Goblin Squad Member
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Northern Coalition
It is with great pleasure that the settlement of Aragon, together with the Empire of Xeilias and the settlement of Freevale, announces the creation of the Northern Coalition. Through this treaty, all signatories agree to a stance of non-aggression, of mutual good will, and of bilateral friendship. Though this treaty does not establish a true alliance, we hope that we can foster a culture of true cooperation between our three states, spreading that culture to any others that choose to join us.
As the balance of power rushes south, those of us in the north grow concerned that we may be left with a void, one that could be filled with those elements of other competitive PVP games that we all find distasteful. It is our hope that we can act to remedy this situation by bringing together the most reasonable of our neighbors, building a community that acknowledges that spirit for what it's worth. Goblinworks' vision of meaningful human interaction tempered by positive player interaction is worth grabbing a hold of, and we intend to do so with both hands. Wars may rage around us, settlements may be razed, caravans looted by the dissident few, but we shall stand together through it all, united in our vision for the north.
We invite any settlement looking to the north for a home to join us in this agreement. By communicating your interest you will establish diplomatic lines with our own envoys dedicated to negotiating a clear cut treaty, one in which all members know exactly where they stand with each other. Though we cannot assure your safety in the wilderness of the River Kingdoms, only you yourself can do that, we can assure you that you will find no quarrel with your new found friends.
Aragon Statement: Although there will be conflicts, and a whole lot of them, these will be within the context of meaningful interactions. It is also believed and intended that those meaningful interactions will be grounded in the conflicts caused by scarcity of resources, including settlement hexes, more often than not..
While this alliance may be of the simplest form of a non aggression pact, it can also evolve into a more layered and complex alliance ensuring mutual benefit and mutual defense. However, there will always be the ever present self interest that may either support such bonds of alliance or shatter those bonds. It is understood that it takes great effort to maintain such alliances, but it is believed that this will prove to be well worth the effort.
Whether in cooperation or conflict, it is understood that meaningful interactions are the goal. The Northern Coalition will be a regional body. In this region we hope to create the sense that there is a certain level of realism or believability. Where there will be times of peace, with an ever looming possibility of conflict. Where people can go about their business but at a moments notice will answer the call if needed.
In the end, we are making stories that can be retold and thus make the culture of PFO even more appealing to the casual passerby. If meaningful interactions mean anything, they minimally must make others want to participate in them
Xeilias Statement: The Empire of Xeilias is a joint effort of nation level cooperation between the leadership of Golgotha (Operating CC Pax Golgotha) and Callambea (Operating CC Pax Aeternum). Our friends in Golgotha are the separate entities of Maelstrom, House Karnath (formerly Crimson Guard), and The Bloody Hand. During the prelaunch phase of Pathfinder Online, we have forged lasting friendships through Golgotha's addition to the Pax Gaming Community, and the games we have played together as we anticipate Early Enrollment. Our empire is based on structure, solidarity, and partnership with our signatories. We have recently lost our more adamant good aligned players, and as such have refocused our goals slightly. Our vision moving forward is a focus on a Lawful Evil empire, providing a place where potential settlements, companies, unaffiliated citizens, and members can experience the game in a large expansionist setting. Whether you wish to ply your goods in safety, or charge the battlefield along side us, our borders are welcome to you. We are a collection of savvy merchants, professional assassins, trusted mercenaries, and brutal soldiers.
The leadership of Xeilias believes in the benefit of proactive player versus player content in all of it's forms. While taking such a stand often creates heated emotions, our goal is to provide this while maintaining an ideal of good sportsmanship.
There can be no shining light without the dark, and no one benefits from a false foil. Towards this regard we are dedicated to this agreement in the hopes that it will provide an area of the map that allows the freedom of play for Chaotic, Evil, and Neutral players towards proactive player versus player conflict while encouraging and fostering growing friendships.
Freevale Statement: The Settlement of Freevale sees the value in the Northern Coalition and we are excited to participate in the treaty. Our citizens have varying degrees of interest in activities like PvP, crafting and trading. Freedom to play the game the way we want is one area in which we do not diverge. We enter into this agreement based on that shared principal with the other signatories. Freevale intends to establish relations and trade with as much of the map as possible. Step one begins at home.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Through this treaty, all signatories agree to a stance of non-aggression, of mutual good will, and of bilateral friendship.
If members of Freevale are expected to refrain from attacking members of Aragon and Xeilias, I'm afraid I will have to announce my withdrawal from Freevale.
