Questions and dilemmas: Understanding settlements and their affect on you as a player


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
CEO, Goblinworks

@Amri - tbd

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Banesama wrote:
When personal homes to come in, I hope they can be burgled. Of course, you should be able to setup traps and then you have local PC and NPC patrols to help prevent or capture thieves.

If they can be burgled, nobody will ever keep anything in them.

Either:

A: Burglary will work at least some of the time, so nobody will risk getting robbed because some players will build characters to maximize burglary and will rob everyone all the time. Players hate any loss of value and they especially hate it when they have no control over the loss.

B: Defense against Burglary will be strong enough that it becomes a perfect defense, in which case nobody will ever use the Burglary system and the effort to design and implement it will be worthless.

Players also hate losing abilities, even if its only a marginal 0.5%. May be a good idea to rethink the loss of skills when leaving a settlement.

The sentence in italics applies to skills as well.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the high-lighted bit might be moved:
Players hate any loss of value and they especially hate it when they have no control over the loss.

Loss of loot on death: player had some control of the situation
Loss of skills because player voluntarily left his settlement: player had complete control of the situation
Loss of skills because settlement was lost after protracted campaign: player had some control of the situation
Loss of equipment or coin from player storage while player was off-line: player had no control of the situation.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Banesama wrote:
When personal homes to come in, I hope they can be burgled. Of course, you should be able to setup traps and then you have local PC and NPC patrols to help prevent or capture thieves.

If they can be burgled, nobody will ever keep anything in them.

Either:

A: Burglary will work at least some of the time, so nobody will risk getting robbed because some players will build characters to maximize burglary and will rob everyone all the time. Players hate any loss of value and they especially hate it when they have no control over the loss.

B: Defense against Burglary will be strong enough that it becomes a perfect defense, in which case nobody will ever use the Burglary system and the effort to design and implement it will be worthless.

Players also hate losing abilities, even if its only a marginal 0.5%. May be a good idea to rethink the loss of skills when leaving a settlement.

The sentence in italics applies to skills as well.

Isn't one temporary/volitional vs permanent/lack of agency comparing abilities available vs items stolen and halfway to India by now... !?

Goblin Squad Member

It could be argued that you spend real money for skill points, and free time for items in game. I'd rather lose 10,000 gold worth of loot than a month's worth of skill points I no longer have access to.

This is the argument I believe Xeen is making.

Goblin Squad Member

Since coins have a real-world value thanks to the Goblin Balls trade, coins can be related to real-world cash or free time. There's a basic ratio X * Coin = Y * Goblin Balls = Z * Game Time; the specific numbers replacing X, Y, and Z will be determined by the market and by personal preferences.

Of course, another thing which doesn't factor into that (which you brought up with your example) is the fact that spending Goblin Balls takes time, whether such time is offline or online, in order to train skills. So I suppose that would influence the variable Y above.

@Bludd, if one Goblin Ball is only worth 4k gold, I would rather lose the month of skills than 10k gold in assets.

Goblin Squad Member

It can be argued that way, and it is not invalid. Yet, it is a temporary debuff on the character, just as critical damage debuffs are. Temporary, in the way that they are still there, just unusable. You do not have to "earn" them again.

Still, the original idea WAS presented in a bleak way. Someone (Steelwing) said it was like kicking a dog that had just been run over. It sounds like they are looking for ways to mitigate it from what we originally took the first meaning to be.

CEO, Goblinworks

6 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't lose a character ability. You lose its use. As soon as you are affiliated with a Settlement that enables that ability, it is restored.

It is precisely the strong emotions players feel when denied access to something they have earned which makes the link to Settlemtent development an effective tool to manage their behavior. It is leverage in a game where death is meaningless.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:

You don't lose a character ability. You lose its use. As soon as you are affiliated with a Settlement that enables that ability, it is restored.

It is precisely the strong emotions players feel when denied access to something yet have earned which makes the link to Settlemtent development an effective tool to manage their behavior. It is leverage in a game where death is meaningless.

