| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Premise: To establish a stronghold for those that like to run contrary to the law. A refuge where such Companies and individuals may belong to train skills, conduct trade and business, and to escape pursuit and persecution. An alternative to the Kingdoms based on Law and Good alignments. This is not an attempt to control the criminal element, only an offer of an alternative to homelessness. Strength in numbers. If the world is going to be punitive to the chaotic and the evil, then let us take what benefits that we can and maximize them to the fullest potential.
The Situation: Lumbering giants are forming. Between these giants and their allies, there will be little room left for the free spirited and the career felon. There is a need for a settlement that caters to the problems of pesky pursuit, loot disposal, training in unsavory skills, and even item storage for the villainous.
The Pitch: Brothers and Sisters! We are the Outcasts, the Misunderstood, the Mistreated, the Hated, and the Hunted. There is no safe place for Us. Why must we haunt the wild lands, forever without safety, shelter, and warmth? Come with me my People. We will make Our own place in the world. A place with high strong walls and few laws. Come with me and build a place to hang your hat after a long day of banditry, assassination, and mayhem.
Settlement Alignment: Chaotic Evil
Preferred Membership: CE, NE, and CN. Be they Companies of bandits or mercenaries, crafter's, merchants, adventurers, assassins and spies, gankers, or lone wolves. We welcome you all. Players with low Reputation or a penchant for Griefing, need not apply nor expect to live overly long.
Organization: Government by a Council of Captains, led by the Magnate. The Council shall meet to debate and vote on issues concerning Acheron. Seats on the Council are earned by building, managing, and maintaining a structure inside Acheron or in one of it's POI's. All profit revenue/resources that a structure generates shall go to it's owner(s). Non profit and some reserved structures will be the province of Acheron.
Goals and Plans: Acheron's goals are to establish a settlement, serve as a place to trade for it's membership, and provide facilities for training of all basic as well as chaotic and evil skills. We intend to grow strong enough that we are not easy pickings for any that would be "so satisfied to see Us on Our way...". We have zero expansionist dreams and absolutely no agenda to organize, oversee, or direct the criminal element of PFO.
Plan A: Acquire a patron of Crowdforger Pledge level to get on board with Acheron. If this is achieved, it will be possible to get in on the upcoming Kickstarter Land Rush and perhaps secure a settlement in the initial grouping.
Plan B: If We fail to acquire a patron, Acheron shall bide it's time and build in one of the future play area expansions.
Please PM Anathema for details on how you can be a part of this settlement or with diplomatic inquiries.
Goblin Squad Member
|
The UnNamed Company will frequent your taverns; dispose of our stolen goods in your markets; and grant you moral and immoral support for your endeavor.
We are hesitant to commit to a charter, or any formal tie to your settlement, at this time. We are a venture company of bandits, and treasure our freedom only secondarily to our loot. But, if providing our time or our services to your endeavor will prove more profitable than taxing, we would consider a contractual agreement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
CE, NE, and CN. Be they Companies of bandits or mercenaries, crafter's, merchants, adventurers, assassins and spies, gankers, or lone wolves. We welcome you all. Players with low Reputation or a penchant for Griefing, need not apply nor expect to live overly long.
Acheron's goals are to establish a settlement, serve as a place to trade for it's membership, and provide facilities for training of all basic as well as chaotic and evil skills. We intend to grow strong enough that we are not easy pickings for any that would be "so satisfied to see Us on Our way...". We have zero expansionist dreams and absolutely no agenda to organize, oversee, or direct the criminal element of PFO.
What settlement? I see no settlement, just a big ink spot on the map. No need to send patrols there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ill be honest, with mostly Chaotic alignments, you should openly embrace players with low reputation, it almost seems required for those alignments.
Griefing, well there will be a lot of "non happy PVP" going on with those alignments as well. Maybe not griefing exactly, but some may consider it such.
Anyway, as a low level member of The UnNamed Company, I fully endorse this product and service. Sounds like fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ill be honest, with mostly Chaotic alignments, you should openly embrace players with low reputation, it almost seems required for those alignments.
Yeah, here is what makes no sense to me.
Preferred Membership: CE, NE, and CN. Be they Companies of bandits or mercenaries, crafter's, merchants, adventurers, assassins and spies, gankers, or lone wolves. We welcome you all. Players with low Reputation or a penchant for Griefing, need not apply nor expect to live overly long.
Isn't low reputation earned by ganking people? This statement needs a lot of clarification. What is a ganker, and what do you mean by griefing?
The UnNamed Company will frequent your taverns; dispose of our stolen goods in your markets; and grant you moral and immoral support for your endeavor.
