What does the ATA offer that other economic based companies may not? The Protection of Powerful, Combat Oriented Companies (and a whole bunch of 'em)
The Freedom to Conduct Uninhibited Trade within its region due to a Non-Aggression Pact
Access to Every Major Non-Regional Hex Source
Crafters; look to Callambea! - Krow
Something else that should get you all giddy, Feydred. As per the Blog "Beyond this Hill it Floods Rays of Hope" that our friend Guurzak pointed out: We chose a segment of the map—roughly 5x5 hexes—that included all the locations we needed. and The area we built includes two settlements, three monster hexes, a badlands hex, and lots of wilderness hexes spread across an area that is primarily Mountain and Forest terrain. If you review the Landrush Map, you'll note that Callambea has -sans swampland- ready access to every single base resource hex. As someone devoted to crafts, this should be an exciting proposition. While bulk goods will be decided upon by the needs of the settlement, each resource hex also produces crafting resources, as per Lee's Blog, "Rushing the Land": Hexes produce two categories of resources: crafting resources and bulk resources. Crafting resources come in a wide variety of forms: brimstone, willow bark, maple logs, adamantine, pearls, etc. We have around one hundred and thirty different types of crafting resources, with most hexes having twenty to thirty of these. Crafting resources are found by interacting with nodes that spawn in the hex, and can be collected by anyone with the right skills. If a hex is overtaxed, these resources become scarcer, and it is possible to temporarily exhaust a hex of its resources. Bulk resources will be produced by Points of Interest and Outposts, and represent the large-scale components needed to construct buildings, upgrade Points of Interest, etc. So, let's review. On top of Callambea's Company Specializations:
Callambea also offers it's crafters and traders:
No matter the kind of crafter or gatherer you want to be, no matter your focus in materials or craft, Callambea is utterly and completely focused on providing you with the resources, training and environment you need to make that happen. - Krow
It's a legitimate concern, as there is no inherent guarantee that can be readily seen that this would not happen. However, I ask that you also keep in mind that this coalition came into being from the efforts of four very different play styles. I would like to believe that the four entities came together -much like Roseblood Accord- under a single ideal. I can only speak from the view of Aeternum and Callambea, but I think we as a Settlement and entity have always let it be known how much we value open, clear and mutually beneficial agreements. Our founders all have history in sandbox and pvp games. There's a realization there that an entity, no matter how strong they are, will fall at some point during the life of the game. Only through strong friendships and proactive discussion (like the creation of the coalition before the game is playable) that we can ready ourselves for that inevitable fact. The Northern Coalition is founded on experienced sandbox / pvpers who realize what is at stake and want to maximize both the lifespans of their organizations and the fun (we seem to forget that word on the forums) that can be had enjoying a game we are all, now, deeply invested in. Can I make guarantees, Erian? I am not in the position to do so, for the coalition. I can suggest to you that this coalition is a projection of the values and experience that are embodied in each member state, and in the form of a simple NAP there is still much room for discussion and growth, now that we are all at the same table. - Krow
For those confused how this coalition will work, here is a leaked video of trade negotiations between UnC and the Empire of Xelias as well as Gol Morbis welcoming traders to Callambea. Very cute, Avari! I believe I can shed a little light on how trade in the Northern Coalition will work, specifically where Callambea is involved. As a trade city, it behooves us to do two things: 1) Facilitate as much positive trade and collaboration of economics as possible in our region.
