Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has been quite a bit of debate over how the forces of justice (vigilante or lawful) could carry out their professed duty without becoming the very persons they are trying to combat.
Almost a year ago, when the SAD system was first revealed, Andius had asked for a similar system called the Apprehend mechanic.
Also about the same time many in the community were discussing non lethal or subdual damage as an option for killing, for every offense and as a means to avoid the Evil shift in alignment.
I have taken these two suggestion and came up with this very basic frame work.
Alignment can similarly be played, but there have to be activities that advance all alignments. Some activities would have to have variations that can support several alignments.
SAD was at least a Chaotic based activity.
Apprehend 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 (alignment shift by choice)
Apprehend + Kill = LE
SAD + Kill = CE
Why am I pushing for this? Because I will likely be on the receiving end of a great deal of vigilante justice and lawful justice. I can also see the opportunity to avoid killing when possible within this system, and I'm not as bloodthirsty as some may actually think.
Note: Being Subdued and being Killed has the same effect on the victim (looting, respawn and item decay).
This system is to benefit the attacker who wishes not to kill, but still deliver justice or be merciful when robbing someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Subdual cannot be at the choice of the one winning the fight. I as a merchant will not be able to fight back easily while at first glance subdual seems something I would want it is only at first glance.
I am killed and looted...I respawn at town where I have access to everything I need to reequip.
I am subdued and looted I am now stuck in the middle of nowhere and have to travel to go reequip.
The only person subdual benefits is the person who doesn't want to get the evil hit for killing. It does nothing for victims whatsoever. You want to attack me fine learn to love the evil shift don't start telling me though that I have to accept being left ill equipped in the middle of nowhere so you get reduced penalties
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stand and Deliver provides two (hopefully) interesting choices:
- For the highwayman, do you choose to issue a SAD, giving up the element of surprise in exchange for no rep hit?
- For the target, do you think you can take the outlaw or successfully run away (if you do, you lose nothing, but if you get beaten you may lose everything), or should you just pay the extortion?
What choices does Subdue present that are similarly interesting? Apprehend?
Stand and Deliver provides two (hopefully) interesting choices:
[list]For the highwayman, do you choose to issue a SAD, giving up the element of surprise in exchange for no rep hit?
LOL. Good one Stephen!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stand and Deliver provides two (hopefully) interesting choices:
- For the highwayman, do you choose to issue a SAD, giving up the element of surprise in exchange for no rep hit?
- For the target, do you think you can take the outlaw or successfully run away (if you do, you lose nothing, but if you get beaten you may lose everything), or should you just pay the extortion?
What choices does Subdue present that are similarly interesting? Apprehend?
Stephen,
Is the SAD still attached to a Chaotic alignment? If not then there is no need for Apprehend.
Does issuing a SAD cause a shift to Chaotic? If do then the Apprehend could differ by causing a shift to Lawful.
Other than those the mechanics could be the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think that, if SAD were tied to Chaotic, the devs would have done that for a specific reason, and it would be circumventing that reason to give Lawful the same system by another name. If however SAD is not tied to Chaotic, then there's no need for another mechanic called Apprehend which does the same thing.
Why would a Good or Neutral character ever kill instead of subduing, if subduing has the same effect and less penalties?
I find it funny that if someone were to Apprehend, which you describe as a Lawful act, then subdue, which would be a Good act, they would gain Lawful Good for robbing and killing any person they desire. Does not seem to mesh with the current ideas about alignment.
I also think that robbing and killing people outside of feuds and other rep-neutral activities should definitely not be something a paladin is encouraged to do to maintain their holy status. That sounds ridiculous.
If I'm misunderstanding the systems as you envisioned them, please show me where I misunderstood so I can better understand what you had in mind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Apprehend and Subdue could be used against someone with the Criminal Flag, that would make it a Lawful Good action.
If the Criminal resists, and the Paladin or enforcer can kill without rep loss but the alignment shift could still be Lawful and Neutral. It could still be a Good act if the criminal also had low rep.
Again, keep the ideas rolling because it would be nice fir those seeking to enforce justice to have the tools to do so.
The Apprehend and Subdue could be used against someone with the Criminal Flag, that would make it a Lawful Good action.
If the Criminal resists, and the Paladin or enforcer can kill without rep loss but the alignment shift could still be Lawful and Neutral. It could still be a Good act if the criminal also had low rep.
