Vigilante/Rogue as a transition choice

Hi:

I tend to make alts themed based, and in most cases their background has mostly been that of a vigilante type, regardless if they were hero or villan side.

I imagine some folks may have concepts that are Rogue in nature, as well.

So when I a have a Hero who wants to be a Rogue, I would have to go Hero-Vigilante-Villain-Rogue.

If I have a Villain who wants to go Vigilante, I would have to go Villain-Rogue-Hero-Vigilante.

It would be nice, to have a choice instead of going Hero or Villain in the process to have an alternate choice of Vigilante or Rogue accordingly.

Thus Villain-Rogue-Vigilante could be a path, as well as Hero-Vigilante-Rogue another.

Hugs

Stormy

I am warmly /signed to this idea as well. I just don't get what's wrong for enabling Rogue choices as a Vigilante or Vigilante choices as a Rogue when you do tips on the other side, at the moment they're sort of 'hidden'.

The only problem I see is if there's not enough room to put in four alignment bars, since you get three upon becoming a grey morality.

As of now the mission dialogue wouldn't make sense for Rogues going Vigilante and vice versa, especially the morality missions. Some of the missions themselves would not make any sense, such as most missions involving Doc Quantum or Nemesis. If the developers are willing to put in the time to add relevant missions/dialogue to the mix I would love to see it, but it wouldn't be so simple as "adding the Vigilante/Rogue option" to each tip.

There's actually some logic to the progression, as I see it.

Vigilantes are so crazy anti-evil (in their minds) they do whatever they have to stop it... killing villains, sacrificing innocents, etc.

Rogues are purely mercenary, following no code except what best suits them at the time. Is there a good reason to kill that hero, or can I profit more from warning him of his doom?

The two are opposites. One believes so adamantly in a cause they cross the line to get it done. The other has no cause to speak of, and crosses the line because why the heck not?

Thank you for the support...

Actually my thoughts have been that both Rogue and Vigilante are in the path anyway...

Let me explain...

I see a Villain commencing to "see the light" would transition to behaving like Rogue, still somewhat all about me, like a Villain, but becoming mercenary like and thus commencing to evolve a code of ethics. Once a Rogue, they begin to evolve a sense of social right and wrong, and thus limit the mercenary activities to "good causes" yet the ends does justify the means, ergo Vigilante. After awhile, they realize that "there is a justice code for a purpose" and become a part of the legal system and thus evolve into Heroes. The same de-evolution can be told for a Hero, where something happens, a crooked politician sets her up, and she becomes disillusioned with the system, and turns Vigilante, punishin those that "deserves" to be punished. Then she realizes that she needs to eat, repair her costume, pay rent, and Vigilante work is not that well paid if at all, and thus commences to sell her services for a price, and in time she learns to convince herself that whatever job she does is for a good cause; thus becoming a Rogue. Finally she decides, what the heck, I have all these powers, why am I living out of a value meal menu at McDonalds? and thus turns Villain.

I agree with a previous poster, that some cosmetic work to the mission's dialogue would need to be updated, after all its all a state of mind. A Rogue can go an steal the books from Mr. Pitner cause she was hired by Longbow to do so. A Vigilante would steal the same books, because she believes the Freaks if educated would better meld into society. A Villain would steal the books, just to annoy Pitner; while a Hero would "rescue" the books to help the poor people in the Rogue Isles. In all cases, the scenario, runs just about the same in practice.

I would also suggest, that when one reaches level 20 at Praetoria, we should be able to choose which of the four states we would want to be as well, not just Hero or Villain.

Hugs

Stormy

I think it's mostly a matter of the need to write up another 60-120 arcs in order to satisfy the Villain-Vigilante-Hero and Hero-Rogue-Villain paths.

However I'd like to note that I would prefer if all Praetorians came to Primal Earth either as Vigilantes or Rogues. And their actions in this dimension were the ones that determined whether or not they became heroes or villains.

It'd make more sense from a character standpoint and would allow new players to see both sides of the pond before locking themselves into one side or the other.

-Rachel-

It's a game mechanics thing and unlikely to change. A Vigilante is still considered a Hero as far as the game is concerned, and a Rogue is a Villain as far as the game is concerned.

Allowing people to skip the second set of arcs that makes them "native" to their new side (which is what this suggestion advocates, if perhaps accidentally) is probably not something that will occur.

I dunno, I'm not really diggin' this idea, to be honest.

I expected a continuum as well (Hero - Vigilante - Rogue - Villain), but I kind of understand why they went with what they did.

A lot of it also has more to do with how you are viewed by the public than how your character views themselves.

A hero who starts doing bad things for the right reasons will be viewed by the general populous as being a vigilante, because they haven't quite crossed that line into being a villain. Once you start killing indiscriminately for your own ends, or letting people die so you can profit from it, the public is going to see you as a villain, regardless of what you have to say about it.

There's not going to be any "Oh, Fireguy let a bunch of innocent people die so he could make off with some stolen property, what a rogue!"

If the public thought of you as a hero before, and you start doing things like that, chances are they aren't going to see a difference between Villain and Rogue. They aren't really going to care what you call yourself, they've already made up their mind about you. In their book, you've turned your back on everything you formerly stood for, and that makes you a villain.

As far as the other direction goes, starting as a villain: other villains will start trusting you less when you display a sense of morals. You can still call yourself whatever you want, but how THEY see you is what determines where you fall in it. You start saving people's lives when you could be profiting from their deaths, chances are the other villains will start calling you variations of "goody two shoes" and assorted badguyisms.

The Hero-Vigilante-Villain, and Villain-Rogue-Hero paths seem to me to be much more about how other people see you than how you see yourself.

Mmm

Wonderful observations, but I would think if you are a villain going hero, you would go thru being viewed or even thinking as a Vigilante first, and similar set up for heroes going villain with the rogue attitude. Its actually illogical for a villain to go all the way to hero to wind up vigilante.

I like the Vigilante class, for many my character concepts are based on divenly gifted humans with powers, the great majority from Norse Gods and Goddesses. While they are very lawful, the problem is they follow their God's mandates and laws, over those of say Paragon City or Rogue Isles.

Thus having Vigilante as an alignment is great, to accomodate my role playing needs.

The suggestion I made, was a simple observation that there should be a logical continum from red to blue or vice-versa. and I view Rogues and Vigilantes as a less red or blue manifestation; thus the recomendation to allow an evolution from pure red or blue thru the other color transitions.

Stormy