Goblin Squad Member
|
I too realize it's going to be a long way down the road, but its a refreshing topic compared to what the other topics seem to be going around.
I like your idea of having patron dieties in towns. It's very similar to what you see in Golarion with cities paying heed to a few gods. And there could even be towns out there that choose one or none at all too that could make for some interesting works for those who wish to convert.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to having temples and shrines to Calistria, Cayden Cailean, Erastil, Norgorber, Desna, and even Lamashtu, the River Kingdoms are home to many strange cults, some of which actually have a source of magic behind them. The elves say the magic of the land responds to belief, and many local tales tell of mysterious creatures of the woods who can grant boons in exchange for a sworn oath or devotion, with a few even having true clerics (though strangely limited by distance to their patron). The best known are Gyronna and Hanspur, who are actual (if minor) divinities and whose priests retain their magic throughout Golarion.
Just thought putting the source material might help.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to having temples and shrines to Calistria, Cayden Cailean, Erastil, Norgorber, Desna, and even Lamashtu, the River Kingdoms are home to many strange cults, some of which actually have a source of magic behind them. The elves say the magic of the land responds to belief, and many local tales tell of mysterious creatures of the woods who can grant boons in exchange for a sworn oath or devotion, with a few even having true clerics (though strangely limited by distance to their patron). The best known are Gyronna and Hanspur, who are actual (if minor) divinities and whose priests retain their magic throughout Golarion.Just thought putting the source material might help.
I'd like the lore to be of high relevance, but I don't have much confidence in that.
They're not even consistent in whether definitions are descriptive or proscriptive of one's identity. For example, there's the 'within one step' rule which requires a settlement's alignment to be imposed up front in a top-down way, rather than a bottom-up method such as allowing a wider range of alignments and then determining the collective alignment of the settlement as the average of its citizenry. This is in opposition to the bottom-up way that an individual's alignment is based on the aggregate of their actions. The 1-step crap has effectively turned everyone into a 'cleric' of their settlement and the deity names are insignificant fluff, relative to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to having temples and shrines to Calistria, Cayden Cailean, Erastil, Norgorber, Desna, and even Lamashtu, the River Kingdoms are home to many strange cults, some of which actually have a source of magic behind them. The elves say the magic of the land responds to belief, and many local tales tell of mysterious creatures of the woods who can grant boons in exchange for a sworn oath or devotion, with a few even having true clerics (though strangely limited by distance to their patron). The best known are Gyronna and Hanspur, who are actual (if minor) divinities and whose priests retain their magic throughout Golarion.Just thought putting the source material might help.I'd like the lore to be of high relevance, but I don't have much confidence in that.
They're not even consistent in whether definitions are descriptive or proscriptive of one's identity. For example, there's the 'within one step' rule which requires a settlement's alignment to be imposed up front in a top-down way, rather than a bottom-up method such as allowing a wider range of alignments and then determining the collective alignment of the settlement as the average of its citizenry. This is in opposition to the bottom-up way that an individual's alignment is based on the aggregate of their actions. The 1-step crap has effectively turned everyone into a 'cleric' of their settlement and the deity names are insignificant fluff, relative to that.
How dare you Keovar don't you know that the one step rule will make for meaningful choices. Honestly would they lie to you?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How dare you Keovar don't you know that the one step rule will make for meaningful choices. Honestly would they lie to you?
Well. technically the choice to share a settlement with friends vs. the choice to play the character I'd prefer is meaningful, though I still think it's crap.
I find it to be inconsistent with their mostly bottom-up systems in which you "act first, and see how the world defines it later". Narrowly-defining a settlement's dominant alignment first and limiting citizenship based on it is a very hamfisted, top-down approach.
The character I'd planned to play has always been around the cusp of NG/CG, but if Callambea is going to be LN, I either have to give up my character plans or my citizenship plans. What should really matter to a settlement's success is cooperation, and that could be achieved via Good (natural empathy or practised compassion) or Law (respect for a social contract or valid authority). While I could see a mostly-cooperative settlement excluding those who are NE, CN, or CE because they can't be trusted to cooperate without fear of force, I don't see why the other 6 alignments couldn't get along well enough to make a stable society. The same could apply to a settlement which is self-serving to the exclusion of all else (excluding all Good) or a True Neutral settlement that wants to exclude extremists of any stripe (and thus prohibits the four corners of the grid).
