Darsch's page

My account has had two other accounts merged with it that do not belong to me. Each account is a unique user, we all just happened to have been sharring a computer.

I need this fixed , I have contacted webmaster@paizo.com and have been ignored repeatedly now. I am fairly upset about this still, and would like to also make some sort of formal complaint about this issue and the person responsible for screwing up my account as well as the other users. one user has already decided to boycott paizo over this.

sounds like you had your account merged with someone elses account much like what has happened to me.

Gary teter felt it necessary to merge my acount, a friends acount and my girlfriends account under my account because we used the same computer multiple times to post in a thread.

If this is the case for you, good luck getting it fixed, i have been ignored for over a week now after customer service told me to contact webmaster@paizo.com

Lots of cool stuff. Need to ponder on it.

- good call Mbando!
- Love the idea of players able to offer Rep/alig to other players.
- Love stand and deliver, and I hope it stays as much as possible up to the players involved.
- Love the long-term flags, like Champion, Enforcer, etc
- Would like to hear more detail with regard to time-based increases in Rep.

Good stuff

the passing of rep reminds me. A lot of Swg smugglers and how they could barter faction rep. It really is a wonderful mechanic.

Those long term flags really are amazing IMHO. Several of my worries have been alleviated.

Discussion thread for new blog entry Goblinworks Blog: I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die.

The heinius flag needs a little work. I love the idea but I do not think it is fair to be able to kill the pve focused necromancer with no reprocussions if all the do is raise a zombie ro kill npc monsters and never attack other players. Maybe it should be a combination of things that cause the heinous flag? But then again I could be wrong but it does seem to be detrimental to a few players.

I am very much in favor of sticking closely to the original Pathfinder alignment system.

The "dumbing down" of alignments and complete removal of alignments that the target market(12 year olds and WoW/SWG/etc players) would struggle with was one of the many factors that killed 4th edition. (I will not go into a detailed discussion of the failure of 4th edition here it is way off topic).

Why the personal attack on SWG players? Most of the kettemoor server has a better grasp of roleplay and alignment then most of the people on these forums seem to.

Very bad sterotyping and generalaztion there bud, and as a former swg player ( which by the way is half the reason i backed this KS and the other half is I have been playing D&D since AD&D and love the pathfinder system) I am some what offended you would insult me like that. I know it was not specificly directed at me, but use more tact in the future when ya post. And don't let a few idiots ruin your view of an entire community. Most of us WoW/SWG/CoH?any other number of game names players are actualy very intelligent, educated, and capable of critical thinking, abstract thought, and higher reasoning than you are giving us credit for.

Someone threatened to pull out their money?

I guess I'll have to go wade through that thread. I'm afraid of what I will find... then again maybe I shouldn't. It was such a peaceful evening in Skyrim...

Stick to skyrim instead of reading the threat. Can we even pull funding now that the ks is over? But seirously slaying dragons and vampires in skyrim is much more entertaining. Especaly if you have maxed out sneak and completed the dark brotherhood. Killing ancient dragons with one hit to the tail from a dagger while sneaking is so funny.

Just a heads-up for anybody confused about who's participating in this thread: we merged a few sockpuppet accounts because otherwise it's confusing. If you want to post as an alternate character in our forums, we have built-in support for that.

Actualy you screwed up in merging accounts. Thanks for that. Now I get to explain to my girl friend and a friend of hers why they no longer have access to their accounts because I let them use my computer. Thanks a lot for the extra stress we did not need.

My dislike od the system still stands. It make things far more complicated then they need to be. Don't get me wrong there are some amazing ideas here. But this is a lot of extra development work for something that mifht be a huge tuen off for a lot of players. That do not roleplay whixh is typically rhe majority player base of mmos.

I love some of the ideas i have seen here, realy i do. but to make the game a total no names displayed what so ever is a big turn off to me.

I could care less if I can see your name, if we are role playing, I do not know your name until you say it. and then I have to take your word at it. That's good role play. To hide names for that reason is pointless, personally I would prefer my name displayed and soon as someone comes up to rp with me and the say "Hi, Darsch!" and I have never met them before, nor has any of my friends, I know then that they are poor rp companions and to avoid rp with them.

If names are not displayable to a client, how am I supposed to send a PM to the person to let them know I am guarding their husk? How am i supposed to identify that crafter I spoke to once that gave me an awesome deal and had to log out before I could get his name and vice verse?

how am I supposed to distinguish john doe in the forest running by chasing someone when I cast an aoe spell? how do I avoid accidentally attacking the wrong person?

No names creates just as many problems as it solves.

