Treaty of Rovagug - An offer to every non-griefer organization


Pathfinder Online

201 to 250 of 298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Björn Renshai wrote:
Am I the only one who sees this?

Clearly not.

Karnov wrote:
Imagine the future of Pathfinder Online, imagine a Lawful Good boot stamping on a player's face - forever.

Goblin Squad Member

Björn Renshai wrote:

Okay, I have been watching this train wreck of a thread from the beginning. So I am not a "random person" wandering in, "read a fragment of what is said and then offer their opinions without understanding the full situation."

To start off I want to say to Bluddwolf, I am seriously impressed so far with what you have said and think you will do wonders for yourself and your company.

One thing I think everyone needs to realize is truly what this "Treaty" is. It is fear, plain and simple. People are afraid that some "evil" organisation is going to pop up and ruin everything and it will just be a nightmare. So what is their reaction? They are going to create a treaty that turns them into what they most despise, griefers. Once/if these griefers show up, they are going to go up to them and say, "You shall not play here!" and start griefing them.

Taking from Ryan Dancy's blog post, griefing is thus explained, "Loosely defined, griefing means taking actions within the game that are designed to harass another player to elicit bad feelings without any other reasonable purpose."

So these members of this Treaty are going to go out and try to harass these players so that they leave. It is essentially the same thing, it is only wrapped up in a prettier packaging with a nice title to it. Am I the only one who sees this?

Now then, to top it off I will have to agree with Tiran Kenja. You are all really just playing into their hands, I mean, if you want them to leave you alone, IGNORE THEM! Nobody likes being ignored, and they most certainly do not like it if the person they are trying to get a rise out of it, does not respond. It confuses them, they don't understand why you didn't put a $5k bounty on their head for killing your entire party, or killing your sheep for no reason.

Welcome to dealing with Jerks 101, I hoped you liked the seminar!

I too have refrained from commenting, but I agree with this assessment fully. Especially this:

Quote:
So these members of this Treaty are going to go out and try to harass these players so that they leave. It is essentially the same thing, it is only wrapped up in a prettier packaging with a nice title to it. Am I the only one who sees this?

No, you aren't.

@ Bluddwolf /tipofthehat

What Dak posted as well, is very apropos. I see no reason to rush into forming some overarching Police State. I understand that your intentions are pure, but until there is an issue, there is no reason to react. And this comes off as extreme OVER reaction. Having open lines of communication through emissaries, ambassadors, and such is smart. It'll speed communication and declarations if and when the time comes to confront an issue. Creating a metadocument now, IMO, isn't.

*“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”

Part of the game, and one that I'm most looking forward to, is the politics and alliances versus perceived and current threats. Create pacts, oaths, and grand alliances then, through your already established networks, than try and declare war now on an. as yet, non-existent enemy.

Goblin Squad Member

I think something to remember is that those that participate in the construction of this will have more say than not. The idea at it's base does seem fairly "alignment" neutral.

The actions of one or even a small group will not elicit a response. So 1 person can grief away and not worry about it's effect on this treaty. This seems, if I am not mistaken, an attempt to stop game hurting guilds from ruining the game. Not to police every little piss ant squabble.

I think a good start for it would be that all members in the treaty had to vote for any action. Make the vote require a super majority and open. Every guild gets 1 vote and super majority to get anything moving. Oh a super majority should be defined by the treaty members but in common practice you are talking 2/3 of the vote to pass. Look at the US Senate on what happens when 2 highly polarized parties need a super majority to pass anything even when one is in the minority. The threat would have to be pretty bad.

Now if only "good" or "non-griefer" guilds join then this treaty is far more likely to be called forward. So if the "evil", bandit, assassin, or mercenary guilds want to help prevent it from happening unjustly it would likely be better to be a part in it's creation phase and voting process.

Besides people we are taking about how to prevent players from being abused and the game failing soon after release. This will be a niche game and we want to be inclusive to all types. I want the bandit that robs merchants to feel as welcome as the pacifist crafter sitting in a town. We can't make everyone welcome but if a group goes out of their way to damage the game and is powerful enough to do it why would you not want to help fight it? Seriously do you want the game to fail or succeed?

Goblin Squad Member

Darnell wrote:
Harad Navar wrote:
Harad Navar wrote:
..I might even become Kawasaki.
I meant kamikaze. Darn autocorrect, and my own lack of review.
From the previous post I thought you were talking about making your own settlement, then you go and say you wanted to become a suicide pilot? I'm lost. Is flight going to be in this game? It would be awesome if it is.
Greedalox wrote:
Maybe he means the literal translation: Divine Wind?

I have been known to exhibit hot air. I was thinking of getting into the middle of a group of the aforementioned sociopaths, killing as many as possible, then running a script when I was about to expire to sunder a Staff of Power, or something like it. If it was threaded I might be able to do that a number of times

"I have met the enemy and it is me."

Goblin Squad Member

Ludy wrote:
This will be a niche game and we want to be inclusive to all types.

By definition a niche isn't inclusive to all types. Especially on the internet and in MMO's.

Goblin Squad Member

Björn Renshai wrote:
One thing I think everyone needs to realize is truly what this "Treaty" is. It is fear, plain and simple. People are afraid that some "evil" organisation is going to pop up and ruin everything and it will just be a nightmare. So what is their reaction? They are going to create a treaty that turns them into what they most despise, griefers. Once/if these griefers show up, they are going to go up to them and say, "You shall not play here!" and start griefing them.

I don't buy in to this kind of logic. This is like saying if a man is running around shooting random innocent people and you shoot him, then you have become him. Motivation counts for more than the action itself.

If people don't randomly start crapping all over everyone else then they have nothing to fear from me. But if they come in and start crapping all over the community, then you are damn right I'm going to treat them the same way they treat everyone else.

