Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The treaty of Rovagug is an RP and meta-game agreement to work together against griefers and organizations that are excessively aggressive/destructive.
It is open to organizations of EVERY alignment, even chaotic evil, so long as those organizations are not griefers and don't take part in excessive random player killing.
From the topic on The Empyrean Order forums where this is being debated:
Greetings honorable members of The Empyrean Order, and distinguished representatives of other organizations. The intent of this meeting is to discuss the terms of the Treaty of Rovagug.
As many of you may know, Rovagug is a god bent on the destruction of everything. Many deities, of many stances on morality and order banded together to stop Rovagug because his single minded destruction would have brought and end to all creation.
Rovagug was defeated, but he was not destroyed. Even now his sick minded followers walk among us. For now the threat is contained, if his followers were to gain sway... if he were to be released once more... I think you all understand the consequences that could bring.
For this reason I ask every organization of the River Kingdoms to band together with The Empyrean Order and join with us in the creation and signing of the Treaty of Rovagug. A treaty that states that all organizations, be they dedicated to justice, power, or even enslavement will put aside hostilities and work together when faced by organizations that are destructive in nature. That if such an organization, or multiple organizations of that sort were to gain too much power, we will put aside all grievances with each other until the treat is dealt with.
Now to the work at hand. We must determine what constitutes a "destructive organization". We must determine rules of engagement should multiple factions who have signed the treaty encounter a member of a destructive organization during before or during conflict with each other. How we will determine when all hostilities must be put on hold in order to make war against destructive organizations and who will have the right to much such a determination.
So with that my dear friends... and enemies, let us bring forth the proposals and begin the debates.
Anyone interested in joining in on this debates so on our forums once you have registered as an ambassador.
The Convention of Rovagug
Ambassador Registration
Also as a show of dedication against griefing to the community, please post the name of your organization here if you are interested in signing the treaty. This is not a commitment to do so. Just a sign you will be interested, if you find the terms agreeable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the concept and you picked a good lore-appropriate name. I suppose a treaty like this is mostly for counteracting griefer threats on the scale of the 600n.5w4rm? I suppose one could consider griefers to be cultists of Rovagug, from an in-character perspective... Rovagoons? :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We could be addressing the threat of one powerful griefer group, or a slow build up of excessive RPK groups that cause the culture of PFO to drift closer and closer to that of Darkfall.
The Treaty of Rovagug allows all RPers and those who believe in meaningful player interaction to band together against griefers and those who just want to score as many kills as possible without breaking character.
It is my hope that every organization in the game will sign this treaty, as a promise not to grief or RPK excessively, and to stand guard against those who would.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is the intentions of The UnNamed Company not to grief. In my view griefing is the repeated and intentional spoiling of another person's time in game.
Examples:
* Respawn Camping
* Hunting Down Noobs in starter areas for cheap PVP kills.
* Obvious kill stealing (repeatedly)
* Dungeon Raid team kicking (getting kicked from the team just prior to boss being killed).
* Using Names that are not lore appropriate on RP servers
I can probably add a few more, but you get the idea.
Ganking on the other hand is something completely different, and I hope you are not lumping the two terms together.
Ganking is when one group uses superior numbers or force against an opponent to shift the risk vs. reward ratio to a more favorable level. As I have written in another post, "No one plans to have a fair fight in war or pillaging."
If you feel under protected, hire protection or stay in your Mommy's basement!
If you feel you can't compete in the market wars (in the player generated economy), hire bandits to raid your opponent's caravans.
If you feel that a settlement is becoming too dominant over the culture, hire mercenaries and or bandits to take it down a few notches.
None of these scenarios involve trying to fight on an equal footing. They are just designed to change the odds and are therefore not Griefing.
Bluddwolf, Founder
The UnNamed Company
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am perfectly fine with groups that use under handed or dirty tactics to win. TEO won't always come from the front with even numbers either.
One thing I do disagree with is killing everyone you see. Why not just rob the rich ones and let the poor ones go? Even evil groups should generally have a motivation for killing someone beyond "Because I can. Lol!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am perfectly fine with groups that use under handed or dirty tactics to win. TEO won't always come from the front with even numbers either.
