| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have too much inclination of playing an evil character myself but I'd like there to be a real sense of fear when encountering an evil character. I hope the best for those trying to make successful CE characters because they will help keep the game interesting.
If reputation penalties crush evil for us what meaning is there to being good?
Rep doesn't crush any evil it just makes being certain types of evil harder (Namely CE). Don't forget about Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil, LE players got some good stuff set aside for them.
Don't worry there will be more than enough evil to go around. Think about all the idiots who will come into the game after launch to play the game like its your typical pvp murder simulator.
Trust me, there will be more than enough evil for everyone.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I get a clarification:
What methods of gaining Chaotic and Evil alignment are planned to exist that don't result in a loss of reputation NOR require interacting with other chaotic and evil characters/settlements?
Even further, are the methods for doing so in equal abundance as the methods to achieve a Good or Lawful alignment that don't result in a loss of reputation NOR require interacting with other lawful or good characters/settlements?
I spent a week on this exact subject a few months ago. I started posting potential ways to get what you're mentioning and Ryan Dancey replied to it saying GW isn't interested in making CE equally viable as the other alignments; it's being used as a funnel of suck for people that try to achieve success by killing early and often. That's why it's being referred to as such a challenge in the CE company thread.
It is what it is. Alignment as a mechanic doesn't have the same purpose in this game as tabletop. But you can always still put your "real" alignment in your bio.
Side note - I don't want this to be any version of EVE but with swords. When I want EVE I can play EVE already.
Just because there can be pvp in the open world doesn't mean we should be creating the expectation or a culture that there WILL be pvp whenver you take three steps into the open world.
It's the Wild West. Shootouts will happen sometimes after a big build up that comes to a head, not every 14 seconds or when you pass someone on the street whichever comes first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I spent a week on this exact subject a few months ago. I started posting potential ways to get what you're mentioning and Ryan Dancey replied to it saying GW isn't interested in making CE equally viable as the other alignments; it's being used as a funnel of suck for people that try to achieve success by killing early and often. That's why it's being referred to as such a challenge in the CE company thread.Can I get a clarification:
What methods of gaining Chaotic and Evil alignment are planned to exist that don't result in a loss of reputation NOR require interacting with other chaotic and evil characters/settlements?
Even further, are the methods for doing so in equal abundance as the methods to achieve a Good or Lawful alignment that don't result in a loss of reputation NOR require interacting with other lawful or good characters/settlements?
For reference, here's Ryan's reply to Proxima Sin:
@Proxima Sin - you appear to be proceeding from a false premise. I have no intention of making a game where people who want to play Chaotic Evil characters will be happy with their experience. One of the design goals of this game is not "Let people play every alignment option in rough balance with all the others". In fact the exact opposite is true: we're intentionally and publicly stating we have a bias and we'll intentionally sacrifice an alignment for the purpose of overall community quality.
I think it's important for the new folks coming to PFO to see these statements. There's a lot of misinformation floating around - some of it intentional.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I spent a week on this exact subject a few months ago. I started posting potential ways to get what you're mentioning and Ryan Dancey replied to it saying GW isn't interested in making CE equally viable as the other alignments; it's being used as a funnel of suck for people that try to achieve success by killing early and often. That's why it's being referred to as such a challenge in the CE company thread.Can I get a clarification:
What methods of gaining Chaotic and Evil alignment are planned to exist that don't result in a loss of reputation NOR require interacting with other chaotic and evil characters/settlements?
Even further, are the methods for doing so in equal abundance as the methods to achieve a Good or Lawful alignment that don't result in a loss of reputation NOR require interacting with other lawful or good characters/settlements?
For reference, here's Ryan's reply to Proxima Sin:
@Proxima Sin - you appear to be proceeding from a false premise. I have no intention of making a game where people who want to play Chaotic Evil characters will be happy with their experience. One of the design goals of this game is not "Let people play every alignment option in rough balance with all the others". In fact the exact opposite is true: we're intentionally and publicly stating we have a bias and we'll intentionally sacrifice an alignment for the purpose of overall community quality.I think it's important for the new folks coming to PFO to see these statements. There's a lot of misinformation floating around - some of it intentional.
That's unfortunate. Gabriel Mobius and I can attest that we've had some of our most memorable and epic tabletop experiences on both sides of the spectrum, playing the valiant good guys as well as the conniving, backstabbing, bloodthirsty evil groups (the latter being a series of Good party v Evil party ongoing gestalt games that was super fun for all sides). There is a ton of room for making the Evil or Chaotic side of things mesh well with the game overall. I'm vehemently opposed to the idea that a CE player is defined as someone whose only goal is "killing early and often". Even in TT that's just asking to have your character squashed. early and often.
In my mind a CE character is someone whose allegiance seems to be solid but would potentially sell companions out behind their backs without them knowing who done it. Someone who appears to be law-abiding but has no problems circumventing the laws of the land in such a fashion so as to not get caught. Someone who would trick you into following them into the middle of nowhere for the promise of riches, then cut your throat and take your expensive gear, and come back with wild stories of being ambushed and being unable to save you.
Yes, these are all decidedly evil and chaotic acts. But they are entirely inconspicuous. They rely on the bad judgement or inattentiveness of others and patience/dedication from the CE player.
I mean, if you really want to limit meaningless PvP just make it flag only. This entire convoluted system of balances and regenerating sliders seems to be extra ways to watch developers punish people who don't always roleplay the law-abiding, good-aligned players.
I agree that running around cracking in every skull you see in a, as Kobold Cleaver so gracefully put it elsewhere, "Chaotic Stupid" fashion would net you a shite reputation, but I don't think a properly roleplayed CE character should be the equivalent to the same thing as having an insanely negative reputation. I mean, how can people talk down your reputation about the bad things you've done if you've cut their throats?
