Gameplay Morality question


Pathfinder Online


At what point should someone who is legitimately playing the game stop doing what they are doing because of the amount of distress it is causing the other player?

I am specifically concerned with my actions and how they are/will be affecting Scorchbark; but I think the question has general merit, as well.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Obviously there's such a thing as "griefing", and you shouldn't be doing that. This is a game where some level of politicking is expected, so to an extent, you shouldn't feel bad about that. There's always such a thing as going too far, but as long as you're playing by the rules, what you consider too far and what someone else considers too far don't always have to match up, and you don't have to feel bad for doing something that someone else doesn't like if you don't think it's wrong. You should feel bad when YOU go too far, regardless of how the other person feels about it or if they even notice. It's OK to have compassion for others, and you should take into account how your actions affect them, but a lot of times people get butthurt over things that are way below the threshold of fair play, and you can't let that get to you.

In the specific case, this is a game where settlements can be taken over. If Scorchbark doesn't play, Scorchbark's settlement is going to be taken over. You don't have to feel bad for being the one to do it, as long as you're doing it for reasons you've thoroughly considered and consider to be decent.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

There by is the question.

Personally it is when I feel that my actions have gone too far, so if you are asking then you have reached that point.

Goblin Squad Member

No one will be happy when their settlement gets burned down, years of work and gear destroyed. Even before that happens, Settlements will disband, leaders (and followers) will go awol or be overthrown politically. This is the game. If you're uncertain, go by your characters in-game alignment.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

3 people marked this as a favorite.
sspitfire1 wrote:

At what point should someone who is legitimately playing the game stop doing what they are doing because of the amount of distress it is causing the other player?

I am specifically concerned with my actions and how they are/will be affecting Scorchbark; but I think the question has general merit, as well.

Most of the time, when you start questioning yourself, it's a good indication that you're playing with fire.

Goblin Squad Member

sspitfire1 wrote:

At what point should someone who is legitimately playing the game stop doing what they are doing because of the amount of distress it is causing the other player?

I am specifically concerned with my actions and how they are/will be affecting Scorchbark; but I think the question has general merit, as well.

And here I thought the word 'player' meant someone playing the game.

In what dictionary would Scorchbark be considered a player?

Goblin Squad Member

Well it depends. In this context I personally think that any distress Scorchbark may be feeling is of his own doing from my experience with him and from the point of view of an observer and he will probably never really like PFO based on his personal preferences.

He participated in trying to get a Settlment for the EE of PFO and then decided later that he wasn't going to participate. He broke the implicit agreement with anyone who helped him to gain said settlement and the intent of the promotion.

Now if everyone that helped him was on the same page then such actions would be unwarranted, but his holdings are still subject to the game's rules regardless of how he feels about it. So long as the goal of your activity is within the rules and context of the game and does not devolve into harassment for the sake of itself, then you are fine.

Ultimately only GW can currently decide how and why of changing settlement ownership. Currently it seems they have not decided yet but are leaning towards complete abandonment and non-contact from the owners as possible criteria for eventual redistribution. Perhaps they will allow a form of petition eventually, but in the meantime I currently do not think you will have a guaranteed chance for resolution until sieges are put in or Scorchbark decides to hand it over of his own volition.

As it stand I think your campaign will be unfruitful and possibly borderline harassment. Stating your position and preferred intent is fine, but I would not beat anyone over the head with it. As much as it may suck.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Swiss Mercenary wrote:

There by is the question.

Personally it is when I feel that my actions have gone too far, so if you are asking then you have reached that point.

That is the mechanism by which scrupulous people are oppressed.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why such stress and drama over one settlement? Just move to a different company / settlement and leave him all by himself.

When the game allows it, you can siege his settlement, burn it to he ground and build up anew.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Based on the blog post mentioning you, I'd say you're in the clear.

Goblin Squad Member

If nobody was willing to try to take a settlement, it would be a shame to leave all those siege engines just lying around.


Swiss Mercenary wrote:

There by is the question.

Personally it is when I feel that my actions have gone too far, so if you are asking then you have reached that point.

I think Capital's answer and this about sums it up. I am going to dial it back a bit. At this point, I have successfully managed to publicly embarrass, if not humiliate, Scorchbark and cause him a considerable amount of distress.

I am going to continue to occupy BFK and work with its AH, but I will limit tower taking to 1 a week, as was my original plan, as a means of testing AoE's level of attentiveness to the game. Taking a tower every day or some such, however, would be, as Duffy put it, borderline harassment.

Thank you everyone!

Goblinworks Executive Founder

sspitfire1 wrote:
I think Capital's answer and this about sums it up. I am going to dial it back a bit. At this point, I have successfully managed to publicly embarrass, if not humiliate, Scorchbark and cause him a considerable amount of distress.

Yay, humiliating players, that's meaningful PvP.

I hope that the guy won't meet Caldeathe, they could launch a lawsuit about slander and all.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Scorchbark had more to do with his embarrassment than sspitfire did.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
At this point, I have successfully managed to publicly embarrass, if not humiliate, Scorchbark and cause him a considerable amount of distress.

I hope you have a feat slotted that triggers on distressed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kakafika wrote:
I think Scorchbark had more to do with his embarrassment than sspitfire did.

I deliberately drew direct attention to Scorchbark's posts on the AoE forums. That was *my* part in his humiliation and the part I have control over that. The his behavior is, in itself, embarrassing I have no responsibility for.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
sspitfire1 wrote:
I think Capital's answer and this about sums it up. I am going to dial it back a bit. At this point, I have successfully managed to publicly embarrass, if not humiliate, Scorchbark and cause him a considerable amount of distress.

Yay, humiliating players, that's meaningful PvP.

