Goblin Squad Member
|
Does everyone else count 138 whole hexes? Is that 18 half hexes, and is there anything in those?
Just so I can get a sense of what's left in the world, how many hexes are on the map?
138 hexes is accurate. By my own count (not counting "half-hexes", which are actually walled off in the game), there's a total of ~798 (memory is a bit hazy) hexes. I think Lee Hammock quoted a number in the 800s in his recent video interview.
For the mathematically declined, using those figures, this is roughly a claim on ~17% of the total map area.
To but the current map in perspective, this is the potential full OE map if all went well and there were the player numbers to support it:
I doubt the map will be expanded anytime soon.
Some conjecture on my part. Once Fort Inevitable is implemented it will be too close to the edge of the current map so it is likely the first map expansion will be southwards to make more room for Fort Inevitable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Al, the EBA will not be targeting poachers for death for picking some flowers. We will issue notice to those found in our territory of our policies. We will work to ensure they understand our laws and the options they have for working within the EBA. If they ignore us and continue to harvest our resources, what recourse would you recommend? If we do not defend our territory, and others come into our land and strip mine the resources, that is the only path allowable for Good?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Killing people who are in your territory because you don't want them to be there, despite not having committed a moral crime, is definitely not Lawful Neutral.
That is straight up Lawful Evil, since you are attaching the legality of applying a death sentence or execution for violating a set of laws you have decreed rather than the distinction of being an aberrant of nature or having been known to have committed a heinous act.
We won't attack people just for being in our territory. They must either be a known enemy (rascally Golgothans), or people taking our resources without a previous agreement. We would try to work something out in the second case, but there is no gaurantee that we could come to a solution. And unfortunately, the game only allows one punishment, getting sent to the respawn shrine.
The difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Evil is how the laws are carried out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is it the death penalty evil if you are simply revived at a nearby shrine? Murder and the death penalty are heinous things because they are final. That is not the case here.
If we really want to get into TT alignments is killing an evil character ever an Evil act? If so under what circumstances? If killing is always evil how can paladins ever function ? If it is random killing is it more chaotic than evil or is it both ?
It is probably far to early to discuss alignment mechanics when they are not implemented in game yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem appears to be a variance in thinking--individual vs. group. We, as a group, are asserting our territorial control in order to protect the lands around us. Failing to do this could lead to, for instance, new players coming into the territory south of Kindleburn and harvest the resources to depletion. That would cause a serious problem, that could then extend outward as more territory is targeted.
I don't currently see a reasonable case where someone could be challenged in our territory, given ample opportunity to work with us or find an alternate location, ignore us entirely, and still consider a final response of physical confrontation to be out of line. Continuing to harvest in our territory is, in truth, even more aggressive an act than attacking someone. People respawn at shrines. Resources, once depleted, have a much harder time coming back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... when we see a character we don't recognize in EBA territory doing things without permission and whack it...Please understand this should not happen without warning unless you're a known ally of Golgotha, or another known enemy.
As I said above - and I really hope this messages gets through all the bluster - the EBA is friendly to strangers and welcomes visitors.
TL;DR: If the EBA also intends to be "friendly" about characters found performing "hostile actions," then we need to clarify that alongside the "don't do this" part of the policy.
I'm a lawyer, not a diplomat.
The policy clarifies one thing and one thing only: what is a "hostile action." It does not state how "hostile actions" will be dealt with. This implicitly leaves open the option for non-EBA characters in EBA territory committing "hostile actions" to be summarily killed without warning.
In other words, it reads that traveling through EBA territory is a totally safe prospect so long as we don't see you clearing our escalations, harvesting our nodes, or occupying our holding-spaces. Doing one of those 3 actions without our permission in our territory means you are taking your life into your own hands. As such, the policy really does read no different from Golgatha's, with the exception that we clearly grant safe passage to passers-through without them having to declare their intentions (Golgatha may not require a declaration of intention, but it has always been heavily advised). That's the "friendly and welcoming part."
Separately, choosing to place the "hostile actions" part of the message before the "all are welcome" message also sets the tone of the whole thing in a rather unwelcoming light.
