KitNyx's page

Sorry, I missed the last few days (birth of a new baby).

I must admit it seems everyone us getting tangled in the details.

Granted I call Phaeros and TSV home, but as many can attest, I am not against calling out my own when I think they are wrong. To me it seems to boil down to this:

From here:

The EBA has established our borders, shown on the following map, for resource, escalation, and holding claims. We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership. Any non-hostile individuals are free to travel our land, trade, buy/sell at auction houses, as well as bank.

Territory Map Border

...

This is the EBA's stated policy. And...I think this is pretty much an admission of the EBA's ability to enforce it.

Did Golgotha act in a manner defined by the EBA as hostile in EBA territory (making this an EBA issue) or in a manner defined by a settlement of the EBA as hostile in their territory (making this a settlement issue)?

Was action by EBA members claimed to be in direct response to that violation?

Why is this being framed as a matter concerning a member of the EBA versus the whole?

Why is Golgotha surprised when the EBA reacts to acts of hostility?

Finally, what is the relevance of acts of hostility in EBA territory to any member of the EBA farming escalations in any unclaimed territory anywhere on the map?

.......

That said/asked, I must congratulate everyone on the eventful weekend; sounds like much content was created and fun had.

I say this simply as a suggestion, not as an expectation.

I have found people are more apt to provide support for things they feel invested in. One issue you have is that those with power, no longer need you. Perhaps an option would be to create a "board of directors" consisting of (for instance) 1 representative from the top 5 most populous/active participating settlements (with a caveat that no 2 can be from any one kingdom/alliance) and the "CEO" of PFU. Participating settlements would be those who agree to your requests above and promise to enforce that amongst their residents.

The "Board" would provide some minimal function of oversight and advise, perhaps even just periodic reviews of policy, audits of communal requests, or judicial reviews of conflict with(in) PFU.

Meetings of this board could even be public, offering you periodic opportunities for transparency and RP.

My only issue with this whole discussion is that it seems to equate content with PvP. The devs did promise other people would be our content, they also said there would be PvP, I see nothing in either of those positions that suggests that content must be PvP.

Personally, I see all interactions as content. Have I created content? Yes...I think I was pretty instrumental in creating one of the most successful social groups in game...and I must admit, I am not done creating them. That is a big part of my content.

I keep seeing mentioned the fact that it is an open PvP world as evidence that we must all be prepared and that it is justified everywhere and anywhere and anytime. Well, it is also an open dialog world, open RP world, open emote world...and most importantly, open story world.

I am all for PvP. What I am most looking forward to is tactical battles, strategic choices, and meaningful events. I am looking forward to PvP for a purpose, PvP as a tool to achieve or progress that story.

I have to disagree a little concerning the absolute nature of the River Kingdom Freedoms and Alignment.

First, alignment is universal everywhere in Golarion. What Asmodeus, the current personification of LE approves of, he will approve of everywhere.

The River Kingdom Freedoms on the otherhand, might be univerally known in the River Kingdoms, but are interpreted by each as seen fit. Similarly, sometimes the decision is made to ignore one (or more) all together...as evidence shows.

What I think we cannot know, is what alignment will end up meaning in PFO. The devs, as creators of our version of Golarion, might infuse the pantheon with variants of judgement than what we would normally expect in a more traditional setting. I enjoy alignment banter for the sake of the philosophical argument. However, what the alignments will really end up being or meaning, we must wait and see.

At this time, I really do not see what staking out our territory and our plan for defending it have anything to do with an alignment system we can not yet know.

I can say I intend to be TN...but what I really intend to do is play how I find it fun, and accept whatever alignment PFO makes that be. If I am forced to find a new team to play with because of this, well then I welcome the challenge and the adventure of making new friends. Similarly, we have stated our plan, if that plan makes us LG, we will be LG, if it makes us LN, TN, NG or even CE, so be it.

Killing people who are in your territory because you don't want them to be there, despite not having committed a moral crime, is definitely not Lawful Neutral.

That is straight up Lawful Evil, since you are attaching the legality of applying a death sentence or execution for violating a set of laws you have decreed rather than the distinction of being an aberrant of nature or having been known to have committed a heinous act.

Stealing EBA's property, which we consider all resources within our domain, is a crime. Committing a crime is a moral offense. Minor moral offenses will be corrected with a warning or threat. Major moral offenses will be corrected with execution of that threat.

Theft of EBA resources by an organization or association known to be collectively in conflict with the EBA is a violation of our sovereignty and hence an act of war. Defense of one's self and neighbors in war is a moral imperative.

I will grant that recognition of such things as laws, belongings, territory, and even collective associations is a Lawful ideal, but defense of one's personal and neighbors' well-being is hardly Evil.

However, I imagine you judge all through the lens of your understanding of the world - I do not take offense at your err.

Nihimon wrote:

Gol Guurzak wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

right now, nothing can be done about it other than to ask you to show some restraint, and we all know how well that's going to go over.

