Goblinworks Blog: The War of the Towers


Pathfinder Online

451 to 500 of 622 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

Sorry, I am a bit confused on a question asked and answered earlier. Is it true that a settlement will be able to provide training for 2 roles/classes and their respective crafting, or 0 roles/classes and universal crafting? So crafting is not considered a role?

Or, is this more like a sliding scale? Could a settlement provide training for 1 role and most crafting?

There are 7 roles in the initial design: 4 combat roles and 3 crafting roles. We will be able to choose among 7 settlement templates which offer every combination of 2 combat roles, or all 3 crafting roles. (Aristocrat support may lag the other 2.)

Goblin Squad Member

@Decius - I'd be fine with "public works", too - that's a good addition. After the wailing and gnashing of teeth over "PoI" as not role-play friendly, I just figure it might as well be something we'd use in conversation that doesn't describe the mechanics too overtly. "Placeholder that gives a DI boost" is right out.

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:
By the way - Bob Settles is the newest designer at Goblinworks! He hasnt got his avatar/title sorted in the forums yet. He is handling the PvE side of things. PILE ON HIM.

I think Bob needs a fancy title like the other Goblins.

Goblin Squad Member

Dario wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Dario wrote:
...
Welcome back! Do you have any idea how many times I've asked "whatever happened to Dario?"
I've been around, lurking, on and off. Whenever the politicking got to be a bit too much I tended to wander off for a break before I burst a blood vessel. =P

Chicken :)

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
There are 7 roles in the initial design: 4 combat roles and 3 crafting roles. We will be able to choose among 7 settlement templates which offer every combination of 2 combat roles, or all 3 crafting roles.

Sounds like there will be plenty of crafting settlements, and some fighter/cleric or fighter/rogue ones, but players who wanted to focus on arcane magic are likely to have very few choices, if any.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which means the wizard settlements will make friends and get recruits fast.

Goblin Squad Member

DI structures

Paizo Employee CEO

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tork Shaw wrote:
By the way - Bob Settles is the newest designer at Goblinworks! He hasnt got his avatar/title sorted in the forums yet. He is handling the PvE side of things. PILE ON HIM.

I just gave him his forum bling. I can't give him a goblin avatar unfortunately. :)

-Lisa

Goblin Squad Member

I like the way Tork totally derailed the thread with asking for names other than support structures for the Civic Assets. To divert their juices, creative and otherwise, into something constructive.

Masterfully done. *tips green hat*

Also, they will be called Civic Assets. It is done.

Lets go back to freaking out about the good news this blog gave us.


...I'm okay with Civic Assets, actually.

Goblin Squad Member

Golgotha has huge... assets.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My two cents on the war of towers.

The good thing. GW is adding features.
The neutral thing. GW is adding temporary features.
The bad thing imo. GW is adding temporary features to fill holes in their code, which shows their code is not that evolved yet. I would have much rather seen a quasi-influence system between companies, so that we could have created conflict or abstained from creating conflict on our own.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It always feels as if "Huge..." should be followed by "tracts of land".

Goblin Squad Member

Aeioun wrote:
adding temporary features to fill holes in their code

There weren't holes in their code. They never promised to deliver anything that engaged meaningful PvP at the beginning of EE until now, with the WotT. Without an in game mechanic for a PvP outlet you would be getting random PvP at anytime, anywhere, if you wanted it or not.

As Tork stated (oh yeah, I am totally using what you said to make a point, muhaha)

Tork wrote:
Believe me I have a gazillion sketches of how we could make this more comprehensive and a thousand additional features we could add. We discussed many of them and their technical implications and decided that the minimal subset workable areas described in the blog. Each additional feature we add to WotT is time taken away from completing the final product and while some of these may seem super-trivial they tend to bring with them a rabbit hole of cornercases and UI requirements that make them unfeasible as part of a temporary system. Them's the breaks :/

They are doing what they can with limited time and resources. Not everyone is going to get what they want, but the game will still be enjoyable.

If you don't like the Towers, rest assured that they will only be in PFO for a short time. The only bonus anyone gets from them is some Civic Assets in their Settlement.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Have mixed feelings on "War of Towers" (bad and worse). ;)

It’ll be a game-changer for sure. And I guess by GW’s own admission it’s being proposed because they’re afraid there’s not enough for the players to actually do at this early stage.

