Goblin Squad Member
|
Assumption #1: When players at the keyboard engage in toxic, unmeaningful pvp their character ends up with a Chaotic Evil active Alignment and very low Reputation.
Assumption #2: The Reputation system is meant to be a restrictor plate on toxic player activity using mechanical disadvantages as a disincentive to that behavior.
Assumption #3: The Alignment system is part of the foundation of the character-driven Pathfinder D&D IP used in story creation and immersive play.
As far as I know the devs have explicitly confirmed all three of those ideas, and that's why Chaotic Evil settlements are going to suck so bad bad players don't have any nice places to go to get better at being bad (RD posted that in one of the huge threads a few days ago).
The thing is, GW is developing an entire system whose sole function is to deter and ideally prevent toxic player behavior; so if you're cherry picking certain alignments to ALSO punish and deter bad player behavior it indicates to me the Reputation system is broken and not doing its job.
The freedom afforded to Chaotic players over other players is not mirrored by Chaotic settlements over others when it comes to warring or economics so their disadvantages don't have counterbalancing advantages. Even if you're going to defy logic and call a permanent institution Chaotic I don't see making sure bad players can't train there as a reason for mechanically disadvantaging its resources. If that's the whole reason you're programming a Reputation system then make the character's Reputation be what limits their access to training or using abilities they acquired with a previous high reputation or "more powerful" alignment.
That's right, six months of good behavior in a "strong" Alignment and you can break bad to hunt noobs or wolf pack unmeaningful pvp with the flatter power curve the rest of your life and never train another skill again. I've never heard that addressed once.
My question to devs- Am I missing a huge design principle here? Because I see a hole so big you can drive a truck through it.
-------
As to the "settlement is chaotic so it doesn't run as well" principle no permanent settlement as a discrete entity can make a strong case for being Chaotic in the first place because of the corruption and lack of order that's measured in the Corruption mechanic. Regardless of who lives in it, every permanent settlement as an institution runs in some version of a lawful manner or ceases to exist as an entity. In my view that's contributing a great deal to the current perceived Alignment troubles.
Calling game settlements innately lawful and just distinguishing if they lean towards Good, Neutral, or Evil (measured in 1/3s of the -7500 - 7500 GvE scale for players to be eligible for membership) simplifies the programming and settlement concept for players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So if I get this right, your suggestion is to remove Chaotic all together, assume all settlements are lawful (to some degree ) and just view settlement alignment as varying degrees of Good, Neutral or Evil.
This does not match the setting of the River Kingdoms, where the majority of kingdoms and their rulers are Chaotic Neutral. The overarching culture, represented in the River Freedoms, are Chaotic Neutral. Most likely, the most commonly worshiped Dieties will be Chaotic Neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was under the impression settlement reputation controls what buildings a settlement can build. If you lose reputation and get kicked out of a settlement you're probably gonna lose those skills that where trained at high reputation buildings. That's how I see the system working, or something similar to that. Where's the hole?
On a side note, I see that griefing will be met with moderator intervention and reputation and alignment cover meaningless pvp. Wasn't this already clear. The system isn't hole-free, but what system is...
It's true that chaotic evil low rep characters will have a lot of freedom, but I really hope they suck big time. :P
sorry if I come on a little aggressive on this one...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm picking up an impression that chaotic good settlements will be like aboriginal kraals, whereas chaotic evil characters may at best have campsites. Many of them together would look like a collection of campfires and the water only runs in the creek. That any building of anything suggests it is afflicted with a developmental creep toward lawful.
I don't really think that model would give CE characters anything to lose, would it? Do we want to say that would be a good thing?
I'd argue the other way. You want them to have something they would like to hold onto. To put them in the position of having nothing worth defending is to put them in a perpetually warlike offensive role.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm picking up an impression that chaotic good settlements will be like aboriginal kraals, whereas chaotic evil characters may at best have campsites. Many of them together would look like a collection of campfires and the water only runs in the creek. That any building of anything suggests it is afflicted with a developmental creep toward lawful.
I don't really think that model would give CE characters anything to lose, would it? Do we want to say that would be a good thing?
