Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah but someone like a wizard, rogue, fighter, bard, ranger it doesnt matter.
For now it doesn't matter. The question is, should it matter?
My view is that if GW wants active alignment to matter, they need to be ready to "encourage" people to keep their core and active in sync. Because all of those corner cases classes roles won't be implemented when the server goes hot and we'll be learning our bad habits immediately.
@"The Goodfellow" I forget who raised it, but I thought shifting core alignment a fraction (1/4?) of the active shift was a good suggestion. So if a killing was -500 good to active alignment, it would also shift my core alignment -125 good at the same time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Okay, that seems reasonable, but consider our corner case, the Paladin. Although the Paladin must remain pegged lawful and good he will still have to defend himself and others, and there will surely be ways to bait him into losing alignment. Once he loses that LG peg I suspect it will be exceedingly difficult to make it back without, let's say, prayer. If the only way prayer can be modeled is the drift toward core then that fallen paladin should be able to regain his grace.
Unless for such cases there is something like a 'prayer' skill that would accomplish the same end.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Just because I have stated I would rather see alignment used as a gate and that there be only active alignment, does not in anyway suggest that the Devs are idiots for wanting something else.
I don't agree with their use of the term "sacred cow", and then at the same time they use alignment in a way that is clearly not sacred, and the only relation it has to cows is what they leave in the field.
Again, that does not make them idiots, just off the mark in my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the reason core alignment was implemented is to avoid making alignment a grind.
With no alignment drift at nobody would be neutral on any axis unless they actively did actions just to balance out their alignment.
With automatic drift toward true neutral your paladin will end true neutral if he spends too much time patrolling for danger without encountering scenarios in which he can gain lawful and good alignment, too much time in Fort Riverwatch explaining the game to new players, or just too much time roleplaying with his friends in The Seraph's Kiss.
Core alignment is a nice simple mechanic that makes you always slowly drift toward your desired alignment. Likely the drift will be too slow to allow you to rely on it of you are playing an alignment completely contrary to yours, but if you are doing a pretty good job of sticking to your alignment it should keep you within acceptable ranges.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
I actually wish "core alignment" (as currently described mechanically) was locked to the default racial alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am simply saying that if actions across the board were defined in a manner that (do this = shift towards X alignment) then yes it would be a grind, but at the same time it wouldn't be. If actions are deemed good and lawful, then a pally must restrict himself to only thought actions, or must grind those actions if he gives in to the temptations that lead towards other alignments. Sure you can goat him into doing something not lawful/good but it is his choice to actually do the action. If he gives in, then repentance is in order, hence the "grind" of those actions deemed lawful/good. The point of being a pally is NOT giving in to those temptations and keeping to a strict code of conduct.
Side note: we use pally because most people know and understand the pally as far as alignment goes. This can be discussed in the same way for any class/role and alignment combination. Other "classes" have more freedom in the area called alignment but there are still restrictions, such as settlement alignments and some skills requiring certain alignments. Those are what keeps a fighter centered into his chosen alignment. Sure a fighter can be any of the 9, but if he uses some skills keyed to alignment, say barrowing a smite evil from the pally "tree" then he must maintain that good and/or lawful alignment or lose access to that skill.
@Andius I understand people don't like the grind, I don't either. However, since we get to pick a starting alignment, there is no grind, except what actions you normally take during play that should fit within your chosen alignment to begin with. It isn't going to be like in wow were you start neutral with a faction and have to grind rep to get exalted. If I choose LE, then it isn't a grind to do LE actions, that is what I should be doing anyway. If I don't follow the LE actions, then my alignment will shift to follow the actions I do take. The only grind occurs if my actions provoke the shift and I don't want to shift, hence I grind back to keep my alignment. But that would be my choice.
Don't want to grind? Choose an alignment that fits with your play style, or chosen play style for your character/company/settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually wish "core alignment" (as currently described mechanically) was locked to the default racial alignment.
I disagree. the reason for it is because there are radicals in every race. Granted humans are known for their diversity, but other races have it as well. Heck, that is the point of the TT game. Your an adventurer, a "Non-normal" member of your race. Several races naturally stay to themselves and only defend when attacked. Consider the hobbits in the Shire. Some families never leave their holes (Baggins), yet others can't stay in 1 place long. (Tooks) Tying a core alignment perminately to your race choice is like saying only elves can be archers. Sure they are naturals, but why are they the only ones. It would be limiting and break the mold of what pathfinder stands for.
