Kingdom of Aeternum and the UnNamed Company- Terms of Alliance


Pathfinder Online

251 to 300 of 304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

I think that the blanket statement is forthright. I think it sort of suggests a level of response that might be visited upon traders. If it were an absolute statement, events might quickly escalate past a nation's ability to wage war.

If [A] is at war with [B], and [C] trades with [B], but [D] and [E] trade with [C], [A] probably can't declare war on all 4 of the trading partners. [A] might use some mix of war, feuds, and unsanctioned attacks, but it probably won't be all war all of the time. I read "trading with a entity we are at war with is an act of war," as a warning that any of these means might be used in response.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Charlie George wrote:
Areks wrote:

I don't see why. If you provide supplies to people engaged in hostile activities against us, how is that not aiding our enemy?

Quote:
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.
Nihimon wrote:
Areks wrote:
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.

I have no doubt that such traders will exist in PFO. I suspect:

-Some such merchants can be persuaded through coin to exclusively sell to one side of a conflict exclusively.

-We might not be the only organization that frowns on openly selling to both sides of a conflict. Thus necessitating a portion of the economy to chose sides.

-There will be varying degrees of gains, losses, dangers, etc associated with selling to both sides (as well as selling exclusively to one)

It could also be true that:

-A significant portion of the merchant player based sells to both sides of conflicts. This puts Callambea and Xeilias at a significant disadvantage. It is decided to retract our prior position. Likely no retaliation would occur, and we would also openly trade with multiple sides of a conflict to maximize profits.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems perfectly reasonable for any entity to want to prevent it's enemies (when at war) from acquiring goods that strengthen them.

It is an old, old custom and strategically sound.


Bringslite wrote:

It seems perfectly reasonable for any entity to want to prevent it's enemies (when at war) from acquiring goods that strengthen them.

It is an old, old custom and strategically sound.

In an unexpected turn of events, I'll have to agree with Bringslite here.

Supplying one faction's enemies has historically been considered an "act of war". Neutral traders can't always remain neutral in warring factions' territories.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
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".

Again, many different factors come into play.

Is it just a single merchant from a company?

Is it an entire company?

Following the logic that we declare war on an entire organization because they had one merchant try and sell some wine to our enemies is not plausible. We would have too many enemies to keep track of and imply that even after the war finished with our original aggressor, that we would still be at war with those who aided them.

What it boils down to is this, supporting our enemies through logistical means will be treated as a hostile act and will be dealt with as such.

In Urman's example, C would be our target. We would give little care to the suppliers of the supplier of our enemy, as they would likely be our suppliers as well. D and E probably conduct business away from the conflict. Inflating the purchasing price of specific goods that are C's main inventory being provided to our enemy to shrink C's profit margin and raise their asking price thus shrinking the reward and increasing the risk is a hypothetical economic strategy we might employ... as is undercutting the C's prices on goods they provide D and E in an effort to lure them away.

Hopefully the economy will be malleable enough to employ such strategies... but again, that's why I prefaced it with "hypothetical".

Just so people don't think that all our actions will be martial, we hope that political and economical arenas are just a viable when it comes to exerting influence.

Goblin Squad Member

Just so everyone knows, the context of the questioning last night was as follows:

If trader "A" (Neutral) brings in needed supplies to Pax, would that trader be subject to SADs or Ambush? The answer was an emphatic "No", of course not.

If Trader "A" then began to leave Pax territory with a new cargo, would he still enjoy non harassment from UNC? The answer was an equally emphatic, "Yes".

Then came the real test....

If Trader "A" brings a much needed resource to Pax, then picks up a much needed resource from Pax's market, meant for delivery to Pax's enemy, what would be our response?

I had stated that if Pax was at war, we would expect traders that are "Blue" to Pax, not to knowingly trade with our enemy. I had also stated that they could do so, but at their own risk.

Trader "A" then said, what if the resources being brought were specifically meant for the building of weapons, meant to be used against Pax?

...... After some hesitation, as we probably tried to digest the absurdity of not knowing the obvious answer, we answered... "We would ambush and kill the Trader".

