Devis

KotC - Erian El'ranelen's page

406 posts. Alias of erian_7.


RSS

1 to 50 of 406 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

I've got accounts still running and haven't seen this as yet. However, I thought that once a subscription ended we'd still be playing, but not able to earn XP or craft. Did that change at some point?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heh, sorry about that, need more caffeine to get me all hyped up and angry...

The mutually beneficial relationship between combatants and non-combatants should be a rich source of interaction in the game. The former will be necessary to provide the protection needed, while the latter are necessary to provide equipment. On that equation, the Keepers are happy to have renters in Keeper's Pass from either side! Well, so long as the abide our tenet of non-aggression...

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to note that I'm not certain those numbers are a bad thing--we've got security forces and military that are ready to engage in combat as needed, then a civilian side that is much larger and does not want to engage in combat. That make sense to me. I don't think the point of PFO is to get to a point where 100% of the population engages in, or even likes, PVP.

As Cal notes, the folks that want 0% PvP and no risk aren't a fit for the game at all--even craftsmen, gatherers, etc. have to understand that PvP may come to them, but that doesn't mean they'll seek it out or enjoy it when it happens. They just need to be prepared as best they can to survive/escape and also not see the experience as a "problem" with PFO.

So, 60 veterans, out of a population of say 600 active players, could be the right number. They'll be the folks that lead another several dozen folks in the required PvP, while the rest of the folks keep working at their parts of the game. Now, these are just numbers I made up, but I do think it's a worthy question--what percentage of the population do folks feel should be actively seeking PvP opportunities?

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks for the reference, Edam...we look forward to meeting your needs for this armor!

Goblin Squad Member

A companion post to our Verified Traders...

As a public service to those traveling in the southern lands, Keeper's Pass maintains a list of known bandits and ne'er-do-wells* in the region. If you are heading home from gathering, going up the Pass for trade, or just travelling through the area and happen to see these folks, you're best bet is to run away. On the other hand, for those valiant defenders of the common folk that are looking to do some protecting, you might instead run toward them...

As a note, the Keepers of the Circle acknowledge and concur with the 6 River Freedoms, and most particularly in this case that "You have what you hold." We live in a dangerous realm. Act accordingly. Travel in groups if you are concerned for personal safety. The Keepers are happy to assist any traveling to, from, or through our lands and Keeper's Pass offers guard services upon request.

Known Bandits and Ne'er-do-wells

*Do please read the IMPORTANT NOTE regarding Player vs. Character distinctions. I consider all of the folks friends, as Players. If you have a problem with an actual Player's actions or communication, that type of issue must be dealt with in a different manner.

This list is maintained solely by Keeper's Pass as a service to our settlement members and those visiting the area. The Keepers want you to be off the list and back in good standing with us so that all begin to see the better path of non-aggression. Those believing their names are erroneously added may post here or PM me at any time for correction.

Those rightfully on the list after having engaged in non-consensual conflict within Keeper territory or against Keeper's Pass members and friends in other territories may bring offers of reconciliation here at any time, or to a member of the Ring of Gold. The Ring of Gold is hospitable to all, even enemies, and our ultimate goal is always to minimize aggression by maintaining positive relationships. There is no elaborate system of judgement--most conflict ultimately is between individuals and must be resolved by those individuals.

We do not believe in eternal sentences--all things can be made right, and both parties must do the hard work necessary at a personal level to achieve reconciliation. Offered reparations are taken to the Keeper's Pass Settlement Council, where I will ask if there are any that still believe the aggressor should remain on the list. If a grievance still remains, the aggrieved party must meet with the aggressor and determine what steps will lead to reconciliation--both are responsible for coming to a reasonable solution. The Ring of Gold actually also exists to serve as mediators and we're happy to serve in this role. Both parties may also involve any they wish for support.

Those that are removed from our list, however, and then are rightfully added back for a new aggression will find the task of making amends much harder. It is the exact same process, but you will find many more unwilling to accommodate easy repair of the relationship. Our eagerness for grace and reconciliation will not stand abuse by those looking to take advantage for their own amusement or benefit.

