Dissapointment Among the Silent


Pathfinder Online

501 to 550 of 712 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Gol Caliphis wrote:
I have always preferred to throw them in the microwave. (the peeps, not the children.)

Something cool to throw in a microwave is Ivory soap. A small piece will expand to several times its original size in just a few seconds.

I hope many members of "The Silent" will give PFO a try next month. They've already donated, so they might as well come see what their money helped to build. If the final product isn't for them, that's too bad, but at least they'll see that the project they supported has survived.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would suggest the opposite- if you think you're not going to like PFO, wait until open enrollment to try it out. That way you can base your decision on a feature-complete game and decide fairly whether it's something you want to do.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
I would suggest the opposite- if you think you're not going to like PFO, wait until open enrollment to try it out. That way you can base your decision on a feature-complete game and decide fairly whether it's something you want to do.

I agree with this. The last thing someone "on the fence" should be encouraged to do is to use paid time to experience the MVP phase of the game.

Goblin Works should move away from the use of the term "Early Enrollment" and instead call it what it is "Beta". That will deflect the Trolls that will go nuts over the disappointment of what MVP actually is. It won't deflect the naysayers that it is "Paid Beta", but the argument against that is that the characters will keep the xp that they earn during "Paid Beta" so they are getting something for their cost.

Scarab Sages

People are too much related to labels.

EE, Beta, Paid Beta. Doesn't matter at all. The game must me fun to play when it becomes available to buy. No excuses, no justifications.

Othersiwe, it will be unfair to charge a subscription.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fun is pretty subjective. I've been playing buggy, unbalanced, underdeveloped games for years because they are the closest thing to the game I want to be playing.

As long as the EE is at least as good as Xsyon was in beta (and that's super low standards) I'll have fun with it.

Scarab Sages

Exactly what I said. It must be fun. Whatever this means.

Goblin Squad Member

Kemedo wrote:

The game must me fun to play when it becomes available to buy. No excuses, no justifications.

Othersiwe, it will be unfair to charge a subscription.

No. It is not anyone else's job to know what is fun for you. The game must be fun for you to play when you choose to subscribe. If someone else thinks the game is fun and worth paying for before you do, they should allowed make that decision for themselves.

Goblin Squad Member

I certainly understand the concern. When pitching the game to a lot of people, the number one complaint I hear is the focus on PVP. No one seems bothered by the fact that it exists but rather than it's such a central part of the game that you can't dodge its effects (maybe not even the fights themselves).

If settlements are needed for critical portions of the game, such as crafting, housing, shops, and training -- but those settlements can be attacked and destroyed -- then PVP becomes a big deal. And if the group coming at you is large, I can imagine there will be a lot of social pressure to participate and fight...or at least risk ending up dead and your shop burnt down when the city gets raided or overrun.

I think it'd be cool if the community designated a city no one would attack just for people like this, but obviously that's unenforceable and untenable.

As for me, I've managed to win a few people over simply by virtue of having a backer tavern. I understand it will have its own NPC guards, and as long as I pay the upkeep, it can't be destroyed. So I have a safe zone for RP and PVE that I intend to make available to anyone stopping by. Obviously I'll still have to venture out to train and gather money, but I can pick when and how, or simply do it with an alt while the innkeep remains a pure RP character.

Either way, my corner of the sandbox can't be trampled.

But most people won't have a place like that, so anything they build in the world is part of a sandbox that includes bullies knocking over their sandcastles. For some people that creates the tension and excitement they want. For others it's going to ruin any chance to enjoy the sandbox, because they'd rather build than endlessly fend off bullies.

And if EVE is any indicator of how things will go, no group will get so large they can ever truly ensure the safety of their members.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be clear: I'm not bashing PFO or the direction it's headed. I backed at a high level, and I've enjoyed a great relationship with some of the people on this project going back a year or two before the Pathfinder TTRPG was even created. I'm just saying I get where people are coming from when they worry the sandbox is likely to be an inescapably violent and ephemeral place, and they wish it wasn't so. They want to build and expand, not build and rebuild.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
<Kabal> Dan Repperger wrote:
I think it'd be cool if the community designated a city no one would attack just for people like this...