Then Trader "A" said that he would then not trade with Pax, bringing the resources that Pax might need. At which we basically intimated "good riddance".

The flaws in Trader A's perception were:

1. He was the only way that Pax could get that resource.

2. That Pax can only get resources through trade.

3. That he would enjoy free trade and passage, even if he was stabbing us in the chest while doing so.

I really wish there were more to "ear witness" the exchange, but there were even neutral parties to the conversation that felt the same way as (we) Pax, UNC, Golgatha had interpreted it.

We might have been trolled, or we encountered someone with little understanding of economic warfare tactics or policies.

I would not imagine that trade with the enemy is something that any settlement would endure, or at least not for very long.


I also think it is a mistake in this context to talk of declaring war on merchants trading with the enemy. What is most likely to happen is we go to war with someone

a) We flood their territory with privateers with instructions to ensure absolutely no cargo enters or leaves that territory.

In the event of a) it is no good telling our privateers "but I am blue to Pax" you cant take my cargo as the answer will be tough you are aiding our enemy.

Subsequent to being waylaid the empire will be notified of your action in aiding our enemy and your status with the empire may be reviewed. This may range from a stiff talking to along the don't trade with our enemies line to a redefinition of your status. Declaring war on merchant companies is something we are unlikely to do often and usually when we wish to make a point.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Areks wrote:
Trading with a entity we are at war with is an act of war.
That should prove interesting.
Areks wrote:
I don't see why. If you provide supplies to people engaged in hostile activities against us, how is that not aiding our enemy?

I was imagining a Neutral Trade Empire. It seems somewhat presumptuous to expect them to stop trading with their trading partners just because you're at war. It seems like an easy way to make lots of enemies real fast... probably too many to actually declare war on at once even.

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan brings up the distinction that was in my mind.

If a group is actively running your blockade in order to supply a Settlement you've laid Siege to, that's a very different thing.

Goblin Squad Member

Areks wrote:

We would have too many enemies to keep track of and imply that even after the war finished with our original aggressor, that we would still be at war with those who aided them.

If I gave the impression that we will be declaring war on everyone with a "guilt by association" type system, that is wholly the wrong impression I was trying give.

Pagan is basically at the point I was trying to convey.

Running an active blockade is the primary scenario to which I was speaking. Rendezvous is the other. Rendezvous is a bit trickier and will likely be handled on a case by case basis with a lot of moving parts factoring in.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I apologize to all.

I pushed Bludd's buttons. In much the same way as he has advocated that any PvP he may want to do is sanctioned; I pushed him that any trading I engage should not be constricted by his local rules. 8-) While not saying that he can not attack my caravan approaching the enemy, I did say that per the PAX-UNC agreement he could not attack me arriving to PAX for trade or leaving PAX. What happens before the source city or after the destination city, may be subject to UNC,

His argument is that if he thought I would engage with the enemy, I would be subject to UNC as soon as I left PAX territory. And even if I was inbound to PAX, I would be subject to UNC until I was in PAX territory. I do not think this is what PAX wants. If PAX does not want goods exported to enemy, they will be withheld. Any goods to any 3rd city can/will be shipped elsewhere. If a grey deal with PAX and enemy, UNC considers them RED -- independent of PAX.

This was on TS. I did not think that he would make it formal here. Basically, If you are PAX territory, and bound to trade or leaving trade from PAX. Once outside PAX, it does not matter if it may be that the trade you carry might be related to the enemy. Grey is Not Blue outside PAX lands.

This is Bludd and UNC, playing to the letter of the agreement. This detailed interpretation is what I would expect of a L lawyer.

PAX, this is not your dog, but UNC is a wild wolf which will bite you and your friends. They can not even keep a smart face prior to EE.

lam

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Lam, there can be no 'opt-out of PvP' status which leaves you free to play as you wish, or else too many would use it for the sake of convenience. Everyone who wished to be a simple goblin-slayer would call themselves a 'trader' if that got them out of weighing the potential PvP factor.

Choices include: avoid providing more value dead than alive, be powerful enough to deter or repel attack, or be sneaky enough to not get caught. Logging off is likely the only absolute protection, but staying in an NPC city might work too.