Larger guilds that can scatter members across the map will have a far easier time holding far more towers than the smaller start-up guilds, possibly to the point it'll be impossible for them to compete…yet another positive feedback loop that shafts the little guy.

Also foresee this detracting from other activities the players could (or should) be doing instead, like basic, unscripted exploring/adventuring, crafting, building up settlements, etc.

And you can't get much more theme-parky than a bunch of indestructible towers that guilds repeatedly flip in a traveling salesman-like pattern, a la Guild Wars 2. I mean, who the hell built these towers, and why? This elevates 300+ likely cookie-cutter, strategically impotent structures to POI status.

I guess we'll find out how this kneejerk blind swing goes. IMHO there were far cooler places to spend the time, and I hope the towers don’t make the finished product.


Since they're only being added until settlement warfare becomes available, I think it's safe to say they won't "make" the finished product.

Goblin Squad Member

"Training Facilities" and "[Upkeep or Civic] Facilities".

Which will be colloquially referred to as Schools and Yard Art.

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:

So these are our current contenders. I think the only one to get a second so far is Auxiliary Structures.

Morale Structures
Decoration Assets
Decorations
Auxiliary Structures
DI Structures
DI Boosters
Index Enhancers
Ornaments
Infrastructure
Index Assets
SSR Structures
Civ Features
Settlement Enhancement Structures
Settlement Features

Just to maybe add a bit of fuel- the current list of structures serving this purpose is as follows. Its a pretty diverse list of things and the terms should really take that into account. Not least cos it will be fun to come up with even more diverse ones in the future... I'm in LOVE with the idea of 'heads on spikes' - a kind of 'Garden of Skulls'.

Warehouse
Public Garden
Philosopher's Statue
Heroic Statue
Silo
Well
Guard Post
Religious Statue
Guillotine

How about Settlement Expansions?

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Which means the wizard settlements will make friends and get recruits fast.

Are there any?

Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Which means the wizard settlements will make friends and get recruits fast.
Are there any?

Last I heard, Phaeros was going to have wizard training.

Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Which means the wizard settlements will make friends and get recruits fast.
Are there any?

I might be wrong, but I think in the short term Phaeros is aiming for providing for rogues and wizards...and expanding that to as many roles as possible later.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:
Keovar wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Which means the wizard settlements will make friends and get recruits fast.
Are there any?
Last I heard, Phaeros was going to have wizard training.

That's a pretty safe bet. Kind of like saying "I think Ozem's Vigil will eventually have Paladin training" :)

Grand Lodge

Right, and right Keepers Pass intends on moving toward the Tradeskills/Profession/Crafting focused Settlement, nothing is ever concrete but as you say, it's a safe bet.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zodd Zerker wrote:
Aeioun wrote:
adding temporary features to fill holes in their code

There weren't holes in their code. They never promised to deliver anything that engaged meaningful PvP at the beginning of EE until now, with the WotT. Without an in game mechanic for a PvP outlet you would be getting random PvP at anytime, anywhere, if you wanted it or not.

As Tork stated (oh yeah, I am totally using what you said to make a point, muhaha)

Tork wrote:
Believe me I have a gazillion sketches of how we could make this more comprehensive and a thousand additional features we could add. We discussed many of them and their technical implications and decided that the minimal subset workable areas described in the blog. Each additional feature we add to WotT is time taken away from completing the final product and while some of these may seem super-trivial they tend to bring with them a rabbit hole of cornercases and UI requirements that make them unfeasible as part of a temporary system. Them's the breaks :/

They are doing what they can with limited time and resources. Not everyone is going to get what they want, but the game will still be enjoyable.

If you don't like the Towers, rest assured that they will only be in PFO for a short time. The only bonus anyone gets from them is some Civic Assets in their Settlement.

Maybe I don't understand this completely, but a simple system, where you kill npcs, gather resources and craft accumulates influence for your company and you use that influence to feud other companies and get the unthreaded stuff of their corpse, would have sufficed much more in my estimation.

Goblin Squad Member

If we're lucky, a warlike group large enough to take 20 towers will pick a couple of weak neighbors, take their moats o' PVP by force, and make them all part of a 20 tower window.
Can you say Warzone boys and girls ?

