Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Roseblood Accord is a group of sovereign player organizations united not under central authority, but in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members. It is our belief that positive gameplay improves everyone’s experience, and we are dedicated to providing a place in Pathfinder Online where players who seek such an experience can find it. Towards that end, we have come together to announce our intentions to the community, and to invite all who share these goals to join us.
I think the vast majority of the "confusion" around the Roseblood Accord stems from deliberate actions by people who consider The Empyrean Order and The Seventh Veil their enemies.
The phrase "sovereign player organizations united not under central authority" should have been sufficient to inform the reader that there was no central authority, and that each signatory retained their sovereignty and independence.
The phrase "promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members" should have been sufficient to inform the reader that we have no intention to force anyone else to abide by our definitions of positive gameplay or our definitions of mutual success.
To be honest, I am utterly amazed that the Roseblood Accord has as many signatories as it does. Our hope was to make friends with people who already knew they shared our values, and to invite them to try to settle near us so that we might have a chance of accomplishing our goals.
The primary purpose of the Roseblood Accord was to inform the community of where TEO and T7V were settling and why we chose the area, and to invite others to come settle near us if they thought we'd make good neighbors. It was never intended to be a proto-Alliance, although it was naturally recognized that some Signatories might also join together to form Alliances with each other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...vague cover of plausible deniablility over a defacto alliance between an unspecified subset of the membership...
I honestly wish you'd been there at the drafting. I see no way what happened on Teamspeak among 20+ people from half-a-dozen more-or-less organised groups could end up as a defacto *anything*, as this conversation shows.
Everyone expressed lots of opinions, lots of suggestions, lots of word-choices, and we ended up where we ended up. No one got everything, no one got nothing, but we certainly didn't end up with any deniability--plausible or otherwise--nor any alliance.
As for the subset of membership, reading this thread demonstrates how many subsets of membership there are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes to what Nihimon just wrote. The Roseblood Accord was designed to "make friends on the playground". For that purpose it has been a huge success. It was designed to make a call out to those who felt they had values similar to ours. It was also designed to create a space where those friends could begin to make more concrete plans on how to coordinate in game. In that space it has also been a raging success. Along the way others have joined and made friends with us, some of them strictly drawn to the positive game play and others more drawn to establishing in game alliances.
We don't see what's wrong with that, again we were just making friends. It's a vague document designed for making friends during the pre-game phase of Pathfinder Online. It is not exact and many members have their own interpretations of what it means.
Up until now, there isn't any interpretation from an actual Roseblood member that is incorrect. Some are just more in tune with certain parts of the document. Anybody who is confused and wants to talk to us, the INVITATION IS STILL OPEN. Those that are just trying to tear it down with semantics, can bugger off and suck an egg.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I'm saying is that, when you get in game and one guy is expecting support he isn't receiving because people understood their commitments differently, there might be some avoidable problems. If Nihimon thinks it is about making friends who help each other in-game, Andoucet thinks it's only about non-aggression between signatories, and Toombstone thinks it is purely meta and doesn't involve any in-game relations at all, then this will lead to confusion and hurt feelings when people get in-game (sorry for pulling specific people's names from the thread as examples, but those are the interpretations I've gotten from those people).
It's all well and good to say "we all understand that each person will determine what they think positive gameplay and mutual success mean", but then why get people to sign into an agreement which is essentially meaningless?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The difference between your view and Forencith's (stated up above a bit) is why I don't think the RA really works as a document for people to sign. Personally (and it might just be the Lawful in me talking here) I feel it leaves way too much up to interpretation, and without a clear indication of how it's supposed to be interpreted every person has filled in with a different idea of what it means.
It's working just fine. The heated exchanges over its meaning aren't coming internally it's coming from people on the outside trying force our friendships into predetermined parameters (presumably to attack us and break us better). The actual Accord members don't seem to have any problem with some of us just being friends and others being in game allies.
It's not a traditional relationship, but everyone in it seems to be happy. Sorry to disappoint the armchair analysts out there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I'm saying is that, when you get in game and one guy is expecting support he isn't receiving because people understood their commitments differently, there might be some avoidable problems.
We made it very clear what people should expect.
