UNC Policy Discussion Thread


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 687 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

As many know, or will soon learn, I don't shy away from expressing my beliefs or the policies that the UnNamed Company will look to follow. Also be aware that these will develop over time and some may radically change based on Dev Blogs, Dev Posts and of course once the game is released.

If you have any questions of the UNC concerning our policies, you are welcome to ask them here.

Goblin Squad Member

Prompted from a post, a discussion on the River Freedom: "You Have What You Hold" is now open:

Andius wrote:

Perhaps. My interpretation is it's acceptable to and "honorable" steal that old lady's rocking chair as long as you grab her and hurl her out of it from the front instead of pushing her out from behind.

The only redeeming feature is I would also think it means it's ok if I then come along and take that rocking chair and bash your head in with it, provided I come from in-front of you. I wouldn't bank on me coming from the front though. ;)

The River Freedom, "You Have What You Hold", does not say that theft is honorable. What it says is that in comparison to theft (by slight-of-hand or guile), robbery is more praiseworthy because the victim has the opportunity to defend themselves.

The freedom also does not differentiate between attacking from "the front" or from "behind", it makes no mention of any prohibition of ambush tactics at all.

So, in your scenario of the little old lady, she has the opportunity to fight to retain what she holds. If she is incapable, that is her own fault for not hiring suitable protection. In the River Kingdoms the "sheep" have an obligation to understand that there are wolves, and they look to prey upon the sheep.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
As many know, or will soon learn, I don't shy away from expressing my beliefs...

But your avatar gives the impression that you're a shy, reserved person... :)

Goblin Squad Member

Hobs the Short wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
As many know, or will soon learn, I don't shy away from expressing my beliefs...
But your avatar gives the impression that you're a shy, reserved person... :)

That is only because I am not wearing the "Green Bonnet of Extraordinary Meekness", which I robbed from that little old lady. To her credit she did leave denture imprints on my leather bracer, she failed to draw blood, which was fortunate for her. I was lenient with her and only left her for dead.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
That is only because I am not wearing the "Green Bonnet of Extraordinary Meekness", which I robbed from that little old lady.

For some reason, that made me think of Firefly: "if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you."

Goblin Squad Member

Deianira wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
That is only because I am not wearing the "Green Bonnet of Extraordinary Meekness", which I robbed from that little old lady.

For some reason, that made me think of Firefly: "if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you."

I have the uncontrolled weakness of Favoriting any post that references Firefly!

Goblin Squad Member

Wouldn't that be a fun character. PvP-centric little old lady who goes around daring others to pick a fight with her meek appearance!

@Bludd, I brought up in another thread that if your group has a policy of being hostile to every person encountered in a wartime enemy's territory you might enstrange or even make enemies of others who are there to cause havoc like you. Just curious if you guys have considered that in light of your official stance on that particular subject (not that this particular nuance of policy will affect me much, as I don't plan to cause much havoc).

Goblin Squad Member

@ Shane,

Within a War Time Enemy's Territory, the UNC will have the following objectives:

1. To kill any enemy war targets we find

2. To diminish the enemy's settlement DI through the raiding of her outposts, POIs and committing any other crimes that we can conceive of.

3. To blockade their settlement, ensuring that nothing that would aid their war effort gets in.

* Blue to Pax / UNC will be warned to stay clear
* Grey will also be warned to stay clear, but perhaps also SAD'd if our greed overtakes our discretion.
* Red is dead!

For outgoing traffic:

* Blue to Pax / UNC will be interdicted and questioned.
* Grey, if refugees, will be allowed passage out of zone.
* Grey, if caravan, will be interdicted and SAD'd, thus granting them
save passage out for having paid an exit toll.
* Red is dead!

It is my hope that grey or blue merchants either stay out of war zones or they recognize that there are increased risks for entering them.

I also anticipate that war zones, regardless of who the warring parties are, is going to be a cluster F&$% of chaotic carnage. Active war zones will be the magnet that the Chaotic, particularly the Chaotic Evil, will flock to.

At least the UNC is announcing a few codes of conduct that will hope to follow. Blue = Pretty Safe, Grey = Not so much, Red = Not at all.