When you look at the current land rush map, a couple of settlements around Callambea may pop out and give a trader pause. Specifically, the Settlements of Aragon and Golgotha. Entering into a mutual non-aggression pact via the Northern Coalition is beneficial to both of those statements. Why? Knowing that such power houses of PvP intent are on Callambea's side rather than against is a great boon. Our flanks are protected, our trade caravans within their areas are protected, and we have large entities who consume great quantities of war stuffs close by to trade with on a normal basis. “But what does that do for me, Krow? Just because Callambea is in an non-agression pact doesn’t mean I am! Xeen will empty me of both blood and baggage before I arrive at your gates!” How would your cold, lifeless body earn me any bags of gold? Would you not believe that, in the best interest of my two statements above, Callambea would, say, offer our fellow NC members some sort of recompense for allowing non-NC trade caravans through? What about going a step further, and saying now I have rough, violent men standing watch on the road to protect you, my trading partner? I won’t argue the differences between the Roseblood Accord and the Northern Coalition; you have to make peace with your neighbors or fight until there are none. Each coalition will handle business (or not handle business) in the way that its signatories declare. The above is a statement from only one of those cities of the Northern Coalition. - Krow
This community is also very important to me.. I don't think anyone can or would deny that you have been as much an advocate and enabler for community growth as any of the other major voices on these forums, Nihimon. It was apparent in the few Teamspeak discussions we have had, and in the major resources you maintain. We all bring something unique to this table, and that, at times, has caused us to butt heads. It also encourages growth, both in terms of hammering out game mechanics, but also the relationships we build before we even have a game to play. I know I'm still as excited as ever to play this game, and it's not all about the game mechanics for me; Sandboxing is just as much about the politics, and building a solid community. There are many MMOs, with many forums that see bickering, petty language or cheap shots thrown between community members. Very few, though, are the ones where the community members come out and apologize for those mistakes. Truth is, I have a handsome face under this mask, but I just don't want everyone else to be jealous of my good looks. We appreciate this humble gift you deliver to the forums, Sir ;) - Krow
Golgotha has deemed it worthy to congradulate both organizations on coming to an agreement. I hope this will not cause a loss of relations between Golgotha and both of your organizations. We look forward to continuing to build ample trade and dimplomatic ties with both PAX and the UNC The Kingdom of Aeternum appreciates Golgotha's congratulations, and I see no reason why we can not continue to build trade and diplomatic ties; in fact, I look forward to future discussion to do just so.
For the past year now, there have been posts about community initiatives in relation to a perceived threat. Thus far Pax Aeternum has rejected such proposals as they crop up. While we believe our opposition has been based on what we as an organization perceive to be feasible, we do understand that merely showing opposition tends to give the community an inaccurate perception of our position. To properly represent our position it is important to include positive solutions to the issues addressed by these past threads. This post serves to identify that as well as to express our goals and clearly express where we could align with other kingdoms.
It is important to note that Pax is not suggesting that we can dictate what individual players, CC's, or Kingdoms define favorable or unacceptable behavior. It has been said in many threads that people have the right to call behavior out or not as they see fit. We completely agree with that assessment. That view point only runs into issue if you are looking for outside support. We do not agree to such wide initiatives where the terms are subjective, there is little consensus, and when outside viewpoints are not taken into account. Aeternum has also, as the game information is progressing, been less confident that meta kingdom alliances will be feasible. Kingdom alliances hold an advantage by virtue of shared resources. A settlement or chartered company inside of a larger kingdom benefits from supporting their nation because of the simple fact that their holdings are also at stake. While we certainly acknowledge that temporary alliances (against a greater threat, like BigTown) are possible and likely we do not see the same necessarily holding true for long standing meta alliances. There is a distinct possibility that kingdoms will (I would even call it likely) go to war with each other when the need to expand arises. In those instances the goal will be to destroy the other settlement, or defend your settlement from destruction. There might be instances of land being peaceably traded, but that could easily be an exception to the rule. One theme of current community talks has been outrage that settlements might be burned to the ground by invaders. That possibility is not as surprising to Pax, after all it is not that uncommon of a sandbox feature. Far from being outraged, we look forward to this function as an extra challenge. Along with settlement warfare, there seems to be differences of opinion on what is considered meaningful player interaction in relation to player versus player conflict. In an effort to clearly state our position on that subject here is our charter section relating to griefing: "6.5 RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE): Players have a right to be free from griefing. While most online games are about war, the Pax Gaming Community is against the griefing of other players. In addition to the harassment and verbal abuse rules, Pax members will conduct themselves with the utmost honor in all aspects of the game related to PVP combat. This includes the ban on the initiation of combat on zoning or link-dead opponents as shown in the practice of corpse camping, graveyard camping, or the like. PVP combat between different levels (i.e. higher level player attacking a lower level player) or different numbers (i.e. 10 players attacking 3 players) is considered standard PVP tactics that regularly occur within the rules of fair-play. Pax will not ally or go to war with any guild who does not agree to our rules of engagement. As a no-drama guild our policy is to avoid griefing players (or get back at them with superior numbers and firepower), than to complain and engage with them in any argument about fair-play. Therefore, in certain situations turn-about is fair play when that is the predominant tactic being used by the opposition, but generally such activities are not the rule." 6.5 of our charter identifies non meaningful player interaction (in relation to pvp) as: 1. Verbal abuse and harassment. An example of this is poor sportmanship, vulgarity, etc. 2. Using mechanical limitations to cause undue stress to a player, as in attacking zoning or link dead combatants. This also includes corpse camping and respawn area camping. Everything outside of those two points is considered meaningful pvp in our organization. Overwhelming numbers (often called ganking), attacking lower powered characters, and sometimes turn-about (a rare situation where we might retaliate against a player or organization through superior firepower or numbers) are explicitly stated as normal player versus player tactics in both sandbox and themepark games. Also notice that RPKing (Random Player Killing) is also not listed under our rules of engagement, because it is also considered a legitimate playstyle in many games. Another opinion in these community threads lately has been the issue of NBSI policies as a possible indicator of threat. The kingdom of Aeternum certainly plans to run our settlement in the preferred NeRDS system (for purely pragmatic reasons, more on that in a bit) . We do not think it fair, or even reasonable, to oppose other powers for choosing harsher restrictions in their own lands. Not only we will not go to war with such powers purely based on such choices, we will not limit them from our own lands or trade agreements based on territory choices. In summation, the reason for our rejection for the solutions put forward so far are simple. Those solutions have gone beyond the "lets agree to cooperate against BigTown type entities who come with the purpose of wrecking the game" . Instead it seems as if such calls are used as a vehicle for trying to go down the road of setting out acceptable behaviors That in itself would not be a problem if definitions of acceptable behavior didn't vary so much.
In short, by attempting to create AnotherBigTown. That is to say we have, and will continue to aggressively recruit like minded players into the Kingdom of Aeternum. We continue to gather interest internally (from our other active divisions and membership), into Pax Aeternum specifically (maintaining recruitment threads on the Paizo boards), and court other organizations through a kingdom alliance (Being a part of our kingdom, while maintaining your own settlement or chartered company) Hubris is a dangerous mindset when it comes to games like these, and we operate with a complete knowledge that failure is a possibility. It is the driving factor behind our constant attempt to organize what we can, when we can, and in every way we can. Luckily we have plenty of experience in multiple games at our disposal, and our leader conversations are always actively pinging new ideas. Failure is instrumental and educational. Arguably equal to success in sandbox games. As an organization we have both flourished in nullsec (in Eve through alliances) as well as been pushed back into lowsec. Rebuilding yourself, recovering from infiltration, and identifying what went wrong is a big step in identifying what you could do better. It is because of that we are wary of meta kingdom alliances (or alliances between kingdoms). Like has been said above, alliances are more cemented when parties share resources, space, consequences, and representation.
Aeternum will most certainly work with other kingdoms, both against a larger threat as well as securing favorable trade agreements. In the case of a map wide threat, Aeternum will treat the problem as numerical, and our response will also be numerical. Simply, if there exists a threat in Pathfinder Online that is larger and more experienced than our own kingdom we will gather together with other powers that are likewise smaller individually than the current threat. What exists in that case is a temporary alliance of necessity. Such an alliance could exist for as long as the threat does, and dissolve or become a permanent alliance once it does not. An important note is that such an alliance would not exist along alignment borders. We will join up with evil, neutral, or good parties in retaliation to a threat equally. We will also not consider any supported tactic towards success as off limits. This could include hiring or gaining the support of infiltrators, rpkers, gankers, bandits, etc. The goal is to demolish the threat. We have little interest in policing behaviors. Outside of the threat scenario, we will work with other kingdoms in community events such as the guide program, celebrations, and trade agreements.
