Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the renewed talk of creating good vs evil settlements and societies, I would like to take a moment to reinforce my hope that True Neutral remains/becomes a viable play option for social groups of any size (CC/Settlement/Nation). My fear is artificial limitation.
I understand some of the objections previously raised (including those by the Devs), but would love to hear some perspectives on those objections. Including those objections which might not have been previously raised but seem to be an emergent factor, such as Neutral really being a balance of doing Good act and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic...as opposed to what I am looking for, a lack of pursuing the extreme in any (for instance, I will probably never violate a Contract...does that necessarily make me Lawful?, I will probably never kill outside of need or sanctioned mechanics...does that necessarily make me Good?). Perhaps we can explore some options that had not been previously considered.
With this plea, comes a reminder that there are two sides of every alignment, Good means you would act with Compassion, even if you never get the opportunity; one cannot hide their heart from the gods. There are those who fight for the side of Good...there are those who simply live their lives with Compassion, helping their fellows. Evil is not just the deeds of acting Evilly, it is a lack of Compassion. The most Evil person might not ever do Evil or actively fight against Good...but all that they do do is for themselves only. They might never get the need or opportunity to murder others, but they would have no compunction about doing so. Likewise, Neutral has two sides. There is the position of tolerance, often viewed distastefully by other non-Neutral parties as the inability to take a side. This does not necessarily have to be the case, sometimes they are just more pragmatic than their Good kin, and less willing to do anything to accomplish their goals than Evil; others, they see a need to combine the rationalism of society with the chaos of nature.
But, there is a flip side to Neutrality, a desire to fight tyranny in any form...for make no mistake, all extremes are a form of tyranny. No one can say those who pursue this philosophy have not chosen a side, clearly they have. We fight to maintain this balance as fervently as those who fight for Good, Evil, Order or Chaos. For example, We of TSV seek knowledge and wisdom in all their forms. Our lore teaches us that all reality is a mutable illusion...if only we can find the cracks in the perceivable reality, we can disbelieve and find the more true one beneath. This is why we focus on the collection of knowledge. We know not what form these cracks will take, nor what pieces of wisdom will reveal them it, but one thing I do know...the destruction and censorship of knowledge, as each extreme alignment would do to the wisdom of their diametric opposite, is counter to our cause.
I do not speak for TSV, and I am sure not all within our leatherbound halls would agree with me...but I intend to stand...as I am able, fighting against that side which grows too strong. A balance can only be maintained by force of arms, strength of whit, and blood on the battlefield.
Do not misunderstand me, I am not recruiting for TSV. I am not even advocating our position. What I am trying to do is show, through example, that True Neutral can be a "side" - a side with valid reasons to participate in the various battles that will range across the River Kingdoms...a side, I hope I am able to take, build, and defend.
So, lets discuss why Neutral is not a viable in game option, the specific problems that can be predicted, and ways to remedy those issues. (Of course, I realize my table top ideas of alignment might have to be revised in PFO, I accept that as a possibility too...in which case, where, for example, would a TN druid stand and why?)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm wondering if GW would allow a TN settlement if the settlement managers had to choose along which axis it would be true neutral?
Option 1: NG, TN, NE
Option 2: LN, TN, CN
This would take away the advantage of a TN settlement being all things to everyone. It would also create a meaningful choice for the settlement managers in establishing the type of TN they wish to run.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm wondering if GW would allow a TN settlement if the settlement managers had to choose along which axis it would be true neutral?
Option 1: NG, TN, NE
Option 2: LN, TN, CN
I've been thinking along these lines recently myself.
It seems reasonable to give each Settlement a total of 4 alignments. Corners would get Adjacents + Neutral; Middle Edges would get Adjacents; and Neutral would have to choose which Adjacent to exclude.
- LG = LG/LN/NG/NN
- CG = CG/CN/NG/NN
- CE = CE/CN/NE/NN
- LE = LE/LN/NE/NN
- NG = NG/LG/CG/NN
- LN = LN/LG/LE/NN
- NE = NE/LE/CE/NN
- CN = CN/CG/CE/NN
- NN = NN/NG/LN/CN (no NE)
- NN = NN/LN/CN/NE (no NG)
- NN = NN/NG/CN/NE (no LN)
- NN = NN/NG/LN/NE (no CN)
This gives NN Characters a lot of options, but doesn't give NN Settlements any more options. It makes sense to me that Neutral Characters could fit into pretty much any Settlement, although I can understand if that would create too much incentive for all Characters to try to be Neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I still feel like the absolute best method is to give each alignment the best line up of abilities for someone truly wishing to play that alignment. For instance good having abilities they can use to render aid to others and evil having abilities they can use to benifit themselves or their group at the expense of others. Make those abilities nice enough that everyone will want at lest a couple and reserve the best ones for the more extremes of each alignment.
