Pax Charlie George's page

Pax Charlie George wrote:

Just stepping in here to address a concern.

I notice some comments from members of the Accord that indicate our two power blocks might end up being enemies.

If that is still the case, Golgotha and Aeternum would be more than happy to remove ambassador status from your diplomats.

This is not a threat, it is purely diplomatic clarity. There is little reason to talk diplomacy if the Accord is considering us enemies.

I would be careful about speaking for Golgotha- the precedent that any officer in Pax can speak for any division of Pax has aggravated the confusion over the issue.

My statement was meant to illustrate that anyone that wishes to end diplomatic talks can contact the appropriate representative (for Golgotha or Aeternum).

This is my final statement towards this.

Keep in mind that we're not Goonsquad. I'm not in a leadership position but I've never seen any indication that we want to dominate The River Kingdoms. I've never seen a discussion on "how will we take someone's settlement away from them".

We want to have an nation/empire but it's not a "join us or die" scenario. We will expand to get the resources we need, not just because we can.

I'm speaking for a lot of people and I shouldn't be but my impression over the last year with Pax is that we'll have a lot more fun with trading and diplomacy than we will with conquering.

The settlement alignment restrictions is what drove us to split into three guilds. We needed a place for every member to play whatever alignment they wanted. It wasn't a strategic move. One massive Pax Aeturnum would have been more of a threat than what we have now.

That is incorrect. Golgotha existed before they joined Pax, we did not create them to fill a LE desire.

Fidelis does fit that definition, which is why they will be citizens of Callambea for the foreseeable future.

Just stepping in here to address a concern.

I notice some comments from members of the Accord that indicate our two power blocks might end up being enemies.

If that is still the case, Golgotha and Aeternum would be more than happy to remove ambassador status from your diplomats.

This is not a threat, it is purely diplomatic clarity. There is little reason to talk diplomacy if the Accord is considering us enemies.

Wheaton's Law

Pax Björn Renshai wrote:

Guess what?

How goes things around here? It has been a minite since I was around.

We know, it wasn't like we were Björn yesterday

Ah hah!

I would like to note that I have a particular weakness for Disney songs, Muppets, and Broadway musicals.

You know, if you want to add to the recording list ;)

Pax Charlie George wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

A beginning is a delicate thing...

Sorry if my quote seemed more than what it actually is. Just responding to Rawn's image of The God Emperor Leto II and generally being a Dune nerd. :)

Uhm, me too... that's the opening line of the movie, spoken by Princess Irulan. Except it looks like I mangled it a bit, since it should have been "A beginning is a very delicate time."

Ah. Mah Bad.

I shuddered a bit at "movie" though. The original make as well as the Syfy remake were great. Still, the books man, the books are awesome :)

A beginning is a delicate thing...

Sorry if my quote seemed more than what it actually is. Just responding to Rawn's image of The God Emperor Leto II and generally being a Dune nerd. :)

A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct.

from Manual of Muad'Dib by the Princess Irulan

FMS SirZac wrote:

Also, we have a recruitment video for the settlement we are sponsoring. Please take a moment to watch it, and thanks to Quietus for building it!

Very nicely done. :)

Just watched it, awesome guys!

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Papaver wrote:

Lord Zodd wrote:

ArchAnjel wrote:

Internet drama queens just can't be stopped.

Whoa! Whoa! Calling Bluddwolf a queen is a bit much...

He is a princess at best :p

You can't even comprehend how difficult it is to resist the urge to open Photoshop right now and channel the thing that is "princess Bluddwolf" in my head into it.

Make it so.

OUT THE QUEEN

<3

I just wanted to pop back in and approve of good sportsmanship as a goal. That was the first agreeing point between TEO ambassador Alexander and I.

Thanks for the kudos! We realized that being company-focused was the completely wrong approach. It's about sharing our idea and working that out, there are SO MANY unknowns about once we are in-game, that having a pre-packaged idea could be too rigid that it'll break on entry into the actual game.

So having a settlement forum and 'crowdforging' the high concept we have seems the best way to go, then everyone has some ownership.

Which by the way, Fidelis & FMS are so synergistic it's crazy. So excited to see how this plays out!

We are, it should be interesting.

