Goblin Squad Member
|
Darn real life getting in the way of timely responses.... Anyway, singing off-key, even intentionally is perfectly acceptable, as is intentionally butchering a song (even if you do it badly enough that you should receive -rep for it). My motives for the request for vocalizations is not simply due to my personal brand of chaos and/or altruistic since I would be recording these performances, optimally to be used in the creation of a PFO UNC Album (Working title is "Sing for your Stuff: Volume 1"). I am sorely tempted to use it as a competition too. In this case, each performance on an album would be evaluated by a panel of impartial (heh) UNC bastards... err... judges and the winner given a prize!
Well, now I'm bummed. As a member of Pax Aeternum, I don't expect to be SADed so I won't ever be highlighted on your albums!
Although it does mean you'll make a nice judge for Open Mic Nights at the tavern...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to clairify, Pax will not be conducting bandit activities. Banditry will not be allowed within Aeternum territory and we fully expect others to defend their territory. It is also worth saying that following UNC into Aeternum territory and attacking them once inside Aeternum territory will be met with retaliation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh yeah, Im sure everyone can run with the mindless chatter. And of course being gamers, we all have something in common to start with.
Long run yapping can be accomplished.
RP is good
Taverns are good in RP, Not good in RL (I avoid them now, burned out in college and my twenties)
Deianira happy is good
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You assume wrong. Pax is striving to maintain a LN trend. Having a majority of chaotic characters would trend us to CN. Again, this is a year out where mechanics are still very much malleable.
Depending on how alignment plays a part in the development of a settlement will determine how we will react to that mechanical relationship... and as Tork has already stated, there are numerous systems working together, and it will be a bit longer before they are all revealed in how they inter-relate to one another and only then will we be able to weigh the value of "alignment" or "faction" or "reputation" in the rankings of how important they are to our own individual organizations and thus how they will affect what plans we have made.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to clairify, Pax will not be conducting bandit activities. Banditry will not be allowed within Aeternum territory and we fully expect others to defend their territory. It is also worth saying that following UNC into Aeternum territory and attacking them once inside Aeternum territory will be met with retaliation.
Correct, PAX will not have bandits, that is what we (UNC) is for :-)
And no crapping where you sleep, so no UNC "activities" inside PAX controlled territory.
Last thing to add, I can totally see a few of us (UNC) robbing someone in a distant land, getting caught and running to PAX lands, jumping the line into PAX lands and stopping, turning and giving the equivalent to the finger to our chasers and taunting them. "Nah nah, you can't get me!!!' will be on Macro ;-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Darn real life getting in the way of timely responses.... Anyway, singing off-key, even intentionally is perfectly acceptable, as is intentionally butchering a song (even if you do it badly enough that you should receive -rep for it). My motives for the request for vocalizations is not simply due to my personal brand of chaos and/or altruistic since I would be recording these performances, optimally to be used in the creation of a PFO UNC Album (Working title is "Sing for your Stuff: Volume 1"). I am sorely tempted to use it as a competition too. In this case, each performance on an album would be evaluated by a panel of impartial (heh) UNC bastards... err... judges and the winner given a prize!
:D Well I will differently have to brush up on my singing both good and bad, plus try to find some song that will make a bandit smile. How about this for a quick search....
Black Jack Davy....Late last night when the squire came home
Enquiring for his lady
Some denied and some replied
She's gone with the Black Jack Davy
Go saddle to me the bonny brown steed
For the grey was never so speedy
I'll ride all day and I'll ride all night
Till I catch that Black Jack Davy
Chorus
He rode up hills and he rode down dales
Over many a wild high mountain
And they did say that saw him go
Black Jack Davy he is hunting
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not evil, just misunderstood!
Good find, Diella, quite appropriate.
I imagine the bulk of the songs I aim to collect will be pop songs, and christmas carols during the christmas season, but if someone comes up with an original or thematic song, that would be awesome.
A big inspiration for my own bandit comes from a poem 'The Highwayman' by Alfred Noyes, and Loreena McKennitt does a very nice rendition of this.
The wind was a torrent of darkness among the gusty trees.
The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas.
The road was a ribbon of moonlight over the purple moor,
And the highwayman came riding—
Riding—riding—
The highwayman came riding, up to the old inn-door.He’d a French cocked-hat on his forehead, a bunch of lace at his chin,
A coat of the claret velvet, and breeches of brown doe-skin.
They fitted with never a wrinkle. His boots were up to the thigh.
And he rode with a jewelled twinkle,
His pistol butts a-twinkle,
His rapier hilt a-twinkle, under the jewelled sky.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Loreena McKennitt - The Highwayman
Thanks for the pointer. Some already know this, but I'm very interested in being exposed to unfamiliar music, especially anything in the last 10 years (rolling).