It's nothing personal, but Grickin has no intention of swimming in a "don't attack" pool deeper than his own settlement.
If I have misunderstood, please feel free to clarify the agreement. I'm very happy with Freevale right now, and have nothing OOC against the idea of the Coalition. It's just not what Grickin wants.
Regardless, obviously, congrats and best of luck to my old fellows at Freevale. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
KC - I don't think Freevale expects you to do anything but be yourself. I would like it if you participated in the ongoing development of Freevale. Trade hub is one of the earliest stated goals of the settlement, as well as heavy PvP interest. I think there is a middle ground that doesn't involve crapping on our doorstep.
Congratulations to everyone for bringing this together. For Freevale's part, we want to participate in meaningful PvP and establish a healthy trade network.
Congrats to members of the Northern Coalition! Long may they reign! :-)
I am currently discussing the matter on Freevale's site. Hopefully, we can reach an agreement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel like some of the people early on in the Accord thread now seeking clarification, lol, but I'm curious about the details myself. This isn't just a "let's be nice" agreement, this seems like somewhat more than that, unless I'm mistaken?
I guess my question is, what are the "hard and fast" expectations, if any, of Coalition Members? What expectations are set upon members when they agree, if any? What changes if a group decides to take part?
We are likely to be one of your "neighbors in the North" and we're interested in peaceful relations with all of our neighbors.
How does Xeilias define "attack each other"? For instance, would the Coalition ban a member of Freehaven:
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an agreement of non-aggression. Nothing more, nothing less. Signatories agree not to attack each other, at home and abroad.
How would that work with contracts or sort of "chance" encounters? Like say I agree to help guard a caravan for delivery to Thod's Friends, or whoever, and it passes through a UNC blind.
1) Would UNC decide not to attack because a Coalition Member is guarding it?2) Would I be expected to break contract and allow the caravan to fall?
3) Or are cases like this unavoidable exception, where I clash with the UNC, but nobody consider it a violation because "them's the breaks" sometimes. Fight, congrats to the winner, and move on with no hard feelings.
Or just to make it more interesting, you could even add "Say the UNC has a contract to take out that caravan"
There's certain "mixed company" or "competing contracts" examples like the above that I could see confusion arising over, so I'm curious if these kinds of situations have already been contemplated
Thanks
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That will depend on the mechanics.
From my understanding (I am no authority on the matter) if you are detectable to be a guard of the caravan, you would be left unharmed if possible. If that isn't possible, they would be expected not to attack.
If they were at war with the caravan owner that you were fufilling the contract, I would assume you would do well not to take the contract.
Again, just my interpretation, but this is still a very fluid agreement from my understanding.
I have created a handy list for the people who are wondering for more information on the settlements involved in the Norther Coalition.
Here is the link to the list, I'll keep it updated as things develop, should anyone else choose to join. I'd appreciate if you put it in the OP Xeen ;)
Let me know if I made any mistakes creating the list.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How does Xeilias define "attack each other"? For instance, would the Coalition ban a member of Freehaven:
Looting your bodies.
Taking the other side if you're, say, attacking an unaffiliated friend of the member.
Getting in an informal fight (not preempted invasion) with one of you. For instance, Xeen and I were probably gonna get in a scuffle during my Pub Crawl.
I will try to clarify where I can.
How does Xeilias define "attack each other"?
It is simple non aggression. We leave each other and our stuff alone. Additionally all the points were constructed with the feedback from all representative leaders. That is just a minor point of clarification, I know.
Taking the other side if you're, say, attacking an unaffiliated friend of the member.
An individual friend or a group/power? Otherwise it sounds like a very specific case that I don't have an immediate answer for. That said non aggression does not mean you have to take anyone's side in a fight.
I hope other signatories can dig into this and give you a definitive answer.
Getting in an informal fight (not preempted invasion) with one of you. For instance, Xeen and I were probably gonna get in a scuffle during my Pub Crawl.
There was some talks about controlled or minor aggression with signatories. I admit it is not my thing but I do believe there were some windows left open in that regard.
That will depend on the mechanics.
From my understanding (I am no authority on the matter) if you are detectable to be a guard of the caravan, you would be left unharmed if possible. If that isn't possible, they would be expected not to attack.
