Kingdom of Aeternum and the UnNamed Company- Terms of Alliance


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Shane Gifford wrote:
Hmmm, as a politically neutral merchant I don't like the sound of a NBRI policy. That's obviously a big indicator that I and other like myself should not do business with you, as entering your lands puts me at risk for government-sponsored robbery. At least in another land where UNC is merely raiding I could rely on any guards to assist me against the bandits, rather than assist the bandits should I try to resist or flee.

No, as the Interdiction Policy states, if you are in route to or from Pax Aeternum's settlement(s), you will not be molested in any way, other than a stop and investigation.

If however, you are seen in Pax lands, and not authorized to be there, to be passing through or you are suspected of bring aid to rivals, you will be SAD'd or ambushed accordingly.

Quote:
Interdiction - These contracts will be issued to individuals or companies best suited to intercept cargos of contraband; Resources taken from Aeternum controlled hexes without authorization; or Resources passing through Aeternum controlled hexes for possible delivery to parts unknown. Interdiction Contracts will also cover the investigation and potential interference, dismantling or the pressing into the service of Pax Aeternum, any unauthorized POI placed within Pax Aeternum’s area of influence.

If you are looking to trade with Pax, you will "Blue" to The UnNamed Company. If you prearrange your delivery to a Pax settlement, the UnNamed Company will even provide the service of warding off any other bandits and or escorting you to your destination, for a fee. That fee would be handled by a prearranged SAD fee, granting you both our protection (escort) and the "Victimized" flag.

As for the previous question about the UNC being the exclusive company of bandits in Pax lands, that is our intention.

The UNC plans on being a training company (University of Crime = UNC).for the River Kingdom's fledgling bandit population. The cream of the crop will be offered to join UNC...

Sintaqx, I believe you have missed this point by Bludd. I believe it negates the scenario you propose.

For further clarification, currently Pax only plans to "red" known enemies of the kingdom and/or Callambea.

Thus no matter the starting point of your journey, if you are planning to do trade with us you can rest assured your possessions are your own.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My understanding is you're talking about privateering. UNC will wage economic warfare to Pax's benefit. And I assume UNC will have their own schemes on the side.

Think of the colonial days how the British empire would hire crews under the table to go out and harass merchant ships of enemy nations. If Britain were at war with Spain at the time, then the "privateers" would attack Spanish ships but let the French pass.

Goblin Squad Member

Say the Deepforge Company has no formal ties with Pax and wishes to trade with another settlement with neutral feelings toward Pax. While traveling well outside the territory claimed by Pax the caravan is ambushed by the Unnamed Company and doing what brigands do they rob it blind.

Why shouldn't Deepforge or any other company preyed on by the Unnamed Company hold Pax accountable for their ally's actions? Especially considering that the assailants most likely received their equipment and skill training within a Pax settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Lord of Elder Days wrote:

Say the Deepforge Company has no formal ties with Pax and wishes to trade with another settlement with neutral feelings toward Pax. While traveling well outside the territory claimed by Pax the caravan is ambushed by the Unnamed Company and doing what brigands do they rob it blind.

Why shouldn't Deepforge or any other company preyed on by the Unnamed Company hold Pax accountable for their ally's actions? Especially considering that the assailants most likely received their equipment and skill training within a Pax settlement.

This is basically that thing that has made me so hesitant, and still makes me hesitant, when discussing trading with Pax. If the UNC is an official part of your settlement, to trade with you is effectively to sponsor a group of brigands. It goes against my principles as a merchant to do such a thing, regardless of how UNC views me at the moment. Even if I'm green to Pax, I know that at any moment you can declare me enemy of the state and those wolves that I've been keeping healthy and strong with my trading will be turned against me.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
Lord of Elder Days wrote:

Say the Deepforge Company has no formal ties with Pax and wishes to trade with another settlement with neutral feelings toward Pax. While traveling well outside the territory claimed by Pax the caravan is ambushed by the Unnamed Company and doing what brigands do they rob it blind.

Why shouldn't Deepforge or any other company preyed on by the Unnamed Company hold Pax accountable for their ally's actions? Especially considering that the assailants most likely received their equipment and skill training within a Pax settlement.

This is basically that thing that has made me so hesitant, and still makes me hesitant, when discussing trading with Pax. If the UNC is an official part of your settlement, to trade with you is effectively to sponsor a group of brigands. It goes against my principles as a merchant to do such a thing, regardless of how UNC views me at the moment. Even if I'm green to Pax, I know that at any moment you can declare me enemy of the state and those wolves that I've been keeping healthy and strong with my trading will be turned against me.

Any smart bandit would be remiss to bite the hand that feeds them.

I respect your merchant ideals, but I am afraid I disagree. As a neutral merchant base looking to maximize profits, our goods are for those with the coin to pay for them.

The only exception of course would be selling to our own enemies.

On the kingdom or Pax itself branding you an enemy, I would be curious to know what you think would give us justification to make that call. Like we have mentioned, our red list will be deliberately small if the game allows.