This question has been asked of us multiple times in the past, and we have not been specific in that response because in a lot of ways our defining purpose was being dictated by our membership and officer conversations. Over the months our purpose has arisen somewhat organically. Since in the recent past others have sought to define us, for us, the time is ripe for us to put such questions to rest. Pax Aeternum exists to be a merchant empire. Whether it involves the selling of finished products, resources, or services we hope as an organization to provide for your needs. This means that our settlement, Callambea, will be set up with NeRDS for as long as it can be feasible specifically to facilitate the most trade we can possibly encourage. We define ourselves as Lawful Neutral because our primary attribute is honesty. In both our alliance contracts and merchant dealings we clearly define what we are offering, and stick with our terms for the duration of the contract for as long as the other party does the same. That is our single largest identifier. We are not (as an organization) crusaders, concerned with altruistic goals. We will have members on every aspect of the alignment scale that the mechanics will allow. We actively plan to provide services such as militia, bounty hunting, and assassins for hire in addition to goods. Please visit the following thread for examples of our merchant goals: Announcing: Aeternum Postal Service Likewise our kingdom is Lawful Neutral in nature, and we are and will actively continue to court alliances from good to evil and in between. This means that bandits and evil entities will be allowed in our borders for as long as they agree to our laws (cessation of violence in our towns among them). We will entertain alliances with similar organizations for as long as they agree not to target our members and our allies. Otherwise the golden rule is the rule of coin. The bandit's gold clinks just as loudly as the paladin's. A decent argument could be made that our stance is pragmatic and self-interested. Such an interpretation might not be untrue, but it is important to understand that those qualities are not of themselves detrimental. It is in our interest economically to have safe borders, so we will endeavor to ensure that they are. It is detrimental to our sales to shoot everyone on sight, so we plan our kingdom to fit the NeRDS archetype. Similarly it is in our benefit to attract other settlements and CC's that hope to provide similar services or goods. It is also to our benefit to ensure that our kingdom is as safe as the mechanics can allow. In that regard we have set up an alliance contract and system that clearly identifies the process. We make sure such powers feel comfortable with their representation on our National Councils while maintaining minimal funnels for espionage. While such systems are never air tight, we feel confident that we have moved positively towards achieving such goals. In short it is because of our self-interest that our potential allies can operate in our borders, with our support, and with an acceptable level of representation. We make our holdings as safe as feasible and as lucrative as possible because quite simply it benefits Aeternum to do so. On the other side of the coin, our lack of institutionalized altruism means we will not expect our members and allies to police the River Kingdoms in any regard. Our stance on defense is based on the pragmatic concerns of our borders. Protecting Aeternum is protecting your own interests. Outside of that we welcome any player or organization that strives to maximize profits. Similarly we welcome any player or organization that wants a safe base of operations, and a good deal of flexibility to achieve their own goals in addition to the needs of the kingdom.
This message was developed over the course of weeks, with the input of both the High and Low Consul. This is not a message put together lightly, and as such, in the eyes of Aeternum, it is a direct response to the back and forth discussions of 'What is Aeternum?'. While interpretation, conjecture and unproductive comments may arise alongside the constructive discussion, the only part Aeternum will take in those non-constructive discussions is a restatement of the above beliefs. Our message is clear, honest, and open; without further knowledge of in-game systems and until a better understanding of the Sandbox world of Pathfinder Online evolve, it is the statement that we will stand by, and a statement that we welcome the community to use or link to when someone asks 'What is Aeternum?'. - Krow, High Thane
@Krow. I've skimmed all the material you provided and nothing really eases my concerns. It's unfortunate that you feel that the information we provide is not enough to ease your concerns; I have been told on more than one occasion that our attention to detail and volumes of material about our organization goes above and beyond what many would consider the norm. What I'm looking for as some kind of assurance you aren't a threat to neutral parties. You have said that PAX prides itself up front so I'll ask some very clear questions: I think Bluddwolf hit the nail on the head; we are a sizable organization that wants to stay active within the community; in terms of power, that means we will have some in the River Kingdoms. Denying that would be, quite frankly, silly. However, I'm not sure where your perception began with the thought that this power represented hostility, openly or in secret. Let's see if my answers can assuage such fears. 