Charlie George's page

Charlie George wrote:

Good play Pagan and Steelwing. You stepped down well before the game monetized but the TEO spy angle worked perfectly. My inbox was blowing up with accusations, almost all pointed at Areks.

Charlie I enjoyed my time in Pax thanks to all of you and I enjoyed immensely all the games I played with you all such as lotro, tsw and I even hope I helped you all enjoy Eve though that was a problem not to appear to know to much:)

I am sorry I afflicted your inbox on you but at the time I was just doing the job I was here to do. Hopefully you will forgive that as there was no animosity behind it merely playing the meta game.

The reason I agreed to be outed was not to embarrass Pax but because while I no longer feel this is a game for me I would like it to succeed and I wanted to illustrate the lengths people will actually go to for success. The community should look at it as a wakeup call. If the game is successful people will come that will play the metagame just as fast and hard as we have if not more. Especially when you consider we did this not even being sure we would end up playing

Like I said, it was a good play. I can't blame you for doing your job well. It certainly wasn't the only lesson needed to learn, and it certainly won't be the last.

I was actually pretty impressed

just got another ping from Pagan charlie...he is madly trying to reply to you but Paizo keeps timing out on him

No worries, Obviously I still check these forums from time to time. No need to rush.

Good play Pagan and Steelwing. You stepped down well before the game monetized but the TEO spy angle worked perfectly. My inbox was blowing up with accusations, almost all pointed at Areks.

About the only thing I can think of that might have done it is the fact I put in an invalid email address when I scrubbed my information. I assumed it would be replaced with the new one as soon as it got bought.

Otherwise I never even signed into the game post alpha. The account was as clean as a whistle.

Your stake remains unchanged.

This is now officially not the case.

Be well everyone! I no longer hold an account, and really no reason to participate in discussions.

Peace and love,

CG

Okay, so now I'm confused again (I know, not a hard thing perhaps). If the Golgothans are looking for meaningful PvP supported by the mechanics of the game, wouldn't this be exactly what is needed? I know the towers themselves are largely meaningless at present, but if this is about having a good fight then it's at least that. Right?

I don't know if you have to even bother trying to make sense of it. If taking undefended towers doesn't create the intended effect then find the outlet that you believe will create the intended result.

Forum appeals have certainly been shown to fail, if tower capping is also shown to fail then hit them where it hurts.

If they run, chase them. If they hide, find them.

You guys get so off topic sometimes. Where did you get the idea that all "good" aligned players are scared of you silly evildoers? For example, I have died zero times to any evil player whilst slaying many; I'm not afraid.

The conversation is focused on you killing and farming people that have no interest and/or experience in PvP; these are the ones you seem actually able to kill. For example, my 60+ year old father that Golgotha killed, then killed again, and again... And again. In less than 8 minutes. Perhaps next time you will have the decency to, hmm, not do that? Not a good look.

If this is true I certainly wouldn't stand for it. I would be calling for people to form up and take Golgotha out wherever they are at.

Then I would post videos and propaganda memes. I would make sure they were removed, demoralized, and crushed. I would certainly have good reason, and I would rest easy knowing that the task is essentially trivial.

Charlie George wrote:

Savage Grace wrote:

I may be the worst PvPer in the land, and they do have some capable individuals, but their Standard Operating Procedure isn't going to get it done.

If that is true, it isn't something unavoidable. Tactics don't exist in a vacuum. If they need to up their response times then the best way to practice that is by hunting down what they consider to be a huge game detriment.

Win/Win

Would read again.

People hate change, and I'm probably not worth it to them.

I sincerely hope they prove you wrong. If it honestly takes hours for a zerg response team then I really don't have to speculate why Golgotha has moved to mobile resource node hunt nights.

Honestly I am surprised it hasn't just become Murder Mondays.

I may be the worst PvPer in the land, and they do have some capable individuals, but their Standard Operating Procedure isn't going to get it done.

If that is true, it isn't something unavoidable. Tactics don't exist in a vacuum. If they need to up their response times then the best way to practice that is by hunting down what they consider to be a huge game detriment.

Win/Win

Would read again.