Again, keep the ideas rolling because it would be nice fir those seeking to enforce justice to have the tools to do so.
I didnt think killing someone with the criminal flag resulted in rep or alignment loss anyway
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didnt think killing someone with the criminal flag resulted in rep or alignment loss anyway
It doesn't, the criminal flag is a hostility indicator, and as such, from what we have been told in blogs, killing that person wouldn't result in an alignment change. Vigilante justice is possible within the current paradigm.
Attacking players who are not Hostile reduces your Good vs. Evil by a small but fixed amount (essentially, if you lose Rep, you also become more Evil).
There are a variety of cases that can make a player appear hostile to another player (e.g., faction membership, being at war, criminal flags, etc.).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Giving a Subdue the same win/loss mechanics as a kill makes it meaningless in terms of being Good vs. Evil. I suggested a Clobbered state where a person defeated with non-lethal damage may be able to walk and move, but would have no "action bar" for some pre-determined amount of time (probably in minutes).
* The Clobbered state does not allow for looting, but could provide another chance for characters to give in to extortion or as a way to drive unwelcome guests in a territory out of said territory without lethal force.
* A Clobbered individual would be easy to follow up and kill, as they have no action bar for fighting.
* Non-lethal combat would be a toggle that an attacker turns on or off. A defender could defend with lethal force - this is not a duel.
* Dealing non-lethal damage will cause penalties to the attacks. The character is pulling their punches in order to avoid killing someone. This is one of the trade-offs in avoiding the slip to evil. Perhaps some weapons (such as a sap) may have a Non-Lethal keyword which would forgo these penalties. Also, attacks may be limited to mostly basic abilities. Smite Evil would not be subject to non-lethal damage. Power Attack and Cleave-like abilities if available would also be unsuitable. Barbarian Rage would ignore the toggle and all attacks would do lethal damage during the active rage period.
For Subdue to be an interesting addition, it has to provide something other than just "The ability to avoid Rep Loss"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didnt think killing someone with the criminal flag resulted in rep or alignment loss anywayThe Apprehend and Subdue could be used against someone with the Criminal Flag, that would make it a Lawful Good action.
If the Criminal resists, and the Paladin or enforcer can kill without rep loss but the alignment shift could still be Lawful and Neutral. It could still be a Good act if the criminal also had low rep.
Again, keep the ideas rolling because it would be nice fir those seeking to enforce justice to have the tools to do so.
Whether it doesn't or it does, it does not give a rep boost nor does it increase lawfulness. What I'm looking to encourage is a parallel system
to the SAD for the forces of justice.I'm also looking for a sundial system for those not interested in ending every conflict with death.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like Lawful characters to be able to able to mechanically punish criminal characters, though I'm not sure I would like to see it simply be a mirror of the SAD mechanic, if only because I would like to see mechanical differences between.
I suggested a Censure mechanic a few months ago in which high reputation characters could force low reputation characters out of areas by applying a serious debuff to them. I imagine something similar could be co-opted here.
A Lawful Character can Command another character to bind their weapon. While their weapon is bound they enter a mildly protected state (severely increased reputation losses if killed), however they lose the ability to use their offensive abilities. A character who has a bound weapon can only unbind their weapon by leaving the immediate area (hex) and using an ability that takes 30 seconds of standing still. Otherwise they are free to go about their business. Perhaps they can only do this within Hexes that they have lawful control of (to prevent widespread abuse). If you refuse to have your weapon bound, you are flagged as a criminal.
Perhaps if a character whose weapon is bound dies within a territory, the owner of that territory receives corruption points.
This gives Lawful characters the ability to mechanically control people within their territory without resorting to killing them. It also allows vigilantes to push people off of their territory without just killing them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see mechanics for vigilante justice (which are already there) as well as Lawful mechanics to punish or deter criminals. As others have stated, I don't think the best way is to simply make SAD and killing free for any alignment. Subdual is a good idea, but I definitely don't agree with the implementation that it should be the exact same thing as killing but have a different name.
Morbis and Lifedragn both offered good examples of mechanics which would allow you to subdue without killing. Not that the specific implementations are without fault, but they accomplish something similar to killing a target (usually rendering the target ineffective or removing them from an area) without simply using a mechanic that's killing by another name.
