A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

551 to 600 of 1,127 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:

Since it seems that evil and low-rep characters are already being penalized in this game....I think that they should be the only ones to implement NBSI in their lands.

On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement...

I don't really have a problem with that.

Goblin Squad Member

When in the process of jerkifying the neighborhood they'll likely be flagged criminal for something already, and see a response from people that kills them (consequence free) and loots their stuff. THAT is a feedback loop.

In the corner cases of somehow not flagged for me, I can't think of any reasons right now I'd let that stop me.


Valtorious wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:


On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement....unless someone wants to explain to me how a LG Paladin decided that it was morally justifiable to enable a law (NBSI) that permitted the murder of any of the NG merchants who lived in a neighboring...
We don't need to justify it alignment is merely a mechanic. Choosing one gives you mechanical advantages or disadvantages that is all. Justification on moral grounds is merely rp and therefore totally unimportant
And now my point has been made. NBSI is a mechanic high-rep/good characters are going to exploit so they can slaughter people consequence free.

Why should we let foreigners wander our territory? Don't want to die don't come in simple as that. You choose to break our law then you die.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:


On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement....unless someone wants to explain to me how a LG Paladin decided that it was morally justifiable to enable a law (NBSI) that permitted the murder of any of the NG merchants who lived in a neighboring...
We don't need to justify it alignment is merely a mechanic. Choosing one gives you mechanical advantages or disadvantages that is all. Justification on moral grounds is merely rp and therefore totally unimportant
And now my point has been made. NBSI is a mechanic high-rep/good characters are going to exploit so they can slaughter people consequence free.
Why should we let foreigners wander our territory? Don't want to die don't come in simple as that. You choose to break our law then you die.

Sounds great...if you are evil.


Valtorious wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:


On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement....unless someone wants to explain to me how a LG Paladin decided that it was morally justifiable to enable a law (NBSI) that permitted the murder of any of the NG merchants who lived in a neighboring...
We don't need to justify it alignment is merely a mechanic. Choosing one gives you mechanical advantages or disadvantages that is all. Justification on moral grounds is merely rp and therefore totally unimportant
And now my point has been made. NBSI is a mechanic high-rep/good characters are going to exploit so they can slaughter people consequence free.
Why should we let foreigners wander our territory? Don't want to die don't come in simple as that. You choose to break our law then you die.
Sounds great...if you are evil.

Thats an rp reason and therefore irrelevant.

What reason would you even have to be in our territory. We do not want to buy your goods. We do not want you harvesting our resources. We do not want you farming our escalations. We just do not want you. Why therefore would you have any reason to be there

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Valtorious wrote:

Since it seems that evil and low-rep characters are already being penalized in this game....I think that they should be the only ones to implement NBSI in their lands.

On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement...

I don't really have a problem with that.

But if you are playing a good or lawful character...you can see why I was against this from the start. I think you and I have a similar thought on much of how alignments should behave...but why add the mechanic of NBSI when your character can already kill a low-rep person consequence free?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valtorious wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:


On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement....unless someone wants to explain to me how a LG Paladin decided that it was morally justifiable to enable a law (NBSI) that permitted the murder of any of the NG merchants who lived in a neighboring...
We don't need to justify it alignment is merely a mechanic. Choosing one gives you mechanical advantages or disadvantages that is all. Justification on moral grounds is merely rp and therefore totally unimportant
And now my point has been made. NBSI is a mechanic high-rep/good characters are going to exploit so they can slaughter people consequence free.

Not really, since in order to have someone flagged for that they must be on YOUR territory. So unless they are on your settlement hex or one of your POI hexes they cannot flagged you and get you.

So yes, go into their territory and you can be killed without issue, however if you dont, they suffer all the normal lose for killing someone unflagged.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:


On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement....unless someone wants to explain to me how a LG Paladin decided that it was morally justifiable to enable a law (NBSI) that permitted the murder of any of the NG merchants who lived in a neighboring...
We don't need to justify it alignment is merely a mechanic. Choosing one gives you mechanical advantages or disadvantages that is all. Justification on moral grounds is merely rp and therefore totally unimportant
And now my point has been made. NBSI is a mechanic high-rep/good characters are going to exploit so they can slaughter people consequence free.
Why should we let foreigners wander our territory? Don't want to die don't come in simple as that. You choose to break our law then you die.
Sounds great...if you are evil.

Thats an rp reason and therefore irrelevant.

