Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Ilquis

Forencith's page

749 posts. Alias of KitNyx.


RSS

1 to 50 of 749 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Charlie George wrote:
There is little reason to talk diplomacy if the Accord is considering us enemies.

The Accord currently has no collective decision making apparatus, nor the right to dictate the diplomatic or war status of its members. Similarly, no member of the Accord is in any way duty bound to aid other members of the Accord.

This said, it does not mean members cannot or will not aid other members, only that the decision to do so has nothing to do with membership in an "Accord", "Alliance", or "Nation".

At this time, I know of no plans of any signer of the Roseblood Accord to consider Pax as an enemy. I think at worst, we are each warily optimistic that mutually beneficial relationships can be created.

EDIT: Sorry, I see Nihimon already addressed this.

Goblin Squad Member

Sure, Nihimon keeps a running list of the guilds that have announced themselves.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:

Thanks all :)

On behalf of Peace Through Vigilance, I'm thrilled to be partners with our brothers in arms at Full Metal Syndicate. We're going to build a shining citadel of righteous valor, justice and honor. It's a hard road, but we think it's worth walking.

That is great news!

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:
Forencith wrote:
No, probably not 4. 1-3 and 5 would be though. You do not feel making a "company or settlement feels that it has been "singled out" for our predation, without our having declared them a feud or war target." would be griefing? What do you call griefing then?

I believe it's going to be called war as usual. Goblinworks has better things to do than interfere with intense rivalries when neither side is abusing mechanics in an unintended way. I don't think anyone who can't handle that will be cut out for this game long-term.

Do I really need to define griefing behaviors that fall outside of that to you?

You do not need to do anything for me Andius.

Thankfully, we will not be playing in the same community...and while I sincerely hope everyone, including you, is able to enjoy this game, I am not going to get involved with policing the way you treat your community; they can do that. I am also not going to be the "positive game play" referee, GW can do that. I, and mine, will do our best to promote what we feel is positive game play by example. I am sure you, and yours, will do the same.

Goblin Squad Member

No, probably not 4. 1-3 and 5 would be though. You do not feel making a "company or settlement feels that it has been "singled out" for our predation, without our having declared them a feud or war target." would be griefing? What do you call griefing then?

Does the fact that #4 might not be relevant invalidate my point? It does not seem so to me.

Bluddwolf wrote:

Items 2, 4 and 5 are not anti griefing. There is no prohibition on killing new characters in the NPC zone, if that were the case they would turn off PVP in that zone.

Enjoy that then.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
[From Bluddwolf's post, it sounded like he would be more than happy to target a Settlement or Company for something that happens on these forums, but he also makes reference to his post in the Roseblood Accord thread - and you echo that reference - that seems to say something else.

You know full well that I made that offer in the Roseblood Accord, and it was rejected. Now you call me on not holding to that offer, as if I'm going back on my word.

It would not have seemed to be or been "something else" if the original offer was accepted.

For lack of a better word, I call that hypocrisy.

I'll call you out on it...and this is the correct thread to do that in.

Bluddwolf wrote:

1. We will not corpse camp or respawn camp a recent victim of anyone's attack, unless that victim is a feud or war target and it is in our best interest to prevent that character from returning to the battlefield.

2. We will not prey upon new players, in the starter area, unless they are feud, war, bounty or assassination targets. The only other exception is if it is our member(s) that are also new and attempting to learn the mechanics of the game.

3. We will never use the chat channel to mock or ridicule our victims.

4. We will be helpful to new players or those who ask for advice, including and perhaps in particular those who we have defeated in combat.

5. This one is tricky and takes much thought and walking a tight rope: We will try our best that no company or settlement feels that it has been "singled out" for our predation, without our having declared them a feud or war target.

The five points above do not advocate positive gameplay, they are limitation on griefing. You can decide not to adhere to them, but it will not be the members of the Roseblood Accord that you will then need to answer to, it will be Customer Service team at Goblinworks as you petition your suspension/ban.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Take your nonsense to your own threads. This is our recruitment thread.

