T7V Avari wrote:
This is actually Quietus, not Zac. I can't edit the link.I have flagged it myself to see if the comment will be removed then.
TEO Papaver wrote:
Everyone is responsible for their own actions.
The Umbridge link was meant as a joke because of what the character represents and honestly Nihimon's posts kind of come off that way to me in the forums lately. If he sees it as a personal attack, I will remove the link immediately.
Exactly. However someone views Nihimon is their own personal view.
I disagree that them continuing this means they are guilty. Whether I think they should or not being another question that I have no opinion on. But they were attacked, repeatedly. It got personal. Them expressing outrage doesn't mean they are guilty. It means they are human.
Your complaint that pissed you off has been rectified. They adjusted based on community feedback. You want to continue to bemoan about how they had 'evil' intentions? Great. Go write a blog. The rest of us would like to move on with things that are more productive.
And what is this pleading to Pax Members to force the leadership behavior? What behavior do you want changed? As I have mentioned before, they have addressed concerns from the community and have made changes. Or are you just asking for dissension among the ranks?
You've done a lot for this community Nihimon, but I've lost a lot of respect for you lately. I would like to think we could perhaps reach out to working with the Accord someday. But that is looking from my viewpoint (and mine alone) that you (and you alone) are making this increasingly more difficult. I am asking you to drop this. Bury the hatchet and let others of the Accord deal with Pax. It's obvious at this point that this has gotten personal and I for one do not think any good can come from continuing this.
edited- so my post seems less heated.
(P.S. This is me the player posting once again and not any way representative of my settlement. I speak for myself and myself alone.)
What I'm about to say comes from me as a player, not as a member of my settlement. I am not using my tag (FMS Quietus.) I will be using my tag from Paizo. One that I have used in the past and will use in the future to deal with the Pathfinder IP and everyone that it surrounds. This opinion that I have in no way represents anyone else, but me.
Thank you Ryan for asking others to chime in, as I did not feel welcome to give my opinion for concern of being swept up in this crap storm. I have no intention in bringing the settlement I'm a part of in it either.
I have through the past few weeks had the pleasure of meeting a lot of new people. I have met members from the Accord and I have met members from Pax as well. All of which I truly enjoyed and realize that they are all very excited about the game. While I haven't been as involved in PFO, many of the more dedicated have stuck with it the whole time. There is a lot investment and passion in it. Along with that there is money. Each and every person that has Early Enrollment put some amount of monetary investment into being a part of this thing.
I have a vision of getting into the game and being welcomed into a world. A world based on a IP that I absolutely love. With that world comes a strong political element. Now much like many things in life we see things that we may not condone or might not like, but we need to ask ourselves how far are we willing to go to police a situation. We must also ask ourselves what type of culture does that present. I respectfully disagree with the opinion that removing Golgotha from the leader board is the right thing to do.
Removing Golgotha from the land rush solves nothing. All it does is make sure that the larger guilds will sponsor or support the smaller ones from behind the scenes. If anything, Pax is guilty of being too transparent.
I support Golgotha, even though they are going for the location I wanted. See my group is one of the ones that misses out most in the end. This isn't some theoretical 31st guild. This is a real life scenario that Golgotha was kind enough to clue us in that they were going for the same settlement we wanted. They let us know so we would have ample time to reevaluate our next move. Even though there's a chance that we could benefit from their removal, I do not want that to happen. Because it is unfair. It's unfair to all those members that have banded together and spent real money to establish themselves as their own settlement, regardless of what meta group they happened to of joined in the interim.
I see that I was now able to link my Paizo account to a newly created Goblin Works account. I haven't seen any other details about my order show up on GW site yet, but I'm guessing that will come in due time.
I was able to create a new GW account through the Paizo site without too much trouble after clicking on the kickstarter banner on the GW site.
Why should GW have any issues? Any member of Pax has every right to support any guild/settlement they choose if they didn't support Pax Aeternum before in Guild Rush 1.
Nah. It will be those that aren't happy with the direction of the game design. Usually the biggest point of contention. Those petitioning to change things incessantly on the forums to 'evolve' the game rather than willing to try out the designers vision and see it through. Like reading a book and demanding the story goes in a different direction until the author changes things. They do this because it has worked in the past. But those have been mostly Themeparks. We'll see how this sandbox variant will hold up.
Hey all, another founder dropping in to say hi. We have the 6 core that registered under guild backing through the Kickstarter a year and a half ago. Back then we registered under our Gayme0n community name. The guild is a separate entity unto itself and has its very own website (Zac supplied the link earlier :) )
We really do appreciate the warm welcome and are really excited to join you all in game. For what it's worth two of the six members that are founders are actually straight. Not that it means that much either way, but we will be supporting a friendly gaming environment for all.
That being said - we are also taking the game seriously. That means we'll be addressing the PVP concerns as well as the RP. We'll be keeping a look out for you Bludd and hopefully be well prepared. LOL! :D
Exactly this. But I have a few companies I trust completely based on past experiences. Paizo and Lisa Stevens and the gang being among them. By extension I have faith that GW will deliver the best possible experience and constantly work at making it better. I hope that the theme of Pathfinder remains true. If I can get that from PO, everything else is icing on the cake for me.