One thing I do disagree with is killing everyone you see. Why not just rob the rich ones and let the poor ones go? Even evil groups should generally have a motivation for killing someone beyond "Because I can. Lol!"
I would say that's what a Chaotic Evil group would do. I wouldn't enter any agreement with CE aligned. I most certainly wouldn't expect them to keep the agreement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A group of bandits that robs everyone they see, and will kill anyone who resists is chaotic evil.
Killing absolutely everyone you see isn't RPing chaotic evil. It's being a jerk.
I'm perfectly fine with making an agreement with a group that RPs chaotic evil as long as they don't use that as an excuse for excessive RPKing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am perfectly fine with groups that use under handed or dirty tactics to win. TEO won't always come from the front with even numbers either.
One thing I do disagree with is killing everyone you see. Why not just rob the rich ones and let the poor ones go? Even evil groups should generally have a motivation for killing someone beyond "Because I can. Lol!"
Kings, politicians and merchants steal from the poor in nearly every action they do. Bandits are at least honest about it. But no intelligent bandit or pirate plunders their prey into starvation, because that ends future opportunities. Unfortunately, for the poor, rulers don't always follow the same reasoning.
As I wrote, I agree not to grief, but you are taking a step further and questioning what we are..... We are bandits, mercenaries, smugglers... We are agents of the underworld. We are the nameless and the faceless, people behind the scenes and doing the dirty work for the very class of people you represent. Then you try to deny that you are worse than us. Your aggression is veiled as being a community builder, as being passive and motivated by the desire for peace.... But I see the oppression and control in your motives. I see the power in your numbers. That power will be abused, it always is.
I am no Robin Hood, but you are not Gandhi. I will make coin from your contracts or I'll will make it from your competitors. I may also plunder it from your caravans if the opportunity presents itself.
My motivation is greed, and so is yours!
[b]this commentary was in character. It was also meant to present a parameter for what my company will be willing to agree to as far as participating in the in-game community. [\b]
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You may think whatever you wish of my motivations. It has often turned out to my advantage when my cynical opponents try to predict my actions as though I were driven by the same motivations as them.
There is a fair bit of satisfaction in telling people exactly what you are going to do, and then have them still be surprised when you do it.
The Empyrean Order is established for the good of the community, and we will put the good of the community above ourselves when needed. You can trust that statement however much you want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can see that you are in complete agreement with us and the purpose of the treaty!
I hope you reconsider needing recompense for when the end of the world, including yourselves, bears it's fangs.
It is the intentions of The UnNamed Company not to grief. In my view griefing is the repeated and intentional spoiling of another person's time in game.
Examples:
* Respawn Camping
* Hunting Down Noobs in starter areas for cheap PVP kills.
* Obvious kill stealing (repeatedly)
* Dungeon Raid team kicking (getting kicked from the team just prior to boss being killed).
* Using Names that are not lore appropriate on RP servers
...not Griefing.
Bluddwolf, Founder
The UnNamed Company
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can see that you are in complete agreement with us and the purpose of the treaty!
I am never in complete agreement with myself, let alone a treaty in which I played no hand in drafting.
I have my own concept of what is griefing, and The UnNamed Company has already included that in our own charter. So it is not in our benefit to sign such a treaty.
Our actions will remain our own. We shall judge ourselves, police ourselves, and deal with the consequences through our own means.
My problem with this supposed treaty is that when I first began to clarify my position, the stated intent of the treaty suddenly creeped into something other than griefing. I will sign no pact with the Devil or with an Angel, because they will both wear the same face, promise me the same things, but they both want the same control.
Once again, this is my in character response. It does not reflect my opinion on griefing as a gaming community. However I don't see the same effort in curtailing other MMO behaviors that are equally decisive. I hope that they are all discuses, discouraged and hopefully stopped. Examples: Gold Farming, Elitism, Price Gouging, Pay to Win MTs, etc..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am never in complete agreement with myself, let alone a treaty in which I played no hand in drafting.
You speak as though the treaty is written and terms are set in stone. Just because you take part in the debates doesn't mean you need to sign the treaty. Why not come and see if it ends up in a form you find acceptable?