I for one am truly looking forward to this WoT thing.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:
Keovar wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Which means the wizard settlements will make friends and get recruits fast.
Are there any?
Last I heard, Phaeros was going to have wizard training.
That's a pretty safe bet. Kind of like saying "I think Ozem's Vigil will eventually have Paladin training" :)

Could as well be on the moon for all the good that does, though. It just seems weird to me that we'll have trades classes and adventurer classes separated by settlement. An interdependent trade network makes wars more significant, but if you have to be at one another's throats in order to advance enough to get there... well, there's a saying that goes something like "where merchants cross borders, soldiers rarely do" (I've not been able to find the original quote pjrasing or attribution), but this seems to be the inverse.

I had imagined that there might be periods of relative stability with flare-ups around various local disputes, with the occasional world war breaking out as webs of alliances drag everyone into a massive conflict. This War of Towers thing just sounds like an elaborate excuse to create "All Your Tower Are Belong To Us" image macro memes.

Goblin Squad Member

Looks like I have to cancel the production of my memes....

Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Which means the wizard settlements will make friends and get recruits fast.
Are there any?

Trying to convince my Kabal buddies to have one. Will let you know if I succeed.

Join Kabal and ask for mage training!

Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Which means the wizard settlements will make friends and get recruits fast.
Are there any?

Talonguard will have wizard training.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still haven't decided whether or not I like this WotT-development. What bothers me most is that it does force the good-aligned settlements into violent conflict with their neighbors, where you can either choose to play according to your alignment choice and suffer from stunted growth, or to actually fight the (mostly also good-aligned) neighbors over the towers.

Much of it is a matter of numbers, though:
- How many towers to you need for unstunted settlement development?
- And as related note, how far do you expect someone who plays from day one to be able to level up during the time of the WotT, and how many towers would a settlement need to control to train him to the max throughout WotT (or to support the max. training he got somewhere else if he's not in one of the roles the settlement's training focuses on)?
- How big are the bonuses from auxiliary structures (or whatever the name will be) going to be, depending on the settlement's final "tower score"?
- Does the total number of towers at the end of the WotT matter or is it a progressive score accumulated over time?
- How fast does the PVP-window grow with each additional tower?

I understand much of this may still be tbd, but it depends on many of these answers if playing as part of a good-aligned settlement during WotT can be done satisfactorily. E.g., there are 9-10 towers per settlement on the map. If that is mostly sufficient for reasonably successful growth and decent auxiliary structure bonuses in the end, no problem. You could probably work something out that involves little or no actual good-vs-good combat. But if you need like 20 or more for decent development and a good start after WotT, most of the successful settlements will be strongly in the evil alignment range (at least by their actions, if not by their stated alignment) by the end og WotT. Compared to the current alignment distribution, that seems just wrong.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So a week into EE, we will have towers spring from the ground which can be claimed and fought over by companies, who in turn can associate themselves with settlements, and those settlements will be owned by the land rush winners.

This sounds like it should solve a lot of problems that could have cropped up during EE -
PvE fans should be more easily able to avoid PvP scenarios, and in fact should have more to do as the PvPers won't be cutting down the monsters as much.

PvP dedicates will have something to do other than engage in practice fights and grinding to unlock new skills. Even better, it will actually have meaning and influence the strength of those they fight for - ultimately what is intended to happen anyway.

Ragtag bands of guilds that populate most MMOs with 1 to 10 people will either serve an actual purpose or effectively die off without support. This is logical, even if it bothers those who just want to play with their tabletop game buddies and not get embroiled in large-scale conflicts. A small, well organized group should still be able to ally itself appropriately to survive and swell its ranks as its reputation grows, so even those who didn't win the land rush may end up with their own settlements relatively quickly, if they plan and play well.

I'm not sure I enjoy the 'stand there to claim the tower' mechanic, but I do not want to see a lot of time spent refining it into something else, either. After all, it's a temporary measure and the more energy that can be spent on mastering the settlements so we get a smooth implementation of the system, the better.

All in all, this seems like a good development. I keep expecting GW to let me down somehow, but so far I agree with every decision they've made. (Well, of those I know about, obviously.)

Goblin Squad Member

@albadeon, fighting hostile characters doesn't have an alignment hit. Even without the war of the tavernstowers, one good settlement can use faction warfare, feuds, and declared wars to attack members of another good settlement. It's honest, above-board, by-the-rules conflict and has no alignment penalty.

