Waging War on Companies For the Actions of Specific Members


Pathfinder Online

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
What do facts and reason matter to a tyrant?

Obviously, "Nothing".

However, in a gaming environment where characters can not be permanently killed, a tyrant's power is fleeting. Eventually he will be left playing in the sand box alone.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Being wrote:
What do facts and reason matter to a tyrant?

Obviously, "Nothing".

However, in a gaming environment where characters can not be permanently killed, a tyrant's power is fleeting. Eventually he will be left playing in the sand box alone.

Player characters cannot be permanently killed but their assets and time may not be recoverable. Andius will attempt to kill me on sight anyway because I dare speak my mind to him as I do to anyone, but let's say he's leader of my settlement. I have years in that settlement, friendships and investments. Nihimon advises me that Andius is guilty of some great crime. I have to decide whether to abandon all that I have invested and leave my friends because of some rumor that nefarious Nihimon fellow shared with me. I have no way to know if the rumor is true, but I also know that unless I run for it T7V's bloodthirsty assassins will kill and teabag me relentlessly.

Does anyone see a problem with that scenario? L2P? U mad bro?

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Being wrote:
What do facts and reason matter to a tyrant?

Obviously, "Nothing".

However, in a gaming environment where characters can not be permanently killed, a tyrant's power is fleeting. Eventually he will be left playing in the sand box alone.

Player characters cannot be permanently killed but their assets and time may not be recoverable. Andius will attempt to kill me on sight anyway because I dare speak my mind to him as I do to anyone, but let's say he's leader of my settlement. I have years in that settlement, friendships and investments. Nihimon advises me that Andius is guilty of some great crime. I have to decide whether to abandon all that I have invested and leave my friends because of some rumor that nefarious Nihimon fellow shared with me. I have no way to know if the rumor is true, but I also know that unless I run for it T7V's bloodthirsty assassins will kill and teabag me relentlessly.

Does anyone see a problem with that scenario? L2P? U mad bro?

Share screenshots/chatlogs of the 'advisements' with your friends. If they are your friends, with years of history between you, the friendship strengthens, the assassins find you well protected, and the rumormonger is exposed before the world as an untrustworthy $#@^&.

protip: notice that the truth or falseness of the rumor does not enter in to that , at all.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:
Harad Navar wrote:
Andius wrote:
Leadership has the ability to punish or remove their membership if they feel they have stepped out of line.
Hypothetically, if the Leadership is out of line, what is the recourse of the company membership?
Leave or revolt.

Yeah, but, what if there is a revolt, your leadership is out, and then he starts always whining on the forums, that it's unfair ?

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Being wrote:
What do facts and reason matter to a tyrant?

Obviously, "Nothing".

However, in a gaming environment where characters can not be permanently killed, a tyrant's power is fleeting. Eventually he will be left playing in the sand box alone.

Player characters cannot be permanently killed but their assets and time may not be recoverable. Andius will attempt to kill me on sight anyway because I dare speak my mind to him as I do to anyone, but let's say he's leader of my settlement. I have years in that settlement, friendships and investments. Nihimon advises me that Andius is guilty of some great crime. I have to decide whether to abandon all that I have invested and leave my friends because of some rumor that nefarious Nihimon fellow shared with me. I have no way to know if the rumor is true, but I also know that unless I run for it T7V's bloodthirsty assassins will kill and teabag me relentlessly.

Does anyone see a problem with that scenario? L2P? U mad bro?

I should think that you will make your decision based on just two factors:

1. Is your current association benefitting you?
2. Does the current leadership provide the best possible support for me in pursuing my goals?

What some outsider says about your leadership should not be a factor.

Grand Lodge

Bluddwolf wrote:

What some outsider says about your leadership should not be a factor.

True, however, what your peers say about your leadership tells another story.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like Kitsunes response the best.

