Goblin Squad Member
|
I personally am not basing anything on a particular statement, just the collective whole. I think I've stayed rational and consistent in my desire for consistency and staying true to D&D concepts to make the most badass possible D&D game.
The collective whole of statements about CE gives me the impression it's being built mechanically as a punishment before a player even does anything outside GWs boundaries of the sandbox. Every new statement reinforces that idea (except one, kinda) which is why I get concerned after a year of hearing the message repeated.
Many naughty players will never be hampered by shackling CE, it punishes players who never did anything wrong, and I can think of other concepts to achieve the end goal of disincentivizing toxic player behavior and even discouraged character behavior while being fair to upstanding players and declared "sacred cows" like D&D Alignment.
I think it weakens the game if mechanically CE = hard setting and LE or LN = easy mode.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Fiendish, you should read over the alignment section of the blog post Alignment and Reputation. Basically what I believe Ryan is saying is that crafters have no reason to be anything except LG; their actions will not drift them away from LG (maybe even drift toward LG, but that would be kinda weird IMO), and it gives the most benefits, so it's in the crafters' best interests to pick LG.Then why does he use the word "drifting" to LG. That makes it sound as if their actions move them to LG rather than what they pick.
They would drift to LG if they set their core alignment as LG, as the blog post explains. And as I said before, it's in their best interests to be LG, so most of them will be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They would drift to LG if they set their core alignment as LG, as the blog post explains. And as I said before, it's in their best interests to be LG, so most of them will be.@Fiendish, you should read over the alignment section of the blog post Alignment and Reputation. Basically what I believe Ryan is saying is that crafters have no reason to be anything except LG; their actions will not drift them away from LG (maybe even drift toward LG, but that would be kinda weird IMO), and it gives the most benefits, so it's in the crafters' best interests to pick LG.Then why does he use the word "drifting" to LG. That makes it sound as if their actions move them to LG rather than what they pick.
There are your actions nudging you step by step in whatever direction you're acting and then there's the upper case Drifting back to the single coordinate of your Core Alignment. It can get confusing if someone says "drifting" to mean the former type of little nudges from actions.
@Fiendish The Core Alignment concept popped up after a scare that character actions would nudge a majority of them into LG, so passively Drifting back to your Core is supposed to counteract that or whatever other little hops you take in a direction away from your preferred Alignmet.
You seem like the kind of person that your next question is something like, "But isn't what you do supposed to be your alignment?" I know, right? As a priestess of Azmodeus you can die untraind in the fiery pits of CE hell but if a NG merchant doesn't wanna be LG then *pat pat* that gets artificially fixed right up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From what I see, and because I know that there is a lot of detail that we are unaware of yet, it seems like a pretty good system.
You set your "Core" alignment. Passive gain keeps pulling your "active" alignment back towards the core. The actions that you perform in play will either help maintain you close to your core or (if enough) will work your active further away.
What we don't know yet is how far your active can drift before it starts causing problems for you. Just because they have not said that it will or won't is no reason to believe that it won't. It would not make sense to have the system at all if excessive drift did not do SOMETHING to your "core" or your character. These guys are not idiots. They won't put effort into useless mechanics on purpose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the case of "Well I want to play a CN Merchant and it seems like I can't." I would argue that a CN person should probably be a bit spotty on contract fulfillment and do other chaotic and neutral things. They are not being CN if they perform a bunch of "lawful" and or "good" things. At least not any more than the natural passive pull toward CN can overcome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They would drift to LG if they set their core alignment as LG, as the blog post explains. And as I said before, it's in their best interests to be LG, so most of them will be.@Fiendish, you should read over the alignment section of the blog post Alignment and Reputation. Basically what I believe Ryan is saying is that crafters have no reason to be anything except LG; their actions will not drift them away from LG (maybe even drift toward LG, but that would be kinda weird IMO), and it gives the most benefits, so it's in the crafters' best interests to pick LG.Then why does he use the word "drifting" to LG. That makes it sound as if their actions move them to LG rather than what they pick.There are your actions nudging you step by step in whatever direction you're acting and then there's the upper case Drifting back to the single coordinate of your Core Alignment. It can get confusing if someone says "drifting" to mean the former type of little nudges from actions.