What reason would you even have to be in our territory. We do not want to buy your goods. We do not want you harvesting our resources. We do not want you farming our escalations. We just do not want you. Why therefore would you have any reason to be there

??? Alignments and role-playing are now not a huge part of D&D? So you suggest that if a person is caught farming a resource you should just be able to kill them. No option of fines or penalties...just paladins running around slaughtering poachers and jaywalkers willy nilly. Why have an alignment system at all? So you can use your Holy Avenger. Lol What bonus does a holy avenger get against a chaotic good poacher?


Valtorious wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Valtorious wrote:

Since it seems that evil and low-rep characters are already being penalized in this game....I think that they should be the only ones to implement NBSI in their lands.

On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement...

I don't really have a problem with that.

But if you are playing a good or lawful character...you can see why I was against this from the start. I think you and I have a similar thought on much of how alignments should behave...but why add the mechanic of NBSI when your character can already kill a low-rep person consequence free?

NBSI has absolutely nothing to do with low rep characters it is about providing my group content. When they patrol our territory they want to be rewarded by being able to kill intruders thats what makes patrolling fun. It is also about protecting our resources from those who wish to take them (both gathering and pve) and settlement security.

Reputation is something by and large that we aren't even going to care about when looking at outsiders. We will kill you if we have reason to kill you and leave you alone if we don't. Being in our territory and not being an ally is merely one of those reasons

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:


On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement....unless someone wants to explain to me how a LG Paladin decided that it was morally justifiable to enable a law (NBSI) that permitted the murder of any of the NG merchants who lived in a neighboring...
We don't need to justify it alignment is merely a mechanic. Choosing one gives you mechanical advantages or disadvantages that is all. Justification on moral grounds is merely rp and therefore totally unimportant
And now my point has been made. NBSI is a mechanic high-rep/good characters are going to exploit so they can slaughter people consequence free.

Not really, since in order to have someone flagged for that they must be on YOUR territory. So unless they are on your settlement hex or one of your POI hexes they cannot flagged you and get you.

So yes, go into their territory and you can be killed without issue, however if you dont, they suffer all the normal lose for killing someone unflagged.

I understand what you are saying...but low rep characters are flagged in any territory if I am understanding this right. So flagging them in or out of your borders is sort of meaningless. And if somehow a band of outlaws was at your borders picking off people, they would be taking rep hits as well until they were low rep....which leads to you being able to gut them.

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:
But a system where players/communities, at no cost to themselves, can designate whole other guilds to "kill on sight" in their lands is, as I said before...repetitious at best when dealing with low-rep characters and counter alignment base role-playing. To my understanding...a known dishonorable criminal is already flagged. Adding this NBSI or exile system isn't really for dealing with low-lifes and evil characters...it sounds like a way for Lawful Good characters who want to play counter to their alignment to abuse a rule set and allow them to act in Chaotic Evil ways.

The other end of the spectrum is allowing your enemies to run free through your lands because they aren't flagged at that moment. Feuds kind of deal with it, but not entirely: feuds will not help in many situations, including when your company is low on influence (because you have to use so many feuds, and also spend it in other manners), when your enemies are a group of 10 different companies all attacking you, when there are people you only suspect are enemies snooping around your lands... and I'm sure in many other situations I can't think of at the moment. As is, the defenders have to constantly spend resources to exert any influence over land which is supposedly permanently owned by their settlement/kingdom (not permanent per se, but hopefully you understand what I meant by that).

Edit: I forgot, replace all the times I said "attacked" with "either attacked you long ago enough that their flag ran out or are preparing to attack you inside your own lands".

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:
leperkhaun wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:


On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement....unless someone wants to explain to me how a LG Paladin decided that it was morally justifiable to enable a law (NBSI) that permitted the murder of any of the NG merchants who lived in a neighboring...
We don't need to justify it alignment is merely a mechanic. Choosing one gives you mechanical advantages or disadvantages that is all. Justification on moral grounds is merely rp and therefore totally unimportant
And now my point has been made. NBSI is a mechanic high-rep/good characters are going to exploit so they can slaughter people consequence free.

Not really, since in order to have someone flagged for that they must be on YOUR territory. So unless they are on your settlement hex or one of your POI hexes they cannot flagged you and get you.

So yes, go into their territory and you can be killed without issue, however if you dont, they suffer all the normal lose for killing someone unflagged.

I understand what you are saying...but low rep characters are flagged in any territory if I am understanding this right. So flagging them in or out of your borders is sort of meaningless. And if somehow a band of outlaws was at your borders picking off people, they would be taking rep hits as well until they were low rep....which leads to you being able to gut them.

