Crowdforging - True Neutral as an active alignment


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Hello everyone,

This will be my first go at actually trying to formulate a system, hopefully you´ll find it promising.

I gave the problem of implementing TN as an active alignment (oposed to something you are while being passive) a lot of thought, this is what i came up with.

Note: i don´t think this will be in the mvp, and it doesn´t have to.
But i think a solution for the following should be found before druids will get implemented.
Although i won´t play one, the possibility to play a TN druid in a meaningful (and the alignment is a big part of that) way should be there.

The Problem:
The extreme parts of the alignment grid are kind of easy to define; in a very minimalistic way:

- good is helping others
- evil is being egoistic
- law is conformity
- chaos is individuality and freedom

These are black and white pairs.

It is possible (and already has been done) to identify certain actions in the game that belong to either of these extremes.

TN on the other hand is refraining from acting in any of the extreme ways. It is a lot harder to define actions in the game (that can also be coded) that will qualify as TN.

So to simply integrate TN the same way as all other alignments is much more difficult.

My proposal:

doctrine/dogma:
You follow a certain religion/philosophy.
To do so you will have to follow a list of commandments and avoid a list of sins.
Failing to do so will make you unbalanced.

Unbalanced
You acted contrary to your believes. This left you in a state of inner turmoil.
Every time you commit a sin or brake a commandment of your belief system you accumulate unbalance points disequilibrium/imbalance/maladjustment).
These points add a percentage to all alignment shifts.

So if you are balanced and commit murder for which you´d go 1,000 points towards evil, you´d go 1,200 points towards evil if you were unbalanced:20

or something like that.

to become balanced again you need to atone.

Atonement
if you are unbalanced you need to atone to get your inner peace back.
to do so you have to refrain from sinning and concentrate on actions that your belief considers "positive".

What is it good for?

Well, apart from, hopefully, giving TN something to actively influence their alignment it would be a system that works for other belief systems as well.
i think it could be used by gw to promote/disincentivy certain activities, even more so if you don´t have to be a priest character to choose and follow a religion/philosophy.

TN is a very narrow alignment, it is the thin line between the extremes of the other alignments, actively following it should be a hard thing to do. This system might make it a bit harder to do so as it becomes easier slip into another alignment if you are not careful.

What is missing?

I still haven´t thought enough about actions that will make you more TN.
For that i think the following link will provide a lot of information about the TN
alignment
.

Taken from the linked page:

The True Neutral Sins

1. Trying to persuade others to take a stance on a moral or ethical issue.

2. Failing to assist a friend or ally.

3. Killing for any reason other than survival.

4. Breaking your word to a friend or ally, unless life is threatened.

5. Needless torture.

6. Making a sacrifice for someone unrelated to you.

7. Refusing to kill when important to your survival.

8. Betraying an ally or friend, unless life is in danger.

9. Showing mercy to a dire enemy.

10. Taking sides in a conflict that doesn't affect your survival.

From that list what i think might be coded are 2,3,5,6,7,9 and 10 but i´m no programmer so, what do i know. Additionally, at least for druids, stripmining should be a sin for TN - summoning abominations and creating undead should probably be too.

The problem here is that these are mostly actions you should not! do to stay TN.
Activities i can think of to make you TN, for a druid or follower of the green faith at least, would be:
-destroying undead and abominations
-hunting necromancers that create undead (heinous flag=should be no problem)
-hunting stripminers -> maybe they could get a defiler flag that druids can detect?

As you can see the whole thing is still a work in progress, but that is as far as i got on my own.

Now i look very much forward to your input :)

p.s. as this is a possibility considering the number of threads in this forum, if anyone else had the same idea before me, please point me towards the thread.

Goblin Squad Member

Mostly what you have written above focus on 'Balance' TN. But not all TN is about keeping the 'Balance'.

There is TN that focuses on whatever benefits me the most type. Willing to do Lawful, Good, Chaotic, and/or Evil things if it is in your or your group's best interest at the time.

When in comes to non-Neutral aspects of the alignment then guidelines can be good. But when it comes to Neutral, I think no guidelines are best.

Goblin Squad Member

you are right, i focused mostly on the balance part, becuase i think that is the more dificult part.

i think the part you have in mind is something like

this?:
True neutral characters are concerned with their own well-being and that of the group or organization which aids them. They may behave in a good manner to those that they consider friends and allies, but will only act maliciously against those who have tried to injure them in some way. For the rest, they do not care. They do not wish ill on those they do not know, but they also do not care when they hear of evil befalling them. Better for others to suffer the evil than the true neutral and his allies. If an ally is in need, the true neutral will aid him, out of genuine love or because he may be able to count on that ally a little more in the future. If someone else is in need, they will weigh the options of the potential rewards and dangers associated with the act. If an enemy is in need, they will ignore him or take advantage of his misfortune.

That is why i linked that most in dept text about TN i could find as reference text.

One could argue that this kind of TN is already integrate in the game.
-Core alignment is TN. you do stuff that makes your active alignment a bit L/C/G/B, it just takes a little time to get back to your TN.
;) your conscience will settle again.

I just don´t think that this is the way to go for the Philosophical/religious TN type, lets just say a druid, because that is the obvious example.