@Fiendish The Core Alignment concept popped up after a scare that character actions would nudge a majority of them into LG, so passively Drifting back to your Core is supposed to counteract that or whatever other little hops you take in a direction away from your preferred Alignmet.
You seem like the kind of person that your next question is something like, "But isn't what you do supposed to be your alignment?" I know, right? As a priestess of Azmodeus you can die untraind in the fiery pits of CE hell but if a NG merchant doesn't wanna be LG then *pat pat* that gets artificially fixed right up.
Essentialy, yes.
I want meaningful choices in addition to combat that allow one to play as their chosen alignment no matter what it is. Like you said Proxima everything I'm hearing makes it sound as if evil and especially chaotic evil is going to be limited in that area, especially as compared to the good spectrum alignments. Fundamentally that strikes me as unfair.
I also don't like the answers that equate to "well don't choose that alignment because it's not mathematically advantageous for you to." That is not role-playing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, punishing CE right out of the gate. CE is supposed to be a vile and wretched approach to the universe. It is a self centered and very anti community sentiment. This is GW's game and that is how they see it and how they want it.
From a personal point of view, it is fine by me as I don't like that kind of play much.
As a broader than personal view, I don't think it is totally fair but, again, it is GW's game. It is their funnel for the behavior that they want possible but want to encourage the least, and (bottom line) they make the rulz.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also don't like the answers that equate to "well don't choose that alignment because it's not mathematically advantageous for you to." That is not role-playing.
That applies to roleplayers all the way down the line to choices of less than optimum skills, races, etc... When you know in advance that it is a less than optimum choice, but take it for RP reasons, what is the difference?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, punishing CE right out of the gate. CE is supposed to be a vile and wretched approach to the universe. It is a self centered and very anti community sentiment. This is GW's game and that is how they see it and how they want it.
From a personal point of view, it is fine by me as I don't like that kind of play much.
As a broader than personal view, I don't think it is totally fair but, again, it is GW's game. It is their funnel for the behavior that they want possible but want to encourage the least, and (bottom line) they make the rulz.
I don't think the intention is for us to blow bubbles in fields of puppies and bacon. CE is a vicious vile type of character, yes. The player behind it can use that to create game content with other players. No great fiction is people you like sitting around getting along. What kind of story was ever engaging enough to pay attention to without a good enough bad guy?
Bring in the fact a lot of people won't care about all that stuff and just want to dominate pixels over the internet- lots will do things GW doesn't like and be anything besides CE. When you put alignments on a list of best to worst non-roleplayers will pick the best mechanical advantage so their Alignments don't reflect their intentions anyway. Being CE isn't the cause of the problem which is the basis for my opinion it's an inefficient place to try to solve it and definitely damages the idea behind D&D alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also don't like the answers that equate to "well don't choose that alignment because it's not mathematically advantageous for you to." That is not role-playing.That applies to roleplayers all the way down the line to choices of less than optimum skills, races, etc... When you know in advance that it is a less than optimum choice, but take it for RP reasons, what is the difference?
It's one thing to say you're not going to be an Elven ranger even though they get a Dex bonus just because you don't like elves and want to tackle life as a graceful half-orc.
Do you see how we feel it's out of that ballpark and across town to set lower expectations for players of CE characters and do what you can to make sure they live down to them, while turning LN into Easy Mode that can get away with the same things then Core drift back to get more tier 3 training?
The alternative would be to hold players of all alignments accountable for their negative actions equally without using alignment as an inconsistent punishment mechanism that only affects some of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the end, I would be totally fine with a system that punishes bad behavior and I do not mean playing Evil and Chaotic. I am not sure that the system which they are designing will fail or not.
I can agree that, if possible, it would make more sense to punish bad actors rather than alignment. Unfortunately, it seems that "acting bad" (according to GW) somewhat falls into (and is measured by) the same actions that lead your character down into CE.