I think we might have a few more starting to come around, but $100 is a tall order for a buy in right now for them.
Pax Deacon wrote:
I can send out the accounts for the Guild ones. Aka 5 of 5 invitations sent and accepted. But I have yet to be able to assign the add-on accounts that I purchased to the individuals I would like them assigned too.
This is so weird. I pledged the same thing and don't remember the +35 add on account thing being an option. Wonder how I could of missed it. All I remember was 6 accounts for $500 pledge + add on extras like twice marked etc, but I don't remember a special +$35 add on for another account to the guild.
Just to be clear. Those of us that have backed with a guild pledge through Kickstarter need to reregister our guild through GoblinWorks for approval?
What happens to the other guilds that don't make the top 30, including I'm assuming the guild backers?
Will this voting impact when a kickstarter guild will get into early enrollment? Will this voting impact the guild's right to reserve their name?
Thanks so much. This whole thing does sound pretty interesting and a little overwhelming. Lol
@DeciusBrutus I don't understand the social graph part of it myself. I still have a hard time believing that attacking a flagged character will allow all unflagged members of the flagged character's settlement, company, and party to jump into the fight. We'll see.
I could see it going either way. The old adage 'an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us' comes to mind.
I confess TN would be very difficult to do solo and not be just a footnote within a settlement-vs-settlement PvP world. There is a potential however that an organization could attract sufficiently numerous high-quality members to field an organization dedicated to dynamic balance in the River Kingdoms. Some few queries have been floated to that effect. I think it is an idea with promise.
Hmmmm Interesting. A Switzerland settlement huh? It would be really interesting to see how a group would go about maintaining neutrality without just being conquered. I would imagine it would require a large number of members to pull off for sure. Even then could be exciting to see how long they could hold off remaining neutral.
To be fair dull is a subjective term and best left to each individual to decide. I did say often not always, but I personally haven't seen anyone really pull it off well in my opinion. Anyone who's tried usually end up falling into the background as campaigns tend to be about motivations that bring up issues of good vs. evil, lawful vs. chaotic etc. I could definitely see a True Neutral NPC being really exciting and dynamic however. The players would never know which side she/he was truly on. ;)
Diverse viewpoints good. Purposely snide, abrasive and baiting comments to illicit a negative reaction from other posters is not productive. His post history is filled with baiting and dismissive comments to numerous posters.
You didn't know that of course, since youre brand new to the forums. You and Gaymeon.
As usual, you're wrong and misinformed. The Gayme0n community has been around for almost two years. I have been apart of the forums for over a year. I backed the Kickstarter (unlike you) in 2012.
You want to speak from a position of authority, when in reality you have no ground to stand on. All you do is fill these forums with garbage and it's time Paizo took out the trash.
Sure you were. I'm amazed you haven't been banned yet honestly.
Pax Rafkin wrote:
Note you said hidden in a back alley. If you're settlement is accepting of assassins, why would they need to hide?
Regardless, there's an argument that can be made that an assassin guild could be Chaotic Good (ala The Punisher.) That would place the settlement at Neutral Good, accepting of both the Paladin's Guild and Assassin's Guild. As mentioned before, the Assassin's Guild wouldn't need to hide in this example.
BUT if you are arguing for the possibility for a more seedy type of Assassin's guild in an off type settlement, I think that's a great idea. The key is that it would have to be hidden like you said. The Paladins would probably come knocking on the door to flush out the vermin otherwise. LOL
The PFRPG doesn't have much in way of CE player characters because Chaotic Evil is not conducive to group play. By the alignments very nature its a solo thing for the most part. Sure Chaotic Evil people will work together or with others, but sooner or later throats are going to get cut. I'm not judging whether or not I think CE is cool, I'm just stating a fundamental ideology of what a CE alignment is. In a game which is designed to be advantageous to group play vs. solo Chaotic Evil players will be at a significant disadvantage.
To take that and infer then you must be a goody two shoes perspective isn't accurate. There are plenty of Evil player characters in PFRPG. Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil (I actually think NE is pretty tough to pull off as well, but that's more debatable) are options as well and should offer slightly less restrictions than CE. You just won't be The Joker "Some people just want to watch the world burn" evil. Cause think about it, how great would that guy be to have in your settlement in the long run?
But remember Ryan and the gang aren't saying you can't be CE, they're just saying that game design is established that if you play CE your experience will probably suck in the extended time of the game. I think that's awesome. It makes sense with game mechanics that have long since been established and offers choice with consequences. Something I've been begging for from the MMORPG industry for years now.