Goblin Squad Member

Another question: If a tower is attacked during a PVP-window, does the owning company actually have to be there to defend it, or can all the defending be done by allied forces. Is it enough to just defeat all the attackers, even if no owners are present (assuming the allied non-owner defenders do not wish to or decline to take over the tower)? I'm thinking of a scenario, where some player just wants to play PVE but wants to support his settlement in the WotT anyway. He forms a single-player company to grab ownership of one of the towers directly surrounding the settlement and then leaves the defense of that tower to the town militia (who are in other companies but help in the defense of the town's assets), while going off to kill NPC monsters. Would that be feasible?

Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:
It just seems weird to me that we'll have trades classes and adventurer classes separated by settlement.

It's always been part of the settlement design planning that you'll have to specialize your facilities; you're not going to have enough Development Index headroom to build one of everything. This template model is much less flexible than what we'll eventually have, but the underlying idea of "make hard choices about city planning, and then make friends to fill in the gaps" has been consistent all along.

If you want your city to have more craft training it's going to have less combat training, and vice versa. Some settlements will go a balanced route and have mediocre facilities for a lot of characters. Others will specialize strongly and then form relationships with neighbors who have made complementary choices; they'll probably fare better than the balanced types.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Urman wrote:
@albadeon, fighting hostile characters doesn't have an alignment hit. Even without the war of the tavernstowers, one good settlement can use faction warfare, feuds, and declared wars to attack members of another good settlement. It's honest, above-board, by-the-rules conflict and has no alignment penalty.

It doesn't have an alignment penalty rule-wise. But can you see a Paladin of Iomedae fight a Paladin of Sarenrae over ownership of a tower and still be rightfully able to call himself a Paladin? Seems to violate all that is is to be a good-aligned character...

Edit: Yes, I know, no Paladins in EE, but you get the point...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All to move us into nation building

Goblin Squad Member

albadeon wrote:
Another question: If a tower is attacked during a PVP-window, does the owning company actually have to be there to defend it, or can all the defending be done by allied forces. Is it enough to just defeat all the attackers, even if no owners are present (assuming the allied non-owner defenders do not wish to or decline to take over the tower)? I'm thinking of a scenario, where some player just wants to play PVE but wants to support his settlement in the WotT anyway. He forms a single-player company to grab ownership of one of the towers directly surrounding the settlement and then leaves the defense of that tower to the town militia (who are in other companies but help in the defense of the town's assets), while going off to kill NPC monsters. Would that be feasible?

My impression was that allied/affiliated companies could help by being outside and defending the "counter area" or threshold. I too wonder if that will be possible to do from outside there.

Also, won't an ally that has to claim a tower (to drive off attackers) lose the claim on their own tower if they do?

Goblin Squad Member

albadeon wrote:
TEO Urman wrote:
@albadeon, fighting hostile characters doesn't have an alignment hit. Even without the war of the tavernstowers, one good settlement can use faction warfare, feuds, and declared wars to attack members of another good settlement. It's honest, above-board, by-the-rules conflict and has no alignment penalty.

It doesn't have an alignment penalty rule-wise. But can you see a Paladin of Iomedae fight a Paladin of Sarenrae over ownership of a tower and still be rightfully able to call himself a Paladin? Seems to violate all that is is to be a good-aligned character...

Edit: Yes, I know, no Paladins in EE, but you get the point...

There isn't an alignment penalty for such actions. Neighbors and friends that really are truly playing Good alignments will (hopefully) be able to find mutually beneficial agreement over such things. That is part of the cost of really being a "Good Guy".

Goblin Squad Member

albadeon wrote:
TEO Urman wrote:
@albadeon, fighting hostile characters doesn't have an alignment hit. Even without the war of the tavernstowers, one good settlement can use faction warfare, feuds, and declared wars to attack members of another good settlement. It's honest, above-board, by-the-rules conflict and has no alignment penalty.

It doesn't have an alignment penalty rule-wise. But can you see a Paladin of Iomedae fight a Paladin of Sarenrae over ownership of a tower and still be rightfully able to call himself a Paladin? Seems to violate all that is is to be a good-aligned character...

Edit: Yes, I know, no Paladins in EE, but you get the point...

