Goblin Squad Member
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Brighthaven is the name of the settlement The Empyrean Order will be using our landrush votes to establish. Brighthaven will be a neutral good settlement established with two main purposes in mind. First, to offer the absolute best training and services for good-aligned players to be found in any settlement. Second, to be one of the safest and most vibrant places in all of Golarion for players to trade and conduct business.
There are some things about Brighthaven that may surprise you:
1. We are not looking to build a TEO settlement. We are looking to establish a settlement founded on the principles of equality, justice, and a desire to improve the community which TEO can call home.
2. You do not need to be a TEO member or subordinate to TEO in order to live here.
3. We will be running a merit based system where representation is based on your group's contributions, and TEO's contributions will be measured on the same metric as everyone else's.
4. At the moment, Andius has no intent to run for the executive role of this settlement. He feels his talents and temperament are much better suited for a military position.
There are a lot of great reasons to join Brighthaven but let me outline a few:
• Brighthaven aims to have the best training and facilities offered by any good aligned group.
• Brighthaven is backed by a major company, but all member groups enjoy equal treatment under it's laws.
• Brighthaven's pro-entrepreneurship, pro-trade atmosphere makes it a great place to call home for crafters, traders, and PVEers.
• Brighthaven has PvP oriented members willing to offer training to any group pursuing a protector type role.
• Brighthaven will not allow it's members to kill or rob without just cause. This is a city whose ideals you can take pride in.
• You can rise to power within Brighthaven and even aspire to the office of governor.
We'd really love to hear from other groups interested in joining up with us in the formation of Brighthaven, so they can be part of the process of creating it. While we already have a lot of great ideas on how to run things, none are set in cement. Feel free to PM us here, register on our boards, or post here in this topic.
Commonly Asked Questions
Q: Can our group maintain our own points of interest outside Brighthaven and remain members of the settlement?
A: As the plan stands so far, territory taken by a member group of Brighthaven belongs to the group who claims it unless they claim it in Brighthaven's name.
Q: How will we be equal to TEO?
A: While we can't give the exact details this early, the intent is to run Brighthaven as a republic. Each group will be given representatives on a basis of how many members they have, and how actively those members are contributing to Brighthaven. TEO will be measured by the same standard as everyone else when determining how many representatives we have. If your group grows larger and more active than TEO, you could actually wield more power than us within this settlement.
Q: If I join Brighthaven, will I be forced into wars against it's enemies?
A: Brighthaven's central government will operate on a policy to avoid declaring aggressive wars unless faced with either an imminent threat or a persistent menace that is unable to be resolved without settlement-level action. Brighthaven's mission is to provide a safe and positive environment for its members. As such, opening members to assault from enemy factions should be considered a very serious matter. Participation in defensive measures will be voluntary for members of Brighthaven, though highly encouraged. It is our hope to be strong enough to fend off such attacks only through willing volunteers. The loss of points of interest, access to resources in neighboring hexes, or even the sacking of the settlement proper will have negative repercussions across the entirety of the population. We will not require you to march to war. But your participation or lack thereof could be the tipping point in an otherwise close battle.
Q: What would I be giving up to join?
A: Though the precise tax rate will depend on both the game mechanics and community feedback, there are plans for a very modest tax on property owners and harvesting operations. Additionally, as a good-aligned settlement, there will likely be restrictions on who members can kill, and who member groups can go to war with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From a more personal note, I just wish to emphasize the fact that everything about this settlement proposition is still a work in progress. The mission statement holds fairly true, but all policy is open to discussion among those who seek to sign on.
Also, I wish to emphasize again that the intent is to be a TEO-backed settlement and not a TEO-owned settlement. Upon reviewing our internal mission statements, we feel that a collaborative community effort is the place to be as opposed to trying to convince others to be vassals. If there is not enough community interest, we in TEO believe we have the strength to make this settlement happen as a solo endeavor. But it will be far more rewarding for us to join the good-aligned community in a shared effort.
Please feel free to discuss and ask questions!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me be the first to congratulate you on the announcement of this settlement. Also, let me express that Pax Gaming and Pax Aeternum look forward to seeing how your settlement initiative develops.
Pathfinder Online NEEDS a "Brighthaven".
Again, congratulations and good luck in your endeavor to solidify a place for the goodly folk of the River Kingdoms to call home!
Areks Kel'Goran
Thane Blade of Pax Aeternum
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, Congratulations on your announcement.
Being someone interested in serving the community has a "helping hand" and wandering the lands of the River Kingdoms, healing and defending those in need, I have a few questions.
