Alliances


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Yes I know Ryan thinks [alignment] is a major system, but it is not, and it won't be what sells PFO.
avari3 wrote:
Can't agree with that one. I do think that alignment ends up being the major selling point for PFO.
Yeah, meaningful Alignment is already what sold me on PFO.
What do you see as the big selling point of alignment?

Good question, as far as I can tell they didnt do anything with alignment till more recently. If its the one step rule, sure they talked about it before, but we all know that is not reality in any RP setting.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiminy wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Yes I know Ryan thinks [alignment] is a major system, but it is not, and it won't be what sells PFO.
avari3 wrote:
Can't agree with that one. I do think that alignment ends up being the major selling point for PFO.
Yeah, meaningful Alignment is already what sold me on PFO.
What do you see as the big selling point of alignment?

The big selling point of alignment - for me - is that it is a major component of a complex and layered system designed to encourage non-griefy PvP.

I long ago (1993, maybe?) recognized the necessity of non-consensual PvP in my dream game. At the time I was playing ArcticMUD, which was a text-based MUD with open PvP. I've tried a number of PvP options since then, from EverQuest, WoW, EVE, Darkfall. All of them left a really bad taste in my mouth because apparently there are a ton of Killers* out there who seem to think that if a game has Open PvP then that must be the purpose of the game, so you end up in a murder simulator. I found it extremely un-fun.

So, what I really want in my dream game is Open PvP with consequences. It seems incredibly logical to me that someone who randomly murders others can be reasonably described as Chaotic Evil. I think it's absolutely great that Goblinworks has decided to go ahead and make that connection and not try to cater to those who want to be able to play Chaotic Evil - that is, play by killing random strangers - and still reap the benefits of being Lawful Good, such as having access to Lay on Hands.

Goblin Squad Member

Was the Alignment system the selling point of D&D? Is it the selling point of PF RPG? Is it a major system in any TT or PC game, where it's removal will irreparably damage the product?

The answer is an undeniable "No" on all accounts. Alignment is a minor facet of a game, and a super majority if games do not even have an alignment system.

I'm not against alignment acting as a gate to certain skills, feats or use of items or structures. I agree that your activities can be represented through alignment.

Alignment being used as a funnel and then attaching negative mechanics to just a few alignments, it is a de facto message to not set your core alignment to those alignments. It also makes the favored alignments, socially meaningless.

If you see me as Neutral Good, it is only because I seek to gain access to settlements that would otherwise have barred me if I set my core alignment to CN. My average between my Core and my Active = Chaotic Good. But make no doubt about it, a discussion with me about my character or if we spoke in character would not remotely leave you thinking my character was Neutral Good. That is just a mechanical advantage for me to use to prevent (provide cushion) my character from sliding into or too far into Chaotic Evil.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You ever play Witcher? The very core of that game was meaningful chooses. Fable comes to mind, both were great games.

Some MMO have a faction system that means if you kill guards at the gate, druids in the woods there will be cities and NPCs that see you as an outlaw. These are not strictly alignment systems more faction but they could be called local alignments if nothing else. You could very well be KOS to two different factions and by spending a few weeks killing the goblins of X, now the previous KOS goblins of Y want to polish your armor for you if you would let them. This could even open up quest lines.

As far as TT games many a time I have heard the GM say "but would that be in keeping with your alignment" and if the player ignores the hint they pay for it in some way. Not just your LG palaidin but they tend to suffer more in those situations. Paladin: "Lets sell them as slaves" GM: "are you sure you want to do that"? Slaver buyers attack and rob party and try to make them slaves. The game does not end but now you have a new hook to work out.

I am pretty sure you know what side of the fence I am on....

Goblin Squad Member

Paizo identified alignment as a sacred cow of 3rd edition D&D. Obviously they disagree that it is not a major part of the system and setting.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiminy wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Yes I know Ryan thinks [alignment] is a major system, but it is not, and it won't be what sells PFO.
avari3 wrote:
Can't agree with that one. I do think that alignment ends up being the major selling point for PFO.
Yeah, meaningful Alignment is already what sold me on PFO.
What do you see as the big selling point of alignment?

