Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the past year now, there have been posts about community initiatives in relation to a perceived threat. Thus far Pax Aeternum has rejected such proposals as they crop up. While we believe our opposition has been based on what we as an organization perceive to be feasible, we do understand that merely showing opposition tends to give the community an inaccurate perception of our position. To properly represent our position it is important to include positive solutions to the issues addressed by these past threads. This post serves to identify that as well as to express our goals and clearly express where we could align with other kingdoms.
It is important to note that Pax is not suggesting that we can dictate what individual players, CC's, or Kingdoms define favorable or unacceptable behavior. It has been said in many threads that people have the right to call behavior out or not as they see fit. We completely agree with that assessment. That view point only runs into issue if you are looking for outside support. We do not agree to such wide initiatives where the terms are subjective, there is little consensus, and when outside viewpoints are not taken into account.
Aeternum has also, as the game information is progressing, been less confident that meta kingdom alliances will be feasible. Kingdom alliances hold an advantage by virtue of shared resources. A settlement or chartered company inside of a larger kingdom benefits from supporting their nation because of the simple fact that their holdings are also at stake. While we certainly acknowledge that temporary alliances (against a greater threat, like BigTown) are possible and likely we do not see the same necessarily holding true for long standing meta alliances.
There is a distinct possibility that kingdoms will (I would even call it likely) go to war with each other when the need to expand arises. In those instances the goal will be to destroy the other settlement, or defend your settlement from destruction. There might be instances of land being peaceably traded, but that could easily be an exception to the rule. One theme of current community talks has been outrage that settlements might be burned to the ground by invaders. That possibility is not as surprising to Pax, after all it is not that uncommon of a sandbox feature. Far from being outraged, we look forward to this function as an extra challenge.
Along with settlement warfare, there seems to be differences of opinion on what is considered meaningful player interaction in relation to player versus player conflict. In an effort to clearly state our position on that subject here is our charter section relating to griefing:
"6.5 RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE): Players have a right to be free from griefing. While most online games are about war, the Pax Gaming Community is against the griefing of other players. In addition to the harassment and verbal abuse rules, Pax members will conduct themselves with the utmost honor in all aspects of the game related to PVP combat. This includes the ban on the initiation of combat on zoning or link-dead opponents as shown in the practice of corpse camping, graveyard camping, or the like. PVP combat between different levels (i.e. higher level player attacking a lower level player) or different numbers (i.e. 10 players attacking 3 players) is considered standard PVP tactics that regularly occur within the rules of fair-play. Pax will not ally or go to war with any guild who does not agree to our rules of engagement. As a no-drama guild our policy is to avoid griefing players (or get back at them with superior numbers and firepower), than to complain and engage with them in any argument about fair-play. Therefore, in certain situations turn-about is fair play when that is the predominant tactic being used by the opposition, but generally such activities are not the rule."
6.5 of our charter identifies non meaningful player interaction (in relation to pvp) as:
1. Verbal abuse and harassment. An example of this is poor sportmanship, vulgarity, etc.
2. Using mechanical limitations to cause undue stress to a player, as in attacking zoning or link dead combatants. This also includes corpse camping and respawn area camping.
Everything outside of those two points is considered meaningful pvp in our organization. Overwhelming numbers (often called ganking), attacking lower powered characters, and sometimes turn-about (a rare situation where we might retaliate against a player or organization through superior firepower or numbers) are explicitly stated as normal player versus player tactics in both sandbox and themepark games. Also notice that RPKing (Random Player Killing) is also not listed under our rules of engagement, because it is also considered a legitimate playstyle in many games.
Another opinion in these community threads lately has been the issue of NBSI policies as a possible indicator of threat. The kingdom of Aeternum certainly plans to run our settlement in the preferred NeRDS system (for purely pragmatic reasons, more on that in a bit) . We do not think it fair, or even reasonable, to oppose other powers for choosing harsher restrictions in their own lands. Not only we will not go to war with such powers purely based on such choices, we will not limit them from our own lands or trade agreements based on territory choices.
In summation, the reason for our rejection for the solutions put forward so far are simple. Those solutions have gone beyond the "lets agree to cooperate against BigTown type entities who come with the purpose of wrecking the game" . Instead it seems as if such calls are used as a vehicle for trying to go down the road of setting out acceptable behaviors That in itself would not be a problem if definitions of acceptable behavior didn't vary so much.