I just think it makes more sense for a settlements to pick 3 or 4 alignments to exclude rather than being limited to 3 or 4 alignments to include. Under the current plan, everyone suffers the restrictions or penalties of being a cleric without the powers that are supposed to go with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just think it makes more sense for a settlements to pick 3 or 4 alignments to exclude rather than being limited to 3 or 4 alignments to include. Under the current plan, everyone suffers the restrictions or penalties of being a cleric without the powers that are supposed to go with it.
Excellent, I'll have my settlement exclude the middle alignments. LG living next to CE, CG and LE working together.
I think it ultimately makes sense to have settlements have a few alignments represented, but for kingdoms to have most of them. It really pushes larger organizations (like PAX) to grow into that stage in order to provide everything their organization wants.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just think it makes more sense for a settlements to pick 3 or 4 alignments to exclude rather than being limited to 3 or 4 alignments to include. Under the current plan, everyone suffers the restrictions or penalties of being a cleric without the powers that are supposed to go with it.Excellent, I'll have my settlement exclude the middle alignments. LG living next to CE, CG and LE working together.
I think it ultimately makes sense to have settlements have a few alignments represented, but for kingdoms to have most of them. It really pushes larger organizations (like PAX) to grow into that stage in order to provide everything their organization wants.
The larger organizations will have access to settlements representing all alignments anyway. They will just meta game their alliances (Kingdoms), if the game system won't allow it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The larger organizations will have access to settlements representing all alignments anyway. They will just meta game their alliances (Kingdoms), if the game system won't allow it.
I just think it makes more sense for a settlements to pick 3 or 4 alignments to exclude rather than being limited to 3 or 4 alignments to include. Under the current plan, everyone suffers the restrictions or penalties of being a cleric without the powers that are supposed to go with it.Excellent, I'll have my settlement exclude the middle alignments. LG living next to CE, CG and LE working together.
I think it ultimately makes sense to have settlements have a few alignments represented, but for kingdoms to have most of them. It really pushes larger organizations (like PAX) to grow into that stage in order to provide everything their organization wants.
Then those kingdoms won't get the benefits of having those settlements, and the settlements won't have the benefits of being a part of that kingdom.
The devs won't just say "you're in a kingdom for the sake of having kingdoms". I trust them to be clever enough to provide mechanical benefits for creating kingdoms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For Shelyn, I mostly think "who?" and have to go look her up. Desna and Cayden Cailean would both have been equally good choices for CG, but going with Desna means that the initial powers for Good are all goddesses.
Shelyn seems maybe a little off for PFO; she's the goddess of beautiful things, art, and love. I can clearly see the in-game activities a worshipper of Gorum, Iomedae, or Gozreh might take, but what exactly would a worshipper of Shelyn do in-game? The only other NG god in the core pantheon is Sarenrae, who may or may not be any better due to the seeming overlap of activities her followers and Iomedaeans would take.
Desna and Cayden Cailean seem equally strong for the CG deity. Desna watches over travellers, and is also the goddess of luck, so there are many people who could call upon her aid. However, Cayden is the god of freedom and bravery, so he could be good for generating CG vs. LE encounters based around slavery and/or necromancy.
I think Gozreh makes sense for the N spot, as the god of nature. Pharasma would just be another god opposed to necromancy (PS, will be interesting to see their explanation for why Pharasma marks necromancers, if an explanation is given) which is a thing already covered by the Good deities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The larger organizations will have access to settlements representing all alignments anyway. They will just meta game their alliances (Kingdoms), if the game system won't allow it.Then those kingdoms won't get the benefits of having those settlements, and the settlements won't have the benefits of being a part of that kingdom.
The devs won't just say "you're in a kingdom for the sake of having kingdoms". I trust them to be clever enough to provide mechanical benefits for creating kingdoms.
You may not be understanding my meaning, I'll be more clear.
Meta Alliance understands that Kingdoms (2 or more settlements can not serve all 9 alignments). So what they do is build 6 settlements and link them in pairs, producing three separate kingdoms. They will have all of the benefits of a kingdom. They will meta game the three kingdoms as one.
As long as they treat all citizens from all six settlements as equals, this system will work and they can serve all alignments and lose no benefits. In fact they would likely gain a benefit in drawing in more and more citizens because of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just think it makes more sense for a settlements to pick 3 or 4 alignments to exclude rather than being limited to 3 or 4 alignments to include. Under the current plan, everyone suffers the restrictions or penalties of being a cleric without the powers that are supposed to go with it.Excellent, I'll have my settlement exclude the middle alignments. LG living next to CE, CG and LE working together.
