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?
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Al Smithy wrote:
I wonder what Erian has to say about that, considering they apparently allow all non-aggressors welcome to Keepers Pass, his own words.
(a) If you are an unknown entity and you are just going through EBA territory, you are safe. If you are attacked without cause (e.g. you weren't harvesting on EBA territory, or after being found to harvest you stopped), let me know and I'll find out why.
(b) If you are a known ally of a hostile group and wish to visit, let me know and I'll be happy to escort you in and out personally or otherwise provide escort. The Ring of Gold focuses on hospitality, to friend, stranger, and enemy alike. We can't have meaningful conversation otherwise. I'll walk Phyllain, Midnight, or anyone else straight to The Laughing Ogre Alehouse for a drink and talks. I can't guarantee the safety of known hostile parties otherwise entering our land, of course. The way to guarantee that safe passage is to not be hostile.
The Keepers desire to reduce and eliminate conflict across the entire region. We are not, however, ones to allow our non-aggression stance to be abused so otherwise-hostile parties can take advantage of our good nature.
Forencith, that clarification does indeed help. Thanks.
Tyncale and Thod, I think your comments and assessment are very accurate. I would further add that of everything I've done in the game, this is the one area where I've been "beaten" so far because diplomacy and intra/inter alliance coordination is the one area of the game I like best. I think if EBA had come out of the gate with a more cohesive alliance mentality, rather than individuals playing in groups playing with other groups, the state of BWG at the time of this attack would have been very different. I can't say the outcome would have differed, but there would have been much better preparation at least regarding possible threats and responses.
I hope we learn from our mistakes, all of us, as both players and characters so that this becomes a better game.
For EBA folks that keep talking about BWG going it alone and how that led to their failure, do please curb that. BWG is/was part of the EBA. They were beginning to work with us. This event occurred at the most inopportune time, right as they were getting their feet under them. The EBA failed BWG in that regard, just as BWG failed in not taking advantage of the alliance earlier.
Savage Grace wrote:
Been tied up for a lot of the weekend with RL, but I did want to raise this particular one--we should not get any benefit in game for PK's. The fact that the only way I, as a Diplomat, can raise my Social achievements is by killing people is ridiculous and of no interest to me. However, that's not my complaint. If I want to max out my "Social" skill right now, it's extremely easy. "Hey friend, let's go stand in that free PvP hex. As my friend, you drop all your gear, then I'll kill you a bazillion times so I'm more Social." That has to be the most easily exploitable achievement in the game at present. If DI actually gets tied to it, well then I can see all sorts of allies just killing each other over and over...
Not a forum appeal here, I'm genuinely seeking clarity. The complaint is that the Golgothans are not getting any challenging PvP. Challenging PvP has been offered, and the response is they'd rather keep killing folks that do not offer challenging PvP. That is not a logical response from the flow of the conversation thus far.
Now, if the intent is rather to teach gatherers, travelers, etc. that they should travel in a protected way, that's a wholly different matter, and one I support in my previous statements. However, if that is indeed the goal (and of courses, the loot is nice too) then it gets back to my point of the PvP crowd stepping up their game on the player front and actually helping people understand why they are being attacked.
Gol Tink wrote:
Christ, you people are good at stiring up drama.
Of course...that's why I play a bard! I've said before, this is my meaningful content...
And I'm sure it will rub many the wrong way. But it is the truth of PFO. The risk factor of the game is driven by humans, not AI. No amount of training, reading, planning, or anything else will drive this lesson home more than being out in the wilds and caught by bandits. This is absolutely, fundamentally, a part of this game. And once enough of these folks understand some of these fundamental differences from other games, they'll be better prepared to play in PFO.
Or not. They may take that as their final message that this is not the game for them. I'm never going to spout out, "well fine, we're better off without you!" because in truth I believe everyone can contribute in some way to make the game better. However, I'm also very certain that this game will not appeal to everyone, and that's okay. Indeed, I would hope folks learn this early rather than late so they don't go away with the feeling of wasted time.
What does not have to be part of the game is negative communication that doesn't acknowledge the desire of both players to enjoy their time. And that is what I am advocating. For the "bad guys" in particular, but I do not except other folks from this same responsibility. Trash talking and denigrating PvP folks is no more acceptable than them taunting players.
