Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am rather at a loss as to how this thread has degenerated this far.
The Roseblood Accord states two simple objectives, positive gameplay and mutual success of its members.
These are not the same thing, they are two completely separate goals. At times they can actually be conflicting goals and then must guide each other towards an acceptable resolution.
Bluddwolf asking to join is great, so long as he is taking into account both aspects of the accord. Nihimon asking the questions he did is also important, primarily because the points that Bluddwolf made addressed only one of the purposes of the accord.
I said this earlier, before signing off on this, I had to come to grips with which actions we were willing to forego in regards to which targets.
We are willing to clearly state that positive gameplay is our goal, we will discuss these matters with the other accord members, we will likely see what this encompasses evolve over time. We are not equivocating about our participation in this aspect of the accord, it is an all or nothing effort and we are all in.
Furthermore, we also agreed that we will assist the members of this accord to mutual benefit, this is a completely two way street. Other members of the accord may not appreciate how much this is the case quite yet, with us not being in close proximity or having a similar alignment, but I think some do and this is why we have been able to have serious discussions on how we can help each other. I will repeat myself again, to anyone wishing to join this accord, you will need to consider in what ways you are going to contribute to the goal of mutual benefit.
It is not all about positive gameplay. This was definitely a big part in our decision making process, but it was still only a part of the whole when it came to joining this accord. We did so eyes open, aware that whatever we ultimately felt to violate the spirit of positive gameplay may not be shared 1:1 among other groups, nor that we had sole dominion over such a concept. At no point do I recall us discussing the formation of a church or a CC by the name of Apple in which we sought to control the mind share of all things related to positive gameplay.
We have a strong idea about what positive gameplay constitutes, we have decided to build an alliance with others who support our version of the concept, and we have published it for others to see and decide if it is something they wish to take a part in.
We are not saying that UNC may not share our concept, nor that PAX lacks its own. Neither do we accept that doing so alone qualifies them for joining this accord, as it only meets one of the requirements.
---
Do not take this as me being angry, I am attempting clearly to state what I see as needing to be less vague, given the nature of the discussion thus far.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Even if it turns out that most of the folks who would agree with this Accord feel that Banditry is not a component of "positive gameplay", I think we all recognize that Banditry is an important part of PFO.I'm not certain about your own membership, but the Devs have made Blogs and posts that disagree with this. So I ask you...
Do you know better what is "positive game play" than the developers?
I would be very interested what posts and blogs you think the devs have made that "disagree" with me about what "positive gameplay" is.
Third, make it simple to understand and apply to everyone equallyWhen you take selfish acts, you will lose rep. When you take acts that benefit the community you gain rep. Logging in and playing in a non-selfish way is de facto community-positive.
While it's not a stated requirement, I think many of us see that "positive gameplay" equates to being "High Reputation" with a commitment to only engage in actions which lower our Reputation in extreme circumstances.
The Accord is corrupted in its inception.
So, you no longer wish to join? Or are you simply making it clear that you never had any intention of joining "in the spirit of" the Accord in the first place?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@darcnes, As wexel has said, since he seams to have a good understanding of what the UNC stands for and desires, we as players want to promote positive game play and also meaningful game play. However, since this accord has 2 "requirements" to join and the other being mutual success, the ONLY way I see that working with our in-game characters would be a contract where we get paid to work for you. In that case, it would be mutually beneficial as we get paid and you get both protection and immunity from our attacks for a while. However, this would never be done on a constant bases, though contracts could be renewed if they are still beneficial to both parties.
If this is acceptable, then we think we can still hold a place within this accord. If this is not acceptable, then perhaps we share a common goal, but have different views as to how to reach it. If this is the case, we remain in our same mindset as before, we hold no grudge and no reserve towards anyone, group or individual. We still will promote positive game play and will enjoy being your content as much as you will be ours.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Purely personal thoughts here. Representative of no one but myself.
When it comes right down to it, conflict is a significant part of the game. It is going to happen. Every Company, settlement, empire, alliance, "loose agreement" and/or "combination of" has to look at who they group with very seriously. If a part of their "group" is aggressive (not saying that is bad), the group has to realize that retaliation against "that group" is fair gaming. I would go so far as to say it falls within "positive game play" and the spirit of the game.
