PvP and the existing community


Pathfinder Online

301 to 350 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Atheory wrote:
but how I can cash in at a burning bank? /wink

Quickly

Goblin Squad Member

excellent i like quickies

oh, if the base camp was Phyllain's I could see your point, but it was mine. :)

Goblin Squad Member

How can anyone possibly take what Golgotha says seriously, they just mock and spout passive-aggressive comments to those that don't agree or debate with them. And then want others to take them serious when it's time to talk business. Yes, that is what you're doing...Nihimon and Decius post facts and recaps of actual situations; you all should try it.

Goblin Squad Member

Atheory wrote:

excellent i like quickies

oh, if the base camp was Phyllain's I could see your point, but it was mine. :)

Sure, but if Phyllain says "pick up the camp or we kick you out of Golgotha"...well...then...meaningful decisions. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Saiph wrote:

Yes, that is what you're doing...Nihimon and Decius post facts and recaps of actual situations; you all should try it.

No, they don't. Nihimon and Decius make off-hand comments that make it out as if they have evidence of events, but when asked to publish that evidence, they say that they wouldn't post it publicly. Or they call us cheaters in random threads. Or they try and get an entire settlement pulled out of the Landrush because they think, again with no evidence, that we might be cheating.

Goblin Squad Member

Then it would be on me right. It would be interesting if this avenue was pursued. Cooler heads think up the coolest stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the saddest part of this thread is that there are more posts than active players (not characters).

Goblin Squad Member

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

We attacked AGC and took and AGC tower. Not attacked GOL and took a GOL tower. There were GOL towers we could have taken, but we took an AGC one.

There is no difference between and AGC tower and a Golgothan tower. Auroral, Golgotha, Kreuz Bernstein, and Callambea are all part of the Empire. The leaders of all these cities answer to me. To attack one cities tower is to attack them all.

Goblin Squad Member

Diego Rossi wrote:
Black Silver of The Veiled, T7V wrote:
Sigh.. this is just going back and forth. As usually Golgotha is spinning stuff to make them look as the offended party. Oh well. Here is your cake.

LE standard. It is consistent with the alignment.

(And it is valid in both directions, as you too are LE, right?)

Actually, I'm NE.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saiph wrote:

How can anyone possibly take what Golgotha says seriously, they just mock and spout passive-aggressive comments to those that don't agree or debate with them. And then want others to take them serious when it's time to talk business. Yes, that is what you're doing...Nihimon and Decius post facts and recaps of actual situations; you all should try it.

lol. funniest thing I've read in ages. And I thought I was misinformed!

Thanks for the laugh.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calidor Cruciatus wrote:

I think the saddest part of this thread is that there are more posts than active players (not characters).

And this is probably the most important post in this whole thread :)

Ronyel, AGC

Goblin Squad Member

starchildren3317 wrote:
Calidor Cruciatus wrote:

I think the saddest part of this thread is that there are more posts than active players (not characters).

And this is probably the most important post in this whole thread :)

Ronyel, AGC

I think it might be between 500 - 600 active players, not counting multiple account holders more than once.

Far below the 10,000 that was predicted or hoped for.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


I think it might be between 500 - 600 active players, not counting multiple account holders more than once.

Far below the 10,000 that was predicted or hoped for.

Hard to tell with our limited means of measuring active players, but I think your close to the mark, if a bit on the lower side.

But the reality is there isn't much of a game yet. I've enjoyed myself so far, but as training things becomes increasingly infrequent, achievements need 1000s instead of 100s, the settlement game is not fully functional and meaningful PVP is rare- I can see how many just won't bother with it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Phyllain wrote:

We are talking about a different tower agreement not the original NAP.

You are correct

Asking us to remove it would have been a nice place to start yes. We might not have agreed but it would have been nice.

There was no such agreement and you know that. Try to act in good faith.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Atheory wrote:
You could have asked AGC to remove it, Golgotha had nothing to do with its placement. I saw no distinction between having that there or just banking up a hex away.

Phyllain claimed full responsibility for all of AGCs actions. Are you now claiming that AGC is not one and the same with Golgotha?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Try to act in good faith.