It is the measurement and the system that they have been refining since likely before the game was announced. I doubt that they will abandon it before they determine whether it will work as intended or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, I would be totally fine with a system that punishes bad behavior and I do not mean playing Evil and Chaotic... I can agree that, if possible, it would make more sense to punish bad actors rather than alignment. Unfortunately, it seems that "acting bad" (according to GW) somewhat falls into (and is measured by) the same actions that lead your character down into CE.
Now you're understanding the roots. Player that messes up other players fun as his entertainment does not equal CE character or any other alignment so the proposed alternative is those two different things shouldn't be measured and enforced with the same tool.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should the actions that are the least desired be what we think they are or should they be decided by the designers (with what input from us that they choose to consider)?
They want to include an alignment system in the game that is measured by the computer, based on character actions. They want to include a reputation system that is mostly measured by the computer, based on character actions. Some of those actions that they want to be possible, even if less desired as common actions, coincide with certain alignments. Such as: Killing someone outside of faction, feud, or war. So, in those instances, those actions will do more damage to your reputation AND move/reinforce your alignment.
Now, I do think it is arguable that playing CE with a high reputation should not be punished mechanically. I also find it hard to believe that you will actually be playing CE very well if you have a high reputation. I do see it as possible though, but the info is so limited that we can't be certain.
It seems like they are pretty intertwined: Low rep and CE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing that has not been discussed is the difference between playing as the player and a player playing their character. The reputation system is measuring how the player is playing with others, with that particular character.
As a player if I am playing my CE character, it dosed not mean that I will not play him within the rules. My character's motivations, which are largely unknowable by the system or even by other players, are what makes him Chaotic Evil.
If GW wanted CE to truly be their alignment and to truly be the content of all others, than the player would commit every act that is considered CE, including griefing, using hacks, and abusive language in chats.
None of us have ever said that is the way we would want to play.
The expression of Chaotic Evil can be within the rules but of Chaotic Evil motives. Those motives do not have to be agreed with, understood, or known to any but the player role playing their character.
The Green Hat scenario is the perfect example of this. It sprouted from a completely random whim to justify killing a random passerby.
"I have a perfectly good reason to kill him, he was wearing a green hat on Tuesday".
Of course the only way to prevent reputation loss would be to establish hostility in a sanctioned way. We all have discussed ad nausea the ways in which to achieve this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If GW wanted CE to truly be their alignment and to truly be the content of all others, than the player would commit every act that is considered CE, including griefing, using hacks, and abusive language in chats.
Sure, that makes sense. Every player at the TT who cheats, like when a die is cocked, or pre-reads the scenario, or who swears - they always play CE. Oh, wait. No, that quoted bit doesn't make sense. Griefing, using hacks, and abusive language have nothing to do with the chaotic evil alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If GW wanted CE to truly be their alignment and to truly be the content of all others, than the player would commit every act that is considered CE, including griefing, using hacks, and abusive language in chats.Sure, that makes sense. Every player at the TT who cheats, like when a die is cocked, or pre-reads the scenario, or who swears - they always play CE. Oh, wait. No, that quoted bit doesn't make sense. Griefing, using hacks, and abusive language have nothing to do with the chaotic evil alignment.
Based on this i'd have to imagine you have not played an MMO before. Trying to make this comparison between TT and an MMO is not possible. Players behave very differently when they are sitting across the table, rather than sitting on the othe side of the planet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is an alignment system. Within the game, there are certain actions that you can perform that give you more weight towards chaos and/or evil.
There is a reputation system. Within the game there are certain actions that when performed, damage your reputation score.
It does just so happen that some of these "actions" cause both of these things at the same time. I don't think that anyone can legitimately argue that it is beyond GW's scope to determine and define what those actions are. Not more than a few actions will cause this and of those, very few are probably griefing. If you want the actions to be possible but not rampant, then I feel like it is a pretty good system.
Yet....
GW has decided that in the case of griefers, cheaters, cheese chat, etc... they will regulate pretty much at their whim, possibly with sanctions and possible with rep penalties for less severe cases. So they do seem to be at least vaguely related.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every player at the TT who cheats, like when a die is cocked, or pre-reads the scenario, or who swears - they always play CE. Oh, wait. No, that quoted bit doesn't make sense. Griefing, using hacks, and abusive language have nothing to do with the chaotic evil alignment.Based on this i'd have to imagine you have not played an MMO before. Trying to make this comparison between TT and an MMO is not possible. Players behave very differently when they are sitting across the table, rather than sitting on the othe side of the planet.
