True Neutral could ally with Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral Evil, but cannot ally with Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, nor Lawful Evil.
True Neutral would take a double alignment hit aggressing Neutral, a full hit aggressing an alignment it could ally with, and the minimum hit aggressing an alignment it cannot ally with.
If Lawful Good gains Good when aggressing Evil and Lawful when aggressing Chaos, the True Neutral should gain True Neutrality aggressing those alignments it cannot align with.
The other cardinal powers would have half the possible allies, but also half the likely enemies.
Ok, I may be way off here. But honestly I could envision a situation where TN would have to aid LG in order to maintain a balance.
Say if a charismatic leader rises up and recruits tons of evil, self serving players and leads them on a rampage throughout the land. Destroying everything in their path. That would be bringing chaos,and evil to all of the land. In order to maintain a balance, wouldn't a TN faction ally with a group of LG paladins to seek to put a stop to the rampaging horde?
Does that make sense? I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas Being, but to look at them in another light.
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's what we're trying to define. =)
But I think what I said provides a good basis.
Assisting or hindering TN (but not the other variants of neutrality) is itself a TN action and has an impact on Alignment towards that. Though, the only thing I can think of that stops TN players from being TN slayers is laws against murder and player reputation.
Other Alignments would be punished for working against themselves, whereas TN is expected to keep itself in check. I'm okay with this conceptually, I want players to regulate this kind of thing, but I'm not sure if this will be viewed as too much of a gap in planning.
It does also make TNs a convenient means of slipping into Neutrality more easily, though this probably would be viewed as griefing, especially in light of minimal Alignment shifts for acting against TN.. it does seem like it keeps itself in check.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
All true, but compassion is not the sole trait of any character except a badly written, one dimensional one. Fine for an NPC nun, not so much for a player character.Alright: your character will be your character. I was just noticing in so many objections where folks were saying they 'feel' like doing good while aspiring to a strict lawful good class and asserting they should be able to achieve the qualifications based solely on a likely story they wished to use as background.
I wouldn't have thought the self-discipline and rigid obedience of a Paladin would have been quite so simple to accomplish and maintain.
I said nothing of the sort. I said my alignment should be determined by my actions, not my actions determined by my alignment.
I was responding to the idea that being the epitome of an alignment should be a goal, which I disagree with in most circumstances, except particular examples such as the paladin.
To better use my compassion example, I do compassionate things because it feels like the right thing to do, not because I want to be THE MOST COMPASSIONATE PERSON EVER!. The goal is to help the people I feel sympathy for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it will be very important to distinguish between True Neutral and simply neutral, to the point where I'd prefer one or both were called by something other than Neutral. I'd recommend that just as I would prefer Lawul Good Paladins to have achieved that alignment by working at it, I'd similarly like True Neutral Druids to achieve that alignment, and if they fell back to simple neutral they would lose their druidic spells.
The trust of the Forest would not be lightly given to just anyone who desired it, and should easily be lost through carelessness. Simple neutrals such as newbs just entering the world should be safest of all from harm from True Netrals, or at least as safe in the Grove as they would be in a Holy Paladin Sanctuary.
I fear this may be a prejudice I own, however. I may be peering at it through glasses made of bias.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
According to the rulebook, druids can be any neutral, not just true neutral. If there are different druidic abilities based on the different alignments, sure, that'd work, and would in fact be pretty cool.
But how do these others- Neutral Good and Neutral Evil fit into your ideas for druids mechanical actions wise?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hobs & @Nihimon I agree with Being on this one. Choosing your Alignment, and thus who you use your Alliance pack with, after you create your character, by performing actions you would need to do in the first place to maintain that Alignment is not taking away choice; it is lending weight to that choice. Making it a more meaningful choice rather than simply a declaration of intent. Plus it's hard to object that you should start LG because you are or are going to be a Paladin. You're not one yet, and why is it bad to have you tell the story of how you became one?
@Jameow Depends on who you're being compassionate to, but you'll probably end up Neutral in that case. Also, it really needs to be understood that it's in the player's best interest to experience the path they think they want before being labeled a Betrayer or stuck into circumstances they were legitimately unaware of before making what appeared to be a casual and harmless decision.
@Being If a TN attacks a TN there's no direction for them to shift, except Criminal ;) But good point where the 4 extremes are concerned, and allies as well. That really fits the systems already in place. I do believe that TN needs to have itself as both an enemy and friend though, particularly with a thought towards that kind of entropic threat mentioned as a Gygax plot. It is the only Alignment that seeks to police all others and should rightly include itself.