Again, I think core alignment should be removed all together and your alignment simply be your active alignment that shifts as your actions warrant, but that is my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually wish "core alignment" (as currently described mechanically) was locked to the default racial alignment.I disagree. the reason for it is because there are radicals in every race. Granted humans are known for their diversity, but other races have it as well. Heck, that is the point of the TT game. Your an adventurer, a "Non-normal" member of your race. Several races naturally stay to themselves and only defend when attacked. Consider the hobbits in the Shire. Some families never leave their holes (Baggins), yet others can't stay in 1 place long. (Tooks) Tying a core alignment perminately to your race choice is like saying only elves can be archers. Sure they are naturals, but why are they the only ones. It would be limiting and break the mold of what pathfinder stands for.
Again, I think core alignment should be removed all together and your alignment simply be your active alignment that shifts as your actions warrant, but that is my opinion.
I think the reasons for core and active are legit, but it's definitely "one of those things" that could get voted off the island in crowdforging.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually wish "core alignment" (as currently described mechanically) was locked to the default racial alignment.I disagree. the reason for it is because there are radicals in every race.
I agree, how would having an elfs core alignment be CG as described prevent someone from playing an elf of any alignment? I agree radicals exist everywhere...but they are called radical for a reason, were everyone one, it would not be very radical. Being able to create and sustain the uniqueness of a Good Drow should be a daily effort.
But, if I cannot win with the above argument, I agree, I do not really see the point of the Core Alignment (other than ones natural instincts and societies view of you...as I suggest).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Without core alignments I'd like to see:
1. Actions that generate good, evil, law, and chaos generate less of that alignment the closer you get to the extreme. (For example a good action moves you toward good by smaller and smaller increments the closer you get to good. Meanwhile the ammount of evil you get for evil actions becomes larger and larger.)
2. There should be neutral actions for both law-chaos and good-evil that move you closer to 0 on that axis.
That's the only way anyone is going to avoid eventually ending up at the extremes without intentionally doing good/evil/lawful/chaotic things just keep from moving too far away from 0.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Without core alignments I'd like to see:
1. Actions that generate good, evil, law, and chaos generate less of that alignment the closer you get to the extreme. (For example a good action moves you toward good by smaller and smaller increments the closer you get to good. Meanwhile the amount of evil you get for evil actions becomes larger and larger.)
2. There should be neutral actions for both law-chaos and good-evil that move you closer to 0 on that axis.
That's the only way anyone is going to avoid eventually ending up at the extremes without intentionally doing good/evil/lawful/chaotic things just keep from moving too far away from 0.
So it is faster to go evil to the extreme than it is to go good to the extreme?
Why is it you always seem to avoid balance?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not what he said, Bludd. As an example, he says that if you get closer to the max for Good, Evil actions will affect your score more. Repeat, as an example. Says right there, it is an example. I don't think he needs to spell out the opposite for you as well, that is if you are close to max for Evil, Good actions would affect your score more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's not what he said, Bludd. As an example, he says that if you get closer to the max for Good, Evil actions will affect your score more. Repeat, as an example. Says right there, it is an example. I don't think he needs to spell out the opposite for you as well, that is if you are close to max for Evil, Good actions would affect your score more.
I don't see how else to interpret the difference when the word "meanwhile" is used. That in and of itself implies a difference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's not what he said, Bludd. As an example, he says that if you get closer to the max for Good, Evil actions will affect your score more. Repeat, as an example. Says right there, it is an example. I don't think he needs to spell out the opposite for you as well, that is if you are close to max for Evil, Good actions would affect your score more.I don't see how else to interpret the difference when the word "meanwhile" is used. That in and of itself implies a difference.
You're really reading something into it that isn't there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example a good action moves you toward good by smaller and smaller increments the closer you get to good. Meanwhile the ammount of evil you get for evil actions becomes larger and larger.
Now I'm going to swap every instance of good with evil and evil with good.
For example a evil action moves you toward evil by smaller and smaller increments the closer you get to evil. Meanwhile the ammount of good you get for good actions becomes larger and larger.
Also a true statement in the system I'm proposing.