In short, by attempting to create AnotherBigTown. That is to say we have, and will continue to aggressively recruit like minded players into the Kingdom of Aeternum. We continue to gather interest internally (from our other active divisions and membership), into Pax Aeternum specifically (maintaining recruitment threads on the Paizo boards), and court other organizations through a kingdom alliance (Being a part of our kingdom, while maintaining your own settlement or chartered company)
Hubris is a dangerous mindset when it comes to games like these, and we operate with a complete knowledge that failure is a possibility. It is the driving factor behind our constant attempt to organize what we can, when we can, and in every way we can. Luckily we have plenty of experience in multiple games at our disposal, and our leader conversations are always actively pinging new ideas.
Failure is instrumental and educational. Arguably equal to success in sandbox games. As an organization we have both flourished in nullsec (in Eve through alliances) as well as been pushed back into lowsec. Rebuilding yourself, recovering from infiltration, and identifying what went wrong is a big step in identifying what you could do better.
It is because of that we are wary of meta kingdom alliances (or alliances between kingdoms). Like has been said above, alliances are more cemented when parties share resources, space, consequences, and representation.
Aeternum will most certainly work with other kingdoms, both against a larger threat as well as securing favorable trade agreements. In the case of a map wide threat, Aeternum will treat the problem as numerical, and our response will also be numerical.
Simply, if there exists a threat in Pathfinder Online that is larger and more experienced than our own kingdom we will gather together with other powers that are likewise smaller individually than the current threat. What exists in that case is a temporary alliance of necessity. Such an alliance could exist for as long as the threat does, and dissolve or become a permanent alliance once it does not.
An important note is that such an alliance would not exist along alignment borders. We will join up with evil, neutral, or good parties in retaliation to a threat equally. We will also not consider any supported tactic towards success as off limits. This could include hiring or gaining the support of infiltrators, rpkers, gankers, bandits, etc. The goal is to demolish the threat. We have little interest in policing behaviors.
Outside of the threat scenario, we will work with other kingdoms in community events such as the guide program, celebrations, and trade agreements.
This question has been asked of us multiple times in the past, and we have not been specific in that response because in a lot of ways our defining purpose was being dictated by our membership and officer conversations. Over the months our purpose has arisen somewhat organically. Since in the recent past others have sought to define us, for us, the time is ripe for us to put such questions to rest.
Pax Aeternum exists to be a merchant empire. Whether it involves the selling of finished products, resources, or services we hope as an organization to provide for your needs. This means that our settlement, Callambea, will be set up with NeRDS for as long as it can be feasible specifically to facilitate the most trade we can possibly encourage.
We define ourselves as Lawful Neutral because our primary attribute is honesty. In both our alliance contracts and merchant dealings we clearly define what we are offering, and stick with our terms for the duration of the contract for as long as the other party does the same. That is our single largest identifier. We are not (as an organization) crusaders, concerned with altruistic goals. We will have members on every aspect of the alignment scale that the mechanics will allow. We actively plan to provide services such as militia, bounty hunting, and assassins for hire in addition to goods. Please visit the following thread for examples of our merchant goals:
Announcing: Aeternum Postal Service
Likewise our kingdom is Lawful Neutral in nature, and we are and will actively continue to court alliances from good to evil and in between. This means that bandits and evil entities will be allowed in our borders for as long as they agree to our laws (cessation of violence in our towns among them). We will entertain alliances with similar organizations for as long as they agree not to target our members and our allies. Otherwise the golden rule is the rule of coin. The bandit's gold clinks just as loudly as the paladin's.
A decent argument could be made that our stance is pragmatic and self-interested. Such an interpretation might not be untrue, but it is important to understand that those qualities are not of themselves detrimental. It is in our interest economically to have safe borders, so we will endeavor to ensure that they are. It is detrimental to our sales to shoot everyone on sight, so we plan our kingdom to fit the NeRDS archetype.