Now I do see disguises as a wonderful way for those that need to keep their names hidden as a good way to do that, incognito was a wonderful spell in UO that changed your name to something random, changed your shape, sex, and appearance.

I vote for a /anon option.

Dr. Feel Good wrote:

With all the talk on these forums of wanting this to be different than other Open World PVP games I honestly thought things would be different here. That people would be on board with what TEO is trying to accomplish. To tone things down from Call of Duty to Wild West.

One more TEO agent...

not typical for goonswarm

you totally did not get the point of this thread.

Hobs the Short wrote:

It occurs to me that GW and Paizo might not be thrilled with us organizing play dates for other games on their boards.

Not to mention the inadvertent hijacking of this thread.

I'm sure there are many ways, within these forums and perhaps in setting up Pathfinder RPG Gaming Groups, to not only support this community but also to support Paizo at the same time.

That would be a win for us, and a double win for Paizo!

as far as gaming groups go roll20.net is a Virtual tabletop available for free to those that want to run a pathfinder rpg table top game.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I don't see why this would be that much more expensive than the different animations for different spells or other attacks. It would basically be 2 stances (offensive and defensive grappler) with a very small number of additional animations for grapple-based special attacks. This seems very similar in scope to the active combat stances plus a wide array of additional animations for various attacks, blocks, spells, etc. Seems like an interesting niche market to corner in MMOs.

it would require not only special animations for the person doing the grappling and the person being grappled, but possibly a special user interface for the defended to be able to break the grapple, the offender to maintain the grapple, and what to do once grappled would have to be factored in, then they would have to try to balance it, figure out where it would fit in for army combat. there is a reason no mmo has a full one grapple system yet, it is just to difficult to implement in the scope of massively multiplayer games, or too expensive, or to imbalanced.

The closet i have seen has been done in Blade & Soul which you can see in this video of the kung fu master class

As the newest member of the TEO council I would like to first say I'm honored to have the Veil as allies. If we weren't friends I would be very bored on Monday nights instead of guest spotting in Camlo's game. We are also all for running drills with you and any other guild that wishes to do so.

TEO can also be counted on to do the right by the community. We are a Good organization. If you ask us for help we WILL be there for you. To do what is right, especially when it is inconvenient, is what being good is to me.

That said, Darsch, if Andius starts to play on our TE minecraft server I totally welcome you to join to grief him with lava, TNT, and monster spawn eggs. Whatever it takes to satisfy your honor.

I would not grief him. As far as I am concerned a peaceful talk fixes everything. My first post in this thread was directed as much to myself as others :)

Thanks for the invite to come play mine craft, though I do not have it on my pc.

Exceptionally Evil?

Peace Through Vigilance can be counted on to do what is right, with in the confines of the system designed by GW. We will fight the good fight, collect the bounties on the griefers and do what we feel needs to be done.

On a more personal note, things got severely out of hand with the treaty and I hope everyone can look past their differences and in the future take time to talk with each other before resorting to insults, bashing, and false accusations.

I'd like to propose that before Goblinworks begins adding lists of spells to the game that they work out a modular spell research system. This system would then be used by GW to create the spells the game starts with and ones added in the future. This would provide a way for player-built spells to be developed which are balanced with the ones that already exist within the game. Time and again when RPGs have tried to add in a spell builder after spell lists are already established, there are gaps in which the core spells of the game do not add up in the system. By putting the builder first they make sure that all spells add up, and that player-driven expansion of the magical libraries is possible. Does this mean that some beloved tabletop-game spells are at a different 'level' in PFO? Probably, but we're already far afield from trying to copy it in detail, we're just emulating it in feel.

As inspiration, the team can reverse-engineer some iconic spells from the Pathfinder RPG, as well as the Metamagic feats found there and the Words of power system from Ultimate Magic. I would also recommend they check out DarkLightHitomi's post on the topic, and if others have relevant systems to suggest for consideration, post them here!

Some preliminary ideas:

Whether it's spell slots, mana, stamina, refresh time, or whatever, each spell would of course have a casting cost of some sort. Some elements of the spell's design have no effect on that, some increase it, and some reduce the cost. The total cost of a spell determines which spellcasters can handle it depending on the badges they have earned in the spellcraft skill(s) they have, such as wizardry, sorcery, theurgy (clerics, paladins), druidry (druids, rangers), and so on.

Elements which do not affect casting cost:
Name (unique, can be rated/flagged)
Description/Flavour Text (can be rated/flagged)
School & Subschool (Conjuration, Evocation, Necromancy,...

no player made spells please. only use what is available in the books written by Paizo. casters will already be able to far out damage any non caster as it is, no sense making them even better with the ability to design their own spells that can cause HUGE balance issues.

