Dakark's page

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

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.

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.

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 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!

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.

Looks like Bludd has invented the Self Back Patter (patent pending)

Meh.

Never really cared for the guy, before or after the fall from grace. I am sure he will be by to say hello.

The guy is like Beatle Juice. You can't go invoking his name three times expecting him not to pop in.

Carebear is a slur, not griefing. It is no worse than calling someone a spiteful little so and so or any other derogatory remark.

I try not to do it, but I have been guilty of it as well a few times. That said while it is a whole lot more admirable to avoid commenting to complaints at all calling someone a carebear is not grief. It is just a hateful remark.

On the other end, developers have asked posters to specifically stop using the term in reference to other players. In my book that is a good enough indication you should at least not do that thing, MmKay.

I found no one guilty, nor innocent. That's Customer Service. I run QA. I care about fixing the underlying issues with the game, not the players. :D

Thank you for the replies, the investigations, and the way the results were presented.

I thought your explanation was pretty straight forward:

It does not point to cheating on the part of a single individual.

Emphasis mine.

If further digging does point towards cheating, I hope you post again with the findings. I think everyone in this thread would appreciate the information.

I am not comparing anything to flying; that was not my analogy.

The specific cue, to anyone (like Slappy) who has spent any amount of time fighting in PFO (PVE or PVP), is the giant opportunity icon that pops up every single time you are in battle stance (weapon drawn) and you are moving at faster than a walk.

My apologies then, I thought by your reply that you were offering support for the comparison.

So if Slammy is an experienced player, he should have noticed the lack of this icon in many cases?

Only he can speak to whether he saw the icon, or knew what to look for and notice it in the heat of battle(s) reliably. If he noticed it and did nothing to correct it he should announce that fact and refrain from using that tactic in the future.

I have no position of authority to enforce that, but that is my opinion and it falls within the guidelines of the community of which I belong.

If he did not notice it he might not want to state such, as apparently the criteria for not noticing it is mental retardation. It wouldn't bother me if such was truly the case, but I am much less skilled in pvp combat and have no real ego to speak of. The truth would simply be the truth.

We are going to try to reproduce some of the confitions seen in that video. At this time we don't think anything is happening other than that the game is not performing as expected in all cases. Nothing I saw in that video suggests hacks or cheating - it suggets that the programmers and the gme designers need to look carefully at some details of the movement and condition system.

If we detrmine there is an actual, reproducible bug that impacts play, we will describe it and tell players not to exploit it until we get it fixed.

Thank you for looking into this and the reply.

@All Accusers

Until the developers come back with an evaluation of the situation, the burden of proof is not on the accused. I am reading a lot of finger pointing not even attempting to be phrased as speculation (instead spoken as definitive proof of guilt). Present this definitive evidence or expect that the subjective speculations will be dismissed out of hand.

Golgotha and the EoX (as well as their partner community, Pax Gaming) has expectations on member behavior that do not include clear exploits (as defined by Goblinworks). I encourage as a member of the same partner community that anyone that feels like they have a serious claim do so and the leadership involved (Phyl, Gurzaak, Deacon, Valadryl) will evaluate its merit.

Otherwise it seems silly to pass definitive judgement just because the person involved is abrasive and has a habit of bragging. If that was the criteria for guilt most of this vocal community would be crowding the bottom of the jail right now.

It is nice to see the propaganda and counter propaganda systems are still evolving (and even picking up steam).

It's making an interesting first chapter to the on going story and from an outside perspective lends a hopeful light on the state of the game for me.

I really don't think the situation is as heavy as anyone from any opinion extreme is making it. That said the intrigue has to evolve from something. That it is happening at all is something. At the very least its not nothing.

I am assuming it is a reference to the Everbloom Alliance.

I was going to participate in the great X and Y debate, but in terms of variables it seemed more like an "A" and "B" conversation. That being the case I will "C" myself out of it.

Waka Waka!

Whelp, this has been a thread.

I'd be inclined to say that the NAP apply only to the "alpha 6" towers and the rest be, "have what you hold".