You might be surprised. Golgothan leadership does not want to see the world burn. If there's a serious argument that what we're doing is bad for the game I'm open to hearing it.

I'm asking you to show some restraint and not take advantage of situations beyond any player's control in order to engage in more random player killing than you expect will be feasible once the game systems are fully developed.

Savage Grace's point about the 24-hour PvP Window in the unclaimed Tower hexes adjacent to Keeper's Pass was well taken. However, rather than asking yourself why Keeper's Pass was unable to reclaim those Towers (partly due to the lack of a Leader capable of accepting folks into the Settlement), you saw an opening to engage in lots of random player killing.

If you can get 200 people warring and thus testing/crowdforging PvP I will happily do my share of PvE, instead. Until then I actually feel a responsibility to PvP, the same way I wash the dishes when no one else in the household will. And with so very very few people doing PvP we need every rep free opportunity we can find. Though it never occurred to me that the towers were unclaimed for any reason other than being promised to be irrelevant the next day.

I can't tell you how much I would love to see 200 people PvPing each other each week so I could do a lot less PvP (under the PvP systems we had up to yesterday). We'll see if today's version change makes PvP any more interesting.

Again, an issue with your position, if PvP is such a chore...and all of you just want to "kill for research", why not just kill each other? I bet with the cooperation of your victim and the ability to control and/or compensate for all other variables would provide much more accurate results. In fact, given the ability to replicate a given situation repeatedly and monitor the findings, I bet you could develop accurate statistical baselines and ensure there are both no external or internal variables that we are not aware of...or things that are not working consistently that should be.

I mean...since it is in the name of research and all...

Forencith, this was kind of a stealth move, but the jumping is actually a masterful game design element. When I first played LotR Online, some jerkface trollnugget thought it would be funny to pin me against a wall so I couldn't move. If you can jump over other players (which is exactly the height you can jump), they can't do that. The fact that we can jump the exact height we can jump is actually an unheralded piece of design genius, because it eliminates the problem of whether players should be ghostly apparitions people can just walk right through (like in Planetside) or solid obstacles. This way you can pick the realistic option, people are solid, without having to worry about trolling in the form of boxing people in.

Oh I agree. My post was actually in response to someone who wanted no jumping. I offered the compromise that jumping should cost stamina. And I agree about the jump height. I think it looks goofy, but I understand why they did it...and only a little goofier than crouching to move through characters.

Saying that, I cringe at the thought of watching gnomes jump over half-orcs.

Tied with 10 each.

Please, pretty please forbid jumping 20 Nov 2011.

Chartered Company: The Seventh Veil 20 Feb 2012.

I was thinking about how to improve the counter system. Instead of having to rework it, perhaps there could be counters for each company in the vicinity of the tower and it becomes a race to the threshold. Therefore, it is not necessary to keep all of a company out, only have more of your own in longer. This will prompt PvP more I think and only require the current system to be extended as opposed to entirely revamped.

This suggestion should go hand-in-hand with an incentive to defend. If for instance, the defenders counter moved at a slightly faster rate per character, it would not only simulate the fact that towers are defensive positions, but also encourage attempts to defend because it has a higher return.

I could also see a small "defender buff" being justified in light of, again, towers being a "dug-in" defensive position.

Point being, however it is accomplished, the return for effort must be greater for defense than attack, otherwise it will always be more effective to just go take another tower that is undefended than to defend your current holdings.

EDIT: (hence, Spraga's musical (towers) chairs 2.0).)

"Pissing too many people off can be game-ending".

Or game-on...

Who gets to decide?

The people who stick around.

To ask a slightly off-topic but relevant question. Is it currently possible (meaning equally effective) to base a company out of the NPC towns? I thought that was suppose to be the default...and a company that did so would then not have to worry about being bound by the rules, agreements, taxes, or alliances of a PC town.

I am not suggesting Allegiant do this, I respect their right to stand up for what they believe in exactly the way they have been doing...in fact, I thank them for this content. Just something I wondered when trying to think of a solution. It is not afterall, as if there is any real benefit to being part of a PC settlement at the moment.

I just have not done any group management yet, so asking...

"As penned by Needsha, philosopher of the Laws of Man and propagandist of the the Pure Legion:

'Whoever fights the followers of Rovagug should see to it that he does not become one in the process. And when you gaze long into Gormuz, the Pit also gazes into you.'

He of course was speaking metaphorically, and conflating the well documented tendency for those who spent time around the chasm to go crazy...with the tendency of Rovagug followers to also be insane, as well as trying to indirectly hint that spending time in the presence of any god will have a like effect. Then in 2558 AR, during a lecture he gave at the..."

The small gnome stops talking...realizing that everyone's eyes had glazed over...nor is this the proper locale for such a discussion. He bows his head, muttering as he walks away.

"Well...just saying..."

Best of luck moving forward to all parties involved.

I'd just like to note in passing that "positive" and "non-negative" are not synonymous.

While this is true and I tend to have the same interpretation of the situation as Decius has, not playing negatively is not advocating positive play, and therefore not sufficient for membership in the RA. I must concede based on what is on paper, to Bluddwolf.