It's a faction system based on actual roleplaying. Instead of being hardlined into good or evil at character creation or railroaded through single player choose-your-own-adventure quests that take you to the faction of your choosing , it is your actual play style that sends you to the factions of good/evil chaos/law.

You don't choose to be bandit and then do bandit stuff, you do bandit stuff and then become a bandit.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

Was the Alignment system the selling point of D&D? Is it the selling point of PF RPG? Is it a major system in any TT or PC game, where it's removal will irreparably damage the product?

The answer is an undeniable "No" on all accounts. Alignment is a minor facet of a game, and a super majority if games do not even have an alignment system.

I'm not against alignment acting as a gate to certain skills, feats or use of items or structures. I agree that your activities can be represented through alignment.

Alignment being used as a funnel and then attaching negative mechanics to just a few alignments, it is a de facto message to not set your core alignment to those alignments. It also makes the favored alignments, socially meaningless.

If you see me as Neutral Good, it is only because I seek to gain access to settlements that would otherwise have barred me if I set my core alignment to CN. My average between my Core and my Active = Chaotic Good. But make no doubt about it, a discussion with me about my character or if we spoke in character would not remotely leave you thinking my character was Neutral Good. That is just a mechanical advantage for me to use to prevent (provide cushion) my character from sliding into or too far into Chaotic Evil.

That doesn't mean in any way, shape or form mean that it can't or shouldn't be front and center in PFO. There have been hundreds of games built around the D&D rule set. Table tops, card games, board games, video games and MMO's. Most of them concentrate on one facet or set of facets of the entire rule set. Some concentrate on group strategy, many concentrate on # crunching combat, some focus on story, others warfare.

I think, and it's why I signed on, that it is very much time to have an MMO where alignment is a focus, especially as a tool to help steer PvP into certain systems.

Alignment factioned, sand box, territorial warfare. I consider that the trinity for PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A different way to look at the alignment issue is that D&D, AD&D, Pathfinder rules have changed again, and again over the years but the alignment system is pretty much unchanged since its inception. I would venture that makes it core to the system. I digress once again and say the real problem people have it with Rep not alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Paizo identified alignment as a sacred cow of 3rd edition D&D. Obviously they disagree that it is not a major part of the system and setting.

Identifying it as a sacred cow means that it will always be a part of the game, That doesnt make it a major part of the game.

But as the discussion is going, where in the Pathfinder RPG are you limited in advancement by the alignment you choose?

PFO is supposed to be following the concepts of Pathfinder, it may not be the same system, but its supposed to be Pathfinder in an MMO. Yet players that play certain alignments will be pre-nerfed and other alignments will be pre-buffed.

All because of a fear from a poor perspective on other games. Sad part is that those fears are not even justified.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Was the Alignment system the selling point of D&D? Is it the selling point of PF RPG? Is it a major system in any TT or PC game, where it's removal will irreparably damage the product?

Ah, but the difference is with <=6 people sitting at the TT with me, I can choose to not play with people who will stab me in the back and take my lutz for the lulz and giggles...just because the game mechanics allow it. In an MMO I do not have that option.

I am thankful for the alignment and reputation system (because intertwined they might be, they do measure different things) to help me avoid people I have no interest in playing with - without which my interest would be...questionable.

Goblin Squad Member

avari3 wrote:
You don't choose to be bandit and then do bandit stuff, you do bandit stuff and then become a bandit.

Cheers, thank you. Although I would say it is more accurately, "You don't choose to be X and then do X stuff, you do X stuff which makes you a X." X can be any imaginable role, or derivation thereof.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, one pretty obvious (to me anyway) aspect of Alliances should be that breaking one and/or should cause a pretty significant amount of unrest in your settlement. The common folk (NPC's) aren't likely to be overly thrilled with the idea if you tell them one day that "Eurasia is our best freind." and the next "We're at war with Eurasia."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GrumpyMel wrote:

Well, one pretty obvious (to me anyway) aspect of Alliances should be that breaking one and/or should cause a pretty significant amount of unrest in your settlement. The common folk (NPC's) aren't likely to be overly thrilled with the idea if you tell them one day that "Eurasia is our best freind." and the next "We're at war with Eurasia."