Goblin Squad Member

Please note that no aggrieved parties came forward to oppose removal of Savage Grace from this list, and so that name has been removed.

Also, in the process of cleaning up the thread to accommodate internal and external discussion, I broke the link from the first post. Given we are already at 9 pages on this one, I'm going to start a new thread with the new link properly in place.

Goblin Squad Member

And funny enough (at least to me) my non-combat optimized caster uses Killing joke because it is RP appropriate (he's a Bard, or will be as soon as that's an option). It does help make up for my otherwise lackluster combat capabilities.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

He should show as indicated by his Bluff (otherwise the Bluff is useless).

Your consequences should be based on what is real (Bluff can't trump Reputation).

Just my off-the-cuff thoughts, I'm sure there is more to consider. I think it would be neat, for instance, if a successfully Disguised bandit that is subsequently slain grants a re-check with a bonus to identify his true identity.

And there is still the problem of "here's Bandit Settlement right here on the map. Bandits operating as independent Companies, with a Hideout supporting their needs (at less capability than a settlement) seems to be a good route for that, but again I'm sure there are lots of details to consider.

Goblin Squad Member

I must say, consigliere would make more sense to me in this context than concierge in this context, though even then Broker and Agent seem more appropriate unless you are specifically going for a nefarious tone. This is all, of course, just semantics, though my intent is to ensure the nature of services is clear to those interested.

Goblin Squad Member

Yes, that's the problem as I see it. I mean, the Forty Thieves of Ali Baba fame didn't live in some city with a big sign saying "Thieves' Den" over it.

Gol Tabomo wrote:
fwiw I don't mind being on a bad guy list. I am a bad guy.

But if those bandit activities lead the majority of the server to come and burn down all the holdings of Golgotha? Because that's a valid and logical way of keeping bandits out of their lands. Operating as a Bad Guy is good for the game, and we need Players able to handle that responsibility well. But those Bad Guys must, as you do above, understand that owning that reputation openly invites the Good Guys to seek you out. Bandits shouldn't be as easy to find as "oh, they're all up in that city right there." or that city will get sacked.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm not familiar with the use of the term in that manner--all concierge services I've used in the past were specifically affiliated with a hotel or other property at which I was staying. They provided various services, but most certainly had an interest in maintaining the image of their host property. Perhaps there is some MMO terminology with which I am not familiar?

I would call what you describe a middle-man, agent, or broker. And yes, I can serve in that roll if desired. Mediation between parties is a function of the Ring of Gold and is actually drafted in our sub-charter. We can provide this to anonymous parties (when such is desired) and for mediation of anything whether it be solving a conflict or completing a business transaction (which is in itself a form of conflict--two parties are seeking their best result often at the expense of the other).

Goblin Squad Member

I will admit to some confusion at present over one consistent statement coming from the PvP side--they don't like the response from attacked parties (and their allies) of being put on a list and targeted as bad guys. This confuses me because I'm not sure how else we're supposed to react. We can't, as Duffy notes, simply shrug it off as "oh well, the bandits got my stuff" and move on. Continued bandit actions from a Character would result in that Character gaining a reputation as a Bandit, and then those that hunt Bandits would target that Character all the time.

This expands out to "Bandit Settlements" and of course also gets back around to what I was saying earlier about disguise mechanics--having your identity 100% confirmed across the server as a Bandit is not a feasible long-term solution. Bandits have to be able to operate in some amount of secrecy to be successful, or they'll just get destroyed. But the solution cannot be that the victims just let the Bandits get away with their actions by turning a blind eye.