Fidelis was created post land rush two, and by members that wanted to cooperate with Aeternum but eventually drift at least to NG. Since we had not anchored an alliance with a LG settlement at the time we decided to flush one out internally, but they will operate from Callambea for quite some time.

*Edit, the hopeful drift is to NG. They will not be supporting the chaotic alignment grid*

Some one on the Pax forums started the trend, I can't even remember who at this point.

I think you just caught the Tater....

Pax Charlie George wrote:

That is our original thread back in 2012, and the information there is terribly out of date.

Callambea is Lawful Neutral.

As for why we chose our area, we made our choice mostly based on potential trade traffic. That is Callambea's main function.

Where a city is relative to an NPC town is a secondary or tertiary concern IMO.

Actually, I'm sure you had a dozen good reasons for it.

/shrug

Possibly.

Anywho, I don't want to hijack the thread any more than is needed to clarify. Cheers!

T7V Avari wrote:

... why did you put your great Capital of everything Lawful dead center on top of Chaos City?

I believe Callambea is "Good", not "Lawful". At least, that's the impression I got from The Kingdom of Aeternum (Pax Gaming).

That is our original thread back in 2012, and the information there is terribly out of date.

Callambea is Lawful Neutral.

As for why we chose our area, we made our choice mostly based on potential trade traffic. That is Callambea's main function.

Where a city is relative to an NPC town is a secondary or tertiary concern IMO.

I think any group, alliance, or accord has the ability to survive as long as it can spring back from defeat. It is the one thing none of us are immune to.

As long as the commitment is there, I think you guys will be fine.

While Aeternum is a ways away from your power block, your goals are not something we are against by any means. It is a good goal with added mutual interest, I wish you guys the best.

Congratulations guys!

Additionally Good Pax, Bad Pax, Indifferent Pax, and Naughty Pax are not accurate ways to look at it.

Fidelis is a lawful good organization made partially from former Aeternum members and members from our other games migrating over. Because of this they are not voting for their own spot and will likely be hoping to get one much later in the game. To do otherwise would be unfair and unwise.

Aeternum is a Lawful Neutral entity that centers around trade in support of their settlement Callambea. We generally pride ourselves in honest deals, contracts, etc.

Golgotha is a Lawful Evil and is concentrated on military prowess and heavy pvp. They were an entity that existed prior to joining the meta community and have changed in roster very little since joining.

The question of conflict between entities can be and should be asked irrespective of who they are inside of a meta community. Nations that join from outside the Pax community will be faced with the same questions, and we hope to be able to assuage those concerns. We can not hope to sustain a nation for very long with just one social group, meta or otherwise.

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

@Sextant, first a disclaimer, I'm not the official go-to guy but we've talked about the interactions between Fidelis and Golgotha quite a bit before so I may be able to give some insight into how Pax plans to play that one out.

As in the Pathfinder Tabletop game, just because someone's alignment is evil doesn't mean the "good guys" can go and kill that person. If your paladin runs around casting detect evil on random townspeople, some of them may show up as evil; that doesn't give the paladin free reign to attack those people, or he will be arrested and probably lose his paladin powers for decidedly non-lawful actions. So although the people of Fidelis are aware that the Golgothans are up to no good, they aren't exactly going to start a revolt and start killing people.

The people of Fidelis will of course (in a strictly RP sense) be worried and sorry for their neighbors whose activities behind those walls start rumors of brutality and horror; however, the Fidelans (Fidelians? I dunno...) are more committed to reforming their friends through example, guidance, and reforms to empire law, rather than tearing apart their homes in a decidedly non-good manner. These are our countrymen and neighbors, not our enemies.

I personally look forward to roleplaying the interactions between Fidelans and Golgothans.

Well, the OP indicates that Golgotha is interested in conquest. When Golgotha marches its armies and starts to attack other settlements in overt acts of aggression, it probably won't take a detect alignment spell to realize that Golgatha is evil. I don't think that every good aligned settlement will necessarily rally to the defense of every settlement every time its attacked (but maybe they will, I don't know). But I'm more curious if good-aligned Pax groups will have a blind spot when evil-aligned Pax groups act in obviously evil ways.

In other words, if good Pax would normally act against an evil group in some given situation, would they still take...