As aggressive entities conquer and displace weaker settlements, displaced characters will have the ability to strengthen those "next on the list" by joining up.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

Since coins have a real-world value thanks to the Goblin Balls trade, coins can be related to real-world cash or free time. There's a basic ratio X * Coin = Y * Goblin Balls = Z * Game Time; the specific numbers replacing X, Y, and Z will be determined by the market and by personal preferences.

Of course, another thing which doesn't factor into that (which you brought up with your example) is the fact that spending Goblin Balls takes time, whether such time is offline or online, in order to train skills. So I suppose that would influence the variable Y above.

@Bludd, if one Goblin Ball is only worth 4k gold, I would rather lose the month of skills than 10k gold in assets.

We are not comparing one player having 4k of gold stolen. We are talking about 1,000 players losing a month's worth of skill training.

There is no comparison to the loss of a settlement and any other loss in the game. This leads me to believe, and I could be wrong, that already skills trained will not be impacted by the loss of a settlement. The outcry on the forums will be too great. The other possibility is that it will be made virtually impossible to take over a settlement, and the real fighting will come down to POIs and Outposts.

To believe your argument I would have to believe the player base is more concerned over the loss of a sword, but they are perfectly ok with the loss of a settlement it took them months or even years to build, and all of the skills they had attached to it.

I'm not buying it.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


We are not comparing one player having 4k of gold stolen. We are talking about 1,000 players losing a month's worth of skill training.

There is no comparison to the loss of a settlement and any other loss in the game. This leads me to believe, and I could be wrong, that already skills trained will not be impacted by the loss of a settlement. The outcry on the forums will be too great. The other possibility is that it will be made virtually impossible to take over a settlement, and the real fighting will come down to POIs and Outposts.

To believe your argument I would have to believe the player base is more concerned over the loss of a sword, but they are perfectly ok with the loss of a settlement it took them months or even years to build, and all of the skills they had attached to it.

I'm not buying it.

You lose nothing that you have earned with skill training.

Goblin Squad Member

If we are talking about fairly common skills, yes they may be fairly easy to regain access to them. It is the " corner cases", you Paladins that are more at risk than anyone.

It remains to be seen how this pans out when settlement conflict is unlocked.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Bludd, that's not fair, you moved the goalpost by orders of magnitude there. 1 month of training for one person just suddenly became 1 month of training for thousands of people plus the settlement that took them months and years to build. My argument is that your original goalposts, "10k gold loss is not as bad as a month of training lost", seem totally unfounded to me, as you fill in one variable of the equation and then say there's no way for the other one to be equal, which was patently false with such a simple linear equation.

If, however, we're changing the argument to "1 sword lost versus 1 settlement lost", well duh the settlement is worse to lose, I wouldn't argue otherwise. :)

I never said "if a person leaves the settlement they should lose all the skills they've ever trained there" or anything remotely close to that, so I don't know why you are pinning something like that as "my argument". Please refrain from these ridiculous argumentative antics when not replying to Andius (I don't really read the posts you two do back and forth, so you can write whatever you want there as far as I'm concerned).

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

If we are talking about fairly common skills, yes they may be fairly easy to regain access to them. It is the " corner cases", you Paladins that are more at risk than anyone.

It remains to be seen how this pans out when settlement conflict is unlocked.

It does remain to be seen, what the actual affects are. I have my doubts that "corner cases" will amount to 1,000 players when a settlement is lost. I have my doubts that the skill access that is temporarily unusable, will be the most important of any character's skills or that they will make the character more than very marginally less powerful then he was.

When this "access loss" was first presented, I was concerned. Recent posts and hints have made it seem like it will not be as bad as we first thought. Definitely there will be incentive to get that access back, somehow, but I doubt that the character will be ineffective enough that it is impossible.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane,

I was not attacking your argument, just pointing out that it could be orders of magnitude less than what was originally argued.

I have from the first post along dealing with this issue said I could be wrong or it remains to be seen after testing.

I'm actually pleased that it appears the impact might not be as bad as I originally thought. Ryan's response assuaged done of those concerns.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:

You don't lose a character ability. You lose its use. As soon as you are affiliated with a Settlement that enables that ability, it is restored.