For example a lawful action moves you toward lawful by smaller and smaller increments the closer you get to lawful. Meanwhile the ammount of chaotic you get for chaotic actions becomes larger and larger.
Also true.
For example a chaotic action moves you toward choatic by smaller and smaller increments the closer you get to chaotic. Meanwhile the ammount of lawful you get for lawful actions becomes larger and larger.
And true as well.
Shane is correct in stating I didn't spell it out because I didn't figure it needed to be spelled out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For example a good action moves you toward good by smaller and smaller increments the closer you get to good. Meanwhile the ammount of evil you get for evil actions becomes larger and larger.Now I'm going to swap every instance of good with evil and evil with good.
For example a evil action moves you toward evil by smaller and smaller increments the closer you get to evil. Meanwhile the ammount of good you get for good actions becomes larger and larger.Also a true statement in the system I'm proposing.
For example a lawful action moves you toward lawful by smaller and smaller increments the closer you get to lawful. Meanwhile the ammount of chaotic you get for chaotic actions becomes larger and larger.Also true.
For example a chaotic action moves you toward choatic by smaller and smaller increments the closer you get to chaotic. Meanwhile the ammount of lawful you get for lawful actions becomes larger and larger.And true as well.
Shane is correct in stating I didn't spell it out because I didn't figure it needed to be spelled out.
Thank you for that clarification. There was no way to tell that there was parity without at least saying, "and the opposite holds true".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Without core alignments I'd like to see:
1. Actions that generate good, evil, law, and chaos generate less of that alignment the closer you get to the extreme. (For example a good action moves you toward good by smaller and smaller increments the closer you get to good. Meanwhile the ammount of evil you get for evil actions becomes larger and larger.)
2. There should be neutral actions for both law-chaos and good-evil that move you closer to 0 on that axis.
That's the only way anyone is going to avoid eventually ending up at the extremes without intentionally doing good/evil/lawful/chaotic things just keep from moving too far away from 0.
And I think this is part of the reason for having the core alignments. Without the core alignments, GW has to code a much larger set of alignment-shifting actions, things that aren't too easily twisted around. Core alignment lets them keep the action list smaller, and means we don't have to incessantly grind to get our alignment where we want it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment always has been what you DO, not what you wish you could be. If Alignment really is a sacred cow then it should measure what characters do in the world and nothing else. Not what characters (players) wish they could be (for stronger mechanical advantage) and not as a cap on game access for players that behave badly. That's why I also want to kick core alignment off the island and have only active alignment registering what you actually do.
* There should be actions that move you towards good, evil, law, chaos. Not neutral actions, that's oxymoronic at it's core.
* Any drift at all should be towards 0 (only while logged in) representing your lack of any other actions on one or the other scale. Neutrality can be maintained through that and an actual balance of GvE or LvC actions. Paladins that don't DO lawful or good things anymore would have a problem too, which is consistent with their D&D ethos.
* I'm not sold on a scaling affect based on your current rating. If you do nothing but good or evil all day long, all month long, you deserve your 7500 or -7500 and one blip from your norm should be just that, merely a blip on the scale barely discernible out of the whole.
* There is seriously no grind at all. With capable design, you are Chaotic Neutral when you act mostly chaotic and sometimes good sometimes evil or stay inactive on GvE. If you behave another way that honestly is your real alignment even if you wish you were CN. That moral fabric of a D&D character affecting the world is what alignment has always described
Not if the player behind the character is being toxic or not. That's what Reputation is supposed to describe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah but someone like a wizard, rogue, fighter, bard, ranger it doesnt matter.For now it doesn't matter. The question is, should it matter?
My view is that if GW wants active alignment to matter, they need to be ready to "encourage" people to keep their core and active in sync. Because all of those corner cases
classesroles won't be implemented when the server goes hot and we'll be learning our bad habits immediately.@"The Goodfellow" I forget who raised it, but I thought shifting core alignment a fraction (1/4?) of the active shift was a good suggestion. So if a killing was -500 good to active alignment, it would also shift my core alignment -125 good at the same time.
Not it shouldnt matter for those people, rather those should not be penalized for their alignment shifting around because it doesnt make sense.
Someone like a paladin it makes sense.
For alignments to be meaningful beyond monk and paladin, alignments need to have some sort of benefit. So the only issue with a fighter going from evil to good, is that if he had an unholy weapon now he suffers a penalty when he uses it and that smite evil no longer works on him.