Sounds like an opportunity for an even more entertaining story:

"In response to Golgotha's rampant murder, thievery, and thuggish behavior it has been decided by a portion of the River Kingdoms to take up arms, and fight the infection at the source"

"From this day forth, we will form regular strike teams with the purpose of finding you, whatever hovel you decide to hide in. We will collect names, and we will hunt you with extreme prejudice"

"You don't take value in your towers? Fine, we take retribution in blood just as easily. You will hold nothing, and your battle weary heads will never find comfort. Never again will you rest yourselves atop your ill gotten gains"

"Today we take a stance for retribution, for justice, and for a better River Kingdoms....."

/Cue trumpets
/War Drums

Much Warpaint
Such inspire

Charlie George wrote:

I have no stake in this game, but have those in EBA that feel Golgotha is a net negative considered merely marching to their door and showing them the error of their ways by the point of their swords?

Result: More pvp between "non sheep". Less pvp against "Sheeple"

Your stake remains unchanged.

And the gauntlet was thrown quietly, so you might not have noticed. Golgotha will continue to lose one tower per day until/unless their PvP-thirsty players overcome their aversion to fighting and defend their towers during their short window.

I encourage others who believe that Golgotha's PvP players have written checks that their swords can't cash to arrange independent blows at Golgothan holdings to provide them all the consequence-free PvP they can handle, so that they will have no need, reason, or justification to spend hours each day looking for a target that they can handle.

That's good to hear. At least i can get back some interesting stories. It might even convince me to start using up my "free" months :)

Edit* Bonus points if you conduct corrective murder while you are there. I am not sure taking towers that are unattended will make a compelling story.

I have no stake in this game, but have those in EBA that feel Golgotha is a net negative considered merely marching to their door and showing them the error of their ways by the point of their swords?

Result: More pvp between "non sheep". Less pvp against "Sheeple"

I'm done too... is selling accounts a thing?

Yeah, Goblinworks has thus far had a hands off view of account selling. They won't be held responsible for player to player sales, but they don't stop it either.

You could leave the game Gol; you wouldn't be missed.

Just the other day I was talking to a visitor on Teamspeak, and I broached the subject of aggressive responses specifically to subjects critical of the game's state (or desiring changes that increase player combat viability) and how it could be negatively impacting those that have accounts, but are waiting for the game to have more of the type of gameplay they enjoy.

While I keep an eye on these forums, I have slowed down posting to just about nil. I post this just to point out that this is an example of exactly what I was talking about.

These types of comments don't encourage me to participate in discussions, and I would be willing to bet it isn't just me.

The portion I quoted is stated as fact, and that is the portion I described as a straw man.

As for everything else, on reflection even phrasing it like a question might be a straw man, since like you say it assumes the invented position is fact.

Also you are correct that it doesn't really matter, as no one is holding on to the false position as fact anymore.

Charlie George wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:

TL:DR Version - You want to know how naughty you can be before it's considered a bannable offense.

This is not an inquiry as phrased, it is an assertion. That assertion incorrectly encapsulates Midnight's position, thus it (perhaps accidentally) creates a straw man.

Were this the case, every posit made in law enforcement could be considered straw man.

"You planted the drugs on your friend and expected him to take the heat. Is that about right?"

The inquiry was phrased concisely at the end of the original comment. The rest was merely positing his intent.

I notice you added a question to the example posit. That is pretty important, because it leaves open room for the other person to reply:

"No, that is not what is happening here."

Your assertion was phrased in the definitive style. It's reads like:

"This is what is happening, this is why you are doing the thing."

Again, perhaps incidentally, as phrased it incorrectly encapsulates the position. A straw man is established, but it seems like it is quickly torn down before it becomes the new focus of the conversation.

Pointing out a straw man only serves one purpose, to remove the bogus position from the conversation so as to concentrate on what is actually being proposed.

TL:DR Version - You want to know how naughty you can be before it's considered a bannable offense.

This is not an inquiry as phrased, it is an assertion. That assertion incorrectly encapsulates Midnight's position, thus it (perhaps accidentally) creates a straw man.

TL:DR Version - You want to know how naughty you can be before it's considered a bannable offense.

Interesting tactic

Guurzak wrote:

KarlBob wrote:

In a post-NAP War of Towers

Another World...

Another Time...

In the Age of Wonder.

A thousand years ago, this land was green and good...

...until the NAP failed.