Edit: apart from that, what is your opinion on the concept as a whole?
any ideas to improve it?

Goblin Squad Member

I think functionally to use your corner alignment clear egs:

- good is helping others = Access to good buildings, factions, paladin eg
- evil is being egoistic = Access to evil buildings, factions, necro? eg
- law is conformity = Higher end buildings, settlement rules higher sensitivity to player actions eg
- chaos is individuality and freedom = Lower end buildings, settlement lower sensitivity to player actions = more player-individual do as you like / make it up as you go along eg don't like that deal with the trader: Trash 'em / draw swords etc!

For TN, I think focus is on merchants/trade: Nothing matters so long as it makes a profit it's indifferent, could that be the right appraisal of TN? So players will have an easy time trading and services being bought easily in TN settlements.

It's also a floater population point when players are between alignments being pulled one way or another again with easy access to trade fuelling commitments in any given direction as players trade/interact and get caught up in events? Possibly if players have lost their corner alignment settlements they might drift towards TN settlements as transit points to start again. TN could be outside major power struggles - most of the time but not always. There might be agitators using the trade strengths to capture the settlement from the inside and turn it's alignment?

I think TN sounds like it's all about trade and political neutral islands amid rough or calm seas!

Goblin Squad Member

Why the egg obsession, AvenaOats?

Goblin Squad Member

Before i forget that, thank you both for your input.

@avenaOats: yes, i think that could work quiet well for the not-religous TN types.

the 10 true neutral commandments:

A list of Ten Commandments for a true neutral religion may look like this:

1. You shall avoid lies.
2. You shall not kill the innocent.
3. You shall not murder.
4. You shall help the needy if such action aids yourself.
5. You shall honor those who honor you.
6. You shall follow the law unless breaking the law can advance you without harming others.
7. You shall not betray others unless your life is in jeopardy.
8. You shall aid those who aid you and harm those who harm you.
9. You shall not promote an extreme viewpoint.
10. You shall advance yourself without harming others.

look as if they would work quiet well for a merchant, at least one that isn´t dodgy

Goblin Squad Member

I'd like to think there's room for a True Neutral that's more about the pursuit of a specific goal or ideal without regard to (in-character) Law, Chaos, Good, or Evil. Perhaps something like... oh, I don't know... maybe Knowledge?

Goblin Squad Member

I think that you are taking this thing to structured. For instance the TN 10 commandments should number 6, maybe 7.
Like LE, it is about profit/gain, but there are levels to which I will not stoop. And those are not the same across all TN, but individual preferences. Some won't lie, others won't kill (but hiring someone to lie or kill for you might work).
Laissez faire but with some restraint (regulation?). Freedom, but liable et al applies.
I am not sure if I have fully explained, but it is not structured and rules -- that is LN.

TN is a negative space, what it takes, but not some extremes. I am better trusted than LE, but acknowledge that is a weakness (but maybe benefit from selling that benefit).

Oh, I have played TN, TT over a several year campaign. I do not want to try that again. Evil lost, Law lost. Good last. What remains is in nirvana.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon: ;) i´d like to think that too, but for that you wouldn´t need an additinal system. --UNLESS you want to go lovecraftian and collect forbidden knowledge, then the the unbalanced system could simulate the effect of that knowledge on your soul?

@Lam: those commandments are from this page here.
i took this to define TN because it goes deeper then the definition from the Playersguide.

@all: my main reason to want this is still that i don´t see who you can play a TN-druid properly in the current system.

-But, if we take the TN part out of the picture for a moment and look at the system as a way to implement believesystems of any kind, what is your take on it then?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gedichtewicht wrote:
-But, if we take the TN part out of the picture for a moment and look at the system as a way to implement believesystems of any kind, what is your take on it then?

I very much agree. That's the same thing I was trying to say about the pursuit of Knowledge. There should be Principles - other than Law/Chaos or Good/Evil - that TN should be able to revere, such as Balance, or Nature, or Knowledge, or even "Keep this Knowledge away from Elves"... (still wonders what's up with the Oakstewards in Sevenarches)

Goblin Squad Member

ok, so the cleaned up belief system as i imagine it.

You may choose a religion or philosophy for you character.
Your choosen beliefsystem includes a dogma you have to follow.
As long as you do so, your are considered pious
Failing to do so will make you a Sinner.

Sinner
You acted contrary to your believes. This left you in a state of inner turmoil and doubt.

Every beliefsystem rates Sins by severity, this also indicates how far commiting that sin raises your Sinner rating by the rating of the sin.

Example:
for a follower of Rovagug behaving in a lawful or good way, or even crafting something would be a sin.

while a follower of Iomedae would see breaking a contract, fleeing from a battle or commiting chaotic or evil acts as a sin.

your Sinner rating adds a percentage to all alignment shifts.

So if you are pious and commit murder for which you´d go 1,000 points towards evil, you´d go 1,200 points towards evil if you had a Sinner:20 rating.

to become pious again you need to atone.

Atonement
if you are a Sinner you need to atone to get your inner peace back.
to do so you have to refrain from sinning and concentrate on actions that your belief considers "positive".

--------------------------------------------------------------------

additional thoughts.