For example lawful settlements might operate more efficiently than non lawful ones. An evil settlement will be able to make use of reduced resource costs due to slave/undead labor.
However GW needs to be careful that they dont try to force everyone from an evil alignment. A LE settlement should generally be as powerful as a LG settlement, perhaps in their strengths are in different areas, but you shouldnt be able to go "the best alignment for everything is....XX".
I also think that core alignment should be done away with, your alignment should be your alignment that you currently have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However GW needs to be careful that they dont try to force everyone from an evil alignment. A LE settlement should generally be as powerful as a LG settlement, perhaps in their strengths are in different areas, but you shouldnt be able to go "the best alignment for everything is....XX".
I think the obvious and major difference between LG and LE individuals is that LE can kill any number of people and shrug off the evil shifts. In a game with a lot of PvP, that is huge. I'd suggest that the LG settlements need a lot of buffs to be balanced with a LE settlement for that reason. At the same time, the LG settlement can't be allowed to be full of people with LG core and LE active alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm interested in what actions people expect to bring good shifts, if core alignment were to vanish.
Apart from the slew of NPC-tied actions that can happen in PvE or PvP contexts, just fighting for your Good settlement against people who want to destroy you. You log in and spend all day smiting enemies, destroying their siege equipment, reclaiming your POIs and other territories, you should have racked up some Good points. Non-combatants that contribute materials and their production/transport/administrative/etc. skills to the War Effort too.
To be clear, doing the same for your Evil settlement results in commensurate Evil points.
You're fighting to protect and keep that engine for Good or Evil operating in the world which are innately Good and Evil actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is kind of funny. Previously there was the hoopla about alignment restricted settlements (long ago). Not many people liked that. So they kinda went with the core and active to leave a little more wiggle room.
^^^Very long story shortened^^^
Now there is a new tendency to feel that one can declare a core and freely play an active as far outside of it as they like. Simply because of a lack of released details about the system. There are hints though:
Only characters within one Alignment step in both their Core and Active Alignment can join the settlement, and if your Core Alignment falls out of that range you are forced out of the settlement.
...
•We've talked about having some sort of debuff when your Core and Active Alignment do not synch up, but we're not sold on it yet.
Two excerpts, emphasis mine. From the first, I would ask: How does your core alignment fall out of range? That does not suggest a voluntary movement to me.
Additionally now, there is a new trend wanting to do away with the "core" idea.
We are back to square one, all on our own.
Amusing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the obvious and major difference between LG and LE individuals is that LE can kill any number of people and shrug off the evil shifts. In a game with a lot of PvP, that is huge.
Remember that pvp is designed to be through the vehicles of wars, feuds, and faction conflict where your enemies are Hostile to you 100% of the time and you don't shift Evil for having killed them. LG can engage in as much of that pvp as they like without worry. LE still can't do too much outside those boundaries either or they lose their Lawful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the obvious and major difference between LG and LE individuals is that LE can kill any number of people and shrug off the evil shifts. In a game with a lot of PvP, that is huge. I'd suggest that the LG settlements need a lot of buffs to be balanced with a LE settlement for that reason. At the same time, the LG settlement can't be allowed to be full of people with LG core and LE active alignments.
Sorta, remember that actions get you flagged. if you go around killing people whenever you will end up with very long lasting flags, the result is that now you become fair game to everyone else and are subject to getting killed on sight be everyone who sees you, which includes the other evil people. Then there are things like the good faction flag which gives good folks bonuses for hunting down people with flags like that....all of a sudden you become a target who anyone can kill and even when not flagged the alignment and reputation hit is not very large.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Champion flag doesn't exist anymore.
However it is correct in stating random slaughter will not only move you along the evil axis but also make you more choatic and low reputation.
That being said assassinations, necromancy, and slavery all seem to be actions LE evil actions will have at their disposal for frequent use that LG ones won't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Remember that pvp is designed to be through the vehicles of wars, feuds, and faction conflict where your enemies are Hostile to you 100% of the time and you don't shift Evil for having killed them. LG can engage in as much of that pvp as they like without worry. LE still can't do too much outside those boundaries either or they lose their Lawful.