All that being said, retaining Lawful Good status should be pretty difficult too. That's the goody two shoes perspective and can be very limiting to players (not to mention annoying) when doing group activities. This is by design and is a reason why playing a Paladin in a group of PFRPG needs careful consideration because it WILL have quite an impact on the rest of the players and story. Now I've noticed people mention the concept of True Neutral. That's another hot button alignment and often game versions haven't even allowed for a True Neutral selection for players. The reason being that True Neutral is almost always impossible to pull off and often when played well results in VERY dull characters. I'm only pointing these two out to show that alignment isn't an anti-evil bias, but anti-extreme. LG, TN, CE are the extremes and generally are difficult to pull off. They often have massive restrictions with a potential to lead to severe complications for said player down the road. Attempting to pursue such alignments should be done carefully and with purpose with the person doing it knowing full well of the consequences that come with it.
Alignment isn't a restriction in of itself. It's a measure of how you've been playing your character. According to GW there are some role/classes that have alignment restrictions and possibly other game mechanics that will have alignment restrictions as well, but it will be the players choice if whether they wish to experience those restrictions by their actions.
OR CE players will be rare which is exactly like the Pathfinder RPG game, which have real thematic and mechanical drawbacks to it.
The difference here is that you have a choice at all, not that the choice has to be viable or optimal. If this was a traditional Themepark game, being chaotic evil wouldn't even be an option.
It's funny reading posts from people trying to understand alignment shifts that the rest of us have known about and understood their value for decades. It's not so much the ignorance that may be agitating for some, but the appalling dismissive attitude towards others that care about such things. This game is based off an established IP. There are game designs implemented to take that into account. Making that known and clear I think will lower the amount of posts that need to be censored.
This game is called PATHFINDER online and yes alignment shifts with benefits as well as drawbacks are pivotal in the IP.
This thread is starting to read like an alignment 3.75 vs 4e debate and it needs to be stopped. These threads will continue to be made and will be flame bait for otherwise reasonable posters. No agreement will be reached. Those for and against have already made up their minds because they've had this argument for years before Pathfinder Online was even started.
I stopped trying. Lol/thread
Let me give you a specific example of what I'm talking about...
"Factional conflict is driven by narrative as much as player action. The relationships between factions are determined by the lore of Golarion and may shift over time, influencing individual PvP opportunities."
That's just one and I didn't even have to try that hard...
Go ahead and find one where they say the lore of Pathfinder isn't important in this game.
I'm sick of people acting like RP'ing, crafting, PvE'ing, etc are somehow more valid and meaningful than PvP.
I could care less if you're sick of it and this game isn't being made for you. This game is based off a an IP called Pathfinder. It's the site you're currently on. Pick up the core rule book and have a read. They have it real cheap.
The lore and story means something. People backed the kickstarter because they want that experience in the game. They are excited to see what Goblin Works does with it.
And one more thing, RPing/Lore IS more valid and meaningful. Because it's what will drive the crafting, PvE, AND PvP. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Roleplaying reasons are never a good basis for making game mechanics decisions.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Roleplaying reasons, theme reasons, lore reasons are the perfect basis to build a foundation of game mechanics. It is what breathes life into an MMORPG and transforms it into a virtual world. In my opinion the MMORPGs of today have turned into lobby mini-games. Game Design that enforces and supports the world is a world I will want to play in for a long time. I am excited and looking forward to Pathfinder Online offering just that.
Hey guys! I'm one of the leaders of Gayme0n meta-group.
Two of the guys with us are actually straight and we will be looking to form a community in-game that is accepting, but not a gay specific. A great thing about things lately has been that people have been more accepting and I would like to continue that trend and branch out.
Obviously people are entitled to have their own opinions, but our community will be a relaxed fun atmosphere that is non-discriminating.
Any other communities that wish to reach out and say hi or interested in teaming up in-game, feel free and send me a message here on this site.
We will make a formal post in guild recruitment once we have settled on a name for our chapter. lol :)
All the best and very excited to play with all of you in-game!
I'd just google him to see his background.
Chief Creating Officer. His old job at Trion Worlds.
But long short of it. The guy is active in the community and he follows through on his promises. EQ and Rift are examples of this. He also has worked with start ups before (Trion Worlds.)
Anyone who knows anything about long standing MMO history knows that Scott Hartsman is one of the pantheons in development.
He's not the only one for sure, but if that guy is free atm and they can afford him - he would be a huge 'get' for GW and the community.
I've seen this guy in action. Based on where you guys want to go with this game, his experience in the field and the fact that Goblin Works and he both see MMOs as a service - I think it would be a perfect fit.
Seriously. Hire him. :)
George Velez wrote:
Each person in the guild have their own account. You will give GW the information of the other 5 accounts. They will then send surveys to those five people. That's when those people would say they are a part of your guild.
Add-ons is another thing all together. I don't believe at this point we know if we can pay for additional things not already pledged from the kickstarter.
I would say that's what a Chaotic Evil group would do. I wouldn't enter any agreement with CE aligned. I most certainly wouldn't expect them to keep the agreement.
I think you might be over estimating how many people are going to play this game.I think this game is going to attract a small group of RPers and free form PvPers looking for an immersive experience. If the game is executed well, I would see it growing from there. By that time the culture of the world will already be established. As opposed to the mad rush of strangers that end of moving on a month later.