It's 3am, do you know where your settlement is?

So Lawful Evil can only maintain being Lawful Evil by whacking Chaotic Evils? If that is the case they need to rethink the whole system as that is so frustratingly limiting, and nothing like Pathfinder p&p...

...Does it not seem dumb that the current way is no one who doesn't participate in active killing can be evil?

This isn't true; the advantage to killing CE characters for a LE character is that they get less reputation loss for killing those other characters outside the systems (assuming the vast majority of CE are also low rep). A LE mercenary type (the fact that Ryan was speaking specifically on mercenaries was important) will get achievements and such for killing any target, but the CE targets will be easier to kill and give less penalties for killing them.

All that being said, this was speaking only about mercenaries. For a noncombative Evil, all you do is set your core alignment to Lawful Evil, and then refrain from doing Chaotic or Good actions excessively. Your alignment will become LE over time, or go there quicker if you participate in Lawful and/or Evil actions. So no killing is needed to maintain LE.

It smacks of City of Villains, Evil-Lite. Lets set up the system and encourage evil to kill evil so that good can be left alone in peace.

If CE has this so called freedom of action, and have no reason to maintain a high reputation than they might as well Zerg across the country side and randomly kill the weakest targets they can find.... Just for the lulz. Is that really the message that Ryan is putting out there?

Does he think he is going to sucker LE into this myth that their role is to crush CE?

I'd say to LE settlements, supply CE hordes with the best gear we can use and unleash us onto your enemies. Meta game our associations so none of that negative reputation bounces back at you. Use middle men, throw away alts to do the trade between both parties, if there will be rep hits associated with trading with low rep.

It smacks of City of Villains, Evil-Lite. Lets set up the system and encourage evil to kill evil so that good can be left alone in peace.

If CE has this so called freedom of action, and have no reason to maintain a high reputation than they might as well Zerg across the country side and randomly kill the weakest targets they can find.... Just for the lulz. Is that really the message that Ryan is putting out there?

Does he think he is going to sucker LE into this myth that their role is to crush CE?

I'd say to LE settlements, supply CE hordes with the best gear we can use and unleash us onto your enemies. Meta game our associations so none of that negative reputation bounces back at you. Use middle men, throw away alts to do the trade between both parties, if there will be rep hits associated with trading with low rep.

You do remember all of the context around Ryan's original comment, right? It seems that you have forgotten it and that you are blowing it way up beyond it's intent. But do have fun. :)

In the context of D&D LE has every reason to kill CE.

LE and LG have more in common than LE and CE. The main difference between LE and LG is how they enforce the laws.

CE don't believe in laws, and don't need any reason to kill.

CG don't believe in laws, and feel everybody should take care of their own problems without the law.

Now who should LE be out to kill??? Really?

So Lawful Evil can only maintain being Lawful Evil by whacking Chaotic Evils?

Srsly?

Bluddwolf wrote:

It smacks of City of Villains, Evil-Lite. Lets set up the system and encourage evil to kill evil so that good can be left alone in peace.

If CE has this so called freedom of action, and have no reason to maintain a high reputation than they might as well Zerg across the country side and randomly kill the weakest targets they can find.... Just for the lulz. Is that really the message that Ryan is putting out there?

Does he think he is going to sucker LE into this myth that their role is to crush CE?

I'd say to LE settlements, supply CE hordes with the best gear we can use and unleash us onto your enemies. Meta game our associations so none of that negative reputation bounces back at you. Use middle men, throw away alts to do the trade between both parties, if there will be rep hits associated with trading with low rep.

You do remember all of the context around Ryan's original comment, right? It seems that you have forgotten it and that you are blowing it way up beyond it's intent. But do have fun. :)

I remember all too well when Ryan was saying that only CE would suck, and then Stephen Cheney came in and added the CE + Low Rep would suck.

Not once has there been any encouragement for CE to play in high reputation fashion.

It smacks of City of Villains, Evil-Lite. Lets set up the system and encourage evil to kill evil so that good can be left alone in peace.

If CE has this so called freedom of action, and have no reason to maintain a high reputation than they might as well Zerg across the country side and randomly kill the weakest targets they can find.... Just for the lulz. Is that really the message that Ryan is putting out there?

Does he think he is going to sucker LE into this myth that their role is to crush CE?