Charlie George wrote:
That is certainly a possibility, although I will note that from an in-game perspective the Keepers, in particular, are far more interested in non-aggressive resolutions to disagreements. My advocacy, as a player, that PvP is a necessary part of PFO will not in the least curb my advocacy, as a character, to find solutions to problems without conflict. That is, in fact, how I enjoy the game. It's my PvP and PvE all combined into one.
I absolutely agree--the PvE folks need to be trained that this is how this game works. I believe the PvP folks have the best ability to do that in a meaningful way that really drives the lesson home. I'm not asking the PvP folks to train others in combat/tactics--they can go to PFU for that. I'm asking PvP folks to consider the human factor of this game, the players themselves, and then adopt communication and styles that foster good relationships even when you are looting my husk. I've offered up examples of folks that do that, and I add to that an echo of Guurzak--his RP is certainly something folks can get into and his communication is clear (well, when you can translate the Orcish accent). I see you/Aragon as certainly in the same group as Golgotha--a powerful force that has the potential to drive how the culture of PvP develops
I am working from the premise that PFO aims to be a fundamentally different game from those that have come before. I very seriously doubt it will appeal to hardcore PvP folks or hardcore PvE folks. It's aiming for a middle ground, which could be the perfect blend Savage Grace noted, or it could be a boring mish-mash mediocrity. I firmly believe that we, all the players on the entire spectrum that care at all for the success of the game, are the ones that will make it the former rather than the latter. I think of it this way--we are all in a social contract together, with the agreed upon end goal of enjoying the time we spend together. Every major player, whether on the PvP, PvE, RP, or whatever favored flavor of game, can take up the responsibility to think outside just their own role to the larger vision of PFO. Yes, I certainly support that meaning the PvE people need to consider and support what is required for the PvP folks to enjoy their time.
Cronge, I don't aim this at you personally, but your posts queue the statement I keep trying to enforce with the TT/RP crowd. This is not a game about just playing the heroes in the story. It's a game about playing everyone in the story. That is far more exciting to me than just everyone being the good guys that always win.
Now, for the conversation at hand regarding my expectation that PvP folks shoulder some greater responsibility, I should probably explain myself better to keep from seeming wishy-washy on my stance. I still very much support PvP in this game, but this is what I have heard in the conversation.
Blackwood Glade, which basically never counts more then 6-8 people on at any time, was attacked multiple times last night. Whether through coordinated attacks, fate, or whatever, it basically ground the entire settlement into the dirt.
Smack was talked, on both sides, and in one case this became personal. Direct physical threats were levied on this very thread for those that weren't in before the culling, and I flagged the person as violating Paizo rules. Phyllain and I have talked on this, and we both concur that behavior doesn't belong in the game. We will mutually report anyone, on either side, acting in this way.
It became apparent that BWG understood themselves to have a non-aggression state with Golgotha, which was not properly the case. This misunderstanding likely led to a lot of the harsh feelings.
On seeing this, Golgotha extended an olive branch and tried to set something up with BWG. For this, I commend them. That is exactly the kind of self-policing I desire (though it would be good if it didn't take so long, and could occur closer to the PvP).
On finding the leader of BWG had suspended his account, Golgotha's stance was "without a signed agreement, we won't stop attacking BWG." This is where the group veers from what I'm looking for. It is understood that the actions were damaging to an entire settlement, but without a signed agreement Golgotha intends to continue grinding BWG into non-existence.
This is the fault I find. This is where I do not see the self-policing that I believe is needed in the PvP folks to help bring TT/PvE/RP folks into a better understanding of the game. I see no benefit to continued hostility against BWG, and Golgotha refusing to do so without a signed agreement, from a settlement that is obviously now leaderless, does not show me a group looking to actually help others learn how PvP works in this game.
Further, Golgotha states they will continue their actions until GW tells them to act otherwise. I view this as an unwise step--we should not rely on mechanics to temper how we will corporately act in the best interests of the game.
And so my current state is one of confusion. I certainly support PvP in this game. I have high hopes that there are players that can step up to the challenge and actually make that a reality. Yet I am seeing those hopes dwindle when I see refusal to do so in a selfless manner, but rather only at the hand of correction.