We are hesitant to commit to a charter, or any formal tie to your settlement, at this time. We are a venture company of bandits, and treasure our freedom only secondarily to our loot. But, if providing our time or our services to your endeavor will prove more profitable than taxing, we would consider a contractual agreement.
Greetings Bluddwulf. Your renown will be wide in the lands as it is here. Your Company will be very welcome within the walls of Acheron. Never would we want any that value freedom higher than we. There will be a place for you if you change your mind.
Initially it was proposed that there be zero taxation. That has had to be reconsidered as an approach until more is known about settlement economics.
Future agreements between us will I hope be available. Acheron will have much to do to stay alive.
Good luck! I look forward to skulking about the streets of Archeron to see what may be seen.
Thank you Darcnes. We look forward to catching fleeting glimpses at the Black Tiger.
CE, NE, and CN. Be they Companies of bandits or mercenaries, crafter's, merchants, adventurers, assassins and spies, gankers, or lone wolves. We welcome you all. Players with low Reputation or a penchant for Griefing, need not apply nor expect to live overly long.Acheron's goals are to establish a settlement, serve as a place to trade for it's membership, and provide facilities for training of all basic as well as chaotic and evil skills. We intend to grow strong enough that we are not easy pickings for any that would be "so satisfied to see Us on Our way...". We have zero expansionist dreams and absolutely no agenda to organize, oversee, or direct the criminal element of PFO.What settlement? I see no settlement, just a big ink spot on the map. No need to send patrols there.
Greetings Andius. You may have guessed that you are one of the Lumbering Giants referred to in our OP. No offence meant. We just feel that your benevolence and size will leave too few places for the criminal element to get rest. As you stated, patrols here will not be necessary. Nor would they be welcome except in diplomatic form.
We look forward to being ignored. How can there be good guys without bad?
Ill be honest, with mostly Chaotic alignments, you should openly embrace players with low reputation, it almost seems required for those alignments.
Griefing, well there will be a lot of "non happy PVP" going on with those alignments as well. Maybe not griefing exactly, but some may consider it such.
Anyway, as a low level member of The UnNamed Company, I fully endorse this product and service. Sounds like fun.
Well Met Xeen. Low reputation is a result of poor game play. It is not needed, it is not welcome, it will not even get you past the gates. Any settlement will suffer with low reputation membership. A chaotic settlement is already nerfed There is nothing gained buy sewing a pillow around that nerf.
Unhappy PVP as long as it is sanctioned play will be totally acceptable here. What victims cry will be wine at our banquets.
We hope to see you making merry and selling you loot for good prices with your brothers.
Greetings Anathema, I am theStormWeaver, Oligarch of the Pax Mercatorum.
I find it interesting that such free-wheeling individuals would name there settlement after a location in the Hells.
We shall be watching your settlement with interest.
I see theStormWeaver. He is Well met! The Hells, the Greek Underworld, meh. That it is the River of Pain is enough inspiration to borrow it's name.
We are always open to talk if you would like your goods to continue their cycle through the hands of the player base.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't low reputation earned by ganking people? This statement needs a lot of clarification. What is a ganker, and what do you mean by griefing?
I will await Anathema's answer to these questions, but I will give you my answers following his, unless Anathema and I are in agreement.
@ Andius, no offer for the settlement of Acheron to sign the Treaty of Rovagug?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've added your Guild to the Guild Recruitment & Helpful Links list. If you have a brief description you'd like to appear there to let people know about your guild while they're browsing that list, just PM me or post a clear request here.
Also, The Seventh Veil welcomes you to the community, and extends an offer of Diplomatic Outreach. (Note, this is not an offer for Alliance, just a way to open formal channels for private discussions.)
Eldurian Darkrender. We see ganking as superior numbers murdering lesser numbers. Often without warning but always with reason. Ganking/PVP by the rules should not lower reputation much at all.
As for griefing, that is left to be defined by GW in the end. We see it as repeated PVP or verbal abuse for no gain.
Stop by for a beer. We can debate this.
Thanks Nihimon. I will send you a brief description.
We welcome talks with ALL organizations and will contact TSV. We have nothing to hide, only to harbor.
@Anathema
First, welcome to the forum. :)
Second, how do you feel about "good" merchants and trade?
Hail Bringslite. If there are good merchants that wish to trade with Acheron we will welcome them. They must like it rough and dirty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Eldurian Darkrender. We see ganking as superior numbers murdering lesser numbers. Often without warning but always with reason. Ganking/PVP by the rules should not lower reputation much at all.
As for griefing, that is left to be defined by GW in the end. We see it as repeated PVP or verbal abuse for no gain.
Stop by for a beer. We can debate this.
Until we have tested the reputation mechanic and seen how it works, I don't see much reason to debate this.