I for one agree and apologize. I was not trying to waylay your recruiting.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Forencith wrote:
Andius wrote:
...killing you will be fun. And that's what we're all here for aren't we? ;)
Not all of us, no.
I think he meant "to have fun".

Of right! Then...all of us, yes!

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
...killing you will be fun. And that's what we're all here for aren't we? ;)

Not all of us, no.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Bringslite wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Andius wrote:
While I'm sure some might slap such labels on me I will be operating fully within the spirit and intent of a mechanic that grants a unlimited consequence free kills on members of a specific company/settlement.
Take that conversation to your own forum/thread.

Apologies Xeen and UNC. It is really boring around here (this forum)

There is certainly an excellent story possible behind all of this... I am certain (at least I would hope) that the people involved will not object to some awesome RP built around a story that started here in the politics of this pre game forum and led to interesting (and legitimately executed) content inside the game.

Actually sounds fun. If you like story and stuff, it certainly qualifies as meaningful (IMO).

If not taken "beyond the pale", or done for personal reasons. <---The tricky part.

Agreed. If your gonna do it...might as well do it right.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

For the record, I'm not talking about the questions game review sites try to answer. I'm talking about the "word of mouth" questions, or even the unspoken questions, potential players will ask.

I know a lot of the folks I've talked about PFO to have expressed this very concern - they don't normally play PvP games because they don't want some jerk killing them for no reason just because he can... or just because they're wearing a green hat.

I think there are a lot of folks who would really dig fighting other groups of players over meaningful things like Settlements, but who just don't have the desire to be some jerk's chew toy... or to be that kind of jerk.

While I agree with you, I was specifically talking about major game reviews. I played Saga of Ryzom for 4+ years...and bought the game because I read a review on one of the "major online game reviewers" that said it had the best player community.

Similarly, negative communities is one of the things that drove me from AoC and Darkfall.

Doing a quick google search now, I have no problem finding "official reviews" that mention the quality a game's community...and a few that are exclusively on that topic.

But, at the same time, I don't really remember reading any reviews of the mission systems in any of the games I have played...although I am sure they were rated. I imagine we all see and remember what is most important to us.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I question whether or not a newcomer to an MMO actually asks him / herself, "I wonder if this game's community is pleasant?" I think it is more likely,...

It's the first and often...last...question I ask. There's one.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

This could simply be a pledge, and the elements of that pledge can be as individualized or as concrete as anyone wishes to make it.

Any person or organization can make the pledge they are comfortable with. No question of "well that is not enough" or "that us expected anyway". Everyone should be satisfied that at least the individual is pledging to uphold what is "expected", because we all should know, there will be maybe who don't hold to even that.

If I may ask, what is the purpose of this document? It seems to me to be a simple record of who has made this pledge. If so, then what is its intent? Is it suppose to assure new players that person x of company y which is a signing member of this pledge has promised to not generally behave "bad"?

Okay, I accept this...and think it a noble goal. As a hypothetical however, I want to ask: if anyone can join and make whatever "pledge" they want, without regard to questions such as, "well that is not enough" or "that us expected anyway", what happens when person w of company v which is a signing member of this pledge, does go do "bad" things and company v refuses to punish them for it?

What does it mean to be a signer of this pledge when anyone can really behave however they want after becoming so? How is this pledge suppose to assure a newcomer that our table is an a pleasant one to play at, when there is no expectation to be minimally pleasant at the table?

Just something to consider.

Goblin Squad Member

Ravenlute wrote:
Forencith wrote:
Hmmm, I think this is a recruiting thread. We probably should not waylay the discussion too much. We can still be respectful even if not universally reciprocated.
Unless I'm mistaken, Andius joined UNC and this thread is no longer valid for its OP.

Really? Wow...that is an interesting bit of news. I am glad Andius has found a community and I am glad UNC has taken on the task of defending the oppressed (and not disappointed to hear UNC intends to settle in the North *grin*)

I wish all parties involved the best of luck.