Lifedragn, I think your specific implementation would make CG very strong indeed: your friend could clobber a target, then you could demand a massive SAD. Either they give in to the demand or they're a free kill for you. Although if clobbering would give the same potential for rep loss on death that two attacks would (via the recent reputation blog) maybe this exploit couldn't occur.
Morbis, I would definitely prefer that anything I can do which can make you into a Criminal can only be done by authorities in an owned hex. I would really not enjoy paladins having people randomly run up to them in the wild and censure them, so that they either give up their attack abilities or lose Lawful from becoming a Criminal. Even if censuring would flag the user as hostile to the target and thus allow free attacking in return, it would still make the target lose Lawful points when he becomes a criminal, which I could definitely see being used to ruin someone's Lawful alignment.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Stand and Deliver provides two (hopefully) interesting choices:
- For the highwayman, do you choose to issue a SAD, giving up the element of surprise in exchange for no rep hit?
- For the target, do you think you can take the outlaw or successfully run away (if you do, you lose nothing, but if you get beaten you may lose everything), or should you just pay the extortion?
What choices does Subdue present that are similarly interesting? Apprehend?
Clearly, one should only Apprehend someone who has committed a crime for which the punishment is some combination of partial forfeiture and expulsion, rather than execution.
An accepted Apprehension would result in the target forfeiting the agreed amount of coin and/or items to the arresting authority, and clear the Criminal flag, gaining a flag similar in nature to the one that SAD targets get. Targets whose punishment includes expulsion or exile immediately enter fast travel to the border, and regain the criminal flag (trespasser) if they reenter or fail to exit.
Apprehension of criminals in accordance with settlement law would negate the corruption penalties for those laws being broken at least as much as killing the targets would. Over- (or under-) zealous LEOs who applied punishments different from those set by the settlement manager would cause less negation of corruption.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly disagree with one of the foundational assertions off of which this is based: "killing is an evil act".
Disclaimer: I intend to play an evil character who will do my fair share of evil killing.
Evil is acting contrary to compassion. Is it more evil to kill one murderer or to allow the murderer to walk free and kill many others? To truly act on compassion, you must choose to take some kind of action against murderers that will result in less killing overall.
This thread proposes that not only do law enforcers do less to stop the killing, but that law enforcement now give criminals a heads up that they're coming for them. So it penalizes stealth and surprise among bounty hunters.
The only argument for bounty hunters or other forms of law enforcement not needing to kill a criminal should be imprisonment or fines.
Imprisonment: character locked away for several days. Not popular from a developer point of view: you want players playing more, not less.
Fines: Lawgiver takes what's on the corpse - that's nothing new - but the system also siphons extra cash out of the fallen criminal's secret stores, be they in hideouts or in lawful banks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Evil is only fairly judged by the context of the game environment. The developers have been clear that alignment is not a subjective matter in Golarion, but a god(dess) overseen set of behaviors.
So far we have been led to believe killing outside of feuds, war, crime, and factions is an evil act. I would argue it has been presented as a chaotic act as well, and therefore a possible chain on those wishing to remain lawful as well.
Given what we have, I don't know if the realism or personal morality argument will be persuasive.
Evil is acting contrary to compassion. Is it more evil to kill one murderer or to allow the murderer to walk free and kill many others? To truly act on compassion, you must choose to take some kind of action against murderers that will result in less killing overall.
Quoted For Truth.
How is it the "Evil" people these days are seeming more and more like the "Good" guys who just aren't too pansy to do what needs to be done?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil is only fairly judged by the context of the game environment. The developers have been clear that alignment is not a subjective matter in Golarion, but a god(dess) overseen set of behaviors.
So far we have been led to believe killing outside of feuds, war, crime, and factions is an evil act. I would argue it has been presented as a chaotic act as well, and therefore a possible chain on those wishing to remain lawful as well.
Given what we have, I don't know if the realism or personal morality argument will be persuasive.
It doesn't have to be subjective. A career criminal will have plenty of flags related to good/evil, law/chaos, reputation, and criminal actions vs settlements and individuals to make it extremely straight forward to ascertain whether a kill is good, evil, or neutral (as in wars or self defense).
If the programmers can't sort out something that simple, then there's no reason to believe they're even going to attempt an alignment system at all.