Then open up settlements to ranges on the -7500 to 7500 system. True Neutral can have access to every alignment on the 9 point system but be blocked to anyone who's to one of the far sides of either axis. So True Neutral only gets the most extreme abilities for extremely neutral characters.
I think Nihimon's suggestion would benefit TEO the most as our population of players planning on LN/CN is very small, but I think mine makes the most sense. Why would a +7500 lawful paladin join an order that says "Law and chaos are not concepts worth any real concern, morality is the only thing with which we should concern ourselves." I would say simply affiliating themselves with such a group would lower you from +7500 lawful, which should make you a paragon of lawfulness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I fully agree that there should be true neutral as an option, and a powerful one because to a degree it is the most flexible option. In PFO in most cases, because of the nature of the game, people will pick sides, Good, Evil and Neutral…Law, Chaos or Neutral. If you don't give people the option to have a TN settlement you revoke the right of choice. CE may suck to play in the end but you can still decide to play it. I feel the TN as a settlement has the same right. A lot of players may be NE, or NG more because they don't feel strongly in one direction or another but they can still belong to a LG or LE settlement respectively. I think that only those who truly stay neutral or gravitate towards that will want to be part of a TN settlement. Because in most cases people pick sides or get a side picked for them. I hope that made sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(for instance, I will probably never violate a Contract...does that necessarily make me Lawful?, I will probably never kill outside of need or sanctioned mechanics...does that necessarily make me Good?)
if the core and active alignments are still on the table, you would simply set your core to NN. Your alignment would then never drift away from NN due to 'not doing bad stuff'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am still a fan of just letting associations choose any contiguous area 4/9 of the alignment plane using a simple geometric shape tool to center and manipulate on the plane. For example, (for a MVP) imagine a circle 4/9 the size of the square it is inscribed upon. That square is the alignment plane. When setting your associations alignment, you select the center of the circle and the rest is done for you. You can drag the circle to place it exactly where you want it. Any part of the circle that falls off the edge of the square increases the arc everywhere else to insure the area inside the circle and on the square is always 4/9 of the square.
That way, TN can take TN...and a little bit from the inner most of each alignment. It would exclude all extremes and not get the advantage of being all inclusive.
Likewise, we specifically (TSV) could even choose the LG corner of TN, specifically to exclude CE...for which we will probably have little tolerance.
It also means every group automatically gets the same plane coverage.
Or, to simplify, I am not against simply allowing 4 contiguous alignments to be selected.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Trying to impose balance is trying to impose a type of order while producing behaviour that seems chaotic.
You could try to come in on the side of the underdog in a conflict, but that would only prolong it, and any side that accepts your help should want to use up your resources quickly before you change sides. If you instead try to stay out of everything, that might work until one side assumes you're secretly helping their enemies. You can say that you're not giving anyone secret help, but good luck trying to prove a negative.
People are uncomfortable with uncertainty; many would rather believe in vast conspiracies than accept that they simply don't (and possibly can't) know some things. If you're wondering whether someone will support you, "maybe" is harder to take than "no". How do you expect to make a practice of being "maybe" all the time?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not trying to convince you of the validity of my cause, you are welcome to think it as irrational as you want. I am just trying to argue that it is a valid cause, one that should be supported (there is afterall a whole class, druid, that is inclined toward it). We have motive, and the resources we have are only a matter of how much work we are willing to put into recruiting, harvesting, building, and otherwise profiting. How we utilize or intend to utilize those resources to pursue our motive...is beside the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't know about Forencith's take there, or his claim to not be trying to convince one of his validity (while then arguing why it is valid... OK), but Druids are a central part of the game (even if perhaps not amongst the very first class roles released), and excluding TN seems to un-necesarily marginalize them (not that NG, LN, etc Druids aren't legit, but pulling out their central pole just seems weird).