Goblin Squad Member

Hmmm, I think this is a recruiting thread. We probably should not waylay the discussion too much. We can still be respectful even if not universally reciprocated.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tuoweit wrote:
Audoucet wrote:

It's just about the RP aspect, that I'm not sure for now, since I tend to play very lawful characters, with more militant beliefs, which would kind of direct me more to TEO. But T7V being more "diverse" I would say, I think that it would be maybe a better choice, if I want to convince other French players to choose the same company.

Anyway, I will be in the Roseblood Accord community, that's for sure.

Peut-etre vous vous intéresserez au Grey Guard?

Beat me to it...that is our new (lawful) military unit, we are grooming it to become the backbone of TSV military.

Our RP is such that we believe reality, possibly even including the gods and alignment system, is an illusion. This is why our patron is a god of illusion. We seek knowledge as a means of locating those cracks in reality that will help us grasp the edge and unravel the layers of illusion, to reveal the greater Mystery beneath. Admittedly, our purpose is a bit like a religion. Like any religion or philosophy, there will be different internal schools of thought, as well as those who are pretty much just into it for the community...and are probably a bit agnostic toward our RP.

What this story does do is allow us to pursue any avenue in the game our membership wants int he name of "seeking knowledge", with the caveat that we as a community are dedicated to the metagame ideal of "positive game-play". How that will be realized and enforced, we cannot yet know, but everyone should expect it will somehow be enforced.

As for our general structure, as simply as I can put it:

Two tiers. Both tiers are composed of semi-autonomous sub-groups, each based upon and defined by specific play styles/interests; tier 1 is officers, tier 2 is not.

Community interest is sufficient and necessary to declare a group in tier 2.

Community interest is necessary but not sufficient to declare a group in tier 1.

Community need is necessary but not sufficient to declare a group in tier 1.

Groups in tier 2 can become tier 1 if they agree to fulfill a recognized community need - for as long as they successfully fulfill the need.

Groups in tier 1 who are no longer fulfilling a recognized Community need become tier 2.

Membership to tier 2 groups is unrestricted

Membership to tier 1 groups does have some restrictions.

Our decision making body is a council comprised of 1 proxy from each group in tier 1.

The stewards are a judicial body that insure the decisions of the council do not conflict with the ideals expressed in our "Charter" and they approve membership.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Nonsense Nevy, the majority of people here (Accord Members) have done everything in their power to make us out to be griefers in the communities mind. We have no intention of trying to ruin peoples game play. We are here to have fun playing a game and enjoy that game with everyone else.

Actually, I would argue that some in the UNC have made the majority of people here (including many of those in the Accord) feel as if the UNC is okay with griefing...all long before the Accord was formed. Since many people here (including many of those in the Accord) already have this belief based upon past experiences, it is hard for them to take some in the UNC serious when they want to claim they will not grief. Additionally, the Accord has nothing to do with "not griefing" which is what Bluddwolf's list provided earlier in the thread essentially stated as an MO; instead, the Accord is about going beyond that and actually promoting whatever it is that positive game play entails.

The problem with inviting/allowing UNC into the Accord is that it nullifies the purpose of the Accord in the eyes of that majority of people. UNC likes to claim intent cannot be known and therefore is not worth considering in determining whether PvP is "good" or "bad". I would use that same argument to say that unfortunately, at this time UNCs intent as far as positive game play is concerns is also irrelevant because the fact remains that the majority of people in the forums think they lean if not toward negative game play then definitely away from positive.

I entirely agree that UNC might not grief and might have high Reps, and whatever else can be used as evidence of positive game play. When that evidence is available and present in-game, I will fight for their acceptance into the Accord if they are still interested. At the moment however, I fall into the majority mentioned above. I, from past experience only, (in the forums, which admittedly is an environment that seems bring out the worst in everyone) would not accept their claims of intent to "advocate positive game play". At the very least, I would not accept their ability to play positively with the current membership of the Accord.