-apart from the potential increase in alignment shifts this so far has no effect on simple followers. I think it is ok that way, although there could be a maximum sinner rating you can have and still be considered a follower.

-characters that get their powers from their believe/god should start loosing powers at certain sinner ratings.

-starting atonement might need getting atonment cast on you -> more interaction.

-clerics of your faith might be able to reduce sinner ratings (by preaching/taking confessions.

-i´m not sure if behaving in a pious way should give you a positiv pious rating, that might have a positiv effect, like a blessing on your character.

Goblin Squad Member

As Bluudwolf has explained, there is no way to measure character reasoning let alone player reason for doing something.

A chaotic character may follow a law becsues it suits his purpose or even gives him position/advantage. To do it because he must or is forced to concede to it that is "sin". How to measure that reason, that will in even a TT game is rough. In MMO, not real.

Not following law does not mean stupidly defying at every event. DO not make CE stupid as bad as LG stupid. Neither need to be played that way.

Goblin Squad Member

i didn´t say it was a sin for a chaotic pc act lawful.
but it would be for a follower of rovagug.

And i know that finding actions that can be measured by the system is probably the hardes thing about my idea, i said so above.

i´m not trying to further define alignments(apart from TN), i´m searching for a way to implement beliefsystems.

your characters beliefsystem and his alignment overlap, but they are not the same.

Goblin Squad Member

This seems like a highly complex system implementation that I'm not sure we need in the game, if you could explain why?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, my main reason is, i looked at what we know so far and imaginged playing a TN druid.

-If you attack and Kill stripminers, you are the attacker and if you succeed you get pushed towaards low rep CE. or are they free game as they have attacked a POI first?
-if you attack an aggressiv expansionist city or its citizens, see above.

-what can you do to stay TN? either you have to counter your C And E actions with L and G ones, or you have to wait till you Alignment returnsn to TN.

From an RP point of view, i think this sucks.

so the reason i started out with this was that i wanted to implement ways to shift your Alignment to TN.
Which is not that easy; as i said above, what actions could you code into the game that would make sense?

so i thought, if the current system can´t do it, is there another way to get there?
This would be my solution.

Added benefits: it would be usful for more then just the TN druid,
It would give choosing a religion a deeper meaning, it could be purely optional,

Goblin Squad Member

alright that certainly makes sense. I like it ^^

Goblin Squad Member

Gedichtewicht wrote:

Well, my main reason is, i looked at what we know so far and imaginged playing a TN druid.

-If you attack and Kill stripminers, you are the attacker and if you succeed you get pushed towaards low rep CE. or are they free game as they have attacked a POI first?
-if you attack an aggressiv expansionist city or its citizens, see above.

-what can you do to stay TN?

You can do it in the current system. Likely the best and most reliable method for being such a protector of nature is to make a company with other like-minded individuals and declare feuds on those groups who use and abuse the natural resources.

It seems like a lot of complications, and I'm not sure exactly what the benefits are here.

Goblin Squad Member

@brotherZael: thank you, brother:)

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

You can do it in the current system. Likely the best and most reliable method for being such a protector of nature is to make a company with other like-minded individuals and declare feuds on those groups who use and abuse the natural resources.

It seems like a lot of complications, and I'm not sure exactly what the benefits are here.

...actualy, ....thank you Shane. i completly forgot to take feds into account for the exampels i used.

I have to think about that a bit...

-still; i think there should be a system tht keeps track of how far you stray from your religions rules.
in particular when you are a priest/paladin/ranger/...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Shane and Gedichtewicht

Feuding is an option and certainly it will be used, but you are both forgetting something kind of inherent to what we (the Viridian Circle in specific, this might not apply to anyone else) are somewhat intending.

To be honest, there will be times where we don't wish to feud an entire company, for instance it could be a small sect or rogue element doing the strip mining without the broader company being aware. Or it could be we don't want our name to be attached to the killing but we have to take a direct hand in the action due to no mercs available.

Whatever the case (those being loose examples to give the idea not specific cases that we plan on doing per se) there will be times when feuding is NOT what we want, nor will it be the best solution for the parties involved (either one side, both sides, or all-sides). IT could also be that the individual taking these actions doesn't belong to a company. In any case, if the only option is "feuding" then I feel like it will force into a "black and white" aspect. If that makes sense. Either Defcon One of Defcon 5 with no in between.

I think having an alternative (let us call it "crusading") to feuding would be nice, where a company can declare a certain individual, party, or company and higher as a target for only the members in that company.

This basically will be feuding, but allow more specific scope and can be based on alignment.

OOORRR we could just expand "feuding" to get the same effect.

Goblin Squad Member

I second that brother:)

-also, i want to add something in case it wasn't clear.
the system i imagine does nothing regarding reputation.
as i said, my starting point was a TN druid. i don´t think a TN druid would have to be someone with a high Rep, depending on the settlements that surround him.

Goblin Squad Member

Gedichtewicht wrote:
i didn´t say it was a sin for a chaotic pc act lawful. but it would be for a follower of rovagug.