(Camera pans over a DESOLATE WASTELAND)

Guurzak wins this thread. Now I want to play a Skeksis.

Great, now this is on repeat in my brain place.

I can tell you based on the access I had to the TEO private boards (and still do have of I really cared enough to look) that they wanted to use me leaving as a chance to foster positive relations with Pax. Their enmity toward you left with me, though I'm sure they realize by now that peace between Pax and the EA is a pipedream.

That might be true, but to accept it as such require proof in the pudding. That is absent.

In fact, last I had conversation about more friendly relations (without anyone joining the empire, mind you) the response I got from the southern block was that there were significant interest in wanting to fight the empire.

That is fine, we are fine with content. What is silly is expecting people to hear that and assume we should collect daisies together.

Actual input indicates that there was no real shift in relations before or after you left. There might have been interest, but interest does not forge relations unless it moves beyond interest.

I don't begrudge anyone the propadanga wars, it is one of my favorite aspects. I don't begrudge TEOs stance, even if it is not the same as the empires.

What I am disagreeing with is this idea that there was significant change of standing and our evil evilness proved us blah de blah.

There are other major public figures other than you that enjoy demonizing Xeilias. Nothing substantial changed.

That said, only a fool things the future is locked. No alliance is a pipe dream. A lot of things can change, and I won't pretend it can be predicted.

That is one thing I will give you, Andius. You are no different now than you ever were. The only real difference is the focus targets.

The mere fact you need a deal with Pax to not have them slaughter your members prooves my point. It's a legitimate strategy but not the kind of allies I wanted for the group I had built.

With the matter of KoTC aside, there has been pvp between multiple parties. I don't understand why you would think anyone would abide by total non aggression between parties with a strained history, where there is no offer of benefit, and no reasonable expectation of reciprocation.

People planned to attack the empire when you were a leader, there was no indication that the stance was ready to change after the supposed fall. To assume a stance of pure non aggression in such a circumstance would be suicide.

What we did instead is agree to the NAP provided. What is being done by empire settlements now is abiding by the contract we did sign and offer reparations if there is a violation.

Sure, the empire might not be this nebulous idea of social justice. That said we abide by the contracts we do sign.

Again, offer no proofs. Claim victory. Rinse. Repeat.

I am blissfully unaware of any contracts brokered between the empire and the southern block. The last I was in charge of brokering such contracts, we were still told that there were concerns about any hard line deals with us.

The closest we ever got was an interest in trade contracts, but it never moved to official brokering of terms.

We do have another multi gaming community in our empire Andius. Feel free to contact DEYS or Mystical Awakening and inquire whether their alliance with us requires them to be pasted to the bottoms of "Pax's" heels. You might find the truth is much the opposite.

As usual provide no proofs, claim victory, gloat. Rinse, repeat.

At our first meeting with TEO all I said (that keeps getting inflated to this bogus straw man) is:

"We are not interested now or in the future in joining into an agreement where we do not have a clear benefit"

Selfish? Maybe, we had no interest in being the underdog or being under represented.

If someone doesn't turn this into a feel good Disney song I am going to cry.

Missed opportunities people!

To be fair, because I am annoying like that, social justice warriors aren't the only ones prone to becoming zealots.

If you have a belief that makes it impossible to absorb information or self correct, then you have crossed over into zealotry.

Being zealous without becoming a zealot is a tricky thing sometimes, but it's always a worthwhile endeavor.

I tried to disprove this by looking up each individual term involved. I got to the root word Zeal and it turns out it has no inherent negative connotations.

zeal
zēl
noun
great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective.

You win this time, Scruffins!

Gaskon wrote:

PFO's first fallen Paladin!

He was never a Paladin...

At best Andius was a crusader before this huge "fall" everyone keeps saying occurred.

Crusaders are problematic, because while they are idealistic they can often take subjective moral offense to situations others find trivial.

Social justice warriors can often fall into a trap where it becomes problematic for them to look at their own views objectively and self correct. They have a huge problem being wrong.

Give me a selfish pragmatic any day. At least I build a pattern to judge whether they are trustworthy or not. Fanatics on the other hand are unpredictable wild cards.

This is The Game.

So you find Orlesian politics engaging, do you?

Sorry, sorry. Couldn't help it.