If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. … We need not wait to see what others do.

But the gist is the same, "be the [social] change you want to see in the world."

As written, if Bluddwolf considers himself (and his krewe) to be an example(s) others will try to emulate, then his choice of gameplay, is self-advocating. He is, by playing a certain way, advocating it (leading by example). The question simply becomes at what point we draw the line between negative and non-negative...and positive. Bluddwolf obviously draws the line at the point GW will intercede, below is negative, above is positive. Again, I would disagree, I think GW will be too busy to bother with much that i would consider negative gameplay, and I think there is a not insignificant gap between negative and positive...but I concede that his opinion is as good as mine.

I understand that some people are displeased with the direction the RA has gone, specifically with a watering down of the RAs goals stemming from a broadening of the definition "positive gameplay". I do however, want to point out that it was many of those same people who were specifically against giving the RA both more teeth and defining terms that might be questionable. I know those in TSV are probably getting sick of me saying this, but no norm can be expected to be universal without being explicitly documented.

I also want to remind those same people that all members of the RA have at minimum agreed to Wheatons Law, which is more than we had prior to the RA...for me, that alone is a huge success. My advice to those who want more out of the RA, find others who agree with you and go make it happen.

Physics and Math are the greatest laws there are

...and include the sub-fields of quantum physics and chaos theory respectively.

For now, F1 targets you for your heals (and if you're in a party, the other F keys target party members). We'll probably have smarter targeting for beneficial spells eventually (there's design for having to do some kind of override to attack friendlies and being unable to buff/heal hostiles, which should help if all PvE enemies are treated as hostiles).

I know we have a minority of TSV members who hope to be pro-PvE mob. An interesting choice I know, especially when the mobs will always be anti-character. However, the system as is works logically. If positive energy heals wounds on living flesh, why wouldn't targeting an Ogre with it heal them? It can be argued that your intent would preclude that...but your current target is the representation of your intent. If you do not want to heal the Ogre, don't target the Ogre and channel positive energy.

While I understand the argument for convenience, my personal opinion is that removing our sandbox tools (options for creative play and tactics) in the name of convenience is an unfortunate trade. I would prefer working up an alternate path to the convenience that does not remove our sandbox tools.

Your reputation here is not for...winning.

Sorry, to be fair the current TEO is a win, it is hard to rationally refute that...and on many levels Andius deserves some credit for making it what it is today.

EDIT: Oop, he ninja edited while I was typing this and already took credit himself.

Cal B wrote:

...I'm not asking these things as a detractor, I'm asking them as someone who wanted to participate from the moment I saw it, but want to know what it is in which I'm participating...

Thank you for this statement; it sums up my own feelings as well. Or at least it did at one point.

I don't think it's that hard to imagine that people can get confused when they ask "How does the Accord work?" and people give multiple contradictory answers (and it wasn't realized that those people were just putting forth independent opinions); I certainly don't think ridicule is needed for outsiders asking questions and trying to understand the agreement. It's hard to know what the spirit of the agreement is when every person asked about said spirit gives a different answer.

I am not sure what you mean by "how does it work". In my opinion, there is nothing to be gained by joining the RA. It is not a defensive pact, it is not an economic treaty, it is nothing more than a self defining group comprised of sovereign bodies that have each promised that they, individually, advocate positive gameplay.

An additional caveat is obvious (whether it was assumed in the original design or has since evolved does not really matter) that some subset of the current signatories have to have enough trust in the meaning behind any given promise for it to be taken at its word. What that subset is, I have no idea. It was not discussed because all the original signers trusted each other, so there was no requirement for that subset to be defined for the RA to come into existence.

Returning to the question of "how does it work", I have to answer this with a question and an example. How does what work? If I promise to make a gnome, and Areks independently promises to make a gnome...and we decide to officially call everyone who promises to make a gnome a "Gnome Bro" for no other reason that we all intend to separately make gnomes and even though we have different allegiances and associations, how does that work? What work is expect to be done? It offers nothing more than a bit of comradeship and perhaps some food for interesting discussions about how best to make a gnome. If Areks decides in the end to not make a gnome...he obviously is no longer a "Gnome Bro".

EDIT: Just using Areks as an example because I just read his post above...no offense to Areks or gnomes intended.

EDIT2: But since there is already at least a minimal level of trust among the RA signatories, it makes sense that other agreements, voiced or not, might emerge out of the relationships initially forged in the RA. There is nothing about the RA that forces a greater relationship, but nor is there anything that precludes it.

EDIT3: And Areks exclusion from the "Gnome Bros" because he is no loner making a gnome includes no judgement about the elf (for example) he does end up making.

I know I was on TS when that part was drafted (I proposed the "by example" part, and might have proposed the "and mutual success")...what it meant to me, and admittedly others might have interpreted it differently, is that I personally will work toward (and support my guild working toward) any goal that increases the net influence of the collective RA...or rather, more accurately, the net influence of our mutually shared idea of positive gameplay.