Good faith?

Like people from Phaeros trying to tell new players in general chat that there is not a war ongoing in the SE last night? Purposely putting new players who may NOT be aware of the ongoing situation in harms way for the sake of political posturing? THAT sort of good faith?

Because that is pretty lame and if Phaeros can't even set aside political perspective long enough to be honest and helpful with new players I don't want any of your brand of 'good faith'.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Rynnik wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Try to act in good faith.

Good faith?

Like people from Phaeros trying to tell new players in general chat that there is not a war ongoing in the SE last night? Purposely putting new players who may NOT be aware of the ongoing situation in harms way for the sake of political posturing? THAT sort of good faith?

Because that is pretty lame and if Phaeros can't even set aside political perspective long enough to be honest and helpful with new players I don't want any of your brand of 'good faith'.

Lol. All we said was that most players were as safe as anywhere else. And based on the alts that various people had looking for you, that was pretty much true.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Decius

I understand this might be a hard concept to grasp, but AGC is an independent company and always has been. While we now reside within the Empire of Xeilias, we still maintain a great deal of that independence. With that independence comes an inherent set of responsibilities in being citizens of the Empire. I won't bore you with the internal politics of the Empire except to add:

Phyllain as the leader of this Empire can do as he please, such as to support the actions of AGC or not. I am merely clarifying, at least attempting to, that diplomatic dialogue can be established with AGC on matters involving the AGC.

People can bypass us and go directly to Gologtha, the capital of the Empire and seek an audience with the Benevolent Leader if they wish, but in many cases this actually wouldn't be necessary with cordial discussions between the originally involved parties. As always, should those talks fail, then go up the ladder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:


Lol. All we said was that most players were as safe as anywhere else. And based on the alts that various people had looking for you, that was pretty much true.

Please elaborate on your idea that the south is as safe as anywhere else on the map. Is there any where else on the map where more than 10 people are getting killed every day? Is there any other place where people are saying "don't go there because of bandits?" What you are saying is dishonest and factually incorrect, I have yet to hear about a bandit problem near Canis Castrum, is the south truly as safe as the west and south west? No it is a war zone and believe it or not war zones are not safe.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Gol Phyllain wrote:

We are talking about a different tower agreement not the original NAP.

You are correct

Asking us to remove it would have been a nice place to start yes. We might not have agreed but it would have been nice.

There was no such agreement and you know that. Try to act in good faith.

Ah, I'm sorry, the “unilateral cooling off”. While we are being candid, will you admit that the EOX did not, in fact, break any deals that we had with you? I'm not talking about respecting your “territorial rights”, as we never ratified those territorial claims. To the EOX, that Mordent Spire hex was fair game. Our towers were also fair game to you, apparently, and in attacking us you dragged your allies, who were very much in an agreement with the Empire, into an unnecessary war. A war that, in turn, made all of the EBA's towers and players fair game to us.

Would that be us acting in good faith?

Goblin Squad Member

@Phyllain,

Taking Towers is the only positive-gameplay tool we have in our toolbox right now.

We took one Tower from AGC because they were deliberately provoking us by ignoring our territorial claims on multiple counts. We defended it (without TEO, thanks) one night, then lost it (again, without TEO) the next.

That you chose to turn that into a scorched earth, all-out WAR against us and all of our allies was your choice. That you've continued that WAR despite the fact that we've once again unilaterally cooled things off is also your choice. That you're taking every opportunity to try to drive a wedge between us and our allies is, I suppose, understandable, but still transparent.


Nihimon wrote:
We took one Tower from AGC because they were deliberately provoking us

At least you are admitting now that you broke the agreement between Golgotha and your political affiliates despite Golgotha respecting the terms exactly.

That is a small step but important I think.

Goblin Squad Member

Rynnik he is just going to say that he didn't have a deal with us and damn the rest of the EBA's diplomatic stance.

Goblin Squad Member

And to be fair to him, he did not have a deal about towers with us. I made the mistake of assuming the deal I negotiated was with all of the EBA and not just one of the cities.