Admittedly the entropy thing is a bit more of an ideology than a mechanic, in this case the mechanic of TN v TN easily encompasses the ideology while also providing a basis for all Alignments needing to be maintained actively.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I said before, it's a single trait, there's more to a character than that. My point was more that the goal is not to be the best at being compassionate. The same with alignment. The goal for most people will not be to be the best of that alignment, their alignment comes about by what they do.
Alignment is the footprints of the path you took, not the destination. Unless you are of a profession that has an alignment pinnacle such as paladins.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
According to the rulebook, druids can be any neutral, not just true neutral. If there are different druidic abilities based on the different alignments, sure, that'd work, and would in fact be pretty cool.
But how do these others- Neutral Good and Neutral Evil fit into your ideas for druids mechanical actions wise?
They can be allied with True Neutral.
I confess changes might be needed for my theorycrafting to work well, and I am not well positioned to pronounce judgements on the design. I know Lisa has said they will stick as closely as they can to canon, so my efforts here may be doomed from the start and you can relax.
But I am thinking it might be better for the game if it worked something like what I've been arguing toward. Other hand I am not privy to all the implications, but I think we're making a pretty interesting case nevertheless. PF Purists will certainly be outraged.
Perhaps something similar would work for Paladins: The most powerful Holy Paladins might have to be Lawful Good, but aspiring Paladins could be Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral perhaps, I don't know. Perhaps the lowliest paladin aspirants could even be simple neutral, and the lowliest Druid neophytes similarly.
If we are proposing a change to alignment choice to a progressive achievment model then it isn't a stretch to think some Paladins might be Holier than others. Perhaps a Paladin like you who strives for perfection but still 'feels' his real motivations might work his way up to purity over time and still benefit from Paladin powers at low levels.
There is no spell currently for planting a Druid's Grove, either.
Perhaps the very highest levels for alignment-dependent classes should be restricted, but the lower levels permitted in allied alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...@Being If a TN attacks a TN there's no direction for them to shift, except Criminal ;) But good point where the 4 extremes are concerned, and allies as well. That really fits the systems already in place. I do believe that TN needs to have itself as both an enemy and friend though, particularly with a thought towards that kind of entropic threat mentioned as a Gygax plot. It is the only Alignment that seeks to police all others and should rightly include itself.
...
I envisioned True Neutral falling away into simple neutral and losing all but the most basic of their druidic powers when they did.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mechanically you're looking to separate NN from TN. I'm looking to treat them as one and the same mechanically with the differences being how it is roleplayed. The person who commits CE because they're so LG they can get away with it is different than the person who is LG because they uphold the ideals. They're going to have to deal with it, no reason why we wouldn't as well.
The regulation of this comes when ideological players refuse to associate with by the numbers players. You have a difference in outlook with each other and that's enough to disagree on in any matter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being Remember that hunting undead and non-neutral Alignment types are already firmly in the precincts of other Alignments and that in an absolute system can belong only to one.
The other ideas serve as great examples of preserving nature. Can they be viewed as opposing chaos though? That'll have to be asked of each goal and of all four poles. Using already downed trees and renewing nature by planting trees I think firmly qualify as TN in purpose, and hold up further in thinking about a tradesman regularly doing these things becoming closer to nature and TN. This is a good start, but we'll need more examples, and hopefully some that are not purely nature based.
What I said about Neutrality being its only possible enemy in terms of alignment can actually be flipped on its head as well in that it's also its only possible friend. I suggest that aiding those of Neutral alignment be considered an act of TN. Anyone have ideas of aggressive actions that can be considered TN in nature, that don't fall in the realms of another Alignment?
Random thought about rival Alignment.. If some enemies are Evil and must be fought by Good, and some Good that must be fought by Evil, what about enemies that seek to destroy everything? Or even wish to kill off all the Alignments that aren't TN, would these enemies not be firmly in the realm of TN? As TN shifts towards Good for helping with a matter of Good (killing Evil baddie for example), is it out of line for Good then to slip towards Neutral when fighting Neutrality?
Maybe fighting Neutrality is the mechanic that Decays the four Alignments, as fighting the four Alignments also causes Neutrality a need to balance their actions.
It would mean that the cloud gained from attacking anyone/anything Neutral is rather small though. But it does fit in with hurting something that is not diametrically opposed to your alignment. Good is hurting something that while doing some Evil also does some Good, and vice versa. It's an interesting and far reaching alternative to...
Perhaps we could approach this in a slightly different way. Suppose there are two poles to the Neutral spectrum, one of which is True Neutral and the other false, or Entropic neutral? New players start out at the intersection of all spectra (Good, Evil, Chaos, Order, True Neutral, and Entropic Neutral).