It is precisely the strong emotions players feel when denied access to something they have earned which makes the link to Settlemtent development an effective tool to manage their behavior. It is leverage in a game where death is meaningless.

Same argument can be used for theft. You can regain any losses with extra time. Its not like you permanently lose gold.

So if my LG Paladin loses his Settlement, from being conquered.... I lose access to my skills. I cannot find another settlement which I either like the way they behave, or have access to the skills... Then Im just SOL right?


Are we talking about lessening loss to a point where it really doesn't matter here?

Because if there is nothing to loose, or very little, then I feel it will have a pretty big impact on how we treat settlements.

I think the danger of loss is important.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Yeah it would be dumb to allow you to keep using a character ability that you couldn't slot if it wasn't already slotted.

Yet that seems to be a very obvious way to apply a penalty for settlement loss; you can keep your current ability loadout indefinitely, but if you change anything (even just to change an unrelated passive slot), every ability must be supported by your current settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Cirolle wrote:

Are we talking about lessening loss to a point where it really doesn't matter here?

Because if there is nothing to loose, or very little, then I feel it will have a pretty big impact on how we treat settlements.

I think the danger of loss is important.

The loss of a settlement is still huge, even without losing access to trained skills.

The first, what 15 or so, EE settlements will be acquired through the land rush. If those settlements are lost after OE, there is little chance those same companies will have their own settlement for a very long time. Sure, they can join another settlement, but that is not the same.

I'm guessing we are going to begin arguing the fact that, when you dig deep enough or follow a trail long enough, you will always end that search with just one person.

If you are not that "one person" the founder of the company or settlement, it is not really your company or settlement. Ultimately, one person has the final say.

So, as refugees, you will never be the same as those that founded the settlement you end up with. Sure they will tell you, you are equal or they don't run their settlement that way, but that really isn't the truth.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Cirolle wrote:

Are we talking about lessening loss to a point where it really doesn't matter here?

Because if there is nothing to loose, or very little, then I feel it will have a pretty big impact on how we treat settlements.

I think the danger of loss is important.

The loss of a settlement is still huge, even without losing access to trained skills.

The first, what 15 or so, EE settlements will be acquired through the land rush. If those settlements are lost after OE, there is little chance those same companies will have their own settlement for a very long time. Sure, they can join another settlement, but that is not the same.

I'm guessing we are going to begin arguing the fact that, when you dig deep enough or follow a trail long enough, you will always end that search with just one person.

If you are not that "one person" the founder of the company or settlement, it is not really your company or settlement. Ultimately, one person has the final say.

So, as refugees, you will never be the same as those that founded the settlement you end up with. Sure they will tell you, you are equal or they don't run their settlement that way, but that really isn't the truth.

If only one person owns the settlement, only one person can lose it; everyone else loses nothing.

If many people are stakeholders in the settlement, there's no hard barrier to them becoming stakeholders in a different one.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I guess as a refugee with 12-18 months in the game, you're still better off than the new guy who joined yesterday, right?

Somehow, we'll expect some small fraction of newer players to found settlements in the new frontiers, but the refugees with 12-18 months of accumulated skills (not all of which are useless) are the ones at a disadvantage.

The solution for the refugee seems pretty straight forward. Create another new settlement, hold your nose and join someone else's, or live in the NPC settlements as a lesser mortal. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

CEO, Goblinworks

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it is highly highly unlikely that a cohesive group that has done even minimal planning in the face of overwhelming aggression will be knocked out of the Kingdom game. They're likely to have to move to the frontier for sure, but they'll storm into the frontier as a powerful force that will probably target the weakest available Settlement out there and whack it. And if they can't, well, they probably don't deserve to remain a Settlement and they'll have a failure cascade.

Goblin Squad Member

I like the idea of these "kingdom games" I just wish, like Ultima Online, I had more of a choice to be a "behind the scenes" kind of guy. Maybe a traveling merchant who sells the highest quality goods to all the "uber" settlements. Or perhaps a guide, sought after by settlements to lead them through the perilous places of the world. I find it a bit negative that I have to be part of a settlement to have my voice heard or make the highest tier gear. I'd rather my reputation or abilities be dependent on the goods or services I provide or perhaps my fighting skills rather then what settlement I'm attached to. Does this make sense? It seems like the settlement system is "pigeon holing" players into only communicating or accomplishing things with citizens of their own settlement.