Goblin Squad Member

Lord of Elder Days wrote:

Say the Deepforge Company has no formal ties with Pax and wishes to trade with another settlement with neutral feelings toward Pax. While traveling well outside the territory claimed by Pax the caravan is ambushed by the Unnamed Company and doing what brigands do they rob it blind.

Why shouldn't Deepforge or any other company preyed on by the Unnamed Company hold Pax accountable for their ally's actions? Especially considering that the assailants most likely received their equipment and skill training within a Pax settlement.

That is a valid concern, and I don't want you to think my reply to Shane means I am ignoring it.

There is no way to support the good, the bad, and the fabulous without incurring some level of consequence. This might be one of them, but I will allow those over the state department address your concern. They have had more experience with the talks and the agreement that followed.

Goblin Squad Member

If I am understanding things correctly you don't have to be an enemy of Pax to become fair game for the UC. All that is required is that 1) You are outside of Pax territory 2) That you are not formally a friend/ally of Pax.

Goblin Squad Member

Lord of Elder Days wrote:

Say the Deepforge Company has no formal ties with Pax and wishes to trade with another settlement with neutral feelings toward Pax. While traveling well outside the territory claimed by Pax the caravan is ambushed by the Unnamed Company and doing what brigands do they rob it blind.

Why shouldn't Deepforge or any other company preyed on by the Unnamed Company hold Pax accountable for their ally's actions? Especially considering that the assailants most likely received their equipment and skill training within a Pax settlement.

The issue is one of moral fortitude in the whole community. Deepforge may avoid trading with PAX on principle. But if PAX is able to successfully market their services and undercut prices on trading done within their realm versus other realms, then a number of folks who do not care so much will certainly keep them afloat. Walmart in the US is a fabulous example. Most people understand they sell primarily foreign goods made with cheap labor at moderate markup in order to hit quantity of sales. (EDIT: I am not implying walmart supports bandits. But if they did so legally, somehow, I doubt it would stop many people from shopping there) But many of them do not care about greater effects on local economies as they are getting their goods at cheap prices. This is essentially what it is to be Neutral on the good/evil scale.

PAX may lose a few business deals through sponsorship of bandit and other unsavory companies. But for most people, business is business and they will go where they can get what they need for the lowest prices moderated by travel cost and risk.

Goblin Squad Member

Sorry, when I used the phrase "neutral merchant" before I meant neutral politically, not by alignment (though I plan to be both). As a so-called "grey" I would not be exempt from UNC's predations in other areas of the map that are not under Pax control, as Bludd has stated his company will have a NBRI policy outside your lands (and frankly, he wouldn't be much a bandit if he didn't!). So you are going to have a portion of your settlement actively attacking the merchants of neutral settlements.

However, to avoid the UNC's attacks by selling to Pax would be to feed into the UNC, which terrorizes the rest of the map for me. It would be a matter of principle for me to not feed into the system that restricts me in this way, even if it means a hit to my profits. As a merchant who has the potential to not be "blue" to Pax, it's in my best interest if the UNC's activity and power are kept as small as possible, and that's accomplished by not trading to their settlement, among other ways.

Although I am not accusing Pax of being the sort who would do such a thing (you all seem a very amiable sort, honestly), it would be entirely possible for you to suddenly decide you didn't like something I was doing inside your lands and declare me "red". It's not like I'm thinking of a specific thing that I plan to do, but the possibility is there that at any time the machine I would be feeding into can just turn on me. That's why I don't want to put a lot of investment in one place, and that's why I'll be working to keep a good healthy balance of power and open trade lines for a fair and strong market.

Finally, the partnership of Pax (who are looking to be one of the strongest day 1 organizations at the moment) and the UNC has the potential to really mess with the open market, especially if you get a good entrenched position early on and expand your power quickly.

I hope I'm not coming off as too aggressive; I don't actually think you have sinister plans here. But it's like this little saying goes: "I'll let down my guard when people stop giving me reasons to keep it up." I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the mechanics are available, I could see an interesting scenario.

Enemies of Pax might 'hire' their own privateers which then would disguise themselves as UNC and do banditry inside Pax's territory.

Goblin Squad Member

Banesama wrote:

If the mechanics are available, I could see an interesting scenario.

Enemies of Pax might 'hire' their own privateers which then would disguise themselves as UNC and do banditry inside Pax's territory.

I have no doubt that infiltration and other similar tactics will be a lucrative aspect of PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shane Gifford wrote:

Sorry, when I used the phrase "neutral merchant" before I meant neutral politically, not by alignment (though I plan to be both). As a so-called "grey" I would not be exempt from UNC's predations in other areas of the map that are not under Pax control, as Bludd has stated his company will have a NBRI policy outside your lands (and frankly, he wouldn't be much a bandit if he didn't!). So you are going to have a portion of your settlement actively attacking the merchants of neutral settlements.