If my actions ruin the game for griefer and cause him to leave, rather than shaping up and acting right then that is unfortunate. But if the lack of their griefing causes a single new player, to stick around instead of being driven off by their crap, then it was well worth it. I've seen a small griefer clan comprised of about 5 veteran players named the Fallen Lords cause at least 15 new players to leave the game at once, in the destruction of a single clan named FIST. I know very well because I took over for the leader of that shattered clan and turned the members who were left into what became Great Legionnaires on Darkfall. Those remaining players became strong enough to fight back and even defeat the griefer clan Maru Kage when they tried to make war against NEW Academy. But FIST wasn't the first clan Fallen Lords destroyed, and it wasn't the last.

I simply will not stand by and watch bad elements ruin our community. Whether it's just TEO, or it's me standing alone. I'll do whatever I can to stop it no matter what public opinion on the matter is because I know it's whats right.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
I simply will not stand by and watch bad elements ruin our community. Whether it's just TEO, or it's me standing alone. I'll do whatever I can to stop it no matter what public opinion on the matter is because I know it's whats right.

When you try and use your enemy's own weapons against them, they will see it coming and know effective countermeasures. An alternative approach might be more tactically effective.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't buy in to this kind of logic. This is like saying if a man is running around shooting random innocent people and you shoot him, then you have become him. Motivation counts for more than the action itself.

Except its not like saying that at all.

It's more like saying you THINK someone might go around shooting random people, then you attempt to get a coalition together to come up with the terms for ridding this great land from this perceived threat.

Then you spend a lot of time flabbergasted that anyone would find such a proposal suspect.

Oh, and occasionally people that support your incentive step all over each other, contradict each other, silence each other, as well as not so subtly accuse dissenters of wanting this game to fail (or not liking peace, freedom, or the "Golarion Way")

Goblin Squad Member

Harad Navar wrote:
When you try and use your enemy's own weapons against them, they will see it coming and know effective countermeasures. An alternative approach might be more tactically effective.

To the contrary I've found that few things are more effective at combating griefers than turning their own game against them. Griefers do what they do often because of how easy it is to torment newbs. They get their charge from proving to newbs how much tougher they are than them. When veterans come in and spoil their fun they cry harder than anyone else.

Goblin Squad Member

But your personal definition of griefing is subjective. I know it doesn't necessarily represent TEO, but let's not kid ourselves, you're the founder, you word holds as much weight in TEO as mine does over at Pax Gaming.

I read it earlier and disagree'd with all but 5 words of it. In fact, the *only* think if your list of 5 that I would agree with is the bit about exploiting (you called it abusing game mechanics). And even then what you personally consider exploiting is also subjective.

In fact, almost every sandbox or open world PVP game I have played where people made creative use of game mechanics, shy of hacking, etc. they where praised by the devs!

Pushing people dumb enough to go AFK in a game like this into a NPC spawner, that's ingenious! Not something I would personally do (I detest griefers as per my definition as you do griefers as per your definition) but that's just smart playing on their part.

That's what it comes down to for a lot of people in this thread.

It's not that we don't agree with you that we don't want a large population of other players douching it up for everyone else. It's not even that we don't see merit in a Treaty, Pact, Accord, whatever.

It's this:

A. The definition of griefing is not universal. We'll all never be able to agree on it, especially with so little knowledge of what the actual mechanics will be like outside of blog posts about the *intent* of said mechanics and speculation of said mechanics based on past game experiences.

B. What gives us the right to decide who can or can't play this game the way they want it (within the terms of the Goblinworks EULA, once it's published).

Something like this will be best served as something the various Kingdoms (I will now use the term Alliances in place of Kingdoms, because hat's all the Kingdoms are, mechanically) agree to upon creation of the terms of the alliances they create. Not as some grand gesture of the PfO Community more than a year before any of us are in the game.

Quote:

1. Killing neutral parties for no reason. Such as you are riding along on a horse with nothing in your inventory in neutral territory, they kill the horse, run up, and then immediately kill you. You have no war or prior grievances with this group. They don't try to rob you, or maybe they do search your inventory and determine you have absolutely nothing, or nothing they have an interest in taking. Then they kill you anyway just because they can.

2. Honorless Robbing. "Pay 5,000 gold or die! Thanks for the 5,000 gold, now we are going to kill you anyway!" Not only is this harmful for the community but you evil groups should be ESPECIALLY keen to deal with such behavior. Because if it goes unchecked nobody will pay any bandits anything.

3. Veterans Targeting Newbs. Groups that spend great deals of time in newb areas taking part in any evil action primarily perpetrated against newbs. This does not apply to a group that notices many wealthy caravans traveling to starter cities and start targeting those. This does apply to groups that steal copper coins from all the newer players in the starter areas when they are dealing in hundreds of gold. Where the line is drawn is an issue of judgement.

4. Abusing Game Mechanics. Using server crash bugs. Staying lawful good but slipping chaotic evil acts such as stealing kills, or body blocking someone in to a corner and demanding payment before they are let go, or pushing someone out to an NPC spawn with non-lethal attacks and then letting the NPC's kill them because they went afk a few minutes, through loopholes in the alignment system on a frequent basis. Hopefully most of this behavior is dealt with by admins and GM's but we should be dealing with any that slips through the cracks/actively combating them with the /report feature. Most of Bluddwolf's concerns like macro farming gold would fall into this category.

5. Trolling / Destroying the Culture of PFO. "U Mad Bro?" "Welcome to Pathfinder Online!" (Said after killing someone.) Teabagging or spamming the laugh emote after winning a fight. Suggesting people hassle someone who is suicidal or has emotional issues. (Not that ANYONE from any groups would ever do that.) Or just incredibly frequent use of insulting / antagonizing comments at people in major chat channels or the forums.

Goblin Squad Member

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:
It's more like saying you THINK someone might go around shooting random people, then you attempt to get a coalition together to come up with the terms for ridding this great land from this perceived threat.

Anti-social players coming to an Open World PVP game isn't a perceived threat. It's something that is going to happen. And when it does I think many of you will be surprised and upset at just how narrow Ryan Dancey's definition will be.