Low rep is not automatically flagged for PVP. The rep penalties for attacking them when they are unflagged are less though.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Valtorious wrote:

Since it seems that evil and low-rep characters are already being penalized in this game....I think that they should be the only ones to implement NBSI in their lands.

On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement...

I don't really have a problem with that.

But if you are playing a good or lawful character...you can see why I was against this from the start. I think you and I have a similar thought on much of how alignments should behave...but why add the mechanic of NBSI when your character can already kill a low-rep person consequence free?

NBSI has absolutely nothing to do with low rep characters it is about providing my group content. When they patrol our territory they want to be rewarded by being able to kill intruders thats what makes patrolling fun. It is also about protecting our resources from those who wish to take them (both gathering and pve) and settlement security.

Reputation is something by and large that we aren't even going to care about when looking at outsiders. We will kill you if we have reason to kill you and leave you alone if we don't. Being in our territory and not being an ally is merely one of those reasons

Then why even have alignments. If players with low-reps and evil alignments are already penalized by being barred from major NPC territory, can be attacked on sight, and have limited access to trading...I don't think it is unreasonable to place restrictions on Good characters behavior because Paladins beheading Paladins over a silver mine isn't D&D.

I have no problem with the playstyle you just mentioned....but you shouldn't be able to keep a good alignment.


Valtorious wrote:
leperkhaun wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:


On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement....unless someone wants to explain to me how a LG Paladin decided that it was morally justifiable to enable a law (NBSI) that permitted the murder of any of the NG merchants who lived in a neighboring...
We don't need to justify it alignment is merely a mechanic. Choosing one gives you mechanical advantages or disadvantages that is all. Justification on moral grounds is merely rp and therefore totally unimportant
And now my point has been made. NBSI is a mechanic high-rep/good characters are going to exploit so they can slaughter people consequence free.

Not really, since in order to have someone flagged for that they must be on YOUR territory. So unless they are on your settlement hex or one of your POI hexes they cannot flagged you and get you.

So yes, go into their territory and you can be killed without issue, however if you dont, they suffer all the normal lose for killing someone unflagged.

I understand what you are saying...but low rep characters are flagged in any territory if I am understanding this right. So flagging them in or out of your borders is sort of meaningless. And if somehow a band of outlaws was at your borders picking off people, they would be taking rep hits as well until they were low rep....which leads to you being able to gut them.

Low rep characters are only flagged if they have done something that merits flagging currently. There are those who want them constantly flagged I am however not one of those advocating that.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
If you don't think the Reputation score is infallible how can you tell the difference if you're justified or making a mistake to attack them based on it?

It doesn't need to be infallible, and neither do I.

If I felt that even a significant number of my "victims" would be in fact innocent, I would abandon the policy. However, I'm extremely confident that the vast majority will not be innocent. I have serious doubts whether your hypothetical will ever be the reality.

There's that faith in the computer code (that might not even exist yet and we certainly haven't played out) I mentioned.

So really our difference is that you're willing to convict some proportion of not-guiltys to make sure you get all of the guiltys without having any particular crime in mind, just faith in the computer code. You expect them to care why you attacked so you can tell them low-rep.

I stick with the beyond a shadow of doubt style burden of proof. Like during a jerk-in-progress, which incidentally has over 100 years of evidence behind it as actually retraining behaviors.

In the game we'll do what we do and see what happens.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
But a system where players/communities, at no cost to themselves, can designate whole other guilds to "kill on sight" in their lands is, as I said before...repetitious at best when dealing with low-rep characters and counter alignment base role-playing. To my understanding...a known dishonorable criminal is already flagged. Adding this NBSI or exile system isn't really for dealing with low-lifes and evil characters...it sounds like a way for Lawful Good characters who want to play counter to their alignment to abuse a rule set and allow them to act in Chaotic Evil ways.
The other end of the spectrum is allowing your enemies to run free through your lands because they aren't flagged at that moment. Feuds kind of deal with it, but not entirely: feuds will not help in many situations, including when your company is low on influence (because you have to use so many feuds, and also spend it in other manners), when your enemies are a group of 10 different companies all attacking you, when there are people you only suspect are enemies snooping around your lands... and I'm sure in many other situations I can't think of at the moment. As is, the defenders have to constantly spend resources to exert any influence over land which is supposedly permanently owned by their settlement/kingdom (not permanent per se, but hopefully you understand what I meant by that).