I would still argue that a chaotic evil does not go out looking to not do lawful or good acts. Rather the CE character has little regard for whether it is lawful or good, rather are the character goals advanced. To not take advantage of a situation because it was lawful, would be CE stupid. It is irrelevant and not under consideration if something is good or evil, lawful or chaotic; "Is it useful to me; what I want: what is my gain?"

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:

@Shane and Gedichtewicht

Feuding is an option and certainly it will be used, but you are both forgetting something kind of inherent to what we (the Viridian Circle in specific, this might not apply to anyone else) are somewhat intending.

To be honest, there will be times where we don't wish to feud an entire company, for instance it could be a small sect or rogue element doing the strip mining without the broader company being aware. Or it could be we don't want our name to be attached to the killing but we have to take a direct hand in the action due to no mercs available.

Whatever the case (those being loose examples to give the idea not specific cases that we plan on doing per se) there will be times when feuding is NOT what we want, nor will it be the best solution for the parties involved (either one side, both sides, or all-sides). IT could also be that the individual taking these actions doesn't belong to a company. In any case, if the only option is "feuding" then I feel like it will force into a "black and white" aspect. If that makes sense. Either Defcon One of Defcon 5 with no in between.

I think having an alternative (let us call it "crusading") to feuding would be nice, where a company can declare a certain individual, party, or company and higher as a target for only the members in that company.

This basically will be feuding, but allow more specific scope and can be based on alignment.

OOORRR we could just expand "feuding" to get the same effect.

You make a good point. Unless a system is in place so we can target these lone wolves who're recklessly harvesting (or just using undead) it could be tricky for the Viridian Circle to deal with them without losing reputation. The closest mechanic that we could currently use is SAD, and make a ridiculous demand in the hopes they would turn in down so we could fight them without losing reputation. The problem would be if we asked for 10000 coin for them to stop and they actual pay us. Then we can't act against them without losing reputation. Using the SAD system in these types of situations feels wrong.

If its possible to attack a resource node we could attack what they're harvesting hoping to provoke them. But I'd guess that would automatically put us in the bad books and lose rep. And again if feels kinda wrong to destroy a resource node to prevent 1 bad apple from harvesting.

My only other thought would be for us to fly a special flag that allows us to target harvesters and harvesters to target us, without losing reputation. This would open us to the type of meaningful PVP that we're interested in. I'd much rather something like than resorting to SAD or attacking a node.

Also just because we had this flag on, and we could target reckless harvesters doesn't mean we always would. Having a bunch of nature loving freaks (plus there pets and their summons) turn up on your patch while your trying to harvest might be enough to scare them off.

Goblin Squad Member

Gedichtewicht wrote:

Well, my main reason is, i looked at what we know so far and imaginged playing a TN druid.

-If you attack and Kill stripminers, you are the attacker and if you succeed you get pushed towaards low rep CE. or are they free game as they have attacked a POI first?
-if you attack an aggressiv expansionist city or its citizens, see above.

-what can you do to stay TN? either you have to counter your C And E actions with L and G ones, or you have to wait till you Alignment returnsn to TN.

From an RP point of view, i think this sucks.

so the reason i started out with this was that i wanted to implement ways to shift your Alignment to TN.
Which is not that easy; as i said above, what actions could you code into the game that would make sense?

so i thought, if the current system can´t do it, is there another way to get there?
This would be my solution.

Added benefits: it would be usful for more then just the TN druid,
It would give choosing a religion a deeper meaning, it could be purely optional,

You make a good point. It seems like it could be difficult to be TN and act in way that means you don't need to gain points in lawful to counter balance your accumulated points in chaos. I'm so glad my character who will be called Raven (original I know, but sounds kinda woodsy) is Chaotic Neutral and not True Neutral. It allows me to happily break the law while protecting the natural environment.

Goblin Squad Member

@Lam

true but I think they are going for the "set-in-stone" and "polar" alignment where Lawful is obey laws and chaotic is ignore them, this makes it easier to define in mechanics and just easier all around, even if it might not be accurate per se.

Goblin Squad Member

Lam wrote:
Gedichtewicht wrote:
i didn´t say it was a sin for a chaotic pc act lawful. but it would be for a follower of rovagug.

I would still argue that a chaotic evil does not go out looking to not do lawful or good acts. Rather the CE character has little regard for whether it is lawful or good, rather are the character goals advanced. To not take advantage of a situation because it was lawful, would be CE stupid. It is irrelevant and not under consideration if something is good or evil, lawful or chaotic; "Is it useful to me; what I want: what is my gain?"

You are right, i don´t argue against that.

But to stick to my example, lets have a look at what it means to be a follower of Rovagug.
http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Rovagug wrote:


...A priest of Rovagug makes no contribution to normal society; at best, they may be (unreliable) mercenaries[5]. They typically spend their day hunting beings and things to kill and destroy, saving only that which can be utilized in creating greater destruction. The hierarchy is based solely on raw destructive might, and to rise in the hierarchy, another must be thrown down...

My point is, if your character is CE, all that you have said above is true. If he is CE AND a follower of Rovagug, that should have an effect on the way he should be played.

And the same goes for any kind of religion, following a religion should effects the way your character sees the world and the way he acts.
i would like for choosing a religion for you character to be a meaningul choice, not just on line of text on your character sheet.