But if it doesn't happen, the treaty is never envoked. No harm no foul. At least you showed new players that you were committed to not allowing this community to become as toxic as every other Open World PVP game.

You don't support it. I get it. I will not be backing down from this position I believe in just because it isn't popular though. I believe so strongly in this position there is literally nothing that could be said to get me to back down other than "This will be a PVE-only game." In which case I would leave and go restart my crusade on Darkfall or Mortal.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
If people don't randomly start crapping all over everyone else then they have nothing to fear from me. But if they come in and start crapping all over the community, then you are damn right I'm going to treat them the same way they treat everyone else.

I guess that depends on if you are talking about your definition of crapping and Waruko's definition of crapping.

How exactly do you expect anyone to get behind a multi-organizational effort about anything when you come to the table and your own people aren't on the same page as you?

Personally, I don't buy into that kind of logic.

Goblin Squad Member

Sennajin wrote:
But your personal definition of griefing is subjective. I know it doesn't necessarily represent TEO, but let's not kid ourselves, you're the founder, you word holds as much weight in TEO as mine does over at Pax Gaming.

Perhaps not all TEO members but I did state right in our recruitment post that we are an anti-RPK organization. And Ludy, Waruko, Tirathael, Harrison, Alydos, Papaver, and Gloreindl are all TEO members.

Perhaps the reason many of our members joined TEO is opposed to other groups is because we are the only ones taking a hard stance on anti-RPKing. And that is something a lot of people want to see.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Dak Thunderkeg wrote:
It's more like saying you THINK someone might go around shooting random people, then you attempt to get a coalition together to come up with the terms for ridding this great land from this perceived threat.

Anti-social players coming to an Open World PVP game isn't a perceived threat. It's something that is going to happen. And when it does I think many of you will be surprised and upset at just how narrow Ryan Dancey's definition will be.

But if it doesn't happen, the treaty is never envoked. No harm no foul. At least you showed new players that you were committed to not allowing this community to become as toxic as every other Open World PVP game.

You don't support it. I get it. I will not be backing down from this position I believe in just because it isn't popular though. I believe so strongly in this position there is literally nothing that could be said to get me to back down other than "This will be a PVE-only game." In which case I would leave and go restart my crusade on Darkfall or Mortal.

Nobody here is doubting that your definition of griefing won't happen, we are doubting that you offer a reasonable solution to it. We also are showing a lack of confidence in your ability to coordinate it, or even the discussion of it. This whole proposal has not been a unified front, even your own membership has contradicted each other, in this very thread. At least one has been removed, as well as called out by another one of your members.

Andius wrote:
Sennajin wrote:
But your personal definition of griefing is subjective. I know it doesn't necessarily represent TEO, but let's not kid ourselves, you're the founder, you word holds as much weight in TEO as mine does over at Pax Gaming.

Perhaps not all TEO members but I did state right in our recruitment post that we are an anti-RPK organization. And Ludy, Waruko, Tirathael, Harrison, Alydos, Papaver, and Gloreindl are all TEO members.

Perhaps the reason many of our members joined TEO is opposed to other groups is because we are the only ones taking a hard stance on anti-RPKing. And that is something a lot of people want to see.

Not nearly as many as you thought when you posted send on this thread.

Goblin Squad Member

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:
This whole proposal has not been a unified front, even your own membership has contradicted each other, in this very thread. At least one has been removed, as well as called out by another one of your members.

I have over 100 members and I'm not sure how PAX does things but I don't kick people out or tell them they can speak their mind just because they agree with me. They aren't all little Andius drones who automatically agree with everything I say. So far the response from TEO has been overall positive so I'm not going to fret about people disagreeing with me on tiny points.

Now before you make this any more personal how about we call this quits. You will not be signing this treaty. I will not be backing down. That much is clear. And we won't be swaying each other.

Goblin Squad Member

First, I could care less why anyone would chose guild A over guild B. I just want people to join a guild that they feel best represents their wants, needs, and desires for a guild.

There's a massive, HUGE, GARGANTUON difference between RPKing and griefing.

If I'm in my hexes and someone wanders in and we don't know who it is, you can bet your butt we're going to stop them, find out who they are, what they want, etc and if our queries aren't replied to in a very timely manner, they die.

That's called security. It's also RPK, because that was a random person I just killed.

Does Pax and Friends end up getting voted on because we don't allow "non-Blues" to wander freely through territory we consider ours?

You can't come here and expect people to kowtow to you because you think you know better. Are your intentions honorable? Sure.

But, based on the statements you have made there is no way, no earthly way, I can in conscious support anything you have thus far stated. It's too extreme and too undefined. And, once again, a lot of the terms you keep dropping have definitions or implications that are subjective.

Andius, do not get me wrong, I agree that PfO would be a better game if the more unsavory players (not evil players, but people here that are here just to ruin our day) but there's a fine line between doing what you feel you need to do to prevent it and doing the same thing you hate so much to other people that are here to really enjoy the game in their way.

Again, RPKing and griefing are not mutually inclusive.

Also, I can not state this with the enough emphasis. I (and I will go so far as to speak for all of the members of my organization, because they agree to this when they go through recruitment) and the rest of Pax Gaming are on the side of the anti-griefing fence as you are. It's how we deal with it where we differ.

Right now, we're not overly worried about it. We play EVE, we played Galaxies, we played AoC (some of us still do) we often play on PVP servers in the themepark games. We dabbled in Darkfall, but it was terribad, so we didn't dive right in, etc etc etc. We know the risks in these games. We know that a minority can wreak havok.

We also know that the other players will do what needs to be done, when the time comes. This isn't that time.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Dak Thunderkeg wrote:
This whole proposal has not been a unified front, even your own membership has contradicted each other, in this very thread. At least one has been removed, as well as called out by another one of your members.

I have over 100 members and I'm not sure how PAX does things but I don't kick people out or tell them they can speak their mind just because they agree with me. They aren't all little Andius drones who automatically agree with everything I say. So far the response from TEO has been overall positive so I'm not going to fret about people disagreeing with me on tiny points.