As to those who have joined since without question. I can certainly see how that seems "unfair". However, every group that has joined, we (the growing Roseblood Accord membership) have spent hours speaking and interacting with on TeamSpeak and have never interacted negatively either here in the forums nor in Voice Chat. They have never given us reason to doubt their sincerity. For wrong or right, it is much easier to envision people who we can already get along with providing positively to the environment we want to be part of.

I respect UNCs right to play the way they want. I am under no illusion about it being the way I want.

Xeen wrote:
Bludd's intentions were sincere. I talked to him about it myself.

Sincere about what? The promise not to grief as illustrated by the provided list? That list should be a core requirement for playing the game...and in my opinion says nothing about a course of action (or lack thereof) that "promotes positive game play" nor "mutual benefit".

As I stated above, if in-game UNC demonstrates it promotes positive game play by being a group we all want to interact with, I personally will show up IC and beg for them to join the RA...after I do my best to convince the Accord it is proper and that UNC will be a beacon of positive game play for bandits everywhere.

Xeen wrote:
All the Accord is about is the us vs them mentality, not a lets play it nice group. Which is all fine by me, us vs them is how it always goes, but dont pretend to mask with high and mighty morals.

I don't see this at all...not in our original post, not in our initial discussions, and not in conversations since. There is a difference between my friend and I work together toward our mutual benefit and my friend and I actively working against everyone else. I was never under the belief that this would be a zero-sum game (in which our win, requires your loss). We have mentioned many times that our goal is to promote win-win solutions.

I am however familiar with the concept of psychological projecting.

Xeen wrote:
By definition, the UNC has been griefed by this group. Its been going on longer then I have been on these boards.

Again, you are falsely assuming we are playing a zero-sum game. Our win does not necessitate your loss; our gain does not require you to loose.

I do not dislike or distrust UNC. In fact, I trust they are going to play the way I understand they have advocated for years. The fact that I have no particular interest in interactions of that sort and hence I advise my leaders to do their best to prevent them easy access to the community I am part of, does not preclude them from having their own fun in game (unless you are claiming you cannot have fun without interacting with me). Hence, I do not see how it can be equated to greifing.

Ryan's definition of griefing wrote:
intentionally cause distress to another person with the primary intent of making that person feel bad

What I do not understand is why UNC has not further pushed for the idea of Bandit Council, I think it would be a great counter to the Roseblood Accord. Use the displeasure some people feel toward the conditions of of the Accord to define yourselves; sort of a Samuel Jackson in Unbreakable effect. Doing so insures the more we win, the more you win.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
A second fair-play accord, as it were, that models the positive gameplay we are evangelizing without the attachment of

Hmmm, or we could just let GW give the boot to all the bad actors...then all that is left is people who use positive gameplay.

I would argue however, there is a distinct difference between agreeing to "use" positive play (by avoiding negative gameplay)...and actively promoting positive gameplay, which for instance might be realized as a minimum Rep tolerance.

At the moment, all we can do is share our intent to pursue it.

As far as mutually beneficial goes...any sale in which both parties end up happy is mutually beneficial. As members of the Accord, we do not have to throw rainbows and daisies at each other, we just need to agree to perhaps sacrifice a bit of possible income (not just monetary) to insure both parties walk away feeling happy.

I see no reason why Evil cannot agree to the terms above if they feel it is in the best interest collectively and/or at the individual level of their community members.

Goblin Squad Member

OPFOR!

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

In a sandbox MMO, the player is in many ways the DM. What the Devs say is the setting is irrelevant, particularly to cannon. Your average MMO player won't give a rat's ass about cannon, won't bother to read a stitch of source material (if any actually exists), they just don't care.

The Player is the only God the character has to deal with.

I'm not saying this is the ideal, it is a likely reality.

I apologize for being dense...I do not understand the relevance of what you are saying here. The discussion comes from your claim that Chaotic acts might not always be Chaotic in The River Kingdoms due to some moral relativistic effects. I denied the claim and instead suggested (and offered to provide evidence of) the existence of an absolute alignment system which will represent morality in-game (to characters).