Every value is a tradeoff against another value. If you're supplying one side more than the other, then there is value in preventing you from doing that. If someone has a great enough need for what you have that they're willing to trade off the consequences or resources they'd need to expend to take it, they'll probably do so. If the long-term gains that follow from maintaining good relations are more valuable than the situation on any given day, they'll probably want to keep that relationship.

To avoid pissing off either side of a war, or becoming collateral damage by going to the wrong place at the wrong time, you're probably better off avoiding areas near warring sides. Maybe there will be a Knowledge: Local skill you could train to keep you informed about the warring and other political events in the areas around you, representing your conversations with the ubiquitous 'unseen NPCs'.

Goblin Squad Member

@Keovar, I think Lam refers to UNC's inability to attack due to their agreements with Pax, not due to mechanics that make it so he literally can't be attacked.

Goblin Squad Member

This is Bludd and UNC, playing to the letter of the agreement. This detailed interpretation is what I would expect of a L lawyer.

PAX, this is not your dog, but UNC is a wild wolf which will bite you and your friends. They can not even keep a smart face prior to EE.

lam

If it turns out Pax or UNC is not living up to the spirit of our agreement termination clauses or ToA review will be in order. The same can be said if either of us feels our arrangement is no longer beneficial.

The truth of matter is UNC plans to cater to the bandit playstyle. We can not in good faith require them to cease all highwaymen activity. What we can do is attempt to provide authorized targets for privateerig. Such a goal is likely but not assured.

Until we have a game to test these systems, it is hard to say what will end up being feasible authoritatively. We do appreciate your warning and concerns.. If such a time as the agreement is revisited we will make sure this community is made aware.

Goblin Squad Member

Lam wrote:

I apologize to all.

I pushed Bludd's buttons. In much the same way as he has advocated that any PvP he may want to do is sanctioned; I pushed him that any trading I engage should not be constricted by his local rules. 8-) While not saying that he can not attack my caravan approaching the enemy, I did say that per the PAX-UNC agreement he could not attack me arriving to PAX for trade or leaving PAX. What happens before the source city or after the destination city, may be subject to UNC,

His argument is that if he thought I would engage with the enemy, I would be subject to UNC as soon as I left PAX territory. And even if I was inbound to PAX, I would be subject to UNC until I was in PAX territory. I do not think this is what PAX wants. If PAX does not want goods exported to enemy, they will be withheld. Any goods to any 3rd city can/will be shipped elsewhere. If a grey deal with PAX and enemy, UNC considers them RED -- independent of PAX.

This was on TS. I did not think that he would make it formal here. Basically, If you are PAX territory, and bound to trade or leaving trade from PAX. Once outside PAX, it does not matter if it may be that the trade you carry might be related to the enemy. Grey is Not Blue outside PAX lands.

This is Bludd and UNC, playing to the letter of the agreement. This detailed interpretation is what I would expect of a L lawyer.

PAX, this is not your dog, but UNC is a wild wolf which will bite you and your friends. They can not even keep a smart face prior to EE.

lam

I think the part you missed in the conversation is...

PAX will have plenty of people who will do what you are doing. Trading with anyone they can.

You made the presumption that PAX cannot function without you. That is a false presumption.

You are planning to trade with everyone to make yourself rich. Why would anyone want you to take their goods to their enemies? That makes no sense, think about it.

If you do not want to be subject to the UNC... Make sure you are blue to PAX or the UNC. Notice I said OR... If you are blue to PAX you will be blue to the UNC as per my understanding of the agreement.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To add my own 2 copper to this discussion, I think the simplest and easiest way to "solve" this issue of a war-time change in status as well as the intent of the trader involved, would be to simply claim the enemy territory as "hostile lands" and anyone caught within their boarders will be treated as hostile regardless of standings with PAX/UNC. This basically means that if you are not trading with the enemy faction, you avoid their territory. You take the longer way around their lands as to not be confused with those still trading with them. Thoughts on this idea?

