AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

I dont get it. Why not move the camp away from the crystal into a more peaceful area in the forest, perhaps near the waterfall if you dont wanted to use the hidden glade? Placing it right by the crystal used by tons of people kinda yells for interaction, which takes different forms depending on the person who steps out of it.

Last edited by colanah on Sun, Jul 26 2009, 7:22 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Yurell wrote:

As for the mater of golems / sprites / homonculi / other NPC guardians, I still don't see why they should be there.

It was a discussion had in game in-character between a medium-sized group of nature PCs for the creation of them to help guard the entrances. Specifically the north, south and west but to be nearly hidden. Even if they have the hp of a gobba, it was the impression of entering protected lands.

Quote:

What is their purpose? All I can see is "to make a current PvP zone non-PvP", and why should this be the case? The Grove is tamed because of the druids, and they keep order there, and the rest of the Amia Forest near the Crystal is safe as far as monsters and wild animals go thanks to the Roadwardens and supposedly druids.

*shakes head once* Roadwardens have been covered in another topic and after the response to Yossarin (sorry!), I'm leaving them out of future answers from me.

If the idea was to turn Amia forest into a non-pvp area, the original post would have been about that instead of asking about IG/IC costs to build/create Blinds/Hides/Creations. The Grove is also behind locked doors with a nice collection of elemental protectors and NPC rangers both in and outside of it to lay the smack down on the first person that gets salty past the gate which is also racially barred.

yurell wrote:

Quote:

It's a traveler's camp for folks who port in or pass through to rest, eat or such.

There's a ridiculously heavily guarded town a tad south if you need rest. If you're in danger, I suppose the Grove would offer sanctuary, but as for PCs setting up their own camp, why should they get NPCs to help guard it by default? That would be like a bunch of dwarves setting up a mining camp in a well-traveled area and expecting armed guards.

The people who arrive at the node can be dead or near dead while folks in the Dale may not wander north at random looking for bodies. They get quite enough heads pitched over their walls as it stands and it keeps them understandably busy. Also the Grove is close for those who know where it is but for new players who have no idea, they just follow a well traveled road and can completely miss it. Rangers and Druids are there to help direct and guide.

You're looking at it from the stance of someone that might frequent a town or city often for whatever reason unless I'm mistaken. I might be wrong, it happens more often than not. However some PCs ICly won't go near towns/cities unless they really and truly have to. Maybe villages, I don't know. Still there are also people who ICly will choose to go to the forest of Amia over things that to others would make sense.

Like dropping off the dead in the central forest. Why not walk it up to the Grove gates? Why not drop it off a nearby cliff ICly? Why not have that pack of werewolves wander into Wharftown to defile the temple of Selune? Why show up in a forest miles away from a healing center sick or near death instead of going to where the temple full of healers is? Why?

Interaction!

Phearnun wrote:

I dont get it. Why not move the camp away from the crystal into a more peaceful area in the forest, perhaps near the waterfall if you dont wanted to use the hidden glade? Placing it right by the crystal used by tons of people kinda yells for interaction, which takes different forms depending on the person who steps out of it.

The Hidden Glade is...*looks around* ..where it is and far away from where starting players may need aid. The main body of the Grove is past a transition point and if the nature factions followed the suggestions made by most of the posters here, Amia forest would be utterly empty because everyone would be sequestered off in their little safe and protected faction bases and anyone needing actual help in the forest would be FUBARed.

Rangers walk the roads, Druids walk the road or get messages via plant/anima-gram about things which need their attention. The node is where people who may need help show up. It's also accepted that it's a place where people looking for a fight show up.

If everyone stayed in their respective faction areas and didn't think to leave save to port/cart to a hunting spot....that would kill RP hugely. I'm actually shocked that's being suggested at all. I'm very confused where the impression was gleaned that either RP or interactions with various other PCs wasn't desired.

Also to Sturm, the lumberjacks were hilarious and the badger/wolf was adorable, thank you. We enjoyed that interaction alot. The message between the two was clearly presented and succinct but left a lingering impression.