I'm honestly interested in hearing opinions on how we, as Players, can reasonably respond to Bandits under the current mechanics, and also in discussing new mechanics that GW could offer to support a better implementation of Bandits that doesn't shift the power too far to them.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As always, I am open to any constructive feedback as to how I as an individual or we, the Keepers, can best support this game. I personally speak up in support of PvP whenever I see the opportunity. Indeed, if any are making a case for some PvP issue and desire support, send me a PM and I'm happy to assist. Do note, however that folks will find my support less available if the position is couched in unnecessarily aggressive or hostile terms. This applies equally to PvP and anti-PvP folks. I have RL friends that are permanently disabled due to fighting terrorism; I will not support anyone that throws that term around lightly with regard to a video game as it diminishes the sacrifice he made to keep me free. Humans demonize (be relabeling, making folks something other than People) as an easy means of supporting a position. It's not just easy slang, it's a way of distancing one position from another artificially, i.e. without other substantive characteristics.

Now, as for the Keepers we actively support PvP in the game by: (1) informing all new Players that PvP is an integral part of this game and not a form of Bad Player action by default, (2) providing PvP training so that Players are better equipped to survive it, (3) providing this very list so that Players can make informed decisions about social interactions with folks they otherwise do not know, and (4) not supporting Kill On Sight or Open Bounty approaches for the people on this list as a default state. As I say above, if anyone has some additional action(s) we can take I will readily take ideas back to our Inner Circle for consideration and implementation.

Further, as you note I believe much of the current frustration on both sides is from yet-to-be game mechanics that will support the play style advocated by GW. I think PFO is going to be a training ground for both PvP and anit-PvP Players, as both groups must come to see how they, as Players, can Play Well while one side has "Bad Guys" as Characters. This takes effort on both sides--any call from leaders that they cannot influence individual Player actions is ultimately going to be problematic. All major leaders in this game must take on the role of shifting Players into this different mind-set.

Ultimately, I think new mechanics and ways of thinking would help "positive PvP" considerably. I see the Lawful Evil side as being the Territorial Conflict contender. They will function on a daily basis mostly like other settlements, harvesting, crafting, building up infrastructure, etc. rather than engaging in regular conflict. Their "Evil" will show when resource constraints start to make some real impact into the ability to advance, as their response (such as taking out easier targets, sabotaging other settlement holdings, etc.) will differ from Neutral and Good (rather, trying diplomacy, sharing resources, making trade agreements, etc.).

I don't see Bandits being, openly, part of Lawful Evil. Indeed, ideally Bandits wouldn't be a settlement at all. What happens when a settlement becomes known as "the Bandit Settlement?" All the settlements targeted by those Bandits attack the settlement to stop the bandits. That's a natural reaction, and it will destroy the Bandit Settlement due to shear numbers. Bandits don't live in settlements out in the open (until such time as some settlement is powerful enough to fend off most attacks). They live in Hideouts out in the wilderness, working under disguise and secrecy. Lawful Evil might secretly support these groups as one of many elements to keep their enemies weak. This all, of course, would rely on game mechanics that simply don't exist. I hope that it's giving GW some things to think about on how they can make playing Bad Guys mechanically feasible in a world where doing so puts a giant target on the individual/company/settlement, without tipping the scale too far and making the Bad Guys too powerful or too hard to counter.

Goblin Squad Member

Very good, I'll take this before the Settlement Council immediately.

Goblin Squad Member

That's an acceptable position to take--those that intend to use aggression as a standard means of resolving issues are indeed likely to stay on the list. However, I think you perhaps misunderstand in what we'd accept as a reason for addition. If someone is imposing on Golgothan territory and you defend your territory, that is not grounds for being added to the list. We actually tell our members, "if you go into this area, you might get killed." Writing up known hostile areas in their entirety, like saying Everyone In Golgotha, is not of interest to us as that would provide no value to the community at large.

I'm happy to carry a request for removal forward to the Settlement Council, and my guess at present is there will be no aggrieved party to oppose removing you from that list. If you have indeed determined that a life of banditry is not for you, I see chances of you getting back on the list as minimal to nonexistent. However, if you do not wish for me to carry that forward I can accommodate that as well.

Goblin Squad Member

That would be me at present, as the Keepers are low on other Merchant characters at present (a situation I'd like to rectify).

Goblin Squad Member

It sounds like you are coming at this from a transaction perspective, a weregild of sorts. That is not our way. We aren't seeking to make conflict something one can purchase. The ultimate goal is a change in action, so the aggressor seeks other ways of supporting their needs.