Similarly it is in our benefit to attract other settlements and CC's that hope to provide similar services or goods. It is also to our benefit to ensure that our kingdom is as safe as the mechanics can allow. In that regard we have set up an alliance contract and system that clearly identifies the process. We make sure such powers feel comfortable with their representation on our National Councils while maintaining minimal funnels for espionage. While such systems are never air tight, we feel confident that we have moved positively towards achieving such goals. In short it is because of our self-interest that our potential allies can operate in our borders, with our support, and with an acceptable level of representation. We make our holdings as safe as feasible and as lucrative as possible because quite simply it benefits Aeternum to do so.
On the other side of the coin, our lack of institutionalized altruism means we will not expect our members and allies to police the River Kingdoms in any regard. Our stance on defense is based on the pragmatic concerns of our borders. Protecting Aeternum is protecting your own interests. Outside of that we welcome any player or organization that strives to maximize profits. Similarly we welcome any player or organization that wants a safe base of operations, and a good deal of flexibility to achieve their own goals in addition to the needs of the kingdom.
This message was developed over the course of weeks, with the input of both the High and Low Consul. This is not a message put together lightly, and as such, in the eyes of Aeternum, it is a direct response to the back and forth discussions of 'What is Aeternum?'. While interpretation, conjecture and unproductive comments may arise alongside the constructive discussion, the only part Aeternum will take in those non-constructive discussions is a restatement of the above beliefs. Our message is clear, honest, and open; without further knowledge of in-game systems and until a better understanding of the Sandbox world of Pathfinder Online evolve, it is the statement that we will stand by, and a statement that we welcome the community to use or link to when someone asks 'What is Aeternum?'.
- Krow, High Thane
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
6.5 of our charter identifies non meaningful player interaction (in relation to pvp) as:
1. Verbal abuse and harassment. An example of this is poor sportmanship, vulgarity, etc.
2. Using mechanical limitations to cause undue stress to a player, as in attacking zoning or link dead combatants. This also includes corpse camping and respawn area camping.
Everything outside of those two points is considered meaningful pvp in our organization.
Does Pax intend to lobby Goblinworks to modify their stance to become more in line with this?
Another opinion in these community threads lately has been the issue of NBSI policies as a possible indicator of threat. The kingdom of Aeternum certainly plans to run our settlement in the preferred NeRDS system (for purely pragmatic reasons, more on that in a bit) . We do not think it fair, or even reasonable, to oppose other powers for choosing harsher restrictions in their own lands. Not only we will not go to war with such powers purely based on such choices, we will not limit them from our own lands or trade agreements based on territory choices.
Does this mean you intend to support Low Reputation characters?
Simply, if there exists a threat in Pathfinder Online that is larger and more experienced than our own kingdom...
Does this mean that any "threats" that don't actually threaten Pax will be ignored, until such time as they grow large enough to threaten Pax directly?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wonderful questions, Nihimon.
Does Pax intend to lobby Goblinworks to modify their stance to become more in line with this?
Not in the slightest. I think the forums have proven that we have little control of modification of anyone's belief of what griefing is or how it should be dealt with. This is simply our stance, and one that has served Pax Gaming well for more than a decade.
Does this mean you intend to support Low Reputation characters?
Can Low Reputation characters follow laws to the letter? Can Low Reputation characters remain civil in dealing with a nation? I do not know completely how the system will work, Nihimon, and won't until we're that much closer (or even inside) Early Enrollment. I do know, however, that if someone is capable of following laws within Aeternum borders and towards our away entities and allies, they have the capacity for trade, diplomacy, interaction. Will Low Reputation characters brings issues upon themselves that will keep them from following laws, especially all laws and for an extended period of time? Quite possibly, but that would be conjecture, and I'd rather not go far down that road.
Does this mean that any "threats" that don't actually threaten Pax will be ignored, until such time as they grow large enough to threaten Pax directly?
The problem is comparing definitions, Nihimon. What is a 'threat'? Are you a threat to me or Aeternum, because of your jabs at our stance, because of previous situations that occurred between our organizations and allies? Of course not. But that's because you and I agree that that's not what a 'threat' is, if not formally and publicly, through our core ideals.
Threats to Aeternum are just as they are stated above; physical threats to our kingdom, our nation, and our allies. To state more would leave it to ambiguity, and we as a community have already been down that road. There will come a time when a discussion needs to be had about threats, but it is not when we are still more than a year from an actual game in our hands.
