Goblin Squad Member
|
I the manifestation of evil just found in the motives of our characters, or can an evil act be differentiated from another act under a different set of motivations?
Example: Killing is said to be an "Evil" act. So far, the only thing that differentiates a good aligned character that is killing something, from an evil character killing something, are their motivations. That is an invisible and possibly even fake form of manifestation.
Will evilly motivated acts be visually more evil than the same acts motivated by neutral or good motivations?
Will there be certain feats that are alignment based? Certain attack types that can only be used by a particular alignment and have effects that match the motivations of that alignment?
A good aligned character may wish to kill you, because you are their war enemy, but they will use methods that are quicker and "cleaner". Whereas an evil, particularly a chaotic evil, character will kill you using methods that are more akin to cruel butchery, painful damage over time, to be finished off with a death blow.
Some may say, "It doesn't matter for the character how the death comes about, the end result is the same." While that is true, my question is:
Could there be a difference that is visual, emotional and mechanical (game wise)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Didn't Dancey already address the killing being an evil act thing? The difference between killing and murder?
I think there could be a difference of representation of evil, but I wouldn't want one; unless it's something that could be tied to the IP of Pathfinder. They still need to remain true to the source as much as they can in my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Didn't Dancey already address the killing being an evil act thing? The difference between killing and murder?
I think there could be a difference of representation of evil, but I wouldn't want one; unless it's something that could be tied to the IP of Pathfinder. They still need to remain true to the source as much as they can in my opinion.
I fail to see how what I ask is not staying true to the source. If that means that the source is an Alignment system.
Alignment is more than the motivations that cause actions. Alignment is also manifested in the actions themselves. But, even if the action is the "same" (ie. stabbing someone) it will look different, inspire different emotions and may even have a different result based on the alignment of the character performing that act.
Being stabbed by a dagger wielded by a Lawful Good Paladin should be a very different experience than being stabbed by the same dagger wielded by a Chaotic Evil Barbarian.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Didn't Dancey already address the killing being an evil act thing?
(*) Like "in self defense" or "as an act of war"
I think there should be a mechanism to indicate that you are hostile towards another PC, and if that PC doesn't leave the immediate area in a reasonably short period of time you will be able to strike at them without penalty (and vice versa). You don't want to let bandits walk right up to you before you try to drive them off. This effect probably has to be tied to another action like caravaning or harvesting so people don't just use it as a free gank enabler. And it probably should only apply in Wilderness hexes.
The UI should make it easy to know if you are murdering someone before you do it so there's no confusion about your action.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Info from assorted Ryan quotes:
*** the Assassin mechanic will only be available to evil characters. Evil NPC factions will offer different and unique kinds of training
*** Advancing with evil factions and developing evil-aligned infrastructure will require achievements awarded from evil activity
*** Advancing the soldier or mercenary career will require PVP achievements, which are more readily obtained by evil characters or tend to steer characters towards evil
*** Worshipping evil gods will have mechanical benefit for PVP-oriented characters
Evil gameplay will be a different experience from good gameplay. Is that what you're asking, or are you looking for different sword swing animations for an unprovoked gank vs a righteous assault?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I mean by true to the source is that if there's something in the Pathfinder IP that correlates to what you're talking about, then I'm all for it.
Could there be a difference that is visual, emotional and mechanical (game wise)?
There is, its called alignment. But, if you are asking that there be no instances of feats / skills in PFO if they do not exist in PFRPG TT, I could not disagree more.
The PF iteration of an MMO will be able to do many different things, mechanically, that PFRPG TT can not do. The opposite is true as well.
The gist of this thread is to address the problem (my opinion) that playing an "evil" character is put into this context:
The usual dynamic: Good vs. Evil from the Good perspective
The City of Villains Model: Good vs. Evil; Evil vs. Evil from the Good perspective.
What I'm hoping for is that Evil will not be just a featureless declaration that "I am evil", but it will have the visuals, emotional impact and yes even mechanics of... "Holy crap, that was really evil!"
Star Wars the Old Republic almost captured that with its Dark side / Light side choices but they got it wrong in that the "truly evil" choices could be found by playing a Jedi Knight with all Dark Side choices.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems really clear. Certain mechanics are only available to evil players because they are inherently evil acts that even if they have a beneficial outcome for a 'good' player are philosophically against their alignment so much they cannot commit those acts themselves.