The going rate of getting off the list after initiating conflict is reconciling with the involved parties. Now, in the process of discussing the conflict with the other party, it may come about that some form of compensation is deemed appropriate--we do not mandate that or codify it in any way. It may also be that no aggrieved party comes forward. If that is the case you are removed from the list with no further action required.

As for the Marchmont comment, it's aimed at letting everyone know our list isn't simply about folks traveling near Keeper's Pass or attacking Keepers. If a trusted friend of ours is attacked by bandits anywhere in the River Kingdoms and reports the activity to us, we would add the aggressor to the list. This is not restricted to any region on the map. Reputations are an important thing to maintain, and they follow Characters around. The Keepers desire to minimize conflict in this entire region.

Also, this is entirely in-character. I, as a Player, fully support bandits being a part of PFO. I've been very consistent in my support on this front. However Erian, as a Character, does not support non-consensual conflict of any sort. Being on this list doesn't make you a Bad Player. It makes the Player's Character a bandit.

Goblin Squad Member

The Keepers maintain a diverse stock of T1 and T2 recipes for trade and are happy to deal publicly or privately.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This list is maintained solely by the Keepers of the Circle as a service to our settlement members and those visiting the area. The Keepers want you to be off the list and back in good standing with us so that all begin to see the better path of non-aggression.

Those believing their names are erroneously added may contact me at any time for correction.

Those rightfully on the list after having engaged in non-consensual conflict within Keeper territory or against Keeper members and friends in other territories* may bring offers of reconciliation to me at any time. The Ring of Gold is hospitable to all, even enemies, and our ultimate goal is always to minimize aggression by maintaining positive relationships. There is no elaborate system of judgement--most conflict ultimately is between individuals and must be resolved by those individuals.

We do not believe in eternal sentences--all things can be made right, and both parties must do the hard work necessary at a personal level to achieve reconciliation. Offered reparations are taken to the Settlement Council, where I will ask if there are any that still believe the aggressor should remain on the list. If a grievance still remains, the aggrieved party must meet with the aggressor and determine what steps will lead to reconciliation--both are responsible for coming to a reasonable solution. The Ring of Gold actually also exists to serve as mediators and we're happy to serve in this role. Both parties may also involve any they wish for support.

Those that are removed from our list, however, and then are rightfully added back for a new aggression will find the task of making amends much harder. It is the exact same process, but you will find many more unwilling to accommodate easy repair of the relationship. Our eagerness for grace and reconciliation will not stand abuse by those looking to take advantage for their own amusement or benefit.

*Yes, that means attacking a Keeper or one of our settlement members/trusted friends in Marchmont can get you on the list.

Goblin Squad Member

Hoffman, do you you have an expected cut-off date for questions? It would be good to have them provided several days in advance of the debate, so that representatives can prepare with their peers to ensure a response that best matches the entire group.

Goblin Squad Member

Indeed, you folks do a great job, Nihimon! A true boon to the entire PFO community.

Goblin Squad Member

Excellent work. Glad to have you folks as neighbors! Now it's time for a walk-about...

Goblin Squad Member

Took me a bit to get it in, but my Diplomats and Merchants thread now summarizes the Keeper approach to leadership.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A question has been raised regarding the leadership of various organizations, so I thought it helpful to note how the Keepers function. Much of this information is publicly available at the About Us section of our website.

The Keepers of the Circle are, at the basic level, all known as Keepers. Keepers may function in any (or all) of the eight Rings that form our organization. Most members identify with one Ring as primary, but this does not prohibit acting in the functions of any other Ring.

Keepers that distinguish themselves through dedication and activity may be elevated to the level of Wardens. These senior members are dedicated to a single Ring and assist all members requiring something in the specified area.

Each Ring has a specific Guardian that works to coordinate all activities related to that Ring. Guardians are elected representatives that serve on specified cycles. Guardians serve as the authoritative voice for their Ring in the event that a rapid decision is required (for example, the Guardian of Steel has authority to enact martial requirements in a time of sudden conflict).