The Empyrean Order (Brighthaven) and The Seventh Veil (Phaeros) have already been granted our Settlement locations at [04,11] and [00,17] in the southeast corner of the Early Enrollment map. Strictly as a matter of logistics, accord members who establish themselves in this area can expect the most support. Members who choose to settle elsewhere are welcome to join, but should be aware that support may be more difficult to provide.
No one but TEO and T7V made any "commitment" to provide support. And there's really no reason to question that we'll be able to provide it in the way we described unless you're just trying to suggest that TEO and T7V aren't to be trusted, or are doomed to failure.
If Nihimon thinks it is about making friends who help each other in-game, Andoucet thinks it's only about non-aggression between signatories, and Toombstone thinks it is purely meta and doesn't involve any in-game relations at all...
We are all correct. Magistry is under no obligations, but they're focus on the shared values we all have makes it perfectly reasonable for Audoucet to expect they will not attack other Signatories without just cause. After all, we're friends.
... why get people to sign into an agreement which is essentially meaningless?
Why go to all this trouble to express your opinion that the Roseblood Accord is meaningless? Manifestly, those who signed it voluntarily chose to do so because they saw value in it. It deeply saddens me that so many people from so few organizations have made such a concerted effort to try to make them regret doing so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am actually the one who organized the meeting and proposed this, and begin the original draft.....
This was, originally, a statement of intent for Positive Gameplay, in which pretty much anyone could sign. We purposely left out a lot of mechanics and rules writing, because most wanted this to be general, and later, those that didn't want to be in an alliance, but friendly, could.
Right now, TEO only has talked with Dagedai, TSV, KotC, and Hammerfall about non-aggression, specifically. Our policy though is generally non-aggression towards everyone, unless it is warranted. TSV and TEO are the only ones in talk about any type of alliance at this point. KotC, Hammerfall, and TEO are having talks about PoIs and territory, perhaps leading to larger more stable agreements.
Generally, I see the RA as a bit more than friendship, but less than an alliance. Some within the RA have agreed to non-aggression towards others, but it isn't a requisite to being in the RA.
|
Wait a second...
Roseblood Accord only imply that Wheaton's Law in and off game? Only that? No strategic moviments of troops and resouces. No obligate to defend another by meaningfull PvP. No obligate to retaliate a caravan raid from other members? Just to say: "We will be nice with each other"? Still you can attack a friend for only game reasons then?
Well, then it was implying by accepting not playing in Low-Reputation (and therefore no griefing) state, I guess. It's kinda strange call this Pact, Faction, or even a group. Then the criticism of calling those Faction in other threat makes sense now.
After this explanation, seems to me RA is only been generic on terms to show up high numbers, since it's not a real grouping Settlements, it's only an accord of the Reputation game mechanic. Is that it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pretty much, Kemedo.
The way it is leaning, we will probably end up having 2-3 alliances sprout from the current RA membership. All friendly towards each other.
The way I look at the 2-3 alliances, is essentially we might end up having around 2-3 Kingdoms, friendly towards each other, with large trade agreements and non-aggression pacts.
... Nihimon appeared to request that, if Bluddwolf wanted to join, he should keep his bandits from attacking Accordions.I made no such request. My request, repeated in my previous post in the hopes that people would read it, was that he not "initiate hostilities against anyone in the area in and around the southeast mountains". There was no request to avoid Banditry against all Signatories.
Keep reading. That's where the "Technical Difficulties" post originated. :P
It astonishes me that anyone would suggest they should have to seek approval from, or even inform, other Signatories.
It astonishes me that players should not want to explore the in-character motivations behind non-aggression pacts which may or may not exist, but apparently suggesting that gets you a lot of glares around these parts.
I think the vast majority of the "confusion" around the Roseblood Accord stems from...actions by people who consider The Empyrean Order and The Seventh Veil their enemies.
For the record, since I've been getting the impression a lot of people think I fit into this category: The only company I currently have any plans to play hostile towards is, funny enough, the UnNamed Company. I think they'll be a fun bear to poke. The NAP is just an extra little puzzle.
Up until now, there isn't any interpretation from an actual Roseblood member that is incorrect. Some are just more in tune with certain parts of the document. Anybody who is confused and wants to talk to us, the INVITATION IS STILL OPEN. Those that are just trying to tear it down with semantics, can bugger off and suck an egg.