@Good versus Evil: The policy is Lawful Neutral. I would add the distinction between a Good and Evil execution of the policy depends on how much mercy is offered transgressors.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing is not always evil according to alignment theory. A distinction can also be made between "killing" and "murder".
This is a good read:
http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html
It also seems to me that if you are Lawful Good as a society you are almost obliged to stamp out evil by either destroying or attempting to subvert/convert it.
Being basically good and having a "live and let live" attitude to evil sounds more Neutral Good to me.
Roleplay aside however what eventually matters is how the game implements the alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd say the difference between Good and Evil is in the intention.
Right now, those on the side of Good have the intention of informing others of our policies to minimize misunderstandings, and of setting expectations about what strangers can expect in EBA territory - namely, that we are friendly to strangers and welcome visitors, but don't expect to be able to walk through the store taking things off the shelf and walk out without paying.
Those on the side of Evil have the intention of sowing discord and holding the Good to an impossible standard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, it reads that traveling through EBA territory is a totally safe prospect so long as we don't see you clearing our escalations, harvesting our nodes, or occupying our holding-spaces. Doing one of those 3 actions without our permission in our territory means you are taking your life into your own hands. As such, the policy really does read no different from Golgatha's, with the exception that we clearly grant safe passage to passers-through without them having to declare their intentions (Golgatha may not require a declaration of intention, but it has always been heavily advised). That's the "friendly and welcoming part."Lawful Evil.
Spongebob Squrepants.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In other words, it reads that traveling through EBA territory is a totally safe prospect so long as we don't see you clearing our escalations, harvesting our nodes, or occupying our holding-spaces. Doing one of those 3 actions without our permission in our territory means you are taking your life into your own hands. As such, the policy really does read no different from Golgatha's, with the exception that we clearly grant safe passage to passers-through without them having to declare their intentions (Golgatha may not require a declaration of intention, but it has always been heavily advised). That's the "friendly and welcoming part."Lawful Evil.
Lawful definitely.
How do you justify the evil bit? The fact that in that statement the law is enforced by threat of temporary death? Or just that the law is enforced ?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a lawyer, not a diplomat.
And that's quite apparent right now :)
The policy clarifies one thing and one thing only: what is a "hostile action." It does not state how "hostile actions" will be dealt with. This implicitly leaves open the option for non-EBA characters in EBA territory committing "hostile actions" to be summarily killed without warning.
This statement makes it clear to folks what we will consider hostile. We have posted on our private forums how our members are expected to deal with it. There is no benefit in us exposing that side of this to the likes of Al Smithy.
Our goal is to inform folks, not to draw bright lines about exactly how we're going to respond in every situation. Many of our decisions about how to respond will be made in the moment, using our best judgment based on all the available facts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Killing people who are in your territory because you don't want them to be there, despite not having committed a moral crime, is definitely not Lawful Neutral.
That is straight up Lawful Evil, since you are attaching the legality of applying a death sentence or execution for violating a set of laws you have decreed rather than the distinction of being an aberrant of nature or having been known to have committed a heinous act.
Stealing EBA's property, which we consider all resources within our domain, is a crime. Committing a crime is a moral offense. Minor moral offenses will be corrected with a warning or threat. Major moral offenses will be corrected with execution of that threat.
Theft of EBA resources by an organization or association known to be collectively in conflict with the EBA is a violation of our sovereignty and hence an act of war. Defense of one's self and neighbors in war is a moral imperative.
I will grant that recognition of such things as laws, belongings, territory, and even collective associations is a Lawful ideal, but defense of one's personal and neighbors' well-being is hardly Evil.
However, I imagine you judge all through the lens of your understanding of the world - I do not take offense at your err.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Those on the side of Evil have the intention of holding the Good to an impossible standard? Interesting definition, one that seems pretty alien to me... unless it's more of a dig at some people's forum behavior than it is a definition of an alignment.
It was a characterization of the events ongoing in this thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do not see stealing as a moral offense?Committing a crime is a moral offense.And they call us evil.