*In tabletop games some people cheat or are abusive.
*In MMO games some people cheat or are abusive.
*Some people cheat when a game has an alignment system based on D&D or PF
*Some people cheat or are abusive when a game has no alignment system at all.
*In real life some people cheat or are abusive.
From that I'd conclude that griefing, using hacks, and abusive language have nothing to do with the chaotic evil alignment.
If you have something that suggests otherwise, I'd love to hear it. And whatever you might imagine about my MMO playing experience really doesn't change that logic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW has decided that in the case of griefers, cheaters, cheese chat, etc... they will regulate pretty much at their whim, possibly with sanctions and possible with rep penalties for less severe cases. So they do seem to be at least vaguely related.
It's true that they've suggested that rep penalties might be possible. But I've heard nothing whatsoever that penalties would include shifts on the law/chaos or good/evil axis. So while it's related - alignment and rep forming a 3-dimensional alignment space - player behavior while in control of a character should only affect the reputation axis. (minor edits)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players behave very differently when they are sitting across the table, rather than sitting on the othe side of the planet.
Are you really claiming this is a truism?
I will not deny that SOME "players behave very differently when they are sitting across the table, rather than sitting on the other side of the planet." But, I 100% disagree with your blanket claim that as stated reads ALL "players behave very differently when they are sitting across the table, rather than sitting on the other side of the planet." I for one do not play differently. I have played distance TT games...and I play as I would a TT...and I play/make decisions/treat others in MMOs as I do both the distant TT and physical TT. My presentation of a single contradiction denies your blanket claim...and as the core of your argument, invalidates the conclusion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What kind of story was ever engaging enough to pay attention to without a good enough bad guy?
Sorry to avoid the rest of the posts, but I couldn't let this one slide in good conscience.
You do writers and other storytellers a disservice, ma'am. There are copious examples of awesome stories without a big bad evil guy. In fact the stories I tend to enjoy the most are the ones where nobody's the "good guy", and everyone's merely human. Good example of such is Edgar Allen Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Players behave very differently when they are sitting across the table, rather than sitting on the other side of the planet.Are you really claiming this is a truism?
Yes!
Now you can infer that when I wrote "Players" I meant all, but I meant it in the more generic term. You might also infer that I meant "The Average" or "On Average" or "Typically".
Have you ever dealt with customer service with a company or government agency on the telephone and then on another occasion, in person?
In person almost always ends up producing a better result or at the very least a better experience.
We have even noticed the same in comparing the discussions some of us have here on the forums vs. in TeamSpeak.
So I stand by my claim, as I have never experienced any similar interaction to demonstrate otherwise.
You are of course free to disagree if your experience has been different than mine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm. My reading of the Sith differed from yours. I read them as quite lawful evil. You didn't pick up on the obedience thing?
The Rule of Two is really quite a chaotic relationship. The only thing the Master can trust is that his / her apprentice will someday kill him/her to become Master.
The Sith also draw their power from the Dark Side of the Force which is almost completely emotion driven, and therefore chaotic as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The hardest thing I have reconciling is that elves make great cities and have great training...and they are Chaotic at heart.
Drow, create wonders and are some of the most feared warriors...meaning they have great training, and they are CE.
This is what I see as the most obvious rejections of the premise...CE sucks.
(Although this is just a lore incongruity that makes me occasionally feel cognitive dissonance, I am not arguing against GW designing a meaningful system that ends up like that. The point of their system after all is to encourage people to be social, and discourage antisocial...without outright denying someone the ability. I support that goal, even if it means I have to reevaluate and/or adjust my view of alignment in the in-game universe.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. My reading of the Sith differed from yours. I read them as quite lawful evil. You didn't pick up on the obedience thing?The Rule of Two is really quite a chaotic relationship. The only thing the Master can trust is that his / her apprentice will someday kill him/her to become Master.
The Sith also draw their power from the Dark Side of the Force which is almost completely emotion driven, and therefore chaotic as well.