In Ultima Online, if I left my guild, I could still adventure effectively, trade with any other guild or type of player. I could visit towns, chop wood, shop and none of this was effected at all by my guild. I find freedom in this, and in contrast, I feel constricted by what has been described here in Pathfinder Online. Why does the "kingdom game" seem to touch all aspects of PO? Would it not be more positive if it was just one of the many avenues available in the game to take part in?

Just something to think about!

Goblin Squad Member

I think there could be plenty of room within the kingdom game for merchants and mercenaries.

Just off the top of my head - thinking about the books about the Dorsai (Gordon R. Dickson). They belong to a poor planet, whose primary cash export is soldiers - because they don't have much else of value to export. (See also, Swiss Pikemen. See also, Fijian contingents to UN and MFO). I'd think that would be totally doable with the settlement structure that has been outlined so far.

And merchants - I'd expect plenty of settlements will have merchants that roam the map. There's a benefit to being a citizen of a nation that plans to be a trade empire. (See also, Venice. See also, Dutch East Indies Company).

And honestly, if you ask someone where they're from, and the answer is "I don't really have a home settlement," yeah, some doors will be closed. Do you invest in someone who has no apparent ties - and accept the risk that he might be on the road tomorrow? Or do you give your business to someone that an ally recommends?


Urman wrote:
And honestly, if you ask someone where they're from, and the answer is "I don't really have a home settlement," yeah, some doors will be closed. Do you invest in someone who has no apparent ties - and accept the risk that he might be on the road tomorrow? Or do you give your business to someone that an ally recommends?

And yet that scenario will just not exist in numbers enough to count if character class abilities are disabled, forcing them to join any old settlement in any old capacity, in order to flip them back on. How is that promoting meaningful human interaction? All it is doing is pushing people who might be unaffiliated for some period of time into affiliations of convenience, which don't really carry as much meaning as they would if such affiliation ISN'T a necessity for using class abilities. If this isn't even about training, but using class abilities, then the bar for such associations will be EVEN LOWER, since the the character doesn't necessarily need to establish an equitable trade of their labor/value for needed training, but simply for the token value of joining so that their abilities flip back on.

Goblin Squad Member

Cirolle wrote:

Are we talking about lessening loss to a point where it really doesn't matter here?

Because if there is nothing to loose, or very little, then I feel it will have a pretty big impact on how we treat settlements.

I think the danger of loss is important.

Not at all. And you are correct, thats what brought me into the idea of this game. Loss is important.

I just dont care for the loss of skills.

When Im killed in PVP, I will lose equipment and gold. When I lose a settlement, I will lose the time and effort put into building it... and lose all the features of it. Which are vast even when you do not count skill training.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:

I like the idea of these "kingdom games" I just wish, like Ultima Online, I had more of a choice to be a "behind the scenes" kind of guy. Maybe a traveling merchant who sells the highest quality goods to all the "uber" settlements. Or perhaps a guide, sought after by settlements to lead them through the perilous places of the world. I find it a bit negative that I have to be part of a settlement to have my voice heard or make the highest tier gear. I'd rather my reputation or abilities be dependent on the goods or services I provide or perhaps my fighting skills rather then what settlement I'm attached to. Does this make sense? It seems like the settlement system is "pigeon holing" players into only communicating or accomplishing things with citizens of their own settlement.

In Ultima Online, if I left my guild, I could still adventure effectively, trade with any other guild or type of player. I could visit towns, chop wood, shop and none of this was effected at all by my guild. I find freedom in this, and in contrast, I feel constricted by what has been described here in Pathfinder Online. Why does the "kingdom game" seem to touch all aspects of PO? Would it not be more positive if it was just one of the many avenues available in the game to take part in?

Just something to think about!