However, to avoid the UNC's attacks by selling to Pax would be to feed into the UNC, which terrorizes the rest of the map for me. It would be a matter of principle for me to not feed into the system that restricts me in this way, even if it means a hit to my profits. As a merchant who has the potential to not be "blue" to Pax, it's in my best interest if the UNC's activity and power are kept as small as possible, and that's accomplished by not trading to their settlement, among other ways.

Although I am not accusing Pax of being the sort who would do such a thing (you all seem a very amiable sort, honestly), it would be entirely possible for you to suddenly decide you didn't like something I was doing inside your lands and declare me "red". It's not like I'm thinking of a specific thing that I plan to do, but the possibility is there that at any time the machine I would be feeding into can just turn on me. That's why I don't want to put a lot of investment in one place, and that's why I'll be working to keep a good healthy balance of power and open trade lines for a fair and strong market.

Finally, the partnership of Pax (who are looking to be one of the strongest day 1 organizations at the moment) and the UNC has the potential to really mess with the open market, especially if you get a good entrenched position early on and expand your power quickly.

I hope I'm not coming off as too aggressive; I don't actually think you have sinister plans here. But it's like this little saying goes: "I'll let down my...

Completely understandable, on all points. Everyone will have to decide how to weigh risks and rewards, especially when there is a game to play.

It would be hypocrisy for us to take offense at your pragmatism. We applaud it, and hope that the scales balance or tip in our purse's favor as our plans take action in the MMO sphere.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for your time Charlie George. I think it reflects very well on your community that whenever I raise a point in your threads, even when it's a borderline objection to what you've said you're going to do, I've only been met with cordiality and respect. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
Thank you for your time Charlie George. I think it reflects very well on your community that whenever I raise a point in your threads, even when it's a borderline objection to what you've said you're going to do, I've only been met with cordiality and respect. :)

Professionalism is our aim. Thank you for your kind words, they are much appreciated.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there may be a bit of over thinking and not thinking this entirely through.

This agreement is as simple as it has been described and as unrestrictive as you may not be giving it credit for.

The UNC is a sponsored company, but it is not Pax Aeternum. Pax Aeternum has entered into the status of being "In Good Standing" with the UNC, and yet it is not responsible or knowing of all of our actions.

It is desirous of both organizations to make our self interest a mutual interest. With good planning, responsive tweaking, and holding to our common goals, this alliance will be successful. I would even venture to say that it could become a model for how strange bed fellows can in fact build a community that is diverse, mutually beneficial and could lead to great wealth and influence.

Although the UNC has no plans to enter into any other alliance of this nature, we are open to other mutually beneficial relationships. Just as mercenaries and assassins can be hired by many, different settlements or interest groups, so to can bandits be hired for a more economic form of warfare.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord of Elder Days wrote:
If I am understanding things correctly you don't have to be an enemy of Pax to become fair game for the UC. All that is required is that 1) You are outside of Pax territory 2) That you are not formally a friend/ally of Pax.

1. UNC has stated their position previously. That position has not changed. They have been and will be NBRI. You already were fair game for UNC. Understand something, the only thing we did was make it SAFER for those wishing to conduct business with us. If we didn't sponsor UNC, someone else would have. Now those that wish to do business with us have one less thing to worry about.

Again,

Areks wrote:
Here is what you can take to the bank. Callambea will be a trade hub and our actions will foster that. Those wishing to do legitimate business with us will be safe. If you are in our territory and not conducting business with us, expect a face to face visit from us and expect to be subject to Callambean law. That is in line with everything we have said thus far.

2. Even friendly associates of Pax would be fair game outside our borders for the UNC if they weren't coming or going to conduct business with Callambea. That is up to Bluddwolf. That situation makes people uneasy and that is completely understandable.

I pose to you a hypothetical situation. Hobs gets SADed outside our territory. Hobs is a friend of Pax but not formally allied with us. Hobs comes to us with a grievance. It gets talked about in our National Low Consul and it's decided whether or not Hobs has a valid complaint and whether or not what he's got going on deserves an exemption. NLC either comes to a concensus or not. If not, the National High Consul makes the call via vote. That vote could result in Hobs being left alone by us, aided by us, or SADed every single time we see him, and anything in between.

That ruling is now Callambean Law. UNC would have to leave Hobs alone if we ruled in his favor. That is completely hypothetical but very much possible under our terms.

The flip side to that coin is, we allied with bandits. They are going to be bandits.... just not to our detriment. We may not agree with all UNCs targets and we may convene to discuss them, but they have a right to a certain level of autonomy. If Pax infringes too much onto that, UNC can leave the alliance then we are back at square one.

Bluddwolf wrote:
It is desirous of both organizations to make our self interest a mutual interest. With good planning, responsive tweaking, and holding to our common goals, this alliance will be successful. I would even venture to say that it could become a model for how strange bed fellows can in fact build a community that is diverse, mutually beneficial and could lead to great wealth and influence.

That right there is exactly right, Bluddwolf.