Sure it is. But it isn't a moral offense because it is against the law. By that standard I could say that breathing is now against the law, and you breathing is now a moral offense. Legality does not inform morality.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sure it is. But it isn't a moral offense because it is against the law. By that standard I could say that breathing is now against the law, and you breathing is now a moral offense. Legality does not inform morality.You do not see stealing as a moral offense?Committing a crime is a moral offense.And they call us evil.
True lawful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My 3.5 Gnome Paladin believed evil was redeemable but bad fashion sense was not. She spent a lot of time atoning.
Another Paladin in the same party thought LG meant you walked up to the camp of sleeping orc bandits, woke them up gave them weapons and challenged them to honorable combat and any attacking while they were asleep was un-Paladin like and an evil act.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sure it is. But it isn't a moral offense because it is against the law. By that standard I could say that breathing is now against the law, and you breathing is now a moral offense. Legality does not inform morality.You do not see stealing as a moral offense?Committing a crime is a moral offense.And they call us evil.
And what else is morality but the long standing tradition of legality? Are you suggesting an absolute authority beyond the pantheon of gods who would not agree on a single moral/law anyways?
I think many a true Ranger would take offense to your supposition that you "own" the trees and the rocks and the essences of the world.
LMAO
That's a Druid you are describing there, Mr. Know-it-all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I ask again, what is a reasonable Good response other than what we've outlined? Without that, I see continued calls of "look at the evil EBA" as just refusing to engage in constructive conversation.I reasonable good response would be something other than execution. If you cannot think of another response besides that, or if the game doesn't provide a suitable option for your means, then honestly that is either a failure in imagination on your part or a failure of the game to create an adequate role-playing environment.
What if you offered free resurrection ?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think many a true Ranger would take offense to your supposition that you "own" the trees and the rocks and the essences of the world.LMAO
That's a Druid you are describing there, Mr. Know-it-all.
I think you will find that that is Pocohontas that he is describing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We can only function within the parameters of the defined game. As we're only 2/5 of the way toward a final game, there are certainly pieces missing that will help us in the future. At present, holdings, escalation rewards, and resource nodes are limited resources. Character lives are fully, immediately, renewable. You cannot argue in this conversation from anything other than our current environment; doing so provides no reasonable ground for conversation.
I reasonable good response would be something other than execution....or a failure of the game to create an adequate role-playing environment.
THAT is a valid point. But until Stand-and-Deliver mechanics go in, killing is the only recourse available to us. And Imprisonment was long ago tossed off the table of options.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I ask again, what is a reasonable Good response other than what we've outlined? Without that, I see continued calls of "look at the evil EBA" as just refusing to engage in constructive conversation.I reasonable good response would be something other than execution. If you cannot think of another response besides that, or if the game doesn't provide a suitable option for your means, then honestly that is either a failure in imagination on your part or a failure of the game to create an adequate role-playing environment.
Trust me, most if not all the EBA would prefer a mechanic that would allow us other options.
I am sure Nihimon can link you numerous suggestions he has made concerning removing offenders from a controlled area in a way that does not require killing them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Without that, I see continued calls of "look at the evil EBA" as just refusing to engage in constructive conversation.You have chosen to label yourselves as Lawful Good, the onus is on you and your players to live up to it. Shirking that responsibility because it is difficult, while hiding behind the veil of provocative discussions is really just a disservice to serious role players.
So, your answer is "Yes, i refuse to engage in a meaningful conversation." then? You argument basically says we, as Good, must allow anyone to enter any hex, strip mine it to dust, and walk away unharmed. Give me a reasonable, Good response to that. Or admit to having nothing to add to the conversation.
You do not see stealing as a moral offense?Committing a crime is a moral offense.And they call us evil.
In the real world, the first man to erect a fence and claim all this is mine and none shall pass... that man was egregiously evil and the world would be a better place if he had been laughed out of civilization, rather than copied.
In our virtual world, I was one of the first E.E. territorial players because that is, in my opinion, the absolutely best way to roleplay the evil that my guild had chosen to play here.
So when I say, welcome to the dark side, I'm sincere.
Had my guild chosen to roleplay good, you'd see an entirely different personal player behavior (though I'd have to work within a group framework and most of those guildmates might have a difficult time accepting that, in the real world, they live in what I view as an evil society).