Red hot topic: I'm not sure if I'm right ie I'm guessing and more likely wrong, but I'll hazard a go:

(1) Ultima Online works on the basis of a simulation ie object-orientated properties and leading to a lot of freedom for individuals sharing the world with other individuals? This allows free choice and emergence but at the cost of chaotic development of the game world and exploits?

(2) Whereas I think if PFO goes the EVE route, the infrastructure is built around player interactions and built upwards from that? So every player is sort of chained to other players with the result that scaling chains of players is the way to develop the infrastructure of the game world and that then becomes the so-called simulation of complex "butterfly effects"?

Verdict:

It seems to me, initially players will definitely have less freedom to experiment and perhaps less personal experiences than UO. But if the infrastructure scales up and up the world might become more complex self-balancing system than UO achieved (it gets more chaotic over time?)? Then you might find that players could form totally unexpected roles within this huge structure?

For example,

But it seems like a lot of niches will be driven by finding a margin in the above via making contacts in some form eg a small travelling band of troubadours selling entertainment (to players in person) and settlement influence (via systems)? Part of their niche is being independent and specialist and travelling around maybe via contacts? Of course there's nothing stopping a rival troubadour band from muscling in on your margins...

/100% pure theoretical

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
You don't lose a character ability. You lose its use. As soon as you are affiliated with a Settlement that enables that ability, it is restored.(....)

Same argument can be used for theft. You can regain any losses with extra time. Its not like you permanently lose gold.

So if my LG Paladin loses his Settlement, from being conquered.... I lose access to my skills. I cannot find another settlement which I either like the way they behave, or have access to the skills... Then Im just SOL right?

The comparison with theft is flawed. Your skills are being impounded more than stolen.

If you lose your settlement and cannot find any other matching settlement to join, then you are indeed screwed. But it would be strange if all the other paladins from your former home could find a new home but not you. It would rather expect settlements to offer building new facilities in order to recruit a team of high-skill paladins.

Goblin Squad Member

This is totally off subject but I just noticed I used affect instead of effect. Tisk tisk.

Goblin Squad Member

So a settlement looses their kingdom and has to head to the frontier to try to take a new one, but they have to do so without the T3 skills they had when they were trying to defend the original one? That doesn’t make much sense at all, if they couldn’t get by with better tiers of skills what chance would they have a against a settlement that has access to the higher tiers?

When Ryan hinted at loosing a settlement and using a NPC one, was he thinking the PC settlements skills you have trained aren’t lost but are less effective? Something like you can access those skills through the NPC settlements ( give you a better shot at retaking your settlement if it is lost.) but perhaps at a .75 effect rate as what those skills would be if you had your own settlement..

Still wouldn’t be able to train the higher skills or advance at NPC places but could at least access your knowledge to some degree if you lose your home base.. Would hate to think if a settlement was on the loosing end the choices would boil down to head to the newest created hex and put down new roots, or feebly fight against people that had T2 + skills against your T1 skills, or disband.

Goblin Squad Member

If you lost from a position of defense in the first place, it will indeed be difficult to regroup and retake your settlement (alone), from an aggressive direct assault, in a quick manner. (depending on what is left and the interest in the original aggressor in holding the spot and about 1 million other things)

Remember that death is not overly penalizing. Destruction and hampering of your enemy is, though. Indirect tactics, allies, being prepared to restart quickly further away. Everyone that an entity steamrolls, leaves an ever growing pool of possible allies (if you are so inclined).

CEO, Goblinworks

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Remember that Pathfinder Online is a game of increasing complexity, not primarily increasing power.

Advanced skills are about using keywords and getting marginal improvements to attributes. A very old character stripped of Settlement-linked character abilities will be less flexible, and marginally less powerful, than a similar character who has not lost access to those aspects of their character sheet. But they won't be gimped. It is not the difference between a 10th level fighter and a 20th level fighter on the tabletop.

It means that crafters will be slightly less efficient and may not be able to make exotic goods. It means that transporters will not be able to move quite as much stuff. It means that harvesters will get less material per time unit, or the quality of what they get will be slightly less.

