.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:
I was also under the impression that the law axis is what hinders evil vrs good small skirmishes (outside of feuds, factions, etc). Is lawful evil allowed to attack good character at whim without chaos shift?

Yes, but only outside of settlement controlled areas. Inside settlement controlled areas, if murder still illegal LE would still suffer the chaotic shift. If murder is not illegal, then they don't suffer the chaos shift and they don't care about the evil shift. (The Rep axis will probably hinder as well).

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Pax Charlie George wrote:
I was also under the impression that the law axis is what hinders evil vrs good small skirmishes (outside of feuds, factions, etc). Is lawful evil allowed to attack good character at whim without chaos shift?

Yes, but only outside of settlement controlled areas. Inside settlement controlled areas, if murder still illegal LE would still suffer the chaotic shift. If murder is not illegal, then they don't suffer the chaos shift and they don't care about the evil shift.

So even if there was no NBSI mechanism during the PVP vulnerability window, a LE settlement could go to NBSI if murder wasn't a crime there.

If that is true then I could see the gripe. I had no idea a LE settlement could make murder not a crime. I don't think they should be able to and remain lawful.

I was under the impression the design intent was to shift anyone killing in a selfish or non group promoting way towards both chaotic and evil. That was why I thought the restrictions were in place.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
I don't view playing a role, and role playing as the same thing.

I would suggest to you that from the outside looking in, there is no observable or meaningful difference.

But from the inside, the difference is very meaningful. The role playing is about crafting life and story around the other in-game actions. Providing motivations and reasons for why the characters do what they do beyond simply "winning the game".

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:
If that is true then I could see the gripe. I had no idea a LE settlement could make murder not a crime. I don't think they should be able to and remain lawful.

I'm not sure of the scope of how settlement will be able to set laws. The one we've been told that we can set is raiding. I assume other laws will be able to be toggled on or off, depending on the settlements choices. But murder might be a special case - maybe it must always be a crime, or at least in L settlements.

CEO, Goblinworks

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lifedragn wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
I don't view playing a role, and role playing as the same thing.

I would suggest to you that from the outside looking in, there is no observable or meaningful difference.

But from the inside, the difference is very meaningful. The role playing is about crafting life and story around the other in-game actions. Providing motivations and reasons for why the characters do what they do beyond simply "winning the game".

I can't make people care about that. The people Bluddwolf is referring to don't care. They are "power gamers" in our 2-axis player segmentation study. They aren't interested primarily in "role playing" but in maximizing their power.

So what? As they go about maximizing their power, everyone who interacts with them can't tell the difference between what they're doing and "role playing", so they're a net positive to the Roleplaying segments. By actually playing a role, they're meaningfully creating content for people who want to role play.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
I don't view playing a role, and role playing as the same thing.

I would suggest to you that from the outside looking in, there is no observable or meaningful difference.

But from the inside, the difference is very meaningful. The role playing is about crafting life and story around the other in-game actions. Providing motivations and reasons for why the characters do what they do beyond simply "winning the game".

I can't make people care about that. The people Bluddwolf is referring to don't care. They are "power gamers" in our 2-axis player segmentation study. They aren't interested primarily in "role playing" but in maximizing their power.

So what? As they go about maximizing their power, everyone who interacts with them can't tell the difference between what they're doing and "role playing", so they're a net positive to the Roleplaying segments. By actually playing a role, they're meaningfully creating content for people who want to role play.

I would put myself somewhere in that fifth category (center 12%) although the only MMO I played long enough to have an evolving life career is EvE (over 9 years, 7 on current character), so Storytelling has been a little less so a focus.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
What hit would the Paladin currently take?

My understanding is that the game system as described so far applies a -Lawful hit whenever any law is broken. I'm suggesting each law should also have a Good/Evil rating and that a Lawful Good character would only take a -Lawful hit if the law was also Good.

Wouldn't this require that all possible laws a settlement can issue must be selectable from a pre-written list and weighted on the good-evil spectrum? That means that if I am leader of my settlement when I go to set up the laws of that settlement I would have to be presented with a list of selectable laws the game is prepared to handle. It would be more workable than trying to automate the idle pipedreams of settlement leaders.

Or possibly the laws are automatically set in place when the leadership establishes the settlement's core alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

I'd rather have a list of selectable laws. Let the settlement pick from the list. A Lawful community might be required to have some minimum number, a Chaotic community might have a minimum, and Neutral community might be required to be in some numeric range for the number of laws on the books.

I'm not sure laws need to be weighted. LE communities will pick laws they want; LG communities will pick laws they want.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

I'd rather have a list of selectable laws. Let the settlement pick from the list. A Lawful community might be required to have some minimum number, a Chaotic community might have a minimum, and Neutral community might be required to be in some numeric range for the number of laws on the books.

