The Purpose of Reputation


Pathfinder Online

151 to 172 of 172 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
The gods never choose to take an action which is against their alignment, just like the rain on Galorian does not fall up, and trees do not grow down from the sky (except when they do).

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present Exhibit 1. Through this we can see that sometimes, gods do act against their nature. (Really though, it's just the exception to prove the rule because it took powerful alien beings mucking about to change this god :P)

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
I hearby move that from on it is referred to as GW Approved pvp as it definitely has no relation to the tags meaningful or meaningless

It's their campaign, and 'meaningful' is a subjective term. We may be contributing artists in a sense, but they're the directors/editors. The design space between no PvP (or opt-in only) and complete free-for-all has a lot of territory to be explored. If an aconsequential free-for-all is what you're looking for, there are plenty of those already.


Pax Keovar wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
I hearby move that from on it is referred to as GW Approved pvp as it definitely has no relation to the tags meaningful or meaningless
It's their campaign, and 'meaningful' is a subjective term. We may be contributing artists in a sense, but they're the directors/editors. The design space between no PvP (or opt-in only) and complete free-for-all has a lot of territory to be explored. If an aconsequential free-for-all is what you're looking for, there are plenty of those already.

Meaningful is not subjective in the least I can define it precisely

Meaningful PVP is pvp which I partake in because in someway benefits my character or my company or my settlement.

GW approved PVP does not necessarily fulfil that definition as in feuding someones company because you saw them wearing a green hat

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:


The gods never choose to take an action which is against their alignment, just like the rain on [Golarion] does not fall up, and trees do not grow down from the sky (except when they do).

Trees live and die; is the ground nature of the tree a choice of...

You just restated my point. The gods are in the position of divine relay since they express (or are shaped by) something in the environment which exists independently of them, and GMs are in the position of divine command because they dictate how the environment itself works. If Iomedae advocates torture, she doesn't redefine torture to make it a good act, she herself becomes less good. If the devs, by bug or feature, made torture give 'good points', that becomes the nature of reality in their game. Saying that Iomedae can't do or be other than what she is only further depowers her.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Pax Keovar wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
I hearby move that from on it is referred to as GW Approved pvp as it definitely has no relation to the tags meaningful or meaningless
It's their campaign, and 'meaningful' is a subjective term. We may be contributing artists in a sense, but they're the directors/editors. The design space between no PvP (or opt-in only) and complete free-for-all has a lot of territory to be explored. If an aconsequential free-for-all is what you're looking for, there are plenty of those already.

Meaningful is not subjective in the least I can define it precisely

Meaningful PVP is pvp which I partake in because in someway benefits my character or my company or my settlement.

GW approved PVP does not necessarily fulfil that definition as in feuding someones company because you saw them wearing a green hat

Well, you'll probably get a green hat out of the feud, so it has some benefit, right?


Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Pax Keovar wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
I hearby move that from on it is referred to as GW Approved pvp as it definitely has no relation to the tags meaningful or meaningless
It's their campaign, and 'meaningful' is a subjective term. We may be contributing artists in a sense, but they're the directors/editors. The design space between no PvP (or opt-in only) and complete free-for-all has a lot of territory to be explored. If an aconsequential free-for-all is what you're looking for, there are plenty of those already.

Meaningful is not subjective in the least I can define it precisely

Meaningful PVP is pvp which I partake in because in someway benefits my character or my company or my settlement.

GW approved PVP does not necessarily fulfil that definition as in feuding someones company because you saw them wearing a green hat

Well, you'll probably get a green hat out of the feud, so it has some benefit, right?

Green is not my color so no :)

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Meaningful is not subjective in the least I can define it precisely

False.

Steelwing wrote:
Meaningful PVP is pvp which I partake in because in someway benefits my character or my company or my settlement.

Unless you're going to claim to be a solipsist, something being meaningful to you does not make it meaningful objectively. Goblinworks, being the gamemaster of this particular campaign, does get to determine what types & contexts of PvP they think will add to the game in a meaningful way. If those parameters don't work for you, you're free to accept the consequences or just walk away. If you pledge then you even get a little crowdforging influence, but you still don't get to make your subjective into the campaign's objective.


Pax Keovar wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Meaningful is not subjective in the least I can define it precisely

False.

Steelwing wrote:
Meaningful PVP is pvp which I partake in because in someway benefits my character or my company or my settlement.
Unless you're going to claim to be a solipsist, something being meaningful to you does not make it meaningful objectively. Goblinworks, being the gamemaster of this particular campaign, does get to determine what types & contexts of PvP they think will add to the game in a meaningful way. If those parameters don't work for you, you're free to accept the consequences or just walk away. If you pledge then you even get a little crowdforging influence, but you still don't get to make your subjective into the campaign's objective.

Meaningful I would say has no objective meaning only subjective. What GW define as meaningful is frankly irrelevant to me. Many of the PVP things they claim to be meaningful (faction pvp for example) are perfect examples of pvp for the sake of pvp with no gain.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Meaningful I would say has no objective meaning only subjective.
Pax Keovar wrote:
It's their campaign, and 'meaningful' is a subjective term.

...

Steelwing wrote:

What GW define as meaningful is frankly irrelevant to me. Many of the PVP things they claim to be meaningful (faction pvp for example) are perfect examples of pvp for the sake of pvp with no gain.