I will also note that I detect a bit of a false assumption on your part. If you know of any settlements that are willing to allow neutrals to supply their enemies, in a time of war, without hinderance, I have not seen any claim that that will be the case.

To be honest, UNC is the most open about our intentions than any company on these boards. I'm hoping this type of thread changes that, so we can get a better view of the various companies / settlements in PFO.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I fully expect that when UNC is acting in their capacity as official Pax soldiers/mercenaries/privateers/thugs, they will accord themselves in the manner which most effectively supports Pax goals.

How will the UNC compose themselves when you do not have a target or targets determined by those above you in your chain of command?

Goblin Squad Member

If a merchant reports to the UNC that they got waylaid by bandits (non-UNC bandits) and the UNC tracks down these bandits and recovers the merchants goods, what do you do with the goods?

Return them? Keep it all? Take some as a fee?

Does your answer change if the merchant is blue vs. grey?

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks for the response. I do not intend to do any business in war zones myself (or at least, none that I'll admit too :P), and I was fishing for general impressions on how greys will be treated, out of curiosity more than anything.

Also thank you for keeping your organization open and honest. Nice to have people who are up front about their intentions and don't take a game like this too seriously.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Rafkin wrote:

If a merchant reports to the UNC that they got waylaid by bandits (non-UNC bandits) and the UNC tracks down these bandits and recovers the merchants goods, what do you do with the goods?

Return them? Keep it all? Take some as a fee?

Does your answer change if the merchant is blue vs. grey?

First, who is the merchant affiliated with? This will have the greatest impact on my answer.

If he is a member of Pax, his goods will be returned in full (after whatever is destroyed from the action).

If the merchant was grey to either Pax or UNC, it would depend on where he was initially waylaid. If in Pax territory, then we would search for the bandits inside if Pax territory and interdict them. Anything recovered would be returned to the merchant. If the bandits had left Pax territory, we would return a portion of the loot, keeping a small amount as a recovery fee for our troubles. If the merchant was waylaid outside of Pax territory, not our problem..... He's SOL.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
How will the UNC compose themselves when you do not have a target or targets determined by those above you in your chain of command?

Outside of Pax territory and outside of official Pax warfare, the UNC is completely autonomous. We are also not a part of Pax Aeternum's chain of command, we are a contracted mercenary company.

Are you now a subordinate to the commands of the Covenant of the Phoenix?


Bluddwolf wrote:
Pax Rafkin wrote:

If a merchant reports to the UNC that they got waylaid by bandits (non-UNC bandits) and the UNC tracks down these bandits and recovers the merchants goods, what do you do with the goods?

Return them? Keep it all? Take some as a fee?

Does your answer change if the merchant is blue vs. grey?

First, who is the merchant affiliated with? This will have the greatest impact on my answer.

If he is a member of Pax, his goods will be returned in full (after whatever is destroyed from the action).

Which would be about 6.25% of it, assuming it was on their person and not in caravans. The math here is: 25% of 25%. It might not even be worth Bludd's time to go and return it.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Pax Rafkin wrote:

If a merchant reports to the UNC that they got waylaid by bandits (non-UNC bandits) and the UNC tracks down these bandits and recovers the merchants goods, what do you do with the goods?

Return them? Keep it all? Take some as a fee?

Does your answer change if the merchant is blue vs. grey?

First, who is the merchant affiliated with? This will have the greatest impact on my answer.

If he is a member of Pax, his goods will be returned in full (after whatever is destroyed from the action).

Which would be about 6.25% of it, assuming it was on their person and not in caravans. The math here is: 25% of 25%. It might not even be worth Bludd's time to go and return it.

The amount isn't the point, the obligation is. If a member if pax is looted by bandits, and UNC has the opportunity to kill the bandits and return what is left of the goods, that is all we can do.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Are you now a subordinate to the commands of the Covenant of the Phoenix?

Negative.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Pax Rafkin wrote:

If a merchant reports to the UNC that they got waylaid by bandits (non-UNC bandits) and the UNC tracks down these bandits and recovers the merchants goods, what do you do with the goods?