A LG Character may severely dislike a CE character, but assassinating them is still a deliberate act of murder and against their core beliefs. They cannot do it without suffering an alignment shift and possibly losing access to any good aligned abilities.
On a settlement level, slavery is evil and only available to dedicated evil settlements. It cannot be used by 'Good' settlements.
Thievery is interesting because it can be considered unlawful but not necessarily evil. It operates on the other axis. Of course it can turn to murder which then is a hit on both axis.
The more interesting question to me is how will the Neutral alignments end up balancing these mechanical restrictions.
|
A LG Character may severely dislike a CE character, but assassinating them is still a deliberate act of murder and against their core beliefs. They cannot do it without suffering an alignment shift and possibly losing access to any good aligned abilities.
To me, seems it will not work this way. We will still have a 'scale' of goodness that will suffer a hit, but won't be zeroed by one single action.
A good character of having +7500 in good axe, will murder someone and lose a big 500 points in that still have +7000... If the numbers still are that ones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I the manifestation of evil just found in the motives of our characters, or can an evil act be differentiated from another act under a different set of motivations?
Wups... there goes Bludd... I mean Harby with his 'internal motivations' thing again. We know the objective, we know the arguments.
Are you marketing tee shirts now Bluddwolf?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To me, seems it will not work this way. We will still have a 'scale' of goodness that will suffer a hit, but won't be zeroed by one single action.
Agreed, I was kind of mixing TT and PFO mentality, in TT that example would possibly cause an alignment shift. In PFO it would adjust your active alignment a few points, would require some dedicated effort to tank it.
|
|
Not true in Golarion. Good and evil are not ineffable questions of motivation, but overt values of real universal laws. Animate Dead is an evil spell and casting it is an evil action, no matter how pure your motives and how desirable the resulting outcomes.
Well, agreeing with that after remember that those "White Necromancers" were 3rd party product.
The game will have a place where describes the good/evil/chaos/laws/reputation actions. If not, it must have.
Wonders me, why don't we have it by now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's not done.
We do have this which is a very good start, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I the manifestation of evil just found in the motives of our characters, or can an evil act be differentiated from another act under a different set of motivations?Wups... there goes Bludd... I mean Harby with his 'internal motivations' thing again. We know the objective, we know the arguments.
Are you marketing tee shirts now Bluddwolf?
I'm willing to bet you don't know my objective in this thread? But I'm not going to string it along and sift through your incorrect guesses. I'll just lay it out.
First objective, to have "Evil" be truly evil and not some half-heated evil-lite kind if crap we have seen in other MMOs. Now this objective should not have been to hard to figure out, I pretty much said it in my third post in this thread.
My second objective is to get an idea of what GW has in mind for alignment based skill / feats. I'm hoping that if alignment is going to be an important feature, that it will have many layers to it and that it will have significant meaning, especially from a role playing perspective.
Third, I want other players to accurately perceive your alignment through your actions and that this perception should be reinforced through visual, emotional and even mechanical queues.
Guurzak had asked earlier, if I were referring to animations, and partial answer to that is "yes". Yes, I think there should be alignment based animations. That might sound overly detailed, but not if it were only applied to the highest tiered, alignment based skill / feats.
Again, I use th dagger thrust example....
A Lawful Good dagger thrust would be a precise and clean strike. This would no be a one-shot kill, but a finishing blow that would be mercifully quick.
Whereas, a Chaotic Evil finishing blow might be a dagger trusted and then twisted in a victim's gut, spilling his entrails.
Yes I know this is not Age of Conan, but you get the gist of what I'm taking about, or at least I hope you all do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While it's certainly a cool aspect, I think the 3rd point can be a little problematic for 2 reasons...
- It can start to get pretty resource intensive. GW is a pretty small outfit, already tackling alot of hefty mechanical challenges. Having to create 2 sets of art assets/animations for every action starts to become pretty resource intensive.
- It kinda kills the "wolf in sheeps" clothing variety of Evil that is more intent on seducing good or really only showing it's fangs when it has the victem alone sort of play that can be very popular with some players.
- There is also the horror movie dynamic where if you show the monster too often, the monster looses it's impact and ceases being scary.
In other words, I think it's fine to do a little bit of it, but I'd really want to reserve it for a limited set of actions that are tied directly to some strong cosmological Evil event.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While it's certainly a cool aspect, I think the 3rd point can be a little problematic for 2 reasons...