Since the whole point of signing the RA is to promise to advocate and support positive gameplay....the only rational way to measure success is through the increase in influence of that ideal. Other possible measures of success, land ownership, resource accumulation, membership counts, PvP domination, whatever, is irrelevant to the purpose of the RA.

The only restriction I can think of that the RA places on any member is to not participate in "negative gameplay" as this would look bad, by association, upon all signatories and be a mutual loss, a loss shared by all of the influence our ideals have in the greater community. Since all members joined because they already had personal convictions toward this end, I do not fear this outcome.

Two members participating in PvP against each other does nothing to change our mutual success as it applied to our dedication to promoting positive gameplay.

Wasn't trying to be insulting.
And in rl I agree, it would be a compliment.
Its easier to have morals and standards when we are not really threatened.
Can be seen in how most people think torture is horrible, but its kinda ok if you torture terrorists.

Pfo is not real life.
Its a virtual place, where we can actually loose something (virtually).
Having high standars here is ok, as long as most hold these.

You can say, that if one of the largest groups do not, that its time to take off the gloves.
There wont be a virtual UN to step in when soldiers run over your sit down pacifist show.

So, while acting like Ghandi in game would be noble, I don't think it wilk be the way to survive and stay in the game

Ah, I could loose everything in game...and because it is a game...I would not really be loosing anything. Personally I have more fun being playing a character that is the type of person I would aspire to be in RL. I would not enjoy not having principles, morals, and standards. For me, maintaining those and winning is the challenge. Not winning, but maintaining the morals would be bearable, winning and not maintaining the morals would not be...in a game where I do not really loose anything.

...cut and moved here due to relevance...

For the record, I understand members of Golgotha have an interest in having a settlement. I understand the leadership of Golgotha, including up the chain in Pax, has a job to support their community as they are able. I have no doubt, as Morbis expressed earlier, there was quit a bit of stress within Golgotha and Pax as LR2 unfurled as it did. I can understand, based on your stated goals and community connections that this all must be very frustrating for you Hobs. I understand all your position even if I do not agree with certain decisions, I understand why they were made.

For my own part, I would like to apologize for any difficulty or hard feelings I might have contributed to; it was just never my intent to hurt, frustrate, irritate, annoy, or cause trouble for anyone. I also need to caveat that...I still believe what I have said...but I have no doubt I could have done it better and more constructively. I think many of us could have, and moving forward I will attempt to do so.

Not agreed, we brought that debate and discord upon ourselves.

This thread has been pretty successfull at demonstrating that GW desperately needs a community manager. Another attempt by Ryan to stirr crap up in an attempt to have people hate each other in order to fuel the settlement conflict machine will destroy this community.

I have to disagree. While I think a community manger will be an asset for the community, I do not understand how having the manager will change the goals of GW. If fueling a settlement conflict machine is GW's goal, I must assume a community manager, specialized in shaping and manipulating communities, will do a better job at it.

However, nor do I see or feel evidence of a settlement conflict machine at work. I see some upset people threatening others, but I am not one of them. Pax's interpretation of GW direction, even though different than mine, does not make me want to attack them or raze their settlements. Ryan's opinions posted here (and elsewhere) do not anger me. The "final" disposition of this thread does not push me to want to kill Pax characters. Quite the contrary in fact, I appreciate the ability to have this discussion (besides the few distractions) and have no doubt that if necessary, the different divisions of Pax and the various groups I belong to can stand together in common defense of the general community.

It is my understanding that functionally the only standing arguments as to why Golgotha needs its own, separate, settlement (at least in the beginning) is because there will be certain restrictions on some companies and individuals belonging to certain settlements - such as alignment differences, or reputation level restrictions. And The reason that this would matter is because it is my understanding that establishing new settlements will not be an option in the very beginning of Early Enrollment. Therefore, if the restrictions were not applicable until sometime after the ability to claim new settlements, then there remains no functional reason why Golgotha should need its own settlement from the land rush - they could simply use the collective force of Pax to claim their own new settlement when the time came.

[EDIT/ADD]: Therefore my question to GW is: Which comes first - the restrictions, or the ability to claim new settlements outside of the land rush ones?

But isn't every community facing those meaningful consequences and decisions? TSV has members who want to play alignments we can not support...for them, they decided being part of our community trumps their immediate desire for specific styles of play. In the long run, we intend to develop additional settlements to support these other play styles. Until then, we know we have our single gaming community that will assist our members as we can.

It was my understanding that in-game coalitions would be comprised of parties, chartered companies, settlements, and nations - none of those are guilds... so I just want to clarify before I offer an opinion: Has anyone defined 'guild' as it is relevant to PFO?

I would define it as a single community, CoTP, TSV, Pax, UNC, etc, (inclusive of all sub-divisions thereof)...are all individual communities and hence, "guilds".

As far as Golgotha goes, I do not see how their history is relevant to the question of what they are today. Golgotha has (rightfully) benefited from the shared resources and community building efforts of Pax. In my opinion they are part of the Pax community, no matter their roots.