How does a solo traveler, unaffliloated with any company or other settlement gain access to or become a citizen of Brighthaven?
As someone who intends to craft natural remedies and healign salves, for the purpose of healing those in need, will I be taxed for my wares even if I give them away freely?
Although your settleemnt is declared a Neutral Good settleemnt, do you have plans on building and maintaining Lawful Good structures? Of particular interest to me are monestaries and or temples dedicated to Irori.
As it is my intention to play this character, a Destiny's Twin, as a Lawful Good Monk of the highest reputation and a completely separate entity from my other character, what is your settlement's stance as it relates to disparate Mains and DTs?
PS. This post is written in the best of intentions and in all serousness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a community effort, we do not have all of this solidified, as we wish community feedback.
What I would campaign for is...
Unaffiliated members are free to join. How representation fits into that is subject to development.
Taxation for donation of wares seems counter-productive to a good society. Gathering materials within the territory for such wares may be subject to taxation, but perhaps a portion of wares donated to a 'Defense Storage' unit for dispensation to defenders when under siege could suffice. The ideal is to keep such taxes fairly small though.
We hope to maintain both Lawful Good and Chaotic Good training buildings if resources allow. It is too early to commit to specific structures until we know more about how much building space will be available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for having quite the disparity between your two characters, that is not an issue that has been discussed for Brighthaven internally yet. Definitely room for discussion there. There may be security concerns, but there is always security concerns. And the ones you know are usually more tolerable than the ones you don't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As for having quite the disparity between your two characters, that is not an issue that has been discussed for Brighthaven internally yet. Definitely room for discussion there. There may be security concerns, but there is always security concerns. And the ones you know are usually more tolerable than the ones you don't.
I very much appreciate this response. As someone capable of role playing two very different characters, and believe it or not, capable of keeping them "unaware" of each other, your stance is very welcome.
Of course I would not expect that "Qiang Tian Zsu" would ever be more than a welcomed visitor or at most a citizen (and this is doubtful as part of my character concept).
Again, much appreciated response Lifedragn
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Diella - Unaffiliated members are definitely welcome. And probably a key beneficiary, without having companies to otherwise support them. We will endeavor to make sure unaffiliated parties have a straight-forward and painless path to citizenship.
@Aeioun - Each sword standing strong against the dark is another citizen who may safely wield a plowshare to keep their family fed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is a question for you all, and hopefully a Dev might respond as well. It is my understanding that:
1. An NPC Starter Settlement is safest and limits training, both in scope and sequence. It's DI is static and therefore it can not grow beyond those limitations it began with.
2. A PC settlement with enough low rep citizens is more dangerous and limits training, in both scope and sequence. Its DI is dynamic, but its growth is limited by the choices of some of its citizens.
3. A second PC settlement with enough high rep citizens is less dangerous ( more limits on PvP) and limits training, in both scope and sequence. Its DI is dynamic, but its growth is limited by the choices of some of its citizens.
At what point is the limitations of two settlements, one low rep with wide open pvp windows and one high rep with limited PvP windows, equal?
* I'm using the term "Windows" to include all opportunities for PvP (Sanctioned).
My belief is, if a settlement limits sanctioned PvP within its borders, it should have a consequence or trade off for that in limiting its DI. Not as limited as the NPC Starter settlement, but not as unlimited as a settlement with a more open policy for sanctioned PvP.
TL; DR. Sanctioned PvP should not hurt the development index of a settlement. But, limiting sanctioned PvP should.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a question for you all, and hopefully a Dev might respond as well. It is my understanding that:
1. An NPC Starter Settlement is safest and limits training, both in scope and sequence. It's DI is static and therefore it can not grow beyond those limitations it began with.
2. A PC settlement with enough low rep citizens is more dangerous and limits training, in both scope and sequence. Its DI is dynamic, but its growth is limited by the choices of some of its citizens.
3. A second PC settlement with enough high rep citizens is less dangerous ( more limits on PvP) and limits training, in both scope and sequence. Its DI is dynamic, but its growth is limited by the choices of some of its citizens.
At what point is the limitations of two settlements, one low rep with wide open pvp windows and one high rep with limited PvP windows, equal?
* I'm using the term "Windows" to include all opportunities for PvP (Sanctioned).
My belief is, if a settlement limits sanctioned PvP within its borders, it should have a consequence or trade off for that in limiting its DI. Not as limited as the NPC Starter settlement, but not as unlimited as a settlement with a more open policy for sanctioned PvP.