Now before you make this any more personal how about we call this quits. You will not be signing this treaty. I will not be backing down. That much is clear. And we won't be swaying each other.

When I plan to bring an issue outside of Pax, I take great care that I have a clear proposal for people to weigh in on. I then let my officers and council leaders know that the issue is being pressed forward, and make sure we agree enough to present a unified front when selling said issue.

That is not encouraging clones, that is being prepared.

I am more than willing to disagree on points without taking things into personal territory, as long as the kindness is returned. Thus far supporters of this initiative have viewed dissenters as somehow less than ideal gamers.

Such is simply not the truth, and I will point that out every time.


Being wrote:
Andius wrote:

...I'll remember that when you ask us for our help in the future. As surely any group who fails to prepares for the harsh realities that come with an Open World PVP game will end up doing.

...

Fear-based decisions seldom have positive results, and intimidation is not negotiation.

Your organization is clearly less NG than it is LN.

I would argue border line lawful evil. lol J/k. maybe...

Andius, have you given any thought to the inevitable fighting that will come, and the corresponding alignment shifts members of this treaty will take towards chaotic evil. It is inevitable that someone will goad you into attacking them, at which point you are the criminal, and if you or your group manage to kill them and theirs after you attacked first, then grats friend, you now have bounties on your heads in addition to the alignment shifts. And if you try to bully your way out of those bounties with threats of "we are 100+ strong, we are the largest, blah blah blah hot air" you will only wind up imploding on your selves as you now become the problem and people band against you. Like it or not, there is always a bigger fish, and some of the most deadliest things in existence are the smallest.

Peace Through Vigilance has an anti grief stance, and we will work with in the system to help the community.

Lawful Good for us does not mean Lawful Stupid.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Darsch Declaring war on evil players will neither shift you away from lawful, nor from good. I'm not seeing where you get the notion that they would handle griefers any differently than you would, except that they plan to get as many people involved as possible.

Dividing yourself and insisting on stubbornly standing on your own vs uniting towards a common goal, but otherwise handling the fight itself in the same way in both cases: I'm surprised which one you think is actually lawful stupid.

Goblin Squad Member

I see this thread is still people arguing over how Andius is wrong. Apparently I have missed a piece of information that makes it the unshakable truth that Andius is the only one drafting the treaty. Could anyone point me to it? Or to the post by Andius that equates RPKing to griefing? Because I don't see it.

I see a post that discusses how members of TEO are generally expected to not do RPK and a post jumping to conclusion that this means that RPK will be equated to griefing in the treaty.

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:
I am more than willing to disagree on points without taking things into personal territory, as long as the kindness is returned.

You do realize that the majority of this thread is a discussion on the persona of Andius and why people think his views are wrong and misguided. I am still of the opinion that such a treaty should not be discussed and drafted in public because, as shown in the thread, a public discussion always degenerates into ad hominem and slippery slope arguments.

Goblin Squad Member

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:
This whole proposal has not been a unified front, even your own membership has contradicted each other, in this very thread. At least one has been removed, as well as called out by another one of your members.

Don't spout lies please. No one was removed. If any posts went missing they were deleted by the poster not because they were told to sit in time out. Same goes if anyone stopped posting period.

What are you referring to about being "called out"? Please elaborate on the specific incident. I'll be disappointed if it's the "Enough of that." comment I made because I was trying to reign in a member from descending into the slippery slope of aggressive trolling.

Now some supporters have been douchey. I can point out dissenters too. Maybe the amounts aren't even but I as a "supporter" have been civil and if I have made ANYONE feel like an "less than ideal gamer" I apologize. That said, don't round us up as one group hating on the other. Its not "the truth", for either side. You have INDIVIDUALS address THEM.


Blaeringr wrote:

@Darsch Declaring war on evil players will neither shift you away from lawful, nor from good. I'm not seeing where you get the notion that they would handle griefers any differently than you would, except that they plan to get as many people involved as possible.

Dividing yourself and insisting on stubbornly standing on your own vs uniting towards a common goal, but otherwise handling the fight itself in the same way in both cases: I'm surprised which one you think is actually lawful stupid.

when they attack someone who is not flagged as a criminal because the are trolling chat like andius has indicated would happen. maybe i did not fully express myself properly.

Andius stated earlier u mad bro commits, laughing at a corpse and tea bagging "trolling" is what he also views as griefing and would be handled similarly, well if they are not flagged as a criminal, and with out backing up a threat of violence there is no deterrence to them. they would goad this allegiance into acting as much as possible with out ever flagging themselves as a criminal until they have been attacked by one of the "good Guys" if you attack first, you are the one treated as a criminal, follow me now blaeringr? Does that make a little more sense in what i am trying to say?

Goblin Squad Member

Waruko wrote:
Dak Thunderkeg wrote:
This whole proposal has not been a unified front, even your own membership has contradicted each other, in this very thread. At least one has been removed, as well as called out by another one of your members.

Don't spout lies please. No one was removed.

What are you referring to about being "called out"? Please elabirate on the specific incident.

Now some supporters have been douchey. I can point out dissenters too. Maybe the amounts aren't even but it doesn't matter. I as a "supporter" have been civil and if I have made ANYONE feel like an "less than ideal gamer" I apologize. That said, don't round us up as one group hating on the other. Its not "the truth", for either side. You have INDIVIDUALS address THEM.

Don't spout lies please. No one was removed.

One comment was retracted, I never meant any ONE was removed. My apologies if my statement came off as otherwise.

What are you referring to about being "called out"? Please elabirate on the specific incident.

Happily. You called out Alydos, asking him to refrain from commenting in the same vein he was:

Waruko wrote:

Alydos, enough of that.

I would quote Alydos as well, but the text seems to have been edited. He was originally addressing one my my earlier posts where I had questions about the proposal.