Anyway I'm not sneaking in anything. I stated upfront what the goal is.
"The treaty of Rovagug is an RP and meta-game agreement to work together against griefers and organizations that are excessively aggressive/destructive."
If you kill everyone you see just because you can, that is excessively aggressive/destructive. What exactly are you taking issue with here?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing I do disagree with is killing everyone you see. Why not just rob the rich ones and let the poor ones go? Even evil groups should generally have a motivation for killing someone beyond "Because I can. Lol!"
Although not in the treaty itself, you revealed another belief of yours in the above statement. Perhaps it was harmless, or perhaps it is your true agenda slipping out. I will not judge it.
What does concern me is that it is the truest example of "mission creep." Your beliefs are not just on griefing, but on stealing as well. It is also based on two false assumptions. First, that we will steal from the poor. Secondly, that we would kill all that we rob.
I'm hopeful that caravans will hand over their wealth without a fight. I will even ask politely if that will work. I mean only to carry away what is most valuable, and what I can carry. They are then free to go.
I am not necessarily speaking for my company as a whole in this matter. Some of my members will fall within the alignment and the actions that you hope for here.... others will not.
For the record The UnNamed Company alignment spectrum is:
LN----------CN
-------N------
NG----------NE
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I guess what it really boils down too is how "excessively aggressive/destructive" organizations are defined. I mean an underground merc group that plays both sides might appear excessive. However, if they are just fulfilling one contract after the next, then isnt that just part of the game? I wouldnt go out of my way to kill everyone I meet, but if the merc work is dry Im not gonna actually work in the fields.
Lets put it another way. What if for 2 weeks my company is gaurding a caravan for settlement X. Durring that time we get attacked by "bad" guys 4 times, and wipe them out each time. After the 2 weeks is over, another group is hired to do our job, but the "bad" guys sign a contract with us to raid the settlements caravan, and we do 6 times over a 2 week period.
In between caravan security/raiding, ill probably find some some way to spend my time. It might be dungeons and exploration, it might be killing goblins, it might be acting as a bodygaurd, but it might be stealing (and killing if it comes to it) from unfortunate people that happen to meet me on the road.
If you find any of this excessive, then we have a problem. Because to me thats just playing the part. But Im not going to treat it like a FPS mass-murdering session.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hello Andius,
I am stopping into this thread in acknowledgement of your request for Aeternum to voice our opinions here.
Unfortunately this treaty as it currently stands violates the second of our two core precepts for contracts:
A contract will be defined in all possible aspects with clear contingencies in place so that no party within the contract can bend the word to their will.
We are excited that there is an organization banding forces together to make the server better. However as a rule we look over the terms and limitations of such agreements first when proposed, then decide if we agree with them (even when we are a part of writing those terms).
Until we can know what this Treaty will entail, who has the power to invoke it, and what limits it from being invoked we can not agree to sign it.
I am sure Ezekiel will be in touch with you again to more fully represent our position in this matter.
Good luck to you and yours,
High Thane Thunderkeg
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
<A quiet voice from a window>
Ever will Law expect contracts of Chaos.
This Treaty debate reminds me of this famous line...
"What I offer you is freedom; freedom from Arthur's tyrannical dream; freedom from Arthur's tyrannical law; freedom from Arthur's tyrannical God." ~ Malagant
The Treaty, regardless of what the TEO is actually alignment wise, is actually a document of Lawful Good purpose. Therefore it is not aligned with my company's leanings. Then there is my personal belief, that such a document can not be enforced without..... force. The document itself talks about consequences, and that is an exercise of power. Power by its very nature is corrupting, and freedom is always its victim.
In sandbox MMOs: SWG, EVE, Fallen Earth and eventually in PFO, I have always gravitated to being free spirited and on the fringe of criminality. Be it the Smuggler, Pirate, MC Gang member, or a Bandit, I'm always of the same belief .... A Greedy Anarchist, but not as blood thirsty as you might assume. Not bent on the destruction of the establishment, but bent on bleeding it of its wealth steadily.
How could I function within the confines of such a treaty?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its going to be interesting when the "good kingdoms" notice that the only way for them to expand in territory is through other "good kingdoms".