These "slightly less" things add up to a huge advantage when the Settlement is cohesive and working with an integrated plan, which is why there's a value in getting them. But the frontier is the place where you will find less cohesive Settlements who are struggling to learn how to work as a team. If a group of characters backed by wealth and experience show up they're going to be able to displace the weakest Settlement through ability and strategy.

If a Settlement from the core gets destroyed and it's leadership falls apart in a round of finger-pointing, and nobody managed to haul off lots of weapons, armor, rare materials, wagons, etc. before the end, and the Settlement doesn't have enough harvesters or crafters or teamsters or soldiers to pose a threat to anyone, then it's going to dissolve and its members will find new homes.

Goblin Squad Member

Tuffon wrote:
So a settlement looses their kingdom and has to head to the frontier to try to take a new one, but they have to do so without the T3 skills they had when they were trying to defend the original one? That doesn’t make much sense at all, if they couldn’t get by with better tiers of skills what chance would they have a against a settlement that has access to the higher tiers?

I expect that the "frontier" Settlements will be less-developed, and therefore their Members won't have those T3 Abilities either.

Goblin Squad Member

Expanding on my last post a bit, I wouldn't be surprised if the level of Development of the Frontier Settlements is a major factor in determining whether or not to expand the map.

I can't imagine PFO ever getting to the point where all of the existing Settlement Hexes are claimed by well-developed Settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

It would probably be a great idea to have "contingency" plans. Plans that are always evolving as things change. Plans that factor in (as much as possible) any weaknesses that come from not being able to access your most advanced abilities for a while.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:


If a Settlement from the core gets destroyed and it's leadership falls apart in a round of finger-pointing, and nobody managed to haul off lots of weapons, armor, rare materials, wagons, etc. before the end, and the Settlement doesn't have enough harvesters or crafters or teamsters or soldiers to pose a threat to anyone, then it's going to dissolve and its members will find new homes.

And that is how history in PFO will be made. Wouldn't it be cool, when a large settlement falls that has been around for quit a while, some sort of Lore-marker would appear in that hex (near what will be the new settlement) stating the name(or a small tekst) of what was once there.

Not necessarily automatically, but maybe something that you could buy in the GW Store, like a stone marker that you could inscript with the name of the former Settlement and some data and/or names of its leaders/inhabitants and then could place near the former settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Tyncale, seems like an interesting subject for an Archaeology skill.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
@Tyncale, seems like an interesting subject for an Archaeology skill.

I second this.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
@Tyncale, seems like an interesting subject for an Archaeology skill.

"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains...

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Deianira wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
@Tyncale, seems like an interesting subject for an Archaeology skill.

"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains...

This too shall pass away.

Goblin Squad Member

And I hope we also have the chroniclers keeping records of such things in and/or out of game. Wouldn't it be awesome to write a short story, using the PFO play area and a timeline of player settlements' growth, decline, and destruction as your setting for the piece (as an example, a protagonist of a young boy who grew up in New Korvosa, a player settlement, and joined the army, fighting in the final battles before the destruction of the city)? Just thinking about such things has me so excited to play, because I've never really approached MMO's in ways like this before. :)


My question is what is the intended nature of True Neutral Settlements?

Disregarding the issue of characters 'defecting' from Settlements,
are Clerics of Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic Gods (presumably with non-TN Aligned Abilities) meant to be viable members of those Settlements?
If none of those Aligned abilities are even usable, much less trainable, while members of TN Settlements,
they are at minimum missing out on a major defining Class Feature, so to speak.

I guess they could still be members, and focus on other things besides those Aligned Class Abilities,
but this is a dynamic that I had not previously foreseen from earlier disussion and information about TN Settlements,
which had focused on their open-ness to those within 1-step of Alignment.
I had assumed that TN Settlements could not build Alignment specific buildings and such (which grant unique buffs),
but that Aligned characters could otherwise function normally, other than missing out on those buffs.