I'd argue the other way. You want them to have something they would like to hold onto. To put them in the position of having nothing worth defending is to put them in a perpetually warlike offensive role.
You have to keep in mind that alignments are based on overall behavior trends (or in some rare cases, magical intervention) and not necessarily a conscious dedication to pursue the alignment. CE is not a straight-jacket that says they cannot have any structure or do anything nice for someone else. It just says that they are less likely to do so and probably have selfish motivations even when they do choose to do so. CE is very often a "Might Makes Right" style of society. Those with more power may very well have nice amenities that have been constructed through expenditure of wealth, favors, or threats and slavery. The broader populace will likely be in the nature of buildings you have implied.
Imagine an opulent central keep and glorious unholy church, and possibly a very posh thieve's guild that hoard 90% of the wealth to themselves all surrounded by slums.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the point is well taken though, that the reputation system by itself could be sufficient to de-incentivize toxic behavior and one doesn't neccesarly need to involve the alignment system in it as well.
For example, you could place mechanical penalties (such as restricted training opportunity) on low reputation characters regardless of alignment and allow for CE characters (purely a RP choice) that had high reputations to not suffer the same sort of penalties imposed upon players who exhibited toxic behavior.
So a high reputation CE settlement could provide quality training facilities.... just facilities that were in keeping with the flavor of the alignment (e.g. Tier 3 necromancy, etc).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the point is well taken though, that the reputation system by itself could be sufficient to de-incentivize toxic behavior and one doesn't neccesarly need to involve the alignment system in it as well.
For example, you could place mechanical penalties (such as restricted training opportunity) on low reputation characters regardless of alignment and allow for CE characters (purely a RP choice) that had high reputations to not suffer the same sort of penalties imposed upon players who exhibited toxic behavior.
So a high reputation CE settlement could provide quality training facilities.... just facilities that were in keeping with the flavor of the alignment (e.g. Tier 3 necromancy, etc).
This is what some of us on the CN / CE side have been (yelling) about for weeks!!!
Alignment as a gate to certain skills, feats and spells....Fine
Alignment for role playing....... Great
Alignment for social identity..... Cool
Alignment as a mechanic of picking winners and losers! No freaking WaY!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment as a mechanic of picking winners and losers! No freaking WaY!Alignment as a means of discouraging anti-social player behavior? Hell Yeah! That's actually what sold me on PFO from the beginning.
I dunno, I think that is what reputation is for, to funnel PvP into the activities that PFO wants you to PvP in and for. While I like the idea of alignment having things in common with Reputation, I don't like the idea of mirroring it.
As far as this discussion goes, I'm kind of in the Goldilocks corner. I'd like to see aligmen work more as wheel and reputation be the diagonal line on a grid that takes you towards suckitude.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment as a means of discouraging anti-social player behavior? Hell Yeah! That's actually what sold me on PFO from the beginning.Then whats the reputation mechanic for if not to punish anti-social behavior? So should we double punish people?
I find Ryan's reasoning persuasive that Reputation and Alignment work together to funnel toxic players into the part of the game where their playstyle doesn't negatively impact regular players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really think that model would give CE characters anything to lose, would it? Do we want to say that would be a good thing?
Eh. If you don't want anything to lose then why build a settlement at all?
I would think that if this is the line of thinking we want to go with, then we really should start thinking about bonuses for living a nomadic lifestyle as Bluddwolf has suggested before.
I'm not against that. After all, this is based off a tabletop game most of which revolve around adventurers who are essentially homeless. But if we want to consider that, I'd like to see a detailed outline of how that should work.
I think the point is well taken though, that the reputation system by itself could be sufficient to de-incentivize toxic behavior and one doesn't neccesarly need to involve the alignment system in it as well.
For example, you could place mechanical penalties (such as restricted training opportunity) on low reputation characters regardless of alignment and allow for CE characters (purely a RP choice) that had high reputations to not suffer the same sort of penalties imposed upon players who exhibited toxic behavior.
So a high reputation CE settlement could provide quality training facilities.... just facilities that were in keeping with the flavor of the alignment (e.g. Tier 3 necromancy, etc).