The UnNamed Company will be standing by, waiting to accept contracts from them, so that they may keep their "good name", and we will take their good gold.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since everyone ignored this:
You speak as though the treaty is written and terms are set in stone. Just because you take part in the debates doesn't mean you need to sign the treaty. Why not come and see if it ends up in a form you find acceptable?
Anyway I'm not sneaking in anything. I stated upfront what the goal is.
"The treaty of Rovagug is an RP and meta-game agreement to work together against griefers and organizations that are excessively aggressive/destructive."
If you kill everyone you see just because you can, that is excessively aggressive/destructive. What exactly are you taking issue with here?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think I have seen a single charter company come out and say. "Hey we want to grief everyone for ever." as their mission statement.
No. You determine that by their actions. The point is to put a treaty in place now before the game's release so when the griefer organizations are identified we can deal with them, rather than scrambling to put this together after we need it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OK EVERYONE please look here.
You are not signing a treaty because IT DOES NOT EXIST. You are simply signing a "Hey I am interested in helping you MAKE THE TERMS of the treaty." So you are not committing to "terms" your are committing to a debate and a talk to help create the treaty into something you WOULD sign. That's all people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK EVERYONE please look here.
You are not signing a treaty because IT DOES NOT EXIST. You are simply signing a "Hey I am interested in helping you MAKE THE TERMS of the treaty." So you are not committing to "terms" your are committing to a debate and a talk to help create the treaty into something you WOULD sign. That's all people.
Here are my terms....
First,
The discussions for this treaty must be held here, not on some other forum. I have enough passwords and user names to keep in my head, I don't need more.
Furthermore, discussion can be held here in a neutral environment, where posts can not be altered or disappear, except by the hands of GW moderators.
Second,
Article One of any said treaty must detail exactly what "Griefing" means. Any action outside of that definition is not covered by the terms of the treaty.
Third,
Infinite Bounties must be considered griefing.
Fourth,
The charge of "Griefing" must not apply to the proper application of one's profession. Bandits get to steal; Assassins get to kill; Clerics get to pray, etc....
Fifth,
Merchants may not ply their trade with impunity. They must accept the dangers of using caravans or having stores, and expect that they will from time-to-time be robbed.
Sixth,
A caravan or merchant must be granted quarter if he / she voluntarily hands over 30% of his / her current wealth being carried. If the merchant later files a charge of griefing, than we reserve the right to slaughter them, their next of kin, to raise their village and molest and then slaughter their livestock.
Seventh,
Point Six is non negotiable....
(OOC)...
I mean not to mock too much here, but... This is like having stricter gun control laws to stop criminals. If they are already shooting up a bank, they are not going to worry about the gun being illegal. The only people it will impact are those that would follow the law anyway.
Even in this case, it won't impact those that agree to it. They are not the ones that you are worried about.
What is far more damaging to an MMO than griefing is gold farming. Put together a pact that none of us players will buy gold! Put together a pact that none of us as players will buy items in an MT store. Put together a petition that the Devs need to make the best items in the game, crafted, thus maintaining reasonable prices for rare items.
It is the actions of players (outside of the game, economically)that can do more damage to this game, not the actions of characters. The best way to handle a griefer is to use the Report feature. Let GM know that you are being spawn camped, or there is a high powered character slaughtering players in the noob areas, repeatedly.
Final note...
I have taken three things from my many years of playing EvE Online...
1. You are Never Safe
2. Don't pilot what you are unwilling to lose
3. It is all about the ISK (gold in that game)
In the end, I would not sign any such Treaty because I already play by those rules. I don't grief, never have and never would.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's a pity, you were being serious and completely reasonable for the first five. For the sixth you assumed this is a law... it is not, this is a document where companies pledge aid against a common and powerful foe in an end of our world scenario.
We do not intend to enforce behavior, or push our own upon others, this is a Pact to exact concerted arms upon an entity who violates the articles we as a group decide upon.
OK EVERYONE please look here.
You are not signing a treaty because IT DOES NOT EXIST. You are simply signing a "Hey I am interested in helping you MAKE THE TERMS of the treaty." So you are not committing to "terms" your are committing to a debate and a talk to help create the treaty into something you WOULD sign. That's all people.