Likewise there would be similar implications for Settlement one step away from "Corner" Alignments, in regards to character abilities that are keyed to TWO Alignment axes, i.e. Law and Good for (potentially some) Paladin abilities, thus those character abilities would not be usable while a member of a NG Settlement. That depends on there actually being 2-Axis-Keyed Abilities though, I could easily see Paladin abilities only being keyed to either Law or Good, but not both for one single ability... Paladins lose access to ALL of those abilities (both Law and Good) if they themelves cease to be LG (presuming tabletop norms), but COULD continue using either Law or Good Aligned abilities if they are a member of a LN or NG Settlement (respectively). Avoiding 2-Axis-Keyed Abilities seems the only viable approach unless entire Classes are to be restricted to only one Alignment of Settlement, and thus be usable by that many less players/characters.

...???


Related question: How would your character having standing in an NPC Faction of relevant Alignment change things?
(i.e. while being a member of a PC Settlement that does not fulfill the relevant Alignment)

Goblin Squad Member

I don't see why a TN Settlement wouldn't build/train for most aligned clerics. LN, NG, TN, NE, CN. If the demand is there.

Of course, LG Paladins high skills won't be trainable.

CEO, Goblinworks

The design does not consider an alignment as a reason to have a Settlement. It considers a group of characters triangulating on the alignment they can share to have a Settlement. There's nothing in the design that tries to tie some meaningful benefit to a Settlement alignment.


I'm confused. That statement sounds like my previous understanding of the rules.
(albeit I understood there will be Alignment specific buildings/upgrades, but there would be attractive options for each Alignment)
But this latest info here suggests that you cannot Use/Train/Re-Slot Aligned Abilities that don't match the Settlement.
That sounds like a meaningful benefit/restriction at the character level, beyond 'triangulation' of who can be co-members of your Settlement...???

I don't really care, I honestly can see benefits to either approach and either way could be viable,
but the implications of the latest info just conflicted with how I understood the place of Neutral Settlements.

Would it be fair to say that Paladin Abilities will be only tied to 1 axis for each ability? (in terms of Settlement compatability, not necessarily personal Alignment)
That allows a similar dynamic* to Clerics of Neutral+(Good/Evil/Law/Chaos) Deities, who presumably could also have "Neutral" Aligned Abilities to call upon.
(and thus be able to use that half of their Aligned Abilities in a TN Settlement, or NG/LN in case of Paladins)

* albeit less flexible, with 2 adjacent alignments being legit Settlements for LG Paladins,
while there is 3 adjacent alignments being legit for Clerics of Neutral+X Deities... but that's the nature of things.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
The design does not consider an alignment as a reason to have a Settlement. It considers a group of characters triangulating on the alignment they can share to have a Settlement. There's nothing in the design that tries to tie some meaningful benefit to a Settlement alignment.

The reality is, settlement alignment has already been a consideration of several player groups. The perception is that lawful based settlements will have an advantage.

The design considerations or lack thereof are irrelevant. Supply and demand for various alignments will drive what settlements need to be started, to fill that need.

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We did not sit down and say "There are 9 alignments. what will be the cool thing each alignment gets?"

There are some cool things that characters can get based on their alignment but there is nothing cool that the Settlement gets based on its alignment.

A NG, LN and LG Settlement are all roughly equivalent if the question is "what is the best Settlement alignment for my character that wants to become a Paladin"

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

We did not sit down and say "There are 9 alignments. what will be the cool thing each alignment gets?"

There are some cool things that characters can get based on their alignment but there is nothing cool that the Settlement gets based on its alignment.

A NG, LN and LG Settlement are all roughly equivalent if the question is "what is the best Settlement alignment for my character that wants to become a Paladin"

Can a character become a Paladin in a Chaotic Good settlement?

Will a LN settlement feel compelled to build a top tier structure to support Paladins, if their numbers make up a very small % of the overall population?

The point I'm making here is that a group of future Paladins are going to be best served by building a Lawful Good settlement to serve their class / alignment needs.

Now we can argue the chicken and egg "which came first?" game, but it doesn't make a difference. Alignment is being considered for establishing settlements, and this is particularly true for the corner alignments of LE and LG.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I get the feeling that WE have the impression that training structures will be much more specific than they actually will be.

51 to 100 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Questions and dilemmas: Understanding settlements and their affect on you as a player All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.