If that truly is your belief, then that is a completely separate discussion. This thread is built on the assumption, including the original post, that alignment and morality will matter to players and game designers, and that there will be ways to flag it. If they're all wrong about it, as you claim, that's a big discussion. Likely one for it's own thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not claim that alignment and/or morality is something the developers are wrong about.
I am merely stating that they have a specific set of guidelines in mind to achieve the goal of that system.
I am not even saying that your proposal is wrong, just that I have not observed them taking individual viewpoints on morality into consideration.
They do seem interested in how proposed additions or alterations of the proposed system can enrich human interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
just that I have not observed them taking individual viewpoints on morality into consideration.
and in response:
A good/evil alignment system is, by definition, a morality system.
Since the developers ARE going to implement an alignment system, and since they HAVE given examples of what will be good and evil, then you have indeed seen them taking morality into consideration.
You can leave the conversation if you wish; what I said was for clarification for all.
I also think we're making plenty progress with the conversation. Maybe time will help to see it that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, that's progress.
I'm of the opinion that "individual" viewpoints on morality are like "individual" viewpoints on health: just because over one million Americans believe that the only actual cause of cancer is suppressed negative emotions, and just because there are many other very popular and very crackpot theories out there, it doesn't in the least tempt us to believe there isn't a very correct and true answer (whether we yet know said answer or even how to get to it, just that it is there), and that these crackpots are just noise.
But that's reality, and we're discussing video game mechanics.
And we agree that the devs will have a morality system, and that it will be applied to individuals, and that it won't apply differently based off of the individual interpretations each may have of morality.
Killing characters free of justifying tags will be evil, and there will be tags that will justify killing, and I would argue that such situations should not be considered evil by default, and I don't think it will be a challenge to code a game thus.
So I'm saying it should be based off of tags triggered by specific behaviors, and you reply that the devs aren't taking people's individual concepts of morality into consideration, and I don't understand why that's the emphasis of your reply, or even how it matters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have noticed replies in the past from people proposing things under their interpretation of morality.
The emphasis was based off that observation, as was the addition that the possibility of interesting new interactions does seem to go well.
So what additions to the proposed flags do you propose, or what new flags would you like to see?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as my stance on individual interpretation vs. morality on the two axis's goes. You are allowed to have individual interpretations but they don't affect your alignment.
A lot of people on these boards have a very pacifistic interpretation of morality (Killing is always wrong under any circumstance) or a very lawful interpretation (Killing is wrong unless you have a personal stake in the matter). My personal interpretation is that if you have the chance to stop evil, and fail to do so, that you bear some of the responsibility for that evil taking place.
None of these interpretations matter very much because none of them are what the actual moral system of Pathfinder is based around. What they do show is there can be multiple interpretations of morality within a certain alignment, and those interpretations don't change the greater truth of that alignment. I would post the actual wording but it wouldn't do us much good as people are widely split on what those say. I think the best reference to look at is the behavior of those who belong to certain alignments within the tabletop.
If we look at all of those behavior types and consider they all fall within their specific alignments, we get a good idea of what those alignments encompass.
For the good alignment, lethal force is acceptable if used in defense of yourself or others. Furthermore you do not have to have any personal stake in the battle or relation to the victim for it to be a good aligned action to intercede on their behalf.
The two strongest pieces of proof I can point to is the god Ragathiel and the crusader/vigilante roles. These do not paint a picture of good that is afraid to use lethal force, or that requires a relation with you to intercede on your behalf.
It paints a picture of good that actively goes out and uses whatever force necessary to bring about an end to injustice. That's not to say you need to behave in that manner to be good aligned. It's saying those are the terms under which violence and lethal force are acceptable for a character of good alignment.
So the big question to me is how are those positions most accurately reflected within the game mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you asking me?
I have proposed no new flags. I have proposed only two alternatives to dealing with criminal flags, and I personally lean towards the latter of the two alternatives: fines.
Should I propose a new flag though, it would be one for settlement specific crimes. Settlement leaders would have the ability to declare specific individuals criminal within their borders. If a fines system were also implemented, then said "settlement" criminal could only be fined within that settlement's borders, only for smaller amounts, and fines could only be taken from pools accessible from within the grieving settlement. That would mean NPC banks, so that would create a market for PC run banks, or of course you could just keep all your money on alt characters.