There are two separate acts of aggression. One is all out, all hands on deck war. The other is smaller skirmishes, feuds, and facton conflict. Full out war requires votes on a settlement council to inact, and whomever represents a settlement vote can vote against agressions Gogoltha might want to initiate.

Smaller scale aggression is initiated by the individual settlement's council. There are exceptions to this related to shared blue lists and issues of diplomatic repercussions. As long as there is no conflict Golgotha has the right to conduct feuds as a separate entity. Any other settlement would have the exact same rights and expectations.

Most of our good group leadership are not adverse to the idea of aggression, or have aversions to cooperating with a lawful evil settlement. This generally revolves around separating what would normally be RP reservations.

Is there a Pathfinder Society of Divorce Lawyers?

Ok, maybe that was a little negative, but no more so then the dissolution of the Pax UNC contract. At least our separation was amicable and in accordance with the terms of the contract.

For clarity, Aeternum and Golgotha have no wish to jump into a drama contest. Bludd's opinions are not ours.

Good work guys. Exciting times.

Nihimon wrote:

I read it that Golgotha is allied with Pax Aeternum the same way TSV and TEO are allied.

If that is the case, then I totally agree that Golgotha is in the free and clear. But I thought that Golgotha was mainly Pax members who want a LE settlement?

Nihimon has the right of it.

GW has contacted us about this issue. I promise everyone we are moving truthfully in our answers and will abide by any solution they wish.

What that solution is I can not say until that discussion is done.

I read it that Golgotha is allied with Pax Aeternum the same way TSV and TEO are allied.

This is exactly correct. Thank you Nihimon

Thanks for the clarification. I though that Golgatha and Aeternum were in the same chain of decision-making and shared the same community and overall leadership.

No problem

Aeternum and Golgotha have separate leadership councils which only join together on nation level matters where each settlement retains one vote. That is the same deal we offer for non Pax entities that want a seat on the council as well.

TLDR: We vote independently on matters of our own future settlements.

Deacon is the lead of Golgotha, his voting council consists of Morbis, Cyneric, and Phyllian.

I'm beginning to think it might be possible after all to build up Phaeros as a University Town of sorts, where we forego some of the other major Settlement structures in order to provide additional Training facilities for a wide range of class roles. I think if this turns out to be viable, it will be very appealing to our members.

I agree, if the mechanics allow it is a pretty solid tactic. I could see it theoretically bringing in a larger range of folks that are dependent on the settlement's success.

Pax Deacon wrote:

So instead of paying 35$ back in February, I need to have my members pay 100$ now in order to vote for our settlement.

If I understand the published order of forces properly, your members should not be voting for a settlement at all.

It is possible that I grossly misunderstand what the guild affiliation of "your members" is.

You might. I made our intent post on another thread. Here is what Golgotha is as well as how we are moving forward.

Pax has made our statements to the respective Golgotha-Aeternum membership on how we wish to move forward.

In an effort for full disclosure, those statements are HERE as well as reiterated HERE and are readable at the visitor level.

Golgotha will be voting in the new land rush, but will do so via their own membership. What votes were lost via confused cross voting before this statement was issued is to be considered a permanent "loss".

Golgotha was it's own separate entity of merged CC's before we began alliance talks. They still exist as that separate entity as Pax Gaming members, they just have the ability to join us in our other games while this one is still prelaunch.

Pax Gaming takes developer EULA's and requests very seriously. I, Deacon Wulf, or Rawn (the lead chair of the Pax Community) as always available for developer discussions of violations of rules or the spirit of rules / requests.

The above is also pre Lee's clarification on entities bargaining for votes.

/em points proudly at his shiny new Pax tag.

/em looks around for spiky bits...

Congratulations!

Thanks for the warm welcome everyone, especially to those who came and visited us personally. :) Please hit me up with any questions. And just think very soon it'll be our very first birthday.

We greatly enjoyed the conversation, and look forward to more :)

Pax Charlie George wrote:

Lee Hammock wrote:

Blaeringr wrote:

Here's another question: do we have to belong to a registered guild to vote?

Plenty of us wont be trying to own land, but will still clearly have a vested stake in those who do.