I'm in agreement with that mostly, I'll just put out there that CE has the ability to generate corruption and unrest in opposing settlements. They have the ability to target people for SAD, assassination, and enslave our citizens.
I don't want to see a 1 for 1 balance system. "Holy strike does 200 holy damage so Unholy strike needs to do 200 Unholy damage and we need to make sure they only real difference between those is one makes your sword glow white and the other makes it glow black. Wait no... that might be imbalanced due to visibility issues..." I want to see a system where if you intend to go out and exploit others for your own gain that evil is a more attractive alignment, if you intend to help others and only use violence when your life or the life of other's are in danger that good should be the best alignment. If you intend to pay laws heed and conduct yourself by a strict code of honor than lawful is the best alignment, and if you intend to consistently disregard and even actively work against laws then chaotic is the best alignment. And if you intend to fall somewhere in-between there or actively seek balance, then neutral is the best alignment.
For example. Let's take the druid class. A NG druid might have abilities that increase productivity of plantlife in an area. You might have one go through your orchard clearing it of disease and increasing it's yield. Directly contrary a NE druid would have an ability they can use to start a plague, or overrun your orchard with premature rot and mold. A lawful-neutral druid might go through a forest and use magic to organize the trees into neat rows / create walkable paths through the undergrowth so that it appears more orderly and people can move through it more easily. A chaotic druid might go through and use their spells to thicken the underbrush and riddle it with thorns to help conceal their hideout or make it impassible to force traders onto the roads. A true neutral druid would have things to help bring nature back into it's right state after the other "extremists" wander through and disrupt the natural order by creating rampant thorns and diseases, or unnaturally orderly forests and bountiful harvests.
The idea is the alignment system should naturally push people toward the alignment of the role they play in the game. If I want to come in, and heed all the laws, and always respect and help others, I should look at the abilities offered to a lawful-good character and say "Perfect, that's a great line up of abilities for what I want to do." And if I want to come in and disregard all laws, and run around robbing and murdering people for self-gain I should look at the abilities offered to chaotic evil and say "Perfect, that's a great line-up of abilities for what I want to do."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the reputation system would be the better way to punish players who participate in destructive behavior.
If I am wondering around with my necromancer and decide to raise an army of undead and help clear an EC, and it just happens to be against the law in that area, doesn't mean that this is destructive behavior. Is it CE, most definitely. Is it being anti-social or destructive to another, no. It would flag me as a criminal and therefor subject to those consequences. So he helped with an EC, created sanctioned PvP and meaningful interaction, and is being punished by the alignment system in so doing. This somehow seems wrong.
If we switch the penalties to reputation only, it frees up chaotic alignment to play their alignment better. In a settlement would it create more corruption, sure, but if the settlement can handle it by spending more influence for increased guards or other things to fight corruption, this should be punishment enough. You could allow the settlement to restrict access to a certain level of reputation, and use that to base what types of training can be attained there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Raising undead army would only move you towards evil. Attacking an EC does nothing to your alignment / reputation. If you are inside a Good settlement hex you would raise unrest reducing production because it was against their laws. That should effect your reputation as yes you helped with the EC but you also caused the settlement negative lasting results by your actions. Well intended or not. The developers have not said how long it will last but let's say for the next day production is down 50%, and the next is down 25% and so on. So if they wanted you to help for whatever reason they would have the option to change the law for the short term at least. To allow your participation. Problem solved.
Reputation is all that really matters, it just so happens that if you RP CE and act LE you will be out of alignment, but you will have a good rep. If you RP (call yourself) LG and act CG you will have a bad rep.
Chaotic is outside the law, if you want the benefits of a lawful society you must provide a place that will protect and nurture the trade skills, trainers, priests ext that will be the top tier settlements. If a CE player can walk your streets then the trainers, etc will close up shop until they leave town.
It is solid logic, and people say it is not all they like, but it will not change the developer's minds.
*edit might not be possible to Change that specific law.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's always concerned me with tying mechanics to alignment is that there will mostly likely be a "best" or most efficient alignment and most everyone will be that.
The roleplaying nature of alignment is being totally bastardized by attaching overly restrictive mechanics to it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What's always concerned me with tying mechanics to alignment is that there will mostly likely be a "best" or most efficient alignment and most everyone will be that.