Here are my terms....
First,
The discussions for this treaty must be held here, not on some other forum. I have enough passwords and user names to keep in my head, I don't need more.
Furthermore, discussion can be held here in a neutral environment, where posts can not be altered or disappear, except by the hands of GW moderators.
Second,
Article One of any said treaty must detail exactly what "Griefing" means. Any action outside of that definition is not covered by the terms of the treaty.
Third,
Infinite Bounties must be considered griefing.
Fourth,
The charge of "Griefing" must not apply to the proper application of one's profession. Bandits get to steal; Assassins get to kill; Clerics get to pray, etc....
Fifth,
Merchants may not ply their trade with impunity. They must accept the dangers of using caravans or having stores, and expect that they will from time-to-time be robbed.
Sixth,
A caravan or merchant must be granted quarter if he / she voluntarily hands over 30% of his / her current wealth being carried. If the merchant later files a charge of griefing, than we reserve the right to slaughter them, their next of kin, to raise their village and molest and then slaughter their livestock.
Seventh,
Point Six is non negotiable....
(OOC)...
I mean not to mock too much here, but... This is like having stricter gun control laws to stop criminals. If they are already shooting up a bank, they are not going to worry about the gun being illegal. The only people it will impact are those that would follow the law anyway.
Even in this case, it won't impact those that agree to it. They are...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the concept and you picked a good lore-appropriate name. I suppose a treaty like this is mostly for counteracting griefer threats on the scale of the G--- S----? I suppose one could consider griefers to be cultists of Rovagug, from an in-character perspective... Rovagoons? :P
Seems to me that we might get more support if this were limited to responding to big groups specifically dedicated to griefing, without trying to broaden it to the point that it could apply to individual players or those playing bandits. If it's just affecting a few players it's just the game playing out as it will, but if a group comes in with the purpose of ruining the game for everyone, everyone could do their own thing, hiding out or trying to cut individual deals to be left alone, or we could all work together to deal with them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Article One of any said treaty must detail exactly what "Griefing" means. Any action outside of that definition is not covered by the terms of the treaty.
The ability to use discretion in defining what exactly constitutes griefers rather than hard black and white policies is what makes player enforced anti-griefing superior to GM/Admin enforced anti-griefing policies.
I mean not to mock too much here, but... This is like having stricter gun control laws to stop criminals. If they are already shooting up a bank, they are not going to worry about the gun being illegal. The only people it will impact are those that would follow the law anyway.
Um no... this is like establishing a police force to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT if someone breaks the laws.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwulf
Well said sir, well said. The Bloody Hand does not, in any way condone griefing. While I agree with Bluddwulf in the fact that a signed document may not do much in the grand scheme of things, I think it is a good show of faith, especially if the evil Chartered Companies agree to sign it. I would like to see the various points made by Bluddwulf added into any such document, with the exception of point six. While I will encourage ransoms to be asked (because it's just good buisness) I would never require my men to do such things. Having that kind of rule in place could be exploited by the carvan owners, and thus, endanger my men. Dead bandits is also not good for my buisness. I may even entertain the idea of offering discounts on the Bloody Hand's services in the case of griefers, but thats something that will require further internal discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the concept and you picked a good lore-appropriate name. I suppose a treaty like this is mostly for counteracting griefer threats on the scale of the G--- S----? I suppose one could consider griefers to be cultists of Rovagug, from an in-character perspective... Rovagoons? :PSeems to me that we might get more support if this were limited to responding to big groups specifically dedicated to griefing, without trying to broaden it to the point that it could apply to individual players or those playing bandits. If it's just affecting a few players it's just the game playing out as it will, but if a group comes in with the purpose of ruining the game for everyone, everyone could do their own thing, hiding out or trying to cut individual deals to be left alone, or we could all work together to deal with them.