Finally, the Keepers have two positions that are not aligned to any one Ring--the Watcher and the Sentinel. The Watcher has oversight of implementing policies, serves as a back-up to the Sentinel when needed, and helps guide Initiates through the process to becoming Keepers. The Sentinel serve as the central representative of the Keepers and has signatory authority to bind the Keepers to any agreement.

The eight Guardians, along with the Watcher and Sentinel, sit on the Inner Circle of the Keepers to coordinate the collective actions of the organization and determine the best policies and processes for the organization. The Inner Circle also make up the settlement council of Keeper's Pass, along with members of settlement- companies. At present our other member Companies are the Drakes of Magic (with voting rights as a founding company of the settlement) and the Blades of Cambreadth (with a non-voting seat on the council, having joined us after our founding).

This is a general summary of Keeper organizational structure. As the Inner Circle are all elected members, the specific person occupying any given role may change on a quarterly basis. Any external party may always post in our Welcome and General Chat forum if you wish to talk with specific parties. External contacts can also PM me at any time, or WxCougar (our current sentinel) if you have any questions or concerns.

Squaring the Circle,
Erian El'ranelen
Guardian of Gold

Goblin Squad Member

I'm happy to acknowledge the leaders for Keepers of the Circle and Keeper's Pass as well as the role we play in the EBA, but that seems less appropriate for this thread. I'll post it in my Diplomats and Merchants thread.

Goblin Squad Member

Tigari, I believe you already have your answer, from above, when Avari states, "We are talking to Thod and an official response may or may not happen at a settlement level. Preventing Thod from picking up his stuff seems unlikely, since there is no EBA wide sanctions against EL, it would have to come from Hammerfall to deny access to EL. As far as I know Hammerfall is still a trade partner of EL's."

If Thod, after those talks, wants to make a public statement would you not afford him the right to do so? Demanding some response now, outside of the conversation that's actually happening between the two relevant parties, seems odd. If Thod returns here and states that in fact no talks occurred, then there might be something to discuss. Otherwise it seems this is just being strewn out in public for no good reason.

Goblin Squad Member

And we should be clear on what Cheatle proposed--restricting access to harvesting (already covered under the EBA Territorial announcement; no access is granted without express permissions) and to crafting stations (a matter that would involve commitment and enforcement from each settlement). There was no mention of holding materials in the vault, or attacking Emerald Lodge members in EBA territory.

Allowing this event to go off course and disparage the EBA, while building up other parties, is certainly not a good means of maintaining neutrality. I am hopeful that future events will provide better support for the neutral stance of Emerald Lodge with regard to all parties.

Goblin Squad Member

This is a matter between Phaeros and Emerald Lodge. I'm not sure how that's unclear, or involves the EBA at all. If Emerald Lodge and Phaeros relations deteriorate to a point of all-out warfare, that's another matter entirely. At present, I don't see either side calling for that. So, folks are escalating an event for no reason, other than perhaps to disparage the EBA. Thod, if I misunderstand or misrepresent your position do please state as such.

Goblin Squad Member

As noted earlier, this is not an EBA matter. A single character from a member settlement is involved in an incident with an external party. The EBA has nothing to do with it, and indeed Thod has stated he did not intend for this to be an EBA matter. Are there any parties actually relevant to the issue at hand that have a valid complaint?

Emerald Lodge acknowledges this, so the only reason EBA is being drug into this is, I would assume, to try and tarnish its reputation. I don't see that occurring. I see a consistent message--we are sovereign settlements that align ourselves on specific matters, and those matters are publicly posted. If you want to live in an area like this, we're a good fit. If you are looking for something else, we do not begrudge that (and indeed I point folks as often to Emerald Lodge, Golgotha, Aragon, etc. as I do EBA settlements as I base my recommendation on their stated character intent).

Goblin Squad Member

As Cheatle says, there has been no conclusion that Emerald Lodge members have somehow become universal targets of all EBA members or that we'd prohibit them from accessing their items in Hammerfall. The Keepers would be universally opposed to such a non-proportional response, but thankfully such friction is not needed as Brighthaven is not seeking this result.