TL; DR. Sanctioned PvP should not hurt the development index of a settlement. But, limiting sanctioned PvP should.
While a perfectly good question bludd may I suggest starting a thread on it so as not to derail a recruitment thread
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ ZenPagan
My question is concerning what a prospective settlement may or may not be able to offer in the way of training. This question is as legitimate here as it is in Aeternum or Golgatha, but this thread was the most recent when the thought hit me.
I also have the perception, possibly false, that an assumption is being made that high rep settlements such as Brighthaven will offer the highest level of training. With two possible sliders impacting DI, I'm wondering at what point does one balance the other out?
What do the settlement managers of Brighthaven believe would or should be the case? I do have a stake in this question, because I do plan on playing a Lawful Good Monk, and Brighthaven is the only declared good aligned settlement project.
Finally, I did not consider this a recruitment thread but a policy thread. There is somewhat of a difference between recruiting for a company and soliciting citizens for a settlement, in my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd greatly appreciate that line of questions having its own thread so all settlement leaders can answer without hijacking Brighthaven's thread.
Secondly, whether a company or a settlement, they are soliciting for interest and I consider that recruitment.
Again, we should be doing what we can to ensure this settlement succeeds, not trouble shoot it to death. Also, last I checked your DI limit was based on your "open to PvP" window already.
Back to Brighthaven.
@lifedragn - has TSV or DFC weighed in on Brighthaven yet? Would good aligned members of another organization be allowed to train here?
@Lifedragn Posting here to show my support, you have one more protector.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ ZenPagan
My question is concerning what a prospective settlement may or may not be able to offer in the way of training.
...
I also have the perception, possibly false, that an assumption is being made that high rep settlements such as Brighthaven will offer the highest level of training. With two possible sliders impacting DI, I'm wondering at what point does one balance the other out?
What do the settlement managers of Brighthaven believe would or should be the case? I do have a stake in this question, because I do plan on playing a Lawful Good Monk, and Brighthaven is the only declared good aligned settlement project.
Finally, I did not consider this a recruitment thread but a policy thread. There is somewhat of a difference between recruiting for a company and soliciting citizens for a settlement, in my opinion.
Our hopes is that Brighthaven ultimately reaches a very high point to become a premier location for the training of Good-aligned characters, and pretty darn good for more neutrally oriented craftsmen and "citizen" roles. In addition, we would like to provide a very strong atmosphere of safety around the settlement.
That being said, we understand that PvP windows will and should limit our growth opportunity. As there are a number of details that would need to be worked out by the ultimate group deciding our finished charter, I can lay out what I envision. But let me state that 1) This is highly speculative based on known mechanics, 2) This settlement is originally Andius's idea so he may have words for this as well. I just support the idea to make it my personal mission and am willing to get out front and lead the charge on this one and 3) This settlement is not a TEO controlled settlement and the final layout will be determined by a cooperative group of invested stakeholders.
What I envision is a natural growth cycle where we keep our PvP windows closed at a point that provides room for the city to grow DIs. As we near a DI growth cap we will need to investigate how well our Player Guard is maintaining the safety of the city during the open PvP windows. If we have the player strength to open them further without declaring open season on our non-PvP citizenry then we shall do so in order to reap the benefits of growth.
The goal is a completely open PvP window so that we do not have capped growth. However, we do not expect to start at the height of greatness and understand the need to balance our growth and safety abilities. Our limit will ultimately be defined by whether or not we have enough PvP-minded defenders to put teeth into our anti-PvP laws and to protect our trade routes.
In the periods where we do not have those defenders, it will be up to the council and citizenry to make decisions about whether the potential for further growth is worth the additional risk based on the current state of the realm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ LifeDragn,
That was a well reasoned and honest answer and I appreciate that. As I have said, my two characters will be very different from each other. While I doubt very much Bluddolf would set foot in Brighthaven, it is very likely that my Monk would. I plan to have my Monk be far more well traveled than my bandit.
Brighthaven might not be the only Good aligned settlement, I'm sure even you hope it won't be, I do hope that it will flourish and provide that contrast.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I personally hope to see plenty of good-aligned settlements, of different flavors. I am imagining even the largest settlements will only have a handful of specializations. And having trustworthy contacts in other regions will be vital for trade. Though Brighthaven itself will likely do plenty of business with neutral-aligned parties, Brighthaven will likely have strongest ties with other settlements of similar worldviews.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While killing has been rated an evil event, and should have appropriate restriction in a good environment; robbing is an illegal activity and should have broader allowance in neutral communities, even in neutral communities where it is illegal. There are many exceptions.