Your stance seems reasonable as long as you aren't screening out mercenaries and such who have a reason to kill that just isn't being measured by the reputation mechanic.
I am doubtful any of this will be a concern to me. My main problem in your town will be crossing paths will those who may not appreciate all my... entrepreneurial ventures.
Eldurian Darkrender. We see ganking as superior numbers murdering lesser numbers. Often without warning but always with reason. Ganking/PVP by the rules should not lower reputation much at all.
As for griefing, that is left to be defined by GW in the end. We see it as repeated PVP or verbal abuse for no gain.
Stop by for a beer. We can debate this.
Until we have tested the reputation mechanic and seen how it works, I don't see much reason to debate this.
Your stance seems reasonable as long as you aren't screening out mercenaries and such who have a reason to kill that just isn't being measured by the reputation mechanic.
I am doubtful any of this will be a concern to me. My main problem in your town will be crossing paths will those who may not appreciate all my... entrepreneurial ventures.
The bolded makes no sense to me. It needs clarification. It would seem that if a mercenary's work is not measured by the reputation mechanic then it will not lower his reputation score. He will have nothing to worry over from Acheron.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ganking is the use of superior numbers or force in order to change the risk factor in combat towards being more in your favor. Ganking is a legitimate combat tactic and should be employed whenever possible. A competent military leader never prepares for an even match up.
Griefing is the intent to spoil another's gaming experience, repeatedly, without any reasonable purpose. Griefing will be determined by a GM / Dev. Griefing is the sort of activity that is known when it is seen, being done to you or being done by you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The bolded makes no sense to me. It needs clarification. It would seem that if a mercenary's work is not measured by the reputation mechanic then it will not lower his reputation score. He will have nothing to worry over from Acheron.
But is his reason to kill being measured? That's what I meant to say. For instance, say a band of mercenaries is hired to stop the flow of traffic to and from a specific settlement for the purpose of destroying their economy.
To the reputation system, this could very well be registered as random slaughter, and lower the reputation of the mercenaries involved considerably. I would hope these mercenaries would not be turned out of Acheron for doing their job.
Again, it likely won't greatly effect me in any case, and I'm not trying to attack your idea. This settlement is a pretty solid plan.
Just bringing up perceived problems so they can be addressed.
The bolded makes no sense to me. It needs clarification. It would seem that if a mercenary's work is not measured by the reputation mechanic then it will not lower his reputation score. He will have nothing to worry over from Acheron.But is his reason to kill being measured? That's what I meant to say. For instance, say a band of mercenaries is hired to stop the flow of traffic to and from a specific settlement for the purpose of destroying their economy.
To the reputation system, this could very well be registered as random slaughter, and lower the reputation of the mercenaries involved considerably. I would hope these mercenaries would not be turned out of Acheron for doing their job.
Again, it likely won't greatly effect me in any case, and I'm not trying to attack your idea. This settlement is a pretty solid plan.
Just bringing up perceived problems so they can be addressed.
And there is the rub. The system as so far detailed will make chaotic and evil settlements more difficult to maintain and to improve.
Much debate, argument, and hair pulling has gone into this. In order to maximize the potential of a chaotic based settlement and to offer the highest level of training possible, some sacrifices have to be made. We originally wanted a no law and no tax setup. It was decided that it would not work. It was decided to go for a maximum potential approach.
Low reputation will adversely affect or even shut down services so it was decided to basically outlaw low rep. If the system is changed the policy may change but for now that is the way that Acheron will need to go. Any suggestions for ways around this handicap will be appreciated.
Acheron would prefer members that can find ways to accomplish their goals within the game's mechanics and prosper. There are many intelligent and creative people laying the foundation for the dark side. They will find ways.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For instance, say a band of mercenaries is hired to stop the flow of traffic to and from a specific settlement for the purpose of destroying their economy.To the reputation system, this could very well be registered as random slaughter, and lower the reputation of the mercenaries involved considerably.
I would hope that this is possible without suffering horrible reputation loss. Perhaps the mercenaries will be able to declare "war" or war's weaker sibling "hostility" towards the settlement in question. Perhaps there can be a "ravager" flag that players can fly allowing them to wreak havoc within a specific hex... or they can resort to submitting every player they meet to a SAD and attack after the SAD is refused.
In order for a ravager flag not to become a default griefer flag it must have great drawbacks. Like, not allowing players to enter any settlement for a long while after the flag has been activated, double the bounty placed on ravagers, limited threading, ravagers unable to loot enemy corpses... I dunno exactly but something pretty harsh.