Whether the players think killing is a Good or Evil act is irrelevant to the fact that mechanics will dictate. When you kill and your Alignment slides slowly to Evil, you can just keep calling yourself a God and wishing it would go the other way...we will see how well that works for you.

EDIT: As to "sandbox"...You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Goblin Squad Member

To avoid any confusion, this association is not currently related in any official (or unofficial as far as I know) capacity to the Roseblood Accord.

That clarified, best to the members of the Accord of Milani.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
The only absolute is what the DM decides. The game setting, the Gods, the alignment system, etc. is all malleable. I've played AD&D campaigns where alignment was not used. I've played another where our characters became Quasi Deities. We played races, that were not playable according to the rules.

What you and yours do is irrelevant to cannon. Pathfinder is a campaign setting. Do you need me to find where Devs/Ryan explicitly confirm the intent is to match the "feel" of Pathfinder (as opposed to mechanics), or where they outright state Pathfinder has absolute alignment as personified in the deities? I will do so if you do not think I can.

I can also guarantee you will not be able to find anything by the devs/Ryan that counters, suggesting moral relativism will be relevant to the game, specifically relating to alignments.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
If robbing and murdering people who are just going about their business isn't chaotic evil, I have no idea what might be.
That is because you are putting it into your own context (RL) and not into the context of the River Kingdoms.

No, it is in context of the absolutes of morality in Golarion, the gods and their respective positions of the alignment plane. You are the one using RL when trying to push moral relativism on the game world. In Golarion, there is no moral relativism. The River Kingdoms are a small section of Golarion, and as such it inherits the features of the whole. Good and Evil, Order and Chaos, and their relationships to each other are no different in the River Kingdoms than they are in Cheliax, Droon, Teyazco, Chu Ye, or New Azlant.

What is Evil (with a capital "E") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.

What is Chaotic (with a capital "C") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.

What is Order (with a capital "O") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.

What is Good (with a capital "G") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FMS SirZac wrote:

MAJOR UPDATE!

We have diplomat and settler forums now! Click 'Apply to Settle' and choose Diplomat, Settler, and/or Member.

Join as a settler if you are interested in settling with us as a free agent or company. We really want to collaborate on the settlement in a big way. This looks like the easiest way to do that, so I am quite excited to see this happen.

I'm still totally available via PM here for diplomatic things and our mumble info is available once you register.

Well said, well organized. Impressed I am. This, in my opinion, is the example of how settlements should be moving forward at the moment. The "settler" approach is absolutely brilliant.

(Is my jealousy that I did not think of it first showing through?)

Best of luck to you.

Oh, to ask a few questions:

Have you considered any settlement names?

What will be the expected power relationship between FMS and other companies that might want to take join a Good, Lawful, Paladin and Blacksmithing focused settlement?

Will you allow characters to settle that are known destiny twins for characters in other associations?

Goblin Squad Member

Exactly, from TSV's end...

TSV is not Phaeros, Phaeros is not TSV. Members of Phaeros will not necessarily be members of TSV. While we might initially have a controlling interest, our concern is setting up Phaeros in such a way that it continues to exist successfully regardless of the interests of TSV. The sustained well-being of all members and residents is equally important.

Any person or group, such as the esteemed Koinonia Emporou and TSV, that wants to be part of that effort is encouraged to be so.

The current relationship between TSV an TKE is such that we are in united in the effort described above...as well as both autonomous members of the Roseblood Accord.

(please correct me if I have stated anything incorrectly)

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
Wexel, I'm glad we have you in T7V (and the other shadowy types who are keeping off the board to lower their profiles). The pursuit of knowledge can sometimes require ... obstructions to be removed.

And I am sure the shadows hold their own secrets.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Obakararuir wrote:
Forencith wrote:
Pax Deacon wrote:
Eventually: Everywhere
Initially?
... Everywhere ;-)

Got it, don't mind this little gnomes curiosity...

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Deacon wrote:
Eventually: Everywhere

Initially?

