Harvesting Resources on Claimed Land


Pathfinder Online

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Leithlen wrote:
To clarify based on some comments further down in the discussion, is that perhaps node stealing could be a criminal offense in a LG territory, but simple trespassing could not. Trespassing would only be a criminal offense in an LE settlement. (This, of course, assumes that you're neutral to that settlement and not on their enemies list or have negative reputation.)

Why do you feel that trespassing can't be illegal in a Lawful Good settlement? Being good, even being extraordinarily good, does not preclude an expectation of privacy and respecting of boundaries. Ozem's Vigil will take the law very seriously. We expect that others will, too.

I would feel that killing someone for wandering accidentally onto your lands would not be something that would fit a good alignment. Escorting them off of your lands - fine, but killing on sight for trespassing wouldn't be something fitting with a good alignment. I think this is what Duffy meant by pros and cons to each alignment. Lawful evil could have strict laws, because they don't have the "good" restriction. Each alignment choice should have bonuses and restrictions.

Goblin Squad Member

Master of Shadows wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
braddw34 wrote:
so we need to make friends with asians;)
That's probably true, regardless of whether you're playing PFO.
Well the Chinese at the very least, they will own us all one day anyway, some might argue they already do.

Given the nature of the bell curve and relative population sizes, this projection should come as no surprise. How do you imagine you will outsmart a land that can boast ten genii to every genius in the U.S.?

Goblin Squad Member

That is my intent, the Law system should work with the Alignment system to create a role-playing atmosphere. If you find your alignment too restrictive you are probably playing the wrong alignment.

For example, in my group's TT interpretation Alignment is as much a part of your decision making process as how directly beneficial a decision's out come is. Yes, killing that bounty hunter will net me a cool magic item and some XP, but I'm Lawful Neutral and all the NPC did was serve what looked like a legitimate bounty, I shouldn't kill him for that. It's against my character's code. So I talked the party into surrendering instead and we ended up with some RPing instead of combat for a bit. It all worked out in the end, the difference was how we got there.

These are the type of interactions I want the game to end up creating by reducing how often 'murder' is the optimal and immediate answer to every conflict.

(Yes, I realize LN has a bit more leeway pending which of the bases you are using, this was an example from my game session last week)

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's an interesting idea. We already know that Lawful settlements will be able to pass more laws than Chaotic ones. Maybe there could be a Good/Evil dynamic as well such that Good settlements are required to pass most of their laws in a "warn first" mode (misdemeanors) while Evil settlements can pass most of their laws in a "shoot to kill" mode (felonies)


Guurzak wrote:
That's an interesting idea. We already know that Lawful settlements will be able to pass more laws than Chaotic ones. Maybe there could be a Good/Evil dynamic as well such that Good settlements are required to pass most of their laws in a "warn first" mode (misdemeanors) while Evil settlements can pass most of their laws in a "shoot to kill" mode (felonies)

I completely agree! :)

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:
NBSI has several problems in PFO: You'll run out of people to charge for training. Caravans have to be able to get close enough to give all their goods to your settlement members, who will haul those goods the rest of the way to the Forbidden City (assuming you can convince people to volunteer for that job). Shooting every trespasser will probably tank your reputation (especially if your enemies make a bunch of newbie alts and repeatedly trespass). You'll have no shoppers stopping in to restock on their way to someplace else. I just don't see it working very well at the EVE level.

It seems very odd to have a mechanical punishment built into the for defending territory and resources.

If folks want to train or trade in a settlement they are welcome as long as they don't hurt folks or take their stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

Bitter Thorn wrote:
KarlBob wrote:
NBSI has several problems in PFO: You'll run out of people to charge for training. Caravans have to be able to get close enough to give all their goods to your settlement members, who will haul those goods the rest of the way to the Forbidden City (assuming you can convince people to volunteer for that job). Shooting every trespasser will probably tank your reputation (especially if your enemies make a bunch of newbie alts and repeatedly trespass). You'll have no shoppers stopping in to restock on their way to someplace else. I just don't see it working very well at the EVE level.