Goblin Squad Member

Quote:
That you chose to turn that into a scorched earth, all-out WAR against us and all of our allies was your choice. That you've continued that WAR despite the fact that we've once again unilaterally cooled things off is also your choice. That you're taking every opportunity to try to drive a wedge between us and our allies is, I suppose, understandable, but still transparent.

After the retaking of the tower that Phaeros aggressively attacked (and failed to hold), we came down to Phaeros' core 6 and began our own operations of reciprocation. Before doing so, we sent PM's out to both the leaders of Keepers' Pass and Brighthaven warning them of this fact, requesting that they inform their citizenry to keep out of the area. An attack on the Empire of Xeilias will be responded to with an attack against all citizens of the offending settlement.

We had no intention of beginning a war with Keepers' Pass or Brighthaven. We still have no real intention of being in a war with Keeper's Pass or Brighthaven, which is why we have been keeping the vast majority of our operations close to Phaeros lands. The ongoing scorched earth policy was only put into place AFTER the EBA performed their own blitz against every Imperial tower.

We will continue our scorched earth policy against Phaeros until further notice. This is a war that you invited upon yourself. This is not how you keep your citizens safe.


Gol Phyllain wrote:
Rynnik he is just going to say that he didn't have a deal with us and damn the rest of the EBA's diplomatic stance.

Very true, boss.

But credit where it is due I respect Nihimon for admitting the actual circumstances with Phaeros aggression being the instigator in this war and the breaking of the agreement not with them but with their allies.

Especially in the face of them knowing that our unmolested towers was the conditional for gatherer 'peace' in the SE as it was the only way we could reasonably protect our training (which of course I respect that you have told us to 'suck up' and forgo) from much larger forces. The only way Phaeros could even say they didn't do this with the expectation of us having to murder their citizens is if they say they didn't even know the deal existed... And they have of course already done that.

Gol Phyllain wrote:
And to be fair to him, he did not have a deal about towers with us. I made the mistake of assuming the deal I negotiated was with all of the EBA and not just one of the cities.

I think that is why Nihimon's post impressed me. You have of course been very upfront about admitting your mistakes. I think Nihimon is the only one from Phaeros I have ever seen do that and he deserves a lot of credit for that.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Tink wrote:
We had no intention of beginning a war with Keepers' Pass or Brighthaven. We still have no real intention of being in a war with Keeper's Pass or Brighthaven, which is why we have been keeping the vast majority of our operations close to Phaeros lands.

You don't want to start a war, just kill people with no repercussions?

I should try that logic on Phyllain, "I don't want to start a war with Golgotha, I just want to kill Callambea's customers whenever I feel like it."

Goblin Squad Member

Gaskon wrote:
Gol Tink wrote:
We had no intention of beginning a war with Keepers' Pass or Brighthaven. We still have no real intention of being in a war with Keeper's Pass or Brighthaven, which is why we have been keeping the vast majority of our operations close to Phaeros lands.

You don't want to start a war, just kill people with no repercussions?

I should try that logic on Phyllain, "I don't want to start a war with Golgotha, I just want to kill Callambea's customers after they have taken all of our towers for no reason, in direct violation of an agreement."

There, I think your analogy hits the mark a bit closer after that adjustment.

Goblin Squad Member

Taken 1 tower. According to Tink's timeline, Phaeros took 1 tower.
Golgotha then starting killing Phaeros citizens in Phaeros' core 6 hexes, and somehow Golgotha thought that wouldn't be considered war by the rest of the EBA.


Gaskon wrote:
and somehow Golgotha thought that wouldn't be considered war by the rest of the EBA.

Due to an arrangement exactly to that effect that was the subject of an already hashed out misunderstanding - you have been posting throughout this entire thread. Have you not being reading as well?

Goblin Squad Member

Rynnik wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
and somehow Golgotha thought that wouldn't be considered war by the rest of the EBA.
Due to an arrangement exactly to that effect that was the subject of an already hashed out misunderstanding - you have been posting throughout this entire thread. Have you not being reading as well?