But that's only if I did propose any new flags. So purely hypothetical.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would propose the following flags:
Outlaw (Chaotic)
Enforcer (Lawful)
Heinous (Evil)
Guardian (Good)
Merchant (Any)
Mercenary (Any)
Trespasser (Any)- can only be enforced by citizens of settlement.
I would say that these PVP flags should give substantial buffs, putting those that do not fly them at a distinct disadvantage while trying to perform the same tasks.
Activating these flags takes 1 minute / deactivating them takes 30 minutes or instantly upon death.
Attacking anyone while flying any of these flags will not result in alignment or reputation consequences.
These flags are not the only way to be flagged for PVP, the Hostility system, Feuds, Wars and Faction are still other means of voluntary or non consensual PVP as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the big question to me is how are those positions most accurately reflected within the game mechanics.
That in essence is the rub. I could agree with your perspective on good, but I am lost as to how mechanics can measure that with any degree of accuracy.
There are a lot of little ways to make the system more accurately reflect the tabletop alignment system.
1. Unprovoked acts of aggression should flag you to everyone in the immediate vicinity so that they can attack you without fear of reputation or good/evil loss. That would include attacking/SADing anyone who is not flagged to you (War/Heinous/Criminal etc.)
Attached to this point I would submit that this could be considered an act of vigilantism if outlawed by the controlling faction of the area, and result in you drifting toward chaos and getting flagged as a criminal unless at war with that hex's owner.
2. The extent to which your target is evil should affect how evil killing them is. Hunting evil is an accepted behavior of the good alignment. Reputation is what reflects if you are being abusive or not, so reputation is the mechanic a vigilante hunting unflagged targets should have to worry about. This is most important in areas like refused SADs where you can kill without reputation loss. Without such a mechanic characters like Malcolm Reynolds and Robin Hood would be considered evil because the fact the non-military targets they hit belonged to evil factions wouldn't make the act any less evil.
3. The Heinous and Criminal Flags should be applied to every evil and chaotic action that affects other players. They should last for a considerable period of time and negate all rep loss upon killing the target. The Heinous flag should also negate any drift toward evil.
Beyond that I think discussion of non-lethal mechanics of attacking your targets is fine. But I would challenge anyone to point out how any of the mechanics suggested clash with a good alignment that includes a lawful/good god of vengeance with the highly lethal bastard sword as a favored weapon or crusader/vigilante roles that actively go out and seek to deliver justice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sensible suggestions, Bluddwolf.
From the trespasser flag, a system can be designed that responds to how settlements respond to that flag. Settlements who respond by driving out trespassers might experience a shift towards law. And depending on how harshly they deal with trespassers, and whether they discriminate on alignment of trespassers, could easily lead to a system that shifts them towards good or evil based off those responses.
The mercenary flag I think would make most sense if it were applied to entire companies, rather than just individuals.
Merchant...I'm curious to hear how you think that flag would interact with other characters in PvP situations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would propose the following flags:
Outlaw (Chaotic)
Enforcer (Lawful)
Heinous (Evil)
Guardian (Good)
Merchant (Any)
Mercenary (Any)
Trespasser (Any)- can only be enforced by citizens of settlement.I would say that these PVP flags should give substantial buffs, putting those that do not fly them at a distinct disadvantage while trying to perform the same tasks.
Activating these flags takes 1 minute / deactivating them takes 30 minutes or instantly upon death.
Attacking anyone while flying any of these flags will not result in alignment or reputation consequences.
These flags are not the only way to be flagged for PVP, the Hostility system, Feuds, Wars and Faction are still other means of voluntary or non consensual PVP as well.
I'm in favor of any well designed flagging system that reduces the penalties for killing you in exchange for more ability to go out and perform a PvP focused role. Crusader/vigilante type characters being included in PvP focused roles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That in essence is the rub. I could agree with your perspective on good, but I am lost as to how mechanics can measure that with any degree of accuracy.
That is a critical distinction. Goblinworks already thinks they can develop meaningful game mechanics that will determine good vs evil. It's not really up to us as players to agree or disagree with what they say good and evil is in Golarion, but to help them troubleshoot when their system misses the mark.
This thread is based on the assumption that there will be a good/evil system in place. If that's the essence of your questions, then back it all the way up and address it to every post in here so far. Or better yet, start a thread discussing what you see to be the major obstacles to designing game mechanics around alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Consider a Law vs Chaos approach. (this is overly complicated. S/W can do this, but players may not follow. Feel welcome to improve my extension of what Bluddwolf opened).