I'd say to LE settlements, supply CE hordes with the best gear we can use and unleash us onto your enemies. Meta game our associations so none of that negative reputation bounces back at you. Use middle men, throw away alts to do the trade between both parties, if there will be rep hits associated with trading with low rep.

Except the war between Chaos and Order has always been most vicious when illustrated by the ongoing wars between devils and demons (aka Blood War)...in fact, I would say they are more constantly violent than those between good and evil. They respectively represent order and chaos is their most pure form, untempered by any goodness.

And this is in addition to the fact that demons are essentially always at war with themselves as well. The personification of CE:

All demon lords are technically — if not actively — at war with one another almost all the time.

I really don't understand why you all think LE will be buddies with CE and vice versa, evil is not a team (hells, as illustrated by the quote above, CE is not even a team), it is the lack of good...leaving only the order vs chaos...which is also at war.

The difference between this and the Good alignments is that LG, NG, and CG at least share that Goodness, the lack of Good is not really something that can be shared. This exact same situation exists mirrored, CG and CE should be at similar odds with the battle between Good and Evil being paramount in the absence of a shared need for Order. LE, LN, and LG can at least temper their differences with that shared belief in Order.

Not once has there been any encouragement for CE to play in high reputation fashion.

If you want to play a High Rep character you're giving up the only reason you'd want to play CE (attacking without care for consequence). If you want to play high rep don't play CE, as you will be better off picking anything else.

CE isn't really a desired alignment to let people play in general, regardless of medium.

Bluddwolf wrote:

Not once has there been any encouragement for CE to play in high reputation fashion.

If you want to play a High Rep character you're giving up the only reason you'd want to play CE (attacking without care for consequence). If you want to play high rep don't play CE, as you will be better off picking anything else.

Yes, because role playing an alignment along with a character concept has no meaningful reason in an RPG..... Silly me, I keep on forgetting alignment is all about gaining a mechanical advantage.

If I'm going to play a low reputation character I would play a Lawful Good Low Rep character. I might as well match GW's total mockery with my own total mockery.

I don't think it will be possible to play a low rep Lawful Good character. For the same reason I think it will be (practically) impossible to play a high rep Chaotic Evil character. Because your rep will track your actions and your actions will determine your alignment. You know - "role playing".

I don't think it will be possible to play a low rep Lawful Good character. For the same reason I think it will be (practically) impossible to play a high rep Chaotic Evil character. Because your rep will track your actions and your actions will determine your alignment. You know - "role playing".

If I set my core alignment to CE and I use feuds, wars and faction to only kill LG characters are you saying I will not eventually have high reputation? Won't I remain chaotic evil, because my actions and who I'm directing them at would be chaotic evil?

You know... Role playing, but within the behaviors you have supported for all others and within the systems you have been putting in place.

If I set my core alignment to CE and I use feuds, wars and faction to only kill LG characters are you saying I will not eventually have high reputation? Won't I remain chaotic evil, because my actions and who I'm directing them at would be chaotic evil?

You know... Role playing, but within the behaviors you have supported for all others and within the systems you have been putting in place.

I'd offer that if you rigorously use feuds, wars and factions for all of your PvP needs, obeying those rules that society dictates, you might not really be acting like a chaotic. Or especially not like a CE.

edit: re-reading your bit about only attacking LG - that suggests an inner discipline as well. Again, not very chaotic.

I think that the game system will tend to shift you towards Lawful Good when you play your character as Lawful, and Good. The role you play will influence your alignment.

Bluddwolf wrote:

If I set my core alignment to CE and I use feuds, wars and faction to only kill LG characters are you saying I will not eventually have high reputation? Won't I remain chaotic evil, because my actions and who I'm directing them at would be chaotic evil?

You know... Role playing, but within the behaviors you have supported for all others and within the systems you have been putting in place.

I'd offer that if you rigorously use feuds, wars and factions for all of your PvP needs, obeying those rules that society dictates, you might not really be acting like a chaotic. Or especially not like a CE.

edit: re-reading your bit about only attacking LG - that suggests an inner discipline as well. Again, not very chaotic.

The point is, I would still be CE and High Reputation, because those are game mechanics. Just as it us equally true, if I set my core alignment to LG and kill outside of feuds, wars or faction, I would eventually end up low reputation but my core alignment would still be LG. Again simple mechanics, and no real connection to role playing alignment at all.