War will eventually happen. No need to rush it this early into EE. Diplomacy will eventually matter, and there is no harm practicing it this early into EE.

The information we have on bounties is all very old as far as I recall. I'm fairly sure it hasn't been discussed much by the devs since the SAD and criminal flag announcement and I'm pretty darn sure nothing major about it has been said by the devs since the outpost raiding announcement. At the point it was announced killing people was the only way to harm other players that had been confirmed.

I think it would be extremely reasonable to expect that if robbed by another player someone should be able to issue a one time bounty per incident. Players who do not want bounties issued on them should not play outlaws because being hunted is an integral part of the outlaw lifestyle whether you're Blackbeard, Jack the Ripper, Han Solo, or Robin Hood.

Completely agree. Caravans have an element of danger. Bandits need the danger of hired reprisal. All meaningful interaction .

The game design assumes that people in caravans are the targets of people who want to stop the caravan and/or rob it. They are each-others content. We'll work out systems so that engaging in that activity doesn't have the same implications as being a jerk.

I am glad SAD will not be the only tool a bandit will have to stay out of the jerk category . That was really my last hang up with the reputation system .

As for consequence free wild zones. I am all for it as long as the reward for going there is relative to the danger. Keeping wild areas wild might be a nice. idea as well, by restricting. the amount of development it can handle while still remaining. wild.

Qallz wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

Lifedragn wrote:

I think, but may be wrong, that Bludd's prediction is that those other forms of PvP will become 'sanctioned' and that only griefing will ultimately be penalized.

You are not wrong, that is exactly what I'm saying. That is the trend that GW has been following these past few months. They have done nothing but add to the types of PVP activities that would be sanctioned or consequence free.

Really? To me it feels like PvP itself is becoming more and more "Unsanctioned". That being said, WHY NOT make it so that all PvP is fair game except for griefing?

You kill someone one time, no rep loss. You kill that same person again within 20 minutes, 500 points rep loos, again; 1500 points rep loss, again, 4000 points rep loss or something. Just make corpse camping extremely hard.
What other forms of griefing are there? Fill me in.

Just catching up on the forums so please ignore if already stated.

The issue with this, while would hinder corpse camping, what about war where people at assaulting (or defending) a settlement or POI and die, respawn and return to keep fighting? Chances are you (or your group) will kill the same person at least 2 or 3 times each "20 mins." Should a "war target" be exempt from this "time limit?" But how does that prevent people from, limiting their griefing to "war targets?" Just some thoughts to further develop this idea. I do like the idea, just needs tweeked to prevent non-griefing from being punished as griefing.

I would assume under the premise being in one of the "states" would exempt you from the penalties.

The problem I see with the premise is that it only stops what is classically labeled griefing. I get the impression GW wants to lesson instances of ganking as well, specifically "newbe ganking".

Xeen, in spite of his horrible delivery...

I certainly agree that the delivery is horrible. In part I don't really understand the point either.

Goblinworks is going to make the game they want to make, and it is shaping up to have intended drawbacks to certain types of player versus player conflict. The best way to address that would be to see what new role best suits what you want to do (given those limitations).

If that is not an option you could be the stated content. That is not necessarily a bad thing. After all your target is your content. Working from a mechanically disadvantaged position might be difficult, but that in itself would present a new challenge level.

Just catching up. Is a violation of the proposed naming convention a "You have a terrible name, so now you are banned from the game" or "You have an unacceptable name, here is your non negotiable request to change it"

From the tone of the conversations, I am beginning to think I might have missed some context by not reading far enough back. GM's asking characters to change names is not very rare in MMO's. Banning someone for a goofy name however might be cause for alarm.

As far as my opinion on naming conventions, I tend to support vulgar names as unacceptable, but otherwise am neutral on the matter. I am not a huge fan of the hard line on names, as I tend to not like enforced roleplay or immersion considerations.

That said, with little exception (WoW specifically I had some silly named characters) I almost always chose an in character (ish) name for my toons.

I feel like I don't have a dog in this fight.

As I said, if they can be used as you describe to circumvent sieges and blockades, then yes I would consider them pay 2 win.

So, how could this be implemented so they can't be used that way and would they be useful if they were or is this potential use if they can't be prevented from being used that way be sufficient reason for GW to not include them in the store?