If aggression or possible repercussions (resulting from part of your "groups" actions) are not a part of your current plans, the consideration is pretty heavy.
Everyone has their own definitions of "aggressive" - some befuddle me.
I totally agree with you that conflict is a critically important part of the game. I contemplated - in the public sphere - the question "Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?" I came to the conclusion that "No, it cannot". PFO needs "bad guys". We need bandits, and conquerors, and tyrants, and spies, and assassins, and raiders, and even simple murderers.
However, there are a great many players who prefer to play "good guys", heroes, bandit hunters, protectors, and rebels for the cause of truth, justice, life, and liberty. These "good guys" typically don't last long in Open PvP games because the deck is stacked against them. They're harassed as "carebears", called "weak" or "naive", or simply told they're "doing it wrong". In truth, in most other Open PvP Sandbox games they are doing it wrong, because they never embrace the lessons of those games:
1: Open World PvP implies a murder simulator
2: Killing early, often, and without discrimination is the route to long-term success
Pathfinder Online promises to be different, and the Roseblood Accord - and indeed virtually all of my own personal writing over more than two years on these forums - is an invitation to these "good guys" (even if their Character will be Neutral Evil) to give Pathfinder Online a chance, and to know that there is a powerful alliance that intends to make the lands around us as safe as possible for them.
No one expects this philosophy to "take over the map". I'm sure many doubt it can survive at all, anywhere. Many will seek to subvert it - some out of the sheer joy of subversion, others by trying to trap it up in semantics by getting its adherents to lay down "rules" about one scenario only to turn those rules against another scnario. I would encourage them to, as UNC has done, declare yourself clearly. Be the "bad guys". Be the conquerors, the tyrants, the expansionist empires. We need you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think any group, alliance, or accord has the ability to survive as long as it can spring back from defeat. It is the one thing none of us are immune to.
As long as the commitment is there, I think you guys will be fine.
While Aeternum is a ways away from your power block, your goals are not something we are against by any means. It is a good goal with added mutual interest, I wish you guys the best.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's your diplomat showing through again, Milo; you'd better straighten your mask. When you speak for UNC, how is it that it sounds so much different from your fellows?
You obviously don't want to stir up fights in this non-game arena, but it's quite hard for me to say that of the presentation-styles of some others. It appears, if they believe as you, their word-choice (among other aspects) has, so far and in several ways, made it difficult to see past their rhetoric to their message.
It isn't so much that I don't want to stir up fights, it is more of the idea that we are getting closer to EE and we are getting some solid "set in stone" intel about the game and it is time to set aside our differences and focus on making our dream come true. "Our" meaning all of us, the dream being "A positive and enjoyable place to play."
As for the differences between my "speech" and my fellow leaders of the UNC, I tried to explain it before but will try again here. It is my belief that I have better control over my emotions when it comes to actually typing and saying things on these forums. There are times I would love to lay into someone but I don't think, especially at this point, that it would be productive. Bludd and xeen instead do :-) Different approaches from different people is mainly what it is. Not saying 1 is better than the other, though at times there is.
The "brotherly love" between bludd and nihimon has been brewing and growing from the very beginning. Both being very passionate and intelligent people IRL and having such a passion and care for the development of this game is my view of why things are the way they are. They both have grown to the point of having a warped view of the other, but while warped, still makes perfect sense of it. weather they read too much into something, nit pick over wording, or whatever, that is my belief of the situation.
Xeen is just a prick :-) lol
It is my hope that by using my "silver plated snake's tongue" I can calm the storms that brew from the clashing of these two "giants" and move conversations along to the desired conclusion. Seams to work at least a little.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, you no longer wish to join? Or are you simply making it clear that you never had any intention of joining "in the spirit of" the Accord in the first place?
I believe the five points I had made, adhere to the spirit of the accord and represent positive game play.
I totally agree with you that conflict is a critically important part of the game. I contemplated - in the public sphere - the question "Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?" I came to the conclusion that "No, it cannot". PFO needs "bad guys". We need bandits, and conquerors, and tyrants, and spies, and assassins, and raiders, and even simple murderers.