Bluddwolf wrote:

If I set my core alignment to CE and I use feuds, wars and faction to only kill LG characters are you saying I will not eventually have high reputation? Won't I remain chaotic evil, because my actions and who I'm directing them at would be chaotic evil?

You know... Role playing, but within the behaviors you have supported for all others and within the systems you have been putting in place.

I'd offer that if you rigorously use feuds, wars and factions for all of your PvP needs, obeying those rules that society dictates, you might not really be acting like a chaotic. Or especially not like a CE.

edit: re-reading your bit about only attacking LG - that suggests an inner discipline as well. Again, not very chaotic.

I was trying to figure out how to say this too without sounding like I am saying Bluddwolf is "doing it wrong". I 100% agree he and the UN sound LE or at worse NE, (adherence to an internal or personal code is Lawful too, as is remeining true to contracts) but then there is the question of whether non-Chaotic will be able to use SAD and other bandit-type mechanics.

Oh, I totally agree that you should be able to pull off being CE and high reputation, if you're disciplined enough, with an orderly group of players that works well as a team. (Some sort of team being required to use feuds and wars).

It just doesn't sound like it would be role-playing CEs if you all managed it.

Roleplaying is irrelevant for around 75% of players...they do what is mechanically expedient to gain maximum advantage. You may not like that fact but it will be true regardless.

Roleplaying is irrelevant for around 75% of players...they do what is mechanically expedient to gain maximum advantage. You may not like that fact but it will be true regardless.

Buldd whole deal is based on his desire to RP a CE character.

Steelwing wrote:

Roleplaying is irrelevant for around 75% of players...they do what is mechanically expedient to gain maximum advantage. You may not like that fact but it will be true regardless.

Buldd whole deal is based on his desire to RP a CE character.

Bludds inclinations are not really my problem. My comment was aimed purely at all the playing that alignment will be an issue people. Most people will not play an alignment they will use the mechanics to put them in advantageous positions. They will avoid behaviors that take them out of their preferred zone by either not doing them, by hiring those that do not care or using alts.

My point? Arguing about alignment or rep with reference to role playing is irrelevant for most players. Simply that

(disclaimer while I am certainly do not put rp first I and many of the group I belong to are not disdainful of rp. merely if it comes down to being efficient or being rp accurate rp goes down the drain)

My point? Arguing about alignment or rep with reference to role playing is irrelevant for most players. Simply that

(disclaimer while I am certainly do not put rp first I and many of the group I belong to are not disdainful of rp. merely if it comes down to being efficient or being rp accurate rp goes down the drain)

Ultimately, these sentiments are a truism for most competitive games, period. The flavor and feeling are all secondary to what is mathematically more likely to let you win. This does not stop with alignments, but will fall all the way down the line to weapons choices, skill training, and pretty much every other basic component of the game where you have choices that can be made.

Many, possibly most, players do not care about meaningful choices. They want to win. Victory over others is their only meaning. But if we designed all of our games to that end, we've have some pretty boring and shallow games.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I don't think it will be possible to play a low rep Lawful Good character. For the same reason I think it will be (practically) impossible to play a high rep Chaotic Evil character. Because your rep will track your actions and your actions will determine your alignment. You know - "role playing".

If I set my core alignment to CE and I use feuds, wars and faction to only kill LG characters are you saying I will not eventually have high reputation? Won't I remain chaotic evil, because my actions and who I'm directing them at would be chaotic evil?

You know... Role playing, but within the behaviors you have supported for all others and within the systems you have been putting in place.

Somehow I think that "Use only feuds, wars, and faction rights to kill a small subset of all characters" is Lawful.

Yes, even when you are killing Lawful characters.

Lawful is not a unified side, and being enemies with someone who is Lawful does not make you Chaotic. Alignment is about what kind of a character you are, not what kind of a character your enemies are, even though there is some correlation.

Ultimately, these sentiments are a truism for most competitive games, period. The flavor and feeling are all secondary to what is mathematically more likely to let you win. This does not stop with alignments, but will fall all the way down the line to weapons choices, skill training, and pretty much every other basic component of the game where you have choices that can be made.

Many, possibly most, players do not care about meaningful choices. They want to win. Victory over others is their only meaning. But if we designed all of our games to that end, we've have some pretty boring and shallow games.

One might make note of several rather good, well designed games that were ultimately deemed boring and shallow because the players focused on what they presumed was 'efficiency' without bothering with the objectives. It is sorta like impulse buying something on sale when you have no clue what it is. Saved all kindsa money... for something they didn't need after all.