I would say if the healing potions capped out at a low-mid range then the chance it would be used for mechanical advantage would be obliterated on the large scale at least.

Another way would be to have them expensive enough to make them a terrible investment when bought in bulk.

Yet another could possibly be a use timer on MTX healing potions. No matter how many you have, you trigger a global cool down that player made potions have less of.

Charlie George wrote:

I don't want a River Kingdoms with little advantage for rogue type characters.

Pathfinder doesn't have an alignment restriction on the rogue class. Have we heard that PFO will have alignment restrictions on that class?

I should have been more clear. I was meaning rogue type as in occupational. Theft, banditry, assassinations, etc.

Of those examples banditry used to worry me would move you towards both Chaotic and Evil. My concerns are less so because of the SAD system.

Sorry for the confusion.

One example that was brought up was healing potions with at least one person thinking they were pay to win.

Are they or aren't they?

My answer would be, It depends...

If healing potions with the same stats are readily available in game and the cash shop can't be used to over-ride in game mechanics, such as sieges & blockades, to give one side in pvp an advantage then nope, there not pay to win.

If they are better then player made, something else GW has said won't happen with the cash shop and something I also believe, or can be used to circumvent in game mechanics and strategy, which I strongly believe also won't...

It is feasible that healing potions could present a marked advantage, if they allow an organization to trade real money to avoid having to expend that same in game cash during large conflicts.

That would be contingent on healing potions in a MTX store to be scaled at least as much as in game potions. It would also rely on those potions to be purchasable in enough quantity to supersede the in game cost, as well as being inexpensive enough to justify the decision on an organizational level.

I have never been a fan of the alignment scale, but I have made peace with it at the least.

The only fear I had with CE potentially sucking was the possibility of it branding a legitimate meaningful role as sucking.

I am slightly less concerned that this will be a possibility. I don't want a River Kingdoms with little advantage for rogue type characters. I do want a game with less wanton killing of new players. I would even not mind a game that mechanically discouraged the targeting of extremely low risk marks repeatedly (low risk / low payout).

Decius:

I disagree that the quoted portion is trivially antagonistic. I read the message as a call for Xeen to chill out. It holds a strong opinion that winning against an opponent in pvp who has purchased an advantage is indicative of a higher skill level. I could agree that the point itself is trivial, as winning against any opponent in pvp could be indicative of a higher player skill (or perhaps tactics, numbers, etc etc).

Bluddwolf and Nihimon:

Somehow the fact that we are still talking about this saddens me less because of the Spears linking. Thanks for the giggles both of you.

I don't want to frame anyone's position, but I do want to say I enjoyed that Nihimon chose overprotected in his reply. In the end that we are even talking about this is a derail of the thread. I am derailing this thread by even replying to these points.

So I will stop now. Ryan has a good point, we are steam rolling a thread that might have some merit.

On OP:

I am not a fan of purchased items that give any advantage over a regular subscriber, however trivial. I am less concerned with cosmetics or fluff purchased in a store. The same can be said of PLEX in Eve, I actually think it is smart to control the vehicle that a player uses to sell in game effort to other players.

That said I am also less concerned if the mechanical benefit items in a MTX store are minimal value, or that the same items can be bought from other players. One of my primary concerns is how a MTX could effect an in game economy. I would prefer as little to be offered in enhancements to be purchases in a real money store, and for that void to be filled by player merchants in game.

Outside of that I am less concerned with MTX stores. Most western games have them to some degree. What concerns me is where the needle sets.

Again, these conversations are highly dependent on an in game environment with which to test suspicions. Even when those suspicions are based on past game environments. I like the dialogue, but I don't think that can be stressed enough.

I agree with your premise, Decius. If Pax considers trading with both sides of a conflict as hostile, we will lose business from those companies that specifically specialize in such activities.

The important question is whether those companies will represent a majority, or will represent a "high quality goods" majority. If such were the case then our position would have to be revisited. If these companies represent a minority or an equal portion of the merchant populace then perhaps our stance will need no revisiting at all.

I suspect that there will be merchant companies more than happy to sell exclusively (at least in large quantities, and openly. A contention I sincerely hope does make it to the River Kingdoms.) to one side of a true war conflict.