At one point, Ryan suggested that at one extreme paladins might be dedicated to PvE, avoiding PvP. There is one school of fantasy that believes that good-aligned characters will never disagree on something strongly enough to fight a war over their disagreements. I don't subscribe to that school. I believe that even horrible wars like our Crusades can be fought with some of the people on both sides being well-meaning and dedicated, some being venal, and some being dupes.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Urman wrote:
At one point, Ryan suggested that at one extreme paladins might be dedicated to PvE, avoiding PvP. There is one school of fantasy that believes that good-aligned characters will never disagree on something strongly enough to fight a war over their disagreements. I don't subscribe to that school. I believe that even horrible wars like our Crusades can be fought with some of the people on both sides being well-meaning and dedicated, some being venal, and some being dupes.

And as with most wars (and most fighting in general), both sides will think they're doing the Good and just thing, and that they are in the right. It's just human nature to see our own actions as good.

It's especially easy to justify Good vs. Good in a resource-scarce environment: both Paladin 1 and Paladin 2 need the same resource to provide for the weak in their own settlements, so they have no choice but to fight over it (unless they can work out some kind of mutually beneficial deal, but that depends on circumstances).

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Urman wrote:
There is one school of fantasy that believes that good-aligned characters will never disagree on something strongly enough to fight a war over their disagreements. I don't subscribe to that school. I believe that even horrible wars like our Crusades can be fought with some of the people on both sides being well-meaning and dedicated, some being venal, and some being dupes.

I agree in general. I just don't really see that happening amongst close neighbors who all have in their settlement description to be cooperative and supportive of their neighbors, who see fighting amongst each other generally negatively and who are looking to cooperate after the WotT.

Bringslite wrote:
Neighbors and friends that really are truly playing Good alignments will (hopefully) be able to find mutually beneficial agreement over such things. That is part of the cost of really being a "Good Guy".

The thing I'm worried about is that the WotT, depending on the exact way it is set up, has in a surprise move made that cost suddenly unfeasibly high and (again, depending on the exact details) may have made cooperation for mutual benefit virtually impossible.

That said, if the details are done right, I can see a possibility for this to work for good settlements (for an acceptable cost). That's why I asked my original questions above :-).

Goblin Squad Member

@ albadeon

Indeed there are some details that will make big differences in how the WotT plays out between certain groups. I am certainly hoping that those details are released early enough that people can take them, analyze them, and make some plans with knowledge of all consequences.

You don't have to be "good" aligned either, to make compromises and deals that are beneficial to yourself and your neighbors.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't think you'll have to screw your neighbors over to do well off in the WotT. The figures we were given before were (approximately; I might not remember perfectly) 8 hexes for a functional settlement, 16 if you want a big and booming high end settlement. We should all be able to do 8 towers without much issue, if that's still the general rule, and thus shouldn't have too much issue with cooperating for mutual success.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

<kabal> Bunibuni wrote:

Trying to convince my Kabal buddies to have one. Will let you know if I succeed.

Join Kabal and ask for mage training!
<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
Talonguard will have wizard training.

Are either of your groups looking at the possibility of joining or allying with the Empire of Xeilias, or the Coalition?

Guurzak wrote:
It's always been part of the settlement design planning ...

Thanks, but I do read the blogs and will sometimes read dev posts tracked by Feedly, I just don't read many threads anymore, especially when they're this long.

In the Game of Towers, you win or you have a sucky settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Nope they already clarified this point. WoT will give you some bonus features that increase your settlements DI, this is more for bragging rights than anything else.

Goblin Squad Member

Can't remember if this has been addressed yet:

A company can have control of only one tower. What happens if they try to take another tower? Do they lose their old tower, or are they simply unable to count as taking control of the new tower?

Goblin Squad Member

I think that this EE addition is a great interim step to introduce PvP into the game. As has been mentioned, I'm a little concerned about the free-for-all aspect brought up during the video blog throughout a Settlement's PvP window.

I'm fully in agreement that the more Towers a Settlement controls, the wider its PvP window should be wedged open (will that time be continuous or broken up?). Also, I wonder if we'll see the Towers as a threshold to allow creation of different structures (or add-ons to existing buildings, e.g. you need to hold 9 Towers to support a grade III temple of XYZ). Also, those systems should degrade or increase in upkeep cost as Towers are lost. That means that the most effect will be whether the "base-model Settlement" and owned Towers use a threshold requirement to allow access, additional Towers simply provide a boosting effect to skill acquisition, or incremental increases to building rates.