Entropy could be the extra-Planar power that decays Alignment contrary to the requirements of the gods. It might be aligned with other Planar beings, giving True Neutrality a directly opposing natural enemy.
Interesting idea? No? Yes? Problems? Fit? Unfit?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Many tyrants and dictators were either assassinated or someone attempted to do so. Were those people who did so Evil?
Are you talking about in the real world? Or about in PFO?
Because I'm talking about in PFO.
As of right now, one of the very few things we actually know about Assassination in PFO is that "it is an Evil act".
My whole point was that, given this definition of Assassination, there must be some other term that would be used to killing a tyrant to liberate a people, since that is an inherently Good act.=
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Lawful Good gains Good when aggressing Evil and Lawful when aggressing Chaos, the True Neutral should gain True Neutrality aggressing those alignments it cannot align with.
I like this idea, though it seems weird to have Neutrals always attacking LG/LE/CG/CE but not the other way around (those alignments will likely be more worried about their opposites).
I also like Darcnes's idea about Neutral being it's own enemy. It makes sense that since Good and Evil keep eachother in check as well as Law and Chaos, Neutral should have a natural enemy. I would explain it as: 'not working towards shaping the world a certain way, the Neutral character aims to build a future in whatever world comes to fruition; often competing with others with similar goals' or 'not having a strong dedication to a specific set of actions, the Neutral character acts on his own motivations, often against others with the same, competing motivations.'
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
well the problem is this, technically killing evil things/people is a good act. Thats just the way the world works in PfO. So does the method of killing an evil person matter? I would say depends. However would a good person hire an evil assassin to do the job? Probably not. Would they hire a neutral person to do it, sure. Or they would ambush him directly.
Killing a tyrant to liberate a people is called revolution! Viva La Resistance!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Lawful Good gains Good when aggressing Evil and Lawful when aggressing Chaos, the True Neutral should gain True Neutrality aggressing those alignments it cannot align with.I like this idea, though it seems weird to have Neutrals always attacking LG/LE/CG/CE but not the other way around (those alignments will likely be more worried about their opposites).
I also like Darcnes's idea about Neutral being it's own enemy. It makes sense that since Good and Evil keep eachother in check as well as Law and Chaos, Neutral should have a natural enemy. I would explain it as: 'not working towards shaping the world a certain way, the Neutral character aims to build a future in whatever world comes to fruition; often competing with others with similar goals' or 'not having a strong dedication to a specific set of actions, the Neutral character acts on his own motivations, often against others with the same, competing motivations.'
My thinking is evolving through discourse, as a true neutral dialectician's should.
I'm coming to the idea suggested by that Gygax reference to Entropy as the natural opposite of True Neutral. The threat of entropy should sufficiently balance out the anti-L/G/C/E emnity such that True neutral is still neutral regarding each as well as that midway starting point 0,0 neutral. LGCE are, after all, to be considered natural, albeit extreme, in the eyes of the Druid.
If Lawful Good gains Good when aggressing Evil and Lawful when aggressing Chaos, the True Neutral should gain True Neutrality aggressing those alignments it cannot align with.I like this idea, though it seems weird to have Neutrals always attacking LG/LE/CG/CE but not the other way around (those alignments will likely be more worried about their opposites).
I also like Darcnes's idea about Neutral being it's own enemy. It makes sense that since Good and Evil keep eachother in check as well as Law and Chaos, Neutral should have a natural enemy. I would explain it as: 'not working towards shaping the world a certain way, the Neutral character aims to build a future in whatever world comes to fruition; often competing with others with similar goals' or 'not having a strong dedication to a specific set of actions, the Neutral character acts on his own motivations, often against others with the same, competing motivations.'
My thinking is evolving through discourse, as a true neutral dialectician's should.
I'm coming to the idea suggested by that Gygax reference to Entropy as the natural opposite of True Neutral. The threat of entropy should sufficiently balance out the anti-L/G/C/E emnity such that True neutral is still neutral regarding each as well as that midway starting point 0,0 neutral. LGCE are, after all, to be considered natural, albeit extreme, in the eyes of the Druid.
I like where your going with this. It seems easier to work into how the game will view actions, and determine shifts based on those actions, which I feel important to work out as we narrow the focus of our concepts.
According to the rulebook, druids can be any neutral, not just true neutral. If there are different druidic abilities based on the different alignments, sure, that'd work, and would in fact be pretty cool.
But how do these others- Neutral Good and Neutral Evil fit into your ideas for druids mechanical actions wise?