1. As a neutral party what kind of treatment can I expect from PAX? You'll be treated fairly and in turn with the way you treat Aeternum and our allies, both people and their interests. The River Kingdoms is a dangerous place, especially more so in a world where you don't truly die; security will be an active and present force in an effort to curtail that danger within our home, but for the person who approaches us with no ill-will, you have nothing to fear. 2. Do I have to worry about PAX using it's power to acquire my goods and services by force? Simply stated, Aeternum does not condone criminal activities. If the acquisition of your goods and services is done at knife point by a member of Aeternum, then they are either A) someone posing as an Aeternum Citizen and/or B) shortly going to find themselves on the wrong side of Aeternum law. 3. If I am in the path of PAX's expansion how will they approach me? What measures would they take to resolve the situation? Pax's expansion will encompass the growth of our settlements; there is no foreseeable reason for our expansion to be more than what we need to sustain ourselves. I cannot speak fully on how hex ownership will play out, as not all the information is available, but I suspect our growth will be in-line with our needs, and not some military campaign to sweep across the River Kingdoms. I say this because if we are approaching you regarding our expansion efforts, it will be because you are butted up against one of our borders. Again, conjecture until we truly know hex ownership and resource scarcity, but I feel comfortable enough saying that now knowing what Goblinworks is planning to say that. We will approach you very literally; we believe in the community of PfO, and we will follow very diplomatic steps. Specifically, what steps will we take? Again, I do not know all the in-game systems, but the process will always start as diplomatically and fairly as possible. 4. What does PAX consider justifiable cause for war? War is costly; war is both time and resource intensive, and in previous Sandbox games that I have played in, prolonged exposure to war -just like in real life- can weigh heavily on both human and resource elements. War, then, is the last on our list of options; most issues with other entities can be solved easily enough with diplomatic discussion and fair agreements. But if war is necessary, it will be calculated, and I daresay both parties will see it coming. Will we take the field, line up in parade armor and exchange witty repartee before a rehearsed assault? Doubtful. But the fact that Aeternum has brought a war to someone's doorstep will not be out of the blue, and it will not be our first, second or even third choice. And, of course, any major assault on Aeternum/Ally interests (such as a siege) will be met with immediate force; there's no need to diplomatically think such a threat through. Is PAX a threat? There's an easy answer to this, Eldurian, and it begins with a question; does Pax view you as a threat to her citizens and allies? You may say to yourself, "That's not fair! Pax can claim any a threat and deal with them as they see fit!" Yet, we've told you our stance, we continue to offer further insight into who we are and multiple members of this community have already stepped forward to state their research into Pax has shown an open, honest organization. What we consider a threat should be easy to pick out from all this; someone who has shown Aeternum, our friends or the PfO Community as a whole hostilities, both overtly or covertly in nature. From where I'm sitting, Eldurian, the only unknown in this equation is you. - Krow
Areks did a stellar job of summing up the feeling of control given to the Freemen who will make up the backbone of these chartered companies. The leadership does an excellent job of guiding the thinking, offering critical pieces of information at important junctures in the conversation, and sometimes giving it a friendly nudge when the discussion dies down. You have an excellent crew of officers already, High Thane; I am truly excited to be on the ground floor not only for this excellent game, but also with a gaming guild that honestly wants opinions and input. As to my personal story, it has opened my eyes. Areks hit the nail on the head regarding personal growth in Golarion lore; I've already indulged in several choice materials the role play division has suggested, and I'm finding a wider understanding between the characters and chartered companies that make up Pax Aeternum. Bounty hunting will need a gentle yet constant touch from the Huntmaster; with the current bounty system, we will need not only Pax Aeternum to know the Hounds are on constant alert, but that the surrounding populace can trust us. When they are wrongfully harmed, Bloodwolf Clan needs to be the phrase first to mind as they choose an authorized bounty hunter. While I am a Hound in a galaxy far, far away, I've been eying the Watchers and Seekers with interest as well. Little is known as to GW and Ryan's thoughts with these systems, but I've got a hankering to get down and dirty with local politics, political boundaries, and who who's on the behind-the-scenes string-pullers (I'm looking at you, Blaeringr). Apologies on the long post; trying to catch up with the fast-moving conversation! |