But then people could just flag the entire gaming community and keep everyone out. I can get on board with this idea of territorial control as long as alignment and rep-restrictions are in place. I could see a version of the SAD system be used by neutral communities. People can come in if they pay a tax...if they refuse they can either be turned away of the fight ensues. I just want it to make sense in a D%D aspect.

Because just flagging anyone because you think they might be a threat is a risky mechanic. If anything...settlements should be able to make rules like "welcome, leave your siege engines beyond the border please". lol

Goblin Squad Member

Also, Good whether rp or not believes in No Trespassing signs too.

The foundation of the debates is how much should be done in mechanics or done by players and established custom. If NRDS and NBSI are actually game code or just different approaches to using already established systems.

Good settlements want to be open but not at the risk of losing the settlement. Not having a game to play we don't really know the best place to put the line between code and players.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
leperkhaun wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:


On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement....unless someone wants to explain to me how a LG Paladin decided that it was morally justifiable to enable a law (NBSI) that permitted the murder of any of the NG merchants who lived in a neighboring...
We don't need to justify it alignment is merely a mechanic. Choosing one gives you mechanical advantages or disadvantages that is all. Justification on moral grounds is merely rp and therefore totally unimportant
And now my point has been made. NBSI is a mechanic high-rep/good characters are going to exploit so they can slaughter people consequence free.

Not really, since in order to have someone flagged for that they must be on YOUR territory. So unless they are on your settlement hex or one of your POI hexes they cannot flagged you and get you.

So yes, go into their territory and you can be killed without issue, however if you dont, they suffer all the normal lose for killing someone unflagged.

I understand what you are saying...but low rep characters are flagged in any territory if I am understanding this right. So flagging them in or out of your borders is sort of meaningless. And if somehow a band of outlaws was at your borders picking off people, they would be taking rep hits as well until they were low rep....which leads to you being able to gut them.
Low rep characters are only flagged if they have done something that merits flagging currently. There are those who want them constantly flagged I am however not one of those advocating that.

Even then, I think that good communites should have to give people committed in small crimes like theft or resource farming a choice of paying a fine before executing them. That is all I am getting at. I just want the game to make sense.

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:
Then why even have alignments. If players with low-reps and evil alignments are already penalized by being barred from major NPC territory, can be attacked on sight, and have limited access to trading...I don't think it is unreasonable to place restrictions on Good characters behavior because Paladins beheading Paladins over a silver mine isn't D&D.

The biggest issue with that is not that the defender can kill the attacker, it's that a Paladin can be the attacker in such a situation, initiating an unpaladin-like assault on someone else's silver mine for personal gain. Replace the attacking Paladin with a neutral or even Good fighter, and the situation looks fine to me. It plays out like this:

Good Fighter: Our settlement is starving out in the boonies while you guys eat like kings thanks to your silver trade! We're here to take this silver mine as our own!
Defending Paladin: We have the rightful ownership of this mine, and we built it ourselves; you will ruin the lives of many of our people by taking this mine from us. I cannot allow it!

*fighting ensues*

But yeah, the restrictions placed on Good are very vague at the moment, just like the benefits for being good are very vague (we've only been told they'll have better stuff, basically). I wouldn't yet assume the alignments will mean nothing.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valtorious wrote:


Then why even have alignments. If players with low-reps and evil alignments are already penalized by being barred from major NPC territory, can be attacked on sight, and have limited access to trading...I don't think it is unreasonable to place restrictions on Good characters behavior because Paladins beheading Paladins over a silver mine isn't D&D.

I have no problem with the playstyle you just mentioned....but you shouldn't be able to keep a good alignment.

Evil and Low rep are two different things, except for CE, which seems to be the alignment that GW is reserving for toxic players.

Just because you are evil does not mean you will be low rep. Just because you are good does not mean you will be high rep.

however if you place restrictions on good players you HAVE to then provide them with an advantage, the result is that if you do not, then no one will play them. i do not want to be pigeon holed into being a PvE or a passive player because I like the mechanics of a paladin.

We need to step away from alignment as a moral system and look at it as a mechanical system.