What Andius/Nihimon/Bluddwolf discuss could be a workable approach, but there's plenty of others as well that don't require working on the same 'plane' as the issue of what Settlements CAN you possibly join. Besides what is possible, there is what is OPTIMAL, and a TN Settlement may not be OPTIMAL for anything except Neutral-keyed abilities. Settlements may have Alignment-keyed buildins which grant buffs to all members whose abilities coincide, so if your Settlement doesn't/can't have such a building, then you're missing out on a buff... Even though you can train/use the same abilities, it isn't actually the same because both the Settlment and your Character abilities together define your character's power. Allowing choices that may have sub-optimal trade-offs seems what the game is supposed to be about, NOT just making black and white restrictions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Opposition to tyranny sounds more Chaos, not Neutral. Not saying that Neutral can not have some opposition to tyranny. Moderate opposition. But dedicated focused opposition to all tyranny sounds CN (or NC).
8-)
Tyranny is a cruel or oppressive implementation of the law.
It's strongly associated with the lawful evil alignment and therefore largely opposed by both good and chaos, or really just about anyone not a part of it/benefiting from it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really don't know about Forencith's take there, or his claim to not be trying to convince one of his validity (while then arguing why it is valid... OK)
Oops, sorry...half IC, half not...and arguing two different things. One, I was arguing for the validity of TN as a faction/playable alignment. What I was not arguing was the validity of my RP rationale, my cause. Sorry for the confusion.
Opposition to tyranny sounds more Chaos, not Neutral. Not saying that Neutral can not have some opposition to tyranny. Moderate opposition. But dedicated focused opposition to all tyranny sounds CN (or NC).
Well, the way I specifically defined tyranny was someone who would/could censure the material you have access too. Were demons able, they would destroy all LE creatures and their ideas/literature, were devils able, they would destroy all CE creatures and their ideas/literature. Pure Law vs Pure Chaos, untempered by an iota of compassion, and they can both be tyrants...as I defined the term. Again, my apologies for the half IC/half OOC confusion.
your settlement can be any variety of neutral other than True Neutral and include True Neutral characters. Thus a NG, LN, NE, or CN settlement can accommodate TN druids. That's half the possible alignments for settlements.
Of course, but re: "pulling out their central pole just seems weird":
Druid as a TN-centric class should plausibly have Neutral Alignment-keyed abilities in both Law and Morality axes.Only allowing Druids 'edge' Neutral Settlements means they can never access all class' abilities, even if they themselves are TN.
Rather than impose a black/white exclusion of TN Settlements because that 'flexibility' would be too appealing
(not re: Druids/TN Deity Clerics themselves, but simply because of '1-step access' to other Alignments),
the other Settlements just need to have enough other appealing factors, which can be from unique synergy between Settle/Character Alignment.
Permissability of joining a Settlement need not be the end of the story, and TN flexibility may still be missing some things.
While TN Settlements may have greater permissability to all but corner alignments,
they will miss out on all unique Alignment synergies EXCEPT Neutral (in either/both axes).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would at this point like to question the logic in a druidic settlement. Why would a druid, master of living with nature, decide to reside in a metropolis/urban setting? And beyond that what group of druids would get together to develop a settlement?
I would instead suggest that there be specific independent PoI types that are for druids, such as a nature camp or something, which would give them access to the in-house training facilities they possibly could be missing by not belonging to/in a settlement.
Because Paizo publishes Druids in many urban locales in their game world, because Paizo Druid may worship the same Deities as Clerics in their game worlds (such as Erastil, patron of rural folk of the folksy homesteader sort, not just Settlement-less nomads), and because you might as well not include Druids at all if they aren't going to have plausibly equitable interaction with the Settlement system in a Settlement-centric game whose developers seem averse to developing niche mechanics rather than broadly applicable ones. They've already specifically said that Druids will use in-Settlement training because that's the way it is. Of course, much of this training may be in common with Clerics of TN Deities in general, and/or "Nature"-focused Deities in general.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I never argued the plausibility of druids being in settlements for specific purposes. I asked why would a druid decide to reside there for its own sake, and more importantly decide to develop a settlement in the first place. I'm not saying druids shouldn't be in settlements, just wondering why druids would be the ones building those settlements in the first place. If the answer is a simple "so they can get the training benefits and such" then I guess that is fine, as it would be unfair to have no system they can use.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than impose a black/white exclusion of TN Settlements because that 'flexibility' would be too appealing
There's no problem on the individual level, and a NN character would have more settlement choices than most.