The problem with that is you may well be punishing the wrong people

settlement A has an alliance with settlement b

Settlement A members keep waylaying merchants travelling with supplies to settlement B.

Settlement B should not be punished for breaking ties with settlement A as it is the behaviour of A that has caused it

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:


But as the discussion is going, where in the Pathfinder RPG are you limited in advancement by the alignment you choose?

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."

"A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. She retains all other benefits of the class."

These are direct rules quotes. There are more, do you want more?

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Xeen wrote:


But as the discussion is going, where in the Pathfinder RPG are you limited in advancement by the alignment you choose?

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."

"A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. She retains all other benefits of the class."

These are direct rules quotes. There are more, do you want more?

Yes, those classes are limited by the alignment they require.

The alignment was not the choice, the class was.

So yes, please show me more.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

Well, one pretty obvious (to me anyway) aspect of Alliances should be that breaking one and/or should cause a pretty significant amount of unrest in your settlement. The common folk (NPC's) aren't likely to be overly thrilled with the idea if you tell them one day that "Eurasia is our best freind." and the next "We're at war with Eurasia."

The problem with that is you may well be punishing the wrong people

settlement A has an alliance with settlement b

Settlement A members keep waylaying merchants travelling with supplies to settlement B.

Settlement B should not be punished for breaking ties with settlement A as it is the behaviour of A that has caused it

I was not suggesting that only one side of the Alliance get the unrest hit. It's pretty much as unsettling to hear that a freind and ally decided to break off relations as it is to be the one breaking off relations.

Both sides are investing in the relationship and both sides stand something to lose if either renegs. A formal alliance shouldn't be something that is entered into lightly.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
Xeen wrote:


But as the discussion is going, where in the Pathfinder RPG are you limited in advancement by the alignment you choose?

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."

"A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. She retains all other benefits of the class."

These are direct rules quotes. There are more, do you want more?

Yes, those classes are limited by the alignment they require.

The alignment was not the choice, the class was.

So yes, please show me more.

Both the class and the alignment were choices. Only the alignment is then moderated by the game master.

Class progression is the way you progress in the tabletop. If you act in a way that is contrary to the required alignments and your GM cares enough to make it a big deal, your chosen path of progression becomes blocked and you have to choose another.

This is the exact style of training limitations we would expect to see by chosen alignment. A chaotic settlement should not be training in Paladin-role specific abilities and a lawful settlement should not be training in Barbarian-role specific abilities.

But since you ask... alignment provides access or limitations to...

Feat Choices (rarely) - http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/walker-among-evil

Ability to use some magic items - http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/artifacts/minor-artifacts/talisman-of-u ltimate-evil

Different conditions for some spell effects - http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/h/hellfire-ray


GrumpyMel wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

Well, one pretty obvious (to me anyway) aspect of Alliances should be that breaking one and/or should cause a pretty significant amount of unrest in your settlement. The common folk (NPC's) aren't likely to be overly thrilled with the idea if you tell them one day that "Eurasia is our best freind." and the next "We're at war with Eurasia."

The problem with that is you may well be punishing the wrong people

settlement A has an alliance with settlement b

Settlement A members keep waylaying merchants travelling with supplies to settlement B.

Settlement B should not be punished for breaking ties with settlement A as it is the behaviour of A that has caused it

I was not suggesting that only one side of the Alliance get the unrest hit. It's pretty much as unsettling to hear that a freind and ally decided to break off relations as it is to be the one breaking off relations.

Both sides are investing in the relationship and both sides stand something to lose if either renegs. A formal alliance shouldn't be something that is entered into lightly.

If you put in such a deal no one will enter formal alliances they will just use meta game alliances

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

Well, one pretty obvious (to me anyway) aspect of Alliances should be that breaking one and/or should cause a pretty significant amount of unrest in your settlement. The common folk (NPC's) aren't likely to be overly thrilled with the idea if you tell them one day that "Eurasia is our best freind." and the next "We're at war with Eurasia."

The problem with that is you may well be punishing the wrong people

settlement A has an alliance with settlement b

Settlement A members keep waylaying merchants travelling with supplies to settlement B.