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Forencith wrote:
...a little razing from other social groups...
I'd prefer being razzed by them to being razed by them ;-).

Good call..thanks!

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Is there a Pathfinder Society of Divorce Lawyers?

Ok, maybe that was a little negative, but no more so then the dissolution of the Pax UNC contract. At least our separation was amicable and in accordance with the terms of the contract.

For clarity, Aeternum and Golgotha have no wish to jump into a drama contest. Bludd's opinions are not ours.

Thanks, very respectful of you. I did not even get Bluddwolf's reference until you chimed in. To be fair, I do not think a little razing from other social groups is a bad thing. We can take it.

Goblin Squad Member

I made a post, but did not want to waylay your thread into a discussion about TSV...so moved it here.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Moved from here.

TSV hopes this comes to fruition in the long run, we hope to create a huge library. In the short term we intend to use a wiki to fulfill this same need out-of-game. If the ability to write books becomes available in the future, we will be able to transfer content from one to the other.

If anyone wants access to be a scribe for our our out-of-game "library", our application process is here. We welcome anyone (even prospective non-allies/enemies) who wants to contribute original works of fiction, (cannon lore) "non-fiction", character stories, or anything that would be suitable within a library in Golarion or anything that is legitimately about the mechanics of the game from an OOC perspective AND can agree to abide by some commonsense rules such as not posting copyrighted or obscene material.

Becoming a scribe does not require any formal relationship with TSV. The library itself is public.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

Who would have guessed my posts in this thread would have been some of the more positive ones?

I will get back to the questions posed directly to me tomorrow.

Bluddwolf, you are a bastion of positivity...thank you! I really do look forward to your response.

Goblin Squad Member

Since you aimed this at the community:

Nihimon wrote:
1. Is it "positive gameplay" to prey on the weak and inexperienced?

I would say not for two primary reasons. First, I enjoy a challenge, this is not. I cannot imagine it being fun for me or them. Second, admittedly, I might make a profit...but I play to enjoy community, not profit or to achieve some "win factor". Making the community miserable would not be fun for me; nor does providing some necessary lesson of "L2P, or I will force you to" sound fun for me (or them).

Nihimon wrote:
2. Would players seeking a "positive gameplay experience" feel fulfilled if they were robbed by bandits who had promised to provide that "positive gameplay experience"?

I think this is very subjective and difficult to answer. I think the "thrill" and "rush" provided by the occasional bandit encounter is a general positive. I think too much of this good thing is a huge negative. To be fair, I would prefer none to too much...and I think I would still be able to enjoy the game.

Directly answering your question, synchronically, no one will ever be happy about having x hours of effort collecting resources or buying goods for sale elsewhere forcefully taken from them...no one...ever. This will be true no matter how much "thrill" the mechanic provides. The trick is balancing it diachronically. Merchants need to be able to get away after feeling the "rush" ad "thrill" often enough to counter the frustration of the inevitable loss...and similarly, bandits need to be able to win often enough to make the effort worth it. I wish GW luck balancing that in an artificial prescribed system (natural systems find their own prey-predator equilibrium...or the system dies).

Nihimon wrote:
3. Would robbing members of their valuables or raiding members' Outposts contribute to "our mutual success"?

Obviously no...but primarily due to looting losses. Hypothetically, as long as two players steal from each other without loss in a semi-closed system, any resources added to the system increase their "mutual success". Wait, I take that back. "Mutual success" means all players increase their gains, my hypothetical was referring to "collective success". I deny my own hypothetical, so...obviously no (no buts).

Nihimon wrote:
4. Is Banditry compatible with Milani's stance against oppression?

Milani's stance on oppression was a metagame metaphor. Anyone can broaden or narrow it to justify a position. Take for instance, if slaves are property, taking that property is technically stealing...the fact that you free the slaves afterward is irrelevant. Milani's anti-slavery stance is hence pro-banditry in realization.

I will not really advocate this position, unless she was also a goddess of philosophy (which she is not). I am just offering something for discussion.