Later on you let a poster know that "Andius is out, I am in" thus alluding that you were now the voice of the proposal. I took this as you calling Andius out (possibly as a bad reference for the discussion). I could be mistaken, but the language indicated so:

Waruko wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:


I have framed my arguments and am open to discussion on them.

1. Griefing needs to be defined

2. Alignment needs to be considered for role playing purposes.

3. Professions need to be exempt for the proper application of their profession.

4 Infinite Bounties must be included as part of the pact. If we agree to not grief ourselves, we must also agree not to issue infinite bounties. These in my view are as excessive as the griefing they are meant to discourage.

5. There should be no retaliation for not participating in this treaty. This includes the retaliation of omission or indifference, otherwise you lose the perception that the treaty is for the good of the whole community.

I will keep it at those five for now. Please feel free to explain how these are not raising legitimate topics for discussion.

Hey Bluddwolf, Andius is out. I'm in. AKA ignore him because you are talking to me, and I'm talking to you. Just two people talking. Because him and I are talking about two different things or might as well be as far as you are concerned.

1. No it does't. See the word "griefer"? Notice I've never used it in my posts. Let's take that word and tell it to diaf. Hell, I shouldn't of used "goon" but it was for example sake. My bad. We need to define, "What is a great threat?". That's a fair a VERY legit question.

2. Hmm, I'm not a RP but I can see your concern there. That WOULD require more knowledge on things like the war mechinca and how it would affect alignment.

3. I don't understand could you expand on that? I apologize. Do you mean farmers stay on the farm?

4. This should be a non-issue with what I have in mind but I can agree to that with what we know so far.

5. ABSOF$%@INGLUTELY. It wouldn't be "Good" to do otherwise.

Now some supporters have been douchey. I can point out dissenters too

On this I think we can agree.

I as a "supporter" have been civil and if I have made ANYONE feel like an "less than ideal gamer" I apologize

I don't believe you have, actually. I am sorry if by refuting Andius you thought I might be talking about the whole of your organization. That was not my intent. A portion of supporters (inside TEO and out) were considering dissent as a model of a bad gamer, or someone inexperienced with the sandbox model. I don't think I am too far off the mark with that. I did not mean you personally by that statement though, and that misunderstanding is unfortunate.

That said, don't round us up as one group hating on the other. Its not "the truth", for either side.

I think I addressed this in the earlier block. It was certainly not my intent to indicate that some or even a majority meant everyone.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I warn you all to stay away from this treaty! It stinks of real life misfortune! Ever since 190 countries signed the Kyoto Accord
I have lived my life in utter dread.. I spend every moment as if a government enforcer has a camera on me!

If I were to even steal an apple from the super-market, the entirety of the accord would bring their crashing weight down upon me! China, Russia, even the MALDIVES would bring their entire military literally to my front step.

They would be forcefully compelled by honorably pledging to act! It seemed innocent at first, a treaty to save the planet.. It was all a scheme by Japan to take control of every government and force them to press their views and religion on the rest of the world.

Every world super power, helpless before the treaty! The end of the world!

I warn you, we. must. fight.

Vote No.

Goblin Squad Member

The example quote got edited out for length. I don't want to be accused of intentionally leaving it out:

Hey Bluddwolf, Andius is out. I'm in. AKA ignore him because you are talking to me, and I'm talking to you. Just two people talking. Because him and I are talking about two different things or might as well be as far as you are concerned.

1. No it does't. See the word "griefer"? Notice I've never used it in my posts. Let's take that word and tell it to diaf. Hell, I shouldn't of used "goon" but it was for example sake. My bad. We need to define, "What is a great threat?". That's a fair a VERY legit question.

2. Hmm, I'm not a RP but I can see your concern there. That WOULD require more knowledge on things like the war mechinca and how it would affect alignment.

3. I don't understand could you expand on that? I apologize. Do you mean farmers stay on the farm?

4. This should be a non-issue with what I have in mind but I can agree to that with what we know so far.

5. ABSOF&+#INGLUTELY. It wouldn't be "Good" to do otherwise.

Goblin Squad Member

@Dak Thunderkeg, Ah, Dak, I'll address that personally. I was in teamspeak with Waruko and made a very aggressive and rapid post pointing out the logical flaws in a post by a seperate user.

I then saw you had managed to sneak a post in 5 seconds ahead of me, and began editing it for my response to you. Which was requesting that instead of stating that the treaty (AS described by TEO's Bluddwolf and not by me) was rather vague, you instead post suggestions as to what should be contained in it. No offense to you, I was respectfully asked to remove that post due to it's aggression towards a seperate user.

Although I felt it was sincere and reasonable.

(This thread so far has been a blast, it's all fire and brimstone, obfuscation and misdirection, and the baseless assumption of both gameplay and that more than 3%+/-2.27% of the game will role play)

Goblin Squad Member

Yet you used the word "removed" hence my issue. Leads to misunderstanding.

I addressed the "Enough" post above in a Edit. I was warning Devent not to get "douchey" and get his posts deleted by a mod. Slippery slopes you understand.

I meant the "Andius is out" as a way for Bluddwolf to give me his attention and to respond directly to me and he did. I thanked him for it. Thank you as well for replying timely.

I fear Papaver hit the nail on the head above and this subject has derailed in a horrible fashion. I spoke with some of the Veil this evening VERY briefly on my core belief of the "treaty". Responses were positive and I agreed with them that this is something that needs to sit and to come back to. Next time the manner it will be brought up will be after much consultation in and more importantly OUTSIDE the guild.

Again thank you and have a nice night.

EDITED: To be less douchey as I'm up late.

Goblin Squad Member

Alydos wrote:

@Dak Thunderkeg, Ah, Dak, I'll address that personally. I was in teamspeak with Waruko and made a very aggressive and rapid post pointing out the logical flaws in a post by a seperate user.