Settlement B should not be punished for breaking ties with settlement A as it is the behaviour of A that has caused it

I was not suggesting that only one side of the Alliance get the unrest hit. It's pretty much as unsettling to hear that a freind and ally decided to break off relations as it is to be the one breaking off relations.

Both sides are investing in the relationship and both sides stand something to lose if either renegs. A formal alliance shouldn't be something that is entered into lightly.

If you put in such a deal no one will enter formal alliances they will just use meta game alliances

I'm not sure why that would be.....it would put in a mechanical cost associated with hostility toward an alliance member. If you goto War you BOTH lose....assuming there are more then 2 powers in the world that's an issue...as it comes with a real cost associated with it.

Remember that things like waylaying merchants outside a state of War has a reputation cost associated (also causing unrest) with it....so this prevents an ally from doing that with it's own characters without paying some cost.

If they use unassociated Alts to do that then they have to bare both the in game and out of game costs (training time dollars) of training up an alternate chatacter that is combat effective enough to defeat whatever security you placed on your caravan's....and you are free to target those Alts or use your own Alts in response.

The whole concept of a formal pact is to increase the cost of agression between the members. You 2 can fight but it makes life crappier for both of you so there is an incentive not to do it and to direct your hostility toward somebody else instead.

It doesn't help you to destroy your economy in order to destroy mine if there is a 3rd guy who is now stronger then either of us because we were busy fighting.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Well, one pretty obvious (to me anyway) aspect of Alliances should be that breaking one and/or should cause a pretty significant amount of unrest in your settlement. The common folk (NPC's) aren't likely to be overly thrilled with the idea if you tell them one day that "Eurasia is our best freind." and the next "We're at war with Eurasia."

The problem with that is you may well be punishing the wrong people

settlement A has an alliance with settlement b

Settlement A members keep waylaying merchants travelling with supplies to settlement B.

Settlement B should not be punished for breaking ties with settlement A as it is the behaviour of A that has caused it

I would think it would be appropriate for B to take a one-time hit that results from breaking the alliance because they'll then stop taking the constant stream of hits that result from being allied with a bad actor.

It also would seem to make choosing allies more significant and more meaningful.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
If you put in such a deal no one will enter formal alliances they will just use meta game alliances

Power Gamers / Min-Maxers will make in-game alliances if doing so results in in-game mechanical advantages.

I'd have expected you to be making that point, actually...

[Edit] Fixed a minor typo

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Keep in mind that Pathfinder Online cannot be and will not be identical to the tabletop game. How will it be different? In the way that the developers choose to make it so. They have chosen to make alignment more integral to your characters advancement choices. The setting itself has very clear examples of cities (i.e. settlements) that are clearly aligned. In fact, the stat-block for EVERY city in Golarion has an alignment entry. Examples:

Riddleport: Chaotic Neutral
Korvosa: Lawful Neutral
Magnimar: Neutral
Vigil: Lawful Good
Ilizmagorti: Lawful Evil

Need more?

Goblin Squad Member

I'd like to point out how amusing it is to me that this is "an MMO, not Pathfinder TT, so don't bring TT into it" when that's convenient, and at other times it's "Pathfinder Online, and needs to stick very closely to the IP's mechanics" when that's convenient.

I was going to make Nihimon's point; if you don't want to be caught in a bad alliance, don't make a bad alliance. I'd rather have an alliance system with meaning, one where you have to carefully consider who you ally with and benefits for keeping your alliances going for a long period of time.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
If you put in such a deal no one will enter formal alliances they will just use meta game alliances

Power Games / Min-Maxers will make in-game alliances if doing so results in in-game mechanical advantages.

I'd have expected you to be making that point, actually...

Exactly, imagine a scenario where a settlement has 2 potential targets for aggresion, one in an Alliance, the other outside it.

It costs 30 percent of the settlements economy in war materials to take out either target (we assume everything else is equal) but it costs an additional 5 percent of the economy in an unrest hit to target the Ally, which is the more efficient choice?

Knowing that it's more costly (and therefore less likely) for an Ally to act agressively toward you then toward someone else is kinda what formal treaties are about. Nothing is an assurance that the Treaty won't be broken anyway, but there is a mechanical incentive for both sides to avoid that.