I wouldnt be sure about that. For example i can kill your merchant because i know he is carrying a bunch of T3 gear and I can sell that gear for a profit.
Sure during declared war alignment hits wont happen, but pvp isnt restricted to just when you declare war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is kind of funny. Previously there was the hoopla about alignment restricted settlements (long ago). Not many people liked that. So they kinda went with the core and active to leave a little more wiggle room.
^^^Very long story shortened^^^
Now there is a new tendency to feel that one can declare a core and freely play an active as far outside of it as they like. Simply because of a lack of released details about the system. There are hints though:
Only characters within one Alignment step in both their Core and Active Alignment can join the settlement, and if your Core Alignment falls out of that range you are forced out of the settlement.
...
•We've talked about having some sort of debuff when your Core and Active Alignment do not synch up, but we're not sold on it yet.
Two excerpts, emphasis mine. From the first, I would ask: How does your core alignment fall out of range? That does not suggest a voluntary movement to me.
Additionally now, there is a new trend wanting to do away with the "core" idea.
We are back to square one, all on our own.
Amusing.
I think you're putting a ton of emphasis on a connotation of the word "fall". It's the character's actions in the world, and nothing else, that determines their Alignment otherwise it's not consistent with the last 45 years of D&D Alignment. Like I wrote before the one mechanical tweak to that which seems logical is a slow drift towards 0 from lack of shifts on either scale while logged in to represent a neutrality mindset.
Personally my issue with settlement alignment is that GW is attempting to use alignment to reward/punish players for their in-game behavior rather than a description of moral action as characters are played and it's supposed to be "a sacred cow" after all.
The fix to that is not to further misappropriate the concept of Alignment in an even more complicated fashion adding a dynamic between core and active and inventing this Drift Principle which then allows the original settlement alignment problem to be exacerbated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Proxima Sin
Core has little to do with actions (as detailed so far) and more to do with inactions.
I am not arguing for or against any system or reversion to previous systems. It is kinda of funny that some people think that if the core/active system stays in place, that it will be "play as intended" to set core at LG and run active at CE. <---Extreme example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for that clarification. There was no way to tell that there was parity without at least saying, "and the opposite holds true".
Did you read the sentence right before your quote, which your quote was an example of?
Sorry I kinda exploded and repeated myself over and over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is kind of funny. Previously there was the hoopla about alignment restricted settlements (long ago). Not many people liked that. So they kinda went with the core and active to leave a little more wiggle room.
...
We are back to square one, all on our own.Amusing.
Even those who remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@kitnyx I disagree with the "good drow is a daily grind" comment. My belief is that your "core" alignment is where your heart and soul is. Who you are deep down. A good alignment drow would imply that despite his upbringing (evil), he maintains his good natured soul, hence his core alignment of good. Active alignment is based on your actions.
The issue with this, especially for a game, is the fact that if you continually act in a specific manor, aka active alignment, are you really your core alignment deep down if that is different from your active alignment?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Proxima Sin
Core has little to do with actions (as detailed so far) and more to do with inactions.
I am not arguing for or against any system or reversion to previous systems. It is kinda of funny that some people think that if the core/active system stays in place, that it will be "play as intended" to set core at LG and run active at CE. <---Extreme example.
See I am advocating a particular system for doing alignment which I see as vastly less complex and therefore getting rid of this mess we keep spinning over and over and also keeping true to D&D. Maybe it should be a separate post, but since some but not all unwanted player behavior is currently tied to some but not all alignments, that becomes and even more complicated mess.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
See I am advocating a particular system for doing alignment which I see as vastly less complex and therefore getting rid of this mess we keep spinning over and over and also keeping true to D&D. Maybe it should be a separate post, but since some but not all unwanted player behavior is currently tied to some but not all alignments, that becomes and even more complicated mess.@ Proxima Sin
Core has little to do with actions (as detailed so far) and more to do with inactions.
I am not arguing for or against any system or reversion to previous systems. It is kinda of funny that some people think that if the core/active system stays in place, that it will be "play as intended" to set core at LG and run active at CE. <---Extreme example.
I absolutely don't disagree with you if your aim is to keep the system as simple as it can be and as true to it's original purpose as possible.
The portion of my post that referred to us slipping back to "square one" (dropping the core/active system) was more prompted because a few people seem to like the idea. After all of the fuss over the original system and the subsequent changes, I do find it amusing. It is not that I disagree with your idea.