The value, not the price, was esteemed. Hence the idiocy of certain overweening ones.

Steelwing wrote:

My point? Arguing about alignment or rep with reference to role playing is irrelevant for most players. Simply that

(disclaimer while I am certainly do not put rp first I and many of the group I belong to are not disdainful of rp. merely if it comes down to being efficient or being rp accurate rp goes down the drain)

Ultimately, these sentiments are a truism for most competitive games, period. The flavor and feeling are all secondary to what is mathematically more likely to let you win. This does not stop with alignments, but will fall all the way down the line to weapons choices, skill training, and pretty much every other basic component of the game where you have choices that can be made.

Many, possibly most, players do not care about meaningful choices. They want to win. Victory over others is their only meaning. But if we designed all of our games to that end, we've have some pretty boring and shallow games.

You are quite correct Lifedragn. I merely like to point it out occasionally because often it seems to boil down to rp style arguments

The point is, I would still be CE and High Reputation, because those are game mechanics. Just as it us equally true, if I set my core alignment to LG and kill outside of feuds, wars or faction, I would eventually end up low reputation but my core alignment would still be LG. Again simple mechanics, and no real connection to role playing alignment at all.

How exactly would you avoid the alignment shifts toward CE that occur when killing outside the systems?

I find it a little amusing that you've been saying for forever "my group is going to ignore alignment in a roleplaying sense and game it ceaselessly for maximum mechanical benefit" but now you think roleplaying is important.

Fiendish wrote:

So Lawful Evil can only maintain being Lawful Evil by whacking Chaotic Evils?

Srsly?

Well at least half "Srsly". When you say...

The people who want to be crafters are going to end up drifting towards lawful good. The actions they take are going to mostly be lawful and mostly be good. They're going to avoid combat and they're not going to spend time & energy pursuing the kinds of Achievements that will unlock combat-focused character abilities.

To me that says unless you play a combatant who actively and regularly participates in player killing you are going to drift away from whatever your starting alignment is towards LG. I don't think that it is too big a leap to say based on everything you've stated here.

We clearly have examples of characters in fiction who are not combatants or who even kill people (at least directly) that are villains and evil.

Are there going to be opportunities for characters to role-play evil settlement managers, evil crafters, evil merchants, etc. without being direct combatants? From what you have posted tonight it does not sound like it. I hope I am wrong.

@Fiendish, you should read over the alignment section of the blog post Alignment and Reputation. Basically what I believe Ryan is saying is that crafters have no reason to be anything except LG; their actions will not drift them away from LG (maybe even drift toward LG, but that would be kinda weird IMO), and it gives the most benefits, so it's in the crafters' best interests to pick LG.

@Fiendish, you should read over the alignment section of the blog post Alignment and Reputation. Basically what I believe Ryan is saying is that crafters have no reason to be anything except LG; their actions will not drift them away from LG (maybe even drift toward LG, but that would be kinda weird IMO), and it gives the most benefits, so it's in the crafters' best interests to pick LG.

Then why does he use the word "drifting" to LG. That makes it sound as if their actions move them to LG rather than what they pick.

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

@Fiendish, you should read over the alignment section of the blog post Alignment and Reputation. Basically what I believe Ryan is saying is that crafters have no reason to be anything except LG; their actions will not drift them away from LG (maybe even drift toward LG, but that would be kinda weird IMO), and it gives the most benefits, so it's in the crafters' best interests to pick LG.

Then why does he use the word "drifting" to LG. That makes it sound as if their actions move them to LG rather than what they pick.

The developer have made it plain you drift towards your core alignment. Dancey is not a developer he is only the CEO and therefore cannot be relied upon to pronounce on technical details

@Fiendish

Total apologies now not just in PM's we just had a big family debate on what I said to you and the verdict was I was wrong because I condemned you on the ground of not doing something (reading my description) rather than an active wrong doing by wilful misquoting or misunderstanding. Thanks to Bringslite for raising it and full apologies to Fiendish for offences caused

Graciously done Steelwing. I was butting in, but I have a disorder in that vein sometimes. I would not want to lose your best input to this forum. :)

@Fiendish

Total apologies now not just in PM's we just had a big family debate on what I said to you and the verdict was I was wrong because I condemned you on the ground of not doing something (reading my description) rather than an active wrong doing by wilful misquoting or misunderstanding. Thanks to Bringslite for raising it and full apologies to Fiendish for offences caused

Steelwing, are you the only one in your family that posts here? Do you all use the same account? Not that I think you will answer but I find it very interesting that your family jumped in on that. A tilt of the hat to you and the family for working together like that. Definition of team work.