If the developrs get to the point where they are just wondering how to fill their time, maybe this weekend, perhaps there might be negative effects on wildlands they march across.

Historically the march of armies devastated the lands they passed through with their foraging food, cutting firewood, and harvesting timber for their siege engines.

It could be an opportunity for players to try and restore those devastated areas, nurturing the forest back to health.

It could also provide reason to cause neutrals to commit to guerilla methods to attrite the ranks of those belligerents.

A good idea? Or not worth the effort?

considering day/night cycles and varying weather effects are typically a pain in the ass for most companies to even do in their single player games let alone MMORPGs I doubt we will see GW incorporate something like this in their MMORPG as this is something has never been done in a single player game to my knowledge as it is far to resource intensive.

You like levity you should see Dr. Feel Good's threads. funny stuff there.

very funny recruitment thread and Dr. Feel Goods very first post ever on these forums can be found here

should give them a once over, it is very clear that guy wants to joke around and have a grand good time.

Ludy wrote:

I still don't see how bringing it up ad-nausea is helping. The idea seemed to be fielded and was by appearances shot down. People on one side should be happy but the gloating is not funny or informative. People on the other side are likely reviewing their point of view and seeing what their mistakes were.

In Dancy's blog, it is clear, both sides won.

Griefing will be severely punished. Caravans can be subdued, don't have to kill every one. Bandits can make high rewards from capturing caravans. Merchants can make high rewards if they get their caravans to market.

PFO becomes a dynamic world or conflict, adventure, profit and interaction!!

What kind of a game were you hoping for?

hello Kitty island?

Bluddwolf wrote:

Ludy wrote:

I still don't see how bringing it up ad-nausea is helping. The idea seemed to be fielded and was by appearances shot down. People on one side should be happy but the gloating is not funny or informative. People on the other side are likely reviewing their point of view and seeing what their mistakes were.

In Dancy's blog, it is clear, both sides won.

Griefing will be severely punished. Caravans can be subdued, don't have to kill every one. Bandits can make high rewards from capturing caravans. Merchants can make high rewards if they get their caravans to market.

PFO becomes a dynamic world or conflict, adventure, profit and interaction!!

What kind of a game were you hoping for?

I'm all for that mate.

I don't want where things like "Tyrants such as Andius that feels the devs vision of open world pvp is wrong and every one else is second and third rate citizens compared to him." are said about someone who puts forth an idea they don't like. First it's not true and second why the need to attack someone?

Looks to me like this Dr. Feel Good guy is trying to make one big joke out of that whole situation from the rovagug treaty BS and the crap that followed from that one forum post of andius's.

It is all over said and done, this was most likely an attempt at satyr. More people should try to bring humor to these forums when we have our debates so we keep perspective. Wish you had posted before that nastiness in the treaty thread got so heated, maybe people would have been nicer if they had of gotten a laugh first.

Either way good to have you with us Dr. Feel Good, better luck at your comedy next time.

@Darsch, that post from Onishi is about a year old. I'm sure he knows better now :)

Ahh okay, i should have checked the date but i saw new posts and read that and was like wait what did i miss something?!

GrumpyMel, you have confused me sir.

Did you mean Darsch and not Bluddwolf? Or have I missed where Bluddwolf was commenting on TEO internal communications?

i believe his post was in refrence to bluddwolf sharing an excerpt from a post he read from another forum as well as a reply I said to being as a joke.

for the record when I said "and that is why spies are paid so amazingly well." it was simply a joke reply to being, nothing more nothing less.

I have not used a spy, nor do I need to as things tend to get revealed on their own.

no andius just decided to insult and attack me and several others for asking questions, pointing out the problems and trying to see this worked out instead of just following him blindly like sheep.

and that is why spies are paid so amazingly well.

Well now that we know that when dying your gear is not going to be destroyed or stolen [/qoute]

Where exactly is that posted? Would very much like to read it myself as this is news to me as until now the only thing I have seen about losing loot was as soon as someone other then you looted your corpse they got one or two items off you and everything else in your bag was destroyed.

i think more of that thread realy should be posted so everyone can see just how far teo has fallen from its orginialy advertised ideal.

Kickstarter's reports include only the timestamp of your initial pledge. Ryan had an idea about how to build a more complete report that included pledge level changes, but it was a bit terrifying, and totally not worth the effort—especially once we decided that everyone who pledged before the $1M mark is in at month 1. So we're only going to use the timestamps for the original pledge, and the only thing they're going to determine is whether you were in before $1M, and, in some cases, which daily deals you're eligible for. And nothing that happens in the post-Kickstarter process will change either of those things.

thank you very much Vic, in that case I can add to my pledge with out fear of losing my spot like I had hoped. YAY!

well i for one now know for a fact Andius can not be trusted.