I think it ultimately makes sense to have settlements have a few alignments represented, but for kingdoms to have most of them. It really pushes larger organizations (like PAX) to grow into that stage in order to provide everything their organization wants.
You can corner-case anything, but I can add details to counter them, so that reductio ad absurdum doesn't work. I didn't try to predict and pre-emptively counter absurd objections because I doubt anyone would really spend loads of time and effort just be bizarre, they'd likely be unstable and collapse if they did, and adding to the word count of a post reduces the probability that someone will read it.
On the other hand, you could just end up with a NN average in which people argue vehemently all the time rather than sitting around contemplating paradoxes. It might look a lot like this forum, actually.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The larger organizations will have access to settlements representing all alignments anyway. They will just meta game their alliances (Kingdoms), if the game system won't allow it.Then those kingdoms won't get the benefits of having those settlements, and the settlements won't have the benefits of being a part of that kingdom.
The devs won't just say "you're in a kingdom for the sake of having kingdoms". I trust them to be clever enough to provide mechanical benefits for creating kingdoms.
You may not be understanding my meaning, I'll be more clear.
Meta Alliance understands that Kingdoms (2 or more settlements can not serve all 9 alignments). So what they do is build 6 settlements and link them in pairs, producing three separate kingdoms. They will have all of the benefits of a kingdom. They will meta game the three kingdoms as one.
As long as they treat all citizens from all six settlements as equals, this system will work and they can serve all alignments and lose no benefits. In fact they would likely gain a benefit in drawing in more and more citizens because of it.
This is the exact same thing as an in-game alliance between two independent kingdoms (for example, a group with 4 settlements allying with a group with 2 settlements). There is an advantage to having all 6 settlements as part of 1 group in the increased metagame coordination and communication afforded, but what makes you think making an alliance will bypass all the issues where you have to make a meaningful choice for alignment?
Certainly, making an alliance like this would allow anyone to play whatever alignment they want, which could be a good attracting point. But still, no one settlement or kingdom will be able to have every alignment, and each individual will have to make the tradeoffs involved in picking a specific alignment.
This is the exact same thing as an in-game alliance between two independent kingdoms (for example, a group with 4 settlements allying with a group with 2 settlements). There is an advantage to having all 6 settlements as part of 1 group in the increased coordination and communication afforded, but what makes you think making an alliance will bypass all the issues where you have to make a meaningful choice for alignment?
Certainly, making an alliance like this would allow anyone to play whatever alignment they want, which could be a good attracting point. But still, no one settlement or kingdom will be able to have every alignment, and each individual will have to make the tradeoffs involved in picking a specific alignment.
There is no increased coordination nor communication by having them as part of an in game alliance rather than a meta game. They would all be on the same TS and they can all also use a custom chat channel.
The individual will not have to make any tradeoff because he will be able to be part of the meta kingdom and have a place to train regardless of which alignment he chooses whereas a player in an in game only kingdom could only be one of a limited number of alignments.
For example I believe Pax currently plans to be overall LN as an empire with the first settlement LN. Assuming as has been suggested TN settlements are forbidden that means the in game empire can only have settlements of LG,LN or LE and can therefore not support any chaotic characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry for the edit, Steelwing. I was saying having everyone as part of the same meta group affords better communication.
Pax may not be able to have any Chaotics in their ranks, but if they make another "kingdom" which is just their people playing Chaotics and link the two with an in-game alliance or without, it looks the same to me as Pax allying with some other random people who allow all the Chaotics, only the second option would have inferior communication because there's no out-of-game unification.
Basically, I was saying what Bludd was talking about doesn't look like "gaming the system" at all to me, only I'm bad at expressing my thoughts :).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Shelyn seems maybe a little off for PFO; she's the goddess of beautiful things, art, and love. I can clearly see the in-game activities a worshipper of Gorum, Iomedae, or Gozreh might take, but what exactly would a worshipper of Shelyn do in-game? The only other NG god in the core pantheon is Sarenrae, who may or may not be any better due to the seeming overlap of activities her followers and Iomedaeans would take.