SAD seems (may be) connected to Chaos (and possibly usable by neutrals). By parallel, APPREHEND should be connected to Law (but possibly usable by neutrals).
Paralleling to channel positive/negative energies, neutrals must select if they are to use SAD or to use APPREHEND. (An NG character may prefer Apprehend; an NE may prefer SAD).
A character who accepts APPREHEND is taken back to "court" either in local jurisdiction or that of the apprehending team. Under APPREHEND the character keeps property but can not slot/use. Others may attempt rescue on the road to "court" but character under APPREHEND may not help in her own escape.
If APPREHEND is rejected, combat can ensue -- no CHAOS hit (this is lawful action). If target is subdued, she assumes APPREHEND status but "wounds remain" (e.g. if reject APPREHEND and subsequently subdued, there is no healing). If Killed, loss of good (gain evil) may entail (sorry I have not worked details -- you tell me) as in SAD rejection situation. No Chaos penalty to attackers, similar to SAD (if SAD is Chaos status, why does it have good/evil effects)?). Do attackers gain distribution of property (alap SAD), or can they bring body to court for "justice". If body taken to "court" how long is re-spawn of character delayed (note that if court fails, character gets all belonging back.
Only at court can loss of property occur. Gainfully acquired threaded property is usually lost. Unless killed, there is no degradation of threaded goods. If court case fails, character goes free, flagged as PROTECTed until outside hex or home (target choice) or until target attacks. If selecting home, shortest route must be followed (court may specify if there are choices in route, but if target can show route with fewer hexes, that will be chosen). Deviating from route losesProtection status. Rep, evil, and chaos penalties are 3x while PROTECTED.
There may be loss of other goods and moneys (method TBD) "ill gotten gains", e.g. records of goods taken from victims in charters possession returned to his victims (not 100%, and not without degradation.
OK, have too. correct expand and there may be a LAWful alternative to SAD (which will politically will make SAD more possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. Unprovoked acts of aggression should flag you to everyone in the immediate vicinity so that they can attack you without fear of reputation or good/evil loss. That would include attacking/SADing anyone who is not flagged to you (War/Heinous/Criminal etc.)
Attached to this point I would submit that this could be considered an act of vigilantism if outlawed by the controlling faction of the area, and result in you drifting toward chaos and getting flagged as a criminal unless at war with that hex's owner.
2. The extent to which your target is evil should affect how evil killing them is. Hunting evil is an accepted behavior of the good alignment. Reputation is what reflects if you are being abusive or not, so reputation is the mechanic a vigilante hunting unflagged targets should have to worry about. This is most important in areas like refused SADs where you can kill without reputation loss. Without such a mechanic characters like Malcolm Reynolds and Robin Hood would be considered evil because the fact the non-military targets they hit belonged to evil factions wouldn't make the act any less evil.
3. The Heinous and Criminal Flags should be applied to every evil and chaotic action that affects other players. They should last for a considerable period of time and negate all rep loss upon killing the target. The Heinous flag should also negate any drift toward evil.
Beyond that I think discussion of non-lethal mechanics of attacking...
Here are my issues with:
1. The problem with everyone in the "vicinity" having rights to attack the criminal is that it kills small gang PVP all together, as evidenced in EVE's Crime Watch.
Instead what will happen is that no one will commit crimes, which reduces content for both the criminal and the enforcer. It may also lead to PVP blobs only, which may go ravaging its way across your settlement, never avoiding the lone traveler as "too small" a target, because no target is "small" any more.
SADs are not attacks! Please people let's stop this argument. If SADing were to get the criminal flag, then there is no benefit to using the SAD. The purpose of the SAD is to prevent merchants from opting out of PVP and bringing resources to market without the chance of some loss.
The fear of loss of loot, which I blame squarely on the laziness of the developers of WOW, is more akin to protecting your virgin daughters. Gear and loot in general is far too sacred to the MMO player and this is what has lead and still leads to the care bear mentality*.
* Before anyone jumps on this, I am using the term academically and it is a Gaming Industry term that is standard in its use and meaning.
2. Hunting Evil and Hunting Good should both be equivalent. I try to avoid coming up with ideas or suggestions that do not balance or are not universal.