That's racist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly, I would invite all Roseblood Accord organizations that wish to discuss things in further detail to send representatives to the forum hosted by the Keepers of the Circle. Any representative is free to start a conversation on any topic and/or participate in existing discussions.
http://keepersofthecircle.guildlaunch.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=2563523&am p;gid=387175
Secondly, I want to restate what the Keepers have said in the past with regard to our understanding of the Roseblood Accord. I've posted similar in our own forums to ensure we're all on the same page internally.
The Roseblood Accord is, in its entirety, a meta-game agreement regarding how Players, not Characters, choose to play Pathfinder Online. There are no back-door deals, vote rigging, or other such behavior among all members (I can't say if specific individuals have such dealings, but can assure all the Keepers are in no such discussions).
At present, the Keepers of the Circle are not in any non-aggression pact, military alliance, or trade agreement with any other organization. That means that any RA member could indeed attack us. If we want more formal, defined agreements they are to be made on an individual basis with each settlement/CC. RA members are under no compulsion to join such agreements, or in any way favor other RA members. Now, with that said it doesn't prohibit us from favoring them. It's obvious we already have the groundwork laid for other agreements. I likewise see it as very unlikely that an RA group would attack us out of the blue. Further, we do have discussions open to all RA members to help in coordinating things like settlement planning. No RA member is beholden to any other group in taking some specific role or suggestion, we just talk with each other (fairly) openly so we all end up playing the game we'll enjoy. If you want to be part of those discussions, join the Roseblood Accord and we welcome you to the table.
And on a personal note, I most certainly interpret "mutual success" as relating to Player enjoyment of the game, not to Character benefits per se. Further, my personal definition of "mutual success" allows for things like banditry, CC feuds, nation wars, etc. as I see those things as vital parts of the "challenge" in PFO.
Pretty much, Kemedo.
The way it is leaning, we will probably end up having 2-3 alliances sprout from the current RA membership. All friendly towards each other.
The way I look at the 2-3 alliances, is essentially we might end up having around 2-3 Kingdoms, friendly towards each other, with large trade agreements and non-aggression pacts.
The main source of my curiosity is the fact that the RBA welcomes evil organizations, too. If some signatories are planning on leaving all RBA members alone, that might get weird. And what happens if the RBA signatories who haven't decided to go full nonaggression go after those who have? Doesn't that risk hurt feelings?
"Hey, I promised to leave you guys alone!"
"Well, uh, your mistake, 'cause we want that prize pig you've got."
Again, I'm not criticizing. I'm a bit miffed that people seem to regard me with hostility in this matter, but I'm still trying to work things out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Roseblood Accord is, in its entirety, a meta-game agreement regarding how Players, not Characters, choose to play Pathfinder Online. There are no back-door deals, vote rigging, or other such behavior among all members (I can't say if specific individuals have such dealings, but can assure all the Keepers are in no such discussions).
If that is, in fact, the entirety of the R.A. agreement, I will take it to my partners and expect that we will be prepared to commit to it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will wait to see whether the exclusivity problem is addressed and decided. Excluding of "positive gameplay" espousers because of personal or "totally not personal" reasons of some (how many?) RBA members is a turn off for me.
It is not conducive to a grander positive community.
I am only one person though. I will make further decisions when my group decides by majority. Yes Ozem's is a mini faction. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Absolutely Cal. And if they have any questions and would like a personal discussions I'm open to such. I don't jump in on many of the conversations here that devolve down to mud-slinging, as such is generally counter to both the discussion and to long-term acceptance of a person as a credible resource.
It is my hope that my presence on the Paizo forums for years now (as erian_7) has established at least some amount of credibility to my words. I didn't just appear for PFO; I've been here since before Pathfinder existed as a thing. I speak openly and plainly about my understanding of things. You'll always get my honest response to any query.
KC, I think that is a very valid concern, and I would encourage every member organization to (1) clearly understand the nature of the RA, working out any confusion through constructive dialogue and (2) communicate the organizational understanding to all CC/settlement members so they have the same general understanding. There will still be confusion and issues at times, but these will be mitigated and minimized by upfront conversation.