If you have an EE account you can apply to join any guild you want and help them get a settlement. Maybe trade your vote for promise of future favors in game? You won't get to choose settlements directly, the guild administrator does that, but you can affect what guilds get to choose. You don't have to join that settlement once the game starts; this isn't a binding contract.

This seems in conflict with earlier information, can we be relatively assured that this is indeed the case?

Six months into beta are we going to stop and check to make sure everyone is in the settlement they are supposed to be in based on this vote? No, we're not going to do that. People get mad at each other, things change, stuff happens.

Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification.

Well met friends!

I am Zodd. I have extremely high hopes for PFO. I ran a mercenary guild in Shadowbane, a sandbox MMO that came out back in 2003. I have played a lot of MMOs before and since, but have yet to capture the joy and thrill that I found in the sandbox type of game. Open PvP and player built cities that could be besieged by enemy guilds made for an amazing and challenging gaming experience.

I am unaffiliated for now, I am so used to being a guild leader in any MMO I play that the prospect of joining a guild ran by someone else is strange.

I look forward to getting to know everyone here and I will attempt to contribute whatever I can to help.

Welcome and all hail, Lord Zodd :)

I have returned!

<3. Nice to see you back from your shenanigans in AA!

Yes, I just asked in the relevant thread if we can be assured that is indeed the case. It seems in conflict with the OP.

Blaeringr wrote:

Here's another question: do we have to belong to a registered guild to vote?

Plenty of us wont be trying to own land, but will still clearly have a vested stake in those who do.

If you have an EE account you can apply to join any guild you want and help them get a settlement. Maybe trade your vote for promise of future favors in game? You won't get to choose settlements directly, the guild administrator does that, but you can affect what guilds get to choose. You don't have to join that settlement once the game starts; this isn't a binding contract.

This seems in conflict with earlier information, can we be relatively assured that this is indeed the case?

Pax has made our statements to the respective Golgotha-Aeternum membership on how we wish to move forward.

In an effort for full disclosure, those statements are HERE as well as reiterated HERE and are readable at the visitor level.

Golgotha will be voting in the new land rush, but will do so via their own membership. What votes were lost via confused cross voting before this statement was issued is to be considered a permanent "loss".

Golgotha was it's own separate entity of merged CC's before we began alliance talks. They still exist as that separate entity as Pax Gaming members, they just have the ability to join us in our other games while this one is still prelaunch.

Pax Gaming takes developer EULA's and requests very seriously. I, Deacon Wulf, or Rawn (the lead chair of the Pax Community) as always available for developer discussions of violations of rules or the spirit of rules / requests.

One point of clarification to make sure I'm complying. I am part of one of the Three. I purchased a Guild Forger account back during the KS with the intent of recruiting my friends to the game once it got close to going forward as they aren't the Paizo fans that I am. So, after the LR 1 vote, I recruited them over the last couple of days to take the slots.

Can they form a Chartered Company separate from my current Guild and apply for a LR settlement?

Could I quit my current Guild and join them, even though I don't vote?

Could we do that knowing that one day we'd hope to be allied with said Big Three guild, but knowing that it won't matter for a while considering the distance?

What can they do with their votes if they decide to join the Big Three Guild instead? Just sit on them?

Thanks for the help. This is actually tougher on the Good guilds as they feel guilty twisting the rules to their advantage while the Lawful guilds figure that anything that meets the rules is fair game (I jest, I jest...)

I see what you did there.

Noted

Yay!

I am so excited to see the final iteration of GaymeOn in PfO :)

Welcome to the community, we are richer for having you here.

I think it is just a mutual realization that alliances, for hire services, and things of the like are sure to be fluid as the game progresses over time.

Stepping back into the storm with the best people I know to block the hails stones for me...

Cry Havoc

Welcome back Bringslite :)

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

I was just basing the pronunciation on what dictionary.com was telling me. :P

Dictionary.com is my preferred source as well, and yes, the first pronunciation there captures the essence of it :)

Since my handle is a work nickname I picked up, it pretty much follows rules that are beyond my control (you don't get to pick your nick name, after all).

Right now that tends to make the proper pronunciation a little involved

Pax has a community requirement that is locked regardless what game you are applying for. While we can add more hurdles for recruitment, we can not take a requirement away.