If you want to give people the option to be chaotic and/or evil, make it mechanically meaningful, not just another avenue for player punishment. I don't believe punishment EVER deters bored malicious players from finding ways to be dickwads. People WILL break whatever punishment system you put in place. Full stop.
(I'm at work atm, but when I have more time/later tonight I'll brainstorm some interesting ways to approach the CE spectrum in a way that ADDs to everyone's play experience rather than feels like your being a dick to certain players)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For reference, here's Ryan's reply to Proxima Sin:
@Proxima Sin - you appear to be proceeding from a false premise. I have no intention of making a game where people who want to play Chaotic Evil characters will be happy with their experience. One of the design goals of this game is not "Let people play every alignment option in rough balance with all the others". In fact the exact opposite is true: we're intentionally and publicly stating we have a bias and we'll intentionally sacrifice an alignment for the purpose of overall community quality.I think it's important for the new folks coming to PFO to see these statements. There's a lot of misinformation floating around - some of it intentional.
I think it is important for new folks to see this bias and to vocalize their opposition to the design goal as being short sighted, un imaginative and a poor substitute for curtailing behaviors GW does not want to see.
There are also contradictory statements made by the actual developers that refutes the language of what Ryan stated above. I'm more willing to accept what the guys actually making the game say, over what Ryan thinks the game should be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are also contradictory statements made by the actual developers that refutes the language of what Ryan stated above. I'm more willing to accept what the guys actually making the game say, over what Ryan thinks the game should be.
I think the vision has changed somewhat over time. Early on it seemed like being either Chaotic or Evil would potentially cripple your character. Over time that has lessened to the point where now it seems like those alignments might just slow the pace of settlement development, crafting, and other factors.
However, the goal remains clear... prevent a 'kill early and often' play style from being effective. If the current restrictions achieve that then case closed. If not then they'll be looking to adjust things until characters like that are rare. Thus, it might be most logical to pursue efforts towards 'community enforcement' if you want to avoid game restrictions on the alignments. Discourage people from playing the game that way and Goblinworks can decrease or remove 'built-in' restrictions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we have to trust GW. The goal appears to be for the background to be rich, but have as little effect on the game play as they can get away with. If PFO is going to be about humans interacting with each other, some of the protagonists will have to be antagonists. That's only going to work if some people find it rewarding to play characters with motivations that are "not good." Otherwise, we'll be a bunch of bored people wandering around killing the same monsters and patting each other on the back for a good job.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I sympathize with your desire to see all Alignments represented fairly, you're overlooking an important detail. CE works in a tabletop campaign because everyone participating is making it work, you're generally not completely opposing each other, you're riffing off each other in a cooperative manner. That cannot be done for MMOs. They have to be able to codify the mechanics into something that makes sense and serves a distinct purpose when players oppose each other.
I think the problem GW faces is that everything they come up with that mechanically would define you as a 'good' Chaotic Evil player happens to coincide with everything that would give you bad reputation and encourage behaviors they don't want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And maybe they don't see that as a particularly large problem.
I think the current various non-aggression pacts make sense. Any group that is at war with their neighbor on day 1 is going to be putting less effort to improving gear and facilities. Not saying there won't be PvP, just that many groups will figure out what works for them before waging deliberate and sustained PvP against their neighbor. Until settlement claims start bumping up against each other, PvP is optional. At some point it may turn into expand or stagnate, and not initiating PvP may be less of an option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep remembering Ryan's looking for "meaningful human interaction"; that has to include decisions *not* to attack one another, and in potential alliances we're seeing those decisions. It reminds me to think of this not as a PVP game, but as a game with PVP...as so many people have tried to define it during the time I've been here, often while having that definition denied by others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really think an awful lot of very bright people are looking at alignment bass ackwards. Alignment measures your behavior. Alignment does not rule your behavior. Your behavior is your responsibility: no pawning it off on a rulebook.
If you have the option at the outset to propose your target alignment you set that then. When you enter the game you simply play the way you want to. If your alignment matches your intention great. If not great. Your active alignment, if you are being natural and authentic in your play, with be exactly what it should be.
We don't allow alignment to reign in tyranny over our behavior. We behave the way that is natural for our character.
Let the chips fall where they may.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I sympathize with your desire to see all Alignments represented fairly, you're overlooking an important detail. CE works in a tabletop campaign because everyone participating is making it work, you're generally not completely opposing each other, you're riffing off each other in a cooperative manner. That cannot be done for MMOs. They have to be able to codify the mechanics into something that makes sense and serves a distinct purpose when players oppose each other.
As for the first part, I've played the evil side in several directly opposed campaigns. From an 3.5 Good v Evil campaign (and the evil folks were independently opposing each other just as much as the usually well-coordinated good party), to a just as epic Superheroes vs Supervillians campaign using Mutants and Masterminds. In both cases the initial opposing parties and eventually separate groups were roleplayed in separate rooms with separate GMs communicating via their laptops, or at different sessions altogether with a lot of "Office-Hours" style in-between session work. There was rarely communication on the subjects of plans and ideas between players who weren't either directly working with other players on a scheme, or (for most of the good groups) actually working as a cohesive team.
The GMs worked hard to put mechanical concepts in place to sync up things and make opposing each other work really well with them as the intermediary for interactions between players/characters. It's perfectly possible to do these things if the designers are willing to design and work AS A NEUTRAL PARTY. We clearly have a divide of how the game WANTS you to play, and plans to punish people for going in the face of that.
I think the problem GW faces is that everything they come up with that mechanically would define you as a 'good' Chaotic Evil player happens to coincide with everything that would give you bad reputation and encourage behaviors they don't want.