- It can start to get pretty resource intensive. GW is a pretty small outfit, already tackling alot of hefty mechanical challenges. Having to create 2 sets of art assets/animations for every action starts to become pretty resource intensive.
- It kinda kills the "wolf in sheeps" clothing variety of Evil that is more intent on seducing good or really only showing it's fangs when it has the victem alone sort of play that can be very popular with some players.
- There is also the horror movie dynamic where if you show the monster too often, the monster looses it's impact and ceases being scary.
In other words, I think it's fine to do a little bit of it, but I'd really want to reserve it for a limited set of actions that are tied directly to some strong cosmological Evil event.
I contemplated this and that is why I reserved the idea for just a few select skill / feats at the highest tier.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should stabbing a good dagger look different from stabbing a bad dagger? No. Limited animation resources should not be spent on this.
Should manifesting an archon onto a battlefield have a very different esthetic from watching a dracolich claw its way out of the ground? Hell yeah.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to bet you don't know my objective in this thread? But I'm not going to string it along and sift through your incorrect guesses. I'll just lay it out.I the manifestation of evil just found in the motives of our characters, or can an evil act be differentiated from another act under a different set of motivations?Wups... there goes Bludd... I mean Harby with his 'internal motivations' thing again. We know the objective, we know the arguments.
Are you marketing tee shirts now Bluddwolf?
Oh, how clever. I though you were using misdirection, scattering your back trail with heavy clusters of anti-alignment 'inner motivation' while positioning anti-reputation claymores to catch those running the other way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, I use th dagger thrust example....A Lawful Good dagger thrust would be a precise and clean strike. This would no be a one-shot kill, but a finishing blow that would be mercifully quick.
Whereas, a Chaotic Evil finishing blow might be a dagger trusted and then twisted in a victim's gut, spilling his entrails.
Yes I know this is not Age of Conan, but you get the gist of what I'm taking about, or at least I hope you all do.
I think it would add a lot of animation work to make each swing reflect every possible alignment combination, per race/gender.
What might be viable is having a different fighting stance for lawful vs neutral vs chaotic (reflecting how disciplined you are as a combatant).
From my limited understanding of how Unity blends animations, this wouldn't add as much overhead. Time to add this to ideascale?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW's general thinking on this topic seems sound. Basically in 30+ years of RPGing I have seen maybe a handful of players who can do evil well. In about the last 15 years of MMOing, I have seen about the same amount who can do it well and a HUGE amount that suck at it to the point of ruining the experience for everyone else.
My sense is that if we want to harness inner motivations, then one should apply for a GM position at GW. I don't see a computer mechanic in an MMO capturing it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, how clever. I though you were using misdirection, scattering your back trail with heavy clusters of anti-alignment 'inner motivation' while positioning anti-reputation claymores to catch those running the other way.
As fun as that sounds, and yes I have used misdirection and or other deceptive methods to get the response I was looking for, I never combine alignment with reputation.
This thread is solely concerned with alignment, and I reject any premise that alignment and reputation are inevitably intertwined.
I am no fan of an alignment system, that is true, but if we are to have one I want it to be meaningful. I also want it to be mostly focused on role playing and to have very limited and balanced in game mechanical effects, if any at all.
@ Elorebaen,
Every evil character in a fiction story / novel is a character where evil was done well (unless of course the writing itself sucked). A TT RPG or an MMO is no different, other than the medium being used to deliver the story. This is not to say that some do not play evil well, just as some do not play good aligned characters very well either. I certainly think that more than a handful do play their characters well, regardless of their character's alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, how clever. I though you were using misdirection, scattering your back trail with heavy clusters of anti-alignment 'inner motivation' while positioning anti-reputation claymores to catch those running the other way.As fun as that sounds, and yes I have used misdirection and or other deceptive methods to get the response I was looking for, I never combine alignment with reputation.
This thread is solely concerned with alignment, and I reject any premise that alignment and reputation are inevitably intertwined.
I am no fan of an alignment system, that is true, but if we are to have one I want it to be meaningful. I also want it to be mostly focused on role playing and to have very limited and balanced in game mechanical effects, if any at all...