^ This. Someone wanted to have a anti-"goon" treaty and asked for a RP reason. Hence I brought up Rovagug and thus it was named. This is meant to be a treaty against a BIG threat. A troll KINGDOM not some petty ass group of bandits. I feel this could of been stated clearer. Also any real discussion about this should be done over Skype, Teamspeak or something similar.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
^ This. Someone wanted to have a anti-"goon" treaty and asked for a RP reason. Hence I brought up Rovagug and thus it was named. This is meant to be a treaty against a BIG threat. A troll KINGDOM not some petty ass bandits. I feel this could of been stated clearer. Also any real discussion about this should be done over Skype, Teamspeak or something similar.
I like that first bit, something to stand against a Kingdom of griefers is one thing.
I do not agree with the last sentence, though.
You want something that you want the Community involved in shaping and agreeing to, then you discuss it where everyone in said Community has an opportunity to weigh in. I've been playing MMO's since UO and all the best organizations, agreements, treaties, whatever where done right out in the public with the public having their 2 cents.
It's not like we're hurting for time, either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Treaty of Rovagug is a intended to be signed by the majority of Guilds in PFO, no matter their size or alignment!
It is NOT a set of rules to follow, it is NOT some cheap law to oppress certain play-styles.
It a pact to unite all organizations in the event that a large entity comes to destroy PFO and destroy everything people have spent months or years forging and crafting.. we will work together.
So that we even stand a chance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On what basis are you guys assuming some big group is going to come "destroy PFO... etc" ?
I look at the Goons in EVE and can't help but think that while they can be... erratic, for lack of a better forum appropriate term, they have added to the immersion of living in a galaxy filled with violence and strife.
The other Alliances and Corporations in EVE get on just by without having anything like this in place.
Not knocking the idea, just trying to figure out if there's something I don't know that I should worry about or if it's just a bunch of smoke.
The RP premise is solid, and I like it, but the meta objectives are "meh" at best.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand and agree with the intent of this issue. I just think it is highly subjective, vague, and raises more questions that it answers.
Who or Whom has the authority raise this call to arms?
Who or Whom has the authority to call a cease fire?
Who or whom leads this initiative when called?
Would the need this proposes to fill not exist naturally (via temporary alliances) as a result of perceived threats?
I read that the current plan is to define griefing on a case by case basis. Since the term itself is subjective, what measure will be put in place so that this treaty is not used beyond its intended purpose?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
^ This. Someone wanted to have a anti-"goon" treaty and asked for a RP reason. Hence I brought up Rovagug and thus it was named. This is meant to be a treaty against a BIG threat. A troll KINGDOM not some petty ass bandits. I feel this could of been stated clearer. Also any real discussion about this should be done over Skype, Teamspeak or something similar.I like that first bit, something to stand against a Kingdom of griefers is one thing.
I do not agree with the last sentence, though.
You want something that you want the Community involved in shaping and agreeing to, then you discuss it where everyone in said Community has an opportunity to weigh in. I've been playing MMO's since UO and all the best organizations, agreements, treaties, whatever where done right out in the public with the public having their 2 cents.
It's not like we're hurting for time, either.
The public are welcome into the voice chat and bullet points can be posted. I'm not suggesting making the talks hidden but in a setting where people can explain themselves better. Because looking above seems like there is a lot of misunderstanding. As long as everyone is on the same page I really don't care if they are on the forums or elsewhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Waruko, thank you for pointing that out. I got what Andius was saying, but I am at an advantage as he is the head of my Kingdom, so I have read a lot of his posts.
Bluddwulf, you do make some valid points, but as the leaders here are speaking of keeping any Kingdom who has many griefers in it in check, and I presume they will use the GW definition of griefing as a guideline for the RP treaty, I don't think your group need worry. That said, Ryan stated in one of the blog posts that attacking a rich player who can then send out bounty hunters time and again isn't considered griefing. Naturally if the economy develops such that this frequently happens, GW could reconsider this and put a limit on bounties. (See To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms, posted Jan 18, 2012, particularly this part:
Oh, and one more twist: Each time the bounty is paid, the victim has the option to issue it again. And again. A wealthy victim could maintain the price on the head of a murderer for a very long time—forever, if they like. Murder the wrong person, and you might find your character reduced to a life constantly on the run, or you may need to try to heal the breach via penance and apology (and likely restitution).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand and agree with the intent of this issue. I just think it is highly subjective, vague, and raises more questions that it answers.
