|
I don't think it will so much be mechanically impossible or prohibited, rather it will be incredibly difficult to maintain perfectly balanced TN CC members, Buildings, PoI's, Role Support etc for any given settlement.
As I understand it the median Alignment of the Settlement members will at least partially determine the Settlements own.
Goblin Squad Member
|
My understanding is that TN is allowed for both characters and settlements. Diagonal moves are considered 2 steps, so a TN settlement excludes the 4 corners of the chart.
GW expects players to naturally gravitate to the corners based on their preferred playstyles, with neutral alignments being either transitional after a significant playstyle change, or a deliberate and carefully maintained choice rather than natural gameplay. So while a TN settlement would have access to more compatible alignments than any other, it will probably have access to fewer actual players than a side or corner choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last I heard the only restriction on TN is at the Nation level. Nations cannot be TN.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Devs have also said that for most people, alignment core and active alignment do not have to be exactly the same and with no negative consequences for being one step askew.
You can be NG core, but be TN, CG or LG active with no negative consequence.
Only Paladins need to be very concerned about alignment. Clerics, Druids and Barbarians a little less do. Everyone else, not at all except for Core.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Devs have also said that for most people, alignment core and active alignment do not have to be exactly the same and with no negative consequences for being one step askew.
What they actually said was that the idea of penalties for having different active and core alignments was still under discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Devs have also said that for most people, alignment core and active alignment do not have to be exactly the same and with no negative consequences for being one step askew.What they actually said was that the idea of penalties for having different active and core alignments was still under discussion.
But not for one step, Stephen was clear on that. There should perhaps be a consequence for going two steps, but when I specifically asked Ryan about rubber banding alignment he told me, "working as intended".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From how I understand the 1-step-rule, currently a settlement from one of the "corner" alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE) only allows 3 possible alignments (i.e. CG allows NG, CG, CN), right?
What would be wrong with TN characters being allowed in any settlement? I.e. wouldn't it make sense to extend the legitimate alignements of a CG settlement to include TN as well as NG, CG, CN? TN characters should be able to find a niche for themselves in any environment, that's kind of the essence of being TN.
Just my 2cp
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think he was asking for a global change to the 1-step rule, but just allowing the corner settlements to include TN.
I think TN can live in a corner alignment settlement; they just can't belong to it. So yes, there's a niche you can fill, but you're an outsider, not having bought into the local morality and whatnot. I think of the alignment corner settlements as being somewhat... rigid. I'm not sure the flexibility of the TN fits into them as well as it does in one of the side-case settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because then every settlement goes TN in order to be compatible with all players.
Alignment ceases to be a meaningful choice if one option is strictly better than its alternatives.
I'm not sure if this is in reply to me, but if so I may have been unclear in what I meant to say:
TN _players_ should be at home in any settlement, regardless of the settlements alignment. Effectively that would mean adding the TN _player_ alignment as legitimate for a _settlement_ of one of the "corner" alignments
However, TN _settlements_ would still only be able to have NG, LN, TN, CN, NE members (and would be one of the hardest to coordinate, I imagine)
Edit: too slow... :-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think TN can live in a corner alignment settlement; they just can't belong to it.
Hmm, what would be the in game differences? You can't be a member of a sponsored company? You can't be supported by the settlement? I'm not sure I see a reasonable way to make a significant distinction without having "just living there" be rather useless in terms of game mechanics...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From how I understand the 1-step-rule, currently a settlement from one of the "corner" alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE) only allows 3 possible alignments (i.e. CG allows NG, CG, CN), right?
What would be wrong with TN characters being allowed in any settlement? I.e. wouldn't it make sense to extend the legitimate alignments of a CG settlement to include TN as well as NG, CG, CN? TN characters should be able to find a niche for themselves in any environment, that's kind of the essence of being TN.
Just my 2cp
Nope, because the corners are all adamant, all the time. There is no wishy-washyness of any kind in a corner settlement. It is either good, or evil and it is either lawful or chaotic.