Yeah, although a neutral or neutral evil druid has to be careful they don't go full nutbar and become chaotic evil.
well the problem is this, technically killing evil things/people is a good act. Thats just the way the world works in PfO. So does the method of killing an evil person matter? I would say depends. However would a good person hire an evil assassin to do the job? Probably not. Would they hire a neutral person to do it, sure. Or they would ambush him directly.
Killing a tyrant to liberate a people is called revolution! Viva La Resistance!
Killing them with animals, insects, falling trees, bushes can be cast as neutral, especially if the bodies are left as fertilizer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps we could approach this in a slightly different way. Suppose there are two poles to the Neutral spectrum, one of which is True Neutral and the other false, or Entropic neutral? New players start out at the intersection of all spectra (Good, Evil, Chaos, Order, True Neutral, and Entropic Neutral).
Entropy could be the extra-Planar power that decays Alignment contrary to the requirements of the gods. It might be aligned with other Planar beings, giving True Neutrality a directly opposing natural enemy.
Interesting idea? No? Yes? Problems? Fit? Unfit?
Yeah, merge this with the whole TN hits causing Alignment Decay. I don't know that we could justify adding a meter/measurement for Neutrality itself, without it being a core concept to the entire game, but it would provide us with a universal enemy that is both outside of general Alignment quarrels, and simultaneously a desirable target for TN in particular. In a sense this would make it partially undesirable for players that are deliberately not of TN, but in a sense that it is the force of Alignment Decay in the world that they must constantly rise above. It still comes off a bit Nietzsche'ish, but in a way that drives everyone forward. Where all of the other poles have a goal of destroying their opposites, with Entropy pushing them to keep at it (through Decay) .. TN wants to keep the actions of the poles balanced against each other, causing Alignment shifts one way or the other as the action determines, while needing to counteract those effects by bleeding away that which is not Neutrality by fighting Entropy.
This creates a beautiful little loop of Poles contesting each other which balances the conflict with Entropy, and TN conflicting with Entropy which balances contesting the Poles. I like it. A lot.
The question here that needs asking is, "Can players become Entropic?" .. and I can't give a single good reason why not. Just as players will be able to aid the enemy forces of their Alignments, so too should TN be able to aid the enemy forces of its own Alignment. I would suggest adding an Entropic flag in the nature of Criminal, but I don't think it would be necessary. Entropy logging for the character sure, but if you're TN.. the only non-Criminal that would show up KoS to you is Entropic by definition. Then again, it wouldn't hurt to have the clarification and the notice for non-TN players that this player is dabbling in the forces of darkness.
P.s.: While proofing this, I noticed a couple things. Yes I just put forth a system that I was doubtful of needing at first, and No that does not mean everything a player kills will drag them away from their Alignment. Only TN stuff. CN/LN/NG/NE all act just like you would expect in that they give a boost to their opposites. Most of the creatures you find in the world that are TN are likely to be animals and deliberately TN sentient creatures, with the possibility of some constructs in there as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It does make sense that if there can be criminals to Lawful Evil cultures and Chaotic Evil cultures (see Griefers) as well as Lawful and Chaotic Good then criminality is a characteristic as alien to the Cardinal Four as True Neutral is, where there will be criminals opposing TN as well.
I'm looking for a way this cannot be so and not finding anything other than that it has not been made canon.
This could also provide a reason why acts of retribution can reinforce each alignment, even chaos.
Further, Entropy could play well into the considerations we have been discussing in the Death Mechanics thread. Entropy might be the source of memory decay in the dead as they await resurrection.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
What Andius saw was that the players that had achieved the highest 'Good' rating of +100 did not mind occasionally killing a random person, as they knew they would get right back up to +100 soon after with all the other Good things they were doing.I'll mention the Fibonacci Sequence again. If the amount of Alignment loss you suffer is based on the Total number of characters you've killed that cost you Alignment, then after you've killed enough of them, each one becomes a HUGE hit.
For example, let's consider a Lawful Good Paladin. The number on the left is the number of Good characters he's killed, the number on the right is the amount of Alignment shift towards Evil he experiences:
Kills = Alignment Loss
1 = 1
2 = 2
3 = 3
4 = 5
5 = 8
6 = 13
7 = 21
8 = 34
9 = 55
10 = 89
11 = 144It's pretty easy to see how this would deal with the problem Andius saw much better than Alignment Decay would.
And thanks to Andius for bringing this up :)
Shouldn't being Evil or Neutral be as hard as being Good? Perhaps something like "gain 1evil and lose x% of good" would work better, if alignment was defined as the ratio of good and evil, not the sum.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
well the problem is this, technically killing evil things/people is a good act. Thats just the way the world works in PfO. So does the method of killing an evil person matter? I would say depends. However would a good person hire an evil assassin to do the job? Probably not. Would they hire a neutral person to do it, sure. Or they would ambush him directly.