I then saw you had managed to sneak a post in 5 seconds ahead of me, and began editing it for my response to you. Which was requesting that instead of stating that the treaty (AS described by TEO's Bluddwolf and not by me) was rather vague, you instead post suggestions as to what should be contained in it. No offense to you, I was respectfully asked to remove that post due to it's aggression towards a seperate user.

Although I felt it was sincere and reasonable.

That's fair, and I don't slight leadership for managing dissent. It is normally best to do so. I was merely pointing it out because in a best case scenario, everyone central to the initial proposal probably should have been on the same page.

Goblin Squad Member

Waruko wrote:

Yet you used the word "removed" hence my issue. Leads to misunderstanding. glad we cleared it up.

I addressed the "Enough" post above in a Edit. I was warning Devent not to get "douchey" and get his posts deleted by a mod. Slippery slopes you understand.

I meant the "Andius is out" as a way for Bluddwolf to give me his attention and to respond directly to me and he did. I thanked him for it. Thank you as well for replying timely.

I fear Papaver hit the nail on the head above and this subject has derailed in a horrible fashion. I spoke with some of the Veil this evening VERY briefly on my core belief of the "treaty". Responses were positive and I agreed with them that this is something that needs to sit and to come back to. Next time the manner it will be brought up will be after much consultation in and more importantly OUTSIDE the guild.

Again thank you and have a nice night.

You too :)

Goblin Squad Member

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:


You too :)

Took a line out, came off as douchey, oh and I'm not leadership. I'm just loud. ^_^

Goblin Squad Member

Devent Tharashk wrote:

I warn you all to stay away from this treaty! It stinks of real life misfortune! Ever since 190 countries signed the Kyoto Accord

I have lived my life in utter dread.. I spend every moment as if a government enforcer has a camera on me!

If I were to even steal an apple from the super-market, the entirety of the accord would bring their crashing weight down upon me! China, Russia, even the MALDIVES would bring their entire military literally to my front step.

They would be forcefully compelled by honorably pledging to act! It seemed innocent at first, a treaty to save the planet.. It was all a scheme by Japan to take control of every government and force them to press their views and religion on the rest of the world.

Every world super power, helpless before the treaty! The end of the world!

I warn you, we. must. fight.

Vote No.

Hilarious Alydos

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

So, here is an interesting question, let's see if someone is willing to answer it.

Will TEO police their RPK rules in the lawless areas of the game (the nullsec of PFO so to speak) and enforce their rules? if so, good luck with that.

ps. If it is red, it's dead... just sayin'

trespassing on my guilds hex will not be tolerated :)

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Psyblade wrote:

So, here is an interesting question, let's see if someone is willing to answer it.

Will TEO police their RPK rules in the lawless areas of the game (the nullsec of PFO so to speak) and enforce their rules? if so, good luck with that.

ps. If it is red, it's dead... just sayin'

trespassing on my guilds hex will not be tolerated :)

OF COURSE THEY WILL YOU FOOL!

Did you not read my post at all, it's right above yours!

Not only is your post completely not troll baiting, it's relevant to the discussion and topic!

First, they'll come for me, then for you, nothing will stop them! With the power of the treaty on their side, they will be an unstoppable griefing organization which will randomly kill everyone!

Whether it be in the lawless areas of the game or the ones with laws, you have been warned.

Goblin Squad Member

Psyblade wrote:

So, here is an interesting question, let's see if someone is willing to answer it.

Will TEO police their RPK rules in the lawless areas of the game (the nullsec of PFO so to speak) and enforce their rules? if so, good luck with that.

ps. If it is red, it's dead... just sayin'

trespassing on my guilds hex will not be tolerated :)

This game is supposed to be setting things up so that there is less need to kill every random person in your territory and advantages to not do so.

That being said we won't wage war with a group for being isolationists most likely. That isn't Random Player Killing. You are killing them for trespassing.

I will personally move not to give any kind of military assistance to isolationist factions except in extreme circumstances though. I have no interest in helping people lock down this game's map like has been done in null sec on EVE.

Goblin Squad Member

Darsch wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:

@Darsch Declaring war on evil players will neither shift you away from lawful, nor from good. I'm not seeing where you get the notion that they would handle griefers any differently than you would, except that they plan to get as many people involved as possible.

Dividing yourself and insisting on stubbornly standing on your own vs uniting towards a common goal, but otherwise handling the fight itself in the same way in both cases: I'm surprised which one you think is actually lawful stupid.

when they attack someone who is not flagged as a criminal because the are trolling chat like andius has indicated would happen. maybe i did not fully express myself properly.

Andius stated earlier u mad bro commits, laughing at a corpse and tea bagging "trolling" is what he also views as griefing and would be handled similarly, well if they are not flagged as a criminal, and with out backing up a threat of violence there is no deterrence to them. they would goad this allegiance into acting as much as possible with out ever flagging themselves as a criminal until they have been attacked by one of the "good Guys" if you attack first, you are the one treated as a criminal, follow me now blaeringr? Does that make a little more sense in what i am trying to say?

They don't need to be a criminal if you declare war. The treaty of Rovagug is not about stamping out individual griefers now and then, it's about dealing with huge groups of them that individual companies can't handle on their own.

So put the conversation you're trying to have into that context, and you'll see why it doesn't make as much sense to me.

Goblin Squad Member

@Blaeringr, I'm really surprised to see you defending this treaty so staunchly. Not that I don't trust your anti-griefing bona fides, rather it just seems out of character for you not to revel in the chaos and division on display. It makes me think you must have a vested interest in it somehow... are you enjoying your new home?

Goblin Squad Member

Well....... It is a meta-game treaty so one would be best advised to discuss it out of character :)

Also you seem very interested in questioning people who find this treaty appealing...... do you enjoy your new paycheck from The UnNamed Company?