If the game needs these roles, as you say, then they are positive game play.
You claim that it is not your intention to set down "rules" for what positive game play is, but when I submitted UNC's position of support..... suddenly, rules came out!
First, regardless of what I had written, the UNC was not a good fit. Then a post claimed that our five points, we not enough. Meanwhile, no one else provided a list of what earned them the label of "Positive Game Player".
I have said (written) this often. You or your organization does not hold the key to Positive Game Play. You are not the arbiter of the label. You have been playing this meta game for some time now, and I will never grow tired of providing push back.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Goodfellow
Unequivocal support, both ways. It is that simple. You have made your case as to how you could survive, are you willing to hold by that even if there is not paying work? Not having UNC attacking TSV/TEO merchants does mean there will be less work. Banditry cycles and all that.
If contract work is the primary way UNC will be benefited, are you prepared to accept that you may not be getting as much benefit as you would like? We certainly had to answer that, for us the benefits go beyond contract work.
My personal opinion, not speaking for the accord, is that of what I know about UNC, what has been presented in this thread and your own threads, I think UNC stands to gain less from such an arrangement than other members of the accord. That is what you would be agreeing to. Unless of course you feel that there are other factors at work which would redress that balance, then perhaps agreeing would not be so onerous as I perceive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have said (written) this often. You or your organization does not hold the key to Positive Game Play. You are not the arbiter of the label. You have been playing this meta game for some time now, and I will never grow tired of providing push back.
We have never said we hold the key. We do not own the term, we did not copyright it. Others may claim to abide by a "positive game play" that we do not agree with. We cannot sue them.
We do know what we believe to be positive game play and apparently the message is pretty clear because more and more people are joining this alliance every single day. New players, lurkers, chartered companies, every single day this message gets stronger so it can't be as confusing as you label it to be.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, you no longer wish to join? Or are you simply making it clear that you never had any intention of joining "in the spirit of" the Accord in the first place?I believe the five points I had made, adhere to the spirit of the accord and represent positive game play.
I totally agree with you that conflict is a critically important part of the game. I contemplated - in the public sphere - the question "Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?" I came to the conclusion that "No, it cannot". PFO needs "bad guys". We need bandits, and conquerors, and tyrants, and spies, and assassins, and raiders, and even simple murderers.If the game needs these roles, as you say, then they are positive game play.
You claim that it is not your intention to set down "rules" for what positive game play is, but when I submitted UNC's position of support..... suddenly, rules came out!
First, regardless of what I had written, the UNC was not a good fit. Then a post claimed that our five points, we not enough. Meanwhile, no one else provided a list of what earned them the label of "Positive Game Player".
I have said (written) this often. You or your organization does not hold the key to Positive Game Play. You are not the arbiter of the label. You have been playing this meta game for some time now, and I will never grow tired of providing push back.
I have given you very specific feedback both on the problems with your list (they aren't even examples of positive influence, and the problem with using a list at all (there isn't an explicit definition possible).
If you want to discuss what positive gameplay means to you, do so. If you think that it is exactly the same thing as refraining from griefing, then you disagree with us on a major point, and I encourage you to start your own faction to support what you want rather than trying to join/undermine one that has different goals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@wexel, I don't recognize your name so you have either been quiet or are relatively new to the forums and I welcome you either way. I would also like to thank you for wording exactly what our intent has been since Bludd first posted on this thread, actually even before that. Maybe coming from someone not associated with UNC will make it more clear or easier to understand.
What he said in that long post is a very good interpretation of what we at the UNC have in mind and are trying to do, from the beginning mind you. From our first post, this is what our intent was. To be the bad guy and be the content for everyone else, while making everyone our content. However, this wasn't a decision we made over night or on a whim. We wanted to still be members of the community, a Positive role model for any and everyone that wanted to follow our lead in being other people's content on purpose.
The whole reason we looked into the treaty of ravagog, and now this accord, is with that same mentality and those same intentions. We want to help the community be great and a place where people come and stay and enjoy themselves. We want everyone to have fun and have epic stories to add to the "great experiences" thread and so on.