I propose the Emerald Lodge at V.

Goblin Squad Member

Given their stated mission and link to Pathfinder Society, I think it's a perfect candidate. If the big guilds (regardless of alignment) could agree to never attack the settlement itself and be willing to back that up with force against offending companies, it'd be awesome and just might get some of the "disappointed silent" folks to at least try the game.

Yeah, it's a pipe dream in lollipop land, but there ya go.

Goblin Squad Member

I think at this point everyone likes the idea of emerald lodge as a treaty zone. They'll have to carefully protect that status by ejecting members who abuse that protection, though.

Scarab Sages

Guurzak wrote:
No. The building/controlling game in inextricably entangled with the PvP game. If you want to stay in the safeholds and mine Veldspar, that's fine. If you want to build something unique, do it out in the world where other people are building their unique things too.

I really don't understand you guys...

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Kemedo wrote:
Guurzak wrote:
No. The building/controlling game in inextricably entangled with the PvP game. If you want to stay in the safeholds and mine Veldspar, that's fine. If you want to build something unique, do it out in the world where other people are building their unique things too.
I really don't understand you guys...

Velspar's the most common and cheap ore in EvE, you can find it in very secured locations where you can mostly afk-mine. You can be killed, but most of the time, like 99% of the time outside hulkageddon (a player induced week once a year of chaos), you won't.

And since velspar is the basic resource that you need to do everything even a big Deathstar (it's like steel in our world), well you can make a very respectable amount of money mining it, with minimal risks.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
I think at this point everyone likes the idea of emerald lodge as a treaty zone. They'll have to carefully protect that status by ejecting members who abuse that protection, though.

Why?

What makes this location or those that currently hold it, entitled to such protection? If someone else takes it, will they be afforded that same protection?

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

There have been several groups in EVE large enough to protect their citizens. Instead of maintaining their own space, for example, the leaders of TEST grew bored with peace and instigated conflicts at the far ends of the star cluster. War for its own sake does not provide security, as demonstrated by the subsequent collapse of their empire.

Building an empire is one thing. Going to war to expand your territory or capture strategic resources is understandable. Putting everything you've fought for at risk because "Peace is boring," that's something else. I hope that PFO will provide enough challenges that leaders will not feel the need to stir up needless conflict to relieve their boredom.

Goblin Squad Member

Nobody is "entitled" to anything. The respect that Thod has, he earned.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
Nobody is "entitled" to anything. The respect that Thod has, he earned.

It is not disrespectful to raid his outposts or caravans, from time-to-time. If Emerald Lodge is a center accumulating vast wealth, they have made themselves a legitimate target.

Goblin Squad Member

How is stealing not disrespectful?

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

As I understood it, Dan Repperger was proposing "None of the major alliances will try to raze the settlement and build our own on that site," NOT "Nobody will ever raid caravans that originate from or terminate in this settlement." Big difference!

Also, can someone in the know explain who Thod is, outside of PFO, and how he's garnered so much respect? Are we talking about the creator of the PFS campaign, or something?

Edit: Some basic research suggests that Thod is a particularly active and popular PFS GM, but I haven't found important details like "Where does he GM, aside from Gen Con?" I'm way out here in the hinterlands of Arizona, and I wouldn't recognize any non-local GMs by name, face, or reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyone who takes a week off work and goes to Indianapolis early in order to prep for Pathfinder Society events at GenCon is, in my eyes, thus worth paying attention to, by dint of simple dedication to the intellectual property we're all helping to develop and spread.

When he also founds, organises, and dedicates his Settlement to supporting exploration--by all players, not just his friends--of a dungeon Lisa tells us may not be complete-in-game for years, his value increases in my estimation. His in-character posts are eminently readable, too :-).

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

Anyone who takes a week off work and goes to Indianapolis early in order to prep for Pathfinder Society events at GenCon is, in my eyes, thus worth paying attention to, by dint of simple dedication to the intellectual property we're all helping to develop and spread.