So what should everyone take away from this?
1. Again, our actions WILL foster a nurturing environment for trade and commerce. UNC attacking people that frequent Callambea for business outside our borders is counter-productive to Callambea's mission and success.

2. Callambea's success is key to the alliance. Pax is looking to be as profitable as possible without being underhanded. We want to be up front with everything we do. If Callambea does not flourish, UNC is not only hurting Pax, it's hurting itself. Both parties know that and understand that.

3. People who will regularly conduct business with Callambea will not have to fear UNC, although you may occasionally get inspected by them via Interdiction. In all likelihood, you will probably welcome their presence outside our borders as if they are in your presence, you are less likely to be SADed or attacked by other bandit groups. If you purchase from us, we will guarantee that UNC will not harass you.

Goblin Squad Member

So then it's a "with us or against us" approach. Either a merchant actively trades with you, or they're open game for your state sponsored bandits.

Am I reading the intent here right? (Once again, this sounds aggressive but I don't know of a way to ask the question which doesn't. I just want to make sure I understand what this alliance means for me.)

Edit: I'll definitely admit I'm reading way too far into it. But I feel that looking at the worst-case for me helps me to understand the broader picture, no matter how unlikely a worst-case is.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

So then it's a "with us or against us" approach. Either a merchant actively trades with you, or they're open game for your state sponsored bandits.

Am I reading the intent here right? (Once again, this sounds aggressive but I don't know of a way to ask the question which doesn't. I just want to make sure I understand what this alliance means for me.)

Edit: I'll definitely admit I'm reading way too far into it. But I feel that looking at the worst-case for me helps me to understand the broader picture, no matter how unlikely a worst-case is.

With or against us would be a bit unfair, as we will sell to anyone not on our red list (and again we plan for that to be a very small list). You do not have to be a friend or ally of us to buy from us, thus benefiting from a UNC stand down on your caravan.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

So then it's a "with us or against us" approach. Either a merchant actively trades with you, or they're open game for your state sponsored bandits.

Am I reading the intent here right? (Once again, this sounds aggressive but I don't know of a way to ask the question which doesn't. I just want to make sure I understand what this alliance means for me.)

Edit: I'll definitely admit I'm reading way too far into it. But I feel that looking at the worst-case for me helps me to understand the broader picture, no matter how unlikely a worst-case is.

As Areks has already pointed out, you were open game before this alliance was formed. You are likely still open game after it. But, what has changed is that you can at least know under what circumstances you will be able to travel and trade, without being in our sights as a potential target.

This will be a benefit for those doing trade with any settlement within the Nation of Pax Aeternum. This also means that those merchants not trading with Pax Aeternum, will be at greater risk. PFO is about settlement management, control, and conflict. Every settlement will have its friends and rivals, and the UNC intends to play a part in those rivalries and make heafty coin doing so.

I also have faith in the Devs to balance the economic system between merchant and bandits. It is their belief that you will benefit in the long run, even if you occasionally fall prey to banditry.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Bludd & George, my in game relations with Pax will likely get bumped down a few pegs if they're shacking up PFO's most infamous gang of ne'er-do-wells. I'm against bandits like a paladin's against undead. It's just how I intend to play. Instead of wielding a sword against the forces of evil, I'll wield a pocketbook against the forces of banditry. :)

I want to make sure, because it seems I have a habit of getting people's intentions horribly wrong, that what I'm taking out of Areks's post is the basic gist of it, as it relates to someone who doesn't particularly want to trade with Pax, and thus remains a "grey" character.

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps I am taking too simple a view of this but in my eyes the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Goblin Squad Member

Lord of Elder Days wrote:
Perhaps I am taking too simple a view of this but in my eyes the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

So considering the number of mercenaries and assassins, as well as privateers, you're likely to have very few friends and many enemies. There are no fewer than three companies that have requested dealings with the UNC, not including Pax. There are also the few evil settlements that are cropping up, that we intend to support in their efforts to become or remain viable, and perhaps to even flourish.

Holding to the philosophy that the friend if your enemy, is your enemy, is a narrow political view that may not serve your own self interest well. But, to each his own. I'm hoping for a target rich environment and if you wish to fill that role, I thank you for it.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Lord of Elder Days wrote:
Perhaps I am taking too simple a view of this but in my eyes the friend of my enemy is my enemy.
Holding to the philosophy that the friend if your enemy, is your enemy, is a narrow political view that may not serve your own self interest well. But, to each his own. I'm hoping for a target rich environment and if you wish to fill that role, I thank you for it.

This is lawful and straightforwars philosophy, I think. RL politicians love to call themselves good guys and do all the dirty deeds. Our actions in PFO will be sorted by server, not by gullible electorate. So it remains to be seen, where the people with the broad political views will land in alignment field.

In MMO politics are somewhat different than in RL. And PFO will have morals built into the game mechanics.
I sincerely hope, Bludd, that we will provide lot of content for each other. :) See you on the game!

