|
Post by WxCougar on Jan 22, 2013 16:39:59 GMT -6
I completely agree with you Nym. I am also very hesitant based on our stance and that it is metagame.
|
|
clannagh
Junior Member
Human Cleric of Gorum
Posts: 60
|
Post by clannagh on Jan 22, 2013 16:51:29 GMT -6
I see a real risk is that any unlawful behavior may be seen as griefing, in which case you may as well just ban neutral and chaotic alignments and make everyone lawful.
This issue arises as a result of an on-going issue with D&D alignments where people confuse evil and chaotic. Unlawful behavior, in and of itself, is chaotic but not evil.
In the real world, particular if you hold strong religious views esp. fundamentalism of either the Islamic or Christian variety, unlawful behavior will generally also be deemed evil. In the D&D world, unlawful behavior is just unlawful although some acts may be both unlawful and evil.
This treaty is actually the sort of thing a neutral organisation on the law/chaos axis should have issues with.
|
|
|
Post by Lorhayden on Jan 22, 2013 17:37:12 GMT -6
Having read through our responses it seems pretty clear that we will not be signing on to the treaty. Erian old diplomat old buddy wanna deliver the news on behalf of The Keepers?
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 22, 2013 17:57:00 GMT -6
I don't think that's necessary. It looks like Andius and TEO have tabled the treaty for now.
|
|
|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 22, 2013 18:35:02 GMT -6
Oh? Were a lot of the same arguments we had here coming up?
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 22, 2013 18:56:53 GMT -6
Some. It degenerated into a lot of personal attacks and other unproductive things.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 22, 2013 19:12:01 GMT -6
We're probably best just staying off the thread. It's messy at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 22, 2013 19:14:13 GMT -6
Messy is one word... flammable might be better. =P
|
|
clannagh
Junior Member
Human Cleric of Gorum
Posts: 60
|
Post by clannagh on Jan 22, 2013 19:15:55 GMT -6
Messy is one word... flammable might be better. =P yep ... heading for a thread lock ... I have avoided it
|
|
|
Post by WxCougar on Jan 22, 2013 19:17:40 GMT -6
It looks like he is setting up a convention instead. I saw another thread on paizo. Which I now cannot find... but said to check his paizo public profile for details.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 22, 2013 19:20:17 GMT -6
Yeah, he put up the second thread yesterday, but called everything off in the first thread this afternoon. The total lack of response to the second thread may have been a factor.
|
|
|
Post by WxCougar on Jan 22, 2013 19:24:49 GMT -6
Ah okay. I didn't look at the creation times between them.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 22, 2013 19:30:38 GMT -6
heh, I keep the paizo forums up at work. It gives me something to do while my long-run processes work.
|
|
|
Post by Fruben on Jan 27, 2013 3:46:19 GMT -6
As a general policy towards military treaties I would view anything else than pure defensive treaties in the sense that "we will help you defend your settlement, if you are attack, if you will help defend ours, if we are attacked" with great suspicion.
One clear differentiator between us and the rest of the (major) Chartered Companies could be the non-aggression policy and I would be hesitant to do anything, that could be used by others to put that into question.
|
|
|
Post by spacemuffler on Jan 28, 2013 3:53:47 GMT -6
I for one have no problems signing this accord. I have dealt with griefers in far too many contexts, and I think something as non-committal as a treaty would only strengthen our community, and show others our intent to keep the children among us from ruining the world we seek to help form.
Evil is something altogether different from schadenfreude.
|
|