Quote:

Like dropping off the dead in the central forest. Why not walk it up to the Grove gates? Why not drop it off a nearby cliff ICly? Why not have that pack of werewolves wander into Wharftown to defile the temple of Selune? Why show up in a forest miles away from a healing center sick or near death instead of going to where the temple full of healers is? Why?

Interaction!

... so you want to add a bunch of invincible NPCs that are going to get rid of that inter-

Wait, I'm sorry, it will get rid of the interaction you OOCly don't like.

Actually since it's been stated more than once in this thread that even NPCs aren't invincible and I'm almost certain it's been said at least 3-5 times that 'god-hands' weren't being asked for, I fail to see your point.

It doesn't matter that the NPCs aren't invincible. You will have the power to paralyze any interaction with the utterance of "don't metagame the guards."

TormakSaber wrote:

It doesn't matter that the NPCs aren't invincible. You will have the power to paralyze any interaction with the utterance of "don't metagame the guards."

I said something to that effect on page one can I have a cookie, better yet a shifter fix

ah when that day comes, I will have to find a new reason to torment you.

I'm afraid I agree with Tormak. It essentially makes Amia Forest a non-PvP zone insofar as doing anything hostile is metagaming the guards.
Why should Amia Forest be 'protected'? Protected from what?
Protected from monsters? Roadwardens do that job.
Protected from PCs? That is the job of the PCs that want to do the protecting - the NPCs are obviously quite happy guarding the Grove and placating the wildlife.

I still haven't seen any decent reason of why we need the impression that we're entering a protected area when we reality we aren't doing so.
The only reason I've seen is because those who've chose to picnic next to a major crystal on a well-travelled road in the middle of a PvP zone don't like said PvP.

Since fights will happen no matter if there are guards there or not, it's almost moot.

Amia forest map has the stance (repeated numerous times in game and enforced ICly) that it's not a place for fighting. There's a few rules/laws/edicts/etc that have been generally accepted for the forest and attempted to be enforced with varying degrees of success or failure.

Likely a few others that are either Grove or Glade edicts from days of yore but those few are the ones repeated often enough to have it stick. As such, it is a protected area in that sense. However since the initial post was not a whine about the PvP RP but a query about IG costs of materials to construct somethings, I would ask that some posters please refrain from dubbing the encampment a picnic.

I've tried very hard not to be snide including answering as fairly as I am able to up to explaining any of my comments which were perceived as being snarky. The fact that the area around the crystal was chosen for making aid available to all kinds of travelers has attempted to be explained. This means travelers of the good/neutral/evil aligned can swing from polite to sheer arsery and is understood.

I do find it very strange that there is more issue with non-human beings than people sitting up in trees in blinds/hides. Since NPCs don't stop RP other places, it is also curious that there is the thought of them stopping RP in the forest.

If it seems I'm focusing on just the pseudo-constructs, I'm not. I'm really equally interested in answers about the blind/hides as well however it seems that save for a few people, most posters are focusing on the constructs so those are the questions I'm attempting to answer if able to.

Yurell, to put it plainly, even if they don't work as guardians they would be fascinating for atmosphere.

colanah wrote:

Amia forest map has the stance (repeated numerous times in game and enforced ICly) that it's not a place for fighting. There's a few rules/laws/edicts/etc that have been generally accepted for the forest and attempted to be enforced with varying degrees of success or failure.

May I ask by whom these rules are generally accepted and by whom they are enforced?

colanah wrote:

Since fights will happen no matter if there are guards there or not, it's almost moot.

like I said on page 1, they will because if they fight infront of a guard thats metagaming and will get them banned , why do you think people dont just run into towns and kill them, its not because they dont have the power.

Yurell wrote:

colanah wrote:

Amia forest map has the stance (repeated numerous times in game and enforced ICly) that it's not a place for fighting. There's a few rules/laws/edicts/etc that have been generally accepted for the forest and attempted to be enforced with varying degrees of success or failure.

May I ask by whom these rules are generally accepted and by whom they are enforced?