Goblin Squad Member

I like some of the ideas above.

What about some benefit that grows the longer an alliance is in place? When the alliance falls apart (for whatever reason) the benefit goes "poof". When the common folk are in an alliance they feel more secure. When an alliance dissolves, unrest grows or morale plummets from the heightened state achieved by that secure feeling.

It can't be much more than the strategic value of an alliance already or you will end up with a few huge power blocks.

That is if you need more than:

We can pretty much count on players from settlement "A" not attacking us at first sight. For now.


The point I was trying to make is that if the benefits or downsides of an alliance are too restrictive then no one will bother.

Frankly I don't think there should be any mechanical benefits to an alliance and therefore there should be no repercussions for breaking an alliance either.

That way at least when you attack settlement A you are in no doubt who you are attacking because all alliances are in the open because there is no reason to use meta game alliances.

Goblin Squad Member

If the mechanics have a mix of positive and negative, overt in-game alliances could be superior to meta-game alliances. I'd think having in-game mechanics stronger than out-of-game arrangements would be preferable from a design standpoint.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Frankly I don't think there should be any mechanical benefits to an alliance and therefore there should be no repercussions for breaking an alliance either.

Seems consistent with your other positions, if not necessarily consistent with the stated design. The devs have always talked about the mutual benefits and repercussions in social groups, whether it's the members of a Company, or the Settlements in a Nation. Seems only natural the same thing would apply to the Companies/Settlements/Nations in an Alliance.


I would disagree that alliances should be treated the same as settlements or kingdoms.

Alliances by their very nature are more fluid than national or settlement identities.

Two kingdoms allying is a marriage of convenience and will often be a limited time deal in any case. Settlement and nation are more like family connections

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
If the mechanics have a mix of positive and negative, overt in-game alliances could be superior to meta-game alliances. I'd think having in-game mechanics stronger than out-of-game arrangements would be preferable from a design standpoint.

Completely agree. Regardless, though, meta-game alliances will exist, so you won't be able to rely on public information about who's likely to join in the aid of a Settlement you attack.


To give an example Phaeros and Brighthaven might agree a limited alliance to take down Pax. If that is the case the alliance will last for that limited scope of endeavour and I fail to see why Phaeros or Brighthaven should take some mechanical penalty for the ending of that alliance

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, on second thought, it seems like the Alliance contract itself should define the consequences of breaking it.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
To give an example Phaeros and Brighthaven might agree a limited alliance to take down Pax. If that is the case the alliance will last for that limited scope of endeavour and I fail to see why Phaeros or Brighthaven should take some mechanical penalty for the ending of that alliance

Yeah, that's more a one night stand than marriage of convenience. Then again, they could make it so ending an alliance is only a penalty if the one not initiating the split dislikes it. Make a "Death Curse" type option when the alliance ends. If everything is amiable, there's no penalty.


If in game alliances give bonus all that will happen is groups like mine will go hey lets form into two slightly smaller kingdoms and have them in a permanent alliance that way we get the bonus's

Thanks for the free buffs guys much appreciated

Goblin Squad Member

I think having time-limits to alliances make sense in many cases. There may be a variety of alliance types, some short-term, some long term, some eternal. An alliance is somewhat like a contract, at the settlement or nation level, and maybe at the company level as well. And like a contract, it might have a mutual-dissolution clause.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
To give an example Phaeros and Brighthaven might agree a limited alliance to take down Pax. If that is the case the alliance will last for that limited scope of endeavour and I fail to see why Phaeros or Brighthaven should take some mechanical penalty for the ending of that alliance

I'd prefer an example where Phaeros, Brighthaven, and Callambea form an alliance of mutual protection against the Goonies, but your point is well-taken, and similar thinking led to my previous post.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:

If in game alliances give bonus all that will happen is groups like mine will go hey lets form into two slightly smaller kingdoms and have them in a permanent alliance that way we get the bonus's

Thanks for the free buffs guys much appreciated

They've already indicated that that's sort of the goal with contracting out POIs to Companies.