Or perhaps this sort of activity does not belong outside of a war setting, where the aggressor settlement charters the mercenary company to assault the defender's supply lines.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
See, in order to effectively destroy the economy of a settlement, the mercenaries would want to destroy everyone coming to and leaving that hex, and of course everyone questing, crafting, etc. inside of it. Not just members of the settlement itself.
This could be made part of some kind of siege mechanic though. A traditional siege is actually cutting off supplies to a city, so they could make a mechanic were you can kill all players within an enemy hex at no reputation loss via some kind of siege mechanic.
This is very sidetracked from the original topic though.
@Anathema- I was unaware allowing individuals of low reputation into a settlement had adverse effects. Knowing that, your position is very logical, and I would urge you to stick by it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Gentlemen, you are forgetting or not aware, if that settlement is at war and those mercenaries were hired and chartered by the enemy settlement, there will be no alignment or reputation consequences for even continuous slaughter of war targets.
Now if there are third party merchants trying to enter the settlement, there is a solution to that. You employ the "Outlaw Flag" and you issue a Stand and Deliver (SAD) and demand the maximum toll. If the third party deny the payment, you can freely kill them without reputation loss, but you will only suffer the chaotic and evil shifts. You won't mind the chaotic shift, because you need to be chaotic anyway to fly the Outlaw Flag.
Lets us say you do mind the evil shift in alignment. Simple fix fir that as well. Multi flagging is the way to go. You SAD and attack the merchant with both Outlaws and Assassins. Make sure the assassins are the ones that land the finishing blows, therefore they earn the kills. Assassins need to be evil to fly the Assassin Flag.
If the third party accepts the SAD, at least not all of he supplies gets into the settlement, you will also gain double reputation bonus, and have the loot as well.
What we still do not know are all of the mechanics of warfare, of looting travelers, etc.....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Gentlemen, you are forgetting or not aware, if that settlement is at war and those mercenaries were hired and chartered by the enemy settlement, there will be no alignment or reputation consequences for even continuous slaughter of war targets.
I certainly haven't forgotten that but not everyone coming to / leaving the hex is a member of the settlement, and therefore may not be a war target.
SADs could work to some degree but that is only if:
1. A SAD allows you to strip the target entirely of all possessions.
2. The only services non-settlement members can render require the transportation of goods.
I would imagine that players based in a settlement would benefit that settlement and it's economy by questing, fighting NPCs, gathering resources, etc. in the surrounding area.
Therefore it would've greatly beneficial for an enemy settlement to have mercenaries indiscriminately slaughter everyone, of every affiliation (with the exception of fellow invaders) in that hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You SAD and attack the merchant with both Outlaws and Assassins. Make sure the assassins are the ones that land the finishing blows, therefore they earn the kills. Assassins need to be evil to fly the Assassin Flag.
I thought you needed a contract for a specific person to do an assassination, are you sure that killing "civilians" is ok as long as assassin flag is activated? I'd think not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, not sure how the warfare mechanics will work....
Maybe, the entire settlement hex goes into warfare mode and any target entering will get a warning, "In 30 seconds you will be flagged as a war target", making them an FFA target.
This is how entering PvP zones worked in Pirates of the Burning Sea and in Fallen Earth.
But, even if you kill a few without that warfare system, your reputation won't take that significant a hit and it still won't be griefing. Griefing requires "Repeated" killing if the same target and in the absence of what the Devs describe as "Meaningful PvP Player Interactions", and then there is an appeal process.
Finally, I'd hardly believe that anyone involved in PvP in an real measure are going to be it ting in or expected to maintain a +7500 Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius, no offer for the settlement of Acheron to sign the Treaty of Rovagug?
As this settlement offers itself as a place of refuge that wields no powers over it's residents outside it's wall, we will make treaties with the individual companies that comprise it rather than the settlement as a whole.
It's residents are of course, very welcome to discuss the Treaty of Rovagug or any other diplomatic matters with us directly.
All that we would ask of Acheron is not to harbor griefers and to establish itself somewhere outside the immediate vicinity of our territory. There is no reason to ask the first as this is already part of their plan, and I seriously doubt they have any desire to live next door to us.
The main reason I ask that is it would be hard to keep my members from attacking the settlement if bandits were constantly fleeing inside when our patrols caught them. It will be far better for both of our communities if we occupy separate areas of the map.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The main reason I ask that is it would be hard to keep my members from attacking the settlement if bandits were constantly fleeing inside when our patrols caught them. It will be far better for both of our communities if we occupy separate areas of the map.
And therein lies the rub. Where there are limited settlement hexes, and likely little choice for late comers, and the perceived notion that "Kingdoms" will be expansionist, chaotic refuges will always be under attack.