We do not know how quickly a settlement will be able to advance its training once WoT is over. Probably more than enough time before OE, to be well beyond the initial tier 2 stuff.

I disagree, the tower NAP brought to us includes ten towers. The EoX would rather not make a habit of seeming to agree with a diplomatic effort and then attempt to downgrade the scope.

Forgot to add, the ability of major power blocks to persuade peace (even if it is just during WoT) is meaningful interaction. The ability of imposing social consequence (if that becomes a thing, not saying that is happening here) would also be a meaningful interaction.

If it happens, I don't see it lasting forever. It could be extended post WoT with some potentially positive boons to the settlements that buy in. If it does it will most certainly be disturbed some time. It is basically a staring contest. Someone is bound to blink first.

What if you add a montage?

Sorry, Sorry.

Bandits will be careful. They'll pick their targets well. They'll often ransom the cargos rather than kill the teamsters.

That actually clears up a lot for me. You can actually measure a bandit that is selective about his targets against a low reputation zerger that is not so selective.

Clears up how that will differentiate between banditry and negative player behavior, that is.

I am a little leery that there is a way to measure intent in that regard. How useful is a discussion of whether GW can measure a hundred kills for economic benefit and a hundred kills for the lulz?

I prefer to play the game being described. We have been told that griefers will be removed from the game if they become a problem for a number of the player base. One subscription is not worth losing two, five, or ten. We have been told that such judgement will be arbitrary and capricious.

All that in mind I have a hard time in disregarding Pino's assertion out of hand.

If you are a resource locust because you're trying to economically damage your opponents, that's the system working as intended and there are lots of ways your opponents can mitigate that problem.

There's a corner case where you have an alt account (or character) do it and try to avoid some of those mitigation factors. But that's any easy corner case to detect and resolve: "Dear customer service, we keep finding people in nearby hexes strip mining and they're all aligned with NPC settlements and we can't get rid of them without taking Rep and Alignment hits, please make them stop."

Concern Obliterated. Thanks Ryan.

KarlBob wrote:

20 people? I've gotta say, that's a little disappointing. I know GW isn't looking to grow like the early days of WOW, but 20 people out of all the GenCon attendees is virtual invisibility.

Being ganked while minding your own business can suck. I'm no god of PVP, frothing at the mouth about "care bears ruining my game," but I'm getting worried that GW might be sliding too far toward the "all non-consensual PVP = griefing" end of the spectrum.

Pretty much my thoughts. I do not get what they are doing at this point. If you are going to ban people for PVPing too much, In ways that you allow in the game, then why allow it in the game?

20 people is about what was there last year too. I had hoped for some growth.

At this point I might as well jump in the deep end. Going to throw in my thoughts while the thread is still cordial.

I thought pretty heavily on this topic as we made the 5 turned 8 hr drive back home. The more I thought about how they are presenting pvp controls the less I looked at it as a hard line hindrance.

It all depends on whom they are trying to attract to the game. More often than not your target audience is affected by factors not immediately in your control as well. I see a situation where two main factors being true would make their billing of pvp controls a smart business choice:

1. You are attempting to cross pollinate players. I think it is safe to say this condition is true. Pathfinder Online is already a more brutal game than Pathfinder RPG gamers might be used to. Giving them assurances that their game experience won't be ruined is important if you want them to play in your sandbox.

2. The existing sandbox player base is generally picky about the games they invest in. I don't have hard data for this, just my personal experience. Still, I think it is a true condition as well. EoX has talked with a lot of folks from other sandbox games. We have folks in Pandemic Legion, Solar Storm (Eve) as well as contacts in other large meta game communities. We have gained a number of individual interested players from those efforts, but most of the larger organizations are lax to go all in for PfO at this early stage. I know Cheatle and TEO have been just as thorough as us. I would be curious to hear if they got similar feedback.

If one and two are true, then in my mind it is smart to appeal to the audience you are likely to be filling server ranks with on the short term. With that incoming funds you build a compelling feature rich game for group two.