Serious question here

You guys keep coming up with things which are of benefit for groups to do in any case but you then go on to insist that there is a mechanic for it rather than just to groups talking and agreeing on it and then you go further and ask for extra benefits for doing something that is already beneficial for you to do just by the nature of it.

Why not just leave it up to players to sort out, you don't need mechanics and you do not need artificial benefits. If it is in your favor as a group just do it

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:

Serious question here

You guys keep coming up with things which are of benefit for groups to do in any case but you then go on to insist that there is a mechanic for it rather than just to groups talking and agreeing on it and then you go further and ask for extra benefits for doing something that is already beneficial for you to do just by the nature of it.

Why not just leave it up to players to sort out, you don't need mechanics and you do not need artificial benefits. If it is in your favor as a group just do it

The reasoning has been stated, repeatedly, and is integral to the design. By adding meaningful consequences to doing things within the scope of the game, instead of at the meta-level, we can actively assign consequences to discourage scamming and other underhanded behavior people are willing to engage in when they are some anonymous stranger.


The mechanical punishments if any aren't going to work though.

Make them harsh and people will just use the meta game

Make them light and people will just ignore them.

Put it this way

If you ally with my group are you less likely to betray us because

a) there is some little slap on the wrist from game mechanics

or

b) because if you do we will turn around and show you the consequences of your decision

I suspect most will be answering B there

I agree their should be consequences to actions. I just disagree that game mechanics should be the one imposing those. I can assure you the consequences we impose on you will be a damn sight more severe than anything the game hands out

Goblin Squad Member

The buffs from alliances might be useful abilities. I wouldn't expect them to be straight buffs to a settlement DI.

- Cheaper DI cost to attack your ally's enemy.
- A highroad between two settlements, with faster movement than a settlement-POI farm-to-market road.
- Nationhood - an alliance between two settlements, where one is designated the capital (which sets the nation's alignment). The cost of adding each subsequent settlement might increase geometrically as each settlement will have ties with every other settlement in the nation.


Urman wrote:

The buffs from alliances might be useful abilities. I wouldn't expect them to be straight buffs to a settlement DI.

- Cheaper DI cost to attack your ally's enemy.
- A highroad between two settlements, with faster movement than a settlement-POI farm-to-market road.
- Nationhood - an alliance between two settlements, where one is designated the capital (which sets the nation's alignment). The cost of adding each subsequent settlement might increase geometrically as each settlement will have ties with every other settlement in the nation.

An alliance is not the same as a nation

An alliance is an agreement between two sovereign entities

A kingdom is a sovereign entity created by a merging of political power between two or more settlements

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
To give an example Phaeros and Brighthaven might agree a limited alliance to take down Pax. If that is the case the alliance will last for that limited scope of endeavour and I fail to see why Phaeros or Brighthaven should take some mechanical penalty for the ending of that alliance
I'd prefer an example where Phaeros, Brighthaven, and Callambea form an alliance of mutual protection against the Goonies, but your point is well-taken, and similar thinking led to my previous post.

If there is a threat that forces us to form such an alliance of necessity, Golgotha will be in the mix as well. They are already an subset of Pax. Hope that doesn't throw a wrench in.

I doubt it would, but thought I would offer it up for consideration.

After the threat is dealt with (or our forces are depleted) I would think the conversation would move towards rebreaking ties or cementing them int one nation or another.

I completely agree with Steelwing, alliances are better served when there are mutual stakes. Meta IMO is for when you have the other bases covered.


Pax Charlie George wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
To give an example Phaeros and Brighthaven might agree a limited alliance to take down Pax. If that is the case the alliance will last for that limited scope of endeavour and I fail to see why Phaeros or Brighthaven should take some mechanical penalty for the ending of that alliance
I'd prefer an example where Phaeros, Brighthaven, and Callambea form an alliance of mutual protection against the Goonies, but your point is well-taken, and similar thinking led to my previous post.

If there is a threat that forces us to form such an alliance of necessity, Golgotha will be in the mix as well. They are already an subset of Pax. Hope that doesn't throw a wrench in.

I doubt it would, but thought I would offer it up for consideration.