What GW is trying to accomplish is giving each discrete participating "community" a home, a place to start from, and a stake in the game. By giving Pax two communities, a different community is prevented from getting their location...and their stake in the game.

As mentioned by several people previously, the facilities that will be available in settlements for the foreseeable future will probably be identical...the minimally viable product. The customization of settlements will be minimal. The most important part will be insuring as many discrete communities as possible get their stake in the game.

Again...in my opinion.

Ummmm....

As for the geographic part, there's definitely an invitation for like-minded groups to settle near us - we'll make great neighbors. But some members likely will be some distance from the southeast mountains, which will make for some great trips :)

...for clarification, those of the Accord who are not settling in the SE will also make great neighbors.

Where the rules are not well defined, you can not either be operating within them or outside of them.

Or one could operate such that there is no question of whether they violate rules. It is not required to "toe the line".

EDIT: I am not making a judgement call about Pax's actions, my opinion on that is my own and since giving it serves no purpose, I feel no need to do so. My comment here is specifically addressing a philosophical point.

I do also want to mention that TSV has recently started supporting the creation of our special interest sub-communities. These will be non-exclusive subsets of the community with a focus on a specific goals, lore, and/or play-styles. All members are welcome to be a member of, participate in, and/or simply follow with interest any sub-community.

At the moment, we officially have:

The Grey Guard: Military focused sub-community focused on settlement defense (PvP & PvE). Primarily Order (Lawful) tactics and identity.

Seventh Veil Geographical Society: A sub-community focused on exploration, classification, and explanation of the geology of the world we find in game. A big initial focus will be on cartography.

Frozen Fingers: A Kellid lore based unit with a (non-exclusive) focus on combat endeavors. Primarily Chaotic tactics and identity.

If anyone is interested in helping develop or simply participating in any of these groups, feel free to follow one of the many links to TSV provided in the preceding posts.

We are also looking to further diversify by supporting the creation of other internal sub-communities. If you have an idea, feel free to contact us to initiate a discussion.

There is little reason to talk diplomacy if the Accord is considering us enemies.

The Accord currently has no collective decision making apparatus, nor the right to dictate the diplomatic or war status of its members. Similarly, no member of the Accord is in any way duty bound to aid other members of the Accord.

This said, it does not mean members cannot or will not aid other members, only that the decision to do so has nothing to do with membership in an "Accord", "Alliance", or "Nation".

At this time, I know of no plans of any signer of the Roseblood Accord to consider Pax as an enemy. I think at worst, we are each warily optimistic that mutually beneficial relationships can be created.

EDIT: Sorry, I see Nihimon already addressed this.

Forencith wrote:

No, probably not 4. 1-3 and 5 would be though. You do not feel making a "company or settlement feels that it has been "singled out" for our predation, without our having declared them a feud or war target." would be griefing? What do you call griefing then?

I believe it's going to be called war as usual. Goblinworks has better things to do than interfere with intense rivalries when neither side is abusing mechanics in an unintended way. I don't think anyone who can't handle that will be cut out for this game long-term.

Do I really need to define griefing behaviors that fall outside of that to you?

You do not need to do anything for me Andius.

Thankfully, we will not be playing in the same community...and while I sincerely hope everyone, including you, is able to enjoy this game, I am not going to get involved with policing the way you treat your community; they can do that. I am also not going to be the "positive game play" referee, GW can do that. I, and mine, will do our best to promote what we feel is positive game play by example. I am sure you, and yours, will do the same.

Audoucet wrote:

It's just about the RP aspect, that I'm not sure for now, since I tend to play very lawful characters, with more militant beliefs, which would kind of direct me more to TEO. But T7V being more "diverse" I would say, I think that it would be maybe a better choice, if I want to convince other French players to choose the same company.

Anyway, I will be in the Roseblood Accord community, that's for sure.

Peut-etre vous vous intéresserez au Grey Guard?

Beat me to it...that is our new (lawful) military unit, we are grooming it to become the backbone of TSV military.

Our RP is such that we believe reality, possibly even including the gods and alignment system, is an illusion. This is why our patron is a god of illusion. We seek knowledge as a means of locating those cracks in reality that will help us grasp the edge and unravel the layers of illusion, to reveal the greater Mystery beneath. Admittedly, our purpose is a bit like a religion. Like any religion or philosophy, there will be different internal schools of thought, as well as those who are pretty much just into it for the community...and are probably a bit agnostic toward our RP.

What this story does do is allow us to pursue any avenue in the game our membership wants int he name of "seeking knowledge", with the caveat that we as a community are dedicated to the metagame ideal of "positive game-play". How that will be realized and enforced, we cannot yet know, but everyone should expect it will somehow be enforced.

As for our general structure, as simply as I can put it:

Two tiers. Both tiers are composed of semi-autonomous sub-groups, each based upon and defined by specific play styles/interests; tier 1 is officers, tier 2 is not.

Community interest is sufficient and necessary to declare a group in tier 2.

Community interest is necessary but not sufficient to declare a group in tier 1.