The roleplaying nature of alignment is being totally bastardized by attaching overly restrictive mechanics to it.
This is exactly the point I was making earlier. If alignment is nothing but a mechanic for picking winners and losers, many players will pick the alignment that appears to be the best and not concern themselves with actually behaving that way consistently. Yes if there us a mechanic that requires they follow it, they will, but anything not tracking the alignment will be ignored.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What's always concerned me with tying mechanics to alignment is that there will mostly likely be a "best" or most efficient alignment and most everyone will be that.
The roleplaying nature of alignment is being totally bastardized by attaching overly restrictive mechanics to it.
I can understand having thematic flavors attached, such as Smite Evil vs. Smite Good. Or Holy keyword vs. Unholy keyword. SWTOR had an interesting thing going with Light-Side Gear/Dark-Side Gear even if they may not have implemented it the best (played strictly balanced so never found out).
Alignment is a great area to add a flavor. But too many mechanics can definitely harm the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other people are saying it and I am glad cause I am getting tired of saying it. Reputation should be the mechanic (if you want a mechanic) that determines your training access and such. Alignment should only determine WHAT you can and cannot train. CE should have necromantic training, Assassin training, Barbarian training. And high tier training of those as well. Fighter training and rogue training and sorcerer are mostly universal so why can't they be there as well? Evil clerics, they can get training at a CE town as well. As long as people maintain a high reputation, being CE shouldn't be the red-headed step child of the alignment system.
Find that balance where Chaotic settlements have higher unrest and corruption, leading to longer build times and less tax revenue, but they have less laws and can use undead and slaves for labor (cheap/free vs paid) compare this to a lawful settlement, lower unrest and corruption means more tax collections actually make it to the settlement coffers and people obey the laws, of which there are many. Labor cost money, but is more efficient.
That is a simple and yet balanced (tweak as needed) system that is both viable and fills the needs for those willing to take the pros and cons of their choice. It keeps alignment about what it represents in TT, while not making 1 better than the other. Good vs evil can follow a similar system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People keep saying evil or good these are not part of the equation for training, trade skills etc.
The metric is chaotic vs lawful you can be as evil as you like but if you engage in war that is declared then it is lawful. Lawful settlements will have the best access be they good or evil. An evil cleric will get the best training in a lawful evil settlement.
CE is not going to be the "corner case". Any chaotic player will not have access to those facilities that can be built in lawful settlements.
You will have to provide an envorionment that will attract the NPCs that will operate those top level facilities. If you create a lawful settlement that does attract those top level NPC and then open your doors to chaotic players they will close shop until you raise the bar so as to not allow them access. The way the post is written they don't even have to enter just that you have set the bar low enough for them to do so.
If their presents (NPC) is what generates training blocks it very well could be a metric that no training is generated while the bar is lowered to allow those chaotic players entrance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People keep saying evil or good these are not part of the equation for training, trade skills etc.
The metric is chaotic vs lawful you can be as evil as you like but if you engage in war that is declared then it is lawful. Lawful settlements will have the best access be they good or evil. An evil cleric will get the best training in a lawful evil settlement.
CE is not going to be the "corner case". Any chaotic player will not have access to those facilities that can be built in lawful settlements.
Can you source this? I've never seen anything at all suggesting that LE will be as strong as LG and CE will be as strong as CG. In-fact I think I remember Ryan making statements to the effect that he thinks CG will be a very popular alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Attacking an EC does nothing to your alignment / reputation.
Our readings differ. This is not to assert you are wrong, but only that my understanding is instead that if the good-aligned character engages an evil EC and destroys it there will be alignment-beneficial consequences, and if an evil-aligned character engages and destroys a good-aligned EC there will also be beneficial alignment consequences for the necromancer.
The primary task for outside warfare and championing the oppressed, the LG Paladin will be quelling evil-aligned EC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is exactly the point I was making earlier. If alignment is nothing but a mechanic for picking winners and losers, many players will pick the alignment that appears to be the best and not concern themselves with actually behaving that way consistently. Yes if there us a mechanic that requires they follow it, they will, but anything not tracking the alignment will be ignored.What's always concerned me with tying mechanics to alignment is that there will mostly likely be a "best" or most efficient alignment and most everyone will be that.
