Alignment

[Proxima Sin]

I don't think the concept of how to finalize this stuff is difficult.  Simplify the ideas to 2-3 mutually exclusive options, present the pros and cons, vote for one (ranked voting if more than two).

 

An overly simplified example to demonstrate the format:

 

Step 1 The Question  Do we include alignment in Settlement Charters, descriptions, recruitment, etc? (Voting window established at the beginning, enough time to discuss and sway people but with a clear ending time that all know).

 

Step 2 Representatives Make the Cases

 

For - It's a part of Pathfinder!

Against - Dipnuggets will use it as drama fuel in forum tantrums that never go away!

 

Step 3 Undecideds hash it out

 

Step 4 Final vote registered after the time limit is up

[Drogon]

we need to have meeting sometime early next week....i want to hash this out....

 

what night next week works for everyone?

[Proxima Sin]

I haven't even seen anyone assert we should keep alignment in our descriptions before it's coded.

 

We had some back and forth about what alignments mean, which only supports not including alignment until it's a mechanical part of the game.

 

Including alignment descriptions for BHA and affiliated settlements provides fuel for forum dramz without any benefit over not labeling it, which supports not labeling it.  I removed the NG part of my Brighthaven blurb in GW forum signature.

 

Is there even any disagreement to a policy of: not labeling the alignment of BHA or it's affiliated settlements until that is a mechanical part of the game, individual players can rp specific alignments for their characters or not as long as their actions in the game and forums meet our long running standards?

[Drogon]

I'm good with that Prox

[Guest Zaxtonia]

Agreed

[Harneloot]

+1

[Fierywind]

Finally! That's exactly what I've wanted.

[Proxima Sin]

Good.  Sorted.  Meetings, euugh.

 

Still Chaotic, bitches!!  \ ^^' /  \ '^^ /

[Drogon]

still need to meet about our core values...2 to 3 of them that we can make part of our declaration

[Glinder]

Chocolate?  Coffee?  Scotch?

Sorry, it's late and I'm being "helpy" not helpful.

[Guest Zaxtonia]

More helpful than I have been as of late, thanks for making me smile.  You too Prox, Chaos 4 Life!

[Drogon]

Not Jerks, protecting players from griefers, helping new players

[Guest Zaxtonia]

Sounds about right.  The only thing about the "Not Jerks" is that it could be based on opinion.  Is there another way to word that?

[casvelyn]

Something I found interesting: a podcast at GenCon interviewing James Sutter, one of the guys who invented Pathfinder. He talks about alignment, writing moral quandaries (if an angel is born good, is he really good if he never got to make a choice? if i have a magic wand and can make and evil guy good, is that a moral thing to do?), the creation of Pathfinder, his new game Starfinder (a thousand years later, Golarion gone missing and the gods won't say where, space/technomancing, starship piloting), and so forth. Pretty cool stuff and he actually says some things that make sense in our investigation of non-binary values, etc.   http://www.releasethegeek.net/blog/2016/9/8/episode-80-2016-summer-series-pathfinder-geekery-with-james-l-sutter

I like chocolate coffee in my scotch too.

[Proxima Sin]

"Not jerks" makes sense to us but it's too subjective to survive in the public; the possibility of being accused of violating our standards whenever we did something another group doesn't like.  But translating that into objective terms starts heavily implying an alignment without using the pronouns.

 

I want to make the case we skip it.  Nearly every group in most games has some sort of meta code of conduct and could put "not jerks" on their list anyway.  It doesn't make anyone stand out that much, how we mean it is pretty much the norm that defines jerks when they break the norm.

 

Griefer hunting is definitely something that stands out among the mass of player groups.

 

New player assistance is more common (as a self-serving recruitment tool) but it's nice to highlight openly so new players know their options (though I think we should rephrase it to connote a larger operation than others provide being the entire package of gear, game training, and activities to go on).

 

If we need a third thing how about Honorable?  Middle of battle when we realized Eggflower was a newbie in T1 we stopped killing him because what's the point?  (and we're not jerks)

 

How does it meet the subjective/objective test "not jerks" had trouble with?  The trope of honor meaning many different things to different people is so hashed out no one can make a serious false case we violated the definition.  In fantasy games and literature it stretches from lawful to chaotic but usually not evil so the evil exception remains an option but mainly we don't get pinned down on alignment except where we weren't going to go anyway.

[Drogon]

I can see the reason behind what you say Prox...Honorable is good for me, we can remove the not jerk term as well...

[Glinder]

When Thusfaar and I were looking, there were 2 groups that said good in the definition.  Ozzems, as Lawful good.  Thus might be, maybe, but Glinder is chaos.  That narrowed it down to Brighthaven.  That was the primary reason we ended up here.  (Well, that and Fiery's recruitment.)

 

Is there a way to forsoothly say not really evil in general, and most of us try much of the time sorta to role play good kinda maybe, but alignment is not applicable in current game so declarations are not necessary? 

[Harneloot]

 

 

Is there even any disagreement to a policy of: not labeling the alignment of BHA or it's affiliated settlements until that is a mechanical part of the game, individual players can rp specific alignments for their characters or not as long as their actions in the game and forums meet our long running standards?

 

Glinder, I think that is exactly what Prox meant by the *meet our long running standarda* phrase.

[Proxima Sin]

So, players won't be calling the alliance or settlements Good, but the players including recruiters can call their characters Good, and we might have Honorable in there for the settlement blurbs so if someone is looking for Good they can make that mental connection too.

 

Our long held standards would translate into some version of Good or at minimum DEFINITELY-NOT-EVIL Good-leaning neutral.

[Glinder]

Sounds good.

[Lone Wolf]

Just thinking out loud here, I certainly think an alliance isn't going to have an alignment per se.  An alliance could potentially consist of settlements that could vary fairly widely in alignment. I think settlements similarly can have a range of aligned companies as well, within reason.  Less latitude than alliances, but more latitude than companies. And then companies would be tighter in alignment of characters than either settlements or alliances.

 

So, Alliance < Settlement < Company < Character as far as specificity or binding of alignment.

 

Honestly I think Factions would/should be the more "regulated" by any alignment mechanic than companies, settlements, or alliances.  The more I think about it, the more I think Factions should be the truly alignment-based component of the game and let the settlements be free of an alignment yoke.  Paladins would have LG faction options, assassins would have CE faction options, Druids would have true N faction options, etc.

 

Back on topic, I like Prox's above thought.  And as has been stated and as its seems we are focusing on, we would have a code of conduct or morals, and those would be our basis.

[Guest Zaxtonia]

Redacted

Edited September 29, 2016 by Zaxtonia