Community need is necessary but not sufficient to declare a group in tier 1.

Groups in tier 2 can become tier 1 if they agree to fulfill a recognized community need - for as long as they successfully fulfill the need.

Groups in tier 1 who are no longer fulfilling a recognized Community need become tier 2.

Membership to tier 2 groups is unrestricted

Membership to tier 1 groups does have some restrictions.

Our decision making body is a council comprised of 1 proxy from each group in tier 1.

The stewards are a judicial body that insure the decisions of the council do not conflict with the ideals expressed in our "Charter" and they approve membership.

Nonsense Nevy, the majority of people here (Accord Members) have done everything in their power to make us out to be griefers in the communities mind. We have no intention of trying to ruin peoples game play. We are here to have fun playing a game and enjoy that game with everyone else.

Actually, I would argue that some in the UNC have made the majority of people here (including many of those in the Accord) feel as if the UNC is okay with griefing...all long before the Accord was formed. Since many people here (including many of those in the Accord) already have this belief based upon past experiences, it is hard for them to take some in the UNC serious when they want to claim they will not grief. Additionally, the Accord has nothing to do with "not griefing" which is what Bluddwolf's list provided earlier in the thread essentially stated as an MO; instead, the Accord is about going beyond that and actually promoting whatever it is that positive game play entails.

The problem with inviting/allowing UNC into the Accord is that it nullifies the purpose of the Accord in the eyes of that majority of people. UNC likes to claim intent cannot be known and therefore is not worth considering in determining whether PvP is "good" or "bad". I would use that same argument to say that unfortunately, at this time UNCs intent as far as positive game play is concerns is also irrelevant because the fact remains that the majority of people in the forums think they lean if not toward negative game play then definitely away from positive.

I entirely agree that UNC might not grief and might have high Reps, and whatever else can be used as evidence of positive game play. When that evidence is available and present in-game, I will fight for their acceptance into the Accord if they are still interested. At the moment however, I fall into the majority mentioned above. I, from past experience only, (in the forums, which admittedly is an environment that seems bring out the worst in everyone) would not accept their claims of intent to "advocate positive game play". At the very least, I would not accept their ability to play positively with the current membership of the Accord.

As to those who have joined since without question. I can certainly see how that seems "unfair". However, every group that has joined, we (the growing Roseblood Accord membership) have spent hours speaking and interacting with on TeamSpeak and have never interacted negatively either here in the forums nor in Voice Chat. They have never given us reason to doubt their sincerity. For wrong or right, it is much easier to envision people who we can already get along with providing positively to the environment we want to be part of.

I respect UNCs right to play the way they want. I am under no illusion about it being the way I want.

Bludd's intentions were sincere. I talked to him about it myself.

Sincere about what? The promise not to grief as illustrated by the provided list? That list should be a core requirement for playing the game...and in my opinion says nothing about a course of action (or lack thereof) that "promotes positive game play" nor "mutual benefit".

As I stated above, if in-game UNC demonstrates it promotes positive game play by being a group we all want to interact with, I personally will show up IC and beg for them to join the RA...after I do my best to convince the Accord it is proper and that UNC will be a beacon of positive game play for bandits everywhere.

All the Accord is about is the us vs them mentality, not a lets play it nice group. Which is all fine by me, us vs them is how it always goes, but dont pretend to mask with high and mighty morals.

I don't see this at all...not in our original post, not in our initial discussions, and not in conversations since. There is a difference between my friend and I work together toward our mutual benefit and my friend and I actively working against everyone else. I was never under the belief that this would be a zero-sum game (in which our win, requires your loss). We have mentioned many times that our goal is to promote win-win solutions.

I am however familiar with the concept of psychological projecting.

By definition, the UNC has been griefed by this group. Its been going on longer then I have been on these boards.

Again, you are falsely assuming we are playing a zero-sum game. Our win does not necessitate your loss; our gain does not require you to loose.

I do not dislike or distrust UNC. In fact, I trust they are going to play the way I understand they have advocated for years. The fact that I have no particular interest in interactions of that sort and hence I advise my leaders to do their best to prevent them easy access to the community I am part of, does not preclude them from having their own fun in game (unless you are claiming you cannot have fun without interacting with me). Hence, I do not see how it can be equated to greifing.

intentionally cause distress to another person with the primary intent of making that person feel bad

What I do not understand is why UNC has not further pushed for the idea of Bandit Council, I think it would be a great counter to the Roseblood Accord. Use the displeasure some people feel toward the conditions of of the Accord to define yourselves; sort of a Samuel Jackson in Unbreakable effect. Doing so insures the more we win, the more you win.

Broken_Sextant wrote:

If robbing and murdering people who are just going about their business isn't chaotic evil, I have no idea what might be.

That is because you are putting it into your own context (RL) and not into the context of the River Kingdoms.