There is room for someone who agrees on Good/Evil, but not on Law/Chaos or the reverse, but a settlement that expounds absolute Good/Evil and absolute Law/Chaos has nothing in common with an individual who thinks that everything needs to be balanced and everything is a grey area. A little good is okay, a little evil is okay, a little chaos is okay, a little law is okay
The NN person disagrees with the corner on everything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nope, because the corners are all adamant, all the time. There is no wishy-washyness of any kind in a corner settlement. It is either good, or evil and it is either lawful or chaotic.[...] A little good is okay, a little evil is okay, a little chaos is okay, a little law is okay [...]
But apparently a little evil IS okay, otherwise the paladins wouldn't suffer those LN-types around. And a little chaos is okay as well, because they have NG-types, too. If they were really that adamant (read "narrow-minded"), there would be only one acceptable alignment in a paladin-run settlement.
True, TN characters are very morally flexible, but at the same time, they can fit in well almost anywhere. And as long as they don't excessively live out their chaotic and or evil streaks, they should do fine and could be tolerable for the paladins.
I think it does make sense both from an in-game perspective as well as making it a little easier for players of diverse alignments to play together in a settlement. When I think of a corner settlement, I'd rather have a non-evil/non-chaotic settlement rather than an all-lawful/all-good settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But not for one step, Stephen was clear on that.If I seemed clear on that, I apologize. I am not very clear on that. ;) We haven't had any major discussions about alignment in a long time and virtually none of it is implemented yet.
It has been bounced around many times and with several people, including Ryan, that core and active being one step will not have an effect. But that there will be an automatic drift towards core (if desired) because not all actions can be recorded by the "system".
If none of it is in place, would assume there is still to opportunity to crowd forge the alignment system?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... There is no wishy-washyness of any kind in a corner settlement. It is either good, or evil and it is either lawful or chaotic.
There is room for someone who agrees on Good/Evil, but not on Law/Chaos or the reverse, but a settlement that expounds absolute Good/Evil and absolute Law/Chaos has nothing in common with an individual who thinks that everything needs to be balanced and everything is a grey area. A little good is okay, a little evil is okay, a little chaos is okay, a little law is okay
The NN person disagrees with the corner on everything.
Heck, I'm lined up to be in a NG settlement (Brighthaven) and I'm looking sideways at those Seventh Veil types in Phaeros (a NN settlement). Why would they want to be NN? You know that means that they're totally accepting of evil. Do I really want to hang around with people like them, those... those Evil-accepters? :/
(My views may not be the views of many of my fellow citizens; they certainly aren't official).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
making it a little easier for players of diverse alignments to play together in a settlement.
This is explicitly the opposite of the intention of the alignment system. The system is intended to force players to make meaningful choices about what kind of playstyle they want to engage in and to share settlements with other players who have made the same choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
making it a little easier for players of diverse alignments to play together in a settlement.This is explicitly the opposite of the intention of the alignment system. The system is intended to force players to make meaningful choices about what kind of playstyle they want to engage in and to share settlements with other players who have made the same choice.
Yeah, maybe "diverse" was the wrong term. I don't want a complete mix, just a little less narrow focus.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would they want to be NN?
You asked an easy one: T7V and Phaeros are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, which can, in our estimation, have no alignment of its own. All knowledge is worthy of pursuit, investigation, and understanding, and we can't afford limited human understandings like alignment to get in the way.
@Albadeon
There is way more nuance to Alignment.
LN is tolerated by LG as long as they do not commit evil. You can be LN without committing Evil acts, you just might turn a blind eye to it. Yes LN in itself allows evil, but its the Lawful part that allows Paladins to possibly work with LN characters.
Same is true of NG, they generally follow the rules and are good. CG is still good but their chaotic natures makes it hard for them to work at all in a Lawful environment.