Who or Whom has the authority raise this call to arms?
Who or Whom has the authority to call a cease fire?
Who or whom leads this initiative when called?
Would the need this proposes to fill not exist naturally (via temporary alliances) as a result of perceived threats?
I read that the current plan is to define griefing on a case by case basis. Since the term itself is subjective, what measure will be put in place so that this treaty is not used beyond its intended purpose?
These are all good questions, and precisely why PFO will be a really cool game. Here's to more subjectivity and not less!! This is about player interaction, and I hope these questions are discussed and addressed regularly in-game. Politics, I love it! Just keep it in-game as much as possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Going to leave one simple sentiment here and then the stance of Mystical Awakening for now.
Prove yourself on the battlefield and your words before coming here and putting down a treaty with rules that you feel are to be the justified ones.
It would have been better sportsmanship and a better choice to approach the guilds you wanted to have an interest in this silently, work everything out and keep it silent. And it would have saved you alot of headache.
Your actions, words and future comments will put a huge bullseye on you and your guild.
For now, Mystical Awakening will take a step back and watch how this will unfold, we do not support this treaty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bluddwulf
Well said sir, well said. The Bloody Hand does not, in any way condone griefing. While I agree with Bluddwulf in the fact that a signed document may not do much in the grand scheme of things, I think it is a good show of faith, especially if the evil Chartered Companies agree to sign it. I would like to see the various points made by Bluddwulf added into any such document, with the exception of point six. While I will encourage ransoms to be asked (because it's just good buisness) I would never require my men to do such things. Having that kind of rule in place could be exploited by the carvan owners, and thus, endanger my men. Dead bandits is also not good for my buisness. I may even entertain the idea of offering discounts on the Bloody Hand's services in the case of griefers, but thats something that will require further internal discussion.
Just for the record, item 6 and 7 were meant to be a moment of levity, but also to point out the fact that these types of treaties or agreements can take a turn towards the ridiculous. I choose to suggest late in my points a "deal breaker", because that is usually what is done to bring the whole process into question.
The big issue here is not that grieving will take place, we know that. The issue here is, what will be done about it? Also, who defines it and what is their authority based on?
Andius wrote in one post, "that the term grieving would not be defined in any concrete way, but determined on a case by case basis." ~ paraphrased by Bluddwolf
That is the scariest thing about this. Not only is it not defined, but the declaration of who has griefed someone can be completely arbitrary.
The we have to deal with the terribly, not thought through, Infinite Bounty system. This in itself is a form of griefing, but it is sanctioned by Goblin Works! This must be argued against.
The EvE player in me, makes my suspicious nature question why the largest company in the forums is proposing such a treaty. Is it to control the masses, or is it genuine concern for the community? If it is the latter, is griefing truly the most dangerous conduct to the gaming community?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Treaty of Rovagug is a intended to be signed by the majority of Guilds in PFO, no matter their size or alignment!
It is NOT a set of rules to follow, it is NOT some cheap law to oppress certain play-styles.
It a pact to unite all organizations in the event that a large entity comes to destroy PFO and destroy everything people have spent months or years forging and crafting.. we will work together.
So that we even stand a chance.
That "large entity" you do not name, are the Goons. Rest assured, Goonswarm will come, and The Empyrean Order will be first on their list of targets. You have even taken term from EvE Online for your name... That alone will draw their attention.
So the question is, why would small companies flock to your treaty and your aid?
The UnNamed Company will take a contract to protect your kingdom, for suitable compensation of course. During the term of that contract we will take no contract against you. When the term of that contract expires, The UnNamed Company will exercise its right to take a contract that may be against your interests. There is nothing personal in this, it is just business.
Then there is always the possibility that TEO is the Goons. This whole treaty is a front for their true intentions of world domination and destruction.
The UnNamed Company will take a contract to destroy the world, for suitable compensation of course......
Do you see how that works? The UnNamed Company's motives are crystal clear! There is honor in being a thief out in the open. I' m here for your gold. Travel light or get robbed blind. Pay a ransom or pay in blood. Want protection, pay us. Want an enemy dealt with, pay us.
We are honest brokers...... Are you?