That negative force is Goonswarm, and they will come for you and yours first. Why? Because you put their bull's eye right on yourself.

I was in EVE Online when Goonswarm first arrived. They used a tactic none had thought of. If you fly a fleet made up of hundreds of Tech 1 frigates, no semi disorganized force could stand against you. They did not set their sights on the small or the medium or even the large corporations. They set their sights on...

so basicly they came in, cleaned house, and did a great service to the community by fighting against cheaters/exploiters/griefers.

I kinda like the goons.

Darsch wrote:

then declaring war gives people the chance to circumvent everything GW is setting up to keep people in check, you want to kill someone for no other reason then you can, hey declare war on them, no criminal flag, no bounty, no alignment lost. seems to easy to me when i put the conversation in that context, in which this whole...

IIRC war is consensual, ie both sides have to agree to go to war. I'll have to verify.

if it is consensual then we go back to square one of killing unflagged people.

Blaeringr wrote:

Darsch wrote:

Blaeringr wrote:

@Darsch Declaring war on evil players will neither shift you away from lawful, nor from good. I'm not seeing where you get the notion that they would handle griefers any differently than you would, except that they plan to get as many people involved as possible.

Dividing yourself and insisting on stubbornly standing on your own vs uniting towards a common goal, but otherwise handling the fight itself in the same way in both cases: I'm surprised which one you think is actually lawful stupid.

when they attack someone who is not flagged as a criminal because the are trolling chat like andius has indicated would happen. maybe i did not fully express myself properly.

Andius stated earlier u mad bro commits, laughing at a corpse and tea bagging "trolling" is what he also views as griefing and would be handled similarly, well if they are not flagged as a criminal, and with out backing up a threat of violence there is no deterrence to them. they would goad this allegiance into acting as much as possible with out ever flagging themselves as a criminal until they have been attacked by one of the "good Guys" if you attack first, you are the one treated as a criminal, follow me now blaeringr? Does that make a little more sense in what i am trying to say?

They don't need to be a criminal if you declare war. The treaty of Rovagug is not about stamping out individual griefers now and then, it's about dealing with huge groups of them that individual companies can't handle on their own.

So put the conversation you're trying to have into that context, and you'll see why it doesn't make as much sense to me.

I 'think' what Darsch is saying is that inevitably TEO, or members linked with them via this treaty, will attack and kill people who aren't flagged as criminal, nor are they at war with

the alliance. When that happens the killers will receive criminal flags, possibly bounties and alignment hits. If this occurs enough times...

That is another side I was trying to address with my post. In war there is inevitably innocent casualties. It is something that will need more thought and more knowledge of game mechanics and everyone interested in this treaty needs to be aware of, if hypothetically a filthy rich merchant was that innocent bystander that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and inadvertently killed by accident, i would expect them to not care, you bet your bottom they would put bounties on each and every person involved, since at that point it would seem to them, as a person with no knowledge of what is happening that they just got greif ganked by a bunch of people for no other reason then they could, and then I would also expect them to be contacting the CSR's and making a complaint. how it ends from there is anybody's guess at that point.

Darsch wrote:

Blaeringr wrote:

@Darsch Declaring war on evil players will neither shift you away from lawful, nor from good. I'm not seeing where you get the notion that they would handle griefers any differently than you would, except that they plan to get as many people involved as possible.

Dividing yourself and insisting on stubbornly standing on your own vs uniting towards a common goal, but otherwise handling the fight itself in the same way in both cases: I'm surprised which one you think is actually lawful stupid.

when they attack someone who is not flagged as a criminal because the are trolling chat like andius has indicated would happen. maybe i did not fully express myself properly.

Andius stated earlier u mad bro commits, laughing at a corpse and tea bagging "trolling" is what he also views as griefing and would be handled similarly, well if they are not flagged as a criminal, and with out backing up a threat of violence there is no deterrence to them. they would goad this allegiance into acting as much as possible with out ever flagging themselves as a criminal until they have been attacked by one of the "good Guys" if you attack first, you are the one treated as a criminal, follow me now blaeringr? Does that make a little more sense in what i am trying to say?

They don't need to be a criminal if you declare war. The treaty of Rovagug is not about stamping out individual griefers now and then, it's about dealing with huge groups of them that individual companies can't handle on their own.