The gist is LG will have the best facilities, so most will start there if they want to craft as their main intrest, and nothing in crafting is going to deminish their LG alignment short of breaking contracts. If you start a LE crafter then it will stay LE it could "improve" so to speak as you fulfill contracts but it will always be drifting back to your starting LE. Not that faction will move on a good evil axis as far as I know. It should mostly be on a law plus for contracts.

Hope that helps.

Ninja edit for the missing T.

My wife and both daughters are members of the same Eve corporation as me and the same alliance as myself. There was no pressure from myself to either start playing Eve nor join my corporation.

I am the only one posting currently on the Paizo boards but if the corp decides to give it a try we will all probably come over we do discuss in general what is going on.

On questions of such things as have we been rude etc. whether in eve or PfO or just down the local drive through we treat that as a family matter. This to our minds promotes a shared morality for the family which enables us to deal with the grey area's in a more united way.

All of us in the family get outvoted at times it is no big deal for us and we deal with it and move on and learn.

The whole point to being CE is that you don't have to deal with the restrictions on PvPing everybody else has to. Other than that nobody should want to play CE (as far as I understand the systems). There are no benefits to setting your core alignment CE and keeping rep high.

And Alignment has officially become the difficulty level setting.

I think the underlying principle behind Blud and Fiendish's raised eyebrows is one inconsistency.

Most Alignments play within the lines and can fully train and experience the entire game. There's one Alignment whose special ability is apparently not having those lines because they're going to suck no matter what even if you try to play within the lines with the rest of the kids in the sandbox. Is killing non-hostiles the only means to lean Chaotic, the only means to lean Evil?

All the arguments in the last 1 1/2 pages about how bad CE is are based on the mechanics GW has saddled onto CE but not other Alignments. A few people are essentially asking the question:

Shouldn't somebody have to do something wrong first before game mechanics drop an anvil on their head?

@ Steelwing

Oops, sorry about the totally off topic questions. Thanks for the response. I am fascinated by the diversity of individuals, families, and groups and you give interesting tidbits without revealing much (and I don't mean to pry either). I will glean what I can from your future statements without pestering you. Sounds like you have a highly intelligent family.

@ Steelwing

Oops, sorry about the totally off topic questions. Thanks for the response. I am fascinated by the diversity of individuals, families, and groups and you give interesting tidbits without revealing much (and I don't mean to pry either). I will glean what I can from your future statements without pestering you. Sounds like you have a highly intelligent family.

I wouldn't claim higher intelligence I would claim higher cohesiveness than a lot of families. Though I admit that last is personal opinion

Wexel Daventry wrote:

@ Steelwing

Oops, sorry about the totally off topic questions. Thanks for the response. I am fascinated by the diversity of individuals, families, and groups and you give interesting tidbits without revealing much (and I don't mean to pry either). I will glean what I can from your future statements without pestering you. Sounds like you have a highly intelligent family.

I wouldn't claim higher intelligence I would claim higher cohesiveness than a lot of families. Though I admit that last is personal opinion

Whether you claim it or not, higher cohesiveness rarely persists without high intelligence to back it when the involved parties are not just blindly following a leader but have a voice, opinion or stance on a matter, and when voiced, give sound arguments to support or naysay a given course. I may be reading into it too much but either way it is a compliment as I like to see families working smoothly together.

Steelwing wrote:

Wexel Daventry wrote:

@ Steelwing

Oops, sorry about the totally off topic questions. Thanks for the response. I am fascinated by the diversity of individuals, families, and groups and you give interesting tidbits without revealing much (and I don't mean to pry either). I will glean what I can from your future statements without pestering you. Sounds like you have a highly intelligent family.

I wouldn't claim higher intelligence I would claim higher cohesiveness than a lot of families. Though I admit that last is personal opinion

Whether you claim it or not, higher cohesiveness rarely persists without high intelligence to back it when the involved parties are not just blindly following a leader but have a voice, opinion or stance on a matter, and when voiced, give sound arguments to support or naysay a given course. I may be reading into it too much but either way it is a compliment as I like to see families working smoothly together.