There's really no problem at the kingdom level, because though the kingdom might be NN, and made up of four settlements (LN, NG, CN, NE), and could therefore cover any individual alignment, people will understand that messing with any one of them means messing with the whole kingdom. Treaties and hostilities would be understood.Now the NN settlement which either tries to actively promote balance by helping the underdogs or tries to passively stay out of things, no one can trust. I mean, you can't trust them to help you or harm you consistently, and if they say they will do neither for anyone... they might be secretly passing goods or information to your enemies. Every side will need to adopt the "for us or against us" stance.
Human psychology prefers affirmation and can deal with negation, but is very bad at accepting uncertainty. "Maybe" is a worse answer than "No", to many. Everything from conspiracy 'theories' to little superstitions, to major supernatural beliefs are used to fill in the gaps when people feel uncertain. Trying to intentionally sit at "maybe" makes you everyone's enemy in a warfare game full of us/them, ingroup/outgroup thinking.
Druid as a TN-centric class should plausibly have Neutral Alignment-keyed abilities in both Law and Morality axes.
Only allowing Druids 'edge' Neutral Settlements means they can never access all class' abilities, even if they themselves are TN.
While TN Settlements may have greater permissability to all but corner alignments,
they will miss out on all unique Alignment synergies EXCEPT Neutral (in either/both axes).
So...
Corner Alignment Settlements offer unique synergies for 2 Alignment components (G or E, L or C) while being compatable with characters who share one of those but are one step away (Neutral) in the other axis.
Edge Alignment Settlements offer unique synergies for 2 Alignment components (N in one axis + one of the other axis: G/E/L/C) while being compatable with characters who share one of those components but are one step away from the other component.
TN Settlements offer unique synergies for Neutral Alignment in 2 axes while being compatable with characters who share one of those but are one step away (in any one axis).
That makes sense when Neutral is not just seen as having it's own valid status on it's own, but when /Neutrality in each axis/ is seen as having it's own valid status, i.e. TN has two valid alignment statuses JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER SETTLEMENT. There then just needs to be balanced attractive applications for all the Alignment components, on Character level and Settlement level.
Honestly, that's a dynamic that the tabletope game doesn't really wholeheartedly pursue (in fact, even TN itself lacks a singular status, there is no Neutral Domain while there is G/E/L/C Domains), but tabletop is a different dynamic and has different balancing mechanisms. If Settlement Alignment is a major structuring factor, it seems tougher and more disruptive to try and NOT give Neutral it's own unique status (in both axes) than to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Human psychology prefers affirmation and can deal with negation, but is very bad at accepting uncertainty. "Maybe" is a worse answer than "No", to many. Everything from conspiracy 'theories' to little superstitions, to major supernatural beliefs are used to fill in the gaps when people feel uncertain. Trying to intentionally sit at "maybe" makes you everyone's enemy in a warfare game full of us/them, ingroup/outgroup thinking.
While as an anthropologist this makes me cringe a little, as a psychologist I wholeheartedly agree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Human psychology prefers affirmation and can deal with negation, but is very bad at accepting uncertainty. "Maybe" is a worse answer than "No", to many. Everything from conspiracy 'theories' to little superstitions, to major supernatural beliefs are used to fill in the gaps when people feel uncertain. Trying to intentionally sit at "maybe" makes you everyone's enemy in a warfare game full of us/them, ingroup/outgroup thinking.While as an anthropologist this makes me cringe a little, as a psychologist I wholeheartedly agree.
Well please expound upon the "cringe" part. I'd like to have the other side of it to consider, or important details filled in, whatever it may be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would at this point like to question the logic in a druidic settlement. Why would a druid, master of living with nature, decide to reside in a metropolis/urban setting?
if you picture this less as a metropolis and more as a collection of (or a even a single) rural villages following the green faith that should work, lorewise
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well it isn't exactly relevant to the in-game but certainly.
To start I applaud your use of "beliefs" versus "religions" on a lot of levels but mainly the fact that "religion" is not a defined term, period. In fact, most anthropologist (that I know of) believe it to be a undefineable for a variety of reasons that I am sure you can google. An example I can state is "the belief (mistaken or truthful) in the supernatural"... well ok, but what about bhuddism.