Bringslite, I would note that the invitation to join the RA is open to all. There has been no occurrence where the RA, as a whole, excluded any other organization. There are obvious individual disagreements, but there has absolutely been no concerted effort by the RA to "black list" any group or person. Further, note that the RA doesn't even have a mechanic to exclude a group. All one does to become a member is state such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KC
Think of it like this.
RA is essentially a group of like minded individual organizations that really have similar thoughts on the way the game should be played. Not everyone agrees on every point, but the vast majority agree on a majority of points. Thus we all promote positive gameplay.
Now, since these groups agreed to promote positive gameplay, it makes the signatories feel a bit more at ease with those that agreed. Thus laying a foundation for various alliances to pop up.
IF Talonguard and Dagedai went to war over road/land rights, that would be well within their rights. Most, if not all, would not join in, unless they were in two separate alliances, and it got that heated. Either way, people aren't just going to leave the RA over something like this, UNLESS someone was cheating, exploiting, and griefing the hell out of another signatory.
At that point, most people would probably agree that said organization was going against the Accord. Then they would put social pressure on such individual group through embargo of trade, Mercs, or training. Perhaps even calling them out, or generally shunning them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why go to all this trouble to express your opinion that the Roseblood Accord is meaningless? Manifestly, those who signed it voluntarily chose to do so because they saw value in it. It deeply saddens me that so many people from so few organizations have made such a concerted effort to try to make them regret doing so.
I'm sad you think I'm posting as some kind of concerted attack on your organization. I'm just trying to understand why you have done what you have done; I have an interest in the organization as an outsider, and want to know what exactly it means.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that is, in fact, the entirety of the R.A. agreement, I will take it to my partners and expect that we will be prepared to commit to it.
Please feel free to stop by our Teamspeak channel as well; I PMed you the address. There's almost always folks from more than one group on, so you can get a variety of viewpoints.
Your new alias, by the way, makes it look as if you're planning to release your new rap single next week.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Nihimon thinks it is about making friends who help each other in-game, Andoucet thinks it's only about non-aggression between signatories, and Toombstone thinks it is purely meta and doesn't involve any in-game relations at all...We are all correct. Magistry is under no obligations, but they're focus on the shared values we all have makes it perfectly reasonable for Audoucet to expect they will not attack other Signatories without just cause. After all, we're friends.
So basically you decide you level of commitment and no one is wrong for offering more or less?
So what if Magistry attacks an RA member? Who determines "just cause"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bringslite, I would note that the invitation to join the RA is open to all. There has been no occurrence where the RA, as a whole, excluded any other organization. There are obvious individual disagreements, but there has absolutely been no concerted effort by the RA to "black list" any group or person. Further, note that the RA doesn't even have a mechanic to exclude a group. All one does to become a member is state such.
If a consensus is reached by the Signatories of the Roseblood Accord that Bluddwolf and the UNC belong with us, I will list them. Until then, I am acting according to my own discernment, and my belief that the only reason Bluddwolf offered to join was because he knew (with good reason) that it would raise (simple, civil - that might have been unexpected, but shouldn't have been) questions and concerns, and he did so because he wanted an excuse to launch yet another personal attack against me.
I would like to hereby offer to *any* group to join the Roseblood Accord. As long as you keep things aimed at combat between characters and not between players, you're all good in my book.
Any group, regardless of its past, is free to join the Roseblood Accord.
I am not so sure. Those are a couple examples of recent postings that have me confused. It may seem odd, but in my mind, either a consensus is needed or it is not. I am not trying to stir things up, but it would be nice to know what the real deal is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not so sure. Those are a couple examples of recent postings that have me confused. It may seem odd, but in my mind, either a consensus is needed or it is not. I am not trying to stir things up, but it would be nice to know what the real deal is.
There is no such consensus mechanic built into the RA at any level as far as I see. UNC withdrew their membership. I would welcome them back at the table. TEO has said similar.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I noted above, any RA member is free to attack any other RA member. If they want to avoid this, establish non-aggression pacts or military alliances. The RA has no role in judging either organization, unless one starts down the road of griefing, cheating, etc.
Yup.
Did some members start negotiating pacts the moment they walked through the door? Yes. Have some abstained from doing so? yes. Will many end up in trade agreements and alliances? yes. Will some never enter any agreement with any RA member? possible. Will some RA members end up in nations/alliances that attack other RA members? Almost certainly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... either a consensus is needed or it is not. I am not trying to stir things up, but it would be nice to know what the real deal is.