I think their scope of a 'good' CE player is very tunnel-vision. It's based on the concept of reputation that they're building on. I don't think someone who kills early and often means CE. I think that just means a@&+$@*. I can understand reputation in that respect. I don't think THAT has anything to do with being chaotic or evil in context of Pathfinder itself. I think that is just a bad MMO player period, which makes sense when it comes to the concept of reputation.
I gave small scale examples in my previous post, but I think a CE player is also a large scale thing. Think bad guy in movies, TV, books. They do things like enslave a bunch of small villages to work in their stripmines. They impose road tolls (which as we know in Riverlands is quite against the law and spirit of things). They murder people who get in the way of their plans for monetary or political dominance.
CE people don't always lash out indiscriminately. Their temper may push them to do that, or their goals themselves may be manically-rooted overkill revenge for a small slight, but they still need to be triggered. They have goals and plans just like everyone else, how they approach the problems, and react to new situations is how they get the CE label.
Chaotic Evil doesn't mean random and indiscriminate. It means without regard to law and without respect for the rights of others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@BurnHavoc, nice read. Few will really understand that, they were never allowed to play evil in campaigns or play as one of many in an evil group. Granted most of my experience is when playing as an evil group, we did not do mix and matches often.
You are exactly right, there is no real rime or reason that the alignments are being played off as they are for PFO. Reputation, when implemented, should be able to cover the bad side. No alignment should be more powerful then another, its just an alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...If reputation penalties crush evil for us what meaning is there to being good?That is a damn fine question.
The answer is that all of the conflict in the game doesn't necessarily come from 'Good vs. Evil'.
We have opposing factions, we have opposing religions, and we have territory control: just these three will provide more than enough conflict go to around.
You don't need to be 'Evil' in order to provide something for the 'Goods' to oppose.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic Evil is a very rare alignment anyway, outside the monster population, in tabletop. you can absolutely not compare it with neutral evil, chaotic neutral or lawful evil.
Chaotic Evil means psychopath, it doesn't just mean "egotistic and not caring about the law", that would be neutral evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The answer is that all of the conflict in the game doesn't necessarily come from 'Good vs. Evil'....If reputation penalties crush evil for us what meaning is there to being good?That is a damn fine question.
Yeah, it'd be pretty boring if that was all there was - basically Horde vs. Alliance... *yawn*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's perfectly possible to do these things if the designers are willing to design and work AS A NEUTRAL PARTY.
I think there is a very important distinction that a GM =/= Software. I understand contrary setups work in tabletop, I've done it as a GM and as a Player. But as a software developer, they have to create a system and let it run without interference. In your example of opposed parties with 2 GMs, you have two people who can literally 'make it work' at will behind the scenes by working your two parties into a cooperative story. You aren't at odds at all, you're working together with opposing goals. The fact that you all accept and willingly participated in that setup alone indicates a social contract concerning how it would work and play out. Plenty of people wouldn't play that game just based on the premise. (Not saying it's bad game or anything, that sounds pretty cool to me)
I gave small scale examples in my previous post, but I think a CE player is also a large scale thing. Think bad guy in movies, TV, books. They do things like enslave a bunch of small villages to work in their stripmines. They impose road tolls (which as we know in Riverlands is quite against the law and spirit of things).
I would classify those all as Lawful or Neutral Evil. They are based around structure and purpose. They are inherent social contracts. CE would do the same but occasionally kill half the slaves because one revolted or sometimes kill the guy even after he pays the toll. The point of Chaotic is that even simple social contracts (even evil ones) mean nothing to them and they don't care how they resolve their conflicts.
They murder people who get in the way of their plans for monetary or political dominance.
That's pretty close to the definition of the entire Evil spectrum.
Chaotic Evil doesn't mean random and indiscriminate. It means without regard to law and without respect for the rights of others.
Those two statements I think are widely considered equivalent. If your behavior cannot be codified it is 'random' (or at least based on however you feel at the moment) to an outside observer. If you do not respect the rights of anyone else that generally means you're indiscriminate in whom you target. Probably only limiting yourself out of the occasional concern of self-preservation.
To me CE is much like a force of nature, it's unpredictable and it cannot be relied on, it can only be weathered or overcome. Not saying it's not interesting, but everything I can think of that would drift from LE and NE to CE is considered 'toxic' behavior.
Honestly the crux of your examples seem to point to NE to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you mistake chaotic for simply random. The unpredictability of the actions are only an aspect of chaos. (Emphasis mine)
Law Versus Chaos
...
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Now, if I'm playing by the book I'll play fair, we've also got the following SRD description:
A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
Now, the above implies motive. Heavily selfish, without regard for law or the rights of others (at I described above). But nothing in that description is infeasible game-wise. It makes for the perfect sociopathic bad guys. The folks you put bounties out on for burning down your Settlement's farm because it didn't look right to them without fire all over it.
It also means that any CE-styled settlement will be constant barfights and street brawls. They might agree on some things that serve to make their settlement work and not die off, but otherwise they're just a bunch of independent survival-of-the-fittest types.
I don't see why we need to add another layer to this with reputation restricting what their settlements can have what buildings or who can walk where without being hassled. That problem should sort itself out without enforcing game mechanics on it.
And for that matter, unless they're infamous for people having witnessed their actions (ie an actual bad reputation), how in hell would NPCs or even other players be able to tell if they're CE or LG? The only reason is because this prevailing method of Devs tattooing "POOL IMPULSE CONTROL" on their foreheads the second they put an axe through a few of the wrong skulls, even if there are no witnesses and it's in the middle of Nowhereland, South Pole.