Also remember, we are discussing "war targets" right now but UNC will have plenty of targets at all times. Some might think that the UNC will not be able to be controlled by PAX and your right, however, it isn't about control, it is more of a guiding concept. And as said before, if 1 or both sides EVER decide it isn't working out for what ever reason, it will be adjusted or dissolved and then all of this is moot. Much can change between now and EE and then again even to OE.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
To add my own 2 copper to this discussion, I think the simplest and easiest way to "solve" this issue of a war-time change in status as well as the intent of the trader involved, would be to simply claim the enemy territory as "hostile lands" and anyone caught within their boarders will be treated as hostile regardless of standings with PAX/UNC.

This is my preference as well. I've long held that War Zones should automatically flag everyone who enters as Sanctioned Targets for either side in the War.

Goblin Squad Member

Lam wrote:

I apologize to all.

I pushed Bludd's buttons. In much the same way as he has advocated that any PvP he may want to do is sanctioned; I pushed him that any trading I engage should not be constricted by his local rules. 8-) While not saying that he can not attack my caravan approaching the enemy, I did say that per the PAX-UNC agreement he could not attack me arriving to PAX for trade or leaving PAX. What happens before the source city or after the destination city, may be subject to UNC,

His argument is that if he thought I would engage with the enemy, I would be subject to UNC as soon as I left PAX territory. And even if I was inbound to PAX, I would be subject to UNC until I was in PAX territory. I do not think this is what PAX wants. If PAX does not want goods exported to enemy, they will be withheld. Any goods to any 3rd city can/will be shipped elsewhere. #1. If a grey deal with PAX and enemy, UNC considers them RED -- independent of PAX.

#2 This was on TS. I did not think that he would make it formal here. Basically, If you are PAX territory, and bound to trade or leaving trade from PAX. Once outside PAX, it does not matter if it may be that the trade you carry might be related to the enemy. #3 Grey is Not Blue outside PAX lands.

#4 This is Bludd and UNC, playing to the letter of the agreement. This detailed interpretation is what I would expect of a L lawyer.

#5 PAX, this is not your dog, but UNC is a wild wolf which will bite you and your friends. #6 They can not even keep a smart face prior to EE.

lam

I have taken the liberty of highlighting, and numbering a few of your comments for clarification:

1. Inside of Pax territory, that Grey is effectively blue, and they will not be attacked by UNC (incoming or outgoing).

Outside of Pax territory, Blue is still Blue. UNLESS Blue is trading with Pax's enemy, then Blue is Red.

Red is dead, inside or outside of Pax territory.

Now the UNC may have a Red that is not Red to Pax, or vice versa. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.

2. Once you opened up this discussion in a public TS channel with members from several different companies, the issue had to be discussed in the open. You will notice I referred to you as Trader "A", not feeling it necessary to mention your name. You decided to do that for yourself.

3. Outside of Pax territory, Grey is Grey for UNC.

4. Why would you not expect that the UNC will live up to the contract? We (Pax and UNC) crafted it together, debated it and agreed to it.

5. You are correct, we are wild wolves and not Pax's dog. You would be wrong in thinking that we would turn and bite Pax, or its friends, while this agreement is still in effect. You would also be wrong in thinking that Pax does not realize we are wild wolves, or that Pax is not happy with that fact.

6. What face would you have me or us wear? That of a liar? One that conceals one's true intentions?

The face I have put on the UNC is exactly the one that I want. It is the one that has made the leadership of my company happy. It is the one that our general members agree with and will enjoy playing.

WE are bandits, raiders, assassins and thieves. We are prepared to do the dirty deeds of others, for a fee.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
WE are bandits, raiders, assassins and thieves. We are prepared to do the dirty deeds of others, for a fee.

And sometimes for free.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
WE are bandits, raiders, assassins and thieves. We are prepared to do the dirty deeds of others, for a fee.
And sometimes for free.

Speak for your self. I am high maintenance....

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
WE are bandits, raiders, assassins and thieves. We are prepared to do the dirty deeds of others, for a fee.
And sometimes for free.
Speak for your self. I am high maintenance....

And other times "Just because we can!!"....... Puts on "Green Hat of Fire Resistance"


Another option is to charge much higher fees for people who want to use your land in order to trade with your enemies. That way every time your enemies get supplies, you and PAX get a nice piece of it.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Another option is to charge much higher fees for people who want to use your land in order to trade with your enemies. That way every time your enemies get supplies, you and PAX get a nice piece of it.