As for my involvement, I step in when things cross from specifics to generalities and start mischaracterizing either my Company, my Settlement, or our participation in this Alliance. I'm also glad to support our allies when appropriate, but given our independence from one another we all allow member settlements to handle their own affairs when possible.

Goblin Squad Member

I can assure you, though you certainly are free to doubt my words, that such is not the case. I can only give my word on this, but I've interacted with a lot of people. I'd certainly ask any that have found duplicity in my actions to come forward.

You can deal directly with Keeper's Pass and never have any interaction at all with the EBA, so long as you are not at the same time conducting hostile actions against our allies (why would we support that, obviously, since the aggression might soon turn against us). Keepers will not leave any loopholes in our agreements to weasel out of something for convenience. From my dealings with our allies, I would say the same of them.

EDIT: I'd be particularly interested to hear if leaders in communities I have dealt most extensively with, such as Thannon in Canis Castrum and Phyllain in Golgotha feel this way. If such is the case, I'm obviously failing in my duties somewhere.

Goblin Squad Member

Well, I'd characterize it as more than just words and smiles--we operate very closely together on many matters of defense, trade, settlement support, exploration, and recruiting for instance. However, it was very important at least for the Keepers on entering into the alliance that individual settlement sovereignty was respected. We are of a very different mentality in critical issues, such as the use of force, and compromising that independence would have been a nonstarter for us.

Goblin Squad Member

Correct on making agreements with each settlement. We would, of course, keep in mind repercussions that agreements have to other EBA members. Should a conflict arise that pits the agreement terms against EBA terms, we would have a discussion to come to a resolution. It would be unlikely, but possible, that a settlement would favor an independent agreement over the EBA. Such action could obviously result in the settlement leaving the EBA, a matter which we'd take very seriously. Understanding this, the member settlements put much thought into binding agreements that might set them at odds with their neighbors.

I cannot speak for other settlements (as noted) but for Keeper's Pass we would not break any agreement without proper notice and, if appropriate per the agreement, reparations to the other party for a breach of agreement. This also means that one settlement having a KOS list does not imply all EBA members will follow that order. Keeper's Pass, with our focus on non-aggression, does not even place our Bandits and Ne'er-Do-Wells as Kill On Sight. We'd rather inform visitors of the danger, avoid them, and if possible get the offenders to turn to better ways so they can be taken off our list.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

An important distinction--the EBA is an alliance of independent settlements. One does not make agreements with the EBA. One makes agreements with each settlement. The EBA has no authority to enforce any sanctions against member settlements, other than removing them from the EBA. We, as an alliance, work together to establish agreed-upon common ground such as the defense of territory. Member settlements will act to defend on another when required. We support favored trade between member settlements. However, Brighthaven cannot require Keeper's Pass to join them on an assault, nor can Keeper's Pass require Hammerfall to only sell certain items. If you seek a unified EBA voice, you will be frustrated if you come to an issue that each settlement sees in a different light.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Keepers of the Circle intend to move our Market actions to Hammmerfall in support of it being our primary external-facing market. I will also be using it as the meeting spot for transactions, unless folks just want to go to Keeper's Pass. I believe that will drive up activity.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I wouldn't say the alignment discussion is entirely pointless, as we will have concrete means of determining alignment association within PFO. What is pointless is trying to bring in any reference or requirement outside those we are given for the game. That type of conversation would be appropriate for, say, some crowdforging discussion on how GW should implement alignments, but for here our only recourse is to do what we have done--operate within the framework given. I think part of our Good alignment is that we are open to feedback from anyone on improving our efforts.

Goblin Squad Member

Ah, the older daughter would be Sailor Moon no doubt, and the younger would stab Sailor Moon at first opportunity. She prefers Hulk to Princess any day. Though to be fair, on the super hero front my Princess Daughter favors Wolverine. So, I guess she's more of a, "I'm a Warrior Princess, not a Damsel in Distress."