You keep on going back to that idea that the forces of "Good" should be able to do anything, anywhere against the forces of evil or criminals.
I'm all for Open World PVP for everyone! Dump the concept of reputation system and just let us play. But, if only one side of the alignment system has the freedom to "just play" you end up with this sequence:
1. The "Tyranny of the Good" in the beginning
2. Everyone changes their core alignment to some variant of Good
3. Alignment means nothing, everyone is "good" but plays chaotic evil
The potential debuffs associated with not matching their core and active won't solve the problem. If everyone has a debuff, there is no debuff.
The same goes for upper tier training / crafting. If few settlements or even one are the only ones that have access to upper tier ability, the others will actively bring them down to their level (balance of power), so that no one has it.
Final note, from your other post..
Would not Crusader / Vigilante be covered by Enforcer (Lawful) and Guardian (Good)?
Robin Hood was a "Guardian" of the poor and weak and used vigilante tactics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SADs are not attacks! Please people let's stop this argument. If SADing were to get the criminal flag, then there is no benefit to using the SAD. The purpose of the SAD is to prevent merchants from opting out of PVP and bringing resources to market without the chance of some loss.
If SAD does not require flagging yourself in a manner that opens you up for getting attacked without repercussions it should absolutely have the same consequences as an attack otherwise guards would get a rep and alignment hit for defending the guarded which makes no sense what so ever.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SADs are not attacks! Please people let's stop this argument. If SADing were to get the criminal flag, then there is no benefit to using the SAD. The purpose of the SAD is to prevent merchants from opting out of PVP and bringing resources to market without the chance of some loss.
Wait a second... are you suggesting that you don't want SADing someone to be a criminal action? Really? You are literally mugging a person. No, it isn't a physical attack. But it is still an assault on their person. The benefit of using the SAD mechanic is that it negates the potential of reputation loss. You are still a criminal by using it (at least in areas where the law disallows banditry.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SADs are not attacks! Please people let's stop this argument. If SADing were to get the criminal flag, then there is no benefit to using the SAD. The purpose of the SAD is to prevent merchants from opting out of PVP and bringing resources to market without the chance of some loss.Wait a second... are you suggesting that you don't want SADing someone to be a criminal action? Really? You are literally mugging a person. No, it isn't a physical attack. But it is still an assault on their person. The benefit of using the SAD mechanic is that it negates the potential of reputation loss. You are still a criminal by using it (at least in areas where the law disallows banditry.)
When the SAD was removed from the Outlaw Flag (which was a PVP flag) and made an ability, it took it out of the realm of PVP. Only if the offer is rejected and combat takes place does the bandit and merchant become hostile.
If your settlement has a law against SADing, then it would be a crime. However that would eliminate your ability as a security force to interdict traffic within your lands to inspect cargo passing through.
I seriously doubt the settlement will be able to create a protected class (ie law enforcement or citizens only) that can ignore the laws on the book. Otherwise every settlement would allow their enforcers to murder, and rob with impunity and their settlement will become a complete NBSI zone.
Just like making raiding illegal in your settlement, making SADs illegal will also have a trade off.
I'm not saying that out of a self serving agenda, I always expect PVP when committing banditry or raids. The criminal flag means nothing to me, I wish we still had the Outlaw Flag, I would have flown that almost always.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the SAD mechanic does end up being a "rep penalty free" action, it will need (at the minimum) to flag the bandit as hostile to the victim as soon as it is used.
Sorry Bludd, not sure if you are suggesting anything different, but there has to be balance. The victim should have the ability to reject a SAD and attack an aggressor, consequence free.
Whether using SAD should flag you as criminal, I would say yes it should. I would like to read more in depth and sound reasoning as to why SAD should be more protected than lack of rep loss for using. It is already (so far) the only universal PVP "catchall" mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wonder if a law is "will not tolerate banditry under the laws of the land". Hence the "River Kingdoms Freedoms":
This freedom draws the moral distinction between stealing and robbery. In the River Kingdoms, it is more preferable to face your robber, to be allowed the opportunity to resist (and perhaps to repossess!). It is acceptable (and perhaps worthy of praise) to take what you want by force.