No, it is in context of the absolutes of morality in Golarion, the gods and their respective positions of the alignment plane. You are the one using RL when trying to push moral relativism on the game world. In Golarion, there is no moral relativism. The River Kingdoms are a small section of Golarion, and as such it inherits the features of the whole. Good and Evil, Order and Chaos, and their relationships to each other are no different in the River Kingdoms than they are in Cheliax, Droon, Teyazco, Chu Ye, or New Azlant.

What is Evil (with a capital "E") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.

What is Chaotic (with a capital "C") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.

What is Order (with a capital "O") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.

What is Good (with a capital "G") in the universe of Golarion is so everywhere.

MAJOR UPDATE!

We have diplomat and settler forums now! Click 'Apply to Settle' and choose Diplomat, Settler, and/or Member.

Join as a settler if you are interested in settling with us as a free agent or company. We really want to collaborate on the settlement in a big way. This looks like the easiest way to do that, so I am quite excited to see this happen.

I'm still totally available via PM here for diplomatic things and our mumble info is available once you register.

Well said, well organized. Impressed I am. This, in my opinion, is the example of how settlements should be moving forward at the moment. The "settler" approach is absolutely brilliant.

(Is my jealousy that I did not think of it first showing through?)

Best of luck to you.

Oh, to ask a few questions:

Have you considered any settlement names?

What will be the expected power relationship between FMS and other companies that might want to take join a Good, Lawful, Paladin and Blacksmithing focused settlement?

Will you allow characters to settle that are known destiny twins for characters in other associations?

Moved from here.

TSV hopes this comes to fruition in the long run, we hope to create a huge library. In the short term we intend to use a wiki to fulfill this same need out-of-game. If the ability to write books becomes available in the future, we will be able to transfer content from one to the other.

If anyone wants access to be a scribe for our our out-of-game "library", our application process is here. We welcome anyone (even prospective non-allies/enemies) who wants to contribute original works of fiction, (cannon lore) "non-fiction", character stories, or anything that would be suitable within a library in Golarion or anything that is legitimately about the mechanics of the game from an OOC perspective AND can agree to abide by some commonsense rules such as not posting copyrighted or obscene material.

Becoming a scribe does not require any formal relationship with TSV. The library itself is public.

Who would have guessed my posts in this thread would have been some of the more positive ones?

I will get back to the questions posed directly to me tomorrow.

Bluddwolf, you are a bastion of positivity...thank you! I really do look forward to your response.

The later, the Accord does not define a kingdom or even an alliance. Each member has decided beforehand, without any coercion on our part, that they want to "promote by example the goals of positive gameplay". Since each of us has decided this for ourselves prior to signing the Roseblood Accord, there is no need for centralized powers that would be necessary to enforce decrees as in a kingdom or alliance; each of us retains our full autonomy and our original level of dedication to the cause.

So what then is the purpose of the Accord? That is up to each individual member. Speaking strictly for myself, membership has large repercussions. Since I want to promote positive gameplay, I will always provide what support I can to assist a member of the Accord in either defending or expanding the Accord's sphere of influence. In a conflict between two (or more) members, where the Accord's influence is not impacted, I will act upon other concerns.

Externally, the Accord identifies those associations that have publicly declared that they want to "promote by example the goals of positive gameplay".

I'd like to point out that Koinonia Emporou will remain largely independent from TSV. Since all companies must choose a sponsoring settlement (I believe that is still the case), it would make sense for us to choose Phaeros.

Basically we want to rent a room from TSV until we can buy a place of our own (the aforementioned PoI). They seem like nice landlords and the rent is cheap ;)

I actually much prefer it be a situation in which you, as an equal partner, work side-by-side with us to make Phaeros a settlement and community worthy of our efforts. Even if you take over a local PoI, I think you can and will remain residents of Phaeros. If at some point in the future you outgrow the situation and want a place of your own, we, as friends and allies, will assist.

Bluddwolf's faith (as chaotic as it may seem) is that all men, especially those in power, are corrupt or corruptible. Few things corrupt more than coin. So it is to the coin that he rests his faith in. Coin is gained through the threat or use of the blade. It will be upon pain of blood should anyone interfere with our goals.

As an expression of faith the members of the UnNamed Company, myself in particular, carry with us a symbol of our faith. Each carries a bloody coin, notched by a dagger. Before any raid, this coin is dedicated to the Deity that best fits what is most needed for the raid. If the raid is against a feud target, it is dedicate to Gorum. If the action is an act if vengeance, Callistria. If the raid is on or near a body of water or river, Besmara. If it is an action meant for slaughter, then either Norgorber or Rovagug.

This coin is also given as a sign of our pledge to carry out a deal or contract. It literally means, "We swear on this coin, that our blades are your's, on pain of blood."

Sometimes...I am sad our goals do not align better.

Nihimon wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

Never safe in space.

"Often at risk" in PFO.

These can be interpreted as bing the same.

They can also be interpreted as being different.

I am not pushing a specific interpretation.

This might be replicated by making some/many/most attacks against a formation hit a random individual rather than a targeted individual. (That would substantially increase the survivability of individuals in a formation compared to those in a mob. I think it would apply more to range effects and less to melee effects, but any formation would have drills for moving injured from the edges into the center.)