The power is drawn from emotion but the control of that power comes from discipline. The relationship between Master and apprentice is clearly drawn.
The 'Law of the Jungle' is nevertheless Law. There is a certain infatuation with wild emotion that draws some people inordinately, but considering the detailed planning involved in Sith villainy and the organizational rigor of the dark Empire I think to describe them as CE is a little more romantic than the story merits.
But more to the point which particular great Sith villain would you say was really undisciplined and out of control?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm. My reading of the Sith differed from yours. I read them as quite lawful evil. You didn't pick up on the obedience thing?The Rule of Two is really quite a chaotic relationship. The only thing the Master can trust is that his / her apprentice will someday kill him/her to become Master.
The Sith also draw their power from the Dark Side of the Force which is almost completely emotion driven, and therefore chaotic as well.
The power is drawn from emotion but the control of that power comes from discipline. The relationship between Master and apprentice is clearly drawn.
The 'Law of the Jungle' is nevertheless Law. There is a certain infatuation with wild emotion that draws some people inordinately, but considering the detailed planning involved in Sith villainy and the organizational rigor of the dark Empire I think to describe them as CE is a little more romantic than the story merits.
But more to the point which particular great Sith villain would you say was really undisciplined and out of control?
Almost every Sith apprentice I could think of. Anakin Skywalker, Darth Maul, Darth Bane, etc...
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What kind of story was ever engaging enough to pay attention to without a good enough bad guy?Sorry to avoid the rest of the posts, but I couldn't let this one slide in good conscience.
You do writers and other storytellers a disservice, ma'am. There are copious examples of awesome stories without a big bad evil guy. In fact the stories I tend to enjoy the most are the ones where nobody's the "good guy", and everyone's merely human. Good example of such is Edgar Allen Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart".
The Tell-Tale Heart had a great bad guy (antagonist) to the protagonist narrator.
As a mater of fact the climax was so strong entirely because the bad guy had been built up and made so engaging when his identity was revealed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm. My reading of the Sith differed from yours. I read them as quite lawful evil. You didn't pick up on the obedience thing?
Do you recall what Darth Vader did to underlings that, including through failure, didn't obey his orders? Their obedience is an example of -not chaotic stupid. If any of them were powerful enough to avoid that consequence they would have replaced him, would have replaced the Emperor. Sith (and high Imperial officers) only obeyed the power, not inherent authority. My experience with the Drow is the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, I do think it is arguable that playing CE with a high reputation should not be punished mechanically.
I agree completely.
I also find it hard to believe that you will actually be playing CE very well if you have a high reputation.
What high reputation do you mean? Fantasy reputation that imaginary characters think of your imaginary character? Or the player's reputation for gaming within the rules that GW has set? There's Drift, you don't even have to stab faces to be CE and keep all the sand within the sandbox.
I do see it as possible though, but the info is so limited that we can't be certain.
Right, we're dealing in concepts right now. But we don't really have a healthy concept that someone can play entirely within bounds of GW's rules and have a robust, content-providing CE character. Does that make it feel like the D&D game is missing something?
It seems like they are pretty intertwined: Low rep and CE.
Again, which low rep do you mean?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Those weren't villains, they were tools. The conflict was between the dark side and the light. The dark side was the villain, and it was exceedingly domineering, controlling, and lawful evil.
If you re read the Code of the Sith, the Dark Side of the Force was the tool. "The force shall free me", not the force shall lead me, govern me or I will follow the force.
As many have said before, Chaotic does not equal stupid and it dies not equal "no control or discipline".
Chaotic settlements can have laws. The chaos can come into play in the arbitrary and or capricious enforcement of those law or in the uneven punishment that can be applied.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What kind of story was ever engaging enough to pay attention to without a good enough bad guy?Sorry to avoid the rest of the posts, but I couldn't let this one slide in good conscience.
You do writers and other storytellers a disservice, ma'am. There are copious examples of awesome stories without a big bad evil guy. In fact the stories I tend to enjoy the most are the ones where nobody's the "good guy", and everyone's merely human. Good example of such is Edgar Allen Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart".