I'm not sure laws need to be weighted. LE communities will pick laws they want; LG communities will pick laws they want.

Right. But the suggestion I was responding to would weight settlement Laws and affect the actual alignment of the transgressor thereof. This was proposed as a response to the condition where a lawful good character breaks the law of a lawful evil settlement. Intuitively, breaking a lawful evil settlement's law would be a transgression of law but a bolstering of good. So if the laws of a settlement are weighted, then the consequences can be mechanically measured.

In terms of reputation it seems to grow even more convoluted. It looks to me like the character breaking a lawful evil law would suffer a reputation loss with that lawful evil settlement, but gain reputation with its lawful good neighbor. In this model his reputation gain with neighboring tows would vary with the distance to that town. Reputation is diluted with distance. A local hero may be an unknown far away, and if he does nothing else his fame will diminish over time. If that is the way reputation works, that a character's reputation varies with location, then if I am high rep on one side of the map I might only have medium reputation on the far side of the map. Similarly if I have low rep here I might have medium rep there.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
I don't view playing a role, and role playing as the same thing.

I would suggest to you that from the outside looking in, there is no observable or meaningful difference.

I agree it may not be an observable difference to the first time victim. But, over time, when the population begins to understand a character's actions in the context of consistant behavior, they too may understand the emaningfulness of it.

Even if the victim never understands the meaningfulness, for the player to hold that it does having meaning within the role play context is still a net positive for the game.

Role playing is an enhancer to all other activities, it is never a detractor in my opinion. There are varying levels of role play, I tend towards thematic based on the lore / setting of the game.

In Age of Conan, I use weapons and armor that a Cimmerian would wear and use. If it doesn't look "Cimmerian" or Northern Barbarian, I won't wear or use it, regardless of its combat benefits.

In PFO I'm planning on following the River Freedoms in my actions, and the cultural beliefs and practices (motivations) of the Linnorm Kingdoms (primarily raiding).

Could I run around and SAD and raid without having these things in mind? Sure I could, but that would make it less interesting for me, and no chance of being interesting for my victims.

Alignment can similarly be played, but there have to be activities that advanace all alignments. Some activities would have to have variations that can support several alignments.

SAD was at least a Chaotic based activity.

Apprenhend could be the Lawful variant of the SAD.

Killing is an Evil act.

Subdual is a Good or Neutral act.

SAD + Subdue for robber = CN
Apprehend + Subdue Criminal = LG or LN
Apprehend + Kill = LE
SAD + Kill = CE

Goblin Squad Member

Where I'm coming from is this idea about providing real roles + especial experiences.

I've banged my drum long enough on Druids eg being able to warg-mind-control say a hawk for aerial observation purposes or were-shape into a wolf to locomote the physical body terrestrially faster but not perhaps carry anything other than a wolf-skin + sky-clad, but the idea of real roles such as the Bard probably having real music instruments (and dances) or the Cleric having real religious followers from other players investing divine power to that role and proselytizing and preaching to the player base or Paladins proactively spreading LG everywhere they go through being sort of elect members of the player base with powers to fight off boters/gold-farmers/speed bots/griefers and more filth than you can shake a stick at. They could spend their "holy orders" on these activities and profit off successful "crushing of evil" retrospectively.

Not just "I am a nature-hugging druid who can cast root spell to immobilize you," or "I am a paladin so I get a big chock-off sword and shiny armour and look the part."

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
I don't view playing a role, and role playing as the same thing.

I would suggest to you that from the outside looking in, there is no observable or meaningful difference.

But from the inside, the difference is very meaningful. The role playing is about crafting life and story around the other in-game actions. Providing motivations and reasons for why the characters do what they do beyond simply "winning the game".

I can't make people care about that. The people Bluddwolf is referring to don't care. They are "power gamers" in our 2-axis player segmentation study. They aren't interested primarily in "role playing" but in maximizing their power.

So what? As they go about maximizing their power, everyone who interacts with them can't tell the difference between what they're doing and "role playing", so they're a net positive to the Roleplaying segments. By actually playing a role, they're meaningfully creating content for people who want to role play.

I would put myself somewhere in that fifth category (center 12%) although the only MMO I played long enough to have an evolving life career is EvE (over 9 years, 7 on current character), so Storytelling has been a little less so a focus.

If storytelling and strategic maneuvering both have significantly less focus, that puts you firmly into quandrant 1. I'd guess that the EvE equivalent to strategic storytelling would be planning the major events, while the strategic combat would be sov warfare.

Keep in mind that in 2000, "Power Gamer" was not yet an insult.

Goblin Squad Member

It is an insult now?

I learn something new every day.

251 to 300 of 533 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Alignment as a faction wheel All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.