Return them? Keep it all? Take some as a fee?

Does your answer change if the merchant is blue vs. grey?

First, who is the merchant affiliated with? This will have the greatest impact on my answer.

If he is a member of Pax, his goods will be returned in full (after whatever is destroyed from the action).

Which would be about 6.25% of it, assuming it was on their person and not in caravans. The math here is: 25% of 25%. It might not even be worth Bludd's time to go and return it.

I was assuming they had lost a wagon load. If they're upset about the little bit lost from their body then they're in the wrong line of work.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Qallz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Pax Rafkin wrote:

If a merchant reports to the UNC that they got waylaid by bandits (non-UNC bandits) and the UNC tracks down these bandits and recovers the merchants goods, what do you do with the goods?

Return them? Keep it all? Take some as a fee?

Does your answer change if the merchant is blue vs. grey?

First, who is the merchant affiliated with? This will have the greatest impact on my answer.

If he is a member of Pax, his goods will be returned in full (after whatever is destroyed from the action).

Which would be about 6.25% of it, assuming it was on their person and not in caravans. The math here is: 25% of 25%. It might not even be worth Bludd's time to go and return it.

Wrong math- 25% is destroyed each time, 75% is retained. That would be 75% of 75%, or 3/4 times 3/4: 9/16, a little bit more than half. Minus the 'finder's fee', probably about 1/16 of the original total, not counting losses due to lack of carrying capacity.


DeciusBrutus wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Pax Rafkin wrote:

If a merchant reports to the UNC that they got waylaid by bandits (non-UNC bandits) and the UNC tracks down these bandits and recovers the merchants goods, what do you do with the goods?

Return them? Keep it all? Take some as a fee?

Does your answer change if the merchant is blue vs. grey?

First, who is the merchant affiliated with? This will have the greatest impact on my answer.

If he is a member of Pax, his goods will be returned in full (after whatever is destroyed from the action).

Which would be about 6.25% of it, assuming it was on their person and not in caravans. The math here is: 25% of 25%. It might not even be worth Bludd's time to go and return it.
Wrong math- 25% is destroyed each time, 75% is retained. That would be 75% of 75%, or 3/4 times 3/4: 9/16, a little bit more than half. Minus the 'finder's fee', probably about 1/16 of the original total, not counting losses due to lack of carrying capacity.

Really? I thought it was 75% was destroyed and 25% was lootable? Well if you're right then it would be about 56% that was recovered.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Are you now a subordinate to the commands of the Covenant of the Phoenix?

T7V is not part of CotP. We will probably be on good terms with them through TEO but with what I have read from CotP website, T7V wouldn't fit into their organization.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
I thought it was 75% was destroyed and 25% was lootable?

It was, for a while.

When you die, approximately 25% of unthreaded items on your body are immediately destroyed.

(Previously, death caused a 75% loss if you got looted or 0% if you made it back to your body first.)

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Really? I thought it was 75% was destroyed and 25% was lootable? Well if you're right then it would be about 56% that was recovered.

Yes, and if that was originally a Pax merchant, he or she would get back from UNC the whole 56% if lost and recovered in Pax territory.

If recovered outside of Pax territory, we would likely keep the 6% as a finder's fee to cover our time and expenses (if any). Inside of Pax territory we recover for free as a Chaotic Good act, to balance out any Chaotic Evil acts we may have committed or plan on committing ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

Thanks for the response. I do not intend to do any business in war zones myself (or at least, none that I'll admit too :P), and I was fishing for general impressions on how greys will be treated, out of curiosity more than anything.

Also thank you for keeping your organization open and honest. Nice to have people who are up front about their intentions and don't take a game like this too seriously.

I know what you meant, but...Hmmm... oh well, never mind.... LOL

The UNC has been looking very seriously at how we will fit our desired game play into the various systems that are being rolled out.

It now seems that there are clear advantages to focusing on raiding outposts, as compared to caravans. Much of the UNC membership are actually current and former military, and we literally stepped out of Mechwarrior Online to PFO with a very tactical mindset.