That said, you are making generalities on the subject of individual and group thinking. To begin, warfare is a hallmark of state societies, and is not represented in most (read: all) tribal societies. I understand there are exceptions but for the most part, no what you are thinking of is "ritual feuding". Secondly, there are plenty of reasons people have belief systems and/or do not, and in many cases it is not because they are out of fear of the unknown. For most societies on a tribal level there is no word for "religion" or "belief", their practices simply being a normal, integral part of their society. And I'll stop there with saying that psychology is an inexact science. Freud has so much wrong going for him, and yet his terms are so popular. Hegel purported a "Weltgeist" drives us all on but lacked a good strong position for it. Marx says it was human nature, but at the same time he ignored many anthropological fundamentals and also didn't realize half of what the capitalists would do.
That said, we are for the most part, if not entirely, going to be coming from established state societies both in game and out of game and so a lot of these concerns, especially in regards to tribal societies, are not going to be issues for us to be concerned about. We may be in a "tribal" setting of development but we will still be "state" individuals in thought and action.
If you want more on ritual feuding vs. war I got the Paige and Paige book referenced around here somewhere to quote at you. Anything else specific you might want to message me privately, wouldn't be conducive to the situation to start an Anth discussion that is so off topic for the rest of the thread
That sounds more reasonable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, if my TN settlement grows to the point where we have the power to expand and build/conquer another, we cannot why?
Oh wait, we can. We just cannot be considered in the same social association at the multi-settlement level. I guess I am just not seeing what is perceived as the horrid repercussions of allowing this. Surely, if the fear is that "everyone will do it", why allow one level of social organization but not another? And surely, if that is truly the concern, we can think of some incentives for those who do not...that balance the apparent incentive for those who would.
Or, another solution, I would happily accept negative consequences (such as a slightly slower DI) for each instance of cross/opposite alignment. This would give NN the slowest DI rate...and the corners of the alignment plane the best DI rate (no opposite alignments). This is actually logical because they would be more "pure of intent". Even CG and LG have differences in methodology - in how Good should be realized.
I am not against there being consequences for my decisions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would at this point like to question the logic in a druidic settlement. Why would a druid, master of living with nature, decide to reside in a metropolis/urban setting?if you picture this less as a metropolis and more as a collection of (or a even a single) rural villages following the green faith that should work, lorewise
sure, but again why would they do it in the first place? Not to bash or anything but just a general curiosity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Druid have to live somewhere too. The only reason I am not also asking for the ability to make giant tree house/nature settlements (like the elves in LotR) is because we are talking about a MVP at the moment...and because that is only a skinning issue.
Our ability to make TN social groups is a general mechanic.
An example I can state is "the belief (mistaken or truthful) in the supernatural"... well ok, but what about bhuddism.
For the record, Buddhism does believe in the supernatural. Buddha just told his followers that the supernatural was not important to attaining enlightenment. That being said, most of the stories about Buddha do tend towards what scientists would define as fantastical.
A better example of a non-supernatural religion might be something like Confucianism, but even that has supernatural themes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An example I can state is "the belief (mistaken or truthful) in the supernatural"... well ok, but what about bhuddism.For the record, Buddhism does believe in the supernatural. Buddha just told his followers that the supernatural was not important to attaining enlightenment. That being said, most of the stories about Buddha do tend towards what scientists would define as fantastical.
A better example of a non-supernatural religion might be something like Confucianism, but even that has supernatural themes.
I'm not going to argue this point but suffice to say I've spent two years worth of my college experience studying these things.
@Forencith
I'm just wondering why the druidic "living space" has to be in a settlement. But I didn't mention it because it is the MVP and you can't expect the devs to produce an entire system just so the druids can have their treehouse equivalents.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Forencith, if TN nations are allowed, they can include characters of every single alignment. This is because there's an effective 2-step rule with nation-to-player alignments; you have to be within 2 steps of your nation's alignment. The developers think it's a good idea to make alignment a meaningful choice at the nation level, but if TN nations are in there isn't really a choice, everyone would just make TN nations to offer the most versatility to their players.
Your TN settlement can expand, but if it gets to that point you have to pick one of the "side alignments" (one of the neutrals besides TN) as the alignment for your newly formed nation. Even if every settlement in the nation is TN.
What about the system proposed by Nihimon?