It might be likely that the hinge point will be the build up to or the minor conflicts in between open warfare. In those cases it might be most beneficial to overlook (officially at least) the selling of goods to other settlements and kingdoms.

The buzz seems to be now that settlement and nation warfare will be relatively rare (and expensive). That leads me to suspect that minor conflicts might be more common. If that ends up being true that will be the cash cow of merchants.

It is speculative, but an official stance on war profiteering during large scale warfare might not be detrimental. Instituting that same stance during small POI conflicts however might.

Interesting discussions, thanks for it.

This is Bludd and UNC, playing to the letter of the agreement. This detailed interpretation is what I would expect of a L lawyer.

PAX, this is not your dog, but UNC is a wild wolf which will bite you and your friends. They can not even keep a smart face prior to EE.

lam

If it turns out Pax or UNC is not living up to the spirit of our agreement termination clauses or ToA review will be in order. The same can be said if either of us feels our arrangement is no longer beneficial.

The truth of matter is UNC plans to cater to the bandit playstyle. We can not in good faith require them to cease all highwaymen activity. What we can do is attempt to provide authorized targets for privateerig. Such a goal is likely but not assured.

Until we have a game to test these systems, it is hard to say what will end up being feasible authoritatively. We do appreciate your warning and concerns.. If such a time as the agreement is revisited we will make sure this community is made aware.

Morbis wrote:

He isn't misrepresenting anyone. The cash shop will have items that you can buy, and those items will give you an advantage over someone who doesn't. That is the definition of pay to win. Whether or not it is an acceptable level of pay to win is up to the individual to determine. If someone who doesn't participate in the cash shop can rise above the disadvantage and still beat those who do, they are, again, by definition more skilled players.

Nothing in Bluddwolfs post is misrepresenting those facts. Nothing in Bluddwolfs post is inflammatory. Trying to build drama where there isn't any is.

Skipping the discussion which can be resolved only by reference to the things actually in the cash shop:

The mildly inflammatory portion was in the derogatory implications being implicitly leveled at the strawman on the other side of the policy debate that was being conducted.

I'm going to restate my personal opinion, that the behavior pattern of "behaving exactly as badly as possible without getting sanctioned" is bad.

I do not and could not defend the position that the targeted posters have always posted in a professional manner.

I am however noticing that such targeting is consistently selective. I am seeing better posts from those I once thought antagonistic, as well as a return to sarcasm and quote mining from others.

How could have this newest offending post been better delivered? Is mildly inflamatory unacceptable? Is there any way Xeen or Bluddwolf could have their opinions and desires shared at all?

I am serious about the last point. Is there any way a poster can take a position counter to another poster, be passionate in their position, and have it shared in any manner at all without being considered a detriment?

Charlie George wrote:

Areks wrote:

I don't see why. If you provide supplies to people engaged in hostile activities against us, how is that not aiding our enemy?

Quote:

More generally, protecting one's own supply lines and attacking those of an enemy is a fundamental military strategy; an example of this as a purely logistical campaign for the military means of implementing strategic policy was the Berlin Airlift.

Nihimon wrote:

Areks wrote:

Trading with a entity we are at war with is an act of war.

That should prove interesting.

I think it is important to also note that we are being as honest as we can about intent, with arguably minimal mechanical or political systems with which to stress test our position.

I suspect there will be case by case aspects to merchants selling to an enemy, and our level of response. There will likely be a difference between *I sold a single member of Xeilias's enemy group a cask of mulberry wine <and> *I have been directly targeting trade relations with Xeilias's enemies, supplying them with weapons en masse in an effort to maximize my profit margin.

I think that some of your most important suppliers will be groups that directly target trade relations with both sides of every war.

There's nothing magical about the phrase "act of war", either. It's used mostly (in Earth history) as a pretext for positioning an act as "recognition that a state of war already exists" instead of "declaring war".

One effect that statement of policy might have would be to discourage groups who intend on war profiteering from developing infrastructure under Xeilian control; they fully intend to supply Xeilias' enemies when and if they exist, and they might expect their holdings in Xeilian control to be seized once that happens.

I have no doubt that such traders will exist in PFO. I suspect:

-Some such merchants can be persuaded through coin to exclusively sell to one side of a conflict exclusively.

-We might not be the only organization that frowns on openly selling to both sides of a conflict. Thus necessitating a portion of the economy to chose sides.