Desna and Cayden Cailean seem equally strong for the CG deity. Desna watches over travellers, and is also the goddess of luck, so there are many people who could call upon her aid. However, Cayden is the god of freedom and bravery, so he could be good for generating CG vs. LE encounters based around slavery and/or necromancy.
I think Gozreh makes sense for the N spot, as the god of nature. Pharasma would just be another god opposed to necromancy (PS, will be interesting to see their explanation for why Pharasma marks necromancers, if an explanation is given) which is a thing already covered by the Good deities.
Shelyn might make more sense once bards, or any charisma-focused role, are added. Sarenrae has both healing and fire, and getting to flamestrike some fools could take the edge off everyone thinking of you as the medic sidekick.
New orison: "Cayden's Courage" - Take a potion of of some beneficial effect, mix it in equal parts with high-proof liquor, and two can drink the same potion as long as they toast beforehand and finish the drink in one go (Fort save). A favourite of adventuring and carousing parties alike! :P
I could see a case in which limited reanimation is allowed, as long as you're putting down whatever you call up. Having been made un-mortal by Pharasma could be used as the rationale behind why such spells operate differently in PFO than they do in PFRPG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does greatly limit players in the religious aspect. Something that I honestly had not considered until put forth here. I do acknowledge that it is, again, forcing a meaningful choice on the player.
I wonder how many meaningful limitations it takes to make a meaningful game and when that starts to look like a meaningful railroad track. If you let it, this can help you better understand other's views on such matters that are more dear to their play styles. Maybe we can learn something here? Maybe not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wonder how many meaningful limitations it takes to make a meaningful game and when that starts to look like a meaningful railroad track. If you let it, this can help you better understand other's views on such matters that are more dear to their play styles. Maybe we can learn something here? Maybe not.
My view of this is that these decisions are only being made because there are systems in-game to force them. If the systems do not exist, than everyone does much the same thing; 99% of clerics look the same, 99% of bandits use the same techniques, and so on. By throwing in the choices, you actually get a more diverse game (as long as the choices are done well).
I wonder how many meaningful limitations it takes to make a meaningful game and when that starts to look like a meaningful railroad track. If you let it, this can help you better understand other's views on such matters that are more dear to their play styles. Maybe we can learn something here? Maybe not.
I don't really have an axe to grind here so this is just a view point to consider.
Most players are going to be like me in regards to this(opinion). They won't give a damn about alignment or even what the name of the god for their alignment is. They will merely pick what seems to give them the best min max capability.
Except when playing a paladin or cleric the current alignment system as described (the one where Dancey said they are not sold on penalties for core and active being different and regardless of what some want the system to be it is only what is described until the devs say differently) will have after they have joined their settlement absolutely no other impact on them whatsoever and they will completely ignore it from then on. Most are also never going to be affected by alignment shifts or reputation hits from pvp (including the griefers) as there it is going to be easy enough to kill virtually anyone you want with the tools supplied.
The people who it will affect are the roleplayers mainly and frankly they aren't the ones who are likely to be the problem that such "features" as CE sucking are meant to address.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Pax Shane
I don't disagree with that at all. I might help us all to remember that there are limitations for everyone's style (probably because they are best for the "complete package") when we debate them back and forth. Not that we should agree with each other over everything, but that we can better understand why the other guy wants to protect, protest, or advocate something from his point of view.
Or, I just have not had enough coffee yet! ;)
Thought I might just drop this in here before we get too far off track.
People are talking about the system as described currently by the Dev's I see no speculation on things they haven't said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Most players are going to be like me in regards to this(opinion). They won't give a damn about alignment or even what the name of the god for their alignment is. They will merely pick what seems to give them the best min max capability.
It's my hope that people will not be able to agree on which alignment leads to the most effective settlements, and thus we will see a good mix of alignments as people go about the goal of "most effective settlement" in different ways.
Most players are going to be like me in regards to this(opinion). They won't give a damn about alignment or even what the name of the god for their alignment is. They will merely pick what seems to give them the best min max capability.It's my hope that people will not be able to agree on which alignment leads to the most effective settlements, and thus we will see a good mix of alignments as people go about the goal of "most effective settlement" in different ways.
I think from what the devs have said so far we have a fair idea that the most effective settlements will be lawful something. There may be some discussion of which of the three lawfuls offer the best balance between freedom of action and improved DI etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thought I might just drop this in here before we get too far off track.People are talking about the system as described currently by the Dev's I see no speculation on things they haven't said.