Gol Tabomo wrote:
That is indeed unfortunate, and I hope something can be done to work out retaining Blackwood Glade as a viable settlement. Losing another to inactivity, getting even more vacant, is not good for the game.
And for that, I would ask that you reconsider your last statement. If last night's actions resulted in potentially destroying an entire settlement not 3 months into the game, I would hope for the sake of the game Golgotha would consider that and modify your actions accordingly. I'm not saying stop PvP, I'm saying be judicious in your targets, just as a TT GM must sometimes modify encounters to keep the game alive. There are plenty of us willing to offer you opportunities for PvP. When it's pursued to the very real detriment of the game (see Ryan's recent posts on needing to maintain break-even costs or this whole thing tanks), I'd have to break from my support of Golgotha as a valuable Evil part of the PFO equation.
I'm betting this NAP misunderstanding is the source of much of the confusion and conflict...
As for the roleplaying/rollplaying, Cronge I will note that your comment applies equally to tabletop as well as this game. The PFRPG rules are a framework. They can be used for min/max, monty-haul, gank fests just as readily as can this computer game. The roleplaying doesn't come from the framework, it comes from the people. If anything, I see PFO as having an even greater opportunity for RP as the NPCs that would all be run (generally poorly, given the volume) by a single GM are instead run by players in PFO. That I think is a shift in mindset the TT folks need to have as well. If you are playing a gatherer, refiner, crafter, etc. you are an NPC from the TT perspective. Now every NPC in town (other than the Thornguard) can have personalities rather than just the three key ones the GM made notes on the night before.
As for capturing the feel of Golarion--this is pretty much exactly what was in my head when reading the River Kingdoms AP. Right down to the "this is a dangerous place to live" piece. Show me how, in that AP, the common folk were somehow safe from aggression when anywhere except their fortified settlements...
If it were introduced in Open Enrollment, how could it be crowdforged? I'd rather work on rough edges now, with a limited group of people, rather than when the hoped for thousands pour in. We need to establish a culture now of how this will function for PFO, a culture that all major power blocs support, so that we can infuse this culture into players as they join. Any economy that forms now, in an environment with no PvP, would create an unfeasible model when PvP is later switched on because we've then trained all the players that gathering, caravans, etc. are all safe. That would in turn lead to mass-revolt from those that had grown to expect the safety.
What's the most important thing to a merchant? It's not, in fact, his coin purse, but rather his reputation! Sellers need to know a merchant is trustworthy in order to do business, and the same goes for individuals. To that end, Keeper's Pass maintains a posting of any trader verified by Keeper's Pass as reliable for trading. Better to know your buyer/seller than to be ganked out in the wilderness after the transaction! And of course, that means we'll have a Blacklist for said villains...
Want to make it on the board? Set up a trade with Keeper's Pass, or have a member you've traded with verify your credentials to me!
I'm a huge Golarion fan. I've been with PF since Alpha (not PFO, PF the book; I own the paper bound beta version). I've been with Paizo for years before that. My advice is this--let go of the desire for mechanical equivalence. In truth, the d20 mechanics would be clunky in a whole lot of areas. Rather, embrace the terrain--does it look like you'd expect from the River Kingdoms? Embrace the monsters--are the goblins and ogres good depictions as you imagined them from playing, say, Rise of the Runelords? But most of all, embrace the individuals, companies, and settlements now in the game. Do they show true to the 6 River Freedoms? Do they integrate the lore of Golarion into their play? I can tell you not all do, but I can also tell you there are many, many of us that do so.
This is not Baldur's Gate set in Golarion. If that's what you are looking for, it will disappoint. There may at some point be dungeons and such to explore, but the life of this game is not there. It's in the fact that we can actually BE an entire River Kingdoms town. We can play every part from the freeholders bringing in resources to the experts turning those into useful tools and structures to the town rulers managing their land to finally the adventurers that go out into the land and pursue their dreams. Sprinkled in there we have Bad Guys that are not a computer AI, but rather run by real players. Bandits, evil overlords, vile necromancers--all run as a (good) GM would run them not in some cookie-cutter computer fashion.
Find a settlement that supports RP then make a judgement from there.