So back to the Rovagug example:

http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Rovagug wrote:


...His worshipers are only slightly less dedicated, glorying in destruction for its own sake and dismissing building and creating as a pastime for those too weak to destroy. Some worshipers do so out of nihilistic misery, others out of self-loathing, and yet others through a simple, burning rage towards the universe. All are dedicated to Rovagug's destructive mission.

in my opinion, crafting anything that is not used in combat or war should be a sin for them.

-->To exanded on this. If your sinner rating reaches a certain level it could either get visible to priest of your religion or, a local priest could be notifyed(because sories like that sread ina community)
This could oen up a lot of rolelaying opportunities.

Goblin Squad Member

...actually...

how about this?

Nature´s Warrior[pvp-flag]
you are a protector of nature, you roam the lands looking for strip-miners using destructive exploitation, and bring nature´s wrath upon the defilers.
To do so you get the commune with natureability which lets you scan your current hex for destructive exploitation

Stripminer[pvp-flag]
you are out for the fast money, while flying this flag you can use destructive exploitation.
your harvesting speed is increased by x%, but because of your reclessness you
-also loose x% of the maximum amount of ressources you could have harvested otherwise.
or
-reduce the respawn rate of that ressource within the hex.

the Nature´s warrior flag emowers it´s user to hunt down stripminers only! using it to star attackin other eople, even flying other pvp-flags should include consequences.

both flags open you up for pvp from other parties.

---------

To expand on the sinner rating and ways to use it.
- some religions could employ inquisitors hunting down heretics(=high sinner rating) ;)

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bear in mind these guidelines/tools for developing your Crowdforging ideas. :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Gedichtewicht, remember that the other optional PvP flags, such as Enforcer, Outlaw, and Merchant, were removed and their various utilities were scattered to other systems; thus it seems like proposing more optional PvP flags isn't likely to go well with their current plans.

@Zael, there will be many, many times that a company only wants to feud just one person. Whether it's for a roleplaying use, such as yours, or so that they can specifically target a settlement leader without his followers defending him, or for many other reasons. Additionally you will definitely not be the only company who won't want their name attached to certain kills; any military or bandit outfit would love an ability like that. Your proposed mechanic would have very wide-reaching impacts on the game.

It seems to me like a feud where a whole company can attack one guy but that guy's friends can't help him is a broken mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

but mr. shane. his friends can feud us back. and if we don't want our name attached then we will just have to wait or use assassination, That is true.

Goblin Squad Member

@Avenaoats: THanks for the link, will think about those question.

@Shane: Yeah, i know. nut the thought came up so i rather posted it then let it go:)
And i still hope the devs are just revamping the flag system and didn´t drop it. So may still be a chance to get this in ;)

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:
but mr. shane. his friends can feud us back. and if we don't want our name attached then we will just have to wait or use assassination, That is true.

I never like having to pay for self defense. It seems to me mechanics which force those situations lead to the big powers being much more capable of shutting down little guys. This is why I like the fact that anybody who gets attacked can freely defend themselves without alignment or rep consequences.

Maybe I'm just remembering poorly, but I thought feuds worked both ways (as in, if you feud me I can attack you)? If I'm mistaken and feuds don't set the attacker up for being attacked, then I'm okay with the idea of feuding one person, because as you say they can just counter-feud.

Goblin Squad Member

So when you're suggesting an idea, do these things first:

1: How will this work if 50 people have to all do it in series or in parallel?

I don´t think this applies here. The whole system is one that works on an individual level.

This point might get relavant if we talk about integratin religious ceremonies though;)

Quote:
2: How would a smart player who wanted to abuse this rule exploit it to cause someone else pain?

good question, but as far as i can see, you can´t.

Again, your characters belief and sinner rating is something that effects her/him.
There might be a possibility for griefing if the part about inquisitors or excummunications are implemented, but 1. you could just keep your sinner rating below the threshold, it. 2. you could change your religion if you let a priest from another religion convert you. <- This should always be possible.

Quote:
3: What kind of behavior would naturally emerge in a world where your rule was implemented - what's the effect of your cause?

If this system gets implemented me thinks, it will add another layer of interactions:

-choosing a religion would matter and have an effect on the way you play the game.
-you´d have a basis for religious RP, that even non-RP'ers might be interessted in because it has an effect on them.
-priests would have a lot more to do.
-additional possibilities for conflict, although this might not be much different from faction religious conflicts would be completly player driven.
-

Some guidelines to help with ideas likely to attract a lot of support from your peers:

1: Should result in a system, not a one-time action. Remember that we need things characters can do thousands of times, and by tens of thousands of characters in parallel.

I think i answered this above

Quote:
2: Should create meaningful human interaction. Something you do that nobody else ever knows about isn't helpful.

see above

Quote:
3: Should involve group action. An easy way to ensure #2, and leads to interesting potential connections to large game systems like economy, warfare or hex development.

yeah, got that in as well

Quote:
4: Should be classifiable as exploration, development, domination or adventure content.

i think it would classify as development and domination.

adventure content might be possible as well.