Or, as a magic effect, distributed evenly.

Bringslite wrote:

@ Bluddwolf

No, bandits are stewards of a healthy economy and will "victimize" other players far less than merchants in the player economy.

You have written this (in various ways) since well before I first posted here. I have to believe that it is a deeply seated feeling or philosophy (if you will). If you should ever be so inclined, I would love to read more detail about why you think that someone that buys or sells things is more of a victimizer than someone that just takes things from everyone they see, when they think they can.

[...]

In that video you could see the most economically detrimental behavior ( the front end of gold farming) to the player economy. There you see a player farming hundreds of good pieces worth of pork chops in less than 10 minutes.

That is the kind of character I would love to gank, instantly killing him in a one shot, and take his 10 minutes worth of fortune in less than 3 seconds! But games like WOW don't allow for non consensual PvP in that way, and so this guy gets to gain vast wealth from little effort and in complete safety.

[...]

Yeah, sorry...I still don't get it. I mean, I understand the player conflict is necessary for the game, incentives have to be there, GW has already embraced supporting what appears to me to be parasitic roles. I am glad they will be supported for their possible effect on the "Game of Settlements", but this justification I keeps seeing about how they will be good for the economy and such...I don't buy it.

Even in your example quoted above, I see little difference between the guy up top we are suppose to hate, and your intent. In fact, the reason you give as to why I am suppose to hate the top guy, that he found a way to harvest lots of materials in less than 10 minutes, pales in comparison to the result of what you want to be able to do...essentially harvest 75% of what he did, in seconds. In your model no gold farmer would bother with harvesting...they would just take up banditry.

Returning to a debate about how it is good for the economy, if we sink every 5th or 10th cargo ship traveling between China and the US, who does that benefit? Does making product more expensive benefit customers? Does selling less product benefit the manufacturer? You keep talking about how merchants will be able to sell their stuff for a higher price due to banditry making all items more rare...if you weren't taking their stuff, they would not have to. They are not able, they are forced to to make up for their losses. If they cannot find a buyer at the higher price, they loose.

So, again, I am not arguing against bandits being in game, I am glad they will be there. I am glad mechanics are being developed to support them. What I do not agree with is this silly idea that their existence financially benefits merchants and customers overall.

I am curious how GW intends to get around pre-fleecing by friendlies for 20 minutes of safety. That is what I see as the weakness in the "plan".

Their concern was that players would just grind reputation. If players are grinding reputation through activities and through methods that are good for the game, the net result is, you have more players playing in a desired way.

I did not get that at all. I understood that their concern was how to avoid an easily gamed...and hence pointless system. Perhaps you are convinced it is a pointless system because you think it will still be easily gamed?

Moving reputation to just recovery over time is a mistake. GW has spent these many months getting individuals to desire a high reputation, to the point that they would be willing to participate in desired behaviors just to gain it. Only to now say, nope it won't matter your actions, just the passage of time.

Many of the arguments made in this thread suggest to me that they have made a wise decision.

This is probably a bad solution but...

Why not make [UNC] the only bandit faction rather than make a NPC faction?

That way there is still PC-interaction on all levels in regards to that aspect, there will be an effective learning-teaching experience. Also the people don't feel like they are joining some automaton in order to get their kicks, but are rather a part of a large, breathing, viable organization?

Actually, why not make two, to give sort of options (so everyone doesn't have to be vikings and there is some contention and thus pc-content there).

Lets call them "The Black Sun" and "The Zann Consortium"
(Too much infringement on the names?)

Because some of us intend to utilize banditry as we see fit...and already have our own communities just as legitimate as the UNC.

If some character/party from an enemy faction was robbed 15 minutes before they run into me and mine, I should be able to attack them with the faction/feud system. We are afterall, at war and their previous engagements, intentional or not, are no concern of mine.

The key operand was "double rep loss"...since the normal rep loss for such an encounter was zero, due to us being in a legitimate war...zero times two is still zero.

So, in a sense, since the outcomes are indistinguishable, feud and faction conflict does trump being fleeced.

Just tossing out an idea for consideration, the ability to "nest" parties. The idea is intended to address the desire for larger non-persistent groups.

To clarify how this would work, parties can be composed of 1 party leader and 5 members which can in turn be either parties or individuals. If a party leader invites the leader of another party, the whole party gets appended under that party leader.

Dynamically, flags would get inherited down, but not up.

Or you can just flag as Bandit Hunter and go out and hunt bandits.

So you are suggesting GW develop special mechanics (realized as special skills) for every "role" separate from archetypes, that they feel is important to the game? And, would you suggest the selection and ordering of which roles are "important" should be done via crowdforging?

Why do you feel this is a better solution than developing generic mechanics/skills that can then be used by those who define their own role by simply doing? For instance, bandits would be bandits not because of their slotted skills but because of their actions alone.

I would prefer Alignment and Reputation before anything.

I have no interest in a game with no consequences for my actions.