Valtorious wrote:
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
But a system where players/communities, at no cost to themselves, can designate whole other guilds to "kill on sight" in their lands is, as I said before...repetitious at best when dealing with low-rep characters and counter alignment base role-playing. To my understanding...a known dishonorable criminal is already flagged. Adding this NBSI or exile system isn't really for dealing with low-lifes and evil characters...it sounds like a way for Lawful Good characters who want to play counter to their alignment to abuse a rule set and allow them to act in Chaotic Evil ways.
The other end of the spectrum is allowing your enemies to run free through your lands because they aren't flagged at that moment. Feuds kind of deal with it, but not entirely: feuds will not help in many situations, including when your company is low on influence (because you have to use so many feuds, and also spend it in other manners), when your enemies are a group of 10 different companies all attacking you, when there are people you only suspect are enemies snooping around your lands... and I'm sure in many other situations I can't think of at the moment. As is, the defenders have to constantly spend resources to exert any influence over land which is supposedly permanently owned by their settlement/kingdom (not permanent per se, but hopefully you understand what I meant by that).

But then people could just flag the entire gaming community and keep everyone out. I can get on board with this idea of territorial control as long as alignment and rep-restrictions are in place. I could see a version of the SAD system be used by neutral communities. People can come in if they pay a tax...if they refuse they can either be turned away of the fight ensues. I just want it to make sense in a D%D aspect.

Because just flagging anyone because you think they might be a threat is a risky mechanic. If anything...settlements should be able to make rules like "welcome, leave...

This isn't d&d nor is it table top it is just a territorial domination game that happens to be set in a milieu used by some d&d style game to most players. (Not necessarily true of forum goers or even ee but assuming a successful oe launch this will almost definitely be true)

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:
... low rep characters are flagged in any territory if I am understanding this right.

Not as currently designed, although I'd sure like that to be the case.

At any rate, the auto-Flag threshold for Low Reputation globally would likely be much lower than something we'd set for our Settlement, so it's not really the same.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Also, Good whether rp or not believes in No Trespassing signs too.

Yeah, but killing a trespasser on sight is a very "good" action. I just want to this to make sense. I don't want a Holy Order of bored Paladins killing anyone caught trespassing. I really don't have a problem with penalties.

Say I am a thief and I am secretly farming a resource of yours....and then 3 Paladins. Ride up. I think it is reasonable for the Paladins to say "You have broken our settlements laws, pay x amount of fine." Now if, I as the thief decide, screw that, then I think the Paladins have the right to enforce the law through violence (in a perfect world they would subdue the thief and imprison him and only kill him if the thief reacted violently).

I am not opposed to settlements setting their own rules...I just think that they should be alignment of rep based. That is all. I can even see a Lawful neutral settlement having very strict, no nonsense laws. But a blanket NBSI system just irks me because one of the penalties of playing a "good" character should be being "good".

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
But a system where players/communities, at no cost to themselves, can designate whole other guilds to "kill on sight" in their lands is, as I said before...repetitious at best when dealing with low-rep characters and counter alignment base role-playing. To my understanding...a known dishonorable criminal is already flagged. Adding this NBSI or exile system isn't really for dealing with low-lifes and evil characters...it sounds like a way for Lawful Good characters who want to play counter to their alignment to abuse a rule set and allow them to act in Chaotic Evil ways.
The other end of the spectrum is allowing your enemies to run free through your lands because they aren't flagged at that moment. Feuds kind of deal with it, but not entirely: feuds will not help in many situations, including when your company is low on influence (because you have to use so many feuds, and also spend it in other manners), when your enemies are a group of 10 different companies all attacking you, when there are people you only suspect are enemies snooping around your lands... and I'm sure in many other situations I can't think of at the moment. As is, the defenders have to constantly spend resources to exert any influence over land which is supposedly permanently owned by their settlement/kingdom (not permanent per se, but hopefully you understand what I meant by that).

But then people could just flag the entire gaming community and keep everyone out. I can get on board with this idea of territorial control as long as alignment and rep-restrictions are in place. I could see a version of the SAD system be used by neutral communities. People can come in if they pay a tax...if they refuse they can either be turned away of the fight ensues. I just want it to make sense in a D%D aspect.

Because just flagging anyone because you think they might be a threat is a risky mechanic. If anything...settlements should be able to make rules like "welcome, leave...

I would prefer that the alignment system meant something in a RP sense AND overall gameplay also. (Even though I am typically a spotty roleplayer myself) The simple fact is that many approach such things as game mechanics and "what are the advantages and disadvantages". There is nothing really wrong with it, as it is how a vast majority play MMO's, especially power centric games.

Just that we have a more than typically complex alignment system planned for this game, is a start. It will affect the more extremes of alignment, quite a bit. What skills you can train, whether you can slot them, etc...