Hellknights vrs Bandits was reiterated a couple of times as well. It gave me the impression GW still expects LE as the most prevalent enemies of criminal chaotics. Admittedly I might have read too much into it.

Their definition of what low reputation means was what stood out to me. It is perhaps the most blunt way I have ever heard them define it in a presentation.

Low Reputation - Players that habitually participate in non consensual pvp.

Pretty cut and dry to me. It is not new information, just put as blunt as possible. They specifically used gatherers as their example "target" in the following example portion. They expect gatherers will be top reputation players in most cases. If you want what a gatherer has, you have to weigh the cost of killing them to take it. That cost is set as intentionally high. The reputation sink is deep, and they are strongly considering adding in an option for killed gatherers to "break your gear threads". Then if they contract with a bounty hunter he/she can not only kill you but also take your stuff.

There was no mention of SADs to counteract this in the foreseeable future, giving me the impression that it might be a while before that is even a consideration.

The short term balance for this in the example was factions and feuds. It is intentional for you to weigh the cost of attacking a high reputation target that is not opted in versus a target that is consequence free. Obviously in most cases the latter should be the preferred target unless low reputation is your base line character anyways.

On that Note - Lisa Stevens doubled down on low reputation characters, doing what low reputation characters do. The initial consequence of participating in non consensual pvp is the reputation dump. If you continue to that thing and become an issue for the less pvp enthused players they will refund your money and ban you from the game.

Ryan reiterated after that the primary focus of the game is settlement politics. Because of that the expected acceptable aggressive actions are tied to companies, factions, and settlement warfare. Again not breaking news, just a reinforcement of the stance we have been shown all along.

I asked if they had considered the cost of high protections for gatherers when it comes to attaining goods from other social groups controlled hexes. Like Gaskon mentioned, they identify the problem but an intricate solution to that problem likely will not exist even when settlements go live.

What they did not include in the answer was NBSI/NRDS. If those settings exists but individual laws do not I could see NBSI being a favorable option for non trade oriented settlements to initially address the issue. I am actually curious if they feel those two settings can be added easier than individual laws, and if the option could be implemented sooner rather than later.

Note - I am not entertaining a debate on low reputation or other hot button topics. I am just relaying what I heard and the thoughts it generated. Personally I have no issue with relatively high constraints on non consensual pvp. My game was already set at the settlement level, so I only asked for clarifications relative to power blocks and settlement controls.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Right, I forgot that paladins actually do have a "no gross stuff" rule in their codes. Boy, paladins are weeeird.

We do the weird stuff!

I had my heart set on where that link would bring me to, and I was not dissapointed.

Wow, I believe my comment really derailed the thread....

And to be fair, I considered the guy Griefing, he was:

Following people to crafting stations, or following them from town out in the wilderness, and he would kill them. (This is all fine and dandy)

Then, he would offer them some crafting materials, and when they would show up, he would kill them, then laugh at them in Chat (This is basically being a douchbag, but still not Griefing, because they should have known better)

What was griefing, was continuing to follow said person around, and kill them, I believe he killed them 5 times total, to the point that they logged out of the game. When you are gaining nothing, but enjoying someone's frustration and doing it for the luls, I see it as griefing.

That seems to fit the behavior of a griefer to me.

I think most of us here are against spawn camping, or at least I hope we are.

Just because the game mechanics feature conflict does not mean that players can not find a reason in a few cases to work outside the box. Metagaming happens in sandboxes all the time.

If enough people want EL to be truly neutral (including EL themselves), and the community is willing to forge terms acceptable to all settlement parties, then EL will be essentially off limits.

If a block of players wants to exclusively protect EL without forging terms with the rest of the community, they can do so by imposing consequence for aggressive action.

Just because conflict is built into the engine, does not mean we can not steer it away from conflict. The real question is do we want to, and what are the consequences of doing so.