Player Characters.

Oh, and I saw some erroneous information posted here about golems. Golems do not use 'souls'. Their animating entity is an elemental.

Quote:

Golems are magically created automatons of great power. Constructing one involves the employment of mighty magic and elemental forces.

The animating force for a golem is a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem’s creator.

TormakSaber wrote:

Player Characters.

That was the answer I was looking for.

It is PCs that are occupying this place PCs that are making these laws, and it should be PCs that are enforcing them.

TormakSaber wrote:

Oh, and I saw some erroneous information posted here about golems. Golems do not use 'souls'. Their animating entity is an elemental.

Quote:

Golems are magically created automatons of great power. Constructing one involves the employment of mighty magic and elemental forces.

The animating force for a golem is a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem’s creator.

I did say that? They're made with the soul (or spirit, same difference) of an Earth Elemental. It doesn't say that the Elemental dies when it has it's spirit/soul ripped from it, but that's very much so up for debate. Either way, it feels pretty anti-Druidic to me. In any case, this is information I did mention. The only difference is the use of soul and spirit.

Raven (colanah), don't defend the NPC use. You're not one of the one's who want it there to effectively stop people from creating conflict. Let those people defend themselves if they feel strongly about it. Don't take the blows for them.

o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Oh, and I saw some erroneous information posted here about golems. Golems do not use 'souls'. Their animating entity is an elemental.

Quote:

Golems are magically created automatons of great power. Constructing one involves the employment of mighty magic and elemental forces.

The animating force for a golem is a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem’s creator.

I did say that? They're made with the soul (or spirit, same difference) of an Earth Elemental. It doesn't say that the Elemental dies when it has it's spirit/soul ripped from it, but that's very much so up for debate. Either way, it feels pretty anti-Druidic to me. In any case, this is information I did mention. The only difference is the use of soul and spirit.

Raven (colanah), don't defend the NPC use. You're not one of the one's who want it there to effectively stop people from creating conflict. Let those people defend themselves if they feel strongly about it. Don't take the blows for them.

Aren't elementals like outsiders? Their soul and body form one unit?

PC rules need to be goverened by PC's. Don't see Kelemvorites running around with NPC guards to enforce rules. We War Knights do not have NPC guards for the mercenary camp, inside the temple yes but grove also has NPC guards inside.

If it's a question of manpower, then make alliances and agreements. I believe the War Knights approached the Grove about an alliance some time middle last year to protect Amia forest roads. We were waiting for a response to allow a meeting of Envoy and Arch-Druid, but the reply never came back.

So yea. PC rules, PC enforcement.

Just chiming in here really..

A "stance" on undead and fighting in the East Forest doesn't make it so 24-7. Druids and Rangers can enforce all they want, but if they aren't there, fights happen. A forest isn't a permanent control zone, it's a forest. And the idea that Druids would be such control freaks as to suppress all violence, interrogate all the travellers that come through there and erect golems.. is just ridiculous to me, sorry. Druids don't meddle that much. I'd rather you guys concentrate on the important matters, and not turn the forest into a kindergarten.

Yeah, this may come across as harsh, but I regard the whole request with contempt. Why do you want peace so bad? I rate being unable to start fights as the worst and most "parenting" quality an area can have. And I bet you anything that PvP or No-PvP makes no difference to the amount of trouble you get in there, it just defines whether it's a verbal pissing contest with following "let's go outside", or a quick and dirty brawl.

Hmmm...... contempt, eh?

o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Oh, and I saw some erroneous information posted here about golems. Golems do not use 'souls'. Their animating entity is an elemental.

Quote:

Golems are magically created automatons of great power. Constructing one involves the employment of mighty magic and elemental forces.

The animating force for a golem is a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem’s creator.

I did say that? They're made with the soul (or spirit, same difference) of an Earth Elemental. It doesn't say that the Elemental dies when it has it's spirit/soul ripped from it, but that's very much so up for debate. Either way, it feels pretty anti-Druidic to me. In any case, this is information I did mention. The only difference is the use of soul and spirit.