When he also founds, organises, and dedicates his Settlement to supporting exploration--by all players, not just his friends--of a dungeon Lisa tells us may not be complete-in-game for years, his value increases in my estimation. His in-character posts are eminently readable, too :-).

Thanks for the information.

Goblin Squad Member

Pretty much what Jazz said.

I think the Emerald Lodge will eventually become Switzerland, as long as Thod keeps on the neutral path. I think everyone wants to be able to explore the Emerald Spire, its one of the major pulls to the PvE side of the game. Also, by allowing, all sides included, Thod and the Emerald Lodge to be neutral, it creates a place for extreme casuals, PvP averse, and others that are just interested in PvE content.

I realize that this might not be appealing to everyone, but having a re-supply, bank, potentially bind point near Emerald Spire is going to benefit the entire server.

Also, Emerald, if it does indeed stay neutral can be a great place to host talks, RP wise, as well as exchange goods, host tournaments, and in general a very central place that welcomes everyone.


Well, I wish Thod luck. If anybody can pull off a Switzerland, they can.

Mind you, I don't think anyone can, but Emerald Lodge definitely has the best shot at it. ;D

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope Thod and his crew keeps there spot and remain neutral for the benefit of all.

My concern, is that if they are removed by a group that wants to monopolize the Emerald Spire, then we have a problem. A single group would be preventing most players from enjoying a key attraction to PFO.

Ideally if something like that was to happen the PFO community as a whole would rise up and squash them but one can never truly rely on the general community to do what is right.

Goblin Squad Member

I draw a comparison to Providence in EVE - CVA have always held, and will always hold Provi, purely on the basis that the space is so poor that nobody but them wants it (and they want it for RP reasons). Sure, they have been evicted temporarily, but CVA never die, they just come back later and reclaim Provi when their attackers get bored and leave.

I could easily imagine something similar happening in V (even if it isn't as undesirable to hold as Provi), as long as The Emerald Lodge and people sympathetic to their goal of neutrality never stop trying to reclaim the motherhex.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

Anyone who takes a week off work and goes to Indianapolis early in order to prep for Pathfinder Society events at GenCon is, in my eyes, thus worth paying attention to, by dint of simple dedication to the intellectual property we're all helping to develop and spread.

When he also founds, organises, and dedicates his Settlement to supporting exploration--by all players, not just his friends--of a dungeon Lisa tells us may not be complete-in-game for years, his value increases in my estimation. His in-character posts are eminently readable, too :-).

Emerald Lodge is a settlement near the Emerald Spire, it does not control the gate to it. The Emerald Lodge does not provide resources or access to adventure in the Emerald Spire, that can not be attained in any other settlement.

So in exchange for nothing in game, the expectation is that this settlement is to receive special treatment?

Aragon supports exploration within its settlement, and I'm sure many others do as well. As a matter of fact, Aragon, Freevale, and Tavernhold are the only settlements out of 33, that may be providing the highest level of chaotic based skills in all of the River Kingdoms. We have accepted the challenge of trying to run chaotic aligned settlements, in spite of the mechanical disadvantages. Yet to my recollection, none of these three settlements have asked for special treatment.

Don't tell us what Emerald Spire may do for us years from now. The question will be, "What have you done for me lately?" Special treatment requires appropriate compensation.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that the simple act of trying to work to integrate heavy portions TTop sytle RP and Goloarion lore into the RK area for PFO is an immensely important task, and while I don't think that GW should give the Emerald Lodge any "special treatment" I sure as hell plan on trying to make friends with them all, simply because I have a great impression of them, and they reflect the kind of RP and lore that brought me to Pathfinder (The Brand) in the first place way back when they released the Inner Sea Campaign setting for 3.5.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While the Emerald Lodge is very close to The Emerald Spire, as Bluddwolf says they won't necessarily control the gate to it. So, Switzerland or not, I wouldn't count on the Emerald Lodge being able to protect that influence over to The Emerald Spire itself (maybe they can, but I am not counting on it).

And as much as I would like to see The Emerald Spire itself a "free zone" where all can enter and explore without "trouble", it's far too juicy a target for bandits and the likes for me to have any hope that that will be the case in the long run. I envision lots of opportunists in and around The Emerald Spire jumping explorers while in the dungeon or after leaving the dungeon with their spoils.