I used my judgment to ask for a consensus in the case of UNC because of their history of hostility to TEO and T7V, and their very recent and very public welcoming of a very prominent member of the community who had made extremely vicious threats against TEO and T7V.
Is that really so difficult to comprehend?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If that is, in fact, the entirety of the R.A. agreement, I will take it to my partners and expect that we will be prepared to commit to it.Please feel free to stop by our Teamspeak channel as well; I PMed you the address. There's almost always folks from more than one group on, so you can get a variety of viewpoints.
Your new alias, by the way, makes it look as if you're planning to release your new rap single next week.
My name is Cal and
My ride is PhreakI'm working right now so
I can't teamspeak.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is no such consensus mechanic built into the RA at any level as far as I see. UNC withdrew their membership. I would welcome them back at the table. TEO has said similar.I am not so sure. Those are a couple examples of recent postings that have me confused. It may seem odd, but in my mind, either a consensus is needed or it is not. I am not trying to stir things up, but it would be nice to know what the real deal is.
That is good to hear. I don't even have a clue if they would like to join, but it is nice to see another Org. of the RBA agreeing to that. Hopefully the trend will continue so there is less confusion.
It would take away from the spirit that I see in the RBA for there to be exclusivity in it, beyond a denial (from a potential) that "positive play" is agreed to.
I suppose that would be a consensus lol. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... either a consensus is needed or it is not. I am not trying to stir things up, but it would be nice to know what the real deal is.I used my judgment to ask for a consensus in the case of UNC because of their history of hostility to TEO and T7V, and their very recent and very public welcoming of a very prominent member of the community who had made extremely vicious threats against TEO and T7V.
Is that really so difficult to comprehend?
I understand your feeling that way. I don't think it is productive. A lot has gone down on these forums and around them. When attitudes change, we should try and meet them with open hearts. If I get stung for that, then so be it. It is a game.
The bold part should be shared so that it is not cryptic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that there is little place (or need) for this attitude in a pre game situation like this. We are all learning here about how to communicate and evolving our attitudes.... either a consensus is needed or it is not. I am not trying to stir things up, but it would be nice to know what the real deal is.I used my judgment to ask for a consensus in the case of UNC because of their history of hostility to TEO and T7V, and their very recent and very public welcoming of a very prominent member of the community who had made extremely vicious threats against TEO and T7V.
Is that really so difficult to comprehend?
I respect you, Bringslite, but I see little place (or need) for you to very publicly chastise me for having a modicum of well-earned mistrust of UNC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the interests of being proactive, I created a thread in our Roseblood Accord forums for discussion of "What does it mean to be in the Roseblood Accord" and I welcome all representatives to participate.
Further, I don't want to seem like I'm being obtuse or avoiding the obvious with regard to the exclusion issue. As Nihimon notes above, he raised a concern based on his interaction with other individuals such as Bluddwolf and Andius. He personally felt they might not be genuine in wanting to uphold positive play. Bluddwolf and others responded to defend the UNC and outline specific actions they'd look to as valid. Within the RA, Nihimon has the right to raise such a concern, and Bluddwolf has the right to defend his position. Neither will be "right" until we get into the game and see how UNC, and TEO/T7V for that matter, plays the game. It would only be then that any valid judgement could be made. However, I do think it is beneficial to have the conversation prior to game start so that we can, as discussed above, work to clear up any confusion on roles and responsibilities of members.
I'm not looking to call folks out here, and am most certainly not looking to start another forum firestorm. These are simply the "facts" as I know them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I respect you, Bringslite, but I see little place (or need) for you to very publicly chastise me for having a modicum of well-earned mistrust of UNC.I think that there is little place (or need) for this attitude in a pre game situation like this. We are all learning here about how to communicate and evolving our attitudes.... either a consensus is needed or it is not. I am not trying to stir things up, but it would be nice to know what the real deal is.I used my judgment to ask for a consensus in the case of UNC because of their history of hostility to TEO and T7V, and their very recent and very public welcoming of a very prominent member of the community who had made extremely vicious threats against TEO and T7V.
Is that really so difficult to comprehend?
You are right. No matter what I think, how I act is most important.