-There will be varying degrees of gains, losses, dangers, etc associated with selling to both sides (as well as selling exclusively to one)

It could also be true that:

-A significant portion of the merchant player based sells to both sides of conflicts. This puts Callambea and Xeilias at a significant disadvantage. It is decided to retract our prior position. Likely no retaliation would occur, and we would also openly trade with multiple sides of a conflict to maximize profits.

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Xeen,

Waste not your anger on those who need to purchase their advantages or those that call upon the Gods for mechanics to protect them. Neither store bought items nor the supposed consequences will protect them from those that rely on team work, individual prowess and an eagerness for conflict.

@Bluddwolf Here is a post by you Bludd, just today that could be considered antagonistic, inflammatory, and an incorrect representation of those that accept that there will be a cash shop.

I also thought that we were trying, at least, to get past all the BS and do some constructive things here.

I am going to have to look at this in full context. I am completely fine with calling out antagonistic posts no matter whether the poster is friend or not. I have done so in the past, I will do so in the future.

What I don't want to do is fall prey to doing so when convenient.

*EDIT* I have read this two or three times now, and it reads to me that he is pointing out that he is confident PFO will not allow for purchased win conditions, and that other factors (team work, individual prowess and an eagerness for conflict) will determine success.

Have I missed something crucial? This does not seem antagonistic to me.

Nihimon wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

"if PFO turns out to be a "Murder Simulator" like many of the other Open World PvP MMOs , is that a deal breaker for you?"

That's a different phrasing than you've used before.

My answer is "Absolutely, that would be a deal-breaker for me".

And yeah, I know you weren't asking, but I don't really care :)

You obviously missed the point of my question or you cherry picked what was not the intent of the question to make a phantom argument of your own.

Bluddwolf wrote:

I thought we were supposed to have moved on from such questions.

Yeah, I agree here. The point was that the question is antagonistic in nature. No one was expected it to be removed from the context and them answered.

It seemed snarky in nature to me, but individual interpretations are fallible. It does seem pretty clear in full context that it was at the very least misinterpreted.

I don't see why. If you provide supplies to people engaged in hostile activities against us, how is that not aiding our enemy?

Quote:

More generally, protecting one's own supply lines and attacking those of an enemy is a fundamental military strategy; an example of this as a purely logistical campaign for the military means of implementing strategic policy was the Berlin Airlift.

Areks wrote:

Trading with a entity we are at war with is an act of war.

That should prove interesting.

I think it is important to also note that we are being as honest as we can about intent, with arguably minimal mechanical or political systems with which to stress test our position.

I suspect there will be case by case aspects to merchants selling to an enemy, and our level of response. There will likely be a difference between *I sold a single member of Xeilias's enemy group a cask of mulberry wine <and> *I have been directly targeting trade relations with Xeilias's enemies, supplying them with weapons en masse in an effort to maximize my profit margin.

I will ping Pax's tabletop groups and get back with you :)

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

Charlie George wrote:

... I imagined Red Skull fighting Captain America. Captn fighting with only a red herring (which in this case is an actual fish) and Red Skull fighting armed with only a honey badger.

Narrated by Randall? That would be totally awesome!

More Randall and the Macho Man Randy Savage.

The Two Randy's Present:

Throw Down at the Show Down

Ohhhh Yeah

Qallz wrote:

Ohhh, yea, it's all going to be lollipops and candycanes, ...., then all bets are off. lol

Ladies and gentlemen!

Welcome to the announcement of Brighthaven's Biweekly Brawl!

The Sunday Smackdown of Political Science!

Democracy vs. Communism!

Nihimon the Free vs. Papaver the Red!

Uncle Sam vs. The Motherland!

"We the People" vs. "The Comrades"!

Watch us Battle to the death using the most ridiculous badge setups we can find and/or suggested by you the audience!

Disclamer: This is not actually a thing. And I do not have Nihimon's consent. My mind went to places upon reading the above quote and I wanted to express it in good fun. This is not a hijeck. Laugh and move on :)

I don't know why, but I imagined Red Skull fighting Captain America. Captn fighting with only a red herring (which in this case is an actual fish) and Red Skull fighting armed with only a honey badger.

Charlie George wrote:

...

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.

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.

Areks wrote:

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?