Coming from one of your own, I hope it is received better than posts from us. It is the same message. Even in other threads, the message is the same. We argue and fight for things we feel will help us, or you, to make the game more enjoyable and fun for the greatest number of people. The SAD mechanic is designed to be an alternative to only being able to kill to gain loot and inflict loss on our opposition.
I could go on but I'm tired and ready for bed. The point is that Wexel isn't the only non-UNC member to see what we are trying to do and what we stand for. If more could see that we are not the "enemy" and just the other side of the same community coin, maybe we can stop the bickering and hostilities between us and achieve this goal we all want.
Goodfellow, speaking only as a private individual, I've never seen UNC or Bludd as "the enemy" from an OOC/Metagame perspective. You may end up being (or maybe not... I'm just a grunt, I don't get to make those calls) "the enemy" from an IC/In Game perspective. That's not really important... I've had plenty of "villians" in past games who my characters worked against "IC" but who I thoroughly respected and enjoyed interacting with as a player.
The only disagreements I've ever had (personaly) with any of you guys so far... have been some differences at what might make good and balanced game mechanics in a few areas...and even those we've tended to have more agreement then disagreement. Regards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From an OOC, or player, standpoint we fully support and wish you luck in the ideals behind this accord and what it stands for. While it seams we have differences in opinions and definitions, I still believe that we all want the same thing.
From an IC/in-game perspective, since our gameplay and playstyle requires that we rob and kill other players, or get paid not to, it will have to be weighed and considered once the markets are up and the "cost of living" has been assessed. We understand that it would cause us to have less targets, and would also most likely result in a more modest "lifestyle" in game for us to join your accord. If we can survive and enjoy our "version" of the game with these costs, then we welcome the opportunity to do so.
However, if it turns out to be where we can no longer reside within our chosen and desired playstyle while respecting the agreement with this accord, then we will respectfully and honorable withdraw from it. Even if that happens, and we withdraw from your accord and your "alliance," we as players will still respect your playstyles and desires for positive gameplay. And we hope that you will understand that we don't leave the accord out of any negative misconceptions, but simply because we can not be bad guys while under the agreed rules of this accord.
Since the game isn't available to be enjoyed yet and much is still pending implementation, we will simply ask that as players and in an OOC manner, we support this accord and wish to join its membership. What happens in game COULD change this and cause us to withdraw our membership, but that will have to wait till we are in game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry but I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements:
... we support this accord and wish to join its membership.
The Accord is corrupted in its inception...
... it is built on deception.
... it is built on arrogance and naievete.
It seems clear to me that UNC's attempts to join the Roseblood Accord are in fact attempts to re-define "positive gameplay" to your own definition. I will reiterate that "not griefing" is not an adequate definition for "positive gameplay". "Not griefing" is a requirement for for all players.
I am using my best judgment in refusing to list UNC as members of the Roseblood Accord. If the current members reach a consensus that I'm wrong, I'll list you, but I fear that doing so would remove all meaning from the words "positive gameplay".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, well seeing as I think this thread has gone way away from the OP and design for this thread, we at the UNC will simply withdraw our request to join you. There has been mixed reviews and difference questions and answers stated and I think it is best for everyone if we just be with you in spirit, but not on paper.
We wish you the best and, even though we are not accepted, we still respect and honor what you stand for. Good luck and good day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm sorry but I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements:
... we support this accord and wish to join its membership.The Accord is corrupted in its inception...
... it is built on deception.
... it is built on arrogance and naievete.
It seems clear to me that UNC's attempts to join the Roseblood Accord are in fact attempts to re-define "positive gameplay" to your own definition. I will reiterate that "not griefing" is not an adequate definition for "positive gameplay". "Not griefing" is a requirement for for all players.
I am using my best judgment in refusing to list UNC as members of the Roseblood Accord. If the current members reach a consensus that I'm wrong, I'll list you, but I fear that doing so would remove all meaning from the words "positive gameplay".
While it's not a stated requirement, I think many of us see that "positive gameplay" equates to being "High Reputation" with a commitment to only engage in actions which lower our Reputation in extreme circumstances.
Can you cite any official UNC statement where we not only supported this, but we (I in particular) stated that my ultimate benchmark for success would be to prove the Devs wrong and play a CE character and have High Reputation?