Well, since the arrangement was never written down, we have Phyllain's recollection of it, and Cheatle's recollection of it.

Pretty sure neither of those versions included allowing Golgotha to go kill people in hexes adjacent to Phaeros.

Edit: just reviewed... apparently Tink thought that was the agreement.
That's a sort of crazy deal.

Any chance Golgotha would agree to let Forgeholm kill Kreuz Berenstein members while remaining neutral?


Gaskon wrote:
Pretty sure neither of those versions included allowing Golgotha to go kill people in hexes adjacent to Phaeros.

Why would you be sure of that? It came out as a he said/she said where one party said exactly that. It was resolved privately and admitted afterwards that it WAS in fact a genuine misunderstanding.


Flynn Pontis wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:


Lol. All we said was that most players were as safe as anywhere else. And based on the alts that various people had looking for you, that was pretty much true.

Please elaborate on your idea that the south is as safe as anywhere else on the map. Is there any where else on the map where more than 10 people are getting killed every day? Is there any other place where people are saying "don't go there because of bandits?" What you are saying is dishonest and factually incorrect, I have yet to hear about a bandit problem near Canis Castrum, is the south truly as safe as the west and south west? No it is a war zone and believe it or not war zones are not safe.

I have alts all over the map including some in EBA and even in the south I have been killed more by Ustalavs and blundering into Purple Ogres than other players over the past week. My Marchmont alt has died more fighting escalations to be honest. I am not sure why people get so upset by death to another player (especially as by all accounts the Golgotha folks are not even keeping loot just destroying it) compared to NPC death.

My impression in the south is a few people are chasing the Golgothan's around but a lot of people are just gathering as normal but wearing basic gear and a +0 "alternate" weapon getting a few achievements up in a weapon area they normally do not rank up and do not care if they die. This of course may be causing issues for EBA leadership who probably wish they did care more as they are giving "kills" away for Golgotha to boast about but that is what you get I suppose.

Goblin Squad Member

Rynnik wrote:
Why would you be sure of that? It came out as a he said/she said where one party said exactly that. It was resolved privately and admitted afterwards that it WAS in fact a genuine misunderstanding.

Yeah, just reviewed Tink's post about the agreement.

I guess the lesson is, get this stuff in writing, especially if it seems extremely beneficial for your side.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gaskon I don't know what you can't understand about the story here. People gathered in EBA territory, phaeros drives them off their land. Should have ended there. Phaeros decides to take an Xelian tower despite having knowledge of an agreement with xelias and TEO/KP to leave towers alone in exchange for no banditry against their settlements. Xelias had no agreement with the EBA in regards to sovereignty only that if you were spotted in enemy territory you would be killed. Golgotha drives phaeros off of their tower and begins killing citizens near phaeros for their agression and advises rest of Eba to steer clear. Eba comes to aid of their ally and seizes the majority of Golgothan towers one night. Golgotha expands banditry to rest of EBA. Phaeros took the actions that they did to try and bully the whole of xelias for doing some pve/gathering in "their" teritory. When they got driven out and attacked around phaeros they called for help thus having the rest of the EBA break their agreement.

So is gathering/pveing a declaration of war? If it was I am sure the majority of the map would be at war. (Which would be cool mind you)

Goblin Squad Member

Flynn Pontis wrote:
Gaskon I don't know what you can't understand about the story here.

I guess what I don't understand is why Golgotha chose to escalate from "we lost one tower" directly to "We kill all Phaeros members."

Actually, I do understand, its because of all the bad feelings and history on both sides, I just think its really unfortunate and bad for the game.

I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.


Gaskon wrote:
I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.

How is that appetizing if you want to avoid ever fighting at a tower ever because it isn't fun?

Goblin Squad Member

Rynnik wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.
How is that appetizing if you want to avoid ever fighting at a tower ever because it isn't fun?

Gatherers have whole lists of unappetizing things they have to do to avoid PVP they don't like.

And people that don't thrill over freestyle PVP get told that this isn't the game for them.

So... suck it up and take the towers back, even if its not fun?

Or ignore the tower wars and have your training capped at 9?