Raven (colanah), don't defend the NPC use. You're not one of the one's who want it there to effectively stop people from creating conflict. Let those people defend themselves if they feel strongly about it. Don't take the blows for them.

*smiles softly* Thank you hon though I'm hoping someone besides you and about two people of those who posted actually realizes there were two things mentioned in the OP and stop orienting on just the NPCs. We'd still like a blind or two in the forest which would be camoflagued among the trees. There are at least three spots there which would work well for them along the roadways.

Just so I am clear on whats going on here, A faction (the grove) Is asking for signs of its control/protection of an area which is not there own? In the form of Guards or golems.

Am I right in my interpretation of this thread?

I think its rangers and druids in general but yea, pretty much.

Yurell Wrote:

Quote:

Or "The guards will beat the (censored) out of us for disturbing the peace if we try"?

Thats cool XD.. I say let that actually happen. If they smoke my char for that situation or he gets jailed..SWEET!.. this means more RP and actuall consequences. Ive stated in some fashion I pretty much agree with Mr. Mago's point for possibilities to burn down cities or have that real attempt. Though im flexible with this option closed. This server still has the most RP to occure.. By the way I loved that small little war with EO and the Black Caravan. The fact buildings and damage was done to places such as Cordor even.

*looks at the post above Craigs, and blinks at his question*

So basically, the grove are claiming land much like say the banites did with the skull crags, but intending to use an NPC/PC force instead of a full PC force.

I would love to know why the grove has the NPC manpower to expand outside its own area, but other factions do not.

You may notice the DM's are clearly agains this... and it seems unlikely to happen at this point. So the answer to your question would be they apparently don't have the NPC manpower either.

He doesn't seem much inclined to notice anything........

Anyway, I'm out of this ridiculous thread.

I think Dri's (I think it was Dri, forgive me if I'm wrong) analogy was the best - it would be just like the drow asking for control of the Hollow Cavern, except:
a) The Hollow Cavern is barely used by other people
b) Doing so wouldn't be cutting off a mythal bind

As for blinds, why should you get some in the forest? Because you've 'lain claim' to it? What about those other groups that have lain claim to various areas, should they receive the same treatment?

Why shouldnt rangers be able to build blinds in a forest they frequent?

QPR wrote:

Why shouldnt rangers be able to build blinds in a forest they frequent?

Why shouldn't every group be able to construct watch towers in the area immediately around their faction area? It is closer, and makes just as much sense.

I cant see anyone saying they cannot. If a bunch of rangers got togheter and collected materials and whatnot for a blind they man themselves,w hat is the problem? I see the problem with NPC's, golems and all that, but i can honestly not see the problem with PC manned blinds.

QPR wrote:

I cant see anyone saying they cannot. If a bunch of rangers got togheter and collected materials and whatnot for a blind they man themselves,w hat is the problem? I see the problem with NPC's, golems and all that, but i can honestly not see the problem with PC manned blinds.

Following that logic, since one is blocking access to a bind point, should the other factions not also be allowed to do so? Block off the area and allow their own restrictions?
In fact, building of a fort would be more expedient than a series of watchtowers ... should they be allowed to do this?

The question is based that by the construction of these blinds, the druids and rangers are laying claim to an area that is not theirs and not even adjacent (unless they're Grovites, in which case most of the arguments for this are irrelevant). Should others be allowed to claim areas?
If so, what is the limit to this claim? Obviously they're allowed to claim binding points.

Eh? Since when did watchtowers and forst become equal to Blinds or platforms? I mean, it would be common to find blinds in forests, used permanently or sporadicly by hunters and Rangers. Also, the whole 'claiming' thing seems more liek an oppinion pushed on the "Nature people who wants to picnic in peace", a sentiment i doubt few of the "nature people" actually share. The camp at the crystal is more or less permanent, there are often rangers and druids there, so what would be so odd by constructing a blind? and how would a blind be laying claim to a whole area. it offers a certain tactical advantage, sure, but one fireball,a nd its gone.