In real life as in good fiction, bad people hide in plain sight until they get caught doing bad things where people can see it. That's what make good stories interesting, the things you DON'T know going in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with Duffy. I also am not sure what "alignment" you end up being in PFO is all that important for your play style, nor does it necessarily relate to what I or others may be familiar with from tabletop gaming. In PFO, it'll just kind of "happen" to you over time.
I believe, while many people may be saying here they are going to or want to play Chaotic Evil, they will find in game that their actual PFO alignment migrates more towards NE or LE than they may like. "Hey, I'm CE, why is this saying I'm NE?" I don't think it really has much bearing, people will play how they play and their PFO alignment will fall out where it falls out. There's no need to force the issue.
And to be fair, this is probably also true for LG. LG is very difficult to play "correctly" (from an RPG sense). I'm not sure it can even be done in PFO, honestly. If a LG paladin goes from his/her own good settlement to another Good Settlement, and the laws are slightly different there, he/she technically needs to comply with the laws of both settlements. What if those laws are conflicting? Very tough to play that way.
The other difficulty is that historically in RPG gaming alignments weren't nearly as fluid as PFO will be. It can be likened to having a "snap" setting on in in a drawing program - you "snapped" into the next alignment block or sub-block. In PFO, alignment is a continuum, and you can fall anywhere on that spectrum. What we may think of as traditionally CE may be way out at the far corner of the alignment box (at least that is the way I envision it, but I'm an old schooler), when in PFO CE may be just barely in that CE end of the continuum. Still CE, but not the lunatic fringe far corner CE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It also means that any CE-styled settlement will be constant barfights and street brawls. They might agree on some things that serve to make their settlement work and not die off, but otherwise they're just a bunch of independent survival-of-the-fittest types.
This exactly!
And by the way, if a CE settlement gets established and survives, I may be making an alt to join it, because it would be fun! (Think Tortuga from Pirates of the Carribbean)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it comes down to making a decision as the product owners. There is plenty of proof that small communities can self-regulate while larger player pools tend to end up pushing the limits of what the mechanics allow instead of what players allow. That's a tough call to make, trust the players (and that can fail and 'ruin' your game) or enforce the behavior you desire. If they can successfully pull off the latter then they essentially have the former if the outcomes were more or less going to be the same.
Even using alignment just as flavor, Chaotic (of any sort) inherently goes against organizing enough to really accomplish group tasks. They are, as stated, too unwilling to cooperate or sacrifice for others.
I think that's the point GW is trying to make, nothing is 100% preventing you from being Chaotic, but by the nature of their own descriptors and flavor they will not succeed (somewhat arbitrarily enforced by mechanics) at activities that require significant organization. It's not supposed to be in their nature.
And if you want to argue that they should, then what differentiates them from their Lawful counterparts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it comes down to making a decision as the product owners. There is plenty of proof that small communities can self-regulate while larger player pools tend to end up pushing the limits of what the mechanics allow instead of what players allow. That's a tough call to make, trust the players (and that can fail and 'ruin' your game) or enforce the behavior you desire. If they can successfully pull off the latter then they essentially have the former if the outcomes were more or less going to be the same.
Even using alignment just as flavor, Chaotic (of any sort) inherently goes against organizing enough to really accomplish group tasks. They are, as stated, too unwilling to cooperate or sacrifice for others.
I think that's the point GW is trying to make, nothing is 100% preventing you from being Chaotic, but by the nature of their own descriptors and flavor they will not succeed (somewhat arbitrarily enforced by mechanics) at activities that require significant organization. It's not supposed to be in their nature.
And if you want to argue that they should, then what differentiates them from their Lawful counterparts?
I just don't think you should mechanically restrict them from attempting it with reputation restrictions. Settlements will be combinations of alignments, so I doubt a totally CE settlement will necessarily fall apart immediately, because the TN, NE, and CN members of it might keep it afloat or they might find a harmonious middle ground in fiercely independent small groups who are totally cool with butting heads all the time and doing their own thing which happens to benefit the settlement. In which case, why can't it not thrive and have access to the upper tier of buildings? There's nothing physically preventing these buildings in theory, so why require reputation restrictions?
Let me pull the FULL quote for comparison:
Law Versus Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
In my mind, lawful evil settlements are very strict, follow our way of things or you'll get a sword through the throat. Chaotic evil settlements are do whatever you want, if you step on someones toes they might cut you down unless you're bigger, stronger or intimidating enough to scare them off... Neutral evil settlements sound very middle of the road. Like a place you go for a nice, solid black market where you won't get shanked walking in or out the door.
These are all viable archetypes for a settlement, and all could have no problem thriving under the right conditions. Why artificially restrict that with a third axis of "reputation" that essentially measures a line that has no bearing on the game.
-----
Here's an interesting alternative. How about make reputation more a fame/infamy rating. It's like a slider that defines how WELL KNOWN you are in the world to players an NPCs based on your witnessed actions. As long as you're in draw distance of a settlement or multiple NPCs, your actions gain you reputation. It's a 0-large number slider (no negative).
If you are sporting a good alignment, the more reputation you have, the more famous you are.
If you are sporting an evil alignment, the more reputation you have, the more infamous you are.
If you are sporting a lawful alignment, the more reputation you have, the more heroic you are. (Alternate word choice was paragon, but that'd be TOO mass-effect-y)
If you are sporting a chaotic alignment, the more reputation you have, the more of a renegade you are.
A true neutral with high rep is like the switzerland of players. Someone who's famous for how unbiased they can be.
This is just a measure of how well known you are to the world.
If you're not well known, you have a much easier time walking into places that are not near your alignment. People don't know who you are so they (like most people) assume their default of who they view as a general traveler or trader. If you're well known and you try to approach a settlement that knows you have a big reputation for NOT getting along with their type, expect a fight from both players and NPCs.