Alignment and reputation coincide in the player's character, and are thus irrevocably related. 'Meaningful' in context of the game is codified in Reputation. Thus, I dispute your premise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Transferring a post from another location at the Big hat guy's request:
For those who like to quote the Devs or Ryan to add authority to their case, here's a post from Ryan in the thread On Being Evil:
I think the key thing to understand is that roleplaying evil EFFECTIVELY means being evil as a group, not a lone wolf individual. To really be roleplaying evil, you'll need to be trying to make a persistent change to the world in line with the kinds of goals of your patrons. And they won't care much about random murders or pick-pocketing. They'll want mass sacrifice, they'll want paragons to renounce their faiths, they'll want obedience on the part of the potent and fear on the part of the weak. En masse. Repeatedly. Sustainably.
As for Hobs the character, I have already written in his backstory how he is more forced than chooses to shift towards Neutral (not Evil). At this point, I foresee him living in Lawful Neutral Callambea.
However (also more suited to it's own thread), I plan on playing a second character who will help to provide RP opportunities for others wishing to enjoy an Evil character, whether with mains, alts/Destiny's Twins, non-experience gaining "extra" characters, etc. This will also hopefully allow for such "bad guys" to be made available for other people's player-made quests/plot-lines. If we want to ensure that Evil is done well, that it isn't just a cover for griefers, as Ryan suggests above, there needs to be a concerted effort to create meaningful Evil in PFO by those who have the desire, knowledge, and commitment to do so. It will take multiple players who see the fun and benefit of Evil existing in-game, even if they are not in the same "group". To make it an actual RP benefit to the community, it requires the networking of many different groups. More on this later.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In response to Elorebaen's comment, I think there are several reasons why so few have played Evil well in MMOs.
1. That so few MMOs provide decent RP mechanics - at all - let alone to play a particular alignment. Take WoW, where the "bad guys" are really an often misunderstood Horde where a series of unfortunate events and a few bad apples have placed them in opposition to the Alliance. A lot of what is painted Evil in WoW occurs in both Horde and Alliance, so there is often no clear Evil.
When I finished Alpha and Beta for WoW, I had hoped they would allow you to somehow play the bad apples of the Alliance side. In fact, every race in WoW has examples of NPC factions that oppose the characters of that race, but we the players were never given the opportunity to play them. I would have loved to play members of the Human gang of bandits, the nasty dark skinned Dwarves, etc.
2. The second, and far more important issue (I think), is that playing Evil well - meaning playing evil not just for the game mechanic benefits (if they exist) - is both a responsibility and a sacrifice. Most players who will only choose Evil for game mechanic benefits aren't usually the types to be tied by self-imposed responsibility or sacrifice...they're in the game to win.
The Responsibility of Evil - That you do not use being Evil as an excuse to be a jerk. Where we get into problems onthis topic is "What defines 'being a jerk'?" I'm not getting into that here.
The Sacrifice of Evil - Choosing the road that makes you other peoples' content is not easy. Without too much effort, it is far easier to seem good, or at least neutral, and win the community benefits. Announce that you're going to be Evil, and you can expect that people are already circling their wagons, hiding their daughters, etc. So those choosing to play Evil well, know that they are likely going to be the outcasts, won't be trusted or invited to participate by many, and might thereby be the target. At least in UO, playing the bad guys meant you were going to lose often, because its you that the community is often rallying to defeat. And as players who play Evil well, we need to accept that - not accept we "have to lose" but that it may happen, and perhaps more often than with others because of our chosen role.
However, the hope is always that players keep this to in-game reaction and RP, not assumptions that Evil characters are run by Evil players. As I've said previously, I'm used to having close OOC/meta ties with the people my bad guy might actually be harassing. One of the really important things to remember is that you can't enjoy the conflict between characters without expecting to make some sacrifice - there's always the chance you may lose, but did you have fun? Most people who do Evil well, know they'll lose some of the time, they expect it...they're playing the bad guys. Honestly, in my past experience, when things got heated, it was far more often the players of the good guys who complained when they lost. So let's keep in mind that just because the Evil characters may be the bad guys, it doesn't mean the good guys are guaranteed the win...this isn't a movie plot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment and reputation coincide in the player's character, and are thus irrevocably related. 'Meaningful' in context of the game is codified in Reputation. Thus, I dispute your premise.
"Meaningfulness" is not just tied to Reputation. There is also Meaningful Role Playing and Meaningful adherence to alignment. Neither of these have any connection to Reputation.