If you know what I mean *wink* *wink* *cough*

Goblin Squad Member

@Andius, I apologize for being antagonistic. I count you as a friend of the Veil, and I trust your intentions when it comes to taking an anti-griefing stance. I encourage you to reconsider trying to do this now, and instead wait until the metaphorical Rovagug actually appears - and is allowed by Goblinworks to roam the lands freely - before trying to rally everyone to the cause of his defeat.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

@Andius, I apologize for being antagonistic. I count you as a friend of the Veil, and I trust your intentions when it comes to taking an anti-griefing stance. I encourage you to reconsider trying to do this now, and instead wait until the metaphorical Rovagug actually appears - and is allowed by Goblinworks to roam the lands freely - before trying to rally everyone to the cause of his defeat.

The voice of reason.

If I may recommend it would be well to have the details worked out but left unsigned, maintaining the unsigned treaty in reserve against that dread day when it is required.

That way impediments might be minimized as far as humanly/dwarvenly/elvenly/gnomishly possible, and the effects might become enacted expeditiously.

Signing such a draconian document while it is not yet needed is just asking for trouble, but there should be no real objection to quietly forming the network it would need, deciding the representative ambassador cadre, establishing relationships and mutual understanding, and hammering out the details beforehand.

Scarab Sages Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:


The voice of reason.

If I may recommend it would be well to have the details worked out but left unsigned, maintaining the unsigned treaty in reserve against that dread day when it is required.

That way impediments might be minimized as far as humanly/dwarvenly/elvenly/gnomishly possible, and the effects might become enacted expeditiously.

Signing such a draconian document while it is not yet needed is just asking for trouble, but there should be no real objection to quietly forming the network it would need, deciding the representative ambassador cadre, establishing relationships and mutual understanding, and hammering out the details beforehand.

Hehe, I think that was the whole point of this discussion to begin with. People just got caught up on points Andius brought up while being excited about the topic.

Goblin Squad Member

We realize many have concerns over our proposal. It is The Empyrean Order's intention to keep this game from coming to be dominated by the destructive isolation and hostility to outsiders so prevalent in other Open World PVP titles.

Given people's concerns that these measures may be too early, and that they are not familiar enough with our order to follow our lead in such an initiative, we will be tabling the motion for this treaty until after Pathfinder Online's release.

The Empyrean Order will be continuing in our efforts to reduce destructive behavior in Pathfinder Online. Our diplomatic channels will of course remain open to groups who seek to do the same, or wish for our assistance in keeping their own territory a bastion against the culture of random slaughter and isolalationism, and a haven for peace, good will, and prosperity. We are more than willing to devote our resources and manpower to assisting you in that end.

-Andius Meuridiar, Grand Master of The Empyrean Order

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

THE TYRANT APPEARS, SIC SEMPER TYRANNUS!

Nihimon wrote:
@Blaeringr, I'm really surprised to see you defending this treaty so staunchly. Not that I don't trust your anti-griefing bona fides, rather it just seems out of character for you not to revel in the chaos and division on display. It makes me think you must have a vested interest in it somehow... are you enjoying your new home?

Yes, YES, Destroy his Lawful Evil organization! Before it can wreck Chaos on us all! He is trying to ally with the Tyrant!

Nihimon wrote:
@Andius, I apologize for being antagonistic. I count you as a friend of the Veil, and I trust your intentions when it comes to taking an anti-griefing stance. I encourage you to reconsider trying to do this now, and instead wait until the metaphorical Rovagug actually appears - and is allowed by Goblinworks to roam the lands freely - before trying to rally everyone to the cause of his defeat.

No, NO, NO, NO! Don't concede territory! Think of the sanctions, the horrible sanctions he will inflict on the world. Did you learn nothing from the Kyoto accord!? Where do you live that it does not cast it's horrible shadow upon you! He must have drugged you to cause you to put a reasonable post down! I know my hero against the Tyrant wouldn't do that after putting crazy posts to seem reasonable! Retract it!

Being wrote:

The voice of reason.

If I may recommend it would be well to have the details worked out but left unsigned, maintaining the unsigned treaty in reserve against that dread day when it is required.
... Stuff said
Signing such a draconian document while it is not yet needed is just asking for trouble, but there should be no real objection to quietly forming the network it would need, deciding the representative ambassador cadre, establishing relationships and mutual understanding, and hammering out the details beforehand.

Yes, YES! Draconian, you understand me as well, brother! It's all Mission Creep! Leading to the Zerg Mentality! They're just making themselves targets! They're trying to use the treaty to destroy one level 2 character with the combined force of every guild! It's an obvious power play! Based on Greed!

Don't suggest that they actually work the details out! It's already written, did you not read our glorious savior Bluddwolf's posts earlier?! Knowledge is power!

Lawful Good? Yeah Right! Listen, when you go and kill Evil people who attack you first you're Chaotic Neutral at best, Empyrean Order! Heck, Probably Chaotic Evil. Your days are numbered, we won't let the destruction of the world at your hands come again! Tyrants!

Goblin Squad Member

Dakcenturi wrote:
Being wrote:


The voice of reason.

If I may recommend it would be well to have the details worked out but left unsigned, maintaining the unsigned treaty in reserve against that dread day when it is required.

That way impediments might be minimized as far as humanly/dwarvenly/elvenly/gnomishly possible, and the effects might become enacted expeditiously.

Signing such a draconian document while it is not yet needed is just asking for trouble, but there should be no real objection to quietly forming the network it would need, deciding the representative ambassador cadre, establishing relationships and mutual understanding, and hammering out the details beforehand.

Hehe, I think that was the whole point of this discussion to begin with. People just got caught up on points Andius brought up while being excited about the topic.

The significant difference being (heh) the document isn't signed until actually needed. Everything is set into place, but nothing is actually signed off on until the specific conditions are met.

Goblin Squad Member

What if the 'large griefing guild' shows up as random individuals who lie low, building up their skills until early that fateful morning when they all band together on someone's doorstep fully armed and war declared?

What if there were enough of them to do that to several of the largest signatory guilds?


Blaeringr wrote:
Darsch wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:

@Darsch Declaring war on evil players will neither shift you away from lawful, nor from good. I'm not seeing where you get the notion that they would handle griefers any differently than you would, except that they plan to get as many people involved as possible.