You want to explore The Emerald Spire and have any hope of getting away from it with all its treasures? You better have plenty of armed guards to protect you on your way home (which is good for the guard economy!).

*sigh*

Goblin Squad Member

KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:

I think that the simple act of trying to work to integrate heavy portions TTop sytle RP and Goloarion lore into the RK area for PFO is an immensely important task, and while I don't think that GW should give the Emerald Lodge any "special treatment" I sure as hell plan on trying to make friends with them all, simply because I have a great impression of them, and they reflect the kind of RP and lore that brought me to Pathfinder (The Brand) in the first place way back when they released the Inner Sea Campaign setting for 3.5.

I am not saying they will be singled out or anything of the sort. They will just not gain any special treatment, unless they are deserving of such treatment from us.

Aragon has an adventuring company who will wish to enter the Emerald Spire. Any resistance it meets to enter the spire will be met with force. Any loot it removes from the Emerald Spire will be destined for Aragon. There in Aragon it will benefit the characters that attained the loot, or their settlement.

If for whatever reason our adventure party has to store the loot for safety, and Aragon is expected to be too far, it will be brought to Golgotha. There at least a Northern Coalition partner will gain from our spent coin or in traded loot.

The Emerald Lodge is not in our path, it is south of the Emerald Spire. We would be traveling to the North West.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:

I think that the simple act of trying to work to integrate heavy portions TTop sytle RP and Goloarion lore into the RK area for PFO is an immensely important task, and while I don't think that GW should give the Emerald Lodge any "special treatment" I sure as hell plan on trying to make friends with them all, simply because I have a great impression of them, and they reflect the kind of RP and lore that brought me to Pathfinder (The Brand) in the first place way back when they released the Inner Sea Campaign setting for 3.5.

I am not saying they will be singled out or anything of the sort. They will just not gain any special treatment, unless they are deserving of such treatment from us.

Aragon has an adventuring company who will wish to enter the Emerald Spire. Any resistance it meets to enter the spire will be met with force. Any loot it removes from the Emerald Spire will be destined for Aragon. There in Aragon it will benefit the characters that attained the loot, or their settlement.

If for whatever reason our adventure party has to store the loot for safety, and Aragon is expected to be too far, it will be brought to Golgotha. There at least a Northern Coalition partner will gain from our spent coin or in traded loot.

The Emerald Lodge is not in our path, it is south of the Emerald Spire. We would be traveling to the North West.

To be fair, if you guys need extra potions/consumables, what not, your best bet will probably be going to Emerald Lodge, not only is it closer (5 mins vs 12.5 mins), but Golgotha might not have the best markets, since Callembea and Bernstein will be focused there.

Goblin Squad Member

Who's to say we won't have vendors right outside the spire? We'll make the walk for you. Most PvE folks will care about rep for training. As long as that particular vendor(s) has a small guard force that gets a cut, there should be no issue. 0 mins < 5 mins.

On the other hand, we can circumvent EL completely and pick up the consumables off of the corpses after they are slain.

Or we could leave EL alone.

Anything is possible at this point.

Goblin Squad Member

-Aet- Areks wrote:

Who's to say we won't have vendors right outside the spire? We'll make the walk for you. Most PvE folks will care about rep for training. As long as that particular vendor(s) has a small guard force that gets a cut, there should be no issue. 0 mins < 5 mins.

On the other hand, we can circumvent EL completely and pick up the consumables off of the corpses after they are slain.

Or we could leave EL alone.

Anything is possible at this point.

To be a little more clear, Callambea has not discussed anything detailing how we treat the Emerald Lodge in a decent amount of time. Furthermore, we have not cemented any plans to either start aggression against EL or support that goal.

Personally, I like the idea of a place for PfO folks to settle that want lessened participation in the sandbox. I like it as much as I like assured safety for new members through a university company or program. I just haven't decided if I like that being tied to the hex closest to EL.