As described by the devs, attacking fixed targets will benefit greatly from observing patterns of movement, and then striking at the most opportune time. This is the kind of banditry / raiding I have been looking for for years in many different MMOs.

Don't let the Chaotic Neutral/Evil alignment fool any of you. The UNC will be a tactically efficient and deadly strike team.

Goblin Squad Member

No worries, I know you know what I meant, and even though you said something which might imply that you didn't know what I meant, I know you know what I meant because you said so indirectly as well. :P

In other words, I'm glad you aren't being super secretive and uptight when the game is still quite a ways off. Although the boards do have those moments where I need to stop myself from posting a hostile response, the vast majority of it is not like that, and most of the posts are constructive, thoughtful, and/or fun. It says a lot that the UNC and I will likely be at odds in a lot of cases, and have been in several discussions, but I don't feel the least bit of animosity towards the organization as a whole.

Goblin Squad Member

Care to break down UNC's interpretation and policies toward the River Freedoms?

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Care to break down UNC's interpretation and policies toward the River Freedoms?

Yes, that will be available in a few hours. Also, thank you for doing the same on your thread, that was all I was interested in. Your discussion was much appreciated and as I said in the deleted post, I believe we have common ground on various issues.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree. In fact, the root of our respective association's...ummm, rivalries, is our opinion on fundamental mechanics. Once GW defines those mechanics, we will have no grounds for disagreement.

I bet we find ourselves later in positions of mutual respect...if not outright friendship. Perhaps allied against the OE onslaught.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

We must all be wary of the villains that will poor in through the "OE" portal. After all, there's no reason we can't all be friends outside the game while acknowledging that we will be fighting tooth and nail over in game philosophy differences. After all, someone must stand as a beacon of light to shine upon UNC's banditry and rivers of blood!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's always better to fight with people you know will buy you an ale later

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rival: An enemy you like.

Goblin Squad Member

The UnNamed Company's View on the River Freedoms:

Source: The Six River Freedoms

Quote:

The Six River Freedoms

Frequently invoked—and occasionally trampled—the River Freedoms are the ideological backbone for common Riverfolk. Outsiders who expect to lead Riverfolk must quickly make themselves aware of the subtleties of the River Freedoms, as those who repeatedly f lout a beloved freedom find themselves deposed by a mob. Indeed, the River Freedoms find their most curious interpretations in the folkways of common Riverfolk. A quick-witted wag who quotes a freedom to justify her actions can sway hearts to accept the most egregious behavior, and a misinterpretation of words can get an honest paladin driven out with malice.

Philosophers and scholars who study the political landscapes of the River Kingdoms rank the River Freedoms in order from least to most grave—after all, no one seriously believes in unfettered freedom to speak at all times. However, slavery is as serious an offense here as in Andoran, and nothing is so sacred to Riverfolk as the freedom to keep what one holds.

Although the prologue implies loose interpretations and flexibilities, the UNC tends more towards a more strict interpretation.

Quote:

Say What You Will, I Live Free:

The freedom to speak is not the same as freedom from consequences of speech. Outsiders, drunkards, and fools are the only ones who vocally invoke this freedom. All others respect it, and live with it accordingly.

Still, criticism of government is more common here than in other lands. Cruel despots occasionally get an earful from their subjects, and the wise ones do not harshly punish such vocal rabble. In the River Kingdoms, subjects are earned by withstanding criticism rather than suppressing it. Pride sometimes intervenes, but a long-lasting lord is one who lets tongues wag.

This freedom is especially tantalizing for bards and anyone using charm magic. No one attempts to limit a spellcaster’s speech, and a silence spell is a suspicious abrogation of rights.

The UNC welcomes all speech, including the voices of descent. Within our own circle (UNC Forums) we can say anything, without limitations. On the Paizo Forums, we follow the rules as best we can.

In-game we will exercise free speech and receive free speech with one cautionary understanding:

"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

~Robert E. Howard

We are savages. You may exercise your free speech, but we may split your skull if we don't like what you say

Quote:

Oathbreakers Die:

The flip side of free speech in the River Kingdoms is the gravity of oath-breaking. Petty liars are common, but in a land where tomorrow can bring a gang of mercenaries, the people in charge must know whom they can trust. Common oaths include “I swear by the Sellen,” “May Hanspur take my sons,” and “My freedom is my bond.”