This is kind of strange. "We would be left unharmed if possible?" In what bizarre circumstance could it be possible? If I get hired to protect some merchants, and some jackasses show up to attack them, I'ma kill them. If they want to leave me "unharmed if possible", that's good—makes it easier to cut 'em down. ;)
Taking the other side if you're, say, attacking an unaffiliated friend of the member.
An individual friend or a group/power? Otherwise it sounds like a very specific case that I don't have an immediate answer for. That said non aggression does not mean you have to take anyone's side in a fight.
Could be either of the two. If you're bandits attacking someone I've chatted with and get along with, I'm almost certainly gonna take his side.
Getting in an informal fight (not preempted invasion) with one of you. For instance, Xeen and I were probably gonna get in a scuffle during my Pub Crawl.
There was some talks about controlled or minor aggression with signatories. I admit it is not my thing but I do believe there were some windows left open in that regard.
Good.
In my opinion, "nonaggression" should be kept extremely mild. Little skirmishes or duels should be ignored. Anything short of actual large-scale battles could just be swept under the rug, kind of like Ned's little fight with Jaime Lannister in Season One of GoT—they fought, some people died, but the Starks and the Lannisters were basically forced to kiss and make up.
Of course, these are just my preferences—not actual conditions or anything silly like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding is this is a broad strokes agreement, no premeditated violence or aggression; no raiding each others caravans, no attacking each others settlements and holdings, no targeted or unprovoked ganking sessions, no land hijacking.
This has nothing to do with personal feuds or small scale brawls, and any of these small things that do happen and get brought to the members of the non-agg pact will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
NOTE: THIS IS SIMPLY MY INTERPRETATION. Fine details have not been hammered out yet, but this is a kind of broad realization of what a "non-aggression" pact is.
The Caravan example is perfect situational way of looking at things. If you take a contract with A who are at war with a pact member, B. If B attacks the caravan, it is their right and you are not covered by the pact as you are under contract to non-pact member A and are acting as an agent of A for the period of the contract.
Another example, if you and some company members team up with a company from non-pact settlement Z, and in the course of your ganking spree you take out several groups of pact-member Y citizens, you are violating the non-aggression pact, though in a minor way which the Y citizens will have to bring up to their leadership and have the argument made against you. If you stand at a distance during those specific encounters and do nothing, you're NOT violating the pact.
If you participate in a raid on Y's mines or territory with Z's group, you're VERY MUCH in violation of the agreement and either your own settlement will deal with you with their own variety of justice (economical, political or physical, depending on the settlement), or they will back your actions and will be removed from the pact.
This agreement is not a shield to hide behind, it's a method to protect our collective territory and peoples from each other. That is it.
BurnHavoc's interpretation is what I would support. It shouldn't be a fine razor that shaves away any kerfuffle of consequence, it should be a big chainsaw that hacks away only the really big brouhahas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How does Xeilias define "attack each other"? For instance, would the Coalition ban a member of Freehaven:
Looting your bodies.
Taking the other side if you're, say, attacking an unaffiliated friend of the member.
Getting in an informal fight (not preempted invasion) with one of you. For instance, Xeen and I were probably gonna get in a scuffle during my Pub Crawl.
Answering these for myself, and not for Aragon:
1. If it is the corpse of a member, you may be compelled to return their items to them, and keep a "finders fee" for yourself.
2. Unaffiliated targets are legitimate targets. If you join them in the engagement you take upon yourself their status for that engagement. I would think your actions would be considered a violation of the non aggression pact, but whether it is minor or major would have to be decided.
3. Getting into a brawl in a tavern or an arraigned duel should be permissible. Neither rise to actions that impact the company, settlement or coalition as a whole.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My understanding is this is a broad strokes agreement, no premeditated violence or aggression; no raiding each others caravans, no attacking each others settlements and holdings, no targeted or unprovoked ganking sessions, no land hijacking.
This has nothing to do with personal feuds or small scale brawls, and any of these small things that do happen and get brought to the members of the non-agg pact will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
NOTE: THIS IS SIMPLY MY INTERPRETATION. Fine details have not been hammered out yet, but this is a kind of broad realization of what a "non-aggression" pact is.
The Caravan example is perfect situational way of looking at things. If you take a contract with A who are at war with a pact member, B. If B attacks the caravan, it is their right and you are not covered by the pact as you are under contract to non-pact member A and are acting as an agent of A for the period of the contract.