The thing about TN is that it's entirely about balance, it's very hard to define TN in a manner that isn't 'do what I need to do but try to keep it balanced overall', that only overlaps with the 4 Neutral alignments. To LG or LE, TN characters are almost as bad as their polar opposites, they refuse to commit one way or another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what's wrong with TN being accepted bei LG as long as they don't commit chaotic or evil acts, yet also being accepted bei CE as long as they don't commit lawful or evil acts in that settlement? As long a they stick to that, they can very well be not particularly liked, but accepted. And I'm sorry, from a paladin's perspective, while TN is uncomforably closer to CE it's still half a world away...
I'd like to see corner settlements to be inclusive of all but their polar opposites, much more realistic, imho.
NB: I intend to play a NG char in a NG settlement, so personally it doesn't affect me at all, I just think it would be better that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
making it a little easier for players of diverse alignments to play together in a settlement.This is explicitly the opposite of the intention of the alignment system. The system is intended to force players to make meaningful choices about what kind of playstyle they want to engage in and to share settlements with other players who have made the same choice.
Actually I believe, based on what Ryan has said, that the alignment funnel has less to do with meaningful choices and more to do with the control of player actions. This is particularly true for the desire to control CE characters and to make an attempt to have CE suck. Some of us pushed back hard on this idea, because an alignment does not guarantee a play style that is either positive or negative. So therefore no alignment should be predetermined to suck by design.
The alignment system as previously described had almost nothing to do with role playing or be based on a social structure, but as a mechanic to act as a suck funnel.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Albadeon, as others have suggested, we may be skating on the edge of the difference between "reality" and "game mechanics". Goblinworks will use the Alignment system as one aspect of balancing various things, such as Settlement membership; this may be a discussion without a viable outcome, depending on their thinking, not ours.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take on it is that we should play our characters such that the characters align themselves fittingly. Let Goblinworks measure that howsoever they choose. If the game encourages me to alter my behavior I can choose to do so or not, but either way my character will be my character meaningfully.
If your character is TN simply play them TN and let the chips fall where they may.
@Albadeon
Continuing the same example: If you don't commit evil or chaotic acts then you are actually Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good not True Neutral. NG if you commit good acts instead, Lawful Neutral because your have code that prevents you from doing Evil but not a firm stance against it like LG would be.
TN is tough alignment, it's often used as a cop out, "I can do whatever I deem necessary to get through this" alignment. But I always find it to be more about keeping the balance than allowing you to do whatever you want.
In PFO mechanically picking TN is going to make it very hard to utilize both sides of the spectrum when building up your settlement, you will probably end up favoring one direction or another a bit as I feel like too much diametric opposition is probably going to gimp your settlement's growth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Albadeon
Continuing the same example: If you don't commit evil or chaotic acts then you are actually Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good not True Neutral. NG if you commit good acts instead, Lawful Neutral because your have code that prevents you from doing Evil but not a firm stance against it like LG would be.
I don't feel that's true. True neutral, to me, means seeing that Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, are values that people assign, and are only in accord across most people. The True neutral doesn't have to commit evil, they simply aren't afraid to take actions that others have labelled as evil
Now as a game mechanic, it's something entirely different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nope, because the corners are all adamant, all the time. There is no wishy-washyness of any kind in a corner settlement. It is either good, or evil and it is either lawful or chaotic.[...] A little good is okay, a little evil is okay, a little chaos is okay, a little law is okay [...]But apparently a little evil IS okay, otherwise the paladins wouldn't suffer those LN-types around. And a little chaos is okay as well, because they have NG-types, too. If they were really that adamant (read "narrow-minded"), there would be only one acceptable alignment in a paladin-run settlement.
No. LN doesn't have to do evil, they are simply not inclined to attach the same label of evil to things. As a lawful neutral I can decide there's nothing wrong with executing a thief. That doesn't mean I must execute them myself once in a while in order to continue being neutral. Much as a person who promotes the death penalty while claiming they are good.
I would rather a True Neutral kingdom just be allowed to pick its "tendencies". That prevents it from being overpowered, while still staying realistic and fair—there are a ton of TN nations in Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would they want to be NN?You asked an easy one: T7V and Phaeros are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, which can, in our estimation, have no alignment of its own. All knowledge is worthy of pursuit, investigation, and understanding, and we can't afford limited human understandings like alignment to get in the way.