Quote:
5: The wider the set of characters that can use the idea the broader support for that idea will be. You're asking people to make either/or tradeoffs, so you need to consider who would vote for a feature for you that meant some feature for them would not happen.

the way i imagine the system it will add something to every character you´ll use it with; for priest, druids, paladins, rangers and monks it should be mandatory but will also deepen their game exerience immensly.

-and it be based on an allready existing system, namely alignemt.
every character who commits a muder schould be moved towards CE, but a paladain who does the same should face much harsher consequences. This system provides this.
So ;) if i get enough people to read it and see it my way that shouldn´t be a problem;)

Goblin Squad Member

@Shane

I don't see where you are pulling that people can't defend themselves from my statement. You asked how a person can defend themselves if a major power attacks the individual. The answer is that individual calls his friends in to feud on his behalf. This should cost influence, I believe, which makes sense. You are using your influence to affect your friends and vice-versa.

I don't understand why you would assume a person being attacked can't fight back. I was stating if a person is singled out, as in him alone and not his company, not his settlement, for a feud then he alone will be in the feuding. If his friends/company/etc. want to join they will need to enter a feud state themselves.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BrotherZael wrote:

@Shane

I don't see where you are pulling that people can't defend themselves from my statement. You asked how a person can defend themselves if a major power attacks the individual. The answer is that individual calls his friends in to feud on his behalf. This should cost influence, I believe, which makes sense. You are using your influence to affect your friends and vice-versa.

I don't understand why you would assume a person being attacked can't fight back. I was stating if a person is singled out, as in him alone and not his company, not his settlement, for a feud then he alone will be in the feuding. If his friends/company/etc. want to join they will need to enter a feud state themselves.

Assuming that I am reading you right. I am positive that a group should not be able to declare feud on an individual and thus gain consequence free PVP against him.

That would really suck. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Not consequence free. Same feud cost as usual. The difference being you can feud an individual, not a whole faction, or you can feud an unaffiliated individual. Also you can feud as an individual.

If people are abusing the feud system mechanics then either A) they need to be kicked or B) the mechanics need work.

Goblin Squad Member

If you are concerned about unaffiliated players, well we all are also. Keep in mind that such characters will really have a tough time being competitive already. They will have none of the benefits that come with affiliation in a Company or settlement, no where (save NPC towns) to train (TBD), etc... They will still be vulnerable to bounties. They will still be able to gain criminal flags, etc...

Goblin Squad Member

Apart from feuds being a company vs company/settlement mechanic so far
i think from the viridian circles pov the individual harvester will only matter IF a system to stripmine is integrated.
If not, well... then they just harvest.
necromacers using undead will be heinous anyway.

any other individuals you have in mind for feuding brother?

Goblin Squad Member

@Zael, I'm still not getting the "why" of feuding one person inside a company. I thought the reason why is so that his friends couldn't get involved in helping him out, but that doesn't seem to be your reason (and now that I reread the blogs it seems that a regular feud would not let his company mates attack you either), so what is it that makes feuding individuals necessary as opposed to feuding the whole company?

Goblin Squad Member

@ BrotherZael

Removed a post that came across too harsh (not my intent). :)

I feel like if feuds could be declared on individuals, it would open a bad can of worms. There are recourses with laws in POI's and other ways to get what you want without adding another complicated way to get around consequential PVP.

Just 2 cents and now I will butt out!

Goblin Squad Member

@Gedichtewicht

Nope, that about sums em up

@all

The reason for feuding one individual not the whole organization is because of organizations such as the Viridian Circle and others which are not a unanimous body but are rather comprised of various individuals who share a common goal. In other words, my actions are not the actions that Gedichtewicht enacts, nor will they be the actions Grickin uses, nor will we all agree with each others' methods. In addition I will be doing undesirable things now and again that have nothing to do with the Viridian Circle.

I am saying that some people might have a problem with the individual and the individual's actions, not the whole organization. If I attack TEO because I think they have become tyrants and are strong arming the masses of newbs into joining the "good" guild (purely from an RP standpoint), that has nothing to do with the Viridian Circle, nor should the Viridian Circle have to be held responsible for our actions. I see similar things happening in many places and with many guilds.

I'm not advocating a different type of feud than what GW has made, but just the ability to target individuals with the current feud system. The amount of cost should remain the same as if the individual was an entire company.

The unaffiliated members for the same reason.

This isn't so I can feud individuals at whim. This is purely from the standpoint that some individuals (myself included) are working on an individual level in politics, and should be able to be engaged in all aspects at the individual level. If a lich-king wizard-cum-necromancer raises an army of undead and starts marching to war and oh by the way he doesn't have a company or belong to a settlement at the moment, what do we have to stop him? (poor example, using undead is heinous, I know, but that is the idea, one guy causing a ton of trouble by himself. Unlikely on this scale, but it can happen).

In addition, with the current system, if I was a real savvy sly-fox type, I'd scout out someone(s), say a small stripminer company, and then I would drop my guild title, flip them a SAD demanding all their stuff (because they are using it to abuse the environment and clearly need to have it removed, not because I want to force a PvP). If I continue to do this, and all my friends in Viridian Circle do this to the stripminers, they will not be able to feud us as they should, because they won't know we belong to a guild, and etc. And of course not knowing who we are and why they probably will end up reporting us for griefing if we constantly do it to them (though I'd imagine a "strip mine again and I will come hunt you down" should be adequate explanation).