The first paragraph is an argument for the conclusion in the second paragraph based mainly on wild speculation and incomplete data.
Yes you reference inconclusive dev statements and the lack of data on certain subjects, but that's what the post I linked is specifically addressed at.
Except when playing a paladin or cleric the current alignment system as described (the one where Dancey said they are not sold on penalties for core and active being different and regardless of what some want the system to be it is only what is described until the devs say differently) will have after they have joined their settlement absolutely no other impact on them whatsoever and they will completely ignore it from then on. Most are also never going to be affected by alignment shifts or reputation hits from pvp (including the griefers) as there it is going to be easy enough to kill virtually anyone you want with the tools supplied.
The people who it will affect are the roleplayers mainly and frankly they aren't the ones who are likely to be the problem that such "features" as CE sucking are meant to address.
The first paragraph is based entirely on the alignment system as currently described by the devs.
The second paragraph is accurate, alignment will be more of a concern for roleplayers because no one else will care. Show reasoning of why you believe this is not true. I have given you reasons why I think it is true, you on the other hand have used argument by assertion.
Or perhaps you were objecting to my speculation that roleplayers aren't the ones that CE sucking were meant to address.
Given some of the rampant speculation you indulge in on these forums frankly you have a nerve lecturing others on speculating. Especially when there is no speculation in my post and I have used only the latest information nothing more and nothing less in my reasoning.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first paragraph is based entirely on the alignment system as currently described by the devs.
The second paragraph is accurate, alignment will be more of a concern for roleplayers because no one else will care. Show reasoning of why you believe this is not true. I have given you reasons why I think it is true, you on the other hand have used argument by assertion.
Or perhaps you were objecting to my speculation that roleplayers aren't the ones that CE sucking were meant to address.
Given some of the rampant speculation you indulge in on these forums frankly you have a nerve lecturing others on speculating. Especially when there is no speculation in my post and I have used only the latest information nothing more and nothing less in my reasoning.
Why do you believe that there are no unstated aspects that would cause people to care about alignment as an instrumental goal?
Why do you believe that there are no unstated aspects that would cause people to care about alignment as an instrumental goal?The first paragraph is based entirely on the alignment system as currently described by the devs.
The second paragraph is accurate, alignment will be more of a concern for roleplayers because no one else will care. Show reasoning of why you believe this is not true. I have given you reasons why I think it is true, you on the other hand have used argument by assertion.
Or perhaps you were objecting to my speculation that roleplayers aren't the ones that CE sucking were meant to address.
Given some of the rampant speculation you indulge in on these forums frankly you have a nerve lecturing others on speculating. Especially when there is no speculation in my post and I have used only the latest information nothing more and nothing less in my reasoning.
There may well be things the Devs have not said that may change my opinion. However as they are currently unstated talking about them would be SPECULATION which Andius tells us we would be naughty boys if we indulge in it
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's my hope that people will not be able to agree on which alignment leads to the most effective settlements, and thus we will see a good mix of alignments as people go about the goal of "most effective settlement" in different ways.
So, rather than a one-dimensional chart, there would be a 'landscape' with multiple peaks and valleys? That would certainly be more interesting than 'lawful = strong, chaotic = suck'. As I've been saying, you should be able to form a high-functioning society by means of Good or Law (but not necessarily both) at least, and what Chaos and Evil lose in cooperative efficiency could be a tradeoff for fewer restrictions on behaviour. If creating, maintaining, and protecting a high-DI settlement is very expensive and inconvenient by default, the cooperative alignments could counter those difficulties via efficiency bonuses, while the more iconoclastic or sociopathic alignments would have to pay full price and have less security, but also have fewer restrictions on how they get the job done. The basic costs and cooperation efficiency bonuses give GW two ways to tweak things if one approach becomes the only workable one, and it just seems more elegant than a clumsy hard-cap.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Apparently you aren't getting this so let me break it down for you.
Except when playing a paladin or cleric the current alignment system as described...
...will have after they have joined their settlement absolutely no other impact on them whatsoever and they will completely ignore it from then on.
Referencing incomplete date. Paladins are the only class that was specifically addressed as having alignment based abilities. However they have not said anything confirming there will be absolutely no impact on players of any other class. Thus you're making assumptions based on incomplete data.