In PFO, I have no problem with anyone waging war on any company for any reason, including that they butter thier sandwiches on the left side of the bread and/or (especialy) if they don't like bacon (who doesn't like bacon?)

However, keep it about the game not the players. If you are attacking someone because you don't like the player then it is generaly unhealthy for both you and the game... and ultimately unsatisfying because slashing a bunch of pixels doesn't really resolve anything or change anything about the situation and after the 10th time or so you've done that you'll come to that epiphany. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree with you Mel, but remember the separation between player and their agent characters can occasionally be tenuous or even non-existent. I think most general rules-of-thumb must also allow for exceptional cases.

Scarab Sages

Companies and settlements must have diplomats for fix the ponctual conflicts to not evolve on war/feud.

Sometimes the tensions were so high that determinated Company only need any excuses to War (it was said real life exemples over the thread). Normally, when the issues is one player to another players, the conflict stick in those level, or will be fixd with a little of dialogue and amends.

Again: Unless Company/Settlement/Nation have anothers reasons to assume the conflict, the personal issues stay at diplomatic level.

I know there are more water rolling under this bridge, but this is my general point.

Goblin Squad Member

It sounds like the issue is can a leader use their organization to pursue their own personal agenda, as in drag everyone into a war because you want to 'get' someone. If you win I suppose you can get away with it.

Goblin Squad Member

I try to separate "character" from "personal". It seems easier in TT than MMOs.

Damnit Jim! I'm just a Spin Doctor, not a Vulcan.

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
It sounds like the issue is can a leader use their organization to pursue their own personal agenda, as in drag everyone into a war because you want to 'get' someone. If you win I suppose you can get away with it.

And in theory, by winning, everyone in your association gains.

Goblin Squad Member

In the long term, people organically sort into groups with leaders who actually do share their philosophies, goals, and ideas about good play.

In the short term, that sorting process is sometimes unpleasant.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:


However, keep it about the game not the players. If you are attacking someone because you don't like the player then it is generaly unhealthy for both you and the game... and ultimately unsatisfying because slashing a bunch of pixels doesn't really resolve anything or change anything about the situation and after the 10th time or so you've done that you'll come to that epiphany. YMMV.

I disagree. Attacking a player because you dislike them is perfectly healthy. Sure, you might take a rep hit, but that's part of the game. People need to be held accountable for how they act in or out of the game. If someone acts douchey on the forums then he needs to be ready to have it taken out on him in game.

Assertions to keep the in game and out of game separate are a bit naive. Can't expect to act like a total ass on the forums and be treated like a saint in game because that's your rp story.

And let's be honest. If you kill someone in game that you dislike, you're going to take a bit more satisfaction out of it than killing random bob.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:

In the long term, people organically sort into groups with leaders who actually do share their philosophies, goals, and ideas about good play.

In the short term, that sorting process is sometimes unpleasant.

And we have the added issue that the game hasn't truly started yet - so you have to follow some opinions posted somewhere or propaganda - unless you know players from elsewhere.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
It sounds like the issue is can a leader use their organization to pursue their own personal agenda, as in drag everyone into a war because you want to 'get' someone. If you win I suppose you can get away with it.
And in theory, by winning, everyone in your association gains.

Yup. As long as they are doing well by following the leader into wars and feuds then they might stay satisfied. If all of the company Influence ends up spent on the leader's personal goals, and the rest of the company isn't seeing a lot of payout, just repair bills, 'winning' might not keep the company together.

Goblin Squad Member

Anger management can be a crucial social skill, especially for those with unstable or chemically imbalanced metabolisms.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:

I try to separate "character" from "personal". It seems easier in TT than MMOs.

Damnit Jim! I'm just a Spin Doctor, not a Vulcan.

I think part of the difficulty is in naming. If Bringslite is a character name and a forum name, they get merged. At the TT, the figure on the table is Bringslite the Fighter and the guy drinking the beer at the table is Al; he's a trucker.