Another example, if you and some company members team up with a company from non-pact settlement Z, and in the course of your ganking spree you take out several groups of pact-member Y citizens, you are violating the non-aggression pact, though in a minor way which the Y citizens will have to bring up to their leadership and have the argument made against you. If you stand at a distance during those specific encounters and do nothing, you're NOT violating the pact.
If you participate in a raid on Y's mines or territory with Z's group, you're VERY MUCH in violation of the agreement and either your own settlement will deal with you with their own variety of justice (economical, political or physical, depending on the settlement), or they will back your actions and will be removed from the pact.
This agreement is not a shield to hide behind, it's a method to protect our collective territory and peoples from each other. That is it.
This one said things better than I said things.
Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not a supporter of Bluddwolf's conditions, but since he's not speaking for Aragon, perhaps all that will amount to is a bit of IC discontent between our characters as we each strive to interpret the rules to our own benefit. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not a supporter of Bluddwolf's conditions, but since he's not speaking for Aragon, perhaps all that will amount to is a bit of IC discontent between our characters as we each strive to interpret the rules to our own benefit. ;)
note my subsequent post concerning contracts, that may address your concern.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
say I [as a hypothetical coalition member] agree to help guard a caravan for delivery to [Random_Settlement who is not a Coalition Member] and it passes through a UNC blind.
1) Would UNC decide not to attack because a Coalition Member is guarding it?
2) Would I be expected to break contract and allow the caravan to fall?
3) Or are cases like this unavoidable exception, where I clash with the UNC, but nobody consider it a violation because "them's the breaks" sometimes. Fight, congrats to the winner, and move on with no hard feelings.Or just to make it more interesting, you could even add "Say the UNC has a contract to take out that caravan"
I'm going to go ahead and answer my own question with my own opinion.
In my caravan example, I think the most reasonable way to handle it is to treat me, as a guard of Random_Settlement's caravan, as a member of Random_Settlement for the purposes of that encounter. So in my example, the UNC doesn't have to care that a coalition member is guarding someone else's caravan - they're attacking someone else's caravan, not its guards. And I get to happily fight back.
Without looking at it in some similar way it seems impossible not to run into those types of situations without someone crying about breaking the non-aggression pact.
Just a suggestion for you guys
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not a supporter of Bluddwolf's conditions, but since he's not speaking for Aragon, perhaps all that will amount to is a bit of IC discontent between our characters as we each strive to interpret the rules to our own benefit. ;)
More or less a lot of this is left to be hammered out when the actual mechanics of the game come into play, but even I personally disagree with Bluddwolf's interpretation.
I'd like to remind everyone here that this is a non-AGGRESSION pact, not an alliance. The idea is not to take aggressive actions that will adversely affect each others SETTLEMENTS. That is all. This is not your personal "time out" button.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
say I [as a hypothetical coalition member] agree to help guard a caravan for delivery to [Random_Settlement who is not a Coalition Member] and it passes through a UNC blind.
1) Would UNC decide not to attack because a Coalition Member is guarding it?
2) Would I be expected to break contract and allow the caravan to fall?
3) Or are cases like this unavoidable exception, where I clash with the UNC, but nobody consider it a violation because "them's the breaks" sometimes. Fight, congrats to the winner, and move on with no hard feelings.Or just to make it more interesting, you could even add "Say the UNC has a contract to take out that caravan"
I'm going to go ahead and answer my own question with my own opinion.
In my caravan example, I think the most reasonable way to handle it is to treat me, as a guard of Random_Settlement's caravan, as a member of Random_Settlement for the purposes of that encounter. So in my example, the UNC doesn't have to care that a coalition member is guarding someone else's caravan - they're attacking someone else's caravan, not its guards. And I get to happily fight back.
Without looking at it in some similar way it seems impossible not to run into those types of situations without someone crying about breaking the non-aggression pact.
Just a suggestion for you guys
See my longer reply above, it was partially directed at your caravan example :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed, this is basically all of us saying we will undertake no organized or large scale aggression against one another. If I am guarding a none Golgothan caravan and Freevale comes riding over the hill I would expect them to give me the option to get out of the way but if I don't they could kill me. Now if The bloody Hand is out riding around and we come across a UNC POI we can't attack it in any way.
This is fine by me. For my part, I won't have Grickin just give UNC hell for no reason, but if he finds Bluddwolf lying dead in the road...well, he wasn't gonna need that +2 studded leather armor.
Or, well, he was, but You Have What You Hold an' all that. ;)