That is essentially a two week recruitment process on our boards, and afterwards a vote.

I would love for example to know how the big guilds of PFO, are considering the religion aspect of things.

Roleplay is something Pax does and allows. That said it is not a central focus.

I expect people will be able to promote their own religions as they see fit. I don't expect to see temples for the Rough Beast, but otherwise I don't think we will have restrictions on who one can follow.

Now if there are mechanical benefits and hindrances to specific types of temples we might have a different story.

Hope that helps!

Thanks Charlie, I see now that Harad said he would change that on the map in the weekend.

\

No problem Tyncale. It's what we are here for.

Do I have this correct?

Understanding the structure

I am interested in your organization but was a bit confused about where Aeternum fitted in, probably because its name re-emerged in the new structure.

I take it Fidelis and Aeternum are both going to try to get their own settlement in the second landrush (since Golgotha seems to have been established)?

Your chart is correct, but it was Aeternum / Callambea that became established. Golgotha will be trying to get their own settlement in the second landrush.

We will not be also pushing for Fidelis to have a settlement from this next landrush unless something on the diplomatic or recruitment end changes.

Ru...Ru..

RU...Ru..

Ruuuuuuuuuu

Thanks for the carefully thought replies! I was just commenting on how it is tough to understand from the outside looking in, please don't think I was making a demand.

And congrats!

We enjoyed the opportunity to explain ourselves :)

Thank you for your kind words.

You look hungry. I bid 3 whole sheep.

BL wins the internet.

More at 10

Hi, I won't push a sale really. Callambea is a LN settlement hoping to compete as a top merchant stop for the River Kingdoms. We are currently allied with Golgotha, the largest evil presence currently announced. We have plans in the building stages for a good presence as well, and hope to tie things together along the Lawful axis at the nation level.

If that is something you are interested in, feel free to drop by paxgaming.com.

@Ryan - just curious as to those with Destiny's Twin or multiple accounts? If I have two characters, one good and one evil, would it not reason that I should be able to vote for two settlements since they won't be able to both train at the original settlement I voted for?

I know that is a slippery slope as it could very easily turn into pay to win, but I had to ask.

Lol. /facepalm

According to the SRD of 3.5, "Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces."

This is further explained in the Alpha 1 Release, "Each deity has a number of spheres of influence, ideals and concepts that they represent and champion. Their followers can draw upon these domains for additional powers and abilities. Each cleric chooses two of the
domains granted by their deity upon taking their first level."

I have a radical question: Why is it mechanically necessary to explain divine magic in terms of a polytheistic world view?

I ask this because of the roots of our modern concept of Fantasy. Both Beowulf and La Mort de Arthur were written from a Christian perspective. C.S. Lewis allowed his own Christianity to heavily influence the Narnia chronicals. J.R.R. Tolkien was a devout Catholic and, to a less obvious degree, allowed his beliefs to shape his story telling (if you don't believe me, a friend of mine got his Masters of Theology by showing how much of the Old Testament shows up in Tolkien).

Given these roots, shouldn't there be a mechanical option for those who wish to honor these roots, or to reflect them in their games?

I realize that conceptually it is difficult to explain how God, given that He is good, would ever grant the Evil Domain to an evil cleric and allow this guy to go around using divine energies, power, etc. disobeying His commandments. Thus, there is the apparant need for divine powers that support such activities.

However, one of the most fundamental concepts of Christianity holds that the created world was called "very good" by God. Thus, when it comes to whether something in creation is good or evil, it doesn't matter WHAT something is, but rather how it is USED. Thus, no matter how difficult it may seem, it is possible to use the Evil Domain for good.

Keeping this concept in mind, isn't it possible to understand the ability to use divine magic as a gift from God to be used and developed in the same manner as, say, musical ability? The potential is there, but it still needs to be harnessed, and trained in order to take full advantage. This way, each character who has the ability to cast divine magic is completely free to use the gift in the manner in which she chooses (reflecting another Christian concept, free will).

Thus, it is theoretically possible for someone to be given the Evil Domain and through free will use it to obey God's commands.

So, in the name of universality and in honor of folks like Tolkien and Lewis, would it be possible for the Pathfinder guys to do a little editing and open the door to this kind of mechanic?