More simply, I would say any use or threat of force is oppression. Convincing someone to give you 5g for a charity is not oppression, Stealing At Daggerpoint is.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

"... to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members."

I'm not sure that achieving mutual success can be possible when the goals of one party include robbery from the second party. That seems more of a win-lose condition than win-win. Perhaps UNC just isn't a great fit with the rest of the crew, despite their dedication to positive gameplay. There are undoubtedly others who won't fit in, for one reason or another.

Thank you Urman, I neglected that part from my previous post...I apologize for any misconception it might have caused.

Goblin Squad Member

I do however, expect that in the long run official alliances and nations will form congruent to the Accord's sphere of influence.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The later, the Accord does not define a kingdom or even an alliance. Each member has decided beforehand, without any coercion on our part, that they want to "promote by example the goals of positive gameplay". Since each of us has decided this for ourselves prior to signing the Roseblood Accord, there is no need for centralized powers that would be necessary to enforce decrees as in a kingdom or alliance; each of us retains our full autonomy and our original level of dedication to the cause.

So what then is the purpose of the Accord? That is up to each individual member. Speaking strictly for myself, membership has large repercussions. Since I want to promote positive gameplay, I will always provide what support I can to assist a member of the Accord in either defending or expanding the Accord's sphere of influence. In a conflict between two (or more) members, where the Accord's influence is not impacted, I will act upon other concerns.

Externally, the Accord identifies those associations that have publicly declared that they want to "promote by example the goals of positive gameplay".

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
theStormWeaver wrote:

I'd like to point out that Koinonia Emporou will remain largely independent from TSV. Since all companies must choose a sponsoring settlement (I believe that is still the case), it would make sense for us to choose Phaeros.

Basically we want to rent a room from TSV until we can buy a place of our own (the aforementioned PoI). They seem like nice landlords and the rent is cheap ;)

I actually much prefer it be a situation in which you, as an equal partner, work side-by-side with us to make Phaeros a settlement and community worthy of our efforts. Even if you take over a local PoI, I think you can and will remain residents of Phaeros. If at some point in the future you outgrow the situation and want a place of your own, we, as friends and allies, will assist.

Goblin Squad Member

And, for clarification, I actually assumed such a mechanic would not be implemented with flags because the other flags I compared it to, such as the assassin flag and bandit flag have been removed. It was just a general idea for discussion.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
Any form of voting to overthrow 'bad' leaders, can be used by a 'bad' group to overthrow 'good' leaders.

Sounds like interesting game play and player interaction either way to me.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Lee Hammock

Shouldn't the names on the Land Rush be the proposed settlement name and not the company name of the sponsors?

This is because according to Lee's recent post it appears that multiple companies or unaffiliated individuals can vote for whatever "settlement" they wish to. There is no obligation that they must be in the sponsoring company.

This makes the most sense to me too.

Basically, as individuals, you decide to throw your lot in with one of those settlements; how you organize yourself, or even whether you decide to live there later is up to you...later.

Goblin Squad Member

True, but allowing it this way adds a rebellion factor as well as leaving it to the players to "reboot" settlements whose leadership has gone stagnant...without burning down the home they have worked to build. For instance TSV will essentially own AB to start, if we manage to keep it for 4 years, we will not be the only residents. Imagine if TSV slowly dies off and other guilds living in AB become more active. Why would they want to burn their own home down?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

It already does that by having the company managing the settlement to set its PVP window to a certain time. This in effect will funnel players to settlements that share their time zone, as much as their alignment, their outlook, their desired reputation level, etc....

Be careful while walking in this sandbox! You may trip on one of the multitude of partitions that divide it into different play areas.

Good point and well said.

_____

Then I certainly hope this system comes with a democratic "settlement reboot" option for bad or missing leaders.

I would love to see the option for 80-90% of a settlement to vote to forge a new government...without regards to the wishes or status fo the current settlement leaders.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bluddwolf, thanks for the info.

The problem with only getting the bonus when the officer is on is that then the system itself encourages a player to join organizations in their timezone...eventually stratification that is not desired, could occur.