I'm familiar with Loreena McKennitt because The Mummers' Dance showed up on my Pandora station, but I hadn't heard The Highwayman before.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do the terms grant UNC monopoly on banditry in PAX-controlled areas or is the policy now that any PAX member may SAD or attack 'outsiders' in their territory?
I don't believe I got a response to this question; are only UNC members allowed to SAD non-allies in PAX territory or are all members of PAX companies and allies allowed to shake down any stranger that they meet in home territory? ("stranger"= not friends of PAX or trading with PAX settlements etc.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't believe I got a response to this question; are only UNC members allowed to SAD non-allies in PAX territory or are all members of PAX companies and allies allowed to shake down any stranger that they meet in home territory? ("stranger"= not friends of PAX or trading with PAX settlements etc.)Do the terms grant UNC monopoly on banditry in PAX-controlled areas or is the policy now that any PAX member may SAD or attack 'outsiders' in their territory?
I doubt it is part of the contract. I would assume that PAX would allow their people to SAD others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't believe I got a response to this question; are only UNC members allowed to SAD non-allies in PAX territory or are all members of PAX companies and allies allowed to shake down any stranger that they meet in home territory? ("stranger"= not friends of PAX or trading with PAX settlements etc.)Do the terms grant UNC monopoly on banditry in PAX-controlled areas or is the policy now that any PAX member may SAD or attack 'outsiders' in their territory?
Sorry I did not get to this earlier. It is the intention of UNC that we will monopolize and or control banditry in Pax territory. I plan on doing this for several reasons:
1. It is our turf and we will guard it vigorously
2. Bandit groups operating without UNC / Pax sanction will be interdicted and either SAD'd, Ambushed or Recruited.
3. Only bandit groups that are sanctioned will be allowed to operate as long as they follow UNC example of Banditry done Right and within the laws of Pax Aeternum.
In most cases "sanctioned" will equal any citizen of Pax Aeternum exclusively.
* Banditry Done Right is a doctrin that UNC follows and will be published once EE begins.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't believe I got a response to this question; are only UNC members allowed to SAD non-allies in PAX territory or are all members of PAX companies and allies allowed to shake down any stranger that they meet in home territory? ("stranger"= not friends of PAX or trading with PAX settlements etc.)Do the terms grant UNC monopoly on banditry in PAX-controlled areas or is the policy now that any PAX member may SAD or attack 'outsiders' in their territory?
Sorry I did not get to this earlier. It is the intention of UNC that we will monopolize and or control banditry in Pax territory. I plan on doing this for several reasons:
1. It is our turf and we will guard it vigorously
2. Bandit groups operating without UNC / Pax sanction will be interdicted and either SAD'd, Ambushed or Recruited.
3. Only bandit groups that are sanctioned will be allowed to operate as long as they follow UNC example of Banditry done Right and within the laws of Pax Aeternum.
In most cases "sanctioned" will equal any citizen of Pax Aeternum exclusively.
* Banditry Done Right is a doctrin that UNC follows and will be published once EE begins.
No apology needed, it was posted on page1 right at the time the discussion heated up several degrees.
Your point #3 I take to mean that the UNC won't mind if PAX allows others to do banditry in PAX territory. Now I am curious as to whether PAX intends to have banditry a legally sanctioned activity for all their members or if UNC will be the only group with that privilige.I ask because I suspect that not all planned settlements will see it as obvious that their members should be allowed to rob strangers in their territory. I'm trying to get a better picture of what the political landscape will look like. I'm just curious, no hidden agendas here :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Wurner,
UNC and Pax have not yet had a discussion as to the implications of the Raiding System, as I'm sure many other settlements need to take into consideration.
I will be giving the Dev Blog several reads, and an internal UNC review, before we discuss how we will integrate Interdiction of Unsanctioned Caravans, Harvesting Operations and Raiding.
All information available now is theory and desire. Concrete policies will have to wait for EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your point #3 I take to mean that the UNC won't mind if PAX allows others to do banditry in PAX territory. Now I am curious as to whether PAX intends to have banditry a legally sanctioned activity for all their members or if UNC will be the only group with that privilige.
I ask because I suspect that not all planned settlements will see it as obvious that their members should be allowed to rob strangers in their territory. I'm trying to get a better picture of what the political landscape will look like. I'm just curious, no hidden agendas here :)
A good question, Wurner; I appreciate the flow of thought here. However, Aeternum itself does not have any bandit VCC planned. We will have bounty hunting, route/goods protection, a formal military, but no organic bandit organizations that will conduct SAD in the name of Aeternum.
It is the reason we are allied with UNC. We do not, nor will we, provide this kind of activity within our own lands. By allying with an organization of UNCs caliber, we gain an ally that is more than capable of defending our borders from non-sanctioned entries or, more importantly, raiding/looting parties.
