Company members not all in one settlement question

[Gale Windswept]

Greetings, Gale here.

I have a small concern that affects this company and the settlements it may affiliate with. Given the diffuse nature of The Wilderness Wanderers, I would like for members to be free to settle wherever they like. This may mean one company member chooses to settle in Bright Haven, while another in Keeper's Pass and a third in Tavernhold, and so on.

"...we place high value ... in the integrity of any other communities we may belong to." A part of being a member of the Wilderness Wanderers does mean being an asset to your local community, so members of the Wilderness Wanderers will be desirable to have around. But as a member of WW, they may not always be home.

Would settlement representatives and settlement leaders please comment on how you would feel about such an arrangement?

[KotC - Erian El'ranelen]

I can say for Keeper's Pass that we welcome all visitors willing to abide by our tenet of non-aggression. The Wilderness Wanderers are certainly welcome here, and any that should choose to make it their home would be doubly welcomed. I'm sure our members in the Ring of Wood will likely to to go out exploring with your folks.

[Gale Windswept]

That is good to hear, Erian. Thank you.

[Gale Windswept]

I suppose another way to put this, The Wilderness Wanderers has "Affiliated Settlements." The intention is that those settlements are ones that are open to Wilderness Wanderer members becoming citizens of, even if the company is not, itself, based out of that settlement. Of course, being an "Affiliated Settlement" has additional perks such as being a settlement that the Wilderness Wanderers, as a whole, will strive to assist where such assistance does not conflict with our Code of Conduct.

In this context, is Keeper's Pass willing to be an "Affiliated Settlement" for the Wilderness Wanderers?

Are any other settlements willing to be added to that list? Feel free to PM me with any questions, concerns or reservations your settlement may have about this.

[TEO Cheatle]

I don't think Brighthaven would mind, but the issue I see here is that right now you have to part of a company to actually gain training from a player settlement (or their settlement allies).

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

After reading your Code of Conduct, I see no reason that Ozem's Vigil would mind having members of your Company as citizens.

The question really is: With current planned mechanics (for WoT and EarlyEE), can you make it work?

[Nihimon]

Phaeros places no restrictions on its citizens associations, except that they maintain a reasonably High Reputation, and that they not work against our interests.

[Caldeathe Baequiannia]

I think you'll find that in the long run, most settlements will be happy to accept members who are prepared to contribute whatever they can, regardless of whether they are fully active or not, as long as they aren't generating problems faster than they help.

Per a couple of people, this may or may not work for the first while, but eventually the difference between sponsored and sponsored companies will mean that people can be part of more than one. One of those companies might be attached to a settlement, while the other isn't, which will probably fill your need quite well.

Hopefully, settlements will eventually be able to control with a fine grain the issue of who can participate and under what circumstances, so any settlement will have choices in accepting peripheral characters.

[Fierywind]

I think the only real issue is as Cheatle pointed out...at least for a while, you'll only be able to train in the settlement your company has allied with, as well as any settlements allied with that settlement.

[sspitfire1]

Fierywind wrote:

I think the only real issue is as Cheatle pointed out...at least for a while, you'll only be able to train in the settlement your company has allied with, as well as any settlements allied with that settlement.

OOC: What I am hearing then is that game mechanics will not support this approach initially while politics should not be a major issue unless the company makes it an issue.

Does that sound correct?

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

sspitfire1 wrote:

Fierywind wrote:

I think the only real issue is as Cheatle pointed out...at least for a while, you'll only be able to train in the settlement your company has allied with, as well as any settlements allied with that settlement.

OOC: What I am hearing then is that game mechanics will not support this approach initially while politics should not be a major issue unless the company makes it an issue.

Does that sound correct?

They did mention (somewhere) that they are looking into limiting (or allowing for) who can train where.

It feels like a bit of a stretch to assume that will be the case, At least for the early weeks.

Edit: To answer your question, sspitfire, I think that almost any settlement will except persons (that fit thier basc ideals) under very easy conditions.

[Fierywind]

Yea sspit, that should be the case for most settlement. My impression was that they'll be limiting training very soon after WoT though, so it certainly could be within a week or two of EE.

[<Flask> Ulf Stonepate]

Tavernhold will not except people without cause.

I see no problem accepting the Wilderness Wanderers. Ultimately our entire raison d'etre is encouraging wanderers to stop by, after all.

[sspitfire1]

Thanks for the info, yall.

[TEO Cheatle]

As far as I could tell, I had to let someone into one of TEO's companies today, just so they could train in our settlement. Maybe that was a specific bug or something...

[Gale Windswept]

Thank you for everyone's support and cooperation! I will add the following settlements to the "Affiliated Settlement" List:

Brighthaven
Phaeros
Ozem's vigil
Keeper's Pass
Phaeros
Tavernhold

Any others, feel free to send it in a letter (PM).

OOC: I've thought of an idea to get around this issue in the short term: Create small local companies at each settlement that has active members of The Wilderness Wanderers by using alt accounts. Its not perfect, but will get the job done. It has the added benefit of providing that settlement with an extra company for holding towers. Later the companies can be consolidated into one, or not. Whatever works!

[KarlBob]

The Wilderness Wanderers could also be an entirely out-of-game organization. Your members could join a Company in the Settlement of their choice, but still coordinate as the Wilderness Wanderers through Teamspeak, forums, etc. I think most Companies and Settlements would consider it courteous to advise them of this dual association, but with your avowed focus on being good citizens wherever you are, conflicts of loyalty should be fairly rare.

[KotC - Erian El'ranelen]

Once we get to the mechanic of having 3 Companies associated to a Character, you could have them make the 1st company settlement-based (to cover the training needs and also help out the settlement) and the 2nd Company could be the Wilderness Wanderers. You could have a naming standard like "Wilderness Wanderers of Keeper's Pass" to keep the first one consistent and provide name/org recognition. This is all assuming the Company mechanic stays as a requirement for citizenship--once they implement direct Character citizens in a settlement you can obviously just join that way. Another thing you might do is seek out matching groups and join those as part of the settlement. So, you might join the Ring of Wood at Keeper's Pass, then join the Wanderers. Have to think on that one more for dual-company options.

And on the (belated) answer to the question of Keeper's Pass supporting the specific items you outlined, everything you list is very much in line with our ideals so I would see no problem there.