So put the conversation you're trying to have into that context, and you'll see why it doesn't make as much sense to me.

then declaring war gives people the chance to circumvent everything GW is setting up to keep people in check, you want to kill someone for no other reason then you can, hey declare war on them, no criminal flag, no bounty, no alignment lost. seems to easy to me when i put the conversation in that context, in which this whole treaty could be used to circumvent repercussions and be used to grief other players simply be declaring war on them because they say things someone does not like.

have to qoute chumbawumba "What about free speech?"

@Darsch, Uthreth is right, you will lose your place in line.

From Ryan, please tell me I didn't lose my place in the first month because I added $200 to my pledge!:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

@All: for clarity

The only thing that changes your Early Enrollment date is changing a lower tier pledge to Buddy or Guild or from Buddy or Guiild to a lower pledge level.

Add-Ons have no effect on your Early Enrollment induction date.

Changing from Crowdforger Pioneer - I assume that's your current pledge level - to Crowdforger Buddy or Guild will reset the date at which you join Early Enrollment.

They announced a deal that would allow all Crowdforgers who pledged before they reached the $1,000,000 goal to go ahead and get into month one of Early Enrollment regardless, but I'm not sure they're going to continue that now that they've passed the goal.

eh i knew all of that, was hoping since its adding to the already funded kickstarter it would not change your entry date, guess its to much to hope, i will just hold my extra money then as there is really nothing else worth adding on to it to me. its better i get in month one and her come in later then us both starting two or even three months later as other people add to their pledges and such. i mam sure more then a few low level pledges might bump up to the buddy level if they have the extra money.

@Darsch Assuming what they said during the Kickstarter is still valid, which I think is a safe assumption to make, changing your pledge to include your girlfriend will switch you to the second month of early enrollment. The reason is because they said any changes made before the $1 million mark was hit will not change anything and everyone before then will be in the first month, but anything after that point will be the second month. This was reiterated during the live broadcast at the end of the kickstarter, which someone recorded and put a link up in another thread somewhere.

but the pledge date technically wouldn't change which might affect it, this is why I am asking before i add anything to my pledge, if it keeps me from month one then there is no point to adding extra funds to it for me.

sweet, so i will beable to up my pledge to the buddy level so i can get my girlfriend into day one of early access with me and get us some addons like the emerald spire print pack, good to know.

question if we up our pledge to a higher tier during the survey will it change our early access date?

Darsch wrote:

once tyhe corpse is looted anything left in the husk is completely destroyed.

oh ... so bandits killing will make a small profit but the effect of large scale killing is to remove excess loot from the game as neither the original owner nor the bandit will get it. Cool game mechanic.

its agrivating to be sure, but hey crap happens, it is definitely a cool mechanic to create supply and demand and to keep inflation down.

Darsch wrote:

further more, like said earlier, that merchant has to risk his entire inventory every time he goes out to get mats, or make deliveries, he has to hire guards to to hope to prevent you do not rob him, and further more, he has to pay for the bounty in the first place. With out this system he now becomes an easy target with no risk to you and all the risk to him, and hes paying out the neck to help limit his risk which in turn cuts into his profits so the advantage still goes to you with the infinite bounties in place because you have much less to lose then that merchant does.

The system is fair, to an extent, I agree it is not ideal but there really is no way for it to be ideal. now if you could pick pockets to lift an item off of him with out killing him there is no longer a fear of a bounty as you have to deal damage to the merchant.

Two points:

1) Its been made clear earlier killing someone only allows looting a random selection of their items not the entire inventory

2) Aside from picking pockets, if knocking unconscious and looting is a viable alternative to killing and avoids infinite bounties, many bandits may take that.

once the corpse is looted anything left in the husk is completely destroyed. Example: I died with 10 iron ore on me, a vorpal sword, and a suit of full plat, all in my bags, all un threaded as my threads had been used up on something more important. I keep my holy symbol of awesomeness cause it is threaded, the new armor i acquired is looted off my corpse, it was the only item the game mechanics allowed the killer to loot of me and to even know about, everything else in my inventory is now destroyed because someone other than me looted my corpse

@Darsch Declaring war on evil players will neither shift you away from lawful, nor from good. I'm not seeing where you get the notion that they would handle griefers any differently than you would, except that they plan to get as many people involved as possible.

Dividing yourself and insisting on stubbornly standing on your own vs uniting towards a common goal, but otherwise handling the fight itself in the same way in both cases: I'm surprised which one you think is actually lawful stupid.

when they attack someone who is not flagged as a criminal because the are trolling chat like andius has indicated would happen. maybe i did not fully express myself properly.