Don't play until more enjoyable PVP systems are implemented?


Gaskon wrote:
Rynnik wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.
How is that appetizing if you want to avoid ever fighting at a tower ever because it isn't fun?

Gatherers have whole lists of unappetizing things they have to do to avoid PVP they don't like.

And people that don't thrill over freestyle PVP get told that this isn't the game for them.

So... suck it up and take the towers back, even if its not fun?

Or ignore the tower wars and have your training capped at 9?

Don't play until more enjoyable PVP systems are implemented?

Or...

Do exactly what we are doing.

Goblin Squad Member

Rynnik wrote:
Do exactly what we are doing.

And we're back to where we started :)

I'm off the forums for tonight.. got a tower window to organize defense for!

Try to have fun everybody.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaskon wrote:
Rynnik wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.
How is that appetizing if you want to avoid ever fighting at a tower ever because it isn't fun?

Gatherers have whole lists of unappetizing things they have to do to avoid PVP they don't like.

And people that don't thrill over freestyle PVP get told that this isn't the game for them.

So... suck it up and take the towers back, even if its not fun?

Or ignore the tower wars and have your training capped at 9?

Don't play until more enjoyable PVP systems are implemented?

I'm confused by this. First of all, Golgotha has clearly stated, anyone not in Phaeros should,vacate the area around Phaeros. That seems to me to be fair warning.

Secondly, Golgotha is within its rights to retaliate for attacks upon itself in whatever manner it sees fit. The aggressor does not get to dictate the terms of retaliation.

From the sounds of the response here on the forums, Phaeros bit off more than they can chew, because Golgotha's reprisal is hitting them where it really hurts.

This is evidenced by the fact that in General Chat, apparently, TSV's recruitment messaging does not even acknowledge the war nor warn new comers of their imminent risk in traveling there. Kind of like inviting sheep to the slaughterhouse.

Most of all, what I find odd is the failure to recognize that this whole "war" was caused by resource scarcity and geo-political factors that represent "working as intended" meaningful human interactions though PVP.

This is what the game is supposed to be like.


Bluddwolf wrote:


From the sounds of the response here on the forums, Phaeros bit off more than they can chew, because Golgotha's reprisal is hitting them where it really hurts.

As a sidestander what I would like to see is Phaeros (who are true neutral and hence can do what they want) escalate the obvious next step by sending their forces up to Golgotha and killing everyone they come across in the Golgotha mountains :D

Not that Golgotha would care but that would be fun to watch.

Goblin Squad Member

Francesca Hamsterbane wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:


From the sounds of the response here on the forums, Phaeros bit off more than they can chew, because Golgotha's reprisal is hitting them where it really hurts.

As a sidestander what I would like to see is Phaeros (who are true neutral and hence can do what they want) escalate the obvious next step by sending their forces up to Golgotha and killing everyone they come across in the Golgotha mountains :D

Not that Golgotha would care but that would be fun to watch.

I see an all out war, especially with gatherer casualties, being a boom for the game and a good opportunity for war scavengers to ninja loot the dead!

I certainly hope there will be YouTube / Twitch Videos of the carnage, it will be the best advertisement PFO has had in months.

Goblin Squad Member

Damn all you 4th string quarterbacks. Stay where you belong, on the practice team. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Gaskon wrote:
Flynn Pontis wrote:
Gaskon I don't know what you can't understand about the story here.

I guess what I don't understand is why Golgotha chose to escalate from "we lost one tower" directly to "We kill all Phaeros members."

...

I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.

Out of curiosity, what would you (or anyone) feel is an appropriate response to hostilities as defined below -- specifically (as in this case) someone attacked escalations and establishing a holding in declared territory?

TEO Cheatle wrote:


The EBA has established our borders, shown on the following map, for resource, escalation, and holding claims. We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership.

Is anyone suggesting the EBA (of which Phaeros is a member) does not have a right to respond to acts of hostility?

Is this game about territorial control?

Finally, in the name of being constructive, assuming no one is objecting to Settlements/Alliances/Kingdoms defending their territory, what would be an appropriate way to address the actions of rogue companies? Is there any agreement as to whether settlements should or should not be be held accountable for the actions of companies they agree to sponsor?


Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
Flynn Pontis wrote:
Gaskon I don't know what you can't understand about the story here.

I guess what I don't understand is why Golgotha chose to escalate from "we lost one tower" directly to "We kill all Phaeros members."

...

I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.

Out of curiosity, what would you (or anyone) feel is an appropriate response to hostilities as defined below -- specifically (as in this case) someone attacked escalations and establishing a holding in declared territory?

TEO Cheatle wrote:


The EBA has established our borders, shown on the following map, for resource, escalation, and holding claims. We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership.

Is anyone suggesting the EBA (of which Phaeros is a member) does not have a right to respond to acts of hostility?

Is this game about territorial control?

Finally, in the name of being constructive, assuming no one is objecting to Settlements/Alliances/Kingdoms defending their territory, what would be an appropriate way to address the actions of rogue companies? Is there any agreement as to whether settlements should or should not be be held accountable for the actions of companies they agree to sponsor?

How about in ways that don't break the arrangements or agreements political affiliates have made?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

I love how

Gol Tink wrote:


We had no intention of beginning a war with Keepers' Pass or Brighthaven. We still have no real intention of being in a war with Keeper's Pass or Brighthaven, which is why we have been keeping the vast majority of our operations close to Phaeros lands.

is equivalent to "2 hexes from Keeper Pass, in the mountains".

I get the tactical reasons perfectly, it is way easier to get targets if you sit in the main access to KP, where your target movement is restricted to a single hex and the ogre help you. But I find that that beavyor make the statement "we want to fight only Phaeros" blatantly false.

Not a surprise as this is as much a propaganda war as a guerrilla war for Golgotha.

Goblin Squad Member

Rynnik wrote:
Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
Flynn Pontis wrote:
Gaskon I don't know what you can't understand about the story here.

I guess what I don't understand is why Golgotha chose to escalate from "we lost one tower" directly to "We kill all Phaeros members."

...

I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.

Out of curiosity, what would you (or anyone) feel is an appropriate response to hostilities as defined below -- specifically (as in this case) someone attacked escalations and establishing a holding in declared territory?

TEO Cheatle wrote:


The EBA has established our borders, shown on the following map, for resource, escalation, and holding claims. We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership.

Is anyone suggesting the EBA (of which Phaeros is a member) does not have a right to respond to acts of hostility?

Is this game about territorial control?

Finally, in the name of being constructive, assuming no one is objecting to Settlements/Alliances/Kingdoms defending their territory, what would be an appropriate way to address the actions of rogue companies? Is there any agreement as to whether settlements should or should not be be held accountable for the actions of companies they agree to sponsor?

How about in ways that don't break the arrangements or agreements political affiliates have made?

Did the agreement or arrangement in question offer permission to harvest resources, attack escalations, and/or establish holdings in EBA territory? If not, can you offer the details of the arrangement so I can understand how it trumped EBA sovereignty?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Calidor Cruciatus wrote:

I think the saddest part of this thread is that there are more posts than active players (not characters).

+1, baby!

#partoftheproblem

It's sad to see that since the game's launch these forums have turned so petty and spiteful. I remember when Nihimon and Tink used to join hand-in-hand, singing merrily as Decius, Andius and Bluddwolf skipped through meadows without a care in the world. I remember when everyone got along and threads about the major alliances were always civil and amiable.

Then 1d200 ⇒ 153 Pyronous Rath f++&ed everything up. He's driven a wedge between us so we'll tear each other to ribbons. Soon, all the grass in the grass in the world will belong to him alone. And he does NOT. SHARE. POWER.

Or grass.

Just remember I tried to warn you guys.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Or grass.

Fun Fact: The Billy Goats Gruff? Grazed on the wrong side of the meadow. They never stood a chance.

Pyronous jokes: The Eagleton bashing of kobold posts. Them and Gravity Falls clips, but I'm still too floored by the recent episode to reference that show flippantly.

301 to 350 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / PvP and the existing community All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.