It seems very odd to have a mechanical punishment built into the for defending territory and resources.

If folks want to train or trade in a settlement they are welcome as long as they don't hurt folks or take their stuff.

This is where the Alignment stuff starts coming into play, would a Lawful Good character really murder people for picking flowers or hunting a few animals? I know in game there aren't huge needs like food to survive, but if you think of an example like say 'Robin Hood' where someone's an outlaw because they've been taxed too heavily and it's illegal to poach a deer to feed their starving family how would you define the behavior of the Sheriff and King John? Certainly not Lawful Good.

Goblin Squad Member

Leithlen wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Leithlen wrote:
To clarify based on some comments further down in the discussion, is that perhaps node stealing could be a criminal offense in a LG territory, but simple trespassing could not. Trespassing would only be a criminal offense in an LE settlement. (This, of course, assumes that you're neutral to that settlement and not on their enemies list or have negative reputation.)

Why do you feel that trespassing can't be illegal in a Lawful Good settlement? Being good, even being extraordinarily good, does not preclude an expectation of privacy and respecting of boundaries. Ozem's Vigil will take the law very seriously. We expect that others will, too.

I would feel that killing someone for wandering accidentally onto your lands would not be something that would fit a good alignment. Escorting them off of your lands - fine, but killing on sight for trespassing wouldn't be something fitting with a good alignment. I think this is what Duffy meant by pros and cons to each alignment. Lawful evil could have strict laws, because they don't have the "good" restriction. Each alignment choice should have bonuses and restrictions.

There appears to be an unwritten assumption that the punishment resulting for anything is always going to be death. I hope Settlements will be able to do other options if they catch a lawbreaker, such as imposing a varying penalty loss, posted within the law.

1st offence: -xx reputation
2nd offence: -yy reputation
3rd offence: -zz reputation and settlement guards will kill on site if you enter our settlement or poi and you will always be flagged as criminal in our settlement's area.

It would mean allowing reputation to vary within a settlement zone, but that could be useful in other ways. A Settlement that intends to encourage banditry could set a reputation bonus on their citizens that allows them to train and function without having the settlement's reputation unworkable. There'd probably need to be limits on that.

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:
I know in game there aren't huge needs like food to survive, but if you think of an example like say 'Robin Hood' where someone's an outlaw because they've been taxed too heavily and it's illegal to poach a deer to feed their starving family how would you define the behavior of the Sheriff and King John? Certainly not Lawful Good.

Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil. It's not at all out of touch with the system.

A character that harvests coal and iron to make a better weapon and armour or to sell is not exactly in the category of a poacher who takes only what they need.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to be clear, since Ozem's Vigil is a LG society, our outlook is to provide a positive social experience for our members as well as those that visit our lands.

If we come across "visitors" (solo or in small groups) harvesting in our hexes, we will make contact and be friendly. If they are strangers with no agreement, they will likely be asked to make one. If they do not wish to, they will be asked to move along and thier names/Company recorded.

If the strangers are of low rep (amount TBD) or an obviously antagonistic organization (to Ozem's or an Ally), we will use what tools we have to move them along. The same treatment will be applied to obvious "strip miners", only immediately, with perhaps only a single warning.

It is our hope that the law features of settlement mechanics allow for some granularity of settings. Our first priorty is to make sure that our harvesters have plenty to gather in our territory. In the absence of such features, we will get creative to secure our territory. When there is no counter available to behavior (such as unaffiliated strip miners) we will of course appeal to GW. Every action needs an in game counter that does not ruin alignment and/or reputation. Otherwise it is an exploit of the intended playing of the game.

That being said, I return to one of our core principles: A positive social experience for our members, our friends, and new players...

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I know in game there aren't huge needs like food to survive, but if you think of an example like say 'Robin Hood' where someone's an outlaw because they've been taxed too heavily and it's illegal to poach a deer to feed their starving family how would you define the behavior of the Sheriff and King John? Certainly not Lawful Good.

Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil. It's not at all out of touch with the system.