Have reputation decay very slowly, but make a higher rep mean that you need to do MORE things opposite your alignment to change it. People who are infamous for being raiders and for sacking and pillaging POIs/Outposts unprovoked will have much more trouble from the law even if they have a change of heart and are trying to be law abiding. Just as someone who has a lifetime of good deeds at their back will be given the benefit of the doubt way more if they start performing evil acts. But someone whom no one has heard of trying to atone for a single act of unprovoked violence or someone who has very few known good deeds turning to murder will find themselves very quickly on the opposite end of the spectrum from where they were.
I'll admit, even that concept I'd favour a much faster slide from good to evil and lawful to chaotic than I would the climb back the other way, but over all it's:
A) Mechanically viable
B) Very Flavourful and RP-friendly
C) Utterly unique in the Western MMO scene
Other things that can affect your reputation:
- Having bounties out on you (pref. from settlements/companies of opposing alignment)
- Time spent participating in inter-settlement related activities ie. war and trade
- (other mechanically-implementable ideas are welcome)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always thought the goal was to provide players with plenty of legitimate avenues for MEANINGFUL pvp that they won't need to turn to a griefer style of pvp in order to enjoy the game.
If however you decide to be a douche and pursue that playstyle the penalties they are imposing will still allow you to, but will put you in a position where you will become less and less of an effective douche as other people outskill, outequip and outplay you.
That to me = working as intended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with that totally. I think there are legitimate types of meaningful PvP that can be maintained throughout chaotic and evil statuses as I've defined above. I also think the playerbase is a better decider of what they view of meaningful PvP and what deserves to be punishable than the developers. Because we're the ones who are ground floor in-game day to day paying for the consequences of the design choices. Like, literally paying monthly for it.
There seems to be a prevailing attitude that simply getting in a conflict that both sides have not agreed on is the definition of griefing. I think thats a very negative way to look at an open PvP game. Griefing is harassment using game mechanics, like targeting someone over and over or following them around an making their lives miserable. Those kinds of people are griefers.
Let me help everyone with this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=griefer
Someone, usually in an online game, who intentionally, and usually repeatedly, attempts to degrade anothers experience or torment them.
Examples of griefing:
1. Player vs player abuse: Singling out the same person and killing them over and over when they are defenseless until they log off.
2. Kill stealing: Repeatedly trying to steal another persons kills so that their time is wasted.
3. Verbal abuse: Spamming a person with vulgar, hateful, or offensive messages.
4. Blocking: Getting in anothers way so they cannot move or get out of a particular area.
5. "Training": Triggering many monsters, almost always impossible to fight and survive, with the intention to either run someone out of an area or kill them indirectly if the server is not 'player vs player' enabled.
Most other fighting can usually be classified as meaningful. Aggressively guarding useful materials on the map to monopolize resources, MEANINGFUL. Attacking someone because they have some crazy awesome weapons you want to take from them, EVIL AND MEANINGFUL. Burning down some POIs and Outposts then stealing their stuff because you're out on a stroll and feel an itch for a really big bonfire and want to reassert that free is the best price, SUPER EVIL CHAOTIC AND MEANINGFUL.
All of this seems to fall under the bounds of good solid RP and meaningful PvP, and shouldn't be punished as "griefing behaviour" BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT. They're not harassment. They're greedy, evil, and generally not nice, but meaningful PvP isn't throwing rosepetals at each other. It's brutally shoving a sword into one anothers skull for greed, ideology, and thirst for conflict. On all sides.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
BurnHavoc, I agree with you completely. This topic has been the biggest cause of fighting on this forum.
Half agree with you, and the other half would rather fight with rose petals. They dont want to be walking through the wilderness at night and be afraid that they may be killed. It just doesnt compute, and they cannot handle it.
I say, if you walk out of town be prepared for a fight. It may never come, but if you are not prepared for it... Then do not leave town.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
CE works in a tabletop campaign because everyone participating is making it work, you're generally not completely opposing each other, you're riffing off each other in a cooperative manner. That cannot be done for MMOs. They have to be able to codify the mechanics...
(emphasis added)
Since what you say about coded mechanics is practically impossible, the River Kingdoms Pledge was designed for the players ourselves to include "good bad guys" with good good guys together in statement of that particular intent among every alignment, faction, and political affiliation interacting with each other.
We can skirmish, compete, feud, war, overtake a settlement, while always remembering the other guys are real people spending their recreation time on a game too. Some who hear pvp will have different goals but if the majority enforce their will through their playstyle that will be the dominant game culture. ( And take as much as possible out of the hands of game mechanics)
As long as you're doing it that way bring your Chaotic and your Evil. I'll leave it lamenting the day it ever saw my stylish yet practical shoes heading right towards its face. :O)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I say, if you walk out of town be prepared for a fight. It may never come, but if you are not prepared for it... Then do not leave town.
*nods* If I hand out some lashings while on a walk and take what I please, I certainly expect the next time I'm out gathering some herbs a few hexes away that someone might come by and want to bust my head like a watermelon with their mace.
If having this expectation puts a price on my head, awesome! Let the hunt begin, I'll be ready for all takers. That's the players enacting justice. We don't need a reputation system for that. Let the good and lawful aligned powerhouses out there deal with me. Let the Roseblood Accord members mark me as a target. I *WANT* to be hunted. I *WANT* to play a bad guy. That makes it exciting for all parties involved, it gives tension and conflict and makes the player interactions in the game meaningful. If you punish me for wanting to be a bad guy, I'll probably walk away from the game and then you lose a sub, you lose a potential draw for the righteous heroes in the game, and you lose the tension and meaningful interaction that having an antagonist brings.