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:
... Paladins beheading Paladins over a silver mine isn't D&D.

Good thing this isn't D&D :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
... you're willing to convict some proportion of not-guiltys to make sure you get all of the guiltys...

I'd say that I'm not willing to let the "guiltys" get a free pass because of a hypothetical case that some exceedingly small number of them might not be guilty.

Goblin Squad Member

@Valtorius, the biggest problem here is that we'll be playing a video game. You only have 2 options for enforcing rules on someone who's not part of your group (until SAD is implemented): attack/kill them or let them pass. Thus, if good cannot kill people, they are left with only let them pass, meaning good would not be able to enforce anything at all. They can only make polite suggestions to people travelling in their land, who would have no reason to obey the good character's suggestions.

Basically, if good can't kill you would have a de-facto NRDS where you can't flag anyone as red.

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:
But then people could just flag the entire gaming community and keep everyone out.

Why would that be so bad as a possible outcome? Obviously, you and everyone else will be free to avoid Settlements that set such a policy.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it me or is this thread not about making NRDS more viable, but almost completely focused on removing consequences for NBSI?


Valtorious wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
Also, Good whether rp or not believes in No Trespassing signs too.

Yeah, but killing a trespasser on sight is a very "good" action. I just want to this to make sense. I don't want a Holy Order of bored Paladins killing anyone caught trespassing. I really don't have a problem with penalties.

Say I am a thief and I am secretly farming a resource of yours....and then 3 Paladins. Ride up. I think it is reasonable for the Paladins to say "You have broken our settlements laws, pay x amount of fine." Now if, I as the thief decide, screw that, then I think the Paladins have the right to enforce the law through violence (in a perfect world they would subdue the thief and imprison him and only kill him if the thief reacted violently).

I am not opposed to settlements setting their own rules...I just think that they should be alignment of rep based. That is all. I can even see a Lawful neutral settlement having very strict, no nonsense laws. But a blanket NBSI system just irks me because one of the penalties of playing a "good" character should be being "good".

Again I ask when you know you aren't wanted in our lands why would you be in there except to be up to no good? If you can show me a valid reason you want to be in our lands and convince me that we should allow it I may agree with you.

Until then you have no need to be there and what you are doing is in effect walking through the paladins front door plonking yourself down on his couch and asking whats on tv. I think most would agree the paladin is perfectly within his rights to eject you with force.

Goblin Squad Member

Correct. A paladin would never cross into another kingdom's sovereign territory and mine their silver if disallowed.

The other paladin would either fine them or arrest them and throw them in prison if they did violate their alignment in such a way rather than executing them most likely.

I'm fine with a system that can simulate that in an MMO without being tedious for either party.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

Is it me or is this thread not about making NRDS more viable, but almost completely focused on removing consequences for NBSI?

At the moment it's about why Good is too good for our own good.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:

Just because you are evil does not mean you will be low rep. Just because you are good does not mean you will be high rep.

however if you place restrictions on good players you HAVE to then provide them with an advantage, the result is that if you do not, then no one will play them. i do not want to be pigeon holed into being a PvE or a passive player because I like the mechanics of a paladin.

We need to step away from alignment as a moral system and look at it as a mechanical system.

Alignment in a computer game IS code that gives borders to moral action. If you like Paladin mechanics part of that is paladins take a measured disciplined approach and don't go around preemptively killing everyone in sight that might be eeeeevoooll. The balancing advantages are in all your super fancy paladin powers.

For most characters alignment won't have an affect other than what settlement they can get in. And the advantages and disadvantages to different types of settlements are well-established.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valtorious wrote:


??? Alignments and role-playing are now not a huge part of D&D?

We are not D&D players and we are not role players when it comes to success at settlement warfare. Can you suggest a reason we should care about either?

Goblin Squad Member

Am I getting this right here? It is expected that many settlements will go NBSI and (currently) there are no mechanics planned, besides reputation, and criminal behavior to enforce that.

I included "currently" because I can't believe that it will stand, unless they really do want us to generate tons of "monsters in the basement" to enforce NBSI.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm just going to address everyone since I am losing track of my conversations. The points I am trying to make are these. We all have our definitions of what griefers are. Some have set the bar lower, some have set the bar higher. But we can all agree mostly that we don't want a game where newcomers are unwelcome and are abused in a way that it kills the game.

