The Resolution of Baron's Folly


Pathfinder Online

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The circumstance that has become known as Baron's Folly, and the subsequent events that transpired upon the discussion threads here and elsewhere, have made it clear that a problem exists within the design of the NAP and the perceptions it has created, in the way that they interact with the needs and demands of the game itself.

To be precise - it is impossible for a party to maintain neutrality while at the same time fighting battles of necessity to conquer territory. Make no mistake and do not be confused by the various propaganda involved, Emerald Lodge's assault on Baron's Folly represented an attempt to conquer more territory, in this case the attempt ran up against Brighthaven's own efforts to secure the territories we had planned to establish as our borderlands. It was an excellent bit of PvP, they won out for the first day, and our intent certainly was to contest the territory again. To make sure no one misunderstands anything, this particular territory is neither protected by a treaty, and it very much a territory we intended to occupy and hold for defensive purposes, being the exact middle distance between us and our nearest evil neighbor.

The Emerald Lodge fought well, and more decisively had a jump on us. They won out the day, fair and fun for all.

Where things began to take a turn, is when it then became 'wait, you're bigger and it's not fair for you to attack us' because make no mistake, that is the nature and intent of the arguments that have been made. Because Brighthaven is larger, and because we do not have an aggressively expansionist or evil bent, we were somehow in violation of fairness, betraying the ideals we had said we stood for, or otherwise in the wrong to maintain our borders and establish our territory.

What followed was nothing less than an attempt to extort Brighthaven and attempt to force us to cede the territory or risk further smears upon our name in public. It was stated quite clearly by Thod in conference that yes, in fact, the intent was to extort us in order to gain territory that he knew he could not hold by force of arms.

While we are certainly disappointed that such attempts were made, we sleep soundly in the knowledge that at no time have we betrayed either the spirit or letter of any treaty to which we are signatory, nor our own moral codes.

This brings us all to the same point in this narrative now, that clearly the 'neutral party' in the NAP agreement is not; presumably due to the necessities of settlement mechanics, behaving in a neutral fashion. Attempting to conquer territory, and attempting to politically extort territories from neighbors, is not the behavior of a neutral party.

While Brighthaven is in no way intimidated nor swayed by the attempts to extort us, we have chosen to attempt to resolve the core issue of the problem, rather than responding to the attempted extortion directly with the appropriate and deserved responses to such tactics.

To that end, Brighthaven has resolved to cede to Emerald Lodge, for the good of the citizens of the citizenship of Emerald Lodge, the hex known as Baron's Folly or another hex as negotiated between leaderships, for so long as Emerald Lodge maintains their neutrality and viability as neutral arbiter. In addition, in order to establish and safeguard the neutrality of Emerald Lodge as arbiter of the NAP, Brighthaven calls upon the other signatory nations to cede towers such that Emerald Lodge will actually be neutral in the War of Towers.

On Behalf of the Council of Brighthaven,
- Kaeros Darkfire, High Marshall of the Argent Crusade, Councillor of Brighthaven, Sentinel of Covenant of the Phoenix

Goblin Squad Member

This is the formal response from Brighthaven for these two threads:

Judge them by their actions
Just a Big Misunderstanding

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Kaeros Darkfire wrote:
...a problem exists within the design of the NAP...it is impossible for a party to maintain neutrality while at the same time fighting battles of necessity to conquer territory.

Huh. Who would have thought?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

(IC): Pray, how, then, does The Empyrean Order define neutrality? Does "neutrality" mean immediately and unquestioningly accepting Brighthaven's definition of what their borders should be? I thought neutrality for an independent settlement meant not taking sides in the wars among these burgeoning nations. Or are you confusing the word "neutrality" with "nonexistence"? Must one give up all territory in the name of neutrality?

The way I see it, Theodum was not invited when you drew up your map. Your dream of what your borders should be was your own, no one else's. This is the frontier, and he was first to plant his flag in the ground. Any further attacks on this territory would be by definition expansionism against a neutral entity.

(OOC): ;)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Neutrality ceases to exist when the neutral state becomes party to a border dispute.

Goblin Squad Member

(IC): In that case, it appears one's neutrality can be taken from them by force.

Goblin Squad Member

Capitalocracy - in this use I mean it politically as follows, a person or a nation that remains neutral, as in a controversy or war, per dictionary.com for the reference. By definition, it is impossible therefor for them to be neutral in a conflict that directly involves them. I hope that is helpful to clarify, since you seem to have been confusing it with alignment or whatever else you were attempting to allude to in order to muddy what is a very clear issue.

No, we did not invite Theodum when we planned where we would establish our borders. Neither were we consulted when the 'neutral arbiter' in the NAP made an agreement with Golgotha where Golgotha 'granted' a tower that they did not themselves control to Emerald Lodge. Brighthaven is under no obligation to make any plans public, nor were we in any way obligated to abide by Golgotha's decision to not contest a tower (especially considering we were only told of it after the fact, while being accused of being bullies for fighting over a tower). Nor do we consider the first person to log in after the War of Towers went live to be the eternal 'rightful owner' of a tower as you seem to suggest is the case.

Prior to this afternoon when Brighthaven ceded claim to the hex, that hex remained contested territory, regardless of any temporary control that may have been established. Thod very clearly stated that in his opinion, our claim to the hex was every bit as valid to his own, as it was equidistant.

I hope this helps to clarify the matter for you. If there is anything else I can do to assist your understanding, please, feel free to contact me directly.