/sigh

Definitively Salmon

Actually I agree, it is salmon. I kinda set this whole exchange up to use that link :)

I am not going to promote the formation of military force against a power block that hilariously outnumbers us to resolve one persons grudge match. It might be a valid reason in the context of the game. That does not mean it is a good enough reason.

Nihimon wrote:

I just think the particular reasons in this case are pretty flimsy

Hence the winner of LR2 (The only other organization with over 100 folks) picking the spot Andius wanted to go for.... and the devs applauding their decision as "strategic". PLENTY of flimsy there.

A grudge because a large group secured a spot you and a small group wanted to eventually secure is flimsy. Unless I am missing something?

Andius wrote:

That being said, I would like to point out the Pax Fidelis belongs to Ozem's Vigil, a likely signatory of the Great Western Kingdom. Yes, the same Pax that owns two top 10 settlements in the Northern Coalition. So if a power were to move against the GWK then there is some chance the NC would come in to protect the interests of Pax.

While it is true that members of Fidelis are members of Pax Gaming. It follows that members of Fidelis are probably of some interest to Pax Gaming.

It is not true that Fidelis is tied (in any way) to Xeilias or the NC. I believe that you are afflicted with a serious lack of information. Surely you would want to present facts correctly if you wish to have people trust you and follow you.

I know that I would.

This can not be restated enough. It was the primary argument for the separation of Fidelis from EoX. They are their own entity.

I have a lot of friends from over the years in Fidelis, but they do what is best for them, and we us.

We can war with each other, we can fight each other. We just have to follow our rules of sportsmanship. No alliance is guaranteed by our membership in the Pax community.

@all

Meh

-Aet- Charlie wrote:

BrotherZael wrote:

What if we told Petey that there was a pill... that could make him tasteless...

Calm down Zael. No one wants a remake of Matrix Reloaded.

hey now.

hey.

I was quoting limitless
but since you mentioned it...

Oh well, it was at least a good opportunity to take a stab at MXR :)

While I think logical fallacies are often banded around these forums a little recklessly Cald is correct about one thing. Making a claim and then requiring someone else to provide the proof against it is a lazy tactic.

Evil does have cookies. This is known.

Hell, looking to play a lumberjack, pick Kreuz Bernstein!!

Rumor has it they are discussing some really cool titles... like The Saw... the Axe!!

Here I was thinking being the "Thane Blade" was as awesome as it gets... didn't take long for them to potentially prove me wrong.

Considering changing Thane Blade to Captain Huggles.

Reposting something I asked in the UNC discussion thread by request.

I didn't have anything constructive to add to this new line of conversation until this point was brought up by Decius.

This is not trying to start a fire, if there are discussions on positive gameplay and proactive building I and my ambassador would love to be privy to the conversation.

DeciusBrutus wrote:

because supporting positive gameplay means taking positive action in support of a goal, not just abstaining from a subset of actions, most of which are contrary to that goal.

I am curious of this point as well. If the RBA is talking about what steps we need to take towards a positive gameplay goal I have not been privy to that conversation.

I would not mind having that conversation, but it isn't happening in the KotC RBA forums.

Have I misinterpreted your statement or are there more permissions I and my ambassador need?

It has been an exciting and educational month for the Xeilian Empire. We have made new friends, and we have helped secure a few neighbors through the Northern Coalition. Golgotha has grown their citizenry, and very soon, Callambea stands to do the same.

We have also learned a lot about who we are and where we need to be as a nation. An organization's image is just as much a form of currency as any other aspect. We originally planned to provide the maximum amount of freedom of play style in our Nation, covering the full gambit of Good to Evil. It was a good goal, as far as such things go. What it ended up doing, however, was making our message lukewarm. A Lawful Neutral inclusive pitch is not something exclusive to our organization. In fact, the current message of alignment neutrality is almost (if not equally) as prevalent as goodness. We were competing in an oversaturated market.

We tried to bring in new settlements and companies specifically from the Lawful Good sphere for the last two years. While we feel confident that we have moved forward with decent metagame relations and possible trade negotiations, Good aligned groups have thus far stated that working alongside evil is detrimental to their preferred play styles. Our current two settlements, being roleplay oriented as a secondary focus, found it originally difficult to understand. In the end, though, we had to face the facts.