Killing a tyrant to liberate a people is called revolution! Viva La Resistance!
Using evil acts to promote good results is like burning down the arsonist's house to improve fire safety. Don't expect the gods that determine what Good fire safety means to look favorably on you afterwards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Decius The way I envision Good and Evil is as being separate scores. If you have 10 Good points and you do something to net 7 Evil points. Instead of having 10 Good + 7 Evil, first the Evil has to be applied against your balance of Good. End result being simply having 3 Good points and 0 Evil points.
Now let's say you have 5 Chaotic / 8 Good. You kill a TN, which being a low impact kill only gives you say 2 TN points. End result would be 3 Chaotic / 6 Good, or even 4 Chaotic / 7 Good. By splitting the Decay among everything, the latter option would have less of an impact on the 4 ordinal alignments, while comparatively greater impact on the cardinal alignments; in keeping with TN viewpoint I believe the former option is better as it does not in a sense favor those of the greatest deviance.
I suspect we can come up with a better model than this though. The guidelines I would put forward is that you can not be Good and Evil at the same time, and implementation of the idea that TN hits erode alignment. Yes something with wholly independent Alignment counts is conceivable, but not simple. I'm a big fan of the KISS concept (Keep It Simple, Stupid) as ultimately the more complexity you add the harder it is to explain or to maintain and inevitably leads to more opportunities for exploitation.
As far as maintaining your Alignment, what I have proposed ensures that anyone who wishes to stay a specific Alignment will need to take deliberate steps to ensure their actions be in accord with their desired alignment. Generally this is as simple as taking part in that Alignment's struggle against its opposite, or a combination of smaller actions that also embody the choice of Alignment.
I'm curious in particular how Nihimon feels about all of this, as he has stated that nothing that threatens his Paladin's status as a Paladin is something he wants to see, while the devs have stated that one will have to actively maintain Alignment choices. I'm sure others feel more or less the same as Nihimon on this, and I don't want this effort to only be something those of like mind participate in. Personally I think this offers a choice to participate in the primary activity that could balance your Alignment, or to stick with that which furthers your Alignment's cause of imbalance.
Note, this balance/imbalance should not inherently be taken negatively, it is each Alignment's goal to further its own cause. This also creates a sense of self preservation where combating Alignment opposites comes in. Good will not want to help Evil fight Good. Vice versa. TN will be a sometimes ally in either direction, and either Good or Evil would be a sometimes ally against Entropy as the enemy of TN, but ultimately a threat against everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being That said, there is a big difference between something like:
- Do your best to undermine, interfere with and otherwise defeat those who oppose your Alignment. Two Alignment steps away being moderate opposition and four steps away being absolute opposition.
- Do not do any of the above to your own Alignment.
- Disobey the laws of settlements in pursuit of the above points at your own risk.
And something like:
- You can kill any alignment, a sliding scale will be applied to the action based on how close they are in alignment.
- A percentage of your alignment will be forfeit based on the above calculations, depending on circumstances of the kill.
- Overall alignment is determined by the sum of your actions in relation to the starting alignment they were applied to.
- Ad nauseum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't like it much Darcnes.
If you are fighting the good fight, and your opponents are lawfuls, goods or neutrals, and they are eager to fight to the death--too f**king bad for them.
I've said it before, good won't always be against evil, if you are lawful good you can be stuck defending order, church and scripture from all manner of neutrals, goods and lawfuls. Protecting the faith, country or kingdom shouldn't get you to fall or start to slide.
Animals are neutral, how would a sliding scale take that? You become slowly evil if you are neutral good killing dangerous neutral animals?
Some days, alignment, urgh.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly I can't see a three or four pole system working where there's 2 poles exclusively for the neutral alignment... It just doesn't seem to work that I can see. Once you're neutral you shied to a tn/entropy axis which still to me seems at odds with the order/chaos and good/evil poles.
I understand the desire. Perhaps, instead, what is required is a balance attribute for Druids like a rage meter type thing for the barbarians that takes into account your actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being That said, there is a big difference between something [...]
@All Both of these lists were BS. They have nothing to do with the point being made, except as demonstrations of two different approaches to explaining the same system. One of which is fairly easy to understand, the other invites confusion and unsurety of exactly where you stand. This is strictly in response to @Being regarding the KISS principle.
@Being I've addressed the increasing/restoring in past posts. Simply do things that find favor with your Alignment.
@3.5Loyalist None of this stops you from doing your work for "faith, country or kingdom". Because your faith, country and kingdom all must be within a single Alignment step from you. Your goals by default align with at least some of theirs assuming any kind of loyalty at all. Bear in mind that if you start persecuting Good in a LG kingdom, you probably won't remain part of that kingdom for very long.