Goblin Squad Member

I doubt that most people will play the political game with RP in mind. Some may, but not everyone.

In all honesty, the people who do... may have problems in anything settlement related.

But on a funny note, I heard Andius is having personal issues in regards to this alliance.

Goblin Squad Member

He is? News to me. It has sort of been expected for some time coming to be honest. I was personally a bit more optimistic on how Pax would choose to do business, but it seems I was incorrect.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

I doubt that most people will play the political game with RP in mind. Some may, but not everyone.

In all honesty, the people who do... may have problems in anything settlement related.

But on a funny note, I heard Andius is having personal issues in regards to this alliance.

I have no control over who posts what, but please at least not here. This isn't what this thread was meant for.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree, there is no need to discuss anything related to a game as being or having a "personal issue".

I have had several discussions with Andius on TS, and they have always been cordial. Although I disagree with him on issues of terminology, their definitions and the nature of Open World PVP, Andius is a good person, albeit a warped sense of purpose IN THE GAME.

That being said, I have no doubt, there is a certain level of surprise over this announcement. For those that say they saw it "all along", that too would be inaccurate.

There are many pieces to this puzzle, and the final ones did not fall into place until the most recent Dev Blog. This is very important to understand, the Dev Blogs have had as much to do with bringing Pax and UNC into this alliance as anything we thought of or desired on our own.

Our plans (which are subject to change, also based on future Dev Blogs)are to create a relationship that is beneficial to both of our companies, but it will also be beneficial to the PFO community as a whole as well (IMHO).

This may be arrogant of me to write but it is what I hope. It is my intention of creating the model of banditry in PFO. One that accomplishes its goal of maximizing fun, wealth and influence without resorting to griefing. Yes, I know some will say that getting robbed is never fun for the victim, and I would counter that that misses the point of an Open World PVP MMORPG. It is a part of the risk vs. reward system and without risk vs. reward PFO would fail miserably.

This agreement, I believe, will advance the goal that I have to create that model of banditry.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

@Bludd & George, my in game relations with Pax will likely get bumped down a few pegs if they're shacking up PFO's most infamous gang of ne'er-do-wells. I'm against bandits like a paladin's against undead. It's just how I intend to play. Instead of wielding a sword against the forces of evil, I'll wield a pocketbook against the forces of banditry. :)

I want to make sure, because it seems I have a habit of getting people's intentions horribly wrong, that what I'm taking out of Areks's post is the basic gist of it, as it relates to someone who doesn't particularly want to trade with Pax, and thus remains a "grey" character.

I'm not quite getting what you are looking for?

1. I completely understand that you will not view a bandit, as a merchant, in a good light. We are each other's rivalry, content, or however you wish to describe it.

2. You are perfectly within your rights to trade or not trade with whomever you choose. You are also free to set your own standings with anyone in the game that you wish, and to what setting that you wish.

3. Your apparent belief that any trader would be "Blue", and not by default "Grey", is a bit confusing to me. Your downgrading your own status to "Grey" is most likely not a change at all, you were already "Grey".

If you are saying you would never want to be considered for "Blue" status, that is fine. But, you should also consider that PAX and UNC may have a different status towards you or anyone else. Even though the difference could be unlikely, it is still possible.

If on the chance that you wish to be considered "Red" by the UNC, or by extension to PAX, then that is where the Feud / War system comes in.

I anticipate and welcome the feud mechanic, and I expect to be in a continuous state of "Feud". This will create the consequence free, target rich environment the UNC has always craved. The bonus of the new Dev Blog is, that FFA circumstance won't be limited to just one area of the map, but it will span the entire map. That is a "WINNING!" change for players like me.

Goblin Squad Member

On point three, George said, and I believe Areks said as well, that anyone who trades with Pax on a regular basis will be considered blue to them. You have said that if Pax sees me as blue, then UNC sees me as blue. This is why I came to the conclusion that merchants will be blue by default, provided they are frequent trade partners with Pax.

I'm just letting Pax know that, no matter their intentions, it is my belief that this alliance will paint them in a bad light for other merchants. I expect that some will indeed comply with Pax and trade frequently to them to avoid predation. I also expect people to not do so, and create that target rich environment you as for :). The only thing I'm trying to convey is that, if they house and support a company with a NBRI policy, it will likely make them several enemies as well as friends. I wonder how they can consider settlements grey then have a section of their own settlement go out and rob those people. I know that personally, if I were a settlement whose merchants frequently came under attack by another settlement, they would be considered an enemy to me.

Or maybe I misinterpreted posts entirely. The UNC is going to be a permanent part of Callambea, yes? I thought that was stated as part of the first post. Also, maybe I'm wrong about merchants to Pax being green. Like I said, I seem to have a habit of interpreting things far from the intent and not paying attention to the important parts. Maybe I simply misread. This is why I'm trying to get things stated a couple times, as clearly as possible; I don't want to mark anyone as an enemy without truly meaning to do so.