Note I AM NOT ADVOCATING HARASSMENT. I am advocating that letting some players be bad is good for the game. Don't punish those players for trying to make the entire experience of PFO a better one.
I'm down for open warfare systems and random attacks but I don't have faith in the community totally policing itself. While I have faith in people on these forums and in this very thread. I lack faith in the rest of the population who will be playing and never read forums and those people always outnumber the forum goers. I am all for evil game play with purpose and depth but you can't control everyone. I prefer no boundries in rl not in my games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As long as you're doing it that way bring your Chaotic and your Evil. I'll leave it lamenting the day it ever saw my stylish yet practical shoes heading right towards its face. :O)
I am perfectly cool with that attitude. Let me be evil and crazy, let me do evil nasty uncool things, and then once I've done enough bad things make me and mine your target. Don't make the GAME punish me for it. I want YOU to try to take me down for it. I want that tension and conflict. I want to be the antagonist that makes YOUR and MY play experience that much better.
If a few random people need to have their characters die without reason, or a few of folks lose a piece or two of expensive gear, or have a few important POIs burn down along the way... well that'll give you a REAL reason to want to take me down. It'll legitimize your need for vengeance and justice. And for my sake the stolen goods will be a quick way to make me a formidable opponent ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that becomes the de-facto play style. You can RP all you want, but there's almost no way to tell the difference between you and the guy whose just kills anyone he runs across because that's the most efficient way to get what they want. That's what GW is trying to avoid, uninteresting game play.
Let's assume your example is true, what prevents everyone from just engaging in rampant conflict? Why shouldn't that be the default state? Or what even prevents a single entity from wandering the game destroying everything in their path? What are you going to do? Grief them til they stop? Yea it sounds cool that maybe the players will group together to stop them...but how long can that last? What if it's 1000 entities doing it all over the place? What if the players don't do anything and just hunker down instead? If the players don't deal with it, GW's grand vision falls apart, their game becomes a failure in their own eyes, and worse probably in a lot of ours, and it's all because they gambled on the players behaving a certain way.
I think your skirting around a general problem with MMOs, how do you put risk into a system that is inherently without risk? If you get killed, you just try again. You lose an item, just get another, it's just a bit of time to grind/buy/make a new one. The risk isn't in 'did I win the fight' the risk needs to be in longer terms, if I attack this person what will it prevent me from doing tomorrow? If the answer is 'probably nothing' or 'maybe someone will do something about it but I'm one face in 10,000 people doing the same thing' then I think your system has no risk and is ultimately uninteresting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ehh... The ship has pretty much sailed on the reputation system. There is a very much larger part of the MMO pie that is going to try PfO because of it, than there would be if it were the same old approach.
Without it, there would be no need for factions, feuds, wars, SADs, some meaningful choices in actions or any number of mechanics that are intertwined now, in the whole picture.
I think that GW wants both to change that market slice's view toward open PVP and that market slice's dollars. Can you blame them?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm down for open warfare systems and random attacks but I don't have faith in the community totally policing itself. While I have faith in people on these forums and in this very thread. I lack faith in the rest of the population who will be playing and never read forums and those people always outnumber the forum goers. I am all for evil game play with purpose and depth but you can't control everyone. I prefer no boundries in rl not in my games.
There are perfectly valid ways to address that. Harassment happens in games no matter what rules you add in. You can PM bomb people with multiple characters/accounts, you can get a group of griefers to target one person with multiple accounts and make their lives miserable, you can do it day in and day out. The only real way to deal with actual griefers is a good solid CSR team with the power to punish the PLAYER, not the CHARACTER.
In-game mechanics are a stopgap. If someone wants to be an a*@@~&$, they're going to find a way to be an a*@$~~!. And a false sense of having "fixed the problem" with some shitty game mechanic is the worst attitude because it makes you lax, unprepared and slow to response from a customer service perspective. Griefers will find every way to satisfy their playstyle, and they will find the exploits and abuses of your system and use them against your players in ways that your dev team can never think up. And the worst part, if you build your safeguards from day one it'll be HELL to fix them or take them out once the abuse starts.
You have to deal with griefers at the source: get rid of the toxic player.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Players on these boards, and Ryan himself, have repeatedly told us that one can never identify the ban-worthy players; it's too easy in today's environment to anonymise oneself. I believe some new mechanic is going to be needed--beyond what any game has tried so far--to have even a chance of attracting the people who today will come nowhere near a game that has PVP.
Goblinworks appears to be hunting for that new mechanic, and they seem relatively unconcerned about people who enjoy "traditional" PVP not being interested in their game. They've decided to have several significant differences between the Online and Tabletop versions of Pathfinder, and their approach to Alignment is one of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Doing things that lower your Reputation also slide you toward Evil.
That's fine.
Doing Evil things shouldn't always lower your Reputation.
Things like creating Undead or Slavery are perfectly fine for gaining Evil points without causing a lower Rep because it, in no way, is griefing.
We just need more Evil things in the game that don't relate to griefing and everything would be cool.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Doing things that lower your Reputation also slide you toward Evil.
That's fine.
Doing Evil things shouldn't always lower your Reputation.
Things like creating Undead or Slavery are perfectly fine for gaining Evil points without causing a lower Rep because it, in no way, is griefing.
We just need more Evil things in the game that don't relate to griefing and everything would be cool.
I'm game. What things?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem is that becomes the de-facto play style. You can RP all you want, but there's almost no way to tell the difference between you and the guy whose just kills anyone he runs across because that's the most efficient way to get what they want. That's what GW is trying to avoid, uninteresting game play.