Trade with the war time enemies of Pax / UNC and they are "Red". I have a Chaotic Evil constituency within the UNC, and they will want bloody slaughter! I myself am Chaotic Neutral, which means half the time or so, I want bloody slaughter.

We will kill the trader, take 75% of his loot! destroying 25% of his loot, and degrading any if his threaded gear. Our enemy gets nothing.

But there is more.......

Our wonton killing of the trader, in our enemy's lands, will be registered as a crime (most likely). While we are there, we would probably seize the opportunity to plunder a few outposts as well, also most likely a crime. In this process we will also help reduce our enemy's settlement DI for security. An additional service to our empire, and one in which they may feel inclined to lump praise or reward upon us.

Two lessons to be learned:

1. An active war zone will be a UNC playground

2. Don't make an enemy of The UNC and expect us to play nice on the playground.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think in this discussion we lost sight of an important distinction:

Some merchant companies will specialize in supplying the people with the highest risk and margins. They will sell to both sides of wars, at the war-inflated price for delivered goods.

If Pax chooses to consider the policy of supplying both sides to be hostile, then they cut themselves off from the companies which specialize most in a service that they desperately need.

HOWEVER: there is no reason why Pax cannot consider the POLICY of being a war profiteer neutrally, while at the same time making the ACT of providing supplies to their active enemies prohibited, and enforcing that prohibition by killing them and taking the stuff.

Traders dealing with Pax would be either left alone or escorted while in their territory, and traders dealing enemies of Pax would be interdicted as appropriate, even if those traders also sometimes dealing with Pax.

I think that it is trivially likely that cargo would ever flow directly from one belligerent to an opposing one; there's either no way to create trust that there is no pretext involved, no profit to be made, or one of the belligerents would gain an advantage over the other.

Goblin Squad Member

Again, these conversations are highly dependent on an in game environment with which to test suspicions. Even when those suspicions are based on past game environments. I like the dialogue, but I don't think that can be stressed enough.

I agree with your premise, Decius. If Pax considers trading with both sides of a conflict as hostile, we will lose business from those companies that specifically specialize in such activities.

The important question is whether those companies will represent a majority, or will represent a "high quality goods" majority. If such were the case then our position would have to be revisited. If these companies represent a minority or an equal portion of the merchant populace then perhaps our stance will need no revisiting at all.

I suspect that there will be merchant companies more than happy to sell exclusively (at least in large quantities, and openly. A contention I sincerely hope does make it to the River Kingdoms.) to one side of a true war conflict.

It might be likely that the hinge point will be the build up to or the minor conflicts in between open warfare. In those cases it might be most beneficial to overlook (officially at least) the selling of goods to other settlements and kingdoms.

The buzz seems to be now that settlement and nation warfare will be relatively rare (and expensive). That leads me to suspect that minor conflicts might be more common. If that ends up being true that will be the cash cow of merchants.

It is speculative, but an official stance on war profiteering during large scale warfare might not be detrimental. Instituting that same stance during small POI conflicts however might.

Interesting discussions, thanks for it.


Bluddwolf wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Another option is to charge much higher fees for people who want to use your land in order to trade with your enemies. That way every time your enemies get supplies, you and PAX get a nice piece of it.

Trade with the war time enemies of Pax / UNC and they are "Red". I have a Chaotic Evil constituency within the UNC, and they will want bloody slaughter! I myself am Chaotic Neutral, which means half the time or so, I want bloody slaughter.

We will kill the trader, take 75% of his loot! destroying 25% of his loot, and degrading any if his threaded gear. Our enemy gets nothing.

But there is more.......

Our wonton killing of the trader, in our enemy's lands, will be registered as a crime (most likely). While we are there, we would probably seize the opportunity to plunder a few outposts as well, also most likely a crime. In this process we will also help reduce our enemy's settlement DI for security. An additional service to our empire, and one in which they may feel inclined to lump praise or reward upon us.