Except alignment in Golarian is not a limited human thing. It is a deity thing. There is also a school of thought that says TN is another side unto itself, and not just belonging to those that don't want to be burdened by law or chaos, good or evil. A long and hard road when you have four 'enemies' rather than just the usual diametrically opposed alignment enemy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would they want to be NN?You asked an easy one: T7V and Phaeros are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, which can, in our estimation, have no alignment of its own. All knowledge is worthy of pursuit, investigation, and understanding, and we can't afford limited human understandings like alignment to get in the way.
While pursuing knowledge is not an aligned action (seems a bit lawful in the long scale, but per se it's not), the purpose of this is.
Are you pursuing knowledge for what?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you pursuing knowledge for what?I apologise for an answer that's going to seem quite circular. We pursue knowledge because it exists to be pursued.
I would add that we pursue knowledge for the purpose of sharing it with others, so that they might be better equipped to achieve their own personal goals.
|
|
So, explaining a bit my vision.
If the purpose is being a cathedratic in all matters and teach anyone willing to know without the judgement of what will be done with the knowledge after that. This seems a bit LN to me.
If the purpose is being a cathedratic in all matters but only teach anyone who willing to do the good with it, them it becomes LG.
If the purpose of holding all the knowledgeable knowledge (OMG) for power or something is a LE behavior.
And this is not "limited human understanding", it's about behavior... You can understand (and even be empathic, what is different of agreement) the motivations of chaotic ones, p.e.
--
I can't imagine a non-Lawful long term pursuing of all knowledge. Maybe it's my bias from Irori's point of view.. :D
|
|
Bards are non-lawful, but may amass a great wealth of knowledge in the form of tales and songs. Not all pursuit of knowledge is disciplined scholarship.
Uhm I see. But in PF-RPG, they lose the non-lawfull requirement...
Well, Bards are there only for the fun, arts and girls/boys. They didn't count. :)
|
|
...cathedratic...What a great word for lower clergy paying the bishop, presumably for his services. I'd not run into it before, but it's a cool mental image.
UHM.. Reading again... I may missued it... The cognate in portuguese "Catedrático" means a person with great knowledge...
researching
"Gownsman" - is it makes sense?
PS: People said english was an easy language... Seems hard to understand all the subtle meanings of terms when do not living among it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've met no one who thinks English is an easy language. Our habit of stealing loan-words from other languages, if nothing else, is enough to make people want to continue using their mother-tongues.
Yeah... I would only consider romance languages easy to learn, as they follow their patterns more closely.
Actually never heard the word "gownsman" before today.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I can't imagine a non-Lawful long term pursuing of all knowledge. Maybe it's my bias from Irori's point of view.. :D
We said nothing of the hubris of solemnity, nor yet of the knowledge of humor. Certainly logic and mathematics defy chaos, yet even there spins the madness of chasing the ratio of the diameter to the circumference.
Knowledge, as catholic communication, partakes in all alignments, each unto its own kind.
What we are not is, I argue, entropic. What we are values the worth of the whole, even unto the extremes. We currently seek the past, and from the past intend the future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually never heard the word "gownsman" before today.
Nor had I, but I've enough knowledge of European university-stuff to grok the fullness. Another great word.
Oddly enough, the easiest language--and one of the easiest things--I ever learned was Japanese. It was described to me in the beginning as "5000 years old, and all the irregular verbs have been worked out".
|
|
Gownsman was the only translation from Google Translator, first time I see that too.
Scholar fits well.
@Being
The knowledge is a tool, not a being (no pun intended). The tool itself are not evil or good.
The behavior to search, research, sort, classify, keep, reproduce and teach is not a chaotic one or a entropic force, actually is a systematic process. While not following any laws, this systematic endevor to work with a knowledge fits better with a lawful personality than with a chaotic one, its a ordaining act in the end. Assuming that researching new knowledge are not a systematic process by exception.