In what cases would robbing (SAD) be permitted? Would you accept similar agreement to UNC that PAX has made, namely that UNC will not rob any party bound to or from Brighthaven. In return they will be accepted into Brighthaven. If they have killed, without proper exception, they would not be accepted.
If all are expected to follow all the laws of Brighthaven, how does that make it different from the LG #@*%(@!#$ down the road.
Q to the devs. could UNC be party to more than one community.
Q2 to devs: Brighthaven speaks to membership of unaffiliated in the settlement. Do the rules support this or must a character be part of some company to be part of settlement? Can an unaffiliated member be part of more than one settlement? Can they be a participant in more than one settlement?
Need to hear more from TEO about political rights of unaffiliated. Can they elect an unaffiliated rep to government?
Within government, what happens to offices when TEO is out voted? Is it peaceful or does it requires a coupe? Guaranteed? What is a guarantee in lawful neutral site.
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
robbing is an illegal activity
This may or not be the case, depending on the mechanics for settlement governance. "You have what you hold" is a River Freedom, thus making SAD a possibly lawful mechanic.
However, in the case of Brighthaven, I would say that you are probably right. Robbing in a neutral good settlement is likely to be a chaotic act despite the River Freedoms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Brighthaven knows who its friends are.
@lifedragn - has TSV or DFC weighed in on Brighthaven yet?I would certainly hope so. Allow me to rephrase the question.
What parties have officially thrown in with TEO for Brighthaven thus far?
To my knowledge, only those who have publicly announced it in this thread. It is still early on, however.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While killing has been rated an evil event, and should have appropriate restriction in a good environment; robbing is an illegal activity and should have broader allowance in neutral communities, even in neutral communities where it is illegal. There are many exceptions.
In what cases would robbing (SAD) be permitted? Would you accept similar agreement to UNC that PAX has made, namely that UNC will not rob any party bound to or from Brighthaven. In return they will be accepted into Brighthaven. If they have killed, without proper exception, they would not be accepted.
If all are expected to follow all the laws of Brighthaven, how does that make it different from the LG #@*%(@!#$ down the road.
Q to the devs. could UNC be party to more than one community.
Q2 to devs: Brighthaven speaks to membership of unaffiliated in the settlement. Do the rules support this or must a character be part of some company to be part of settlement? Can an unaffiliated member be part of more than one settlement? Can they be a participant in more than one settlement?
Need to hear more from TEO about political rights of unaffiliated. Can they elect an unaffiliated rep to government?
Within government, what happens to offices when TEO is out voted? Is it peaceful or does it requires a coupe? Guaranteed? What is a guarantee in lawful neutral site.
Lam
Again, these things will be decided upon by the larger representative body of Brighthaven, and I can only share a current hope and vision.
Robbery and Murder of innocents (by definitions Brighthaven would establish) would be prohibited. I would hope these codes of conduct extend beyond our territories for all citizens of the settlement. Brighthaven's legal permissiveness occurs in situations with known Hostiles and transgressors (again defined by Brighthaven). An example could be the use of SAD to attempt to reclaim stolen gear, or as a way to disrupt supply lines of an enemy force. I view Brighthaven as not so chaotic to allow members to act as they wish outside of the settlement, but not so strict as to have laws that are written out in black and white.
The exact representative system to be used in Brighthaven is still up in the air. We would like to work out a meritocratic system where Active and Contributing members have more sway than Non-Active or Disassociated members. We would also like to explore ways for promoting the retention of Good-aligned policies, potentially drafted into a constitution. As for unaffiliated, it depends upon your definition. Citizenship in Brighthaven will be required to make a bid for elected office. However it will be fully possible for a citizen who is a member of no company to run for and potentially even win office.
If and when a time comes where TEO holds absolutely no office in Brighthaven, our support is to remain with the settlement so long as the larger organization believes the spirit of Brighthaven, a shining beacon of Good and safety in the realm, is in tact.
In the event the settlement somehow drifts away from this role in the world, and popular opinion in the settlement is so strong that the current direction is appropriate that TEO is unable to win office again. Or the settlement is somehow co-opted by sinister forces, our organization would likely pull our support and look for a new home more appropriate to our vision.
We fully understand that not 'owning' the settlement puts it under risk for getting away from our vision of it. But we are hoping to draw enough support from others that share our vision to begin with, that we are able to mitigate such risk through popular support in the settlement itself. For TEO, the vision is the purpose of this undertaking, not the power of political office.