Xeilias has never been shy about our goals. We are active nation builders, and hitting a wall of stagnation is counter productive. We needed a stronger focus to get behind, and we needed to fill a niche that was currently being left out in the community.

At first we created an over the top, tongue-in-cheek blog titled “The Enemy They Need” (both on the Paizo Community Forums and on the Pax Gaming Community). It served as a good stress reliever during the beginnings of the land rush, and it provided some laughs and nods from both communities.

Then the leadership of both Callambea and Golgotha began to grow attached to the idea. Why not refocus the empire as Lawful Evil? Sure, we lose the ability to plug Good into the empire at the settlement level, but it also adds the ability to plug in Neutral Evil, and opens up opportunities to begin talks with groups that were outside our ability to support. Often times we were being defined by the alignment of Golgotha anyhow, why not own it?

A week later we brought the conversation to our collective memberships. To our great surprise, we were met with almost total support for the premise. We had one member who played devil’s advocate for us to make sure we were aware of what such large moves means, and we appreciate his contributions to the conversation. After letting the thread conversation go on at the member level for a week, we made our decision. We announced internally to our membership that the Empire of Xeilias was now a Lawful Evil nation.

This means we have answered the community call that is often said by prominent Paizo voices. The Xeilian Empire is now the premier home for the bad guys, and for all those that want to plug into a nation of expansionists. While originally a lark, our message in the Enemy They Need thread now rings quite a bit more true.

If you are LN, LE, or NE and want to participate in a nation level alliance we are your best bet. We are able to accept you both at the company level through Golgotha, as well as the settlement level in the Empire. Of everyone we have attempted diplomatic ties with, the nefarious have proven to be the most receptive friends the empire can hope for. This is a nod towards that end as well. Should our friends find it beneficial to step their alignment one time to fit into the empire, we would love to begin talks of growing our Nation together.

This does not change the goals of either Golgotha or Callambea. Golgotha still remains a militarily focused settlement specializing in evil as well as combat. Callambea still aims to be the premier trade hub of the central and north map, and we are confident in our ability to do so. Neither settlement is changing alignment. Callambea remains Lawful Neutral, and Golgotha remains Lawful Evil.

What this does change is who we will be accepting as Nation allies in the future. Good is officially off the table, and Evil is full steam ahead.

As citizens, companies, or settlements, we encourage you to give the darkness a chance, to be daring, and join with us on the road less traveled. Join Xeilias, and lets bring peace to the River Kingdoms in the only way it can be brought. Together through our steel, we bring order.

A hearty welcome to our Mystical Awakening friends. The north is safer because of your signature. I have always been impressed with the sound reasoning and past experience of your leaders.

Yes come try our "Pale Ale". Our Zombies worked hard to make that special brew. Ignore the chewy parts...

Disclaimer : Golgotha is not responsible for any "accidental deaths" or "unusual cravings" after consumption.

*Bug Report*

I think I have stumbled across an error with your Pale-Man "Zombie" Ale.

I was in a drinking contest with Maelstrom that featured the brew. When I finally passed out back at the inn I kept waking myself up yelling "Gains...Gains..!"

That morning I had an uncontrollable urge to help balance Callambea's accounts with Glau. Rubbing two coppers together we have never been more lean and profit focused.

The next night I kept waking myself up yelling "Stains!..Stains!". That morning I must have scrubbed every building in the settlement. You should see how it sparkles.

The night after I kept waking myself up yelling "Grains!...Grains!". That morning I ordered the cooking of every bread, ale, and sweet tart recipe in our kitchen's cookbook.

Last night I kept waking myself up yelling "Plain!...Plain!". I must have slept walked that night, because when I finally woke up I had replaced every wardrobe, drape, curtain, and paint job with coordinated colorful assortments.

*Bug Summation*

I think there might have been a spelling error in the ale recipe. On a side note Callambea has never been more fabulous!