Dividing yourself and insisting on stubbornly standing on your own vs uniting towards a common goal, but otherwise handling the fight itself in the same way in both cases: I'm surprised which one you think is actually lawful stupid.

when they attack someone who is not flagged as a criminal because the are trolling chat like andius has indicated would happen. maybe i did not fully express myself properly.

Andius stated earlier u mad bro commits, laughing at a corpse and tea bagging "trolling" is what he also views as griefing and would be handled similarly, well if they are not flagged as a criminal, and with out backing up a threat of violence there is no deterrence to them. they would goad this allegiance into acting as much as possible with out ever flagging themselves as a criminal until they have been attacked by one of the "good Guys" if you attack first, you are the one treated as a criminal, follow me now blaeringr? Does that make a little more sense in what i am trying to say?

They don't need to be a criminal if you declare war. The treaty of Rovagug is not about stamping out individual griefers now and then, it's about dealing with huge groups of them that individual companies can't handle on their own.

So put the conversation you're trying to have into that context, and you'll see why it doesn't make as much sense to me.

I 'think' what Darsch is saying is that inevitably TEO, or members linked with them via this treaty, will attack and kill people who aren't flagged as criminal, nor are they at war with

the alliance. When that happens the killers will receive criminal flags, possibly bounties and alignment hits. If this occurs enough times those people will slide towards evil pretty quickly.

"But the alliance won't be killing innocent people!" Not intentionally, but I can think of several situations where this can happen by accident so I'm sure there are many ways for it to transpire. If a player is standing inside the boarders of a "good" hex, (one with laws against murder) talking with members who are at war with the alliance when the alliance descends upon the group and attacks with ranged weapons and magical AoEs, the innocent guy will be struck and possibly killed. Another would be for a griefer who isn't a a member of the guild at war with the alliance, lets say he just left the guild, also he has no criminal flags nor any bounties. (Perhaps he was recently killed and hasn't committed any new evil acts) but he's a known griefer, and is running with a some people who are at war with the alliance and do have flags and bounties, get ambushed by members of the alliance and all the evil ones killed. Wouldn't this result in the "good guys" getting criminal flags?

I realize I'm stretching to reach this conclusion, but I'm actually interested in knowing the answer. The game won't categorize people based on moral position, it will only see that player X killed player Y and that player Y had no criminal flags nor bounties, so player X is given the flags and bounties.

If I'm wrong and Darsch did not mean to ask this.. Well then I'm asking :P

Goblin Squad Member

I think it might be more important to work in secret on contingency plans that can be shared and compared when needed. But it all has to have a communications network in place if Rags shows up cleverly.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
The significant difference being (heh) the document isn't signed until actually needed. Everything is set into place, but nothing is actually signed off on until the specific conditions are met.

Yes, YES! Then we won't sign! We shall wait until right before The Empyrean Order tries to take over and then we won't sign!

I knew you were on my side!

Without our honorable pledges we will not be forced against our will to do their bidding! Organization is too Chaotic, too insane!

Yet you give them too much hope, brother!
Let us not wait until the gameplay is known, or even until we know who the 1% of people who role-play are! This is an act of law to crush all of us under it's boot!

Being wrote:

What if the 'large griefing guild' shows up as random individuals who lie low, building up their skills until early that fateful morning when they all band together on someone's doorstep fully armed and war declared?

What if there were enough of them to do that to several of the largest signatory guilds?

We can only hope so, brother! Clearly only a large and disorganized force will destroy this great beast, and glory to us all! Death to the Tyrant

Valandur wrote:
I 'think' what Darsch is saying is that inevitably TEO, or members linked with them via this treaty, will attack and kill people who aren't flagged as criminal, nor are they at war with the alliance. When that happens the killers will receive criminal flags, possibly bounties and alignment hits. If this occurs enough times...
@Valandur
Devent Tharashk wrote:
Let us not wait until the gameplay is known, or even until we know who the 1% of people who role-play are! This is an act of law to crush all of us under it's boot!

You're right, the evil treaty would be enacted every second of every day! Leading to mass murder and control! Even without the treaty, there would be mass murder and control, death to all guilds, DEATH TO ALL GUILDS!

This is a treaty for all guilds, even Evil guilds to go and murder innocents, and oppress the world in fear!

The More The Empyrean Order tried to defend good and kill evil people, the more they would become evil themselves, just like those dirty Paladins!

The treaty would force us all to do exactly what The Empyrean Order does and we could never question their unparalleled might!

Goblin Squad Member

I could of been arguing about boob plate but no. Last time I make that mistake.

Goblin Squad Member

Valandur wrote:
...I realize I'm stretching to reach this conclusion, but I'm actually interested in knowing the answer...

Not really. Rags is going to be smart if he shows up. When Andius' massive cavalry charge is thundering in, bright steel glinting in the sun and confident in the righteousness of the declared war, all the rags players have to do is drop guild and laugh as they are pounded into a thin red paste beneath the hooves of the trusting, foolish Paladins.

It is more important at this point to have your commuications in place. Plan in secret: don't be broadcasting everything you're gonna do out here in front of, um, certain silent readers dressed merrily in rags.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

Not really. Rags is going to be smart if he shows up. When Andius' massive cavalry charge is thundering in, bright steel glinting in the sun and confident in the righteousness of the declared war, all the rags players have to do is drop guild and laugh as they are pounded into a thing red paste beneath the hooves of the trusting, foolish Paladins.

It is more important at this point to have your commuications in place. Plan in secret: don't be broadcasting everything you're gonna do out here in front of, um, certain silent readers dressed merrily in rags.

Yes Brother! All they will have to do is use the in-game mechanic of dropping guilds that anyone can do at any time from anywhere as clearly described in the game we all played!

Those foolish, stupid Paladins have no chance of spreading their chaos on the land!

201 to 250 of 298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Treaty of Rovagug - An offer to every non-griefer organization All Messageboards