(the one where Dancey said they are not sold on penalties for core and active being different and regardless of what some want the system to be it is only what is described until the devs say differently)
Wild speculation when used as you have used it. To basically state as a forgone conclusion that there will not be penalties. The whole reason it was mentioned is they were letting us know it was being considered but had not been confirmed. Why would they even mention it if it was not a strong possibility?
Most are also never going to be affected by alignment shifts or reputation hits from pvp (including the griefers) as there it is going to be easy enough to kill virtually anyone you want with the tools supplied.
More speculation based on incomplete data. Some unknowns to consider in this:
1. The limitations of SAD demands in terms of what you can ask for are an unknown.
2. The only actions we know that are entirely alignment/reputation neutral are official wars/feuds (which cost an unknown amount of influence which will take a unknown amount of activity to acquire) defending yourself from attack, and killing players with certain flags. SADs, assassinations, etc. all may or may not have certain effects on your alignment.
I think it's safe to say there are too many unknowns in this equation to state as a fact that "it is going to be easy enough to kill virtually anyone you want with the tools supplied."
However we can state as a fact that if this game becomes a murder simulator, adjustments will be made.
You aren't giving us a solid analysis based on the facts. You are giving us doomsday theories based on worst case scenario assumptions and incomplete data.
Apparently you aren't getting this so let me break it down for you.
Referencing incomplete date. Paladins are the only class that was specifically addressed as having alignment based abilities. However they have not said anything confirming there will be absolutely no impact on players of any other class. Thus you're making assumptions based on incomplete data.Except when playing a paladin or cleric the current alignment system as described...
...will have after they have joined their settlement absolutely no other impact on them whatsoever and they will completely ignore it from then on.
So in other words I stuck strictly to what the Devs had said and didn't speculate about information they havent given out.
(the one where Dancey said they are not sold on penalties for core and active being different and regardless of what some want the system to be it is only what is described until the devs say differently)Wild speculation when used as you have used it. To basically state as a forgone conclusion that there will not be penalties. The whole reason it was mentioned is they were letting us know it was being considered but had not been confirmed. Why would they even mention it if it was not a strong possibility?
So I went by what the devs had said and didn't speculate on information they haven't given. I even quoted what Dancey said.
Most are also never going to be affected by alignment shifts or reputation hits from pvp (including the griefers) as there it is going to be easy enough to kill virtually anyone you want with the tools supplied.More speculation based on incomplete data. Some unknowns to consider in this:
1. The limitations of SAD demands in terms of what you can ask for are an unknown.
2. The only actions we know that are entirely alignment/reputation neutral are official wars/feuds (which cost an unknown amount of influence which will take a unknown amount of activity to acquire) defending yourself from attack, and killing players with certain flags. SADs, assassinations, etc. all may or may not have certain effects on your alignment.I think it's safe to say there are too many unknowns in this equation to state as a fact that "it...
The devs have said that Wars, feuds and SAD's will not suffer reputation hits. That is the information I have used
My conclusion is here that you aren't complaining about me speculating but instead complaining about the fact I am not speculating.
When or if the information the devs give us changes I change my opinion. Until they do I will base my opinion on what they have told us.
The only person speculating here is you and that purely based on what you hope the devs may say in the future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, rather than a one-dimensional chart, there would be a 'landscape' with multiple peaks and valleys? That would certainly be more interesting than 'lawful = strong, chaotic = suck'. As I've been saying, you should be able to form a high-functioning society by means of Good or Law (but not necessarily both) at least, and what Chaos and Evil lose in cooperative efficiency could be a tradeoff for fewer restrictions on behaviour.
Yes, this is exactly as I've understood it. Chaotic settlements are viable, as long as you steer clear of being predominantly Evil and keep your rep high (CG likely being the strongest of the Chaotics due to better training available). Evil settlement likewise, as long as you steer clear of Chaotic and keep rep high. The exact benefits of being Chaotic or Evil (but not both) have not been laid out yet, but I'm optimistic that there will be concrete reasons to play those so that there is a variety of alignments in game (because I see no reason to assume the worst for something like this).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have clearly illustrated how you are using incomplete data to state the case that:
"The people who it will affect are the roleplayers mainly and frankly they aren't the ones who are likely to be the problem that such 'features' as CE sucking are meant to address."
You try to claim I'm convincing you to speculate yet I have not stated the opposite of your claim is true. Simply that your conclusions are based on horse crap. You've taken all the blanks in what GW presented and filled them in with data that serves the argument you're trying to make.