It is widely accepted that you can play CE and be high, medium or low rep. You can likewise play LG, and be high, medium or low rep.
I could very easily role play a chaotic evil merchant, and have maximum reputation and still adhere perfectly to both chaos and evil while playing the role.
* You can replace merchant with any role
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"It is widely accepted" is not synonymous with "it is repeatedly maintained by one person". Ryan has made it clear that he does not expect it to be possible to maintain high rep and CE alignment simultaneously. I really appreciate your interest in proving him wrong and I hope it turns out that you are successful, but wanting something a whole lot does not make it a foregone conclusion.
If your merchant is not doing mechanically chaotic evil things then his alignment will change, regardless of your character concept. Alignment in game is a function of your actual behavior, not your role play vision. And if he is doing mechanically CE things, his rep can expected to drop (unless you find the killer app high-rep CE play style).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Guurzak,
Core Alignment is set, not developed or earned. Active Alignment is the result of your actions, but not all actions even perceived negative ones have a reputation impact (ie. Criminal Flag, Trespasser, Heinous, etc). Then there was the discussion by the Devs that there may be a natural drift back towards your Core Alignment (no matter which it is) if you desired for that drift to take place (you could toggle it off).
So, the very (proposed) mechanics of the game will prove Ryan Dancey wrong, provided that the character does not engage in PVP vs. unflagged / non hostile state characters. Obviously, the easiest way to do that is to avoid direct PVP or to only engage in PVP in self defense.
The Role Playing part... If your character's motives are evil and his actions advance those motives, than the player is well on his way to playing a "meaningfully well played evil character." The only source of evil is not from doing actions that lose Reputation.
Sorry... had to break away from this in mid-stride, more will follow
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I personally do not see how tying reputation to alignment will make a good game mechanic. The Devs should be able to put in place many activities for the four alignments that will help to stabilize you in your chosen philosophy. The main one of these should just be your chosen settlement's set alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've stated it awhile back in another thread but to me alignment is often how/why you go about things more than what the end result always is.
Killing someone is not inherently an evil act, murder for personal benefit is inherently evil. Self defense should never be an alignment shift of any sort and never result in a rep hit.
For example based around 'killing':
A random gank should be a rep hit and a chaotic evil shift.
Actions for Evil motivations:
- A rejected SAD and murder should be a Chaotic Evil shift with no rep hit.
- An accepted SAD should be a Chaotic shift with no rep hit.
- An assassination would be a Lawful Evil shift with no rep hit.
(This is different from a SAD as it's a specific contract that limits the assassin's behavior thus it's Lawful instead of an 'anyone is a good enough target' mentality)
Actions for Good motivations:
- Killing a criminal should be a Lawful shift with no rep hit.
- Destroying undead or demons would be a Lawful Good shift with no rep hit.
Most other killing options are restricted to them if they wish to maintain their Good alignment.
What would be interesting is if letting a criminal go instead of killing them would result in a Good shift.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would someone random gank, when they could SAD to serve the same purpose and save on rep?
A random gank should be a rep hit and a chaotic evil shift.
A rejected SAD and murder should be a Chaotic Evil shift with no rep hit.
They may not be eligible to SAD for some reason. They may not want to flag themselves and allow their target to get the first hit. They may just really want the fight, and not want to risk the target paying them off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@eox
You articulated the situation well. I was intentionally being brief with my comments :)
Re #1 mechanics
I think the direction GW is moving is positive in this respect. Players need to have real power in their hands and have viable and meaningful choices.
The trick is to support player power without making it too easy for the jerk disguised as Evil to abuse those mechanics. It is hear where I think we have to be careful, which it seems GW is well aware of this particular area.
Re #2 rp
Well said. The upside is that it seems like "evil" characters will have access to roughly as much power as any other, and that power should be able to sustain them through the sacrifice. But as you say, it is challenging, which gets back to my comments.
Given the current direction of GW, I think RP programs like what you have brought up is an a great approach. Partnering with "evil" guilds will also be an interesting element, because it is often hard to have a "powerful" evil character due to the lack of support.
I am really excited to see the RP we can generate with PFO's aproach to player power!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They may not be eligible to SAD for some reason. They may not want to flag themselves and allow their target to get the first hit. They may just really want the fight, and not want to risk the target paying them off.Why would someone random gank, when they could SAD to serve the same purpose and save on rep?