For all members of the EBA, this communication difficulty is exactly why we're looking to centralize some things to an EBA Trade Council. If you are a member and you are experiencing difficulty in refining, crafting, or trade, certainly speak up to your leadership and encourage them to raise it as an EBA-wide consideration. If you aren't sure who to contact, feel free to come to me directly and I can route as appropriate.
However, I echo the concerns for in-game communication and look forward to that functionality. Company and Settlement level trade and storage functionality is certainly high on my list as well. Asynchronous transactions are exceedingly difficult at present, especially when crossing time zones.
As for the state of Keeper's Pass, I of course wouldn't turn down new members to any of our settlement Companies, but as others have said the vitality of the settlement is not directly reflected in the Company counts.
The Keeper's Library is now open for business. If you are looking for a specific recipe, feel free to shoot me a PM with your needs. We have over 640 recipes available at present, and are willing to trade for other recipes/materials/items or sell directly for Silver. Once the Auction House functionality shifts with EEv4, we'll keep some stock there as well.
The Library is also beginning to stock Expendables so check in if you are looking for a specific spell or maneuver.
That is certainly a valid position to hold, and considering supply chain, logistics, etc. from a military perspective, as well as the benefit of having a "safe harbor" I understand your reasoning. We don't hold any hard feelings against anyone that decides our membership in the Everbloom Alliance is detrimental to your cause, and therefore our tenet is unacceptable. We simply want it to be plainly stated and understood by all so as to avoid any unnecessary concern.
I would hold that such a hostile position is not necessarily the best relationship we can have, however, nor the most advantageous from a strategic perspective at this time. I simply ask that folks consider our stance and the benefits it provides. While it is true we could supply TEO with goods, in truth we don't because there's been no need--they are vastly more capable of providing for their own needs at present. Keeper's Pass serving as "safe harbor" might become more of an issue in later times, when groups are truly at war, but I see no true strategic value in attacking there at present. Indeed, our non-aggression stance doesn't just extend to non-allies; we would not condone our allies attacking folks unprovoked in our territory either. In the immediate time frame, I would think being able to mark off one of the larger and more organized companies (albeit one that's not exactly a PvP monster, granted) as beneficial. Looking long-term, I would see our position as a voting member of the EBA, and one that favors non-aggressive solutions to issues, as something to keep in mind as well.
Will all-out war eventually come? Perhaps. And then my work as a diplomat gets even more challenging and meaningful...
P.S. And I should note for those not aware, this stuff is my PvP, my game content. The diplomacy and intrigue draw me far more than any aspect of the game. Nothing I say is personal, or looking to "one up" a player as such. I consider Phyllain, and pretty much everyone, at least casual friends of mine until noted otherwise.
Indeed, our goal is to minimize aggression, but we fully acknowledge that some won't take to our ways. That's fine. We honestly want to build positive relationships with everyone willing to hear us. We understand some folks have grudges to further, and others just want the opportunity to fight. We're okay with that. Just don't do it, without consent, on our territory. Want to fight TEO and T7V in Keeper's Pass? Come and challenge them to a fight. I'm certain you'll get folks that accept. Coming and sniping at people "caught" in the UI or otherwise AFK isn't really fighting after all.
If, however, folks simply ignore our offers (I've offered up a core 6 hex as an arena, for any that don't know) we're okay with that too. It lays out the path we'll need to take as a group. We, as a group, don't have any grudges nor an itch for instigating PvP. If folks want a fight, though, we're fine with that. Just know that we're not the sorts to revert to peace once our tenet is openly broken.
We should, however, probably take further discussions on Keeper's Pass to a more appropriate thread. I'll bump our Diplomatic thread for anyone interested in further dialogue.
Well then, a War between SENSOU and Golgotha is certainly another thing entirely.
So to note, as long as an organized group is not trying to dominate a hex around a Starter Settlement, I have no side in the fight. Well, unless you lot should care to engage my services as a mediator to achieve a non-violent solution to conflict. Given the sound of things, I'm not going to hang my hat on that happening...
Heh, the Nob Aggression Pact is an interesting spin...it's good to hear your leadership MIA/tower issues have been resolved.