Andius stated earlier u mad bro commits, laughing at a corpse and tea bagging "trolling" is what he also views as griefing and would be handled similarly, well if they are not flagged as a criminal, and with out backing up a threat of violence there is no deterrence to them. they would goad this allegiance into acting as much as possible with out ever flagging themselves as a criminal until they have been attacked by one of the "good Guys" if you attack first, you are the one treated as a criminal, follow me now blaeringr? Does that make a little more sense in what i am trying to say?

Actually is the following situation griefing?

Bandit A kills merchant B, because ... well thats his job.
Merchant B takes out a bounty and renews it every time.
After getting killed several times by bounty hunters, Bandit A takes the time to research and finds out, that the merchant he robbed once is causing him all this trouble.
So he sends the merchant a letter, and warns him to stop the bounties or face the consequences.
Merchant B, doesn't want to stop renewing the bounty.
After that, Bandit A concentrates his efforts, to rob this specific merchant and kill him at every opportunity.

Is that griefing or good RP? After all the Bandit has only a few options. Of course, if he hires other bandits/assassins to kill/hurt that specific merchant... is that griefing?

every time I see an argument like this I can not help but think, how are you going to know who put the bounty on you in the first place if things work as follows. You will already have the criminal flag on you so anyone can kill you with out repercussion and gain lawful alignment shifts and possibly good alignment shifts ( this is definitely how the flag system works), you wont know the person killing you is a bounty hunter unless they say so, you wont get a system message saying merchant b put a bounty on you, the people hunting you to collect the bounty wont know who issued the bounty unless said merchant tells them. The simple fact of the matter is you wont know who did it, thus making your argument moot as there is no way to seek revenge against the merchant. Until Goblin Works announces more hard details we have no clue exactly how things will work, everything is subject to change and everything is still in a hypothetical this how it works situation.

further more, like said earlier, that merchant has to risk his entire inventory every time he goes out to get mats, or make deliveries, he has to hire guards to to hope to prevent you do not rob him, and further more, he has to pay for the bounty in the first place. With out this system he now becomes an easy target with no risk to you and all the risk to him, and hes paying out the neck to help limit his risk which in turn cuts into his profits so the advantage still goes to you with the infinite bounties in place because you have much less to lose then that merchant does.

The system is fair, to an extent, I agree it is not ideal but there really is no way for it to be ideal. now if you could pick pockets to lift an item off of him with out killing him there is no longer a fear of a bounty as you have to deal damage to the merchant.

Greetings gerrik, I am Darsch, an ambassador of the LG CC Peace Through Vigilance, and i would like to extend a hand in friendship as well as welcome you and your group to PFO. We also have a small section on PFOfan about us if you would like to view it. I look forward to further discussions with you, feel free to PM me any time.

Andius wrote:

...I'll remember that when you ask us for our help in the future. As surely any group who fails to prepares for the harsh realities that come with an Open World PVP game will end up doing.

...

Fear-based decisions seldom have positive results, and intimidation is not negotiation.

Your organization is clearly less NG than it is LN.

I would argue border line lawful evil. lol J/k. maybe...

Andius, have you given any thought to the inevitable fighting that will come, and the corresponding alignment shifts members of this treaty will take towards chaotic evil. It is inevitable that someone will goad you into attacking them, at which point you are the criminal, and if you or your group manage to kill them and theirs after you attacked first, then grats friend, you now have bounties on your heads in addition to the alignment shifts. And if you try to bully your way out of those bounties with threats of "we are 100+ strong, we are the largest, blah blah blah hot air" you will only wind up imploding on your selves as you now become the problem and people band against you. Like it or not, there is always a bigger fish, and some of the most deadliest things in existence are the smallest.

Peace Through Vigilance has an anti grief stance, and we will work with in the system to help the community.

Lawful Good for us does not mean Lawful Stupid.

Waruko wrote:

Skwiziks wrote:

Waruko, Andius, etc, is this essentially a proposal to agree to mass, coordinated action in response to a mass, coordinated threat?

I can't, nor will I speak for Andius and you can ask him, we hardly ever agree. But yes that is what I'm suggesting. Andius should not be the leader of such a coordinated action, nor do I think the treaty suggests it. It's a coalition. There would a war counsel. There would have to be AGREEMENT on what is a threat. No one man can "pull the trigger". This again is not an anti-griefer treaty meant to be abused to "police" PFO. Sometimes there are threats even the "largest organization" can't handle alone. Rovagug was not beaten by a single god, hence again why I named the treaty such.

It should be a thing that should NEVER be enacted unless its under DIRE circumstances and hopefully it should never be used. Ever.