I figure if people don't want to merge their forum persona and their in-game persona, they'll use two different names. Urman in game will have a similar personality to Urman in forum; I'm too lazy to maintain two separate personas.

The other method is to do like Guurzak does: it is very clear when he is in game persona and when he isn't. He has the discipline to keep his game persona out of discussion of game mechanics, for example. I have much less problem with separating his two personas.


We are close to the point were we need a christmas special episode.

Goblin Squad Member

My concern with Andius' vendetta against certain people/groups that it will spill over to griefing and at some point might get him suspended or banned from PFO if he goes to far. As much as I don't like how Andius has handled things, I don't want him to be kicked out of PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

Brutus Bellator wrote:
We are close to the point were we need a christmas special episode.

Agreed.

Goblin Squad Member

Brutus Bellator wrote:
We are close to the point were we need a christmas special episode.

Yes!

Goblin Squad Member

Let's consider the other side of the question as it is written.

If a few members of Company X harass your settlement and will not stop, and the leadership of company x doesn't inform the rest of the company of what is going on, will it be kosher for the constituent companies of your settlement to issue feuds to the company whose few members are misbehaving?

First glance: I think so.

Goblin Squad Member

Did someone say Christmas Special!

Goblin Squad Member

@Doggan,

I respect your right to disagree. However, I would offer the following for your consideration. Killing a character in game litteraly has zero effect on the player behind the character... at least if they have a healthy level of detatchment between the game and real life. If they are an arse on the forums, they will still be an arse on the forums. If they were obnoxious to you in chat, they will still continue to be obnoxious to you in chat. If you had a beef with them over something they did outside of the game, the beef will still be there.

It may give you a fleeting moment of satisfaction the first time or two you do it but then you will realize that it is all just pixels and essentialy meaningless. Further trying to astro-turf someone elses enjoyment of the game because you have an OOC beef with them is not healthy for the game community and can very easly spiral into 2 (or more) players trying to ruin each others enjoyment of the game....and you will come to quickly realize that there are hundreds of ways that the player of a character you can kill in the blink of an eye can still astro-turf your enjoyment of the game. This can also negatively impact other players not directly involved in the situation and can even spiral to the point where GW staff have to get involved.

About the only luck I've ever had with killing a character in game to have a positive effect on the player out of game was to get the attention of a player brand new to the game and unfamiliar to me long enough to understand that running around RPKing everyone in sight wasn't a particularly effective way to advance in the game or the community because there will always be someone stronger around that won't tolerate such behavior. That worked because the player wasn't really a jerk or setting out to be a jerk but was new to the game and didn't really understand how it was intended to be played and what the expectations of the player base were. If they were really intending to be a jerk, it wouldn't have worked...nor was it the killing that actualy made the difference... it just got them to hold still long enough to listen and talk.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

Let's consider the other side of the question as it is written.

If a few members of Company X harass your settlement and will not stop, and the leadership of company x doesn't inform the rest of the company of what is going on, will it be kosher for the constituent companies of your settlement to issue feuds to the company whose few members are misbehaving?

First glance: I think so.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as a company is willing to spend Influence to wage a feud, it's fine. Any number of wars or feuds have been launched over imagined insults, fabricated border incidents, mistakes and other 'bad' reasons. I think GW has the right idea to let us skip all of the justification and pretense. If you have the Influence to spend you can declare a feud.

The place where the reason for the feud is most important is inside the company declaring the feud. Is leadership responsibly using the Influenced gained by members, or at least to the members' satisfaction? If the membership is fine with how their Influence is spent then there's no problem. If they don't accept the reasoning, then there's trouble in River City.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed some posts and their responses, and locking. Threads that are created just to bait others aren't OK here. Let's drop the previous drama from other threads and move on. Also, if you have an issue with our moderation practices, you can email webmaster@paizo.com.

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Waging War on Companies For the Actions of Specific Members All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online