I edited my post and apologize that it was short and not friendly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the interests of being proactive, I created a thread in our Roseblood Accord forums for discussion of "What does it mean to be in the Roseblood Accord" and I welcome all representatives to participate.
Further, I don't want to seem like I'm being obtuse or avoiding the obvious with regard to the exclusion issue. As Nihimon notes above, he raised a concern based on his interaction with other individuals such as Bluddwolf and Andius. He personally felt they might not be genuine in wanting to uphold positive play. Bluddwolf and others responded to defend the UNC and outline specific actions they'd look to as valid. Within the RA, Nihimon has the right to raise such a concern, and Bluddwolf has the right to defend his position. Neither will be "right" until we get into the game and see how UNC, and TEO/T7V for that matter, plays the game. It would only be then that any valid judgement could be made. However, I do think it is beneficial to have the conversation prior to game start so that we can, as discussed above, work to clear up any confusion on roles and responsibilities of members.
I'm not looking to call folks out here, and am most certainly not looking to start another forum firestorm. These are simply the "facts" as I know them.
I appreciate your putting more effort into it for the more stubborn holdouts. :)
I am quite positive that a great deal of work was done involving it as it stands already.
Edit: Crud. I am doing so bad at getting my ideas across in friendlier language, I have to edit everything. :(
@KC
Think of it like this.
RA is essentially a group of like minded individual organizations that really have similar thoughts on the way the game should be played. Not everyone agrees on every point, but the vast majority agree on a majority of points. Thus we all promote positive gameplay.
Now, since these groups agreed to promote positive gameplay, it makes the signatories feel a bit more at ease with those that agreed. Thus laying a foundation for various alliances to pop up.
IF Talonguard and Dagedai went to war over road/land rights, that would be well within their rights. Most, if not all, would not join in, unless they were in two separate alliances, and it got that heated. Either way, people aren't just going to leave the RA over something like this, UNLESS someone was cheating, exploiting, and griefing the hell out of another signatory.
At that point, most people would probably agree that said organization was going against the Accord. Then they would put social pressure on such individual group through embargo of trade, Mercs, or training. Perhaps even calling them out, or generally shunning them.
Unfortunately, I don't think that addresses any of my "concerns", as it's all from an OOC perspective. I have no problem with the RBA from an OOC perspective. It's the roleplaying implications I'm interested in.
If there are companies who are refusing to attack fellow signatories, that means that, in some small regard, the Roseblood Accord has ceased to be a solely meta affair. I'm curious as to the in-character justifications.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In game, I don't see our characters knowing that such an accord exists as it is solely meta game. From there each company will forge their alliances which would be in game. These alliances may or may not include all members of the RBA and some may or may not include other companies across the entire spectrum.
I also want to add that I agree with what Erian has been writing. He just words it better than I can :).
The thing is, if there's even one group that refuses to attack any other signatories, it stops being a solely metagame affair. That's what I've been driving at this whole time. :P
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The thing is, if there's even one group that refuses to attack any other signatories, it stops being a solely metagame affair. That's what I've been driving at this whole time. :P
Since there isn't a game yet, there's no such thing as ingame affairs.
Here's a better question: why does it matter if the RA is meta or object in nature?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... either a consensus is needed or it is not. I am not trying to stir things up, but it would be nice to know what the real deal is.I used my judgment to ask for a consensus in the case of UNC because of their history of hostility to TEO and T7V, and their very recent and very public welcoming of a very prominent member of the community who had made extremely vicious threats against TEO and T7V.
Is that really so difficult to comprehend?
Our history of hostility was directed at two individuals, Andius and yourself. However so hostile were we that when Andius had sent us an apology for his taking the forum behavior too personally, that we had accepted his apology and gave our own. So hostile were we that when weeks later, Andius was down and out, we took him in. So hostile were we that ever since Andius has joined with us, we have tried to temper his angry and direct it in a more positive direction.
Your problem with us just might be the fact that we do not place you on some pedestal or elevate you to the "Defender of the Soul of the Community" you so wish you would be considered.
@ Erian,
I find your view of the Roseblood Accord to be exemplary. If it had started out that way no one would have been excluded and everyone would have had little reservations in agreeing to it.