A character that harvests coal and iron to make a better weapon and armour or to sell is not exactly in the category of a poacher who takes only what they need.

Agreed but that's kinda of my point, everything in the game is essentially self centered and greed based. That limits a lot of alignment interactions if every conflict will be resolved in favor of 'my greater good', which usually means means take from you and give to me.

What if making those swords is the only thing that's keeping that guy's settlement from being overrun by an Evil settlement? Is the LG character then in conflict? How are you going to make that an in game mechanical decision?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duffy wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I know in game there aren't huge needs like food to survive, but if you think of an example like say 'Robin Hood' where someone's an outlaw because they've been taxed too heavily and it's illegal to poach a deer to feed their starving family how would you define the behavior of the Sheriff and King John? Certainly not Lawful Good.

Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil. It's not at all out of touch with the system.

A character that harvests coal and iron to make a better weapon and armour or to sell is not exactly in the category of a poacher who takes only what they need.

Agreed but that's kinda of my point, everything in the game is essentially self centered and greed based. That limits a lot of alignment interactions if every conflict will be resolved in favor of 'my greater good', which usually means means take from you and give to me.

What if making those swords is the only thing that's keeping that guy's settlement from being overrun by an Evil settlement? Is the LG character then in conflict? How are you going to make that an in game mechanical decision?

The answer is: you can't. There are a million different nuances to how to deal with a given situation based on alignment. There simply isn't a way to program the game to account for that in one situation, let alone hundreds of possible situations.

And to answer your question: if you are about to be overrun by an evil settlement, I would suggest asking the LG settlement for help. Not only would you not be violating their laws and making yourself a criminal, but they probably would help you out with already-crafted weapons and send a group of soldiers/adventurers to actually help you fight the evil settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

You're right you can't completely cover it but the very least you could do is build a few layers of tape that need to be cut through to enforce your Alignment behavior regardless of communication occurring or not occurring.

If the answer is do whatever you want and if communication doesn't work 'oh well' then you haven't actually made anything that different or interesting; the alignment system and laws are worthless systems that are purely flavor.

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
KarlBob wrote:
NBSI has several problems in PFO: You'll run out of people to charge for training. Caravans have to be able to get close enough to give all their goods to your settlement members, who will haul those goods the rest of the way to the Forbidden City (assuming you can convince people to volunteer for that job). Shooting every trespasser will probably tank your reputation (especially if your enemies make a bunch of newbie alts and repeatedly trespass). You'll have no shoppers stopping in to restock on their way to someplace else. I just don't see it working very well at the EVE level.

It seems very odd to have a mechanical punishment built into the for defending territory and resources.

If folks want to train or trade in a settlement they are welcome as long as they don't hurt folks or take their stuff.

This is where the Alignment stuff starts coming into play, would a Lawful Good character really murder people for picking flowers or hunting a few animals? I know in game there aren't huge needs like food to survive, but if you think of an example like say 'Robin Hood' where someone's an outlaw because they've been taxed too heavily and it's illegal to poach a deer to feed their starving family how would you define the behavior of the Sheriff and King John? Certainly not Lawful Good.

Are you suggesting that good settlements or characters have no right no defend themselves or their property? Because that sounds really absurd.

What does an example of real world tyranny have to do with the game?

Goblin Squad Member

No I think people have an overly broad definition of what warrants 'defensive action' and how their alignment should interact with their actions.

Goblin Squad Member

Defensive action is tied to ownership.

This is why clearly defined ownership matters.

Goblin Squad Member

I think your overstating 'ownership' and how alignment philosophy should interact with it. A lot of people are stating things in purely 'us vs them' mechanical language when the game this game is emulating contains a lot more nuance.

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:
I think your overstating 'ownership' and how alignment philosophy should interact with it.

In what way?

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:
What if making those swords is the only thing that's keeping that guy's settlement from being overrun by an Evil settlement? Is the LG character then in conflict? How are you going to make that an in game mechanical decision?

(edit: Making a better weapon or armour are almost never the "only thing" in the way of your settlement being overrun. They are a choice.)