Yes these are kind of corner cases, but enough people have expressed interest in loose coalitions and proxy-companies that I think it should be added in that you can target individuals for feuding. Bounty system would work, but it is only like a one-time contract thing. I'm talking about where an individual declares war on another individual or company or settlement or even nation and constantly follows it up with the other side actively engaging in combat with that person.

Again, easy implementation (just make the current system able to target single persons but keep the cost and everything else the same) and it should see enough use over the years to warrant it. That said, this might still be a "wouldn't it be cool if", so I can see why someone wouldn't want to do this, but I know of at least three guilds who might use this system so I don't think it is that far off from significant usage (in terms of effort vs use)

Goblin Squad Member

/End summon wall of text II spell

Goblin Squad Member

This may require its own thread;)

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:

The reason for feuding one individual not the whole organization is because of organizations such as the Viridian Circle and others which are not a unanimous body but are rather comprised of various individuals who share a common goal. In other words, my actions are not the actions that Gedichtewicht enacts, nor will they be the actions Grickin uses, nor will we all agree with each others' methods. In addition I will be doing undesirable things now and again that have nothing to do with the Viridian Circle.

I am saying that some people might have a problem with the individual and the individual's actions, not the whole organization. If I attack TEO because I think they have become tyrants and are strong arming the masses of newbs into joining the "good" guild (purely from an RP standpoint), that has nothing to do with the Viridian Circle, nor should the Viridian Circle have to be held responsible for our actions. I see similar things happening in many places and with many guilds.

But GW wants us to police ourselves through social structures. If a member of TSV was being a jerk to others, the "victims" larger social unit can come to TSV and threaten us for not policing our own. We would then have incentive to take corrective actions. I think that responsibility is integral to what it means to be a social entity.

Your suggestion essentially removes that whole dynamic, once individuals and their associated social structures can simply claim "oh, he/she/they do not represent us". I cannot see that what you propose adds more to the dynamic of social interaction than the inherent threat and responsibility created by knowing you always represent your social group.

Goblin Squad Member

But forencith that "dissavow" solution is already there, this doesn't change it.

Either way this is not a system to fight harassment. The problem with the system as is that such occurance (kicking, reprimand, whatever you want to call it) is the main method for retribution. But what if the company says "no bad" or "until this is figured out, leave. We don't want to be attributed to it." and the person doesn't stop, hmm :I not everything that can be used against a pvp group is pvp either, so what does said group have to counter against an opponent who A) isn't breaking any laws B) isn't violating any meta-game rules (e.g. don't be a griefer) C) Is not hindered by company leaders D) isn't flying a PVP flag in any instance.

I get what you are saying, but that just is not the point at all. And the fact that one individual costs the same amount as an entire company should be sufficient price to start a feud. My proposed method in any of these regards is not too erroneous, as you have agreed.

The problem, of course, is that a company can feud a person for whatever cost and basically have open season.

That problem is not, however, a problem with my method but rather with the feuding system overall. If it is that cheap, what about a massive company feuding a small one, or a whole bunch of small ones, or an entire nation feuding a company (whether on a national scale or each individual company does it manually).

The point being, these answers have already been put forth by the people at GW (summon nihimon I) and by making a single person equal the cost of feuding an entire company we counter-balance possible gank-fest-for-no-reasons because not many companies are going to have the influence to throw at a single person unless they really need to (influence is hard to come by and harder to decide to use or so I believe). You save influence for when you ACTUALLY need to use it on another group. I also believe there are other systems in place relagating feuds so that they stay meaningful, and these will apply whether it is company or individual.

And in case I have stated it enough, in terms of cost/rep whatever Individual = Company. The only difference is that most companies have more than one person.

If you mess up bad enough to make someone want to feud specifically you then you should have to face the consequences and not just hide behind your company's coattails

On the flip side, if someone is so successful at hindering you/fighting you that you need to feud just that person there are plenty of risks to take into consideration. Such as "who is this persons friends", "will her guild join in", "who are her allies", "Is this what she wants", and so on. A individual has immediate power, but makes up for it with a lot of unknowns. Most guilds are rather open about who they like vs. who they fight (in the RP sense for both). With a person there is a lot more unknown to deal with, because anyone can be on that friends list and there is the potential to call in a lot more firepower.

Reasoning: A guild makes allies and those allies obey their treaties in the matters of war and state (usually, I know there are always exceptions, but arguing such points is useless) and it is relatively predictable who will join a fight and when. With a person, very rarely do they make official treaties stating when people will come help. And even if they do, they always have more friends outside of the treaty. And dealing with friends is a lot trickier, because unlike a treaty there are no set-in-ink rules that can be used to determine when where how and why friends fight. And those friends can bring their friends, and so on.

Essentially it is the difference between WWI and WWII

In WWI everything was basically known. The "web" of allied countries was easily traced, and it is quite obvious why people fought, why they entered when they did, and so on. And on a whole it was extremely explosive and violent. WWII nobody knew what the hell was going on, why hitler did this, why the french resistance did that, what the burmese where thinking, and so on. And to be frank, the damage was pretty topsy-turvy as well, some places getting paved with lead, others being untouched.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't matter whether that person's actions represent his company or not, I'd consider the "rogue element" to be the responsibility of his parent company.