To Signatories of the Roseblood Accord and Members of the Pathfinder Online Community,

Aeternum and the city of Callambea have always believed in this community and had hope for the future of this game. The idea of positive gameplay is an important one, even if the exact message holds a little different meaning to each member of the community. Aeternum believes this is seen in fair and honest trade and continued growth, both economically and diplomatically.

The idea of positive gameplay is nothing new to Aeternum; here is a reading from the Empire of Xeilias charter, of which Aeternum is a member settlement:

Players have a right to be free from griefing. While most online games are about war, the Empire of Xeilias is against the griefing of other players. In addition to the harassment and verbal abuse rules, Empire of Xeilias members will conduct themselves with the utmost honor in all aspects of the game related to PVP combat. Our policy is to avoid griefing players, or destroy them through combat, rather than to complain and engage with them in any argument about fair-play.

The Empire of Xeilias holds its citizens to a high standard. Just as we must set ourselves to a higher game-play standard, so must we set ourselves to a higher level of integrity within the community. The conduct of every single individual Xeilian reflects on the entire Empire and thus we must uphold our most sacred ideals and traditions of fair play and honest dealings.

In an effort to continue to grow both the community and the atmosphere of positive game play, the city of Callambea and the organization known as Aeternum do hereby agree to promote positive gameplay, and look to add our names to the current signatories of the Roseblood Accord.

I hope we can prove together that we can be competitive in a game environment such as we are presented and still behave above the dregs of competitive gaming societies.

Yes, if you'd ever studied chess, you'd know that it's all risk vs. reward and strategy, as is everything you just listed. Then again, you've missed the more important practices of mastering chess, but I'll let you study up on that yourself, or fail to.

Then again, chess takes patience and willingness to accept defeat and learn from it. You don't get anything from it if you just quit when you don't get your way, which may explain why you disregard it so easily.

Oh...No..!

-Aet- Charlie wrote:

Or how to manage big group boredom in between major conflicts?

Well said thank you...this will be what separates the long term winners from the short term.

Let me tell you one thing, mister!

Oh wait, that was a thank you.

Um, you are very welcome?

:)

Or how to manage big group boredom in between major conflicts?

Greetings from Callambea,

With the announcement of the War of Towers, the premier Trade Hub Settlement of Callambea would like to invite you to take another look at what it has to offer. You likely already know these marvelous benefits:
- Callambea is strategically placed - it's location makes it a prime spot for customers traveling to and from Thorn Keep, as well as being one of the first settlements that throngs of new players will venture to as they begin to explore the world of PFO.

- Callambea's participation in the Northern Coalition ensures a measure of safety for its customers and caravans that few other regions can boast.

- Callambea's Lawful Neutral alignment ensures its Lawful approach to transactions and contracts, while its Neutral trade philosophy finds its doors open to the widest market of customers and all manner of goods.
If that were not enough, the War of Towers blog has provided an extremely potent motivator for joining Callambea:

As stated by Tork Shaw in the thread Goblinworks Blog: The War of the Towers...

a) Each settlement can train X things up to level Y. X always remains the same and is determined by which prebuilt settlement you choose. Y, however, is determined by the number of towers you have. Basically, every ability/skill/feat in the game has 20 levels. Every tower you own adds another level to the training available in your settlement.

Given Callambea's numbers and the non-aggression pact it enjoys as a member of the Northern Coalition, Callambea is confident that it will successfully procure the number of towers necessary to provide the very best levels of crafting training possible. If you are looking to be a Harvester, Refiner, Crafter, or Merchant, Callambea is not only the settlement best positioned, protected, and pro-business aligned, but it will be offering the breadth and depth of training that the mercantile minded player can hope to find.

Don't wait to see if your group manages to win a settlement or if you are ensured the training you need. Your organization is welcome in Callambea today. Come help us make Callambea the best trade and crafting mecca in all the River Kingdoms.

For your brighter future in the world of PFO commerce and trade, come home to Callambea.