-Kaeros Darkfire

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Yes and no. The most common case is that one ends one's own neutrality in order to dispute a claim by another.

Being neutral is the opposite of making a disputed claim.

Having once made an undisputed claim, when that claim becomes disputed, one can either choose not to take sides in the dispute (probably making the claim undisputed again), or choose to take one's own side in the dispute (ending one's neutrality).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Neutrality ceases to exist when the neutral state becomes party to a border dispute.

Oh my. What an entertaining twist. First we saw propaganda trying to use a settlement's "goodness" against it. Now we have your propaganda jujitsu trying to use a settlement's neutrality against it.

I really must gather more popcorn.

Goblin Squad Member

Not at all using their neutrality against them Midnight. We have taken the actions we have taken in order to help reinforce and support their neutrality, since they had been forced to abandon it due to game mechanics.

Goblin Squad Member

There is a certain question that arises when a declared neutral state sends soldiers out to conquer other lands in order to increase its own power base. The mechanics of the game make a mess for training if EL doesn't, but it can hardly claim to be Properly neutral while contesting with others for valuable territory.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the ability to use linguistic flair is playing heavily into everyone's description of the events and even further mucking up the situation.

The reality of the situation is that the Emerald Lodge sought to seek out towers it could take without risking everything. They did not "conquer" or "assault" the tower. Both of those words imply that the tower was owned by someone else beforehand.

If you would claim "neutrality" means forsaking all aspirations, then the understanding of neutrality is fundamentally flawed. Emerald Lodge will require enough towers to ensure its citizens can train. In order to be neutral they need to have worth and be a risky venture. Their worth is to the community as the main staging point for the Emerald Spire(That is, unless you would like to stage operations within Golgotha.).

Does everyone here think Switzerland and Sweden just accepted defeat from others? An invader into Switzerland will soon discover the entire country is little more than a giant bomb with soldiers on ever square inch of those mountains.

Every person here knows that every settlement needs a certain amount of towers in order to be successful, yet we would deny these facts in order to besmirch the nobility of the Emerald Lodge and their claims. We would claim that their "Neutrality" was compromised the moment they aspired to succeed as a settlement.

TL;DR
Why is this a big deal?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

TL;DR

Why is this a big deal?

People need to make a fuss about something.

Goblin Squad Member

My days of remembering some details of European history are far behind me. Did Switzerland and Sweden colonize other lands?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravenlute wrote:
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

TL;DR

Why is this a big deal?
People need to make a fuss about something.

Well, some people do. Many are probably here because human beings can't resist watching other people fight. Really, there are several states of interest, and not all of us care very much.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deacon Wulf wrote:

TL;DR

Why is this a big deal?

Who's making it a big deal. Kaeros laid out a clear explanation of what they did and why.

TEO is forsaking any claim to the Tower in question to try to ensure that Emerald Lodge has the training it needs. They're asking others to do the same. The goal is to remove the pressure on Emerald Lodge that would put them in a position where their neutrality would be questioned.

Sounds pretty straight-up righteous to me.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
My days of remembering some details of European history are far behind me. Did Switzerland and Sweden colonize other lands?

Sweden did. Delaware is a former Swedish colony. See: Swedish overseas colonies and Swedish colonization of the Americas.

Not sure about Switzerland though. :/

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is also a Swiss colony that is still in existence - they make bread.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On a more serious note - I wanted to thank TEO to have this resolved.

There is the issue how to deal with neutrality and how to make it work. The whole game idea thrives on conflict - as such a whiter then white neutrality is utopian.

But with a little bit of leeway I think it is possible. Yes - we tried to be first to the flag and plant flag early. This ensured we wouldn't have to go down the other route - and slip in using large open PvP windows and the advantage of the European timezone.

We got 12 towers and I try to keep it at that size at the moment. Hope's End did contact us about a tower we took close to them and I'm sure we work something out.

Should Deadmans Glen stay inactive, then this could relieve some pressure. Off course I have no idea who else already lays claims to these towers or if they will become active.

I'm trying to be transparent in my dealings. Yes - I'm in contact with Golgotha and they ceded the towers E E of Emerald Lodge and N NW to us. I also asked them about tier 2 refining - against a price.

At the same time I offered our Apothecary in Hammerfall to work for folks there. And I also supplied the leader of Hammerfall with some recipes in exchange for tanning services.

I try to balance everything out as far as possible. If I had more dealings with Golgotha then with TEO then this is just the reality of life - they are our closest neighbour.

Goblin Squad Member

omnipotentseal wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
My days of remembering some details of European history are far behind me. Did Switzerland and Sweden colonize other lands?

Sweden did. Delaware is a former Swedish colony. See: Swedish overseas colonies and Swedish colonization of the Americas.

Not sure about Switzerland though. :/

The neutrality policy was successively implemented during the 19th century, the same time period in which Sweden ceded their last colonies.

Before then, Sweden was an active and aggressive military actor in Europe (up until the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars).

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Wurner wrote:
omnipotentseal wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
My days of remembering some details of European history are far behind me. Did Switzerland and Sweden colonize other lands?

Sweden did. Delaware is a former Swedish colony. See: Swedish overseas colonies and Swedish colonization of the Americas.

Not sure about Switzerland though. :/

The neutrality policy was successively implemented during the 19th century, the same time period in which Sweden ceded their last colonies.

Before then, Sweden was an active and aggressive military actor in Europe (up until the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars).

The better question is "Did Sweden or Switzerland colonize and aggressively expand while claiming neutrality?"

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / The Resolution of Baron's Folly All Messageboards

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