I am not against it either, I am still mulling it over. Generally a settlement of immunity is best tied to a lack of resource interest as an additional deterrent. I don't know how influential the spire will be to the River Kingdom markets enough to gauge the potential ramifications of agreeing to an immunity.

I am not adverse to that conversation though.

Goblin Squad Member

One big concern I would be thinking about as EL is neutral parties using them as a staging point for attacks against Golgotha. If they become a source of hostile raids that could really make it a wise move for Golgotha to expand right over the top of them, even if they might have been considering leaving them alone before.

Goblin Squad Member

In that case, Andius, it would have to be written into some kind of NAP with EL, that they don't allow that sort of thing to happen. Repercussions being cut off access to resources, storage, vendors, and so on.

Also, there might have to be some consideration given to chasing enemy down into that particular area. As if someone was trying to flee to EL for neutral protection.

There might have to be some kind of "deportation" clause, that allows us to come in and remove them, kill them, and EL has to kick them off the bind point.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Cheatle wrote:

In that case, Andius, it would have to be written into some kind of NAP with EL, that they don't allow that sort of thing to happen. Repercussions being cut off access to resources, storage, vendors, and so on.

Also, there might have to be some consideration given to chasing enemy down into that particular area. As if someone was trying to flee to EL for neutral protection.

There might have to be some kind of "deportation" clause, that allows us to come in and remove them, kill them, and EL has to kick them off the bind point.

In the interest of neutrality, I would expect these issues to be covered in the Charter of the Emerald Lodge, if indeed, they do wish to be neutral.

Goblin Squad Member

-Aet- Charlie wrote:
Personally, I like the idea of a place for PfO folks to settle that want lessened participation in the sandbox.

I'm not sure this is what you meant to say, without adding certain details. The game is a sandbox, the only way to lessen your participation in it is to not log in.

What you might have meant or should have said is "I like the idea of a place for PFO to settle in a place where there is less participation in certain aspects or play styles found in the sandbox."

Even with that, I would have to disagree and I believe the Devs have said as much as well. The aspects that you are referring to are PvP and the competition found in the settlement vs. settlement conflict. Both of these, the Devs (including Ryan) have said there is no opting out of PvP or settlements being able to avoid conflict created by scarcity of resources.

Goblin Squad Member

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Just because the game mechanics feature conflict does not mean that players can not find a reason in a few cases to work outside the box. Metagaming happens in sandboxes all the time.

If enough people want EL to be truly neutral (including EL themselves), and the community is willing to forge terms acceptable to all settlement parties, then EL will be essentially off limits.

If a block of players wants to exclusively protect EL without forging terms with the rest of the community, they can do so by imposing consequence for aggressive action.

Just because conflict is built into the engine, does not mean we can not steer it away from conflict. The real question is do we want to, and what are the consequences of doing so.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree with you Charlie, on all accounts.

Goblin Squad Member

agreed with Charlie. Choosing not to fight is as interesting and meaningful a choice as the opposite.

Goblin Squad Member

Charlie has the right of it. This game is about emergent play if it is about anything at all. The notion that players have to do any given thing simply because they logged in is no less restrictive than if they had made yet another theme park.


-Aet- Charlie wrote:

Just because the game mechanics feature conflict does not mean that players can not find a reason in a few cases to work outside the box. Metagaming happens in sandboxes all the time.

If enough people want EL to be truly neutral (including EL themselves), and the community is willing to forge terms acceptable to all settlement parties, then EL will be essentially off limits.

If a block of players wants to exclusively protect EL without forging terms with the rest of the community, they can do so by imposing consequence for aggressive action.

Just because conflict is built into the engine, does not mean we can not steer it away from conflict. The real question is do we want to, and what are the consequences of doing so.

It's not sustainable. Players lose ground by protecting an area just to keep it as a safe zone. Basically has to be npcs. Even ones created or bought by players. There is no incentive to do what you said and while it may start that way, it likely won't stay. The same people who say those things are possible in a sandbox say but sandbox when any structure is proposed that doesn't involve players.