Finally, as for making treaties and alliances with Bandit groups. In my opinion, chances are low that Bandit companies would be welcome within the settlement. For Brighthaven to stand as being an example of Good in the world, it would look pretty poor for it to engage in such open-faced hypocrisy. That being said, I would not rule out the opportunity for one-off business dealings. Not being Lawful allows for some flexibility under circumstances of duress, such as if someone has declared war against Brighthaven itself and a little Chaos behind enemy lines could help out. These situations are likely to be rare, but not entirely off the table. Though, once again, such is how I would run the settlement but none of it is set in stone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a member of TEO, I can verify that everything Lifedragn is posting is accurate. TEO wants Brighthaven to be a beacon of light, to encourage cooperation of good-aligned people and to generate a community within the game.
We need a place for anyone to go, feel safe and accepted... to meet like-minded people, to train, to drink and gamble, and bring life to the game world!
I would encourage all like minded people and groups to join this cause!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Never robbing is the absence of a chaotic act... but that is a topic for another thread.
I'm personally curious to hear if good aligned Pax members would be welcomed to train here.
That will likely be determined by how much training room is available. We will have to be pragmatic in that if we are constrained by training ability, Citizens will get first priority. Followed by any official allied groups. Our strength is theirs as much as their strength is ours.
If our training capacity is plentiful, I imagine we will be open to Good-Aligned characters seeking training even if they are not affiliated with Brighthaven or an allied group. Pax members should fall into this category, unless conflicts arise. For example, if the UNC was frequently harassing our trade routes it could cause us to be hesitant in allowing their allies to train with us. I am not saying that they will be and I am not trying to pick on them, but their desired play style is known well enough to establish an example of conflict.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For example, if the UNC was frequently harassing our trade routes it could cause us to be hesitant in allowing their allies to train with us. I am not saying that they will be and I am not trying to pick on them, but their desired play style is known well enough to establish an example of conflict.
Would this policy apply to known alts as well, or are you making a distinction between allies and alts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I cannot make commitments for the Crimson Wing, but we were discussing establishing in a Neutral or Lawful Good alignment anyway.
Being, I am not very informed on the nature of The Crimson Wing. But if your group is falling under the "Good" spectrum, then we would certainly be willing to work together with you if your group decides they would like to join in this undertaking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Never robbing is the absence of a chaotic act... but that is a topic for another thread.
I'm personally curious to hear if good aligned Pax members would be welcomed to train here.
That will likely be determined by how much training room is available. We will have to be pragmatic in that if we are constrained by training ability, Citizens will get first priority. Followed by any official allied groups. Our strength is theirs as much as their strength is ours.
If our training capacity is plentiful, I imagine we will be open to Good-Aligned characters seeking training even if they are not affiliated with Brighthaven or an allied group. Pax members should fall into this category, unless conflicts arise. For example, if the UNC was frequently harassing our trade routes it could cause us to be hesitant in allowing their allies to train with us. I am not saying that they will be and I am not trying to pick on them, but their desired play style is known well enough to establish an example of conflict.
That would be fair, and all settlement level and above powers will have those considerations.
It is our hope that there will be plenty of privateering to keep both the UNC and TBH well fed. That might not end up being the case, but it is my suspicion that there will be plenty of conflict post OE for targeted banditry. Perhaps enough to lesson untargeted (or non Xeilian sanctioned?) highwaymen activity.
I don't speak for UNC or TBH, but I do know both plan to follow the coin to a certain extent. Pax will be leveraging that as much as possible.
On a lighter note, will Brighthaven be promoting festivals? I see some Golarion Holidays that such a settlement might find good rp use of.
What about celebrating the creation of the premise (based off the timestamp of this thread), or other settlement milestones?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For example, if the UNC was frequently harassing our trade routes it could cause us to be hesitant in allowing their allies to train with us. I am not saying that they will be and I am not trying to pick on them, but their desired play style is known well enough to establish an example of conflict.Would this policy apply to known alts as well, or are you making a distinction between allies and alts?
This is likely to be a topic of heavy debate when the groups come together to draft a constitution. So I cannot speak to policy.
My personal opinion, and how I would like to see policy go (though I am but one man) is that known alts be accepted until such time as they are proven untrustworthy. My logic is that a player who is willing to disclose identity and be a known element is less likely to leak information or cause securities breaches than a player who tries to hide that they have other identities. Seeing as that the latter group is almost certain to infiltrate, the damage that known entities could cause is less than what the unknown ones will do.