I'll assume the sliding scale comment was directed towards those ridiculous lists I made. ;)
But to address the question in reference to what I was saying in previous posts...
Let's pretend you need 50 points in any given Alignment to be given that label. 7 points is very close to Neutral.
Good: 7 takes a hit for Evil: 10
This would not mean -10 to a GE axis resulting in -3, these are separate counts.
First the current balance of Good is established (7).
This has to be 0 before you could start accruing ANY Evil points.
So 7 points are spent counteracting the Good you have stored up.
You now have 3 Evil points remaining, with 0 Good needing to be countered.
3 points are then applied to your Evil score.
The end result of 3 points into Evil is the same; however, the difference is more apparent where Neutral is concerned.
You are now at Evil: 3 Good: 0
You kill a TN natural creature (if it's NG or NE you take the appropriate G or E hit).
You take a TN hit for 2 (this is the "Decay", as such it is generally very small).
This is also subtracted from any existing G/E points. Evil: 3 - 2, result Evil: 1.
You do this again, Evil: 1 - 2, result Evil: 0.
In a horribly exaggerated scenario, we'll say you are Lawful: 70 (not exaggerated).
You defeat some big Entropic force and are awarded TN: 100 (very exaggerated).
Lawful: 70 - 100, result Lawful: 0.
There is no negative Evil, or negative Good. The absence of these influences is Neutral, the goal being TN when you're dealing with TN beings. In essence the system is very simple: Opposites counteract each other at a 1:1 basis, opposite must be 0 before value can accrue, TN counteracts any Alignment at a 1:1 and has no way of accruing past 0.
@Jameow There are already 4 poles, one at each end of the 2 axis. I'm guessing you meant more than two axis; that's not what I am suggesting. TN is its own thing, it does not need a rage meter, or an axis to keep track of it or anything like that. It simply means 0's across the board when looking at Alignment, or fairly close to it.
Entropy is not meant to add another dimension to the Alignment scales; it's not something I desire to see (refer back to KISS principle), nor is it something I think is in keeping with PF or even something the devs would be amicable to entertaining. (Pretty much the three things I check myself against in making suggestions.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was more responding to being than you, I think a balance meter is more in line with what HE wants than adding an extra 2 poles to alignment.
I'm sure I've seen something like a balance meter in something before that affected your abilities, if you do some things to much it pushes your abilities one way, if you do too much the opposite, they shift that way.
Or perhaps each hex could have a balance rating for the nature in that hex, and Druids get tn for balancing it towards the middle, or good/evil neutral for pushing it into those ranges with unique Druidy business.
I'm looking at things better suited to what Being is suggesting for TN Druids than I think the alignment system is.
@Being That said, there is a big difference between something [...]@All Both of these lists were BS. They have nothing to do with the point being made, except as demonstrations of two different approaches to explaining the same system. One of which is fairly easy to understand, the other invites confusion and unsurety of exactly where you stand. This is strictly in response to @Being regarding the KISS principle.
@Being I've addressed the increasing/restoring in past posts. Simply do things that find favor with your Alignment.
@3.5Loyalist None of this stops you from doing your work for "faith, country or kingdom". Because your faith, country and kingdom all must be within a single Alignment step from you. Your goals by default align with at least some of theirs assuming any kind of loyalty at all. Bear in mind that if you start persecuting Good in a LG kingdom, you probably won't remain part of that kingdom for very long.
I'll assume the sliding scale comment was directed towards those ridiculous lists I made. ;)
But to address the question in reference to what I was saying in previous posts...
Let's pretend you need 50 points in any given Alignment to be given that label. 7 points is very close to Neutral.
Good: 7 takes a hit for Evil: 10
This would not mean -10 to a GE axis resulting in -3, these are separate counts.
First the current balance of Good is established (7).
This has to be 0 before you could start accruing ANY Evil points.
So 7 points are spent counteracting the Good you have stored up.
You now have 3 Evil points remaining, with 0 Good needing to be countered.
3 points are then applied to your Evil score.The end result of 3 points into Evil is the same; however, the difference is more apparent where Neutral is concerned.
You are now at Evil: 3 Good: 0
You kill a TN natural creature (if it's NG or NE you take the appropriate G or E hit).
You take a TN hit for 2 (this is the "Decay", as such it is generally very small)....