I would not mind either way. Just as long as what we end up with makes the most sense. I won't judge which is better until I see how it ends up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A question that has not been asked..... What Chaotic Evil actions will there be or should there be, that will either not cause the loss of reputation but could lead to reputation gains?
Anything that the "bad guys" have ever done in D&D novels. You got your challenges to the death for leadership power, defiling graves with necromancy, assisting CE gods and organizations nefarious plots (factions), nurturing certain escalations instead of combating them, successfully bribing an NPC to make sure there are delays and setbacks for the important building going up in RivalGoodtown, and plain old maniacal fixation to crush the world under your heel. Fighting and materially supporting a war to destroy a Good kingdom (mechanically - pvping in the war or depositing materials/erecting buildings for/transporting between/crafting at a building for the War Effort for non-combatants).
All of that is totally within bounds of acceptable player behavior so the passive Rep will soon be ticking upwards in a fury... in a CE!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought it was a fish...
Anyway, combating a LG escalation works on paper but GW might not want to put the dev resources into a situational escalation like that... ever.
I was thinking the parties of escalations are also not Chaotic Stupid. You get in range with the ability to communicate and recieve a simple boolean choice.
Have you come to die!!??
a. "Those are ironic last words!" draw sword. Lawful and Good points assigned.
b. "We come to offer gifts. To help you" Recieve quest to give relevant materials or weaken such and such. Evil and often Chaotic points assigned for each quest completion, or protecting the escalation from those pesky do-gooders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Core exists because even if GW puts a TON of resources into the Alignment system, an automated system will be able to capture maybe 1 percent of the actions that would logicaly shift a character one way or another.
So all it becomes is a rather meaningless and unnatural timesink and grind.... because players won't be able to get to the alignment they really should be and any sane human GM would adjucate they really should be without grinding out a very limited range of activities that become utterly boring to the player....assuming they care at all about alignment....AND they HAVE to care in PFO because alignment dictates what settlement they can belong to, welcome to the world of automated systems.
Core gives the player at least a partial way to mitigate that by letting them represent all the things an automated system can't capture.
I'll also note, for the record, that alignment systems have been a dismal failure in pretty much every computer game that has tried them to date and have routienely been criticized as among the least popular features of those games.
Whether you guys like it or not, alignment is a very large part of the representation of a characters identity and just as a player will spend hours in a character creator tweaking it so they get their hair or nose just right, they'll want to be able to specify what their alignment should be, when something gets in the way of that and says "no your character isn't really what you want them to be or think they should be", that's a big deal for alot of players.....when it's something as limited and clumsy as an automated system then orders of magnitude more so.
At least with core alignment the player can specify, this is who I think my character is and should be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm interested in what actions people expect to bring good shifts, if core alignment were to vanish.Apart from the slew of NPC-tied actions that can happen in PvE or PvP contexts, just fighting for your Good settlement against people who want to destroy you. You log in and spend all day smiting enemies, destroying their siege equipment, reclaiming your POIs and other territories, you should have racked up some Good points. Non-combatants that contribute materials and their production/transport/administrative/etc. skills to the War Effort too.
To be clear, doing the same for your Evil settlement results in commensurate Evil points.
You're fighting to protect and keep that engine for Good or Evil operating in the world which are innately Good and Evil actions.
I agree Proxima, wholeheartedly. I continue to prefer alignment as a faction wheel and reputation as the funnel into using the PvP systems as designed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the character's core alignment does not shift with unaligned behavior then there is a loss of moral/ethical orientation when the character does fails to behave in accord with that core alignment.
Beyond that, all meaningful activities (where by 'meaningful' we describe transactions that the game will measure and by which reputation will be adjusted) can easily carry alignment implications.
These are the same transactions measured to find reputation.
I expect that alignment consequences are actually effects of reputation consequences, but reputation will probably have no effect on alignment at all.
Alignment will simply better conform to Pathfinder lore, and be more easily recognized by players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am hoping, have confidence in fact, that there will be some kind of "Drag" mechanic imposed on core alignment if you stray too far for too long. The further (say beyond 1 step) that you stray and the longer you remain there or continue drift, the more that your core gets dragged toward active.