As I just said...

Pax Keovar wrote:
Unless you're going to claim to be a solipsist, something being meaningful to you does not make it meaningful objectively. Goblinworks, being the gamemaster of this particular campaign, does get to determine what types & contexts of PvP they think will add to the game in a meaningful way.

'Meaning' is inherently subjective, but as PFO is GW's world, their subjective, not yours, becomes the world's objective.


GW defines the mechanics of the game nothing else

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Pax Keovar wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:


The gods never choose to take an action which is against their alignment, just like the rain on [Golarion] does not fall up, and trees do not grow down from the sky (except when they do).

Trees live and die; is the ground nature of the tree a choice of...

You just restated my point. The gods are in the position of divine relay since they express (or are shaped by) something in the environment which exists independently of them, and GMs are in the position of divine command because they dictate how the environment itself works. If Iomedae advocates torture, she doesn't redefine torture to make it a good act, she herself becomes less good. If the devs, by bug or feature, made torture give 'good points', that becomes the nature of reality in their game. Saying that Iomedae can't do or be other than what she is only further depowers her.

I said nothing about what Iomedae can do. I said only that she doesn't advocate torture, never has, and never will.


To give an example

GW decides that from now on killing a Pax member does not give any alignment shift and grants 1000 rep instantly.

It does not make meaningful killing a pax member it is merely a mechanic

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You certainly can't allow every single person to have their own personal subjective definition of what is "meaningful" PVP in your game. Not when "meaningful" has to be defined so that it can be coded.

It may or may not all be meaningful to you, but it has to be defined by a single entity to be quantified in a shared space.


Bringslite wrote:

You certainly can't allow every single person to have their own personal subjective definition of what is "meaningful" PVP in your game. Not when "meaningful" has to be defined so that it can be coded.

It may or may not all be meaningful to you, but it has to be defined by a single entity to be quantified in a shared space.

My argument from another thread is exactly that they are not coding for meaningful pvp but GW approved pvp and that the two are different.

Frankly GW can tell us this is meaningful till they are blue in the face and if I do not believe it is I will continue to tell them they are wrong.

They are setting up mechanics for what is approved or not approved nothing more.

Goblin Squad Member

It would be fine, and just the same to me, if "meaningful" were called "approved" or "encouraged" instead. It is all semantics and hair splitting.

Edit: It could also be called "meaningful according to GW", but that would get tedious.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Frankly GW can tell us this is meaningful till they are blue in the face and if I do not believe it is I will continue to tell them they are wrong.

"Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken." - Principia Discordia

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The point is, again, that "meaningful" is inherently subjective. As the GM, Goblinworks' subjective is PFO's objective. Trying to equivocate or live in denial doesn't change that.

From here you can: [A]ccept, [B]ounce, or [C]rowdforge.
>_

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Keovar wrote:

The point is, again, that "meaningful" is inherently subjective. As the GM, Goblinworks' subjective is PFO's objective. Trying to equivocate or live in denial doesn't change that.

From here you can: [A]ccept, [B]ounce, or [C]rowdforge.
>_

I like the A B C thing you done did thar!


Pax Keovar wrote:

The point is, again, that "meaningful" is inherently subjective. As the GM, Goblinworks' subjective is PFO's objective. Trying to equivocate or live in denial doesn't change that.

From here you can: [A]ccept, [B]ounce, or [C]rowdforge.
>_

You missed out [I] Ignore what Goblinworks claims which is the option I choose

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Pax Keovar wrote:

The point is, again, that "meaningful" is inherently subjective. As the GM, Goblinworks' subjective is PFO's objective. Trying to equivocate or live in denial doesn't change that.

From here you can: [A]ccept, [B]ounce, or [C]rowdforge.
>_

You missed out [I] Ignore what Goblinworks claims which is the option I choose

That's the same as [B], so why are you still here?


Pax Keovar wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Pax Keovar wrote:

The point is, again, that "meaningful" is inherently subjective. As the GM, Goblinworks' subjective is PFO's objective. Trying to equivocate or live in denial doesn't change that.

From here you can: [A]ccept, [B]ounce, or [C]rowdforge.
>_

You missed out [I] Ignore what Goblinworks claims which is the option I choose
That's the same as [B], so why are you still here?

It is not the same as B at all

Goblinworks can put mechanics in place. That is all they can do.

Just because a killing conforms to a mechanic does not make it meaningful it just means it conforms to a mechanic.

Meaningful is in the eye of the beholder there is no objective measure of meaningful no matter who declares there is.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:

It is not the same as B at all

Goblinworks can put mechanics in place. That is all they can do.

Just because a killing conforms to a mechanic does not make it meaningful it just means it conforms to a mechanic.

Meaningful is in the eye of the beholder there is no objective measure of meaningful no matter who declares there is.

Live in denial or speak your own language if you want, but it's still their game and their definition of "meaningful PvP" is the one which counts. Your personal definition is, appropriately, meaningless in this context.

You are still left with the choices of playing in their world, leaving, or pledging to get a little crowdforging influence where GW allows it. Ignoring the facts of life in their world can only be accomplished by leaving.

151 to 172 of 172 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / The Purpose of Reputation All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online