Neutral good and chaotic good have cause to oppose lawful good and lawful neutral if there is a civil war, conflict against other cultures or with neighbours or attempt to root out and extinguish the lawful evil hiding in the lawful neutral state by the neutral good. If lawful good attempts to protect a flawed society or stop rebels, not all rebels will necessarily be evil. Some may just be opposed to the level of taxation, a war, heavy losses to monsters, failure on the parts of the pcs. To give an example neutral good Buddhist-like rebels opposing the feuding lawful samurai, something like the ikko ikki revolt. LG or LN has to kill or hurt and drive off rebels for the greater good (who care nothing for law and the present authorities because they are considered corrupt, dodgy, oppressive, fat-cats, etc).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The big point that needs to be made here is that there's no such thing as "the greater good" in PFO (I'd have gone with "Hot Fuzz" for that example haha). Actions are not relative, they are absolute.
If a Lawful Good persecutes Lawful Neutral, or perhaps even Lawful Evil he will probably not remain Lawful. It's great for his Good side, but that doesn't count for much when it's Lawful vs Lawful, unlawfully.
If you are Good and want to conflict with others, you'll probably end up Chaotic, and that's fine.. it matches your play style. I get the feeling a LOT of people (not you necessarily) are going to have to adapt to this, from simply declaring and interpreting their alignments at the behest of a persuadable DM.
The rebels of the Ikko Ikki revolt would by necessity be Criminals, and be labeled as such. Your organization would likely also need to have laws that permitted the rounding up, execution or otherwise expulsion of these rebels. In life, the saying "History is written by the victors." tends to stand tall. Despots get put down unlawfully, it's considered the right thing to do, but it's still unlawful. In this case the victors would literally be labeled Criminals! Over time the Criminal tag would go away, and the land would still have its new rulers.
The rebels against a settlement/kingdom because of mismanagement are going to need to employ entirely different tactics on a much more political (read: non-violent) scale. It's likely there will be so much meta happening at this point that Alignment will only be a question of RP. It will cause me a perverse kind of joy to see the first LG kingdom that collapses in on itself (particularly if it's the first of any kindgoms to do so) for all that it's supposed to be the most ideal of organizations.
It's very important to question whether what you're saying is likely to occur in the mechanics or in the meta-game. That seems to be the biggest disconnect in the discussions I've seen so far, when one person is talking mechanics and another is talking ideology. =)
Many tyrants and dictators were either assassinated or someone attempted to do so. Were those people who did so Evil?Are you talking about in the real world? Or about in PFO?
Because I'm talking about in PFO.
As of right now, one of the very few things we actually know about Assassination in PFO is that "it is an Evil act".
My whole point was that, given this definition of Assassination, there must be some other term that would be used to killing a tyrant to liberate a people, since that is an inherently Good act.=
If logic has to be skewed in favor of a "correct interpretation of the word Assassin", then I'd rather not play the MMO.
There's dumb alignment discussions that are entertaining, and then there's absurdity that stops being funny. This is the latter.
Possibly, but that doesn't help that I already have been given a long list of reasons not to play.
This asinine fight over a single word just added another "no" to that list, which I'm not surprised about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Ok, I may be way off here. But honestly I could envision a situation where TN would have to aid LG in order to maintain a balance.Say if a charismatic leader rises up and recruits tons of evil, self serving players and leads them on a rampage throughout the land. Destroying everything in their path. That would be bringing chaos,and evil to all of the land. In order to maintain a balance, wouldn't a TN faction ally with a group of LG paladins to seek to put a stop to the rampaging horde?
Does that make sense? I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas Being, but to look at them in another light.
Yep, it makes sense. I can imagine a story where the situation is so dire that the Druids would come to the aid of a great Lawful Good bastion were it about to be overwhelmed by a terrible evil. I could especially see it if that terrible evil were somehow tied into some sort of relationship with Entropy personified.
Objections have been raised against asserting entropy as an opposite pole to true neutral, much as good opposes evil and chaos opposes law. But in the discussion about that model, and despite those objections, I felt there was considerable merit to the proposition that it is the influence of entropy that might explain alignment drift: that just as good deeds propel the Paladin toward the Good, so too would inaction threaten to decay his alignment as well.
The biggest advantage to positing that polar opposite as entropy is that then Lawful Good need not be anti-True Neutral. Lawful Good just isn't true neutral.
True Neutrals could then be freed to consider the four cardinal alignments as parts of the very balance he seeks to nurture.
I still think there is significant merit to the idea.
And thank you, as always, for speaking your mind. None of us are so clear eyed that we cannot use another pair looking with us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was more responding to being than you, I think a balance meter is more in line with what HE wants than adding an extra 2 poles to alignment.
I'm sure I've seen something like a balance meter in something before that affected your abilities, if you do some things to much it pushes your abilities one way, if you do too much the opposite, they shift that way.