The roleplaying nature of alignment is being totally bastardized by attaching overly restrictive mechanics to it.
Anyway when EE starts that's why I'm rolling Caldari because they have awesome Perception.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway when EE starts that's why I'm rolling Caldari because they have awesome Perception.This is exactly the point I was making earlier. If alignment is nothing but a mechanic for picking winners and losers, many players will pick the alignment that appears to be the best and not concern themselves with actually behaving that way consistently. Yes if there us a mechanic that requires they follow it, they will, but anything not tracking the alignment will be ignored.What's always concerned me with tying mechanics to alignment is that there will mostly likely be a "best" or most efficient alignment and most everyone will be that.
The roleplaying nature of alignment is being totally bastardized by attaching overly restrictive mechanics to it.
Mastering missiles as a weapon of choice is also less skill intensive than gunnery.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Andius,
Goblin works Blog...
Alignment and Reputation
posted by Ryan Dancey, on Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Reputation
Reputation has no direct effect on combat, crafting, or skills, but does limit availability of training, facilities, and social interactions.
------
The Alignment section says nothing about the "training, facilities". I am not extrapolating that an evil settlement can have a positive (good) reputation. There is a difference between RP an Evil Alignment, and acting Chaotic. The key is if you choose to play a channel negative energy cleric, summon undead, assassinate players those acts need to within the framework established by the game. That could be a contract, a feud, or war. I know that people who want to play evil see that as not playing by the rules in many cases, but you see where I am going here.
I will have to look for that post about CG settlements. I don't recall the post about CG settlements being popular but I'd bet is does not say they will have access to all training etc.
Being,
You are correct, alignment will be changed by PvE. I should have said Reputation will not be changed by the EC unless the local laws... blah blah blah. Makes me wonder what a Good aligned EC will look like but I just picture neat rows of tents filled with paladins posting up outside a evil settlement.
Thanks for keeping me honest...
As far as Lawful Evil settlements if I am wrong I'd like to hear it from the developers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No idea whether my vision is good, but I figure outside an LE settlement a few NPC woodsmen and hunters show up felling timber with the hunters bagging game for supper. If the LE players don't notice or are off flogging peasants somewhere pretty soon the mobs will hav built a sawmill. Next thing you know there's a palisade built and some NPC Knights of Iomedae start up patrolling nearby. If the LE folks aren't careful they might wake up one dusk and there's an LG extraplanar Being standing at the foot of their bed frowning down on them wrathfully.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Andius,
Goblin works Blog...
Alignment and Reputation
posted by Ryan Dancey, on Wednesday, December 18, 2013Reputation
Reputation has no direct effect on combat, crafting, or skills, but does limit availability of training, facilities, and social interactions.
------The Alignment section says nothing about the "training, facilities". I am not extrapolating that an evil settlement can have a positive (good) reputation. There is a difference between RP an Evil Alignment, and acting Chaotic. The key is if you choose to play a channel negative energy cleric, summon undead, assassinate players those acts need to within the framework established by the game. That could be a contract, a feud, or war. I know that people who want to play evil see that as not playing by the rules in many cases, but you see where I am going here.
I will have to look for that post about CG settlements. I don't recall the post about CG settlements being popular but I'd bet is does not say they will have access to all training etc.
Reputation is separate from both alignment axis. It's a third measure that stands on it's own. There are confirmed behaviors for both evil and chaos that do not hurt your reputation.
As far as I've always understood it:
LG > NG = LN > CG = TN = LE > CN = NE > CE
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I've always understood it:
LG > NG = LN > CG = TN = LE > CN = NE > CE
It is important to note that this is based off of very well run and moderated settlements. An LG settlement that experiences a lot of Evil and Chaotic behaviors will find itself as CE > LG.