You pretty much have the gist of it. This is not a treaty to police every little issue of the game. TEO will do that as it sees fit, on it's own, without the assistance of every other guild in the game. Attaching those efforts to some from of group decision making would only bog us down.

This treaty is not meant to deal with an evil baron who takes bounties over and over, or random gold farmers, or even someone who runs around teabagging and jeering at newbs, and killing everyone they see.

This is meant to deal with:

A. A large or massive organization that is determined to be a griefer organization.
B. Many such smaller organizations either in great quantities, or in smaller quantities working together.

Great quantities would probably entail a third or more of the server's population. Enough to have a noticeable effect on the game's culture. And a large group would be a group or coalition of groups about the size of 7th Veil, PAX, or TEO. Or of course anything larger than that.

What is Griefing / Overly Aggressive Behavior

First of these are MY definitions. Personally...

Most of point number 5 is just plain pointless to consider grief imho, it is easily ignored. Hell half the time someone is tea baqging you you will not see it and it leaves them open to an attack. Get over it. I hate it too but I wont complain about it.

Details like that are not available because the treaty isn't written yet!

The idea is for interested parties to participate in drafting it.

I understand that but the whole idea leaves a poor taste in my mouth, it is a double edge blade that can do as much harm as good.

Perfect example, new guy and 5 of his friends, group show up, they buy the game, the training time they need to grow in power, then start griefing, for the sole purpose of ruining the game, do not see them making the commitment required to do that. problem solved it self. if they do waste the money, knowing full well they will eventually be banned, bounty system solves problem and they eventually get banned, problem also solved, a few minor exceptions, this treaty scares off a few punks, goons, griefers, what ever, it was a deterrent at that time.

group B, same size, looking to buy the game, and have a good time, but decides to research it first, sees this treaty, either thinks griefing is a problem, and refuses to buy and goes elsewhere, or they decide anyone whom signed this treaty will grief the player viewing it and his friends for disagreeing with their play style, don't agree on what griefing is, misunderstanding in either case, players leave that would have otherwise been shinning members of the community.

Micco wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

As I stated earlier, my company already has an anti griefing pledge in our own charter. It actually predates this treaty idea.

This proposal is not talking about how you manage your company or what you agree to do (or not do) during 'normal times.' TEO is just asking who out there will agree to be there if the future of the game is at risk. Clearly you guys aren't. No biggie.

'Bluddwolf' wrote:

We are motivated by greed.

You and everyone else, my friend. You and everyone else.

The future of this game is more at risk from gold farmers and micro transactions than griefing. It is also more at risk if it goes free to play at some point after launch. It is even more at risk if it does not deliver what it promises.

I have seen MMOs destroyed by those, never griefing. Even in games like Age of Conan and EvE Online, where griefing ran rampant, they both survived. AOC was more in danger because the Devs out right lied about the game features, right up to the day of launch. EvE has survived griefing by getting the game's player culture to accept it as a reality of life in EVE.

As I said earlier, write a treaty that pledges we will not buy gold from farmers or items from a MT store, and I'd sign that in a blink of an eye.

There will be micro transactions, that has been known since the kickstarter started, more or less. it is a sound buisness model. this game wont be free to play in the usual sense, if implemented at all. if they do a free to play thing it will be something along the lines of you can play your character, but you can not train or advance at all untill you buy training time. Dancey has stated repeatedly anything in the cash shop will not be pay to win items. and honestly, i have never seen a cash shop ruin a game in the manner you speak, and here is why,

IF YOU CAN NOT AFFORD THE ITEMS IN THE CASH SHOP THEN YOU PROBABLY SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING THE GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE! DON"T WHINE ABOUT IT BEING PAY TO WIN WHEN YOU HAVE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE SAME! CASH SHOPS AND MTX IS ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO STOP GOLD FARMERS.

I know that comes across as being a jerk, unfortunately there is no nicer way of saying it. If you can't fork out the money on occasion, then you are in the game for a free ride only, you contribute nothing to the game, the community, or the company that made the game, and make no mistake, it is all about making the money.

pledge to not use the MTX may as well be a pledge not to support the game at all with the kickstarter, the monthly subscription, or any other means of monetary payment to goblinworks.

now that that rant is over, i will discuss this treaty of andius's with my guild mates, but I am in agreement with Dak from PAX and will argue against it as this is far to ambiguous for my taste atm and can easily be viewed as grief in itself if misused, which I foresee happening far to often.

regardless of any treaty i will fight a greifer with the rest of you, but to band together like this and hunt down a small minority ( literally 3 or 6 people ) could be considered griefing and not solve the problem, it would only cause it to fester and them to come back with a larger force if grieifing and ruining the game really was the point of them buying the game in the first place.