Applies only when there is not a law in the land that specifies against it? Then it could come into more serious quantity of reputation loss etc etc vs a normal transaction? Ie different scale in lawful land vs "other" hex and even tending towards little rep loss in "chaotic" hexes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I would like to see is:
SAD issuance in uncontrolled hexes pegs the aggressor as "Hostile" to at least the victim and his party. I would be most happy if passerby saw the SAD issuer as "hostile" also. A state that should be able to be shared with whom the victim likes and on a nice long timer.
When you are mugged, there needs to be a chance to catch the bastards.
SAD should probably only be criminal in controlled player hexes where it is outlawed. (not my favorite but fits the flavor of the River Kingdoms) Player hexes should be able to give their people the "lawful" right to stop and inspect strangers (without being Hostile), but restrict strangers from doing the same on their lands. Settlements that abuse it will not have many peaceful visitors anyway.
In no way should it EVER be consequence free to chase characters into player controlled hexes and administer justice there, without Sovereign permission. Justice is not a universally defined concept for all Sovereignties. This is a territory control game, not a "Crusaders and Vigilantes without borders" game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the SAD mechanic does end up being a "rep penalty free" action, it will need (at the minimum) to flag the bandit as hostile to the victim as soon as it is used.
Sorry Bludd, not sure if you are suggesting anything different, but there has to be balance. The victim should have the ability to reject a SAD and attack an aggressor, consequence free.
Whether using SAD should flag you as criminal, I would say yes it should. I would like to read more in depth and sound reasoning as to why SAD should be more protected than lack of rep loss for using. It is already (so far) the only universal PVP "catchall" mechanic.
If your settlement makes SADs illegal, you already have this. As I said, there is the trade off for making it illegal. The trade offs:
1. Your own security forces may not be able to use the same tool to interdict and inspect cargo passing through your territory.
2. Agreed upon SAD offers would still impact your settlement's corruption rating.
3. You would have to make it a crime or punish in some other way, those who accept SADs in your territory.
Also, the merchant has the ability to reject the offer and attack without consequence already. Why do you keep on going back to that?
Once Hostility begins, the merchant's company or group will also see the bandits as hostile. If the settlement has laws against raiding, your citizens will see the bandits as hostile. All hostile parties can engage in PvP against each other consequence free.
SAD us a universal catch all, unless it us still tied to chaotic alignment only. The purpose if this thread is to extend similar abilities to those looking to distribute "justice" in a similar manner.
The other purpose if this thread is to create a workable non lethal PvP system, for the sake of the good and neutral aligned, so that they do not always have to meet out death for every crime.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, the merchant has the ability to reject the offer and attack without consequence already. Why do you keep on going back to that?
I did not realize that had been confirmed. I am not sure that it has, but if so, then I am glad.
I have not written much on this subject for some time. Not sure how I "keep going back to that" but whatevers. ;)
The rest is in my last post (above) and deals with both "on property" and "off property" situations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, the merchant has the ability to reject the offer and attack without consequence already. Why do you keep on going back to that?I did not realize that had been confirmed. I am not sure that it has, but if so, then I am glad.
I have not written much on this subject for some time. Not sure how I "keep going back to that" but whatevers. ;)
The rest is in my last post (above) and deals with both "on property" and "off property" situations.
A SAD has several possible outcomes:
1. SAD is issued and accepted. No crime, no attack, both parties depart on agreed upon terms.
You might not like this idea, but a SAD will usually be offered in a circumstance where the bandit could easily kill and take all. The merchant benefits even though he has to give up a portion of what he has. The Devs do not want unlimited resources to make it to market, or they will have to step in and adjust the market, the resource nodes and other economic systems to counter over saturation of supply. You don't want your 1000 units of iron ore to sell for 1 copper, as a regional average price.
2. The SAD is rejected and the bandits attack. Neither the bandit nor the merchant bear any consequences for this PvP.
3. The SAD is rejected and the bandits don't attack and let the merchant go on his way. This option I think you fail to see. What the bandits might have seen worth their while to intimidate out of the merchant, they might not see killing him for it to be worthwhile.
Thus was also the basis for my idea of the Interdiction policy for Pax. Allowing their security forces to "inspect" cargo passing through their settlement hex, without having to attack everyone passing through.
Overall the SAD mechanic benefits both bandit and merchant who choose to use it. If it were not available, do you really believe bandits would not exists, or that merchants would never leave their settlement hexes?