Two lessons to be learned:

1. An active war zone will be a UNC playground

2. Don't make an enemy of The UNC and expect us to play nice on the playground.

I'm CN as well, so I feel you on this, but I was subtly implying that you could gouge them on the rates which would skyrocket the price for the enemy so that anytime the enemy get supplies, you'd be getting money to help fuel your war effort against them. But the obliterate your enemy's friends approach works too.

Goblin Squad Member

One thing I think should be figured out before game is this: if the entire enemy territory is considered "open season" and you kill everyone inside it, what about your enemy's enemies who are also there to cause some destruction? I realize many times you'd likely be in touch with your enemy's enemies for possible coordination, but it seems a possibility that you could run into privateers, assassins, or any other sort of person who means to do your enemies harm. Do you plan on killing those people too?

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
One thing I think should be figured out before game is this: if the entire enemy territory is considered "open season" and you kill everyone inside it, what about your enemy's enemies who are also there to cause some destruction? I realize many times you'd likely be in touch with your enemy's enemies for possible coordination, but it seems a possibility that you could run into privateers, assassins, or any other sort of person who means to do your enemies harm. Do you plan on killing those people too?

Clearly, Blues, supporting our efforts would not be targeted.

Goblin Squad Member

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Except when he is clearly my enemy, of course.

It isn't that complicated a policy. We will do everything we can to maximize our mechanical advantage will creating as large of a mechanical disadvantage against our enemy. That could involve the complete interdiction of all persons found within a declared war zone. It could mean the outright murder of anyone found in that war zone. It could mean breaking casual relations with a particular merchant. If it is deemed pragmatic, in both the short and long term, it will be considered an option.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
I realize many times you'd likely be in touch with your enemy's enemies for possible coordination, but it seems a possibility that you could run into privateers, assassins, or any other sort of person who means to do your enemies harm. Do you plan on killing those people too?

We would invite these war zone opportunists to join in on the fun. I can speak for the UNC on this point, we are always looking for promising candidates to fill our ranks and expand our reach.


For your enemy's friends, you should take a lower rep hit when you kill them... A much lower one.

Goblin Squad Member

I was intending to speak specifically on such rabblerousers who are grey to UNC/Pax. I think it would be good to consider such people, as well as other corner cases, and thus not make a policy of killing absolutely everyone inside enemy territory.

@Morbis, yeah, I get what the spirit of the declared policy is. I just wanted to bring up a case against killing absolutely everyone. I could definitely see confronting, SAD'ing, and other things, but IMO killing absolutely everyone could lead to needlessly making enemies out of potential allies, or at least out of neutral parties. Just putting in my 2c to consider (as always, just ignore my posts if you think my opinions are bunk :) ).


Shane Gifford wrote:

I was intending to speak specifically on such rabblerousers who are grey to UNC/Pax. I think it would be good to consider such people, as well as other corner cases, and thus not make a policy of killing absolutely everyone inside enemy territory.

Yea, I like that idea too.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Shifted back from a tangent on another thread:

Any hostile action inside of Pax territory, banditry included, is against our laws, agreements, and charters.

The only exception is the activities of our guards, army, and security forces.

If UNC stops you with the express purpose of conducting banditry they are operating outside of our agreement. If they stop you as a security action, they are operating as a security force and not a criminal element.

Pax Areks wrote:

@ Decius - Bluddwolf tried until he was blue in the face to make this abundantly clear. We also tried to make it clear, repeatedly. No bandit activity in Pax lands. Period. UNC and other authorized groups will use the SAD mechanic to peform interdiction only.

It can't get clearer than that.

Bluddwolf wrote:

1. Inside of Pax territory, that Grey is effectively blue, and they will not be attacked by UNC (incoming or outgoing).

Outside of Pax territory, Blue is still Blue. UNLESS Blue is trading with Pax's enemy, then Blue is Red.

Red is dead, inside or outside of Pax territory.

Now the UNC may have a Red that is not Red to Pax, or vice versa. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.

From my understanding then, Pax's security policy is that anyone hostile to UNC is subject to 'security interdiction', and/or Pax is hostile to them. Is my interpretation of the multiple interacting policy statements wrong?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Shifted back from a tangent on another thread:

Pax Charlie George wrote:

Any hostile action inside of Pax territory, banditry included, is against our laws, agreements, and charters.