You should really stand by your legitimate argument that "This is our thing", instead of trying to show how you are not being hypocritical, by applying unique rules to us, where no other had to deal with those same rules.
The "Mutually Beneficial" clause has not been presented in a way that we would see exactly what our benefits would be.
We essentially, would have to avoid all banditry or initiation of PvP within the ambiguous "South-Eastern Region", including all hexes and not just PC controlled hexes. This accord would not just apply to the signatories of the accord, but to all travelers within this region.
Seriously speaking, what exactly would the mutually beneficial compensation be for our giving up our role and play style?
I would entertain this type of arrangement as part of a contract, but it's terms would have to be clearly defined and each entity would be dealt with independently ( one contract for each settlement; One contract for each company, etc).
As a rule, we do not apply the terms of a contract to any party that had not specifically entered into it. This means that third parties are not considered part of the terms.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If you don't think that you can play in a mutually beneficial manner, don't offer to do so.
I think that one possible way of doing so would be to monopolize banditry within a particular area, driving off all competition and keeping travel costs reasonable.
But that's wholly incompatible with the beliefs that I think underly "We will not make a group of new players feel singled out and targeted unless we declare a feud on their company."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You should really stand by your legitimate argument that "This is our thing", instead of trying to show how you are not being hypocritical, by applying unique rules to us, where no other had to deal with those same rules.
Actually Bludd, everyone who has signed has agreed not to prey on the other members. No "additional" onus has been placed on you.
The "Mutually Beneficial" clause has not been presented in a way that we would see exactly what our benefits would be.
If you don't see the benefit, why are you asking to join? Or are you just trying to stir the pot?
We essentially, would have to avoid all banditry or initiation of PvP within the ambiguous "South-Eastern Region", including all hexes and not just PC controlled hexes. This accord would not just apply to the signatories of the accord, but to all travelers within this region.
We're game if you are. Oh, except for the bolded part. Would you care to point out where any of us have claimed that this would be a PvP free zone?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is this an in-game alliance or an out of game group working on fostering a good community of players?
The ideal is that 100% of active players believe in the basic principle of the Accord -positive gameplay- however that turns out in the game even when conflict and loss (an integral foundation stone of the game) are involved.
Sports teams aren't allied with each other on the field but ideally they all have the same concept of good sportsmanship during contests and wins and losses; at least you know it when you see it.
That's how I see the Roseblood Accord and why it gets my support.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have some questions:
- Is there a written Accord and is it public?
- Sovereignty was mentioned, do you see the Accord as more of a United Nations (very little authority, more of a inter-group conscious) or a European Union (collective voice/power).
- Do we get to call your members 'Rosies' :)
Thanks guys!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is there a written Accord and is it public?
What you see is all there is :)
Sovereignty was mentioned, do you see the Accord as more of a United Nations (very little authority, more of a inter-group conscious) or a European Union (collective voice/power).
There is as yet no governing body. There may or may not be some kind of formal governing body once we're in-game. Personally, I will fight tooth-and-nail to ensure that governing body has as little power to meddle in members' affairs as possible.
Do we get to call your members 'Rosies' :)
Just don't call me late to dinner :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I will fight tooth-and-nail to ensure that governing body has as little power to meddle in members' affairs as possible.
This is also something we will fight for. I would prefer to see any such governing body act more as an intermediary among the members than an authority.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seriously speaking, what exactly would the mutually beneficial compensation be for our giving up our role and play style?I would entertain this type of arrangement as part of a contract, but it's terms would have to be clearly defined and each entity would be dealt with independently ( one contract for each settlement; One contract for each company, etc).
As a rule, we do not apply the terms of a contract to any party that had not specifically entered into it. This means that third parties are not considered part of the terms.
This to me sounds like a person wishing to join the local Elk's lodge, but instead of paying dues (which I don't believe the Roseblood Accord requires monetary dues, so no modern definition sophism here please) they demand that the Elk's Lodge pay them a stipend to act cordially. Not so much even the Lodge as a whole, but more each individual member of the Lodge so that you don't shake one member's hand and slap the guy standing right next to him in the face.