I hope that the guy won't meet Caldeathe, they could launch a lawsuit about slander and all.

Wittier and wittier with each passing day. If you think I'm humiliated about my predisposition to caution people against reckless behaviour, you're unbelievably mistaken.

Humiliating people isn't illegal, just rude.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Audoucet wrote:
sspitfire1 wrote:
I think Capital's answer and this about sums it up. I am going to dial it back a bit. At this point, I have successfully managed to publicly embarrass, if not humiliate, Scorchbark and cause him a considerable amount of distress.

Yay, humiliating players, that's meaningful PvP.

I hope that the guy won't meet Caldeathe, they could launch a lawsuit about slander and all.

Wittier and wittier with each passing day. If you think I'm humiliated about my predisposition to caution people against reckless behaviour, you're unbelievably mistaken.

Humiliating people isn't illegal, just rude.

It also invites terrorism. I believe we've been through this recently with the whole Charlie Hebdo thing.

Goblin Squad Member

Kyutaru wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Humiliating people isn't illegal, just rude.
It also invites terrorism. I believe we've been through this recently with the whole Charlie Hebdo thing.

I suspect if BFK turned Gale into their personal Charlie Hebdo and got active enough to go all wupp-ass on him, Ryan would be pleased.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Swiss Mercenary wrote:

There by is the question.

Personally it is when I feel that my actions have gone too far, so if you are asking then you have reached that point.

That is the mechanism by which scrupulous people are oppressed.

Welcome to real life.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Invites terrorism?
Isn't that logic akin to a short skirt inviting rape?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Swiss Mercenary wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Swiss Mercenary wrote:

There by is the question.

Personally it is when I feel that my actions have gone too far, so if you are asking then you have reached that point.

That is the mechanism by which scrupulous people are oppressed.
Welcome to real life.

Not everything that is everywhere in real life is an unalterable force of nature that should be accepted.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Invites terrorism?

Isn't that logic akin to a short skirt inviting rape?

But it does, on both accounts. We simply prefer to live in a world where wearing a short skirt does not make one a victim. The stimulus-response trigger remains objectively present.

Engaging in verbal hostilities, on the other hand, isn't awarded the same level of support. As any act that is shunned, it's purely subjective framing and the only difference between the two examples is perspective.

So while we are less likely as a society to discourage females from wearing short skirts, we are more inclined to frown upon being rude.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Swiss Mercenary wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Swiss Mercenary wrote:

There by is the question.

Personally it is when I feel that my actions have gone too far, so if you are asking then you have reached that point.

That is the mechanism by which scrupulous people are oppressed.
Welcome to real life.
Not everything that is everywhere in real life is an unalterable force of nature that should be accepted.

Forces of nature can but be accepted.

Goblin Squad Member

sspitfire1 wrote:
I am going to continue to occupy BFK and work with its AH, but I will limit tower taking to 1 a week, as was my original plan, as a means of testing AoE's level of attentiveness to the game. Taking a tower every day or some such, however, would be, as Duffy put it, borderline harassment.

It was the players that created the server wide NAP and the "rules" about not taking surrounding Towers. When the Devs set up the WoT I'm sure they had actual PvP in mind with those Towers. So why would taking a Tower each day be harassment? Even if you took all of them in the same day it wouldn't be.


The main point, Ravenlute, is that it would not accomplish anything towards getting me the settlement but it would do much to severely perturb Scorchbark. So, in my book, it would be harassment. But that is also a personal judgement call.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Audoucet wrote:
sspitfire1 wrote:
I think Capital's answer and this about sums it up. I am going to dial it back a bit. At this point, I have successfully managed to publicly embarrass, if not humiliate, Scorchbark and cause him a considerable amount of distress.

Yay, humiliating players, that's meaningful PvP.

I hope that the guy won't meet Caldeathe, they could launch a lawsuit about slander and all.

Cal has a thicker skin then you give him credit for.

If I cared enough (which I don't,) I'm certain I could find old posts of yours full of indignant remarks about how you were wronged for one thing or another.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still don't understand the reason why the OP doesn't just go to a new settlement. If the settlement leader is active (via email with GW) and refuses to develop the settlement, abandon his ship. Wait until the agreed upon day when non used Alpha Six towers can be captured, and wait until settlement siege is available and take what he holds.


Bluddwolf wrote:
I still don't understand the reason why the OP doesn't just go to a new settlement. If the settlement leader is active (via email with GW) and refuses to develop the settlement, abandon his ship. Wait until the agreed upon day when non used Alpha Six towers can be captured, and wait until settlement siege is available and take what he holds.

And I am fairly confident I could not provide a satisfactory explanation; it just is what is.

Goblin Squad Member

"Wait until the agreed upon day when non used Alpha Six towers can be captured..." Actually, the agreement only applies to settlements, so the fact that he hasn't joined a settlement gives him free reign (as much as anybody) to take any tower he wants, and not be breaking any treaties. People might not like that, and they might react accordingly, but he's certainly not breaking any treaties.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Kyutaru wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Invites terrorism?

Isn't that logic akin to a short skirt inviting rape?

But it does, on both accounts. We simply prefer to live in a world where wearing a short skirt does not make one a victim. The stimulus-response trigger remains objectively present.

Engaging in verbal hostilities, on the other hand, isn't awarded the same level of support. As any act that is shunned, it's purely subjective framing and the only difference between the two examples is perspective.

So while we are less likely as a society to discourage females from wearing short skirts, we are more inclined to frown upon being rude.

The facts speak for themselves, but I do not hear them saying the same thing that you hear them saying.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
The facts speak for themselves, but I do not hear them saying the same thing that you hear them saying.

Such a pity. I shall notify you forthwith should I develop psychic capabilities.

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Gameplay Morality question All Messageboards

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