The Tell-Tale Heart had a great bad guy (antagonist) to the protagonist narrator.
** spoiler omitted **
As a mater of fact the climax was so strong entirely because the bad guy had been built up and made so engaging when his identity was revealed.
** spoiler omitted **
So our narrator is the "good guy" in this one? I myself wouldn't ascribe that adjective to him. :)
Another good one, let's see if you can play "find the antagonist" in this one! They're Made out of Meat. Note that I'm not saying the stories lack conflict or protagonists, merely that they don't have anything that I feel can be described as a "bad guy".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What kind of story was ever engaging enough to pay attention to without a good enough bad guy?Sorry to avoid the rest of the posts, but I couldn't let this one slide in good conscience.
You do writers and other storytellers a disservice, ma'am. There are copious examples of awesome stories without a big bad evil guy. In fact the stories I tend to enjoy the most are the ones where nobody's the "good guy", and everyone's merely human. Good example of such is Edgar Allen Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart".
Cetainly from the viewpoint of the narrator of the story he has a nemesis, the old man's 'hideous heart', and I wouldn't exactly call this insane bozo a big bad evil guy, but the fact is he's a delusional, murderous psychopath. I think smothering the old man with his mattress and chopping him into pieces deserves a bit of a reputation hit, or am I wrong here?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bringslite wrote:
I also find it hard to believe that you will actually be playing CE very well if you have a high reputation.
What high reputation do you mean? Fantasy reputation that imaginary characters think of your imaginary character? Or the player's reputation for gaming within the rules that GW has set? There's Drift, you don't even have to stab faces to be CE and keep all the sand within the sandbox
Are you confusing the issue on purpose? I have to believe that you understand that I mean Reputation as the system and the measurement that is used by GW for PfO. It is true that CE does come with a "reputation" that the system is designed around. Just as LG does.
When I write "I also find it hard to believe that you will actually be playing CE very well if you have a high reputation." I mean that you will not be performing a lot of the actions that GW has defined as chaotic and/or evil. Yes, you could "game" the system (as defined so far) but I believe that GW is creating it in the hopes that we use it as an RP tool as well as a segregation mechanic.
This will raise some objections, probably, that if GW wanted us to RP alignment they would not severely nerf CE. We could go on all day about what some perceive as the advantages of ultimate freedom vs. the downsides of the mechanics. We done did that a lot. No agreement is forthcoming. Probably only, finally acceptance of the game as it turns out.
So, as currently understood: I believe that you could sit nicely in CE with passive alignment repair and "sanctioned" PVP. I personally do not feel that you would be doing a very good job of playing CE. This is pretty much opinion, though. It is not required that anyone see it the same and nothing is set in stone yet. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you confusing the issue on purpose?Bringslite wrote:
I also find it hard to believe that you will actually be playing CE very well if you have a high reputation.
What high reputation do you mean? Fantasy reputation that imaginary characters think of your imaginary character? Or the player's reputation for gaming within the rules that GW has set? There's Drift, you don't even have to stab faces to be CE and keep all the sand within the sandbox
I'm pointing out that the system as it is creates confusion. There are two highly different elements here: the character's reputation among other characters and the player's reputation for playing within the accepted bounds or going off the rails in ways GW defines as toxic. These two elements intersect to create two major types of CE character.
High player rep, low character rep- A good villain that is always coming up with evil schemes for the Goods come after. But always through feuding and warring, aggressive trade wars, criminal poaching of resources from their enemies' land, every way that GW says their game is supposed to be played. Even though Good-aligned characters don't think much of this character the player controlling it is a good community citizen and content creator. Does this guy deserve to be shackled and hampered compared to a LN trade and contract scammer?
Low player rep, low character rep- Some turkey that decides to harvest lulz from newbies outside Noobtown and simultaneously takes C and E shifts all afternoon. This idiot is the one that deserves limited training and increased difficulty to do anything in-game but not from the C and E shifts themselves it's from his low PLAYER reputation.