I have many faults which my family manages to occlude. I lack empathy and I am quick to anger. As I said to someone else earlier though because I and they recognize this we work together to try and smooth over these. I also bring positives to my family that aren't relevant here. But the basic point is we work together to be more than the sum of the individuals

Wexel Daventry wrote:

Steelwing wrote:

Wexel Daventry wrote:

@ Steelwing

Oops, sorry about the totally off topic questions. Thanks for the response. I am fascinated by the diversity of individuals, families, and groups and you give interesting tidbits without revealing much (and I don't mean to pry either). I will glean what I can from your future statements without pestering you. Sounds like you have a highly intelligent family.

I wouldn't claim higher intelligence I would claim higher cohesiveness than a lot of families. Though I admit that last is personal opinion

Whether you claim it or not, higher cohesiveness rarely persists without high intelligence to back it when the involved parties are not just blindly following a leader but have a voice, opinion or stance on a matter, and when voiced, give sound arguments to support or naysay a given course. I may be reading into it too much but either way it is a compliment as I like to see families working smoothly together.

I have many faults which my family manages to occlude. I lack empathy and I am quick to anger. As I said to someone else earlier though because I and they recognize this we work together to try and smooth over these. I also bring positives to my family that aren't relevant here. But the basic point is we work together to be more than the sum of the individuals

And this is admirable. We are all lesser alone, and more as a whole.

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

The whole point to being CE is that you don't have to deal with the restrictions on PvPing everybody else has to. Other than that nobody should want to play CE (as far as I understand the systems). There are no benefits to setting your core alignment CE and keeping rep high.

And Alignment has officially become the difficulty level setting.

I think the underlying principle behind Blud and Fiendish's raised eyebrows is one inconsistency.

Most Alignments play within the lines and can fully train and experience the entire game. There's one Alignment whose special ability is apparently not having those lines because they're going to suck no matter what even if you try to play within the lines with the rest of the kids in the sandbox. Is killing non-hostiles the only means to lean Chaotic, the only means to lean Evil?

All the arguments in the last 1 1/2 pages about how bad CE is are based on the mechanics GW has saddled onto CE but not other Alignments. A few people are essentially asking the question:

Shouldn't somebody have to do something wrong first before game mechanics drop an anvil on their head?

This is exactly the point.

We are told that GW, particularly Ryan, wants to not see certain behaviors in PFO. Then we are told that if we set our alignment to CE or if our alignment drifts that way our characters will suck. Then it is said that the role of CE is not to play within the rules, but no one would choose to play that!

That creates in my mind one of those WTF moments, trying to sift through the double speak.

Which is it?

I'm going to test this system out in game, roll a character that will be full bore CE and suck to the maximum the system can saddle him with. If that character turns out to be fun to play, I'll be sure to spread the word.

You will have your murder simulator, is that working as intended Ryan?

I don't think it's useful to single out developer statements, even rather definitive ones, and build a pyramid of (usually negative) speculation on them and get a little hysterical. Ryan Dancey, Stephen Cheney and Tork Shaw do not have the time to write a two page essay defending/explaining everything they say. They're, you knowing, talking. Like everybody else. What we don't need is "Ryan Dancey said the word 'drift!' Aaaaaaaah! I'm confused!" " Ryan Dancey said the only thing LE mercenaries are going to do is kill CE characters! Aaaaaaah! Kids, relax. PFO is going to be a complex game above and beyond even moving, building, crafting, fighting. Carefully consider developer statements in the fullness of the plan they have been honest about from the start; you know, context.
Now can there be LG low rep characters and CE high rep ones? Probably not. But reputation and alignment are going to be numerical values sitting right in front of you that can be managed. A paladin with a +7500 rep could just really kill anyone with impunity and the repercussions would not be crippling. Could he/she go on a murder spree? No. In the same way a CE character can kill a target just hoping for juicy loot or because of a personal vendetta, more willing to take more of a rep hit. Does he/she have to go on a murder spree, kill new players, etc.? No. His/her reputation could be something like -1500 and I'd still welcome 'em into my secret cult. They have their uses and it's how they want to play. You can roleplay CE without your rep going into the absolute gutter.
A final observation. Feuds, factional conflict, wars, killing people with murder stacks or the Heinous Flag, etc. is sanctioned pvp. Not calling it that is nonsense.