The only exception is the activities of our guards, army, and security forces.

If UNC stops you with the express purpose of conducting banditry they are operating outside of our agreement. If they stop you as a security action, they are operating as a security force and not a criminal element.

Pax Areks wrote:

@ Decius - Bluddwolf tried until he was blue in the face to make this abundantly clear. We also tried to make it clear, repeatedly. No bandit activity in Pax lands. Period. UNC and other authorized groups will use the SAD mechanic to peform interdiction only.

It can't get clearer than that.

Bluddwolf wrote:

1. Inside of Pax territory, that Grey is effectively blue, and they will not be attacked by UNC (incoming or outgoing).

Outside of Pax territory, Blue is still Blue. UNLESS Blue is trading with Pax's enemy, then Blue is Red.

Red is dead, inside or outside of Pax territory.

Now the UNC may have a Red that is not Red to Pax, or vice versa. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.

From my understanding then, Pax's security policy is that anyone hostile to UNC is subject to 'security interdiction', and/or Pax is hostile to them. Is my interpretation of the multiple interacting policy statements wrong?

Yes, it is.

I will re-edit it so that it rings more true:

Pax's security policy is that anyone hostile to Callambea and/or the Xeilian Empire is subject to 'security interdiction'

UNC will not be determining by whim who we as an empire will put on a "red list"

Goblin Squad Member

When Pax/UNC people mention interdiction, what exactly does that entail? In other words, what is an interdiction, and what will it be used for? Sorry if that's been clarified already.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
When Pax/UNC people mention interdiction, what exactly does that entail? In other words, what is an interdiction, and what will it be used for? Sorry if that's been clarified already.

I think Pagan put it best in the Unsanctioned Thread

ZenPagan wrote:

Interdiction however covers a range of options. These will cover a spectrum from

automatic attack kill and loot (usually reserved for red targets)

all the way through to

Stop and question (probably done via a copper piece sad) then either released to go on their way or asked to visit Callambea or Golgotha to explain themselves.

These actions though will be carried out under empire direction as part of the Empire's law enforcement and security regime


An interdiction can consist of many things Shane

At the most extreme end the order will be stop kill and loot, (mostly reserved for those at the Red status with the Xeilian empire

At the softest end it will merely be a stop and question before either releasing to go on their way or escorting them to our nearest settlement for further questioning.

Interdiction will be targeted via intelligence received and a status list of who is red to us. UNC will be there to protect honest merchants within the lands of the empire

Goblin Squad Member

Okay, so it's definitely confronting the person, but how specifically they're confronted is not defined by use of the term "interdiction". Thank you for the clarification.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

So, when Bluddwolf said "Now the UNC may have a Red that is not Red to Pax, or vice versa. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.", he was mistaken?

One consequence of the interaction between all of these policy statements is that UNC may not behave in the manner they say is directed towards Red within the boundaries of the Xeilian Empire unless the Xeilian Empire considers those targets KOS. By extension, anyone NOT KOS to the Xeilian Empire is also not Red to UNC, as used here.


UNC may well have a list of Reds to them, they are free to follow this list outside the boundaries of the Empire (with the exception that no blue to the empire organisation should be on their red list)

All those on the empire Red list will probably be KoS. This list will consist largely of people we consider ourselves in a state of conflict with. The status on red is unlikely to be permanent but open to negotiation at future dates

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

So, when Bluddwolf said "Now the UNC may have a Red that is not Red to Pax, or vice versa. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.", he was mistaken?

I will not speak for UNC, but I would also not be so quick to say he was mistaken.

UNC might have a red that is not red to Pax (Aeternum or Golgotha) or our other allied settlements.

That might then be aired either with Aeternum or the Xeilian Empire depending on the situation. If no resolution is found then a dissolution might be in order.

That would constitute "crossing that bridge"

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

So, when Bluddwolf said "Now the UNC may have a Red that is not Red to Pax, or vice versa. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.", he was mistaken?

One consequence of the interaction between all of these policy statements is that UNC may not behave in the manner they say is directed towards Red within the boundaries of the Xeilian Empire unless the Xeilian Empire considers those targets KOS. By extension, anyone NOT KOS to the Xeilian Empire is also not Red to UNC, as used here.