The mechanics are meant as incentive to promote positive behavioral trends. But if you try to use the higher end alignments for the advantage but do not live up to their requirements you will suffer for your attempts. If you understand that you are going to see a lot of chaos and evil in play-styles and want to embrace that, then your mechanical advantage is choose CE because it puts a cap on your unrest and corruption.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as I've always understood it:
LG > NG = LN > CG = TN = LE > CN = NE > CE
It is important to note that this is based off of very well run and moderated settlements. An LG settlement that experiences a lot of Evil and Chaotic behaviors will find itself as CE > LG.
The mechanics are meant as incentive to promote positive behavioral trends. But if you try to use the higher end alignments for the advantage but do not live up to their requirements you will suffer for your attempts. If you understand that you are going to see a lot of chaos and evil in play-styles and want to embrace that, then your mechanical advantage is choose CE because it puts a cap on your unrest and corruption.
Which kind of fits in that in 3.5e D&D (and maybe still pathfinder itself) if you worshipped a Lawful Evil deity you might be looked down upon in the world, but in death you would still become a petitioner, whereas if you tried worshiping a Lawful Good god but behaved in a Lawful Evil manner you might find yourself become Lemurized in the pits of the Nine.
Lemurized in the pits of the Nine.
Erm I almost dread to ask....but as this is a lemur what exactly does lemurized consist of?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lemurized in the pits of the Nine.Erm I almost dread to ask....but as this is a lemur what exactly does lemurized consist of?
Not sure if it stands, but in 3.5 the "soul" of a person was pushed into a giant pit of fiendish maggots. The magical essence of the soul was used to power the magics of the Nine Hells and the excrement of the maggots would form into a new mindless devil known as a lemure. The e is important.
Ah well not being a D&D player I wasn't aware of that hence my puzzlement :). I had some mind bleach moments wondering what you meant
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway when EE starts that's why I'm rolling Caldari because they have awesome Perception.
I want to explain the significance of my snark.
Long ago character attributes (mechanically - skill training speed) were pre-determined for EVEs characters. Three subsets in four different factions made 12 different sets of attributes. Each major faction has a pretty unique backstory and ethos to it, but a majority of players said "screw that" and rolled one particular type of Caldari because that one had the attributes best optimized for fastest training of ship-flying and weapons skills, the biggest game mechanical advantage for combat. In game design it's four evenly matched factions in a tense stasis but everywhere you looked it was wall-to-wall Caldaris. (EVE later separated attributes from character background so players could be free to play as the faction they liked without being at a mechanical disadvantage to the fleets of squids).
If PO doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of EVE, why the hell would they create an environment that incentivises players to disregard the foundational keystones of Pathfinder world characters and go with the one alignment that will give them the biggest mechanical advantage in territorial warfare? Or at least have to avoid alignments they would like to role play to create content for themselves and other players but would put them at such a disadvantage there's no point to playing the game in a sea of Caldaris.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway when EE starts that's why I'm rolling Caldari because they have awesome Perception.I want to explain the significance of my snark.
Long ago character attributes (mechanically - skill training speed) were pre-determined for EVEs characters. Three subsets in four different factions made 12 different sets of attributes. Each major faction has a pretty unique backstory and ethos to it, but a majority of players said "screw that" and rolled one particular type of Caldari because that one had the attributes best optimized for fastest training of ship-flying and weapons skills, the biggest game mechanical advantage for combat. In game design it's four evenly matched factions in a tense stasis but everywhere you looked it was wall-to-wall Caldaris. (EVE later separated attributes from character background so players could be free to play as the faction they liked without being at a mechanical disadvantage to the fleets of squids).
If PO doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of EVE, why the hell would they create an environment that incentivises players to disregard the foundational keystones of Pathfinder world characters and go with the one alignment that will give them the biggest mechanical advantage in territorial warfare? Or at least have to avoid alignments they would like to role play to create content for themselves and other players but would put them at such a disadvantage there's no point to playing the game in a sea of Caldaris.
This is a good point, and in a way, a reworded form of what I have been getting at in my issue with alignments. I like alignments and the system being proposed as a RP system and a way to segregate and "group" people. That being said, as this is a game and ultimately needs to be balanced if the devs desire all alignments to be played, breaking alittle bit of the "norm" is needed. (In a balanced way that makes sense)
This part of the discussion can even be applied to races as well. The beauty of the TT game is that some races are "best" from a mechanical point of view for some classes, such as an elf archer/ranger or Halfling rogue. However, the other races are balanced in a way that offer a different angle or version of the same class while maintaining the core of the class. For example, dwarven rogues are nice because of darkvision and not being slowed down by encumbrance, though not as stealthy as halflings.