All that have signed have agreed to not slap each other in the face and are not putting any ancillary paper to it. We certainly aren't requiring payment to not harass each other either. Attacking one member of the RA is for sure an attack on all members as it weakens the one and thus the whole.
I understand you want to be a bandit. I understand you want to play the whole contract for this and that angle. What I'm not alright with is the "As long as you give me money we're friends/cordial/affiliated/non-hostile, but if ever there is a point where you don't give me money then I punch you in the face." That seems to be the summation of relations with UNC (in my view) and is not very appealing (again, in my view). Especially in consideration of the definition of the word Accord. I see no harmony in that.
I'm not PvP adverse. I will punch back. That cleared up, as described above I can't see how that is mutually beneficial to me. I give you money (benefit to you), what are you giving to me? Again, not punching me just isn't a valid bargaining chip.
Now, for me, if as a member of the RA UNC initiated ZERO hostile/aggressive acts or extortion demands for the duration of their membership toward other RA members, their lands and interests...with the RA effectively the "contract", I know I personally would not be adverse to the idea of membership as a possibility. In that situation the next step as I see it would be to iron out in macro form who are viable targets. Everyone in the SE won't be part of the RA nor will they necessarily be friendly toward the RA.
As for what UNC gets in benefit...the benefits of being in connection with such a diverse group that have settlements is obvious to most.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That still has no bearing on feuds, wars or the like - those hostilities have already been initiated.Would you care to point out where any of us have claimed that this would be a PvP free zone?I asked him if he would commit to not initiating hostilities in the area.
Not initiating hostilities is not initiating hostilities, that would include all hostilities except for self defense.
Not sure how PvP combat, with a winner and a loser, is mutually beneficial. I also don't see the difference in killing you for the purpose of looting and killing you for some other reason and then looting you. At least in the former, we have the option to not kill.
As The Goodfellow has stated, we withdraw from this discussion and application. Although my initial five points were genuine and we will still hold to them, my expectation that the UNC would be received into this accord was very low.
What you are hoping to accomplish can be achieved in relations with the UNC through contracts. We are always willing to discuss those.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Moral relativism is a plague of the mind. UNC should maybe start to accept that they chose an evil path. Which is fine, but trying to sugar coat it really is ridiculous.
There is room for both good and evil within chaotic neutral.
@V'rel
I'm sure you understand that a service rejected could some day become a service that is longed for. There may be more coin in it for us in the long run.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Do this or you're dead" is not chaotic neutral. Which is essentially what you intend to do.
Really?
Conan the Cimmerian did a lot of threatening and killing, sometimes very brutal killing.
I recall in one short story, he threatened to cut a guy's heart out and make him see it while it was still beating. He of course did just that!
Conan is consider the epitome of Chaotic Neutral.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Conan isn't a PFO character.
"You have what you hold" has nothing to do with alignments, it's just a description of the reality of a "frontier" land with no strong authority, it doesn't mean that a paladin will take by force the first house not defended enough to cross his path.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Again, that is not a law, but a statement. And the River Kingdoms are considered chaotic neutral because it is a chaotic land with a bunch of various cities and organisations.
If indeed, lots of thieves and con men are chaotic neutral, using murder on a regular basis for personal advantage is, chaotic evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If robbing and murdering people who are just going about their business isn't chaotic evil, I have no idea what might be.
That is because you are putting it into your own context (RL) and not into the context of the River Kingdoms.
There are many customs around the world, and throughout time, that are viewed negatively if put in the wrong context.
We are all familiar with the term, ethnocentrism. I also use the term chronocentrism, when we judge something based on what we know today and find that previous practice to be abhorant.
My Great Grandmother was married to my Great Grandfather when she was 13 and he was 26. A very normal practice in the Ukraine in the 1890s, but it is seen as Statutory Rape today.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If robbing and murdering people who are just going about their business isn't chaotic evil, I have no idea what might be.That is because you are putting it into your own context (RL) and not into the context of the River Kingdoms.
No, it is in context of the absolutes of morality in Golarion, the gods and their respective positions of the alignment plane. You are the one using RL when trying to push moral relativism on the game world. In Golarion, there is no moral relativism. The River Kingdoms are a small section of Golarion, and as such it inherits the features of the whole. Good and Evil, Order and Chaos, and their relationships to each other are no different in the River Kingdoms than they are in Cheliax, Droon, Teyazco, Chu Ye, or New Azlant.