And they both get some Pokémon fix, but from playing Minecraft running the Pixelmon mod thanks to their older brother.

EDIT: And I have now, I think, answered all PMs. If I missed one from you, please shoot me another as a reminder...thanks!

Goblin Squad Member

Heh, she'd be raging barbarian all the way..that's what she plays in Hero Kids now! My other daughter bounces between her custom-made Paladin (since she wanted something that could fight bad guys and heal people) or the Tangled knock-off that uses her hair as a weapon. Good times RPing with 4-5 year olds!

Goblin Squad Member

Erian does as well, but his is the long-winded, multi-screen monologue you have to click through until you get to the "Hey, can you go break some barrels over there and bring me the Queen's shoelace that got stuck in there? Yeah, I know I should be able to walk across the street and get it, and I'm not sure why you have to break the barrel instead of just reaching in there and grabbing it. Come on, do you want this 500 xp or not?"

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My "win" button for the game is having fun RPing with other players, really. I have as much, or more, fun bantering with Desan in the Laughing Ogre about the poor state of diplomacy to goblins as I do running from bandits. Will I ever take up the banner and be a "bad guy" for the sake of the game? Sure, I'd certainly do that. It wouldn't be as Erian (unless some grand fall from grace was orchestrated wherein he turns to Evil due to the failings of those he thought "Good"; that would be a lot of fun...). But if the world suddenly found itself without a bad guy at all I've been GMing long enough to readily step into that role. I'm uncertain you folks would like Evil Erian. He's nowhere near as hospitable or controlled as Phyllain.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed, this is a "land grab" however stating such as if it were a negative thing is odd in the context of this game we play. We are in a state of territorial control. Not asserting authority over an area simply means it is free for another to acquire. Given the population of the Everbloom Alliance, the area required to support that number of people is significantly larger than compared to other smaller settlements. Is there some particular area where you feel the territory outlined is inappropriate? We are not annexing settlements, even though some nearby are inactive. We are not claiming NPC settlements, which indeed have a significant amount of other land around them for use. As with my offer of hearing out anyone with a better approach for enforcing EBA authority in these lands, I'm also open to hearing out any reasonable claim that the land we have designated is in some way inappropriate.

And I echo my friend Nihimon's words--we welcome anyone that wants to work with us proactively on operating in this territory. Early adopters will, indeed, have a significant advantage I think as you will help us form our overall process for accommodating non-alliance members. We look forward to contact with individuals, companies, and even settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

And more thanks. I'm a praying sort, so those are appreciated. And I take well-wishes from the non-praying sorts as well!

She's chattering away and laughing upstairs right now, so we're looking good. And I'm tappity-typing this on a new computer so I'm just about back to "normal" on all fronts...PM folks, I should get you answers today.

Goblin Squad Member

Al, I'll make you an offer. You have portrayed yourself as a master of roleplaying with regard to alignment. I suppose you may be reluctant to offer us advice as we are a enemy to you. I, however, am willing to place myself under your RP authority. If you can provide any wy for us to better implement our policy in compliance with your definition of Good within PFO, I will champion your advice to be implemented throughout the EBA. Indeed, I'll extend this offer to anyone that can better portray our Good alignment in game-allowable actions.

Goblin Squad Member

So again, you refuse to offer anything meaningful...yep, your keen skills are truly showing through...Show me the gravity of your words within the context of this game environment. Otherwise, again, meaningless...

And as a note, Neutral Good here, actually

Goblin Squad Member

Al Smithy wrote:
Quote:
Still waiting for that reasonable, valuable contribution to the conversation.

Value is in the eye of the beholder. My wit may come wanting for some, but I think it is valuable for anybody interested in actually roleplaying in this game that people adhere to the tenets of alignments, so people don't just say they are one thing when they clearly are doing the other.

Don't become exasperated friend. I know you wish to roleplay as a diplomat, but I fear your endurance is waning.

Not at all, this isn't even a minor skirmish on the diplomatic front. i don't see any diplomatic ground I've lost, and you've made no meaningful contribution to the discussion. You failing to function within the constraints of the game we have doesn't exactly lend any strength to your points.