----------
Nihimon, the purpose of this thread is to state who we are. It bares our organization, our goals and our driving force. It's blunt in its statements, but that doesn't mean it can cover everything; we're still more than a year from Early Enrollment, where systems can (and will) change to meet the playstyles and needs of the Pathfinder Online Community.
The initial tendency is to respond with conjecture, theory, things that can be left open to ambiguity. You may find many of my answers will fall short, and for that, I apologize; our statement has been made, and it is the statement of Aeternum, not just Ezekial Krows.
- Krow
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dread the implications inherent in a game-related organisation with a charter so complex as to require decimal points. I can almost see the point of a charter generally, but even that's a bit murky; it feels on the depressing road from "fun game" to "real life".
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
While I disagree with the specifics of your position on griefing (specifically, that killing another character in such a manner as to harm your own character for little or no in-character benefit {RPK} is not griefing), I respect your commitment to ensure that nobody who does meet your definition of griefing is a member.
More directly on topic, do you intend to be more highly involved in arbitrage, transporting goods from where they are plentiful to where they are scarce, in manufacture, turning raw materials into finished goods, or do you intend to try to focus in two related areas?
Are you equally committed to allow major competitors open passage through your territory as you are potential customers?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
More directly on topic, do you intend to be more highly involved in arbitrage, transporting goods from where they are plentiful to where they are scarce, in manufacture, turning raw materials into finished goods, or do you intend to try to focus in two related areas?
We will absolutely be supporting members that manipulate markets for profit, and will be suggesting exactly that to our merchant members / citizens.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you equally committed to allow major competitors open passage through your territory as you are potential customers?
We have not explicitly discussed that issue in detail, but we have discussed a desire to keep our borders as open as is feasible.
Merchants passing through our borders, or even stopping in to grab up what low prices they can, does not cause concern. Everything is subject to change with new game information, but currently our non entry list has been discussed to include only threats to our sovereignty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dread the implications inherent in a game-related organisation with a charter so complex as to require decimal points. I can almost see the point of a charter generally, but even that's a bit murky; it feels on the depressing road from "fun game" to "real life".
I can appreciate the concern. As a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, I can completely see where 'bureaucracy' can, in fact, slow down a system. And as someone who has had to suffer under the weight of too much 'red tape,' I will be the first to admit that there is a point where words on a paper are more oppressive than liberating.
But in larger organizations it can be a useful tool; there's a reason the U.S. Army lives by Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Review the Pax Gaming Charter; it's just as large(r) and vibrant as the Aeternum Charter. The scope of a large organization requires focus, and a well organized charter delivers. It creates a language that every member of that organization can speak with; it's why we have terms like Mil-Speak.
It's not always perfect, but it's worked for Pax Gaming for over a decade; it sees constant updates -as it should- to meet with the changing environment of gaming, but the basics, the core is still there; providing every member with a distinct understanding of the inner workings of the organization they belong to, and the power to affect those systems through their own effort.
It's hard to explain, Jazzlvraz, but take it from someone who is now sold on the idea; the Pax model has worked for multiple games over multiple years, and we aim to prove that for Pathfinder Online, too.
- Krow
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem is comparing definitions, Nihimon. What is a 'threat'?
I was trying to use whatever definition of "threat" you had in mind in the quote I provided:
Simply, if there exists a threat in Pathfinder Online that is larger and more experienced than our own kingdom...
But more importantly, I was trying to understand the import of that threat being "larger and more experienced".
Finally, with respect to supporting characters of Low Reputation, I am very interested in your answer because it is a "red line" for me, personally, and I will do whatever I can to make it a red line for The Seventh Veil as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I disagree with the specifics of your position on griefing (specifically, that killing another character in such a manner as to harm your own character for little or no in-character benefit {RPK} is not griefing)
You are welcome to disagree with that stance, but you will also have to address Ryan Dancey's statements that say just that as well.
RPKing is not griefing, according to Dancey.
I would take that a bit further and claim that RPKing does not actually exist. No action can truly be random, and no attack is ever without some benefit.
If I choose to trade reputation loss vs. a small gain in gold, that was a choice that I made and therefore it has meaning and can not be random.
If I choose to trade the same reputation, based on the mere suspicion that the person had gold, and I turned out to be wrong. That is still not without meaning or random, it's called gambling.