More simply, Wurner, Aeternum is looking at this alliance as a way to bolster our defenses in an area that we do not personally engage in. Organic Aeternum units engaging in SAD will (unless core concepts change on me) be a rarity more than a norm.
Could military units of Aeternum end up SADing Trade Convoys of enemy organizations? Possibly, but doubtful; that would require our military to meet them on the road, instead of being at key assault/defend locations, where they are more effective. And if it's in Aeternum land, why in the dickens would our enemies send a convoy through known enemy land?
Could our bounty hunting units end up SADing a possible Convoy carrying a wanted criminal? Possibly, but the purpose of SAD at that point would be the mechanical advantage of stopping and looking through hiding places (if players could hide in barrels or such!), not to loot and pillage.
We are aiming to be a trade empire; SADing and in general banditry is one of the few options we will not focus our efforts on. We instead look to ally with organizations that do focus on those skills, and in doing so, we increase the amount of 'skin' both entities have in the community game. Specifically, the actions of one affect the actions of the other. If anything, this alliance has proven that UNC and Aeternum need to be focused on our image to the community, whether that be as a Bandit Outfit or a Trade Empire.
All information available now is theory and desire. Concrete policies will have to wait for EE.
Bludd hit the nail on the head. I can theorize all day about what is necessary to defend a kingdom, its allies and its trade partners, but without specific game mechanics, we talk in circles.
UNC and Aeternum have done their best to create a Terms of Alliance that is as encompassing as possible, but as Bludd states, there are still major systems not yet revealed that will require adaptation of both organizations in order to make it to launch.
Please understand, Wurner, and everyone else that reads my post, that while this community has been around now for years, we are still all very much waiting on core concepts to be published. Fluidity and an understanding of each others' driving motivations is, in my opinion, much more important than any discussion on possible game mechanics.
- Krow
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you Bluddwolf and Ezekial Krows for your responses.
The answer to my question then is that PAX is not currently planning to encourage their members to conduct banditry and from PAX's perspective, sanctioning UNC banditry provides a sort of security service.
I find it all too easy to slip into discussing in-game politics as if the game is launching feature complete sometime next week. It is most useful to remember that EE won't start for a long time and that for player controlled settlement and the politics that come with them we will have to wait even longer. With a high certainty, many of our individually held beliefs about how the game will work will end up to be wrong before then.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the regulars on TS encountered an interesting yet flawed belief concerning Pax -UNC treatment of traders within our territory and neutral or traders in good standing doing trade with enemies of the Pax / Golgothan Empire (sorry if I get the political nomenclature wrong).
The belief that we were confronted with was that a neutral trader or one in good standing could in fact trade with our enemies and still enjoy the safe passage granted from our previous interactions.
Let me be as clear as I can.....
In the event that either (or any future) settlement of the Empire is at war with another settlement, Pax will inform all traders that we do business with of the conflict. I would hope that those traders in good standing respect the circumstances and avoid openly trading with our enemy. Those in neutral standing will obviously follow the coin first, and that is expected.
However, those in good standing may still conduct trade with our enemy despite the request. The short term consequence of that choice is that they will trade with our enemy ( outside of Pax lands) at their own risk.
When Pax is at war, we will not trade with the enemy ourselves. We will blockade our enemy's settlement, and ambush all that attempt to come in or leave that settlement during a state of open conflict.
Outside of Pax Lands, the UNC will take full advantage of raiding within an enemy's territory (battlefield). If you are not actively supporting the Pax war effort, you are a potential target.
It struck me, and I believe several of us last night, that this reality of warfare politics had to be explained bordered on the absurd.
You will not be granted free passage to trade with our enemy during a time of war. You will still be granted safe passage within Pax lands, provided we do not know for certain you are there to undermine our war efforts.
The final misconception presented to us last night was that, if you lose the services of one or even a few merchants due to one interaction, that we will lose access to those goods or future trades permanently.
Resource nodes and political relationships will be shifting, maybe even constantly so. Our trusted friend one day, could become neutral, on the same day our previous enemy could also become neutral. Friends could one day become enemies, and the vice versa is equally true.
The memory of an individual may be long, but when we consider the relationships of larger communities, sometimes past grievances give way to future opportunities, peace or mutual benefit being the two most important.
/remove green hat of diplomacy
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
/remove green hat of diplomacy
Did you pay for that green hat...? *quickly rifles through most recent sales receipts*
You will not find a receipt in your records. The Green Hat was a gift to me, from a little old lady that I helped carry her groceries home.