/debate as far as I'm concerned.
I have clearly illustrated how you are using incomplete data to state the case that:
"The people who it will affect are the roleplayers mainly and frankly they aren't the ones who are likely to be the problem that such 'features' as CE sucking are meant to address."
You try to claim I'm convincing you to speculate yet I have not stated the opposite of your claim is true. Simply that your conclusions are based on horse crap. You've taken all the blanks in what GW presented and filled them in with data that serves the argument you're trying to make.
/debate as far as I'm concerned.
I was disputing that my opinions were based upon speculation which is what you first accused me of. Now you are free to dislike or even dispute the conclusions I came to but base them on what we know not on what you hope to be true.
However now you have moved the goalposts from accusing me of speculation and moved on to this statement
"The people who it will affect are the roleplayers mainly and frankly they aren't the ones who are likely to be the problem that such 'features' as CE sucking are meant to address."
lets break it down and see what you are objecting to.
Are you claiming that "The people who it will affect are the roleplayers mainly" is horse crap
or
"they aren't the ones who are likely to be the problem that such 'features' as CE sucking are meant to address"
is horse crap
Can you give reasons why you think otherwise or are you just going to rest on "because I Andius say so"
You really think min maxers care about alignment or that they are going to worry about it after they have joined a settlement given that we know the current plan is only core alignment affects settlement membership and that currently the Dancey has stated they have no plans for penalising mismatch between core and active. Given those facts give me one good reason why a min maxer would care unless he wants to play the only two classes (paladin and cleric) which they have stated will be affected by active alignment shifts.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was disputing that my opinions were based upon speculation which is what you first accused me of. Now you are free to dislike or even dispute the conclusions I came to but base them on what we know not on what you hope to be true.I have clearly illustrated how you are using incomplete data to state the case that:
"The people who it will affect are the roleplayers mainly and frankly they aren't the ones who are likely to be the problem that such 'features' as CE sucking are meant to address."
You try to claim I'm convincing you to speculate yet I have not stated the opposite of your claim is true. Simply that your conclusions are based on horse crap. You've taken all the blanks in what GW presented and filled them in with data that serves the argument you're trying to make.
/debate as far as I'm concerned.
Your conclusions were based on the assumption that the voids in your knowledge were voids in the planned systems. Not making that speculation/assumption would lead to the conclusion "I don't know whether most people will not notice alignment because their alignment has no effect, or because their actions cause them to have an alignment that never makes them notice."
Your conclusions were based on the assumption that the voids in your knowledge were voids in the planned systems. Not making that speculation/assumption would lead to the conclusion "I don't know whether most people will not notice alignment because their alignment has no effect, or because their actions cause them to have an alignment that never makes them notice."I was disputing that my opinions were based upon speculation which is what you first accused me of. Now you are free to dislike or even dispute the conclusions I came to but base them on what we know not on what you hope to be true.I have clearly illustrated how you are using incomplete data to state the case that:
"The people who it will affect are the roleplayers mainly and frankly they aren't the ones who are likely to be the problem that such 'features' as CE sucking are meant to address."
You try to claim I'm convincing you to speculate yet I have not stated the opposite of your claim is true. Simply that your conclusions are based on horse crap. You've taken all the blanks in what GW presented and filled them in with data that serves the argument you're trying to make.
/debate as far as I'm concerned.
No I am basing the opinion on what we know. What we may come to know I have obviously no way of knowing. That is why these things are unknown. By your argument no one can have any opinions upon anything pathfinder related whatsoever because we don't know everything they may put in game as yet.
As I have stated when the facts change I change my opinion. Until that time I can only base opinions on what we know. If you want to speculate on what they may possibly add and then draw opinions based upon that then feel free.
I have certainly not noticed either yourself or Andius being shy on giving opinions on things that we may not have a complete picture on as yet. At least my opinion is on what we currently know and not on what I hope to be true unlike some I could mention
I have clearly illustrated how you are using incomplete data to state the case that:
Just as a quick point by the way assuming the alignment data is incomplete is a SPECULATION on your part.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Returning to topic.
Let's start by having the option to choose a deity to worship during character creation.With benefits and side effects. Example: Would be cheaper to buy healing potions from a temple from the deity you worship, yet you dare not set foot into a temple of an opposing deity.