I expect that my character will always be in conflict. Not least of which, because most of my company are not LG, but are in-game family. It will be a driving force for me, and will provide a significant portion of my meaningful choices.

There will be times when Caldeathe feels he has no choice but to put another individual's needs ahead of his settlement's, and I look forward to playing it out.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Duffy wrote:
I think your overstating 'ownership' and how alignment philosophy should interact with it. A lot of people are stating things in purely 'us vs them' mechanical language when the game this game is emulating contains a lot more nuance.

I can't speak for all "Good" leaning settlements, I don't think that Ozem's will mind new players coming up to "pick a few" and have a look around. Wthin reason, not as a repeatable (ongoing) venture.

We definately don't want our resources overfarmed by people that aren't contributing to the settlement. That is a sure way to end up weak and attractive to the wrong sorts.

Lawful Good does not always mean Lawful Nice or Lawful Stupid.

Goblin Squad Member

Agreed that's why I feel there should be a balance between alignment and personal desire/need if you aren't 100% utilizing every node why would you punish those for grabbing a few? That seems against a swath of the alignment spectrum while particularly in character for others.

Edit: sorry if my replies are curter than usual and not super detailed on phone for a bit.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I think your overstating 'ownership' and how alignment philosophy should interact with it. A lot of people are stating things in purely 'us vs them' mechanical language when the game this game is emulating contains a lot more nuance.

I can't speak for all "Good" leaning settlements, I don't think that Ozem's will mind new players coming up to "pick a few" and have a look around. Wthin reason, not as a repeatable (ongoing) venture.

We definately don't want our resources overfarmed by people that aren't contributing to the settlement. That is a sure way to end up weak and attractive to the wrong sorts.

Lawful Good does not always mean Lawful Nice or Lawful Stupid.

This.

Respect for freedom doesn't mean letting folks steal or rape the land.

More over it seems like there might be other exceptions as well. If a druid catches someone trying to burn down the forest and they "kill" them it doesn't seem like something that should be punished. Isn't that the druidy thing to do?

I don't know how this works in an MMORPG, but it seems odd.

Isn't the point of PFO to build communities? Then why punish members of the community who protect the community and the communities property?

Goblin Squad Member

Is filling the land with armed camps and kill on sight guards really about community? Or is that focusing on just your community?

I want this game to avoid the trap of EVE and other sandboxes where ownership is king above all else. I want their to be a balance to it and a sense of give and take.

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:

Is filling the land with armed camps and kill on sight guards really about community? Or is that focusing on just your community?

I want this game to avoid the trap of EVE and other sandboxes where ownership is king above all else. I want their to be a balance to it and a sense of give and take.

My Ozem's Vigil has no intent to fill the land with either. This is River Kingdoms. People are free to travel anywhere and to support themselves from the land. If they expect to do more than support themselves, I expect that they will contribute to keeping our land free.

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:

Is filling the land with armed camps and kill on sight guards really about community? Or is that focusing on just your community?

I want this game to avoid the trap of EVE and other sandboxes where ownership is king above all else. I want their to be a balance to it and a sense of give and take.

I do too. I am puzzled at your stance on this though. Isn't your settlement LE?

Heh! Are you trying to get us "Goodies" all weak or something?

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:

Is filling the land with armed camps and kill on sight guards really about community? Or is that focusing on just your community?

I want this game to avoid the trap of EVE and other sandboxes where ownership is king above all else. I want their to be a balance to it and a sense of give and take.

That's the rub... ownership is king. All of your advanced training is tied to your settlement and how well-developed it is. Every character, alignment aside, it incredibly dependent on their settlement and as a result has every incentive to protect it at all costs. Resources matter to our settlements and to our characters and freely letting other harvest on your lands is just a bad idea based on how the game's mechanics are at this point. Hopefully, settlements will create alliances to expand our communities, but I have zero desire to put the needs of any settlement above the needs of my settlement.