I've not made it up to the northeastern section of the map in my travels somehow, but will have to swing by there on my next walk-about. Keeper's Pass certainly welcomes any trade opportunities from Aragon and the Nation of Kathalphas.
We fully understand (and acknowledge above) the nature of this game. You seem to be disregarding the value of the current state of affairs between the Keepers of the Circle and Golgotha. We respect Golgothan territory and laws, because we have thus far had positive relations with Golgotha, and specifically with Phyllian. As such, we will not initiate any attacks against Golgotha, nor participate in aggressive actions against Golgotha.
Are you saying that these positive relations have no value to you, and you'd rather provoke the Keepers into a relationship of aggression? We are certainly willing to live with that state if it is the desire of Golgotha to cease our current relations. I would ask that you consult with your leaders before taking that step. You are welcome to stay in Keeper's Pass, and you are even welcome to issue challenges to the "weak" to show their skills in combat--the Keepers have no problem with consensual combat
I'm quite enjoying having one "adventurer" and one craftsman as it gives me a diverse game experience.
On early training, I agree that you don't have to invest in early melee/ranged if you want to go Wizard. You can get a wand for free, pick up some orisons, and start blasting. Indeed, if you plan on being on tonight and haven't already found one, I'll look you up to ensure you get a staff as well. I'm happy to help in-game if you ever see me.
Please note that at present I speak for the Keepers of the Circle as a diplomat in this. It is incorrect to characterize this as an action by the Everbloom Alliance. We, the Alliance, are united in supporting one another and protecting our lands, but we are also separate entities that make our own decisions and take our own actions. I would ask that more particular care be given to discussions involving settlements, companies, and alliances. Indeed, one must even take care when referring to "Keepers" as such can refer to the settlement in which we live, our specific company and its member Rings, or also possibly other companies settled at Keeper's Pass. Specificity in your communication will help avoid confusion and unnecessary conflict
Further, we view the actions taken yesterday as unfortunate (as are all acts of aggression) but also expected given the nature of the race for tower control. It is our hope that with ownership now established, all groups might come to a reasonable, diplomatic solution to any transfer of tower control. I am happy to assist in such conversations if desired. Such a discussion might even involve physical competition for control, as I understand many relish the opportunity to prove their worth. But if such is necessary, I would at least ask that the involved parties come to an understanding prior to the conflict, lay out specific terms for engagement, and ultimately acknowledge the rightful winner once said competition is complete. As for the events of yesterday, the Keepers congratulate Emerald Lodge on their victory, and as always support your goal of remaining a Neutral party in this region. I personally hope that this encounter does not sour any relations, nor taint that Neutrality, and can instead be viewed as healthy competition in our strange little world here in the River Kingdoms.
Squaring the Circle,
As a player, I do think it important we separate the RP aspect, which Thod is certainly expert at portraying for many months now, from the player aspect. The political drama is like gold for me, so keep it coming, but do try to keep in mind the nature of communications.
I am, of course, appalled by the violence and have already posted my concerns with the Xelian Embassy. Thankfully, Phyllian has engaged in dialogue and we shall continue our current relations in good faith. Having been away in Ossian's Crossing during the attack, I then spread word of the attack to Canis Castrum as they were venturing into the territory. I continued on through Hammerfall to express the support of the Keepers before returning home. This reinforces, for me, the need to hold a meeting of the Everbloom Alliance representatives sooner rather than later to discuss trade, crafting, and defense needs.
(Because my content is the politics, not the PvP...).
My first major "Yes, this is what I want out of this game!" officially occurred today, as I was on a walk-about and encountered some fine folks looking to talk trade. Now, I just need to convince GW to somehow connect Achievements to trade deals and diplomacy...
What needs do you have that Keeper's Pass can fulfill?
Freeholder is a bit strange to see here and has no authenticity outside of this MMO, does it?
Given the historical use of Freeholder, and a tie with the Golarion canon for the River Freedoms, "you have what you hold," etc. I believe Freeholder is actually a very appropriate term. They are free men, land holders, that are not vassals to any king. This is as opposed to Commoner, which historical meant "everyone that's not nobility (and later, "or clergy"). From what I can tell, PFO is going for a very different feel for this role vs. the Commoner class from PFRPG.