I would prefer a slow bonus increase as the officer is online, and a quick bonus decline when the office is offline (ie. A week or two to max with daily 8 hour play, 2 or 3 days logged off to completely atrophy from max).
_____

That said, I am still advocating assassins primarily targeting leaders of organizations, but broadening to including Companies and Nations, any officer or leader as defined by an in-game mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

The concern. So, we were discussing the leadership dynamics for settlements...specifically as it relates to assassination. I know at one time, assassinating a settlement leader would either cause a deficit for the settlement (or remove a buff gained by having the leader).

Our concern was that this system would drive settlements to utilize the simplest government in game and keep that leader logged off except for when either training or changing the UI.

Then, using standard philosophies, we must assume if some will do it, everyone will do it...and then question spending the resources to implement the system at all.

A solution we came up with:

A leader flag. Settlements (and/or residents) receive bonuses for having a active leader. Similar to how the flags worked for bandits and assassins, the longer it is active, the more of a bonus the flag gives...and that time only accumulates while the leader is online.

Another cool thing about this idea is that it does allow the leaders to sort of set the focus of a settlement. Also, it could create a larger set of targets for assassins, by creating a system that is easily expandable to the leaders of any in-game association. Companies and Nations will have leaders, those leaders could also create an "Officer Flag" for their constituency.

Focus. Another idea or twist on this idea would be to make the nature of the bonus depend upon the build of a leader; ie. a very "combat" build for a leader would give their constituency a bonus to combat oriented activities.

Organizations with several leaders, get the "average" of those leaders.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

Leaves you with a possible enemy right in the middle of your two settlements, for a period of time at least.

We like to think of it as flanking our enemies...for a period of time at least. In all honesty, we agree with you. It was a risk worth taking because even if an enemy situates there, they do little to threaten our passage back and forth. The plains route is uncontested and negligibly longer. Meanwhile, we cut them off from the rest of the map and from the use of half their immediately neighboring hexes.

We do not need to confront an unfriendly directly in AC, we can starve them out without much effort on our part.

Meanwhile, an ally gets access to open trade and the security inherent to the position.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

Bluddwolf's faith (as chaotic as it may seem) is that all men, especially those in power, are corrupt or corruptible. Few things corrupt more than coin. So it is to the coin that he rests his faith in. Coin is gained through the threat or use of the blade. It will be upon pain of blood should anyone interfere with our goals.

As an expression of faith the members of the UnNamed Company, myself in particular, carry with us a symbol of our faith. Each carries a bloody coin, notched by a dagger. Before any raid, this coin is dedicated to the Deity that best fits what is most needed for the raid. If the raid is against a feud target, it is dedicate to Gorum. If the action is an act if vengeance, Callistria. If the raid is on or near a body of water or river, Besmara. If it is an action meant for slaughter, then either Norgorber or Rovagug.

This coin is also given as a sign of our pledge to carry out a deal or contract. It literally means, "We swear on this coin, that our blades are your's, on pain of blood."

Sometimes...I am sad our goals do not align better.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
It would be a mistake to try to anticipate what we will choose to do.

In the details, that should be a bilateral understanding.

That said, were anyone to take AC, we would do our best to first find a constructive relationship. If not deemed possible, I do not think the continued presence of a non-constructive entity in that location would be tolerated.

Admittedly, the level of tolerance would be balanced by the limits of our power to enforce our position.

Goblin Squad Member

I hope one can get training anywhere they are authorized by the settlement to do so. I also hope training is a resource in itself, settlements should only be able to have x number of training y going at any one time (like production in Eve) and should be able to invest in better/bigger training facilities.

Goblin Squad Member

Exactly. If you believe in one, it is kind of hard not to acknowledge all of them. Since each has a domain, their use is limited to that use. Praying to a CG god that signing a contract works in your benefit would not be a worthwhile use of time...even if that CG god is your usual benefactor in other aspects of your life.

1 to 50 of 749 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.