That of course is fine, this is after all an open world PvP game, what I find more than just a bit hypocritical is the denial of these "Kingdoms" that their motives are not conquest. I also find it a bit absurd that the argument made is under the banner of "Anti Griefing". We all know that a negative reputation is possible through the proper use of character skills or activities (ie Use of undead, or slaves, etc.).
It is a less hypocritical statement if it were stated: Chaos is a blight on civilization, and although we may have to tolerate Chaotic Good, we will stomp out Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Neutrals wherever we find them in large numbers.
I, as being a CN bandit, actually have more to be concerned from a Lawful Evil settlement, than a Lawful Good one. You may continue to claim that your settlement is Neutral Good, but your words speak otherwise. Now, it is not yet decided in my mind if your Kingdom is Lawful Good or Lawful Evil, that will depend on just how expansionist you turn out to be.
Hate to side track the topic but what is the Treaty of Rovagug?
That question may completely derail the train which has already jumped to tangential tracks.
@ Andius, no offer for the settlement of Acheron to sign the Treaty of Rovagug?As this settlement offers itself as a place of refuge that wields no powers over it's residents outside it's wall, we will make treaties with the individual companies that comprise it rather than the settlement as a whole.
It's residents are of course, very welcome to discuss the Treaty of Rovagug or any other diplomatic matters with us directly.
All that we would ask of Acheron is not to harbor griefers and to establish itself somewhere outside the immediate vicinity of our territory. There is no reason to ask the first as this is already part of their plan, and I seriously doubt they have any desire to live next door to us.
The main reason I ask that is it would be hard to keep my members from attacking the settlement if bandits were constantly fleeing inside when our patrols caught them. It will be far better for both of our communities if we occupy separate areas of the map.
@ Andius
No offer was expected. Not due to antithetical views but as you have pointed out we cannot control our membership out side our walls. It seems that you have that same concern about your own members?No. We do not wish to establish next door. Again not for antithetical viewpoints. The short commute to work would be nice but a settlement establishing next to a viable kingdom planning neighbor is asking to get in bed or get smashed. Unfortunately no assurance can be given. Space is too limited.
It would be a shame if Empyrean enthusiasts caused an incident on someone's Sovereign Soil. Such things can be misunderstood and become quite costly for all in the long run.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having been in leadership for quite awhile I know there are sometimes when it is hard to contain the anger of your populous. If our crafters and traders were constantly plagued by attacks coming from any nearby settlement, I am sure I will be placed under great pressure for a call to action. I'm sure you can see that in that scenario it would be very reasonable for me to listen to those demands.
I support the idea of your settlement. You seem much more level headed and intelligent than some of the other leaders the opposition has put forward as is obvious by reading the posts in this topic. And I feel you are someone whom I should be able to reach an agreeable solution with.
While places for settlements are sure to be limited, it also seems they will be well spaced.
TEO is fortunate enough to get the first choice on where to place ours. We will keep a diplomatic channel open with you before and after that placement to help insure you can find territory that is suitable for your purposes without making yourselves overly irritating to any of the major kingdoms.
From a metagame perspective I think I can convince our order that seeing your settlement gets a suitable location is worth pulling some diplomatic strings and allowing some coins to cross palms.
Having a powerful and well placed Chaotic Evil town that denies access to griefers is actually extremely advantageous to our vision for PFO even though I'm sure we will cross swords with your members on a frequent basis. The existence of this settlement significantly undermines those who would be griefers in PFO and so I wish it great success.
@ Andius Because you are currently the biggest bear in the woods and Acheron will go into the game with a large target (albeit self painted) upon us, it is difficult to interpret your motives. Are you being subtly threatening or condescending or just genuinely diplomatic? Remember that I have had scant few exchanges with you. I am going to assume that you are genuinely diplomatic.
Having been in leadership for quite awhile I know there are sometimes when it is hard to contain the anger of your populous. If our crafters and traders were constantly plagued by attacks coming from any nearby settlement, I am sure I will be placed under great pressure for a call to action. I'm sure you can see that in that scenario it would be very reasonable for me to listen to those demands.
I can understand the pressures of leadership and I can understand the cries of the victims spurring leaders to action. Let me ask you this: Would you turn your patrols loose into a neutral aligned settlement where a CN bandit lives? How about going after a CG bandit? Will you start incidents with all the world to pursue bandits whose flags will have expired by the time you get into the town? Would it not be better diplomatically to catch the wrongdoer on your lands or in wilderness than to pell nell invade any and all in your pursuit? Obviously Acheron will be the perfect scapegoat for your troubled populous but it is too bad if you let it be so. You can burn every town to the ground but there will still be bandits.
I support the idea of your settlement. You seem much more level headed and intelligent than some of the other leaders the opposition has put forward as is obvious by reading the posts in this topic. And I feel you are someone whom I should be able to reach an agreeable solution with.