She seemed a bit apprehensive to accept our help at first. Xeen was a bit fidgety and was white-knuckled gripping his sword hilt for some unknown reason. The Goodfellow was merely eye-balling her and casually scrapping dried blood from under his thumb nail. I was of course, pleasantly smiling, although the smell of a nearby burning cottage had inexplicably permeated my outer clothing, covering my blood stained banded mail.
She happily gave me her hat, a few biscuits and her last copper piece in gratitude for our escorting her safely home.
It is a dangerous world out there, even for little old ladies in green hats.
lI like the position you're taking here Bludd. Enemies are enemies and should be dealt with in the harshest, most ruthless manner possible, and should be given no quarters under any circumstances (except for messengers, of course, in most cases). Love it,
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few quotes I feel it necessary to elaborate on.
When Pax is at war, we will not trade with the enemy ourselves. We will blockade our enemy's settlement, and ambush all that attempt to come in or leave that settlement during a state of open conflict.
You will not be granted free passage to trade with our enemy during a time of war. You will still be granted safe passage within Pax lands, provided we do not know for certain you are there to undermine our war efforts.
The final misconception presented to us last night was that, if you lose the services of one or even a few merchants due to one interaction, that we will lose access to those goods or future trades permanently.
Resource nodes and political relationships will be shifting, maybe even constantly so. Our trusted friend one day, could become neutral, on the same day our previous enemy could also become neutral. Friends could one day become enemies, and the vice versa is equally true.
If we are at war, we will notify blue parties and do our best to alert greys that come into areas where sympathetic actions towards our enemy will be viewed as hostile and shift their standing from grey to red. These shifts will be for the duration of the conflict and likely return to grey afterwards. Again, we will do everything in our power to alert neutral parties of the consequences of their actions. If they continue that action, they will be viewed as hostile.
Trading with a entity we are at war with is an act of war. Whether you trade with them before or after is completely up to you. The only other factor is if blue entities have a specified agreement with us that prohibits trading with entities we are red with but not actively engaged in a war/feud.
The loss of business of a single merchant or small group of merchants may or may not be significant enough to warrant some sort of reparations. Just as we understand the need for merchants to turn a profit and how our interests can sometimes interfere with that, we expect merchants to understand that their pursuit of profit with our enemy is undermining our interests and will be prevented to the best of our ability. Instances where merchants withdraw their business from our markets will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
We have and will continue to be as open as possible. We intend to follow through on everything that we proclaim as an official objective or position. We fully intend to do everything in our power to provide some stability in the political realm for those we are allied with and those neutrals who's business we value.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see why. If you provide supplies to people engaged in hostile activities against us, how is that not aiding our enemy?
More generally, protecting one's own supply lines and attacking those of an enemy is a fundamental military strategy; an example of this as a purely logistical campaign for the military means of implementing strategic policy was the Berlin Airlift.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see why. If you provide supplies to people engaged in hostile activities against us, how is that not aiding our enemy?
More generally, protecting one's own supply lines and attacking those of an enemy is a fundamental military strategy; an example of this as a purely logistical campaign for the military means of implementing strategic policy was the Berlin Airlift.
Trading with a entity we are at war with is an act of war.That should prove interesting.
I think it is important to also note that we are being as honest as we can about intent, with arguably minimal mechanical or political systems with which to stress test our position.
I suspect there will be case by case aspects to merchants selling to an enemy, and our level of response. There will likely be a difference between *I sold a single member of Xeilias's enemy group a cask of mulberry wine <and> *I have been directly targeting trade relations with Xeilias's enemies, supplying them with weapons en masse in an effort to maximize my profit margin.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't see why. If you provide supplies to people engaged in hostile activities against us, how is that not aiding our enemy?
More generally, protecting one's own supply lines and attacking those of an enemy is a fundamental military strategy; an example of this as a purely logistical campaign for the military means of implementing strategic policy was the Berlin Airlift.Trading with a entity we are at war with is an act of war.That should prove interesting.I think it is important to also note that we are being as honest as we can about intent, with arguably minimal mechanical or political systems with which to stress test our position.
I suspect there will be case by case aspects to merchants selling to an enemy, and our level of response. There will likely be a difference between *I sold a single member of Xeilias's enemy group a cask of mulberry wine <and> *I have been directly targeting trade relations with Xeilias's enemies, supplying them with weapons en masse in an effort to maximize my profit margin.
I think that some of your most important suppliers will be groups that directly target trade relations with both sides of every war.
There's nothing magical about the phrase "act of war", either. It's used mostly (in Earth history) as a pretext for positioning an act as "recognition that a state of war already exists" instead of "declaring war".
One effect that statement of policy might have would be to discourage groups who intend on war profiteering from developing infrastructure under Xeilian control; they fully intend to supply Xeilias' enemies when and if they exist, and they might expect their holdings in Xeilian control to be seized once that happens.