What is Evil (with a capital "E") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.
What is Chaotic (with a capital "C") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.
What is Order (with a capital "O") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.
What is Good (with a capital "G") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If robbing and murdering people who are just going about their business isn't chaotic evil, I have no idea what might be.That is because you are putting it into your own context (RL) and not into the context of the River Kingdoms.No, it is in context of the absolutes of morality in Golarion, the gods and their respective positions of the alignment plane. You are the one using RL when trying to push moral relativism on the game world. In Golarion, there is no moral relativism. The River Kingdoms are a small section of Golarion, and as such it inherits the features of the whole. Good and Evil, Order and Chaos, and their relationships to each other are no different in the River Kingdoms than they are in Cheliax, Droon, Teyazco, Chu Ye, or New Azlant.
What is Evil (with a capital "E") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.
What is Chaotic (with a capital "C") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.
What is Order (with a capital "O") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.
What is Good (with a capital "G") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.
The only absolute is what the DM decides. The game setting, the Gods, the alignment system, etc. is all malleable. I've played AD&D campaigns where alignment was not used. I've played another where our characters became Quasi Deities. We played races, that were not playable according to the rules.
As Ryan had written, for most players in PFO, they will set their alignment and never have to think about it again. The few that will are practically corner cases. (paraphrased)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only absolute is what the DM decides. The game setting, the Gods, the alignment system, etc. is all malleable. I've played AD&D campaigns where alignment was not used. I've played another where our characters became Quasi Deities. We played races, that were not playable according to the rules.
What you and yours do is irrelevant to cannon. Pathfinder is a campaign setting. Do you need me to find where Devs/Ryan explicitly confirm the intent is to match the "feel" of Pathfinder (as opposed to mechanics), or where they outright state Pathfinder has absolute alignment as personified in the deities? I will do so if you do not think I can.
I can also guarantee you will not be able to find anything by the devs/Ryan that counters, suggesting moral relativism will be relevant to the game, specifically relating to alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What you and yours do is irrelevant to cannon. Pathfinder is a campaign setting. Do you need me to find where Devs/Ryan explicitly confirm the intent is to match the "feel" of Pathfinder (as opposed to mechanics), or where they outright state Pathfinder has absolute alignment as personified in the deities? I will do so if you do not think I can.
I can also guarantee you will not be able to find anything by the devs/Ryan that counters, suggesting moral relativism will be relevant to the game, specifically relating to alignments.
In a sandbox MMO, the player is in many ways the DM. What the Devs say is the setting is irrelevant, particularly to cannon. Your average MMO player won't give a rat's ass about cannon, won't bother to read a stitch of source material (if any actually exists), they just don't care.
The Player is the only God the character has to deal with.
I'm not saying this is the ideal, it is a likely reality.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In a sandbox MMO, the player is in many ways the DM. What the Devs say is the setting is irrelevant, particularly to cannon. Your average MMO player won't give a rat's ass about cannon, won't bother to read a stitch of source material (if any actually exists), they just don't care.
The Player is the only God the character has to deal with.
I'm not saying this is the ideal, it is a likely reality.
I apologize for being dense...I do not understand the relevance of what you are saying here. The discussion comes from your claim that Chaotic acts might not always be Chaotic in The River Kingdoms due to some moral relativistic effects. I denied the claim and instead suggested (and offered to provide evidence of) the existence of an absolute alignment system which will represent morality in-game (to characters).
Whether the players think killing is a Good or Evil act is irrelevant to the fact that mechanics will dictate. When you kill and your Alignment slides slowly to Evil, you can just keep calling yourself a God and wishing it would go the other way...we will see how well that works for you.
EDIT: As to "sandbox"...You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your average MMO player won't give a rat's ass about cannon, won't bother to read a stitch of source material (if any actually exists), they just don't care.
Possibly, but I think that this game will have a vast player base which is familiar with cannon, and will be expecting that at least some of their TT knowledge and experience will apply. To what extent remains to be seen.