NN = NN/NG/LN/CN (no NE)
NN = NN/LN/CN/NE (no NG)
NN = NN/NG/CN/NE (no LN)
NN = NN/NG/LN/NE (no CN)
That appears to solve your problem, and it's more realistic. There are tons of Neutral towns and nations in Golarion, after all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(rotated to cover appropriate sections of the grid, of course)
Nihimon's solution would look like this:
P X P
S N S
P S P
Compare that to:
S P X
N S P
S P X
or
N S P
S P X
P X X
which are our two current options. So, as you can see, it would offer 8 choices for player alignment, compared to 7 or 6 for our current options. Better than all the alignments, true, but still...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What about the system proposed by Nihimon?
That appears to solve your problem, and it's more realistic. There are tons of Neutral towns and nations in Golarion, after all.NN = NN/NG/LN/CN (no NE)
NN = NN/LN/CN/NE (no NG)
NN = NN/NG/CN/NE (no LN)
NN = NN/NG/LN/NE (no CN)
Yeah, I like this idea in particular. Straightforward, elegant in it's simplicity. I think min/maxing players or settlements will choose on the Lawful axis, not TN.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Forencith
I'm just wondering why the druidic "living space" has to be in a settlement. But I didn't mention it because it is the MVP and you can't expect the devs to produce an entire system just so the druids can have their treehouse equivalents.
Ah but the "settlement" is just the geographical place you call home. If a group of druids learn to coexist and live within a specific plot of forest, I would call that their settlement. It might be made of shaped trees or mud huts...but that is still the piece of land they have claimed, developed, and will defend. I am defining a "living space" in PFO as a settlement, not the other way around.
But, my point was not really about druids, I have no intend of being druid. I was using their existence and tendency toward TN as an additional case to support my argument for supporting TN as a play option...at all levels of social organization.
@Pax Shane Gifford
I understand and agree with you. I am not arguing it should be allowed as is. I am entirely prepared to face less than optimal consequences for my decisions. The exploration of what can be done to make it viable is what I am asking for. I think simply disallowing it is a poor way to prevent everyone from doing it. I think a better option would be to find a way to remove the inherent benefit, or create a counter/balancing benefit for not choosing it.
And, I think I must have been confused (or missed the latest iteration of dev ideas). TN Settlements are currently allowed and Nations get 2 steps? If so, I guess I withdraw my concern. I have no qualms with being part of a NG or LG Kingdom as long as each settlement then gets at least 1 step from that.
K.I.S.S. children
KEEP
IT
SIMPLE
STUPID
If we followed that rule for everything, PFO would look a little something like this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm wondering if GW would allow a TN settlement if the settlement managers had to choose along which axis it would be true neutral?
Option 1: NG, TN, NE
Option 2: LN, TN, CN
This would take away the advantage of a TN settlement being all things to everyone. It would also create a meaningful choice for the settlement managers in establishing the type of TN they wish to run.
Yeah i think we talked about this on Teamspeak and I've suggested it within T7V as well. TN should just have to pick which side they lean to so they have just as many options as the rest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And :I ?
And the K.I.S.S. rule applies to methods, not goals.
It is a term usually in the military, but basically you get an objective and then it is up to you to find the way to do it.
When attempting a mission there are a lot of factors but basically
Intel?
Supplies?
Timeline?
Basically what needs done with what against what over what amount of time, and how. The objective remains the same but you need the most MVP to complete it in the most efficient way. This will reduce any possibility for tangles in the supply line/chain of command, lower the casualties usually, and in general allow for a well organized operation.
Goals are neither simple nor complex, but rather are abstract. Capture X point, Defend Y sector, Find Z person, Complete V form. How you do these things is what needs thinking the most on, not the actual end goal itself, for that is already the known realm.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else find it ironic that that post is spending three paragraphs to explain what it means to keep something simple? ;D
The thing is, you're removing choice for the sake of removing choice. The objective here is to allow neutral areas, and your response is, "No, keep things simple." Two excellent solutions have been proposed. Both of them are too complicated because the extra option itself has been deemed too complicated.
"K.I.S.S." could be applied to nearly everything in this game, or any other MMO. Why have other races? Why include mounts, or druids?
The philosophy is useless unless backed up with reasons why the simplification is necessary. Here, it's not. Give people the choice of making neutral settlements or nations, because it's not going to make things any less accessible. Newbies aren't going to enter the game and go, "Gah, too many choices when founding my kingdom, back to Runescape!" And I kinda doubt adding an extra alignment into kingdoms' systems is going to dry up the coffers at GW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do they need the exact same number of potential member alignments?
Why can't there be Alignment-keyed benefits which achieve balance on another plane?