A random gank should be a rep hit and a chaotic evil shift.
A rejected SAD and murder should be a Chaotic Evil shift with no rep hit.
So SAD works whomever SADs first? What if the target wishes to SAD the aggressor right back? I guess if someone really wants to fight, but if you're going CE anyways - might as well do it with no rep loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As long as SAD has some sort of built in opportunity cost for the aggressor it should be balanced, but I will admit it depends on that.
If they build in all these 'allowed mechanics' then assign Rep hits and make rep gaming a big feature it's just going to do the opposite of what's desired.
Rep hits should be reserved as a long reaching punishment for completely undesired interactions, not as a slow negative grind that eventually might halt your behavior until your grind your way back up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So SAD works whomever SADs first? What if the target wishes to SAD the aggressor right back? I guess if someone really wants to fight, but if you're going CE anyways - might as well do it with no rep loss.They may not be eligible to SAD for some reason. They may not want to flag themselves and allow their target to get the first hit. They may just really want the fight, and not want to risk the target paying them off.
Sorry, I'm not following how you extracted that from the comments I made.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry, I'm not following how you extracted that from the comments I made.So SAD works whomever SADs first? What if the target wishes to SAD the aggressor right back? I guess if someone really wants to fight, but if you're going CE anyways - might as well do it with no rep loss.They may not be eligible to SAD for some reason. They may not want to flag themselves and allow their target to get the first hit. They may just really want the fight, and not want to risk the target paying them off.
You're saying having SAD will allow target to attack them. Im saying there's always the possibility that the prey can turn predator right back at them as an option. You're saying that people might just want to fight. I'm saying that's true, but it would be better for them to just SAD instead. So every encounter could be SAD, if there's no balance to its use.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As long as SAD has some sort of built in opportunity cost for the aggressor it should be balanced, but I will admit it depends on that.
That's my concern too. I haven't seen a SAD mechanic described that makes me feel comfortable that it won't just turn into "pay me ONE HUNDRED MEEELYUN dollars or I'll kill you and take everything with no rep hit."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good grief...how did this discussion become yet another argument about SAD and reputation?
I know.... It was supposed to be about role playing evil and evil actually looking like, feeling like and acting like evil.
I guess it is just that for many players of MMOs the greatest evil to befall you is the loss of your precious, phat lootz.
This is why I truly believe I'm doing them an emotional service, to break them from the ravages of "Loot Monkeyism". Perhaps if I steal enough from them, they will build up the emotional fortitude to just "let it go.....".
So when I SAD you, I want you all to say after me... "It is right to give thanks and praise" (Hmm, I remember that from Church).
Well the Wild Lands, and the Open Roads are my church. The Rev. Bluddwolf will absolve you of your mortal sin of greed. I will take upon myself your sinful burden. You then shall be set free!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly, I was never a fan of an alignment system. Don't worry, I'm not going to waste anyone's time railing against a system that's going to be in the game - that's pointless. I mention it because I would rather not have feats, actions, animations, etc. that say, "Look at me, I'm Evil."
My reaction when I first heard about an alignment system in PFO was, "Let me act as I believe my character should act, and let others decide what alignment I seem to be by those actions." Yes, some will say that is exactly what the alignment system will do, but I have little faith that all our behavioral nuance can be measured by game mechanics.
Working within the proposed system, my Evil character will have a core Evil alignment, but as GW has promised, that should be very hard to discern. When he chooses to act Evilly, it will be his choice, and likely when no one is looking. He's going to be smart Evil, not obvious, raging, dumb Evil, so obvious mechanics helping to declare his Evilness are not desired at all. Just as the possible ways I choose to manifest my character's Evil are too varied for the software to judge properly, they are also too varied to be encapsulated by a handful of predetermined animations, feats, etc. How I plan to have that character be Evil will have very little to do with people's loot or their deaths...at least by my hand. I understand those who wish to be more overtly Evil (the rampaging Half-Orc, the ruthless bandit, the Dark Lord, etc.), But I also think those will be Evil characters that those playing "Good" will be far less likely to RP with, to interact with, to allow themselves the chance for being sucked into conflict/a plot-line/a story-arc for the fun of it rather than because it is being forced upon them. I'm not criticizing those other styles of Evil, but it's not my style.