Riverfolk who undertake oaths of this nature keep them, or die trying. This attitude trickles down to business transactions, but can ironically make things more difficult— it’s hard to get a Riverfolk trader to fully commit to anything. Standard contracts contain a “Gyronna clause” which voids a contract in case of unforeseen calamity. This would seem a perfect dodge for scoundrels, but associating with Gyronna is the worst omen a Riverfolk trader can invoke. No one deals with a trader who admits affliction by Gyronna, lest the association rub off.

The UNC Oath preceding all interactions is as follows:

"On Coin, Blade and Pain of Blood"

Once we give this oath we will follow through on whatever interaction we have accepted. It loosely means, You are buying our blades and we will spill blood for you, sacrifice our own blood for you, until the terms of the agreement are met or breached.

Quote:

Walk Any Road, Float Any River:

This freedom implies no safety while traveling, especially from the local lord. It merely prevents lords from blocking land and water travel, or charging tolls for passing (except for non-Riverfolk). Of course, any ruler who doesn’t want people on his roads can bar them without erecting a single block—threats, bribes, political pressure, or hiring “bandits” are just as effective.

However, in practice, it means no lord can take his or her people for granted. Most Riverfolk do not leave their homes for anything but essential travel, no matter who is in charge (and poor Riverfolk usually have nowhere else to go), but they might still move to a new kingdom if their lord is abusive. This escape is rarely necessary. A lord who wants a functioning kingdom knows not to treat subjects too harshly, or the best ones will disappear, leaving a half-empty kingdom behind.

Quite simply, we are not Lords, but we are bandits. What the Freedom disallows a Lord, it grants him or her to hire us to do.

Quote:

Courts Are for Kings:

Buried midway down the list is one that undergirds them all: law within the River Kingdoms is malleable, and the rulers of a kingdom do as they wish. In their lands, one must obey. Whether a visitor is a commoner or a neighboring king, all are subject to a lord’s law within his own territory, and anyone who disobeys must be prepared for punishment or a declaration of war.

As a result, rulers seldom visit each other directly. Intermediaries do the talking, even when lords are scant miles away. When face-to-face negotiations occur, the monarchs often take great pains to protect their own sovereignty, even going so far as to set up camp tents on shared borders, talking across a rope line hung with pennants from both kingdoms. The major exception is the yearly Outlaw Council, where the meeting hall is considered politically neutral.

The UNC rules are not many, the oath being the primary. Our court is the open field of battle. Our punishment is the running of a gauntlet. (game details will possibly alter this).

Quote:

Slavery is an Abomination:

Nothing is so secure in the River Kingdoms as freedom for escaped saves. Unlike Andorens, Riverfolk won’t leave their homes to free slaves, but a runaway in the River Kingdoms is a slave no more.

Some estimates say that one-third of the Riverfolk alive today are escaped slaves or descendants of slaves. Riverfolk welcome thousands of escaped slaves to all kingdoms each year, to fill ranks in armies and agriculture. Escaped slaves are usually the fiercest proponents of the River Freedoms, as these conventions are the first taste of freedom in their new lives.

Because of this freedom, Hellknights of the Order of the Chain and other slave-takers cannot operate openly here, and any Andoren Eagle Knight can dispel most Riverfolk’s natural distrust of strangers by showing her insignia—and get a free drink and a barn to sleep in.

Depending on the local custom, this abolition can extend to indentured servitude. Spellcasters are warned to be circumspect when summoning monsters in the River Kingdoms, lest their magic be misinterpreted.

The UNC will only participate in the capture of NPC workers belonging to a settlement that we are currently at war with. Our intent is not necessarily to harm the enslaved, but to further damage the DI of our enemy. However if the coin associated with the slave trade is lucrative enough, our greed may over take our moral standing on the issue.