Something like that or some debuff. Otherwise, IMO, it is a pretty weak mechanic for establishing a player's alignment and where they best fit into the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A question that has not been asked..... What Chaotic Evil actions will there be or should there be, that will either not cause the loss of reputation but could lead to reputation gains?
Actions do not need to be Chaotic AND Evil, they could be Chaotic OR Evil and still sum up to a CE alignment.
Example: Marikor the Recluse seeks to raise some undead servants. He hates society and doesn't like being around living people with all their needs and feelings, but doesn't really feel secure hiding away from society in the wilderness by himself. To acquire the supplies necessary, he decides to start off with some highway robbery. He finds some bandits he can tolerate long enough to earn money for his supplies and sets about building new companions.
His lifestyle is a chaotic one at heart, and his turn to banditry reinforces that. His ultimate goal, to dabble in necromancy and raising the dead, is definitively evil. The combination of his actions makes his a Chaotic Evil character.
On the other side of the coin, I would say there is also a limited number of actions that are both Lawful and Good at the same time just by the action alone. Lawful Good characters typically do actions that are either Lawful OR Good. If a Good action was Lawful in a settlement, then even Lawful Neutral characters would be inclined to perform the Good actions due to their adherence of the Law. So it typically becomes easier to just classify actions along a single scale.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am hoping, have confidence in fact, that there will be some kind of "Drag" mechanic imposed on core alignment if you stray too far for too long.
I'm kind of surprised no one's commented on it, really. Before Core Alignment, everything was based on your (Active) Alignment. Core was only created to control the automatic drift for folks who didn't want to drift towards LG. When Core was added, for some reason they decided to make a bunch of other stuff dependent on Core instead of Active. I think that was a mistake, and they should go back to making everything depend on Active Alignment, and leave Core to only control the automatic drift. Then no one has to worry about what happens when Core doesn't match Active, because Active is the only one that matters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nihimon I think that GW might be mostly concerned that players will perform some action that will tip his current active alignment out of bounds from his company or settlement or both. They might not want that one last straw of an action to automatically expel the character.
Automatic expulsions could complicate things. Imagine a PvP combat as part of a feud or war. Someone hits the wrong target and suffers an alignment shift. Suddenly they aren't part of the feud or war - they got booted from their company or settlement in the middle of combat. Anyone that continues to attack them suffers alignment shifts.
I think it's much cleaner to have characters remove themselves by shifting their core alignment, or by leadership expelling a character who is out of alignment norms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On settlement balance LG has material advantages, but I believe, advocate, hope that will meet some balance in that a LE settlement will find it is easier to go to and stay at war.
I say that thinking about unrest, and corruption. A LG population (NPC) will likely respond to war negatively possibly more so if the war is with another LG settlement than with a CE one.
LE settlement might see a jump in corruption but little in the way of unrest as they might misbehave behind closed doors, but dare not show disloyalty or suffer for it.
A CE settlement should expect to see little or no change in production in war time. CE will in theory have lower production values in the first place but realize a smaller shift when they declare war, possible an improvement? The inhabitants are after all CE.
I could be making this all up in my head based on other games, or it is something the devs just have not spoken about yet. For me to put this foward means little. Once they post something they will be quoted and harranged for Every detail that might not have been desided yet. Maybe the only effect to production will be the actual difficulties in getting raw materials delivered?
More on topic I see the merits of a drift towards 0 as it is more in keeping with D&D, but I think the current system is more viable for the game mechnics. Evil and chaotic would drift favorably, and law and good would require regular maintance. I am not sold on debuffs for one step out of alignment from any direction, but two steps should and they should be meaningful the system is there to allow wiggle room not so you can ignore alignment. Some people will try to ride the line but they should find being on the wrong side of that line encumbering (hint hint). It should not come as a surprise so maybe a bit of drag as Bright called it should happen but that second step out should be very steep. If the drag can be fixed instantly by changing your core I don't see a problem with that, if you wanted to be in a CG settlement you should act that way in game.
On the subject of the better (worse) you are the slower the return on your actions makes perfect sense. If an act is in keeping with what is expected of you the shift should be less if the act is completely out of the expected it should hit harder. I do think that line should be high before the dimished returns so as not to make it insane for a pally to get back his class skills. I mean really if a junkie steals its no surprise, if a pastor steals we are shocked. Well.... never mind well....
Again just my two cents worth.