Edit: I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I'm trying to change the alliance or something. I fully acknowledge that, as someone on the outside of it, I have no say in what goes on inside Pax or the UNC. I'm simply trying to fully understand how both entities plan on interacting with me, and stating my opinions on the alliance. You are, of course, free to tell me to ship off at any time. I just like talking with you guys; this whole political intrigue bit is new to me as a newcomer to open-world MMO's, and even though I'm not in game yet I'm already enjoying it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a character, Gaskon is deeply disappointed by the announcement of this alliance. He had been hoping to engage in many mutually profitable dealings with the Pax settlements, but he categorically refuses to do business with sponsors of banditry. However, he does grant them some respect for announcing the relationship openly instead of dealing with UNC on the sly, as he assumes many other settlements will do.

As a player, I am fascinated to see how the competing economic models work out. Will enough of the Lawful merchants stick to their principles and boycott Pax for making this alliance?

Or will the lure of potential profits and the personal safety of some limited protection from UNC attacks cause greed to win out?

Will a boycott hurt Pax enough economically that they change their stance, or will it simply drive them farther into the grey market, where most of their materials are stolen instead of purchased and most of their customers are the evil groups that are unwelcome at the more "respectable" trade hubs.

Goblin Squad Member

@Shane - Merchants that trade with us will be blue. When the game starts, those that approach us to do business go from grey to blue. That's about as best as I can describe it to you. If company X are crafters and want to sell their wares in Callambea, they message us and say, "Hey we want to sell our wares in Callambea and they go from grey to blue. Merchants looking to buy may or may not remain grey as we are NRDS so grey is perfectly fine.

Gaskon wrote:
As a character, Gaskon is deeply disappointed by the announcement of this alliance. He had been hoping to engage in many mutually profitable dealings with the Pax settlements, but he categorically refuses to do business with sponsors of banditry. However, he does grant them some respect for announcing the relationship openly instead of dealing with UNC on the sly, as he assumes many other settlements will do.

I am sorry for your disappointment. I am glad that you do see that while we could have executed this and kept it completely to ourselves, and let rumors be rumors, we made the conscious effort to announce it publicly and let the chips fall where they may. If anything we cannot be faulted for not being honest, and where trade and commerce is concerned, honestly will go a long way.

-Areks


@Bluddwolf

I have a question for you.

If i get it right UNC will be a Chaotic Neutral settlement or at least the leader will be. How u will balance the CN(unpredictable)alignment with the terms of alliance with PAX? So, even if im blue to PAX there is always the risk that i will be raided by the UNC due to alinment.

Goblin Squad Member

Thank you for your response, Areks. I hope that you and the UNC can work (or have worked) out a system that is effective for both. Best of luck to both Pax and UNC, and may I see you in game (though I might not be in EE). :)

Goblin Squad Member

Kabal362 wrote:

@Bluddwolf

I have a question for you.

If i get it right UNC will be a Chaotic Neutral settlement or at least the leader will be. How u will balance the CN(unpredictable)alignment with the terms of alliance with PAX? So, even if im blue to PAX there is always the risk that i will be raided by the UNC due to alinment.

I know this was directed at Bludd, but if I may take a stab at it, Kabal.

UNC is defined as CN, but they will not a settlement. The settlement is Callambea which we are planning on being LN. Currently, alignment will be determined by the average character population alignment. While UNC is the first official member to join with us in the Nation of Aeternum, that is simply because they were the first of the organizations we are working with to come to terms with us.

UNC has entered into a contract with us that governs their activities within our territory and how they conduct themselves with characters and organizations that are beneficial to Callambea. That is all the balance Pax and UNC need to work together.

If you are doing business with Callambea, UNC will not raid you. You may be subject to interdiction if we receive information that you are supply goods to our enemies, or smuggling enemy goods into Callambea. That is the only time, if you are doing business with Callambea, that you would have to worry about the UNC and again, ONLY if you were violating Callambean Law.

Goblin Squad Member

Dayum Bluddwolf! Droppin' your panties a year before the game goes live! Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed.

Grats to Pax, nice move.

Goblin Squad Member

Mutually benefitial cannot be understated =)

Goblin Squad Member

avari3 wrote:

Dayum Bluddwolf! Droppin' your panties a year before the game goes live! Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed.

Grats to Pax, nice move.

I was as anxious to announce this news as Pax was, Areks can attest to that. As far as "nice moves", it is a nice move for both of our companies.

When the Devs made it clear that the highest level training would be tied to player settlements, the reality of that changed UNC plans. That is where "Chaotics" have to become "Pragmatists". As some would say, "It is Chaotic (Neutral, Evil) not Chaotic Stupid".

Once the Dev Blog was released, allowing for all of these new ways for companies to go to "war" with each other (Factions, Feuds, etc.), that turned out to be one of the final pieces to the puzzle.

As for why Pax Aeternum?

It was many months ago, when I was first interviewed by Krows and Areks that I realized that we all saw PFO's potential as an Open World PVP MMORPG, in very much the same way.