That being said...I am trying to point out that while everyone is so focused on single player griefing...I fear that an unregulated, unrestricted NBSI system is just griefing at a guild level. A year after launch...if a group of 4 high school friends decide to make their own little guild...and can't travel anywhere and even the LG guys are wiping them out for walking on their lawn...we are going to have big community problems.

Yes this might be a resource warfare game...but I do not think that some alignment restrictions are crazy to want if a nbsi system goes into place. Steelwing wants to kill anyone who enters his land. No questions asked. That is great...I have no problem with that. But when he rolls his character...he shouldn't be good. That is not a stretch or too much to ask, I don't think.


Bringslite wrote:

Am I getting this right here? It is expected that many settlements will go NBSI and (currently) there are no mechanics planned, besides reputation, and criminal behavior to enforce that.

I included "currently" because I can't believe that it will stand, unless they really do want us to generate tons of "monsters in the basement" to enforce NBSI.

I am certainly not arguing for any extra mechanics in this thread. If that is what we have to work with that is what we will do. If they put in extra mechanics we will also use them. It really isn't an issue as far as I am concerned


Valtorious wrote:

I'm just going to address everyone since I am losing track of my conversations. The points I am trying to make are these. We all have our definitions of what griefers are. Some have set the bar lower, some have set the bar higher. But we can all agree mostly that we don't want a game where newcomers are unwelcome and are abused in a way that it kills the game.

That being said...I am trying to point out that while everyone is so focused on single player griefing...I fear that an unregulated, unrestricted NBSI system is just griefing at a guild level. A year after launch...if a group of 4 high school friends decide to make their own little guild...and can't travel anywhere and even the LG guys are wiping them out for walking on their lawn...we are going to have big community problems.

Yes this might be a resource warfare game...but I do not think that some alignment restrictions are crazy to want if a nbsi system goes into place. Steelwing wants to kill anyone who enters his land. No questions asked. That is great...I have no problem with that. But when he rolls his character...he shouldn't be good. That is not a stretch or too much to ask, I don't think.

To put things bluntly. How are you going to stop us. Put alignment restrictions and we will just use unaffiliated alts to sad and unaffiliated monsters in the basement to kill.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
Also, Good whether rp or not believes in No Trespassing signs too.

Yeah, but killing a trespasser on sight is a very "good" action. I just want to this to make sense. I don't want a Holy Order of bored Paladins killing anyone caught trespassing. I really don't have a problem with penalties.

Say I am a thief and I am secretly farming a resource of yours....and then 3 Paladins. Ride up. I think it is reasonable for the Paladins to say "You have broken our settlements laws, pay x amount of fine." Now if, I as the thief decide, screw that, then I think the Paladins have the right to enforce the law through violence (in a perfect world they would subdue the thief and imprison him and only kill him if the thief reacted violently).

I am not opposed to settlements setting their own rules...I just think that they should be alignment of rep based. That is all. I can even see a Lawful neutral settlement having very strict, no nonsense laws. But a blanket NBSI system just irks me because one of the penalties of playing a "good" character should be being "good".

Again I ask when you know you aren't wanted in our lands why would you be in there except to be up to no good? If you can show me a valid reason you want to be in our lands and convince me that we should allow it I may agree with you.

Until then you have no need to be there and what you are doing is in effect walking through the paladins front door plonking yourself down on his couch and asking whats on tv. I think most would agree the paladin is perfectly within his rights to eject you with force.

There is a difference between sitting on someones couch, walking through their lawn, or simply strolling through their community. As I said before...catching a thief in the act should be enough to warrant a choice to pay a fine. But judging someone guilty regardless of evidence, executions for trespassing, and violence of that nature is not what any Paladin, or any good aligned character would do. Once again...good be castrated....I would like to see options like SAD implemented when good deals with minor crimes.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
... you're willing to convict some proportion of not-guiltys to make sure you get all of the guiltys...

I'd say that I'm not willing to let the "guiltys" get a free pass because of a hypothetical case that some exceedingly small number of them might not be guilty.

Conviction on faith without evidence is a standard trope of Tyranny of the Good stories.

In more practical matters, if you're doing this not at the moment they're lowering their Rep how do you expect them to internalize action and consequence to actually make the feedback loop you want?

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:

I'm just going to address everyone since I am losing track of my conversations. The points I am trying to make are these. We all have our definitions of what griefers are. Some have set the bar lower, some have set the bar higher. But we can all agree mostly that we don't want a game where newcomers are unwelcome and are abused in a way that it kills the game.