After the threat is dealt with (or our forces are depleted) I would think the conversation would move towards rebreaking ties or cementing them int one nation or another.

I completely agree with Steelwing, alliances are better served when there are mutual stakes. Meta IMO is for when you have the other bases covered.

And the point is that if it is mutually beneficial to ally do so...you dont need game mechanics giving you benefits on top to do it

Goblin Squad Member

The reason I think it's better to make alliances an in-game mechanic rather than an out-of-game agreement is the reason you said yourself, Steelwing: when you attack someone, in most cases it should be clear who you're attacking. However, if there's no benefits or penalties to making an in-game alliance, why would you make them? I see it as making things clearer for your enemies, and thus easier for them.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Pax Charlie George wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
To give an example Phaeros and Brighthaven might agree a limited alliance to take down Pax. If that is the case the alliance will last for that limited scope of endeavour and I fail to see why Phaeros or Brighthaven should take some mechanical penalty for the ending of that alliance
I'd prefer an example where Phaeros, Brighthaven, and Callambea form an alliance of mutual protection against the Goonies, but your point is well-taken, and similar thinking led to my previous post.

If there is a threat that forces us to form such an alliance of necessity, Golgotha will be in the mix as well. They are already an subset of Pax. Hope that doesn't throw a wrench in.

I doubt it would, but thought I would offer it up for consideration.

After the threat is dealt with (or our forces are depleted) I would think the conversation would move towards rebreaking ties or cementing them int one nation or another.

I completely agree with Steelwing, alliances are better served when there are mutual stakes. Meta IMO is for when you have the other bases covered.

And the point is that if it is mutually beneficial to ally do so...you dont need game mechanics giving you benefits on top to do it

The mechanical benefits are to provide incentive for making alliances in game and thus subject yourself to consequences for breaching the terms of the alliance.

Though, I feel honest organizations are more likely to enter alliances even if there are only punishments for breaking them and no added benefits if only as a way to hold their partners to an extra degree of accountability.


Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
The reason I think it's better to make alliances an in-game mechanic rather than an out-of-game agreement is the reason you said yourself, Steelwing: when you attack someone, in most cases it should be clear who you're attacking. However, if there's no benefits or penalties to making an in-game alliance, why would you make them? I see it as making things clearer for your enemies, and thus easier for them.

You make them in game mostly because it allows you to share things like red and blue lists more easily. If you put benefits in you attract groups into splitting artificially so they can have in game alliances. If you put penalties in you dissuade people from having in game alliances and push them towards meta game alliances.

The way to encourage in game alliances is through convenience. Allow alliances to have shared red and blue lists. Allow alliances discounts on market fees and training fees etc. Not mechanical bonus's to di etc

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
I agree their should be consequences to actions. I just disagree that game mechanics should be the one imposing those. I can assure you the consequences we impose on you will be a damn sight more severe than anything the game hands out

Arguing against regulation by the game, then pronouncing dire political warnings that your autocratically imposed regulations will be much more severe, does suggest that impersonal and mechanical regulation of the nation-state via game mechanics is fairer, more appropriate and ultimately preferable.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:

If there is a threat that forces us to form such an alliance of necessity, Golgotha will be in the mix as well. They are already an subset of Pax. Hope that doesn't throw a wrench in.

I doubt it would, but thought I would offer it up for consideration.

The more the merrier.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:

Serious question here

You guys keep coming up with things which are of benefit for groups to do in any case but you then go on to insist that there is a mechanic for it rather than just to groups talking and agreeing on it and then you go further and ask for extra benefits for doing something that is already beneficial for you to do just by the nature of it.

Why not just leave it up to players to sort out, you don't need mechanics and you do not need artificial benefits. If it is in your favor as a group just do it

I've made this point many times in many places: the more ways players are able to declare their intentions and goals in-game, in ways that the game systems can recognize and respond to accordingly, the better. It's not really a question of what the punishments for breaking an alliance should be, that's really a secondary concern. The big question is what advantages should accrue for declaring an alliance in-game. Perhaps it can be something as simple as only formal allies being able to respawn at the attacked settlement's spawn points (if, caveats, yada yada).

51 to 100 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Alliances All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.