Or perhaps each hex could have a balance rating for the nature in that hex, and Druids get tn for balancing it towards the middle, or good/evil neutral for pushing it into those ranges with unique Druidy business.
I'm looking at things better suited to what Being is suggesting for TN Druids than I think the alignment system is.
If you are using numbers on a scale it is not far removed from a coordinate system. The coordinate system just has depth.
If your alignment can change because of what you do, or don't do, then it will become more or less one way or the other. Picking alignment at the start should be questionable where the player can thereafter play chaotic.
I'm suggesting that there could be a third dimension to the alignment matrix and it need not upset the math.
I'd just like it if I could play true neutral meaningfully, and if I cannot have a deity doing so, then I would at least like to have a prime enemy opposing that makes it a more true neutral thing to not be opposed to the Good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My issue with it is that since the neutral/entropy dimension is focused soley on TN playing it's more like shifting to a different plane, it's no longer part of the overall alignment system.
That's why I suggested the personal and hex balance meters for the Druid I think they better allow you to play the balance aspect and drive towards tn, ng and ne as you like on meaningfully for Druids without jumping off the alignment charts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But the criminal flag is the result of an action that moves you towards chaotic. How does that apply to entropy? Keeping in Mind that just because someone is TN does not mean they are dedicated to balance. That may be true of Druids, but it is not true of all tn characters, or the sole purpose of the tn alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I'm envisioning a Druid seeking out AFK players and 'fading' elves to eliminate...
Sorry... just puzzling over the nature and characteristics of entropy.
Honestly after seven minutes of mulling without cider I'm not coming up with much to build the enthusiasm of a true neutral Druid for the flag model. The best I came up with is if untended resource harvesters also gained entropy flags so I might destroy them and gain greater TN alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In a random order (and I didn't read any other posts), here's my post from another thread:
This would be cool if implemented correctly, and as Axies said it may require GM intervention.
It brings up a good point, on the alignment scale, it would be a good idea for GW to have it so that you never reach a maximum in a certain quadrant, IE if you stay LG you should continue to get LG points for your LG actions, rather than just reaching LG and that is that.
I'm kind of hoping for something similar.
What I'd like to see is like you said: you still gain points for your LG actions. However, what I'd like to see is maybe a graph or something.
Twisting it a bit, LG would be on the right (so being max LG would be at 1000 (x) on Good/Evil, 1000 (y) on Law/Chaos. Positive being Lawful/Good, negative being Chaotic/Evil. For the others, it'd be Chaotic Good (1000,-1000), Lawful Evil (-1000,1000), Chaotic Evil (-1000,-1000), and Neutral (0,0))
And for maximum points, Let's say there's a throttle at 500,700 to be lawful good. You could still gain points, but it scales down and isn't as much as before you become lawful good. The maximum for a LG player is 1000,1000, but your settlement and other things that benefit from your actions will still get points from your acts (most likely, these points will be static, but in a similar case, if the settlement/company reaches say 5000,7000, it scales everyone's acts). Chaotic/Evil acts would cause a sharp drop in points, most likely to around neutral @ 0,0 if not immediate Evil (And in the case of accidental attacks, hopefully as long as compensation is given and nothing major happened, the victim could be forgiving and cancel the alignment drop, although probably not all the way. You should be more careful about who your attacking.) A similar case for settlements, but probably scaled down a bit (just one guy, it's not like the settlement is killing everyone. Although repeated incidences could start scaling up the loss.) Kind of hoping that initial good/lawful acts are static in giving points up to a "throttle" (Say 250, 2500 for...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks Marthian, it looks like you've been cut off part way through. ;) One thing I like about these quotes is Dakcenturi's mention of not having caps. It would make it possible for one who is always striving for their cause to give themselves a LOT of breathing room. Essentially to make it possible to build up so much of their Alignment that they realistically won't fall from it if they don't turn away from their path entirely.
Personally, after a lot of the reflection we've gone through in this thread, I don't feel that an x/y graph is the best approach to measuring these things, but as four distinct values that accrue co-dependently of their opposites. In order to gain points in Lawful you must first have a balance of 0 with Chaos, a point in Lawful will 1:1 remove a point from Chaos to this end. By extending this concept actions that qualify as TN (killing a natural animal for example) would simply remove points from the four values completely impartially, the end result of killing enough natural animals would be no points in any of the four values and thus being TN.
At least, this is how I envision a system with TN being a contributing part of society and something one can actively strive towards in addition to playing balancing games among the four Alignments. It would all likely need to go hand in hand with either actively working against the four ordinal alignments and partially with/against the four cardinals or the system of Entropy described earlier in this thread.