Doesn't it seem less interesting if everything is exactly the same on every level,
rather than having options which are more flexible in certain areas yet balanced by weaker options in other areas?
As an ongoing game with higher tiers unlocked only slowly, GW can easily balance that even in an ongoing manner.
It seems like there should be some sort of Settlement Rating based on Alignment diversity, with diversity leading to disharmony and inefficiency. That makes it so the broader diversity "allowed" for TN and Edge Alignment Settlements has direct mechanical downside vs. more restricted Corner Alignment Settlements... exactly in proportion to the extent your population is taking advantage of the broad alignment allowance. If a TN Settlement is choosing to exclude one, two, or more Edge Alignments, then why do they need to be hampered based on that theoretical allowance? I know GW at one point talked about alternate/optional modes of restricting Settlement membership alignment, both broader and more restricted than the 1-step rule, and even if 1-step is retained as the maximum limit, it seems like having positive consequences for further restricted membership is a good idea.
Such a system could be expressed in terms of what % of membership (possibly weighted for character power/position of power) has an alignment component for which another member has the OPPOSITE alignment (each character only possibly counting towards one 'disagreeable pair'). That means that a TN Settlement with 25% each of the Edge Neutral Alignments (but no TN members) would have 100% alignment discord rating. A TN Settlement with 33% LN, TN, and NG would have zero discord (same for a Corner Alignmetn Settlment with similar distribution: both are forming a 'corner' of membership profile). A NG Settlement with 33% LG, NG, and CG would have 66% discord rating, while another NG Settlement with 25% in each of it's possible 1-step alignments (LN, NG, TN, CG) would have only 50% discord. It would make sense to have different effects for discord in the Good/Evil axis, vs. discord in the Law/Chaos axis, so the NG Settlement examples would have zero discord in Good/Evil axis, but 50% or 66% discord in Law/Chaos axis.
And that brings it back more to the actual composition of the Settlement being relevant, rather than a binary "You're in or you're out, but nothing matters beyond that (as far as Alignment goes)". There could be further repurcussion based on the single average alignment of that weighted membership profile, so a LG Settlement with all actually LG members would have a significant difference to a LG Settlement with 90% NG members, even though there is no 'opposed alignment component' discord there.
If it's desired to bring Settlments into the NPC Faction system, a similar approach could be used, although it wouldn't be based on Alignment per se, but on which NPC Factions oppose each other (they may be of the same alignment component/alignment combo but still be opposed). If much of the Settlement population is personally a member of an opposed NPC Faction, then the Settlement as a whole has high discord in NPC Alliance. If none of the members are in opposed NPC Factions, then there is no NPC Faction discord, so the Settlement may be eligible for more of a synergy there, scaling according to how many actually are a member of that faction (and/or to their Ranking in that NPC Faction). Having all members being of the same NPC Faction would be the maximum expression of that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Forencith
Unfortunately (or Fortunately) no, a settlement is not just a geographic location. Settlements are "the basic" part of the PfO system and without a settlement a company is not able to be sponsored, higher level skills cannot be trained, and a stable market economy cannot be easily set up or maintained. But as for the rest of what you say, yes. I was just asking about druids and settlements as RP purposes, and as I said it is really just pointless speculation I am making.
@Kobold Cleaver
No, you are missing the spirit of the KISS rule.
KISS is not to reduce your maximum wants and desires. It is to acheive those desires in the best way possible. I'm not saying DON'T DO TN SETTLEMENTS IT IS HARD, I'm don't do TN settlements in a way that is hard. TN settlements should exist, but all these complex setups to describe it is not condusive to it's implementation.
In short, I was agreeing with the system Nihimon proposed, or at least a variation. Essentially this system is a splitting of a single alignment into four separate alignments, which should be easy enough to do I'd imagine. As for my "three paragraphs" it is really only one that is split into three segments to be easy to read, like bullet points ;)
@Quandary
The current setup will lead to more homogeneous settlements, if you are not within one step you will be forced out essentially. Or so I've read.
In short, I was agreeing with the system Nihimon proposed, or at least a variation.
Ah. The internet does make things awful hard to understand, I suppose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why do they need the exact same number of potential member alignments?
Just pointing out that there's an obvious mechanical benefit to using TN with Nihimon's idea, rather than the other choices proposed by GW. Not saying the idea should be canned or anything, but it should be taken into account.