I appreciate the compliments but dislike the insults to others. Not that you have not been provoked and mightily. Biggest bear in the woods syndrome. If a solution becomes necessary I will be willing to discuss it absolutely.
While places for settlements are sure to be limited, it also seems they will be well spaced.
TEO is fortunate enough to get the first choice on where to place ours. We will keep a diplomatic channel open with you before and after that placement to help insure you can find territory that is suitable for your purposes without making yourselves overly irritating to any of the major kingdoms.
From a metagame perspective I think I can convince our order that seeing your settlement gets a suitable location is worth pulling some diplomatic strings and allowing some coins to cross palms.
Hopefully if placement is near you the intervening wilderness will help assuage your concerns of proximity. Conflict with expanding entities is not on our agenda. From a CE metagame point of view we will gladly accept all assistance that you offer but suitability of sites will of course be Acheron's province in choosing. Surely you can see that your offer comes off seeming somewhat patronizing? You really can see that can you not?
Having a powerful and well placed Chaotic Evil town that denies access to griefers is actually extremely advantageous to our vision for PFO even though I'm sure we will cross swords with your members on a frequent basis. The existence of this settlement significantly undermines those who would be griefers in PFO and so I wish it great success.
Acheron's members are on their own and left to reap the rewards of their own actions outside our walls. I encourage you to give them what for every time that you catch them. I know that they will do the same.
Thank You Andius. I wish you as much success as Acheron dreams of also.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TEO is fortunate enough to get the first choice on where to place ours. We will keep a diplomatic channel open with you before and after that placement to help insure you can find territory that is suitable for your purposes without making yourselves overly irritating to any of the major kingdoms.From a metagame perspective I think I can convince our order that seeing your settlement gets a suitable location is worth pulling some diplomatic strings and allowing some coins to cross palms.
Having a powerful and well placed Chaotic Evil town that denies access to griefers is actually extremely advantageous to our vision for PFO even though I'm sure we will cross swords with your members on a frequent basis. The existence of this settlement significantly undermines those who would be griefers in PFO and so I wish it great success.
Things that should come to mind.....
1. Indian Removal Act 1830
2. Trail of Tears 1831
3. Dawes Act 1887
When I first dealt with the issue of the Treaty of Rovagug, I too was on board with anti griefing, and I remain so today. But, when pressed, the definition of griefing became broad enough to cover any activity TEO / Andius did not apporove of.
Here you have him making promises he can not keep. It was the same then as well, and led me to this saying of mine:
"I will not deal with the Devil or an Angel, because they both wear the same face, make the same promises, and want the same control" ~ Bluddwolf
Beware those that will fly the enforcer flag, because they are the enemy of our freedom.
I wish you luck and I will support your effort. I hope you choose to select a settlement location of your own. Do not allow your settlement to be shoved into some convenient corner, by those who would perpetrate they have the power to do so.
TEO is fortunate enough to get the first choice on where to place ours. We will keep a diplomatic channel open with you before and after that placement to help insure you can find territory that is suitable for your purposes without making yourselves overly irritating to any of the major kingdoms.From a metagame perspective I think I can convince our order that seeing your settlement gets a suitable location is worth pulling some diplomatic strings and allowing some coins to cross palms.
Having a powerful and well placed Chaotic Evil town that denies access to griefers is actually extremely advantageous to our vision for PFO even though I'm sure we will cross swords with your members on a frequent basis. The existence of this settlement significantly undermines those who would be griefers in PFO and so I wish it great success.
Things that should come to mind.....
1. Indian Removal Act 1830
2. Trail of Tears 1831
3. Dawes Act 1887When I first dealt with the issue of the Treaty of Rovagug, I too was on board with anti griefing, and I remain so today. But, when pressed, the definition of griefing became broad enough to cover any activity TEO / Andius did not apporove of.
Here you have him making promises he can not keep. It was the same then as well, and led me to this saying of mine:
"I will not deal with the Devil or an Angel, because they both wear the same face, make the same promises, and want the same control" ~ Bluddwolf
Beware those that will fly the enforcer flag, because they are the enemy of our freedom.
I wish you luck and I will support your effort. I hope you choose to select a settlement location of your own. Do not allow your settlement to be shoved into some convenient corner, by those who would perpetrate they have the power to do so.
Thank you Bluddwolf. Do not worry. I am hopeful that it was not written with the intent that it was read.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
A lot of the diplomacy here is based on the basic premise that diversity will make a better game for everyone. It is common for people to like the gameplay that someone else is bringing to the game while also playing a character who is completely opposed to the opponent.
I'm not going to speak for Andius on the matter, but I personally like the way that the groups my character will oppose are coming together.
