Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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