Let's assume your example is true, what prevents everyone from just engaging in rampant conflict? Why shouldn't that be the default state? Or what even prevents a single entity from wandering the game destroying everything in their path? What are you going to do? Grief them til they stop? Yea it sounds cool that maybe the players will group together to stop them...but how long can that last? What if it's 1000 entities doing it all over the place? What if the players don't do anything and just hunker down instead? If the players don't deal with it, GW's grand vision falls apart, their game becomes a failure in their own eyes, and worse probably in a lot of ours, and it's all because they gambled on the players behaving a certain way.
I think your skirting around a general problem with MMOs, how do you put risk into a system that is inherently without risk? If you get killed, you just try again. You lose an item, just get another, it's just a bit of time to grind/buy/make a new one. The risk isn't in 'did I win the fight' the risk needs to be in longer terms, if I attack this person what will it prevent me from doing tomorrow? If the answer is 'probably nothing' or 'maybe someone will do something about it but I'm one face in 10,000 people doing the same thing' then I think your system has no risk and is ultimately uninteresting.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be without risk. I still think you should get C and/or E alignment for doing it, and THAT should limit what settlements you can enter and who you can interact with. Thats not a punishment, thats a consequence. Reputation is a punishment. It applies across the spectrum of alignment and has nothing but negative connotations for gameplay. THAT I disagree with.
In my mind, someone who has a ton of kills under their belt and is known for being generally a BAD guy should have HIGH reputation in a CE place. They're well known, feared, respected. That's what makes sense for CE. But if you do that, you're either working with my previously mentioned idea of a system for fame/infamy, or your getting rid of reputation in favour of making the alignments meaningful in another way.
And with my example above, what stops people from engaging in rampant conflict? Nothing. Though punishing players with reputation won't stop it anyway, so I don't see where the problem is. They'll just hop on their next character once the rep gets low enough and keep cycling through characters murdering as they go until they get bored. At least with an open system, they won't cycle through characters so people can make sport of hunting them down.
And I REALLY think you confuse reputation with risk. A punishment system isn't a RISK. It's an obstacle to get around. It won't prevent anyone from doing what they want. Hell, it'll just give people the feeling of reward and success for finding ways around it. And the reputation system won't PREVENT you from attacking someone tomorrow. It'll just *tisk*tisk* at you for being a naughty boy the next time you get your sabre stuck in someones ribcage.
You want real risk? How about another idea. Leave reputation in but remove all current planned punishments involved with it. Instead have a negative value give you a percent chance at permadeath for your character. At 0 there's no chance of permadeath. At -100, there's a 0.1% chance of permadeath. at -1000, a 1.0%, at the max of -7500, a 7.5% chance of permadeath.
I'd totally play that game of russian roulette. Come at me, bro.
to spice it up, your lowest rep living character defines the percent chance of permadeath for each of the characters on your account. (Not that dying on one would kill the others though, thats just cruel)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Quick aside I plan on being Evil)
I think the major hang up in our debate is that we're not equating things. There is no reason that Evil has to correspond to low reputation.
Using assassins in a mechanically sanctioned war is considered evil, not the act of declaring war. Poisoning the well in that same war is evil, but not negative reputation worthy. Using slaves for settlement production because it's 'cheaper' is evil, but should not affect reputation. Robbing people with a stand and deliver move is evil (arguably depends a bit on who your robbing), but letting them go after they pay gives you good reputation. Raising the dead is evil, but not worthy of negative reputation.
Alignment decisions should dictate how a person does something, not what they can do.
Reputation (or whatever you want to call a punishment mechanic) should discourage behavior that does not result in interesting interactions. This should be the limiter on what players can do. In a tabletop game this is the function of the DM and the rules. Bad rep in this game is essentially a timeout, a deterrent, you get less game while you continue to be a problem. Will it work? I don't know, we haven't really see anything like this before, nor do we even have GW's implementation.
Besides, if the system won't stop anything, then why care if it exists or not? The end result is the same with extra hoops to jump through for the dedicated abusers. That process would leave a very clear pattern that can be tracked and banned if desired, at the very least make those people waste a lot of money to play that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm game. What things?Doing things that lower your Reputation also slide you toward Evil.
That's fine.
Doing Evil things shouldn't always lower your Reputation.
Things like creating Undead or Slavery are perfectly fine for gaining Evil points without causing a lower Rep because it, in no way, is griefing.
We just need more Evil things in the game that don't relate to griefing and everything would be cool.
A few things off the top of my head;
- Evil Shrines: Building shrines to Evil deities or creatures, praying or worshiping at these shrines and sacrificing NPC townspeople or creatures at the shrines.
- Evil Magic: Performing rituals or spells that are Evil in nature, summoning Evil creatures or experimenting on NPC's.
- Lures: Placing an Evil Totem or other lure that draws an escalation cycle into a certain hex.
- Poison: Putting poison in a settlement or POI's water/food supply or croplands.
Some of these you might see occur in a wartime situation but that doesn't mean they aren't Evil acts. None of these directly affect another player character (just like creating undead or using slaves) and are all PvE actions so no Reputation has to come into play. They aren't just for show either, each one can have a reason for existing in the game by giving the Evil character something in exchange whether it is improved faction standing, a new spell or crafting component, creating Unrest in an enemy settlement or even causing that settlement to be attacked by monsters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm game. What things?Doing things that lower your Reputation also slide you toward Evil.
That's fine.
Doing Evil things shouldn't always lower your Reputation.
Things like creating Undead or Slavery are perfectly fine for gaining Evil points without causing a lower Rep because it, in no way, is griefing.
We just need more Evil things in the game that don't relate to griefing and everything would be cool.
A few things off the top of my head;
- Evil Shrines: Building shrines to Evil deities or creatures, praying or worshiping at these shrines and sacrificing NPC townspeople or creatures at the shrines.