Quote:

You Have What You Hold:

In contrast to many other civilizations on Golarion, this freedom draws a moral distinction between robbery and mere stealing. Taking something by force is considered acceptable, even begrudgingly praiseworthy. Burglary, on the other hand, is punishable under common law. The difference is in allowing a victim the ability to resist, the opportunity to face his or her robber, and to plan for repossession if so desired. This allows for a rough honesty, letting Riverfolk know and face their enemies.

This freedom is the foundation of the UNC. We believe that if you want to keep what you have, you will have to fight for it. If you lose, it is rightfully ours. If you can take it back, it is then rightfully yours again.

* Note: Game Mechanics MAY alter some of these belief systems.


Bluddwolf wrote:
This freedom is the foundation of the UNC. We believe that if you want to keep what you have, you will have to fight for it. If you lose, it is rightfully ours. If you can take it back, it is then rightfully yours again.

I like that rule.

Goblin Squad Member

If the PAX and UNC alliance becomes so effective that they hold sway over a huge amount of land and by extension, characters, will UNC still look to continually rob and harry all PAX enemies and allies of their enemies? That is, is total domination of the River Kingdoms a possibility if the opposition is fragmented/useless/disengaged and PAX suddenly end up controlling most of the map?


@Jiminy

Pax certainly does not have total control of the map on its agenda for the reason that it would actually make the game pretty boring.

We do however intend to be a strong power and certainly aim to be one of the dominant powers of the River kingdoms. We believe though that being a big organised power is good for the game especially in early enrollment because it will make others look at us and go "Uh oh better get organised or we will get crushed when settlement warfare comes". This will mean that come Open enrollment when the flood gates open that the new entrants will come in to find not a lot of small disparate groups who have got used to each other during early enrollment but several well organised strong groupings. This to my mind makes it harder for a open enrollment group to come in and steamroller.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not actually worried that PAX/UNC are out to 'take over the world', and actively welcome big groups (hopefully several) into the game. I was more ruminating on a hypothetical situation where those other groups didn't eventuate, left, sucked...whatever it may be, and PAX suddenly found themselves in a very powerful position.

Would they and UNC push for total dominance or back off and deliberately allow other groups/settlements to grow and become adversaries?

I ask PAX as opposed to TEO, as the alliances being formed out of game seems more 'evil' oriented and therefore more aligned (from a RP perspective) to the weal and woe type of play. It might actually turn out that Andius is a psychopathic dictator that wants to crush any spark of free-will under his military jackboot - all in the name of 'good', but from a pure RP perspective that isn't as likely as an 'evil' based alliance.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

As a member of TEO, and a leader of one of its sub branches, I can assure you that Andius firstly has no such intentions, and secondly would march alone.

More to the point of the thread: will it be possible to pay the UNC a flat monthly fee, as protection? If you offer a SAD, are you also offering protection through "your" territory?


Jiminy wrote:


I ask PAX as opposed to TEO, as the alliances being formed out of game seems more 'evil' oriented and therefore more aligned (from a RP perspective) to the weal and woe type of play.

I wanted to correct this. While I understand the perception of where this comes from it is certainly not the correct view. Currently alliances have been made between Aeternum and some evil groups such as UNC,Golgotha etc. This is though just how the timeline has worked out so far. The empire we are forming (see the empire of Xeilias thread) will be overall neutral and we intend to have some good aligned groups and maybe a settlement if we can to balance out the evil elements. It just happens though that the good aligned do not seem to be organising themselves as yet and are mostly taking a wait and see approach.

@Alexander

Anyone coming into Empire lands to trade is basically safe from UNC (providing you are not red) and in our lands UNC will be providing anti bandit operations to ensure our lands remain bandit free.

Outside of Pax lands you will remain safe from UNC (outside of enemy territory where they will take the view that your prescence their is evidence of trading with our enemy) if you are blue to the Empire.

If you are outside of Empire lands and are grey to the Empire (neutral) then you are subject to UNC as bandits should they be out looking for tempting targets.

UNC may be willing to take a protection fee from neutrals, that is a matter for negotiation between those neutrals and UNC however and not subject to the auspices of the empire so ask Bludd (however we will probably expect those agreements to be voided should you move into red status with the empire)

Goblin Squad Member

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
More to the point of the thread: will it be possible to pay the UNC a flat monthly fee, as protection? If you offer a SAD, are you also offering protection through "your" territory?