Instead of feuding that one person, tell his group "We're feuding you to remove this person who's being a problem. Correct him or we'll use our feud to fuller effect." Or tell them that when they come asking, or don't tell them that because they're responsible for this one guy who's pissing you off. There's just no benefit I can see to selecting to feud an individual instead of his company (unless he's not part of any company). I would agree that you should be able to do feuds or some feud-like mechanic against completely unaffiliated individuals (maybe people default to some massive NPC company like they do defaulting to NPC settlements, so that there's never a case you can't feud them?), but I really don't understand why you need that for someone who is in a company. Why not just feud the company if you want to kill one of its members?

@Zael, if you do something horrible at the individual level, I'll be looking to your companies and settlements, which provided you the means to do that horrible thing. The point to this game is that you do not have a single person with no affiliations turning the entire River Kingdoms upside down, as in your necromancer king example. In this game that necromancer king will need a cadre of smiths, lesser necromancers, corpse-gatherers, etc. fueling his undead army; he will need a group to accomplish anything. Even in the extreme case of one person AWOX'ing with the group's strongest equipment, that guy shouldn't be a match for any PvP force assembled against him (hope I used the term correctly there).

BrotherZael wrote:
I am saying that some people might have a problem with the individual and the individual's actions, not the whole organization. If I attack TEO because I think they have become tyrants and are strong arming the masses of newbs into joining the "good" guild (purely from an RP standpoint), that has nothing to do with the Viridian Circle, nor should the Viridian Circle have to be held responsible for our actions. I see similar things happening in many places and with many guilds.

I do think that if you attack the Empyreal Order by yourself (somehow doing significant damage as a single person), and the means to launch such an attack came from the Viridian Circle (you got your equipment, or the money to buy your equipment, from them; you got your training building access from them; etc.) then the Viridian Circle should be held responsible. I don't think it's acceptable for the Circle to just say "We didn't tell him to do that, kill him if you want;" the Circle should still bear responsibility for its members' actions in this case. In my opinion there is no having a problem with an individual without having a problem with his company and/or settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

I understand your viewpoint on the matter, I just disagree about the capabilities of the individual and their ability to cause mischief.

If i became a pure diplomat I could not be company affiliated, but hop city to city. Each city I can train up at before moving on. In this manner I could train up, not be linked to one specific place, and then go into an escalation cycle and agitate them to super expansion vs. a settlement by whatever means that get added.

There are plenty of cases, similar and dissimilar, where such ambiguity could happen.

Whatever the case, the points we both bring up are valid. I'd imagine we have to see what it is like in game after OE to finally get a full idea on the subject. But at this point further discussion is just semantics I think, and the choice is as always for the devs (just in this case I don't think there is much us players can do).

Balancing pros and cons really. I don't see a reason not to have it, other than without it, the system forces a certain type of blanket-feuding that I don't think is as conducive for the desired political landscape. You don't see a reason to have it, other than it ensures that the practical socialism that is our desired method of interaction and keeps the emphasis in the faction not the individual.

So really, semantics and the pros-n-cons.

Goblin Squad Member

regarding members of a player company, i think it would be vibly to feud the company and tell them, our problem is with one of your members, stay out of this conflict or else...;)

i think a character that is a member of an npc company might pose a problem, unless they can be feuded too, which i´m sure they should be for newbie protection reasons.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gedichtewicht wrote:

The Problem:

The extreme parts of the alignment grid are kind of easy to define; in a very minimalistic way:

- good is helping others
- evil is being egoistic
- law is conformity
- chaos is individuality and freedom

These are black and white pairs.

I don't think those are definitive attributes. In my cosmology Chaos isn't individuality and freedom, but anarchy, the absence of rule. Chaos is a cosmological power. Freedom is vastly more self-disciplined than anarchy, yet Freedom isn't in the same league as Chaos.

Freedom, like religion, is a way of life.

The Good is a cosmological power. It isn't simply helping others, but helping others is an activity that partakes in the Good. The Good is a power, something in itself.

Similarly Evil is something in itself rather than a simple absence of good.

Law isn't conformity, Law is a greater power like the other four cardinal powers characters tend to align to.

Any one of these powers must be roughly counterbalanced by the authority of the other three. Without any one of them the rest would quickly make life unbearable for mortals.

Active Neutrality between them means we attempt to keep them well balanced. It is as if we were astride a one-wheeled skateboard moving at a high rate of speed through time. If we allow the board, which is our lives in the natural world, to become unbalanced between these four powers we will lose the balance of the board, and lose our and everyone's lives. Well, the lives other than those entities native to those powers, like angels and devils.

Nature is a product of the dynamic exchange of vitality between the four extremes.

Our opposite and natural enemy is entropy, not any of the four cardinal powers.

Goblin Squad Member

are you a bhuddist perchance? maybe a hindu? because that is how (some) my friends of the aforementioned beliefs talk xD

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Crowdforging - True Neutral as an active alignment All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.