Goblin Squad Member

Al Smithy wrote:
Quote:
You're funny. Misinformed, but funny.

No, what is funny is reading from you guys how you want to be one thing, and yet say you are another thing. It's a marvelous circle of hilarity.

Quote:
At present, holdings, escalation rewards, and resource nodes are limited resources. Character lives are fully, immediately, renewable

You even have your non-violent diplomat essentially saying that life is cheap, so yeah killing players is fine.

It seems you really want to play as Lawful evil, but for some reason won't come out and admit it.

No, we say killing is the last resort. Check you facts there. I'm non-aggressive, but neither am I a pacifist or some sheep that will let folks walk all over me and my allies. You want to see the difference, in the context of this game, between Good and Evil territorial control than compare our proposal here to what folks find when traveling through a Golgotha PvP hex or mining in their territory. Golgotha plays their role very well. This is the best we've found to be able to play ours. Still waiting for that reasonable, valuable contribution to the conversation.

Al Smithy wrote:
Quote:
So, your answer is "Yes, i refuse to engage in a meaningful conversation." then? You argument basically says we, as Good, must allow anyone to enter any hex, strip mine it to dust, and walk away unharmed. Give me a reasonable, Good response to that. Or admit to having nothing to add to the conversation.

I've been having a splendid and meaningful discussion here. The fact that you reach the above conclusion and line of thought makes me doubt your diplomatic chops. It's almost adversarial. Have you actually been in a real negotiation before?

I'm laying out clear concepts for what it means to be Lawful Good. They aren't my own inventions.

If you cannot describe a way to fit within the bounds of those rules, which are well known to anybody who actually roleplays, then that is your problem. Trying to shuffle the responsibility of showing cause to me is a rather amateur tactic.

I don't bother with diplomacy on someone who is proving himself disinterested in actual, meaningful conversation. Why would I do so? I reserve diplomacy for Phyllain, Bluddwolf, Atheory, and others that actually engage in meaningful conversation framed by our environment. You cannot contribute to the conversation by pulling from resource not available to us.

We've come down to RP credentials, always good times...let's see, playing for 30 years, published several modules trough the RPGA. You?

Goblin Squad Member

Al Smithy wrote:
Quote:
Without that, I see continued calls of "look at the evil EBA" as just refusing to engage in constructive conversation.
You have chosen to label yourselves as Lawful Good, the onus is on you and your players to live up to it. Shirking that responsibility because it is difficult, while hiding behind the veil of provocative discussions is really just a disservice to serious role players.

So, your answer is "Yes, i refuse to engage in a meaningful conversation." then? You argument basically says we, as Good, must allow anyone to enter any hex, strip mine it to dust, and walk away unharmed. Give me a reasonable, Good response to that. Or admit to having nothing to add to the conversation.

Goblin Squad Member

We can only function within the parameters of the defined game. As we're only 2/5 of the way toward a final game, there are certainly pieces missing that will help us in the future. At present, holdings, escalation rewards, and resource nodes are limited resources. Character lives are fully, immediately, renewable. You cannot argue in this conversation from anything other than our current environment; doing so provides no reasonable ground for conversation.

Goblin Squad Member

I ask again, what is a reasonable Good response other than what we've outlined? Without that, I see continued calls of "look at the evil EBA" as just refusing to engage in constructive conversation.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of the problem appears to be a variance in thinking--individual vs. group. We, as a group, are asserting our territorial control in order to protect the lands around us. Failing to do this could lead to, for instance, new players coming into the territory south of Kindleburn and harvest the resources to depletion. That would cause a serious problem, that could then extend outward as more territory is targeted.

I don't currently see a reasonable case where someone could be challenged in our territory, given ample opportunity to work with us or find an alternate location, ignore us entirely, and still consider a final response of physical confrontation to be out of line. Continuing to harvest in our territory is, in truth, even more aggressive an act than attacking someone. People respawn at shrines. Resources, once depleted, have a much harder time coming back.

1 to 50 of 406 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>