It seems to me to have a fun, engaging game that feels very D&D which also has a healthy community spirit the distinction between player and character rep is a highly important one. If you agree with that sentiment the question I raise- is the current reputation system discerning enough to keep those two elements distinct and clear to understand?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW has appropriated the word "reputation" to describe the third axis of the alignment reputation space in PFO (the other two axes are law/chaos and good/evil, of course).
If GW doesn't change the name (even though I wish they would!), then trying to use reputation interchangeably between characters (which have alignment and reputation) and players (which don't have alignment - and therefore don't have a reputation) is confusing. If someone persists in trying to use meanings beyond GWs definitions, it starts to look like a deliberate effort to confuse the issue.
Possible words we might use when discussing players could include: reliability, respectability, dependability, trustworthiness, repute, renown...
Yeah - I'd rather use "reputation" to refer to players, more than most of those words (so GW - change character "reputation" to "karma" or even "repute" already). But for now reputation refers only to characters, not players, so we should avoid misusing it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So our narrator is the "good guy" in this one? I myself wouldn't ascribe that adjective to him. :)
Protagonist doesn't mean the morally right party, it means the central figure of the story. Antagonist just provides the conflict whether its a person, nature, circumstances, etc.
And I put that in spoilers even though the story is 130? years old because someone might not have read it yet and they deserve to not have it spoiled.
They're Made of Meat
Antagonist: Their preconceived notion about what a "worthy" sentient being is like.
Assuming an antagonist has to be a discrete sentient being is a disservice to authors across mediums.
To finish my book report: Those constructs in their mind are what's providing the conflict between what their mission is and what they think is really the "right" thing to do. It parallels human practice but shows us the use and consequences of preconceived notions as a disinvested third party so our own notions can't get in the way of pure observation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation is not divided between player and character in the game. There is only character Reputation. You're confusing the matter yourself by insisting that there is a Player Reputation function in the game.
GW is rightly concerned with whether a player plays the game within bounds or not (attacking non-hostiles is the big example). That is measured by the reputation mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Proxima Sin
I already have stated that I would not mind reputation being the real factor and leaving alignment out of it. We have no disagreement on that. :)
They have stated that they believe that most CE and low rep players will get there because of actions and not through choosing to play CE. Which by the way, is another hint that "core" rep might move against your will in some circumstances.
Hopefully GW will release more info and reasoning behind why it is necessary/best to do it the way that they are planning. Or, maybe if you keep campaigning, they will reconsider. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The fact still remains that the actions that are supposed to be chaotic and evil are tied into reputation loss. I still don't see your example of play (CE and High Rep) as how it is designed to be played in the current game or the lore.
It just looks like a workaround to the system to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW is rightly concerned with whether a player plays the game within bounds or not (attacking non-hostiles is the big example). That is measured by the reputation mechanic.
But the reputation mechanic only measures a character's action. To my knowledge, GW has stated nowhere that they intend to track players in an similar fashion. Which makes sense, because some players will have each individual character on a separate accounts and some will have multiple characters on one account. Players can't be tracked and measured like characters can.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The fact still remains that the actions that are supposed to be chaotic and evil are tied into reputation loss. I still don't see your example of play (CE and High Rep) as how it is designed to be played in the current game or the lore.
It just looks like a workaround to the system to me.
The current system is built to amputate some traditional D&D content for the given reason that some but not all players who act outside what GW wants will eventually end up in that corner. Except the most unscrupulous people will game Core Alignment so they don't enter or stay in that corner-of-punishment as long as sincere role players.
I've been pointing out structural changes that could allow us full D&D content and still put the same limitations on players who go outside GWs boundaries.
Is this all really about not seeing how members who care about the game and the community can play CE and add valuable enjoyable content to the game without being a complete egg to other players to maintain CE?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW is rightly concerned with whether a player plays the game within bounds or not (attacking non-hostiles is the big example). That is measured by the reputation mechanic.But the reputation mechanic only measures a character's action. To my knowledge, GW has stated nowhere that they intend to track players in an similar fashion. Which makes sense, because some players will have each individual character on a separate accounts and some will have multiple characters on one account. Players can't be tracked and measured like characters can.
I'm not talking about attempting to track which discrete person is controlling different characters.
For a single character the player in charge made the character do the bad thing. The rep loss is a result of the player's decision.