It is also of my opinion that players will want to be part of a society that welcomes them and will feel more obligated to strongly separate their character knowledge and not feed privileged information between two groups. Players who feel a need to hide will not have that sense of loyalty, and may actually wish to lash out because of the stresses of not being able to act openly and be themselves - or their character - with comfort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
That would be fair, and all settlement level and above powers will have those considerations.
It is our hope that there will be plenty of privateering to keep both the UNC and TBH well fed. That might not end up being the case, but it is my suspicion that there will be plenty of conflict post OE for targeted banditry. Perhaps enough to lesson untargeted (or non Xeilian sanctioned?) highwaymen activity.
I don't speak for UNC or TBH, but I do know both plan to follow the coin to a certain extent. Pax will be leveraging that as much as possible.
On a lighter note, will Brighthaven be promoting festivals? I see some Golarion Holidays that such a settlement might find good rp use of.
What about celebrating the creation of the premise (based off the timestamp of this thread), or other settlement milestones?
These are some excellent ideas on holidays. TEO itself has a strong number of roleplayers, so holidays would see some support. You have mentioned wanting to do holidays for your groups as well, so perhaps there is room to discuss future arrangements for Holiday rotations so we do not try to do the same things at the same times. As current head of our Seraphic Commission (White Staves), event planning does fall under my chapter and TEO is certainly going to be hosting events for our home settlement which will be Brighthaven if this works out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is likely to be a topic of heavy debate when the groups come together to draft a constitution. So I cannot speak to policy.
My personal opinion, and how I would like to see policy go (though I am but one man) is that known alts be accepted until such time as they are proven untrustworthy. My logic is that a player who is willing to disclose identity and be a known element is less likely to leak information or cause securities breaches than a player who tries to hide that they have other identities. Seeing as that the latter group is almost certain to infiltrate, the damage that known entities could cause is less than what the unknown ones will do.
It is also of my opinion that players will want to be part of a society that welcomes them and will feel more obligated to strongly separate their character knowledge and not feed privileged information between two groups. Players who feel a need to hide will not have that sense of loyalty, and may actually wish to lash out because of the stresses of not being able to act openly and be themselves - or their character - with comfort.
Completely understandable. We have different branches of policy where we have what we would like to see as a place holder until a time when they can be adequately revised.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
These are some excellent ideas on holidays. TEO itself has a strong number of roleplayers, so holidays would see some support. You have mentioned wanting to do holidays for your groups as well, so perhaps there is room to discuss future arrangements for Holiday rotations so we do not try to do the same things at the same times. As current head of our Seraphic Commission (White Staves), event planning does fall under my chapter and TEO is certainly going to be hosting events for our home settlement which will be Brighthaven if this works out.
...
That would be fair, and all settlement level and above powers will have those considerations.
It is our hope that there will be plenty of privateering to keep both the UNC and TBH well fed. That might not end up being the case, but it is my suspicion that there will be plenty of conflict post OE for targeted banditry. Perhaps enough to lesson untargeted (or non Xeilian sanctioned?) highwaymen activity.
I don't speak for UNC or TBH, but I do know both plan to follow the coin to a certain extent. Pax will be leveraging that as much as possible.
On a lighter note, will Brighthaven be promoting festivals? I see some Golarion Holidays that such a settlement might find good rp use of.
What about celebrating the creation of the premise (based off the timestamp of this thread), or other settlement milestones?
It certainly can't hurt to see what the possibilities are. Khas would be our primary contact, as he is our Thane over RP, Loremastery(?), and events.
Khas lurks here but seldom posts, but he can also be contacted through our forums. He is quite often active over there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I shall certainly make a note of that, thank you. We have a year or more to EE and who knows how long after that to settlements, so I shall like be in touch closer to EE. We do not necessarily need settlements for holidays, but having a game helps! For open-invitation events, we may even find it beneficial to tap Hobs' group on the shoulder for support and logistics. He is something of an expert in the field.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I shall certainly make a note of that, thank you. We have a year or more to EE and who knows how long after that to settlements, so I shall like be in touch closer to EE. We do not necessarily need settlements for holidays, but having a game helps! For open-invitation events, we may even find it beneficial to tap Hobs' group on the shoulder for support and logistics. He is something of an expert in the field.
I am all for Hobs and his community goals. I can also say Pax is in full support of him and his goals as well.
Great idea