That doesn't mean I won't help other lawful, good and/or possibly neutral settlements I have no alliance with if the opportunity arises, and I'm not looking to attack everyone with a trespasser or criminal flag on sight, but my community comes first and if you are bulk harvesting the stone we need to upgrade our settlement, you will be held to account. Nothing in any of that is contradictory to Lawful Good.

Goblin Squad Member

Yea, I'm LE and I'm arguing against kill on sight for trivial offenses and plan to have fairly open borders. Interpret as you will.

I can't type a worthy response right now Traianus but one thing I want to mention in your post is that Bulk resources are a different animal that requires POI use that shouldn't be possible to throw up easily and would definitely constitute a planned and purposeful long term attempt at harvesting. I also am not sure if that would even be possible in a claimed hex.

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:

Yea, I'm LE and I'm arguing against kill on sight for trivial offenses and plan to have fairly open borders. Interpret as you will.

I can't type a worthy response right now Traianus but one thing I want to mention in your post is that Bulk resources are a different animal that requires POI use that shouldn't be possible to throw up easily and would definitely constitute a planned and purposeful long term attempt at harvesting. I also am not sure if that would even be possible in a claimed hex.

I interpret it as: I don't want a murder fest in this game. Just having a little fun. :)

Have any good settlements claimed that they will kill people on site when spotted on thier turf?

I think that the important thing is that we have the ability to regulate our lands vs. players that we can't defend against by using factions, feuds, or wars. That doesn't mean that we will kill all of them, unless they are damaging our GNP.

If you don't protect your resources, you have no one else to blame when you come up short.

Goblin Squad Member

I would prefer if good groups are not unnecessarily hindered beyond what we already know. They already have to manage murder, even when contracted to do so.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

It was pointed out to me earlier that some people are discussing NBSI as a rule package that defines potential targets. I was thinking of it as a settlement attitude and set of customs. The difference seems to be:

"You're gathering in our hex. Under our laws we could kill you. Please come speak to a diplomat, or move along."

vs.

"Intruders spotted in the southeast hex. One in heavy, two in medium, one in robes. Two have picks, one has a saw." "Roger. Kill team assembling." "Attack!"

Version one works for lawful good settlements. Version two, basically the EVE definition of NBSI, would erode a Good alignment pretty quickly.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guurzak wrote:

(Interestingly, lawful settlements will be able to pass more laws than chaotic ones can.)

How does that make sense.

As a chaotic settlement I should be able to have three times as many laws in order to contradict and nullify various laws or parts of laws that were decided to be to lawful, and thus allow more freedom from laws.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

<Kabal> Sunnfire wrote:
Guurzak wrote:

(Interestingly, lawful settlements will be able to pass more laws than chaotic ones can.)

How does that make sense.

As a chaotic settlement I should be able to have three times as many laws in order to contradict and nullify various laws or parts of laws that were decided to be to lawful, and thus allow more freedom from laws.

Now that makes sense.

Goblin Squad Member

<Kabal> Sunnfire wrote:
Guurzak wrote:

(Interestingly, lawful settlements will be able to pass more laws than chaotic ones can.)

How does that make sense.

As a chaotic settlement I should be able to have three times as many laws in order to contradict and nullify various laws or parts of laws that were decided to be to lawful, and thus allow more freedom from laws.

Who said anything about consistency?(in our laws, that is)

More laws = more lawful seems right to me.

Goblin Squad Member

Hmm, you have not seen reform of US export regulations perchance, have you? Reformed yes, simple, uh. ...

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Fewer laws --> more chaos.

More laws --> more lawbreakers --> more chaos again.

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:

Fewer laws --> more chaos.

More laws --> more lawbreakers --> more chaos again.

Mmmmm. No that's not really how it works. There is a difference between chaos and corruption.

Chaotic actions are chaotic whether or not they disobey the law so you don't make a settlement more chaotic by impelementing new laws unless you fail in dissuading so many law breakers that the chaos they create in resisting the enforcement of the law offsets any order generated by enforcing them.

However a settlement that implements a lot of laws and then doesn't enforce them very well is more corrupt than a chaotic settlement that never outlaws those actions in the first place.