As I said, we will cross that bridge when we get to it. I can't imagine that if you are Red to Pax, you won't be red to UNC. But even if that were the case, in Pax lands, we would not pass up the opportunity to attack anyone that is red to Pax.

Outside of Pax territory, we will attack whomever we choose, unless they are blue to Pax / UNC.

Unless it is Green Hat Tuesday! Then if you are wearing a green hat, no matter who you are, we will kill you. We will kill each other on Green Hat Tuesday.

Green Hat Tuesday is a holiday when all of the server's population are encouraged to spread their Chaotic Evil wings and sore to new heights of depravity... all culminating in lighting a giant bonfire, dancing naked in the moonlight, and we shall burn Hobs on the stake, the flames stoked by our green hats.

Then and only then shall he ascend, the Patron Saint of the Green Hat!

Goblinworks Executive Founder

A 'resolution' to an internal discussion which results in a change in policy already announced to outsiders is a policy change. I'm not going to say that a policy change is inappropriate in such circumstances- I think it's the very most appropriate thing to do.

That's part of why I have been slightly evasive and haven't been making hard policy statements; I fully expect that what I currently believe to be true will not be what I believe to be true at the beginning of EE.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


As I said, we will cross that bridge when we get to it. I can't imagine that if you are Red to Pax, you won't be red to UNC. But even if that were the case, in Pax lands, we would not pass up the opportunity to attack anyone that is red to Pax.

And if they are attacking someone that is red listed to Pax, they are doing so with the full support of the settlement.

Bluddwolf wrote:


Outside of Pax territory, we will attack whomever we choose, unless they are blue to Pax / UNC.

That was the agreement, grey lists can contact diplomatic channels to make the move from grey to blue, and secure UNC safe access in the mean time to Pax lands.

Otherwise UNC wants a vehicle to conduct banditry and raiding. Disallowing that outside of Pax lands would be akin to asking them to rebrand themselves to something completely different than their stated goals.

We can, and plan to, have accepted targets outside our lands during wartimes or the build up to war conditions. UNC has accepted this proposition completely.

Now the question is can we provide enough letters of marque to significantly lesson random UNC banditry generally? That would be a crossing bridge situation yet again.


Our terms of accord with UNC, as do all our terms of agreement with any sponsored chartered company provide for dissolution of the alliance by either side

A sample Terms of agreement document can be found here (note still a work in progress and it is a document that is custom tailored during alliance negotiations)

Terms of agreement template.

Dissolution is therefore a remedy already considered and included in policy documents

Goblin Squad Member

Terms of alliance not agreement. Same principle =)

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


Green Hat Tuesday is a holiday when all of the server's population are encouraged to spread their Chaotic Evil wings and sore to new heights of depravity... all culminating in lighting a giant bonfire, dancing naked in the moonlight, and we shall burn Hobs on the stake, the flames stoked by our green hats.

Then and only then shall he ascend, the Patron Saint of the Green Hat!

...so if Hobs agrees, does that constitute being

Ryan Dancey wrote:
called on to take one for the team

or will his commitment be put into question if he simply

Bluddwolf wrote:
Puts on "Green Hat of Fire Resistance"

to avoid a chaotic act and maintain his own reputation score...

:)

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we are beating the dead horse into hamburger here. I also know that a lot of these questions is meant to drive a wedge between PAX and the UNC.

Simply put this alliance is to keep PAX lands and friends safe and provide a home for the UNC.

Im not sure how many ways this can be said, but it has been said to the extreme.

Goblin Squad Member

As a policy the UNC will state, there will always be the possibility of an extreme case exception.

DeciousBrutus is trying to tie Pax / UNC down to a very specific and iron-clad rule, and then a year from now he will produce a post (out of context) and point the finger at it as being a lie and or simply inconsistent.

I reserve the right as a CN to be consistently inconsistent if that serves the circumstance to the greatest benefit to my Company, Settlement, Empire or myself.

251 to 300 of 304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Kingdom of Aeternum and the UnNamed Company- Terms of Alliance All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.