- Evil Magic: Performing rituals or spells that are Evil in nature, summoning Evil creatures or experimenting on NPC's.
- Lures: Placing an Evil Totem or other lure that draws an escalation cycle into a certain hex.
- Poison: Putting poison in a settlement or POI's water/food supply or croplands.
Some of these you might see occur in a wartime situation but that doesn't mean they aren't Evil acts. None of these directly affect another player character (just like creating undead or using slaves) and are all PvE actions so no Reputation has to come into play. They aren't just for show either, each one can have a reason for existing in the game by giving the Evil character something in exchange whether it is improved faction standing, a new spell or crafting component, creating Unrest in an enemy settlement or even causing that settlement to be attacked by monsters.
I like those.
How about desecrating a shrine?
Special faction/alignment evil gain for killing good clerics or paladins?
Burning crop POIs to force starvation -> lower DI.
Casting long term debuff disease/poison/ spells?
I wonder if jumping characters engaged in PVE could be considered evil?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Besides, if the system won't stop anything, then why care if it exists or not? The end result is the same with extra hoops to jump through for the dedicated abusers. That process would leave a very clear pattern that can be tracked and banned if desired, at the very least make those people waste a lot of money to play that way.
it'll just give people the feeling of reward and success for finding ways around it
and
In-game mechanics are a stopgap. If someone wants to be an a*#**!%, they're going to find a way to be an a!+!!!$. And a false sense of having "fixed the problem" with some s%&$ty game mechanic is the worst attitude because it makes you lax, unprepared and slow to response from a customer service perspective. Griefers will find every way to satisfy their playstyle, and they will find the exploits and abuses of your system and use them against your players in ways that your dev team can never think up. And the worst part, if you build your safeguards from day one it'll be HELL to fix them or take them out once the abuse starts.
There is another part I diverge from a bit:
Alignment decisions should dictate how a person does something, not what they can do.
I disagree a bit, Alignment should be a consequence of your actions. Play your character how you want to play them and in an ideal system the alignment will reflect the actions you choose. It drives me nuts in TT when people try to use their alignment as a justification for an action that goes against the way they've been otherwise playing their character because it nets them loot or avoid having to actually roleplay. It's the bad kinda metagaming right there.
I think your actions should define your alignment, and your alignment (with some well earned fame/infamy) should define how different people react to you.
With respect to the rest of your post, I'm down with those as evil actions, though "mechanically sanctioned" is kinda silly if you're trying for a sneak attack as a declaration of war, no? You kinda boxed a chaotic action as a negative reputation action. This is why I so often disagree. I think part of being evil and/or chaotic is as a method of playing dirty to get the upper hand. It makes more people hate you, gain you more enemies, and if the statis from elsewhere are correct evil-aligned population at current is outnumbered 7 to 1. I wouldn't worry about having a lack of people to self-police, especially open season on evil people and lawbreakers means more points into good and lawful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really like the idea of "poisoning the well" in terms of resources. Salting croplands hexes, unleashing aggressive termite colonies on woodland hexes, cracking open poisonous gas pockets in mines, causing landslides in quarries, unleashing parasites on fish colonies, dropping large gnat colonies on wetlands, introducing sicknesses on game populations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really like the idea of "poisoning the well" in terms of resources. Salting croplands hexes, unleashing aggressive termite colonies on woodland hexes, cracking open poisonous gas pockets in mines, causing landslides in quarries, unleashing parasites on fish colonies, dropping large gnat colonies on wetlands, introducing sicknesses on game populations.
seconded. while yeah, some of it is a 'mite unreasonable (pun) it would still be viable and make sens. but how would you control it?
Why, Influence of course! not exactly as much cost as a full feud, but still hefty price.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I had a different reason in mind for preferring a more "evil" guild. (though it's going to be predominantly neutral)
https://goblinworks.com/landrush/guild/144
If you guys have any feedback to offer I'd appreciate it. Granted it's not quite what you're looking for, but it's a start.
I didn't see many neutral guilds either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you guys have any feedback to offer I'd appreciate it.
If you create a Recruitment Thread here on these forums, I can list it in Guild Recruitment & Helpful Links. Unfortunately, I can't list the Goblinworks.com Guild pages directly.
You'll want to make it as easy as possible for folks who see it to Apply for your Guild on the Land Rush, so click the "Show" button next to "How to format your text" to see how to create clickable links, and include a link to your Guild's page on the Leader Board.
Good luck! :)
I had a different reason in mind for preferring a more "evil" guild. (though it's going to be predominantly neutral)
https://goblinworks.com/landrush/guild/144
If you guys have any feedback to offer I'd appreciate it. Granted it's not quite what you're looking for, but it's a start.
I didn't see many neutral guilds either.
I think you will see more neutral guilds as time goes on. Right now the enthusiast community is the ones who are looking at this game so its expected to see more good guilds than anything just due to many folks here being used to the pen and paper game.
Oh and I like your guild by the way, always good to see political intrigue groups who use brains over brawn to win. Negotiations is going to play a huge part in this game so I wish you luck. If anything you may want to hook up with a great group of merc players who can use your settlement as a base and be there to protect it at the same time. They can play into your doubledealing and favors too by being able to use them as a way to gain favor with settlements.
"Oh, so you are having issues with that settlement in the north? Well for a monthly donation of your nearby starmetal we can provide you with a wonderful force to help protect "our" interests hmmm?"
I can tell you this, played right such a setup can have great influence over less pvp oriented settlements who are more pve and crafting focued
*evil grin*
And on a quick side note. Best believe if full blooded orcs are added I will be going CE myself. Potential names include Arrowblade Vale, Bloodbath Syndicate and Razorfen Glade.
*grumbles*
Stop making me want to play a villain!