Krows and Areks also expressed a vision that the Nation of Pax Aeternum would be open to all alignments, and if necessary through having several settlements.

At that time I was still clinging onto ideas of being independent of settlements, especially the tedium of settlement management and obligations. The is when I had spawned the idea of The Brethren of the Wild Lands. But, the next Dev Blog or post dashed those plans.

So how does a chaotic live up to an agreement?

By caring more about gold, then we do about freedom. By caring more about long term wealth acquisition, than about short term windfalls.

We are Chaotic Greedy; Chaotic Self-Interested; Chaotic Ballzy! We think outside of the box, to have more in the box.

Goblin Squad Member

Banesama wrote:

If the mechanics are available, I could see an interesting scenario.

Enemies of Pax might 'hire' their own privateers which then would disguise themselves as UNC and do banditry inside Pax's territory.

As a member of UNC, I am "a pawed" (can't find the right word meaning upset and outraged) and, at the same time, honored that this is even thought up of. I am also jealous that I didn't think if it first.

Also, I think this would be a great use of the disguise mechanic to allow for sabotage and framing. I would honestly be offended if people didn't at least try to do this if this alliance becomes as large and powerful as some foresee.

All I can say is, your welcome to try but don't get caught. There are worse things then death.....

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:
... "a pawed" (can't find the right word meaning upset and outraged)...

I believe the world you're searching for is "appalled".

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
... "a pawed" (can't find the right word meaning upset and outraged)...
I believe the world you're searching for is "appalled".

Yes thank you, I was having a "DERP" moment and spell check wasn't helping LOL. But yes, that is the word I was looking for.

Goblin Squad Member

I have been away for a while with school and Rl stuff (curse you RL!!!!) but I am trying to make more of an effort to be on the forums as I once was. This is a great place to start (IMHO) as I am a senior Officer of UNC.

Basically, after reading all the posts (mainly from Shane, which I have seen no issue with anything you have written) in this thread, I wanted to add my own input.

First off, one thing to consider for all those "upset" at PAX announcing to the PFO world that they are "taking us (UNC) in." Would you have preferred we kept this "under the table" and it get found out later? As Areks said, "Honesty will go a long way."

Remember, it isn't so much the PAX is "Condoning" what we at the UNC do, it is more of "accepting a necessary evil." "Using the tools at hand" is another way to put it. For them, it is a 2 fold win(maybe more) where they are 1) able to offer some protection beyond what their own forces can accomplish, and 2) limit and, to a point, control the amount of banditry and victims of banditry within their realm of control. I say limit because (opposed to popular belief) the UNC is NOT the only bandit company out there. There will be others would we are competing against. Some have stepped forward, others are staying to the shadows. Others will come in OE. Just as PAX will NOT be the only trading hub.

The point I am trying to get across is more just to reword and restate the messages above from the "big guys" of both groups. The UNC get benefits while keeping to our values and freedoms, and PAX get things they want, including someone to do things they would rather not.

Last note: As bludd has said, in this and many a thread over the last nearly year, the goals and aims of the UNC are to not just play the "bad guys" but to do so in a manner that is fun and enjoyable for all, or atleast as many as we can. We are happy to provide the content for bounty hunters and other "good guys" as well as to grant merchants their risk that earns their reward. Several merchants seem to have an issue with bandits, and rightfully so, but they fail to see their purpose. I am not saying you guys should "thank a bandit" or anything, but consider the economic view. If the roads were safe because bandits didn't exist, then everyone would be a merchant and goods would be abundant, meaning value of said goods would decline based simply on their rarity. Having bandits around to steal and SAD goods from merchants, this lowers the quantity of goods in a market, increasing it's "rarity" and increasing it's value.

I will stop there just because I remembered what thread I am in and I am thread jacking here and I am sorry. We can continue this in another thread or in PM if anyone wishes to do so.

Long live the alliance, Long live the UNC, and LONG LIVE THE COIN!!!!

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, it's hard to make posts from the perspective of a merchant without them coming off as a little odd. When I'm saying I want to make sure banditry is kept at a minimum and stuff, I'm not saying it should be a game without bandits. I understand and accept that the bandits add value to my service, and are basically the only way I could make a reasonable profit moving items from one spot to another.

On the other hand, it's not like a merchant can like bandits, y'know? You're going to be taking my stuff, and the only reasonable thing I can see myself doing IC and OOC is trying to reduce the amount of banditry. Although I definitely hope OOC that there is a healthy balance between bandits and merchants such that both professions are kept healthy and active, when discussing what I plan to do in game I try to make sure it makes sense for the character (who is not very likely to go "Yay, more bandits on my roads!") In this particular case, the thing that "grinds my gears" is not that bandits exist, it's that Pax seems to be supporting the bandits and hiring them to do legitimate jobs while sort of turning a blind eye to their banditry (purely an IC objection here; OOC I realize you can make whatever alliances you want, and wish you well in them).