The distinction is important because it's debatable whether or not chaos is a bad thing. Some settlements (such as Aragon) would say it's a good thing. Where corruption is always a bad thing even for chaotic settlements. It generates only negative effects.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

It may not work quite that way, but it's still an amusing jab at the nature of laws and the negative effects of over-regimentation.

(Amusing to me, anyway.)

Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:


The distinction is important because it's debatable whether or not chaos is a bad thing. Some settlements (such as Aragon) would say it's a good thing. Where corruption is always a bad thing even for chaotic settlements. It generates only negative effects.

I don't like the term 'Chaos' here. 'Freedom' and 'Deregulation' have good sides, but 'Chaos' is almost by definition negative - Webster synonyms include Mess and Havoc.

In the same way, 'Lawful' is too positive. Less rosy alternatives are: Bureaucratic, legalistic and conforming. (And netural good is obviously the best alignment).

Chaotic settlements should be allowed to rename the 'Law-Chaos' axis to 'Bureaucracy-Freedom' in forum discussions.

...

to the topic: economic warfare is good, but trying to evade consequences is ...bad sportsmanship. Shame on the ninja locust! Shame I say!

Goblin Squad Member

Quintalmot wrote:
Hmm, you have not seen reform of US export regulations perchance, have you? Reformed yes, simple, uh. ...

Did you make your Will save, or did you take the full Wis damage?

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:

There appears to be an unwritten assumption that the punishment resulting for anything is always going to be death. I hope Settlements will be able to do other options if they catch a lawbreaker, such as imposing a varying penalty loss, posted within the law.

1st offence: -xx reputation
2nd offence: -yy reputation
3rd offence: -zz reputation and settlement guards will kill on site if you enter our settlement or poi and you will always be flagged as criminal in our settlement's area.

It would mean allowing reputation to vary within a settlement zone, but that could be useful in other ways. A Settlement that intends to encourage banditry could set a reputation bonus on their citizens that allows them to train and function without having the settlement's reputation unworkable. There'd...

I have to disagree and agree together. I like the imposing different penalties for lawbreakers while they are in your controlled hexes but not the inclusion of reputation. Reputation was designed to discourage undesired PvP and should stick to that. Perhaps an economical penalty to dealing with merchants while the offence remains active and some type of diplomacy penalty when dealing with NPCs.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
KarlBob wrote:

Fewer laws --> more chaos.

More laws --> more lawbreakers --> more chaos again.

Mmmmm. No that's not really how it works. There is a difference between chaos and corruption.

Chaotic actions are chaotic whether or not they disobey the law so you don't make a settlement more chaotic by impelementing new laws unless you fail in dissuading so many law breakers that the chaos they create in resisting the enforcement of the law offsets any order generated by enforcing them.

However a settlement that implements a lot of laws and then doesn't enforce them very well is more corrupt than a chaotic settlement that never outlaws those actions in the first place.

The distinction is important because it's debatable whether or not chaos is a bad thing. Some settlements (such as Aragon) would say it's a good thing. Where corruption is always a bad thing even for chaotic settlements. It generates only negative effects.

Andius deserves repeating. You can't make a chaotic settlement more chaotic by passing more laws, whether they are good or bad, and whether you ignore them or not.

(If I may channel John Pinnette for a moment) Chaos has a lot of good things going for it. Not the best things, but some pretty good things.

Goblin Squad Member

Black Silver of The Veiled, T7V wrote:
I have to disagree and agree together. I like the imposing different penalties for lawbreakers while they are in your controlled hexes but not the inclusion of reputation. Reputation was designed to discourage undesired PvP and should stick to that. Perhaps an economical penalty to dealing with merchants while the offence remains active and some type of diplomacy penalty when dealing with NPCs.

You're right. While stealing resources is PvP, it's probably not griefing. I withdraw the suggestion.

It would be nice to have some sort of equivalent in-game mechanic for reputation that is designed to inconvenience the character in particular socio-economic groupings without crippling them game-wide.

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Harvesting Resources on Claimed Land All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online