The point I am getting at is that while the alignments, and settlements tied to them, should be different, they should also be balanced so that 1 isn't better than the other. Better in one aspect while being weaker in another is the balance. Make things more expensive in chaotic settlements because of the corruption, but their labor is cheaper because of slave labor. The buildings upkeep is less, but things take longer to build/craft/train for the same reason. Slaves are as passionate about their work and only do the amount that doesn't get them beat more than needed. Lawful settlements pay better (making it more costly) but more efficient because of happier workers and less corruption. Neutral settlements get like a medium balance between the 2. Not enough that is it desired over the "extremes" but kinda a "jack of many trades, master of none" feeling. Reasonable cost for reasonable work.
I mentioned before concerning taxes. If it is something similar to eve corps where a tax can be implemented and taken automatically from each member, the corruption of the settlement would affect the taxes collected. if 10% is the tax, players will auto lose 10% of their earnings and such, but if corruption is high, say in a chaotic settlement, then only 5% gets deposited in the coffers. Tax collectors skimming, or whatnot. A lawful settlement would have 9% deposited for example.
obviously, tweeking the system would be needed during EE and monitored during OE and beyond, but I think that something like this would be balanced, while giving each type of settlement and alignment choice a place to shine and be viable. If you make Chaotic = such and lawful = awesome, then get rid of chaotic and we all roll lawful. same applies for goods vs evil. It should just be different buildings, different costs, different upkeep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which kind of fits in that in 3.5e D&D (and maybe still pathfinder itself) if you worshipped a Lawful Evil deity you might be looked down upon in the world, but in death you would still become a petitioner, whereas if you tried worshiping a Lawful Good god but behaved in a Lawful Evil manner you might find yourself become Lemurized in the pits of the Nine.
As far as I've always understood it:
LG > NG = LN > CG = TN = LE > CN = NE > CE
It is important to note that this is based off of very well run and moderated settlements. An LG settlement that experiences a lot of Evil and Chaotic behaviors will find itself as CE > LG.
The mechanics are meant as incentive to promote positive behavioral trends. But if you try to use the higher end alignments for the advantage but do not live up to their requirements you will suffer for your attempts. If you understand that you are going to see a lot of chaos and evil in play-styles and want to embrace that, then your mechanical advantage is choose CE because it puts a cap on your unrest and corruption.
PFO's proposed alignment system, using alignment that places caps instead of just gates, promotes assigning a core alignment that will be out of congruence with the active alignment.
Players will select the core alignment that either appears to have the most advantages or actually does have the most advantages. They will then play the game the way they intend to, and then grind their way back to the "advantaged" alignment. This is not a genuine adherence to the alignment system, it is a game mechanic.
If GW cares about alignment and its true meaning, they will balance them as far as power caps and differentiate them through the use of gated abilities.
If they truly cared about alignment, they would remove Core Alignment, and just use Active Alignment. This way a character's alignment reflects his/her most recent or or most frequent deeds.
Reputation is already the mechanic to control player behavior. Either they have faith that they can get it to work, as a stand alone system, or they do not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PFO's proposed alignment system, using alignment that places caps instead of just gates, promotes assigning a core alignment that will be out of congruence with the active alignment.
You keep saying this but if you are penalized for having an alignment other than your core as the devs have suggested then it's absolutely not true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PFO's proposed alignment system, using alignment that places caps instead of just gates, promotes assigning a core alignment that will be out of congruence with the active alignment.You keep saying this but if you are penalized for having an alignment other than your core as the devs have suggested then it's absolutely not true.
I'm just wondering what that will look like. Your character's performance is weakened the farther from core your active alignment becomes?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just wondering what that will look like. Your character's performance is weakened the farther from core your active alignment becomes?