Sounds like faction action to me, but your idea definitely belongs there.
It could be fun for every character to have the option to pick a personal primary deity from being rolled and onwards though that should only start to have any affects on the character with divine skills training or membership in religious factions.
How are domains getting selected? When you start training divine skills will other domains get greyed out after you train into two or is it so classless that you put on two domains at a time but can choose from any you have trained up?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Returning to topic.
Let's start by having the option to choose a deity to worship during character creation.With benefits and side effects. Example: Would be cheaper to buy healing potions from a temple from the deity you worship, yet you dare not set foot into a temple of an opposing deity.Sounds like faction action to me, but your idea definitely belongs there.
It could be fun for every character to have the option to pick a personal primary deity from being rolled and onwards though that should only start to have any affects on the character with divine skills training or membership in religious factions.
How are domains getting selected? When you start training divine skills will other domains get greyed out after you train into two or is it so classless that you put on two domains at a time but can choose from any you have trained up?
I would think that 'domains' would fit either into the Role slot or a passive slot. I'm not sure what kind of effects a slotted domain should have, without knowing the general effects of the other choices for those slots.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How are domains getting selected? When you start training divine skills will other domains get greyed out after you train into two or is it so classless that you put on two domains at a time but can choose from any you have trained up?
(Incoming baseless opinion) Assuming different deities grant different benefits through domains, I think it would be fine to just have a "domain training" for clerics, which advances whichever domain powers you choose to use. Training individual domains seems kinda wonky to me.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
How are domains getting selected? When you start training divine skills will other domains get greyed out after you train into two or is it so classless that you put on two domains at a time but can choose from any you have trained up?(Incoming baseless opinion) Assuming different deities grant different benefits through domains, I think it would be fine to just have a "domain training" for clerics, which advances whichever domain powers you choose to use. Training individual domains seems kinda wonky to me.
I was kinda imagining that domains would be selected and slotted, but key off of Cleric Milestones for total power, or something along those lines.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How are domains getting selected? When you start training divine skills will other domains get greyed out after you train into two or is it so classless that you put on two domains at a time but can choose from any you have trained up?(Incoming baseless opinion) Assuming different deities grant different benefits through domains, I think it would be fine to just have a "domain training" for clerics, which advances whichever domain powers you choose to use. Training individual domains seems kinda wonky to me.
Nothing wrong with baseless opinions and speculation as long as it is not portrayed as fact.
I think the best way to make domains work could be to limit what domain spells a cleric could take based on the power they claim to worship, and take away their dedication bonus if they train more than two.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of a blank slate mostly. All the trappings of a character acquired via gameplay as much as possible. I know people see a two-way street of character affect the world as much as the world affects the character. But I think doing is more important than the philosophy of being (the trap is set...)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How are domains getting selected? When you start training divine skills will other domains get greyed out after you train into two or is it so classless that you put on two domains at a time but can choose from any you have trained up?(Incoming baseless opinion) Assuming different deities grant different benefits through domains, I think it would be fine to just have a "domain training" for clerics, which advances whichever domain powers you choose to use. Training individual domains seems kinda wonky to me.Nothing wrong with baseless opinions and speculation as long as it is not portrayed as fact.
I think the best way to make domains work could be to limit what domain spells a cleric could take based on the power they claim to worship, and take away their dedication bonus if they train more than two.
Lose dedication bonus if they train more than two Domains?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of a blank slate mostly. All the trappings of a character acquired via gameplay as much as possible. I know people see a two-way street of character affect the world as much as the world affects the character. But I think doing is more important than the philosophy of being (the trap is set...)?
He may show up with an alias called 'Doing' now.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are domains getting selected? When you start training divine skills will other domains get greyed out after you train into two or is it so classless that you put on two domains at a time but can choose from any you have trained up?(Incoming baseless opinion) Assuming different deities grant different benefits through domains, I think it would be fine to just have a "domain training" for clerics, which advances whichever domain powers you choose to use. Training individual domains seems kinda wonky to me.Nothing wrong with baseless opinions and speculation as long as it is not portrayed as fact.
I think the best way to make domains work could be to limit what domain spells a cleric could take based on the power they claim to worship, and take away their dedication bonus if they train more than two.
Did you mean 'slot' instead of 'train'? I've fallen into the assumption that a character shouldn't train abilities that they won't slot, but there are enough counterexamples that I actively try to avoid that error.