That being said...I am trying to point out that while everyone is so focused on single player griefing...I fear that an unregulated, unrestricted NBSI system is just griefing at a guild level. A year after launch...if a group of 4 high school friends decide to make their own little guild...and can't travel anywhere and even the LG guys are wiping them out for walking on their lawn...we are going to have big community problems.

Yes this might be a resource warfare game...but I do not think that some alignment restrictions are crazy to want if a nbsi system goes into place. Steelwing wants to kill anyone who enters his land. No questions asked. That is great...I have no problem with that. But when he rolls his character...he shouldn't be good. That is not a stretch or too much to ask, I don't think.

So your issue is that you don't want NBSI to be the most common policy (including those that claim to be NRDS but are really NBSI)?

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

Am I getting this right here? It is expected that many settlements will go NBSI and (currently) there are no mechanics planned, besides reputation, and criminal behavior to enforce that.

I included "currently" because I can't believe that it will stand, unless they really do want us to generate tons of "monsters in the basement" to enforce NBSI.

I am certainly not arguing for any extra mechanics in this thread. If that is what we have to work with that is what we will do. If they put in extra mechanics we will also use them. It really isn't an issue as far as I am concerned

You will have to if they don't make mechanics. I have no doubt that you will find the least painful way to do what you want to do. It only makes sense. :)

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Valtorious wrote:

That being said...I am trying to point out that while everyone is so focused on single player griefing...I fear that an unregulated, unrestricted NBSI system is just griefing at a guild level. A year after launch...if a group of 4 high school friends decide to make their own little guild...and can't travel anywhere and even the LG guys are wiping them out for walking on their lawn...we are going to have big community problems.

Yes this might be a resource warfare game...but I do not think that some alignment restrictions are crazy to want if a nbsi system goes into place. Steelwing wants to kill anyone who enters his land. No questions asked. That is great...I have no problem with that. But when he rolls his character...he shouldn't be good. That is not a stretch or too much to ask, I don't think.

That's what the first post of this topic is about. The first section is a list of fairly major incentives to open up your territory to all. The 2nd part is a list of ways to control that territory.

Without some form of controls though, it's not really your territory. Also it is not evil of a nation to control access to it's own borders. In most real world nations, you can't get across the border without getting checked out by the border patrol and showing some kind of passport. That passport is what makes you blue (Not Blue Shoot It). So most nations run a policy of Not Blue Don't Let it In or Not Blue Deport It. It's in no way an evil policy. That's their soil and they want to make sure their citizens are protected from the dangers that letting just anyone who wanders up with no background check and no cargo screening can present.

However in Pathfinder borders tend to be more open because Pathfinder is a game focused on adventure and it would really suck if your character needed a background check every time they crossed the border of one kingdom into another. Not to mention the technology is not a friendly toward those types of things in PF.

That's why the first section of the OP is basically saying that if you want to enjoy optimal economic success, you need to open up your borders to most players.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Valtorious wrote:

I'm just going to address everyone since I am losing track of my conversations. The points I am trying to make are these. We all have our definitions of what griefers are. Some have set the bar lower, some have set the bar higher. But we can all agree mostly that we don't want a game where newcomers are unwelcome and are abused in a way that it kills the game.

That being said...I am trying to point out that while everyone is so focused on single player griefing...I fear that an unregulated, unrestricted NBSI system is just griefing at a guild level. A year after launch...if a group of 4 high school friends decide to make their own little guild...and can't travel anywhere and even the LG guys are wiping them out for walking on their lawn...we are going to have big community problems.

Yes this might be a resource warfare game...but I do not think that some alignment restrictions are crazy to want if a nbsi system goes into place. Steelwing wants to kill anyone who enters his land. No questions asked. That is great...I have no problem with that. But when he rolls his character...he shouldn't be good. That is not a stretch or too much to ask, I don't think.

So your issue is that you don't want NBSI to be the most common policy (including those that claim to be NRDS but are really NBSI)?

Honestly...I don't know what the best system would be. Having NBSI or NRDS is probably just an added layer we don't need. But I can see the merits of being able to set rules for your own settlements. But if there are alignments in the game, and a reputation system in place, I would like to see the same rules that are applied to alignment/reputation applied to NBSI. Otherwise, this just becomes a war simulator with no role-playing aspect at all. Good and evil will have no consequences and it just a game of resources.

And I would still play that game as well...but if we are playing a game of greed...kill for stuff....then do away with alignments altogether and have rep only reflect trustworthiness (breaking or not breaking deals).

551 to 600 of 1,127 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.