If I choose to trade reputation loss vs. no gain, because that person is wearing a green hat, that too is not random as long as I attack anyone and everyone with a green hat. It is likewise not meaningless to me, because that is what I decided to do today.
If I choose to trade off reputation loss, just not to be bored, that too is not meaningless or random. It is how I choose to spend my time within the game that I pay for, and it does not violate the rules.
Now, too frequently, companies have been putting out policy statements and they have been questioned on them, rather than accepted for what they are. This thread is clearly a policy statement of Pax Aeternum, and unless they suggested that it could be crowd forged, disagree with it will accomplish nothing.
If you wish to discuss my statement here, you can paste it in any UNC thread and I'll gladly discuss my statement there.
As for the OP, that is a clear statement, although quite wordy.....
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm not going to argue over a matter of opinion or definition, particularly when the inline definition I used is not compatible with the arguments being used against it. I offered my qualified approval, along with the qualified statements, and that is that.
I'm also relived by the change in official diplomatic policy away from a prior one that was very much policing behaviors, even if it was at the cost of allowing BigTown to dominate the game.
I'll finish with the note that the principles described are very distinctly Lawful Neutral; a charter that uses paragraph numbers and tries to cover every situation that will be encountered specifically is going to be lawful, and the statement "A decent argument could be made that our stance is pragmatic and self-interested. Such an interpretation might not be untrue, but it is important to understand that those qualities are not of themselves detrimental." Is close to the definition of neutral on the good/evil axis. I really like that the policies and philosophies came together before considering the alignment, but the alignment fits clearly and unambiguously, without having to bend any aspect of the object-level decisions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I apologize on the wait, Nihimon.
I was trying to use whatever definition of "threat" you had in mind in the quote I provided:
Simply, if there exists a threat in Pathfinder Online that is larger and more experienced than our own kingdom...
It boils down to the fact that we can't truly define 'threat' beyond that there will be actions/organizations/situations Aeternum (and others) will deem a threat. This far in advance, with out all of the game systems and how they will be manipulated by the player available to dissect, that term needs to stay vague.
But more importantly, I was trying to understand the import of that threat being "larger and more experienced".
I don't think it's a stretch to say that Aeternum will be a powerful entity within the River Kingdoms. How powerful is relative to who shows up on day one of Early Enrollment, and even then, power can and will remain a subjective term. It could be that the 'threat' brings more sword arms to the fight; it could be that they wield more allegiance than we do. It could be that they have spent the last 10 years preparing themselves for a Sandbox PvP that they will treat with a 'scorched earth' philosophy.
The point of the statement is to say that Aeternum is not against the community working together when a 'threat' arises, or even that we won't be a part of the 'solution'; Aeternum is not going to put a face on that threat a year from launch, and does not think it will do the community any good to do so this early, either.
Finally, with respect to supporting characters of Low Reputation, I am very interested in your answer because it is a "red line" for me, personally, and I will do whatever I can to make it a red line for The Seventh Veil as well.
I completely respect your statement, Nihimon. We all have our stances, our red lines. Aeternum may have crossed some of those with our statement, but as Bluddwolf pointed out, it Aeternum's stance; it is stated only for clarification, not as a springboard for more argument.
I've enjoyed our discussions in the past, Nihimon, though they were not done as one guild officer to another. I think it would be in the best interest of both our organizations to have those kind of discussions, and I look forward to that chance.
- Krow
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dread the implications inherent in a game-related organisation with a charter so complex as to require decimal points. I can almost see the point of a charter generally, but even that's a bit murky; it feels on the depressing road from "fun game" to "real life".
You should see our No Pants policy
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dread the implications inherent in a game-related organisation with a charter so complex as to require decimal points. I can almost see the point of a charter generally, but even that's a bit murky; it feels on the depressing road from "fun game" to "real life".You should see our No Pants policy
Yeah, Ive seen them do naked "PVP" (arena combat) in SWTOR.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Who knows who did it first honestly lol. A group of friends and I were doing the Naked Fat Trooper when the game released. All of us were commandos, and this was on Ebon Hawk.
Pantless Leader lol now thats funny
NFT:
Trooper is the class, commando is the sub class with the really big gun
Fat is one of 4 body styles in SWTOR which is sad... (horrible character creation choices for an MMO
Naked... well in tighty whiteys anyway