The character could get 2.5% less XP over time for each step between his active and core alignments (from struggling with inner conflicts and angst). ;)
PFO's proposed alignment system, using alignment that places caps instead of just gates, promotes assigning a core alignment that will be out of congruence with the active alignment.You keep saying this but if you are penalized for having an alignment other than your core as the devs have suggested then it's absolutely not true.
The devs have suggested no such thing. They said they had considered it and were not sold on the idea
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The devs have suggested no such thing. They said they had considered it and were not sold on the ideaPFO's proposed alignment system, using alignment that places caps instead of just gates, promotes assigning a core alignment that will be out of congruence with the active alignment.You keep saying this but if you are penalized for having an alignment other than your core as the devs have suggested then it's absolutely not true.
Actually there is already one confirmed penalty:
Some abilities, like Paladin feats and skills, are only available to characters of certain alignments. You can only learn and slot those abilities if both your Active and Core Alignment match the Alignment requirement. Also some of these abilities may require abnormally high or low Alignment scores, such as a Paladin ability that requires 7000 in both axes.
And a further debuff being considered. And those weren't even the quotes I was basing my statement off of.
Given that your settlement membership eligibility is based on your core alignment I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assuming for a minute GW aren't idiots. If we assume that that, it's then safe to state that if the lack of alignment based abilities don't greatly hurt all characters and they decide not to use debuffs for active and core alignments that don't line up, there will be other things that prevent you from setting your core to allow you to join a LG settlement and then playing a fully effective CE character.
Going around asserting GW will implement imbalanced mechanics as a fact when they've already outlined some penalties and hinted at additional solutions they might use has no place in an intelligent discussion of the proposed mechanics.
Paladins as the devs have stated many times are a corner case.
It was dancey himself who stated they weren't sold on the idea of implementing penalties. You can hope as much as you like but until the Dev's state otherwise at this moment in time Paladins remain the only skills affected
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It actually is referring to all alignment based abilities with paladins as the example. You and Bluddwolf can assume what you will but the devs have consistently shown so far they aren't total idiots and won't include completely broken mechanics in the final design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It actually is referring to all alignment based abilities with paladins as the example.
So monks have to remain lawful, barbarians have to remain unlawful, druids have to remain neutral, and clerics have to remain within one alignment step of their god, to get all of their various special abilities. I'd hope the devs keep all of these 'corner cases' so restricted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah but someone like a wizard, rogue, fighter, bard, ranger it doesnt matter.
barbarians cant be lawful, but thats not the same as saying they have to be chaotic. so as long as they dont touch a lawful alignment there is no issue with them.
Clerics have plenty of space to play around in similar to a barbarian. they dont have to keep a specific alignment, they have to keep a range.
Paladins are unique in that so far they are the only ones that must maintain high scores in their alignment and they must do so on two axis.
I would suspect that monks will also have a similar requirement but only on one axis.
Druids have to be neutral, but only on one axis. withing that they are free to allow their alignment to shift.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more I think about it, The more I want to suggest removing the idea of core alignment and just base everything on active alignment. Kinda like in TT, there is no core vs active, you have your alignment and then decisions you make in game. Make too many contrary decisions and your alignment changes. This can be done in PFO through the proposed 7500 through -7500 point system. when you shift alignment based on your actions, you lose access to the skills and access to the training needed for those skills. If you fall out of alignment with your settlement, you give a debuff, or corruption or something, to your settlement until you fix it or are kicked out.
Do away with the passive slide back to core alignment and base all alignment movement on actions. After all, that is the best way to gage intent. If I intend to kill you, I will do so and shift toward evil. If I don't intend to kill you then I don't shift. If I intend to pay taxes, I shift towards lawful. If I choose to give less then requested or none at all, I am acting chaotic and shift towards chaotic. Do we really need a passive slide? Yes I know the discussions on other threads concerning "Anything that requires active participation can/will be gamed" but I have always believed is if it is designed "properly" then that is working as intended when it is being gamed. Go on a murderous rampage and find yourself evil (and possibly chaotic as well) then "repent" by doing good things. I never understood the "just log off for a week and your be right back to (insert not evil alignment)"
Just my thoughts. I argue for this because it makes sense and promotes the meaningful interactions the devs desire. To be honest, I also desire meaningful interactions.