That would be a contract which fits within the plans that the UNC have always had. Just note that there will be a limit as to how many such contracts that we will maintain at any given time. If there are 45 companies, maybe only 15 contracts, so as not to limit our target population too much.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, @Jiminy concerning your question about if PAX/UNC takes over the world. The UNC point of view on this matter would be that, Should PAX/UNC take over the world, then there is less and less (and maybe none) money to be made as all would be blue towards PAX and therefor to UNC. At this point (or perhaps prior to this point) when this alliance no longer becomes profitable to the UNC, there is a clause in our agreement that allows us to leave and be on our own, or to join another that suits our greedy needs. If/when that happens, all blues that were blue simply because of being blue to PAX, would become grey to UNC and therefore open targets no matter where they roam.

Bottom line is this, if targets become scarce for any reason, this goes against everything the UNC stands for and we will cancel agreements and treaties until targets once again are plentiful.

Goblin Squad Member

This was the answer I was hoping for (and expecting).

In the days of yore, when games predominately only had text (shocking, no?), I played the Guild Master of the Thieves Guild in a MUD, and one of our mottos was that it was better to have 100 marks to target and patiently wait for the careless or unguarded ones, that have 1 heavily guarded and highly wary mark, even if they were stinking rich.

Goblin Squad Member

We (the UNC) concur with that idea.

Goblin Squad Member

With so much discussion taking placed, based on some of Ryan Dancey's recent posts, the UNC will be having our own internal discussions about our role during EE.

The revelation that there will likely be no alignment or reputation systems in place until late EE or early OE, will be quite an interesting proposition for the UNC.

Do we as a company set a precedents and operate as if both systems are in place, and possibly show they are not needed?

Do we go hog wild, free for all, and perhaps have loads of fun now but at the expense of a more limiting system later?

Do we take a more moderate approach and just go with whatever seems a good idea at the moment?


Jiminy wrote:

This was the answer I was hoping for (and expecting).

In the days of yore, when games predominately only had text (shocking, no?), I played the Guild Master of the Thieves Guild in a MUD, and one of our mottos was that it was better to have 100 marks to target and patiently wait for the careless or unguarded ones, that have 1 heavily guarded and highly wary mark, even if they were stinking rich.

How do you PvP in a text-game exactly? You just tell the other player what you're doing to them?

Goblin Squad Member

text based games were simply games where you have to type or select from options (1, 2, 3 ect.) in order to do an action, where in "modern" games you click a button on a hotbar after selecting your target. PVP in a MUD was done through "swing at [player name]" or "Attack [player name]"

Does that clear it up for ya qallz?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

Do we go hog wild, free for all, and perhaps have loads of fun now but at the expense of a more limiting system later?

Do we take a more moderate approach and just go with whatever seems a good idea at the moment?

Just say "No" to being murderhobos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
"The Goodfellow" wrote:

text based games were simply games where you have to type or select from options (1, 2, 3 ect.) in order to do an action, where in "modern" games you click a button on a hotbar after selecting your target. PVP in a MUD was done through "swing at [player name]" or "Attack [player name]"

Does that clear it up for ya qallz?

Yea, that sounds pretty sweet. I need to have Chinese food and vintage video games Friday for these types of things.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Do we go hog wild, free for all, and perhaps have loads of fun now but at the expense of a more limiting system later?

Do we take a more moderate approach and just go with whatever seems a good idea at the moment?

Just say "No" to being murderhobos.

I have never heard that term before, but I like it!!!

Goblin Squad Member

Because it is EE, the game is coming out and it will not be complete.

Reputation and Alignment are not needed to have a playable game.

We all invested in the game knowing full well that it would not be complete.

Project Manager

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. The Paizo boards have a 100%, no-exceptions policy against using "rape" to mean anything other than actual coerced sexual contact. Using it to indicate loss in a game or loss of money is unacceptable here.

1 to 50 of 687 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / UNC Policy Discussion Thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.