@ Bringslite,
Thank you for sticking your neck out in pointing to some of Nihimon's inconsistent statements.
@ Nihimon,
Here is yet another example of your behavior that quite honestly has many people scratching their heads.
If this is really an issue between you and I, then we should sort it out once and hopefully fir all. Don't try to make it out as a UNC vs TSV issue. It is not a UNC vs. TEO issue. Don't try to drag in Pax into it, or Andius. Let's not pull out quotes from Ryan Dancey or the moderations of Chris.
Let's have a chat in TS and we will put all of our mistrust of each other out on the table. Maybe when we sort through all of that crap, we may find some common ground.
Here's a better question: why does it matter if the RA is meta or object in nature?
Because we're roleplaying and I'm interested in the story?
we have tried to temper his angry
I'm not eager to get into this right now, but this is one of those things that's just funny on its own.
Try to control your angries, guys. Don't let this argument make sads.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with that problem, KC. In game, I would very much like the Good folks to act good and oppose evil, the Evil folks to act evil to the detriment of others, and most folks to act Neutral (because I believe that's what most folks actually are). The problem is, some people will look at PFO the same way they do standard PF--alignments are mechanics there to be exploited, taken because they grant access to the best feat, etc. Just as a tabletop group can get together and have the Paladin "busy" while the Rogue executes prisoners, in PFO we will most certainly have players that don't act in accordance with their character/background. Some won't even have such a concept. I'm somewhat hopeful that the nature of PFO's alignment mechanic will actually help here, as people will become more how they act. I'm also hopeful that RP-focused groups like Thod's can help some folks (not all, I'm a realist in that sense) see the fun in sticking to a character concept, despite lacking mechanical benefits.
To address the meta-vs.-not issue for the RA, it would again be up to individual organizations to determine how this matter is handled. This is not an issue exclusive to RA--the NC will face it as will any settlement that adds divergent CCs. I will say for the Circle, we try very hard to stick to our concept and ensure initiates understand our position. We do the same with any CC we might court to join our settlement or otherwise engage us in an agreement. I am hopeful that our view of Good will hold true to our non-aggression tenet, and thus allow us to actually foster in-game peaceful solutions even from Evil groups. I do not accept that conflict is the only means of resolving differences.
EDIT: And now I shall have to forge a rapier named Tempered Angry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also be interested in seeing such a meeting come to pass. Even if nothing comes from it, the effort was made and would be a good step in the right direction at least. The amount of hostility that goes back and forth really doesn't make for a good community impression.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First and foremost, since taking things personally seems to be a trend, this is in no way an attack or slight, nor do I have some hidden agenda. I am literally confused and am trying to relieve that confusion, that is all.
... Nihimon appeared to request that, if Bluddwolf wanted to join, he should keep his bandits from attacking Accordions.I made no such request. My request, repeated in my previous post in the hopes that people would read it, was that he not "initiate hostilities against anyone in the area in and around the southeast mountains". There was no request to avoid Banditry against all Signatories.
____________________________________________________________________Addendum: While there is no official Non-Aggression Pact, there are members who have signed an NAP. Therefore, the Roseblood Accord is a "faction"...I am not personally aware of any Non-Aggression Pacts signed by any Signatories of the Roseblood Accord. If any Signatory has signed such a Pact, that's perfectly within their right as Sovereign groups who retain their Independence. It astonishes me that anyone would suggest they should have to seek approval from, or even inform, other Signatories.
If there is a de facto state of non-aggression between some Signatories, this is more a result of us being friends than any formal treaty or pact.
The first statement says in order to join the RA you must agree to Non-Agression towards a specific area with only two or three settlements covered in that area.
The second statement says there is no non-aggression agreements needed to sign on with the RA. These two statements seem to be fundamentally opposed, leading to confusion.
So a question for anyone in the RBA who knows the answer. If Settlement A in the RBA attacks Settlement B, also in the RBA, with the intent of taking over or utilizing the mechanic Lee mentioned in the last Gobbocast of 'razing a settlement to the ground', would that be OK and considered positive gameplay?
By @KOTC Erian's post it seems that would be perfectly acceptable... but what if that settlement was in the SE area in and around the southeast mountains?
EDIT: If this has already been answered, then I apologise for bringing it up. I reread the whole thread to try and find an answer.