I hope this clarifies why I've posted here so much with my concerns. And I do appreciate the fact that Pax is dealing with the UNC in the open, and discussing the deal with people like me.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Shane,

First I appreciate your actually discussing this topic in an honest and open way.

You also recognize that Pax and UNC are being open as well. Perhaps your question may be, "What are the other companies' / settlement's plans for using banditry, assassination and mercenaries as a means to secure and advance their power and influence?"

I can't imagine that you think only Pax / UNC will be the only ones using acts of banditry to secure their own territorial resource rights or to hinder their rival's economic growth. We may be the first ones to admit it, but we are not the only ones the are going to do it.

This is the reality of the Open World PvP MMORPG. I think many on these boards are just unfamiliar with thus genre or have allowed the opinions of a very vocal, and very few to taint their impression of the genre.

"You are never Safe"
"Only Carry What You Can Afford To Lose"
"It is All About the Gold"

This is the mantra of Open World PvP MMORPGs, or at least from the most successful one in history (Eve Online).

Now, if you want to replace "Gold" with whatever "Self Interest" your company holds, that is in line with the basic premise of the mantra.

Goblin Squad Member

Indeed, I am very open to admitting that perhaps I am operating on false assumptions. If many settlements are willing to take on and support bandit companies, I'll probably have to rethink my character's motives in trade. After all, I can't just not trade with every major settlement if they all use bandits in some way. Like you say, I haven't had much experience in a game like this before (the reason I'm excited for this sandbox MMO is because the devs are giving more structure to the sandbox so that more interesting things happen more frequently. I've avoided them in the past because of the stereotypes about them being pure gankfests, as I don't really want to play that sort of character).

I suppose what it comes down to for me is to get into game and see where everyone stands. If it turns out that most organizations will train up and use bandits on neutral merchants frequently, then I'll have to rethink my stance on this matter. If, on the other hand, there is a big enough network of settlements who don't use bandits (or at least, settlements which under investigation seem to not use bandits), I can stay with my current assumptions. Either way, thank you for your insight.

Edit: I know Pax doesn't plan to actually use bandits on neutral merchants. That's the UNC's agenda, which is separate from Pax's agenda. But if bandits go out, mug people, then come back and spend the coin to get training and gear at Callambea, what is the difference to an outsider?

Goblin Squad Member

The difference is this, Shane. There is completely a possibly that you will skate by unnoticed or undetected. There is completely a possibility that you will get held up and robbed outside our territory. That coin may or may not come back to Callambea, depending on if it was UNC doing the robbing or not.

What we can guarantee is that if you do business with us, UNC will not harass you. This is exactly what I am talking about when I speak about how honesty will go a long way.

There will be settlements, that will secretly employ Bandits and will not guarantee your safety, no matter if you do business with them or not. They may not hit you often, but in the end you get no real guarantee from them about anything. Are they going to hit you after a major purchase?

Those are questions that you do not have to worry about when you do business with Callambea.

While many people may look at this and shake their heads, thinking to themselves, "Well there goes me doing business with Callambea." Think that if you want to, but keep in mind that we are the first ones to state that we will deal with bandits openly and guarantee your safety from them.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Areks wrote:
Keep in mind that we are the first ones to state that we will deal with bandits openly and guarantee your safety from them.

That's more than a little disingenuous, Areks. You are only guaranteeing safety in your own lands when blue or on your own terms, ie those who are trading directly with PAX. You are also making it proportionately more dangerous for those who are not trading with PAX (whether permanently or just on this one deal).

Not only are you removing targets which the bandits of UNC might go after by guaranteeing this safe passage if on PAX business, thereby reducing the pool from which they choose their victims and thus raising the odds of being hit, you are also going to be training those bandits to boot. What you are effectively doing is saying trade with us or get hit. Oh and get hit all the harder because we've helped the bandits. This also means you have to make it public, or it won't work as a carrot and stick approach (people cannot be both reassured and frightened by something they don't know about), so I'm afraid I'll take your protestations of honesty as window dressing. Now, I am not complaining, because I think it's an interesting take on trying to establish market supremacy from the get go and it will be informative to see how it pans out through EE and into OE. It might work, it might not.

It is essentially armed coercion - trade with us or else. PAX has every right to take that line, as does the UNC. I think it will be beneficial for both companies - it will certainly be beneficial for PfO as it is already generating "player content". But it won't truly be beneficial for Bob from the Green Hat Trading Company; it attempts to curtail his markets and threatens to punish him if he decides to trade elsewhere. However many declarations of honesty and/or protection under very specific circumstances you make, you can't get around that fact.

Goblin Squad Member

How did someone else get a green hat?

Goblin Squad Member

You gave it to him in your newbie starter pack?

Goblin Squad Member

...because I always hand out "PK me please" green hats to newbies...

Goblin Squad Member

I like to think of them as "Don't PK me please" hats...

51 to 100 of 304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Kingdom of Aeternum and the UnNamed Company- Terms of Alliance All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.