For example, Bluddwolf antagonizing Andius, trying to provoke him into embarrassing himself by bringing up prior events. Blaeringr keeps trying that against Nihimon, and I can't imagine that the motivations are very different: Both are posturing in the only way currently possible and hope to establish themselves as a nemesis early on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius Because you are currently the biggest bear in the woods and Acheron will go into the game with a large target (albeit self painted) upon us, it is difficult to interpret your motives. Are you being subtly threatening or condescending or just genuinely diplomatic? Remember that I have had scant few exchanges with you. I am going to assume that you are genuinely diplomatic.
To you and your settlement, I honestly mean no threat or insult. I want to see it succeed and am willing to render any aid that is within my power to give. From the metagame perspective at least.
I can understand the pressures of leadership and I can understand the cries of the victims spurring leaders to action. Let me ask you this: Would you turn your patrols loose into a neutral aligned settlement where a CN bandit lives? How about going after a CG bandit? Will you start incidents with all the world to pursue bandits whose flags will have expired by the time you get into the town? Would it not be better diplomatically to catch the wrongdoer on your lands or in wilderness than to pell nell invade any and all in your pursuit? Obviously Acheron will be the perfect scapegoat for your troubled populous but it is too bad if you let it be so. You can burn every town to the ground but there will still be bandits.
If I were being attacked by a resident of a neighboring settlement I would approach the leadership of that settlement and request that the offending party's behavior be fixed, or that they evict them. If they failed to do so we would take actions up to and including a declaration of war against that settlement. This is against any settlement, of any alignment.
To put the shoe on the other foot, if someone living in TEO controlled territory was raiding neighboring settlements, we would order them to cease and desist unless we agreed with said actions. If they did not we would evict them. If we did agree with said actions, then declaring war on us would probably be justified.
It is not reasonable to expect any party to live next to a haven for an aggressive party, and not take action against it if it is within their power to do so.
However if the offender lived in a distant settlement we likely wouldn't care much, as the attacks against us would most likely be originating from a nearby hideout instead of that settlement. In which case we would begin searching for the hideout. This is how I hope our interactions with bandits based from Acheron will work.
Hopefully if placement is near you the intervening wilderness will help assuage your concerns of proximity. Conflict with expanding entities is not on our agenda. From a CE metagame point of view we will gladly accept all assistance that you offer but suitability of sites will of course be Acheron's province in choosing. Surely you can see that your offer comes off seeming somewhat patronizing? You really can see that can you not?
I'm sorry it was not intended that way. What I'm meaning to say is that we will have influence over where our settlement goes, and we may be able to negotiate with some of the other good aligned settlements about where they place as well. It's our intention to cut off a small area of the map that is exclusive for good and neutral communities who will agree not to tax the roads, or to close their access to the public. A haven for peace and trade.
By keeping a diplomatic channel open with Acheron during this process, I'm hoping we can avoid a situation where our placement forces you to choose between settling near us or another major faction such as PAX, and taking an undesirable location. In other words we will take the impact on Acheron into account during the placement of our settlement.
It likely won't be the sole determining factor but it's at least something I would like for TEO to take into consideration.
If I gave the impression I was saying I wanted to choose where you will place your settlement, that is most certainly not what I intended to say.
@Andius Thank you for your reply. I am glad to hear your proposal was not intended as I read it. You truly do suffer from big bear syndrome.
Acheron will have to be cautious where we settle but we are not willing to be walled off like zoo animals either. As for corners, well with ever expanding land, that may not be a problem.
We wish to exist as does every other proposed settlement and not to unduly antagonize larger organizations. All that we really want is to provide a place for the bad guy to have a chance to be competitive with the good guy.
I hope that we can discuss this and other issues in more depth when we know more about the game. Your cautious enthusiasm is heartening and appreciated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...establishing next to a viable kingdom planning neighbor is asking to get in bed or get smashed
The Situation: Lumbering giants are forming. Between these giants and their allies, there will be little room left for the free spirited and the career felon. There is a need for a settlement that caters to the problems of pesky pursuit, loot disposal, training in unsavory skills, and even item storage for the villainous.
The Pitch: Brothers and Sisters! We are the Outcasts, the Misunderstood, the Mistreated, the Hated, and the Hunted. There is no safe place for Us. Why must we haunt the wild lands, forever without safety, shelter, and warmth?Come with me my People. We will make Our own place in the world. A place with high strong walls and few laws. Come with me and build a place to hang your hat after a long day of banditry, assassination, and mayhem.
It seems the main intent of this settlement is to establish itself somewhere we can find refuge from a world who despises us. This isn't our forward base, it's our last line of defense, and while it needs access to training facilities and resources it does not need to be near our enemies. This is is our Tortuga, this is our rebel base.