Thing is, the world is built on systems. You can be successful, within reason, doing many things. A sandbox, to me, does not belie structure or rules. It doesn't have to be the wild west. It just has to have potential to change. The reason that there have been good natured people in history that protected a spot is they belonged to a larger and likely richer structure. Unfort, unless the zone spoken of belongs to one of the most powerful groups, it won't happen. Then you have to wonder why they'd waste their time instead of protecting or dominating a high value resource zone. Meta gaming is more about investment and outcome, in these types, not as much about out of game treaties. Of course, if everyone is an awesome person who can be trusted, I take it all back.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't think I have stated anything about offering EL protection. What I was attempting to convey was that a neutral safe area is possible if enough people decide to not attack it.

Nothing lasts forever in the box, I think most everyone here has long ago made peace with the reality of loss.

The main point was that players make an impact on a game, and a thing is possible if the base wants it to be. I then stated the real question should be moved towards "should it be" and "at what cost"

I think even from your response we can see that is the real question. I don't have an answer to that question. Generally places are left alone in games because there is little value in the area, or the people who own the land are offering something no one else is.

Goblin Squad Member

celestialiar wrote:


It's not sustainable. Players lose ground by protecting an area just to keep it as a safe zone. Basically has to be npcs. Even ones created or bought by players. There is no incentive to do what you said and while it may start that way, it likely won't stay. The same people who say those things are possible in a sandbox say but sandbox when any structure is proposed that doesn't involve players.

Creating a safe zone creates a zone of unhindered PvE. PvE is what drives the economy. You end up with people focusing on what they are good at, and end up with the highest output per area.

They only lose ground if they do it for free.

Goblin Squad Member

These are all respectable opinions and something can happen if the playerbase wishes it, but on the other hand it will require active diplomacy on the part of Emerald Lodge in order to secure those treaties and establish themselves as a Neutral area. This means Emerald Lodge will be engaged in the Sandbox Aspect and they will need to be on the top of their game in order to prevent diplomatic incidents that would damage their neutrality.

One of my favorite mechanics from the HOI series was the "Guarantee Independence" diplomatic action.

Goblin Squad Member

Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:
... and they will need to be on the top of their game in order to prevent diplomatic incidents that would damage their neutrality.

And the sad reality is that someone will decide it's "fun" to join Emerald Lodge and create those diplomatic incidents just to stir up trouble.

Goblin Squad Member

Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:
These are all respectable opinions and something can happen if the playerbase wishes it, but on the other hand it will require active diplomacy on the part of Emerald Lodge in order to secure those treaties and establish themselves as a Neutral area. This means Emerald Lodge will be engaged in the Sandbox Aspect and they will need to be on the top of their game in order to prevent diplomatic incidents that would damage their neutrality.

Agreed. We can't make EL neutral territory unless they want it. And want it enough to ensure it works.


Personally, I can't make any guarantees either way (for one thing, gotta see what my new bosses at Tavernhold have to say), but I generally prefer to keep my pool of potential targets wide if I feel like going on a banditry expedition.

I don't wanna hurt the cute li'l lodgers, but a bit of friendly Interference Competition never hurt anyone. :D

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:
... and they will need to be on the top of their game in order to prevent diplomatic incidents that would damage their neutrality.
And the sad reality is that someone will decide it's "fun" to join Emerald Lodge and create those diplomatic incidents just to stir up trouble.

As long as they are genuine and not malicious, I don't see why there is a problem... this is just another form of content creation.

Joining to lobby against an interest for a clandestine purpose and cause political strife is totally in bounds. I don't think this is any more sad than any player or groups of players doing anything else in game.

Joining to crash DI, loot company banks, and disband organizations is malicious and would be out of bounds. This right here, this would be sad.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:
... and they will need to be on the top of their game in order to prevent diplomatic incidents that would damage their neutrality.
And the sad reality is that someone will decide it's "fun" to join Emerald Lodge and create those diplomatic incidents just to stir up trouble.

That is not sad, that is emergent play. Emerald Lodge, just like everyone else, will have to keep its eyes open for the enemy from within.

All settlements will eventually fall. Even if it is for the sole purpose of not allowing the last settlement to claim it has never fallen.

501 to 550 of 712 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Dissapointment Among the Silent All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.