To clarify i am talking about after open enrollment when they are able to play. Not as a way to get them into the beta

if it strictly based off pathfinder acount like nihimon said then you should be able to invite them at any time you choose.

I believe you will be able to invite any other player to be your Shieldmate, regardless of whether or not they were part of the Kickstarter.

From Important: Mark of Awesome and Crowdforger Guilds:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

@All - Let me be crystal clear.

If you get a Buddy or Guild Reward, you will get multiple Pathfinder Online Accounts. For the purpose of this post, I am referring to Pathfinder Online Accounts not Kickstarter accounts.

Each account can issue a friendship invite, or accept one, not both.

You cannot round-robin invites. A-B-C-A is not OK. Only A-B.

Every character you create with an Account that is a part of this promotion will have the Shieldmate Mark.

Any time two or more characters with the Shieldmate Mark are in a party, all of the characters with the Shieldmate Mark get a synergy bonus.

Clear?

Still seems like its kickstarter based, the buddy and guild examples there are all from the same pledge. how ever as it said pathfinder not not kickstarter account I am clearly wrong

so next question is when do we get to select our shield mate?

Learning powers, such as "Smite Evil" is not a garuntee of being able to use such powers.

@Darsch
In the book, a segment titled "Code of Conduct" is just after the abilities, same style of text like it's another ability though. I'll look up the SRD and link it if I can find it.

Edit: Found Here, just after the list of abilities.

PFSRD wrote:

Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.

Note that in DnD, you would write your own code, with some direction from the GM of course. Personally I like writing my code better then having it drawn up for me.

wierd. Wonder why I have never seen that in my book.

I believe that was answered on the kickstarter page entry about the shieldmate with a resounding no in the form of "Invite a friend to the Kickstarter," in other words they had to have made a kickstarter pledge themselves.

Imbicatus wrote:

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

After all, what is preventing a good character from learing all or most of the skills usually associated with paladins?

Nothing at all. And once you have learned those skills, you will earn your Paladin level 1 badge, and you ARE a paladin.

Each of those skills will likely have Alignment restrictions or a can only be used if you do not have "Fallen" status as a pre-req.

Those abilites are tied to alignment for both flavor and balance reasons in TT. You can not have mechanics to deal with alignment and paladin atonement and still be Pathfinder imo, regardless of the rules of the actual game engine that PFO is using.

Did you actually read the PnP rules before posting that?

Paladins not only need to stay LG, but they also must follow the code. PF actually went through and wrote the code for you, instead of you writing it yourself. If either of these are violated, then the paladin is no longer a paladin and loses access to all class features including spells and mount, until they atone (which is a spell btw)

This is written in the rules and is a basic part of being a paladin, so how can adding alignment, atonement, and codes of coduct, ever make a game, not be PF?

Where is this paladin code written? Cause i have not seen it in the core book i have for pathfinder. Only restriction i have seen is LG.

This whole thread is why we need a way to incapacitate players with sub dual damage.

paladine will not be the most powerful skill set, that will be the wizard and sorc.

This conversation is representative of the problems of role-playing 'evil' in a video game (or at all really).

Where is the line between 'role-playing' and 'being a jerk'?

Is it griefing if you repeatedly raid a player's caravans as he tries to send goods to a town your guild is besieging?

Is it griefing if you steal resources of a player because of no other reason than the opportunity was there and it was of benefit to you?

To properly roleplay evil against good players you do have to be at least a little 'adversarial'. In tabletops the GM always lets the players win eventually (unless he's a mean GM). In an MMO the only decider of who wins is who got the killing blow.

People who are playing good aligned guilds have certainly made no hesitation in stating they will 'hunt down and wipe out' evil players and are applauded. (Intriguingly they seem to be indicating they will be doing this right off the bat, regardless of whether or not the evil player has actually done anything to them. How.. 'good' of them...)

Evil players who do the same are accused of bullying and griefing.

I would like to play an evil character, and yes if necessary that would mean assassinating, stealing, opposing, ambushing, threatening, intimidating, whatever was appropriate (in the context of the game and my character). I would not mindlessly grief people, or roam aimlessly slaughtering. But if an opportunity to ambush and waylay came up, because of carelessness or poor planning, why should I not be able to play the character I intend?

I don't say any of this to be a jerk, I'm not out to ruin anyone else's fun, but unless we can allowed to be at least 'somewhat' evil, then there is no point in having them at all.

There'll still be conflict regardless, and people will accuse people of being jerks regardless of what alignment tag their character has.

True. Every single word.