Tortuga was established in the Caribean rather than Europe for a good reason.
We don't want to move our den closer to the bloodhounds just to get easier access to the chickens. Not everyone with an underworld connection is a bandit and Acheron is meant to be for all of us.
What we don't know is if Andius is as big of a deal as he is making himself out to be. Not too long ago I was being told his group was defunct. Whether or not he's actually the big bear on release (And personally I'm betting on PAX over his group) remains to be seen.
All we can do is speculate at this point but if he really does turn out to be the big bear we should keep our distance unless we want to end up in bed with him.
Bear in mind though, I'll probably have a foot in both worlds to increase my client base anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I said, I hope all that has been written here remains true. My company of bandits will visit this settlement, selling our loot, and spending our ill gotten gains, in your taverns and brothels.
We will not charter from this or any other settlement, unless contracted to do so in time of war. We do not charter our company outside of warfare for our mutual protection. As Anathema can see, I poke sticks at "Big Bears". Why? It is what chaotic neutral bandits do? Why Andius' group, more specifically? Well, there is a now well established history there.
[OOC] I'm sure in RL, Andius is a wonderful person. He and I just don't see eye-to-eye when it comes to open world PvP games. His definition of griefing extends well into my gaming activities. Our antagonism has become part of the forum game, that I believe we both play.
So I apologize for derailing your thread, and inserting Pre Beta PFO politics into your discussion of your proposed settlement. But then again, any proposed settlement is a political venture in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, Bluddwolf antagonizing Andius, trying to provoke him into embarrassing himself by bringing up prior events. Blaeringr keeps trying that against Nihimon, and I can't imagine that the motivations are very different: Both are posturing in the only way currently possible and hope to establish themselves as a nemesis early on.
I'm all for establishing who might be your future nemesis in-game and in-character. The difference with acting that out on this forum is that we are not role-playing our intended characters here. When you are potentially being that needling, sarcastic, antagonistic, etc., you're being that way to the player. Sure, we use forum names and avatars, but we need to not lose sight of the fact that here, we're the players, so if you're arguing, picking a fight, or just being rude, you're being that way to the actual person behind the screen. If we promote that behavior, it happens with more frequency, people push the boundaries of "Don't be a jerk" (the Paizo directive right below every post window we use), and we begin to damage the cooperative community of players I hope we all wish to help construct.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for in-game rivalries, as it makes the game far more fun. However, I know you can develop these while being friendly or at least cordial and respectful of the players involved. If there's someone you disagree with on these forums that vehemently, argue the faults of their posts, but insulting the poster does nothing for our community's well being.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It looks like the software is going to make me seek out places like Acheron.
[Character]I have no strong feelings on Good or Evil, they are both simply the two sides of the coin that makes the natural balance.
I do, however, have strong feelings on being forced to live a lifestyle that suits someone else's agenda.
If the other settlements insist on oppressing me because of their hypocritical prejudices, then I shall gladly make Acheron my base of operations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hobs
Although I may question the motives of someone's idea, I rarely resort to name calling or make personal attacks. I think the same can be said for most of the forum regulars here.
I do disagree that a certain amount of role playing should not be taking place here. It would be a good idea to point out, every once in a while, that things are being written from a character's perspective.
I should do that more often, but I always assumed that readers can tell my two characters and the way I post as them, are very very different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bludd,
If we were provided more than one forum so that the two could be kept separate (this one, for generating ideas and discussions of same, and one for RP), I would agree. I can only think of several instances where I thought it was clear that the poster was in-character, so I would strongly urge posters to make it clear when they are posting in-character. For instance, I can't ever recall reading one of your posts where I thought you were posting in-character.
I agree that most posters keep their criticism focused on the topic rather than fellow posters, though I don't think it takes full out name calling or personal attacks to still be considered rude or dismissive. Too often, the anonymity of the internet and a need to not lose face - to get the last word for fear that someone else got the best, last shot - finds people posting in a reactionary, heat-of-the-moment fashion. Then there's the few who just enjoy feeling superior by cutting down those who disagree with them. Hopefully the community will weed out this last type of poster.
***********
Back to the thread topic - I am very pleased to find someone has taken up the challenge of creating a dedicated evil settlement, especially a chaotic evil one, when so much seems stacked against such a settlement. Good form, Mr. Anathema. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For example, Bluddwolf antagonizing Andius, trying to provoke him into embarrassing himself by bringing up prior events. Blaeringr keeps trying that against Nihimon, and I can't imagine that the motivations are very different: Both are posturing in the only way currently possible and hope to establish themselves as a nemesis early on.
They say you can judge a man by his enemies...