However, I'd prefer that the Towers (and potentially the Settlements) remain "meaningful PvP" during said window; the alignment / reputation consequences should be maintained at least to some degree. It is mentioned over and over that one of this game's main goals is to provide opportunities for meaningful PvP. I guess in some way, the Tower control mechanism itself is considered meaningful to some, but the alignment / reputation system is the method (albeit not perfect - but those players flaunting it will be flagged) to prevent outright griefing that may dissuade some players from joining. It appears that a large percentage of terrain hexes (looks like about 30%) will have open, no-consequence PvP that might persist for many hours a day. I worry this change may push each player to have to be active in the PvP side of the game in order to be able to continue to move forward in the game. I really hadn't planned to be overly involved in PvP except when forced (just not the most exciting part of a MMO game for me). Yet, I do want this game to have multiple pathways to fun - and hope this adds a dimension to the early game that draws more than it detracts and encourages player excitement.

Goblin Squad Member

They're trying to keep everything as simple as possible, since the entire tower wars dynamic will cease to exist in a few months, and is therefore a drain on resources for a temporary activity.

But maybe something could be done to reduce collateral, by requiring a company to declare their intent to take a tower 24 hours before moving. That intent might not need to be public, but could trigger a flag control, where they are free agents in the hex of that tower once war is declared and until they take it. They'd need to be free to defend it. And free to re-take it any time in a certain period (say a week after losing it) without any consequence.

Things could be done with limiting the number of declarations that are made, in much the same way that our existing settlement draft is handled. Each individual company has a list of up to ?10? towers we are prepared to make a play for, and nobody but the company leader and the game knows those thirty towers identities (we can guess some). During open windows, those 10 hexes are consequence free for combat to anyone in that company or defending the tower (occupants and declared allies). Hexes can be reset at any time, but newly added hexes aren't consequence free until the 24 hour "Declaration of intent" window is past.

It feels like that would make the companies put some strategy into their selections.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Urman wrote:
albadeon wrote:
TEO Urman wrote:
@albadeon, fighting hostile characters doesn't have an alignment hit. Even without the war of the tavernstowers, one good settlement can use faction warfare, feuds, and declared wars to attack members of another good settlement. It's honest, above-board, by-the-rules conflict and has no alignment penalty.

It doesn't have an alignment penalty rule-wise. But can you see a Paladin of Iomedae fight a Paladin of Sarenrae over ownership of a tower and still be rightfully able to call himself a Paladin? Seems to violate all that is is to be a good-aligned character...

Edit: Yes, I know, no Paladins in EE, but you get the point...

I believe that even horrible wars like our Crusades can be fought with some of the people on both sides being well-meaning and dedicated, some being venal, and some being dupes.

This. This is one example of how one should look at alignment, as it is meant to be understood. Additionally, you will find this (correct) approach to understanding alignment suffuses Golarion.


albadeon wrote:
I still haven't decided whether or not I like this WotT-development. What bothers me most is that it does force the good-aligned settlements into violent conflict with their neighbors, where you can either choose to play according to your alignment choice and suffer from stunted growth, or to actually fight the (mostly also good-aligned) neighbors over the towers.

I actually quite like this, for two reasons.

One, it's how it should be. No, I don't want good people killing each other all over. But we Northern Coalitionists/Koalas actually have the same dilemma: Too many alliances can get hard to sustain. That should be a real question people ask themselves. "How many friends can I afford to be making? How many oaths can I get away with breaking?"

Two, good vs. evil isn't the only source of conflict we want. Sometimes good people kill good people due to simple miscommunications or poor leadership. Even in our most vicious real-life wars, the soldiers on both sides were just following orders.

I expect there will be wars fought between Chaotic Good and Lawful Good, or even Neutral Good and Neutral Good. These will be for the metagame reasons of "We need land" or "They're being stingy with the training houses", but the in-character reasons will be where the real excitement takes place.

Shane wrote:
It's especially easy to justify Good vs. Good in a resource-scarce environment: both Paladin 1 and Paladin 2 need the same resource to provide for the weak in their own settlements, so they have no choice but to fight over it (unless they can work out some kind of mutually beneficial deal, but that depends on circumstances).

The real problem with this is by fighting another paladin, you know for a fact that the man you are killing is good.

However. Morality is different in this game. Death isn't permanent, meaning that killing isn't really as much of an evil act. Good vs. good has been justified.

451 to 500 of 622 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: The War of the Towers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.