QPR wrote:

Eh? Since when did watchtowers and forst become equal to Blinds or platforms? I mean, it would be common to find blinds in forests, used permanently or sporadicly by hunters and Rangers. Also, the whole 'claiming' thing seems more liek an oppinion pushed on the "Nature people who wants to picnic in peace", a sentiment i doubt few of the "nature people" actually share. The camp at the crystal is more or less permanent, there are often rangers and druids there, so what would be so odd by constructing a blind? and how would a blind be laying claim to a whole area. it offers a certain tactical advantage, sure, but one fireball,a nd its gone.

I didn't think areas were destructible? If so, you'll probably have more luck with a placeble.
And watchtowers are platforms on trees, just you couldn't the tree in one piece so you cartered one in piece by piece to do the same job.

And how is choosing an area and instigating and enforcing your own laws not laying claim to it?

Im not talking on behalf of anyone claiming anything. Im just saying that blinds would be quite common, especially in a traveled area.

QPR wrote:

Im not talking on behalf of anyone claiming anything. Im just saying that blinds would be quite common, especially in a traveled area.

Well, the fact is the group has claimed the area, and are asking for blinds.
The area is well travelled but safe - the Roadwardens ensure monsters don't come in and the animals are al peaceful. There's no need for blinds, except to ensure the claim on the area remains strong and appears legitimate.

I would say the camp that is there is a much more solid claim.

If you "claim" the area, you'll have to do with people who get pissed at you for making that "claim".

That's what happened in the Skull Crags, when the Banites claimed it. And that's what will happen in Amia Forest as well.

The only difference, is that we didn't request watchtowers to be built or NPC golems to be stationed at each entry point of the area.

Again, Im not requesting golems, NPC's or watchtowers. Im not speaking for anyone but myself. What -I- am saying, is that is cant see the problem with blinds, small huts or platforms in trees that offers scouting positions or shelter. Actually, I would like to see such all over the forest, used by those who patrol it with some frequency.

I agree with Mago.
Also requesting the blinds may be 'logical' but so would building barricades, taxing people, construction of watchtowers for every single faction that wants to lay claim to an area.
Should the Kellies be allowed to request watchtowers is Hasrabet? The Drow kill-holes in Hollow Caverns?
Those constructions that are being suggested are watchtowers, just built with a tree that is already there.

If you're speaking of random treehouses throughout the entire forest, then that would be something entirely different. And something I could see the point in having.

Mr Mago wrote:

If you're speaking of random treehouses throughout the entire forest, then that would be something entirely different. And something I could see the point in having.

Again, I agree with Mago.

Last edited by QPR on Sun, Jul 26 2009, 23:48 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Could we please drop the NPC's, the PVP, the 'claiming area'part for abit? im not talking about any of it.

Now, starting fresh: The idea of constructing blinds (along with other ideas that avee been rejected) were suggested, as i understood it, mostly to add atmosphere. A PC manned blind would give no mechanical advantage in PvP whatsoever, anyone could mann it if empty, and it would not disrupt travel more than a PC standing on the ground.

So, if rangers got togheter and decided to build blind, perhaps not only by that crystal, but also in other places of the forest they patrol, what problems would there be with it. they would be manned by the PC's that happen to be there, there would be no NPC's, and they are not blocking anything, like a barricade would.

Edit. yes, that is what i mean Mago, more along those lines. Didnt see before i posted.

QPR wrote:

Could we please drop the NPC's, the PVP, the 'claiming area'part for abit? im not talking about any of it.

Now, starting fresh: The idea of constructing blinds (along with other ideas that avee been rejected) were suggested, as i understood it, mostly to add atmosphere. A PC manned blind would give no mechanical advantage in PvP whatsoever, anyone could mann it if empty, and it would not disrupt travel more than a PC standing on the ground.

So, if rangers got togheter and decioded to build blind, perhaps not only by that crystal, but also in other places of the forest they patrol, what problems would there be with it. they would be manned by the PC's that happen to be there, there would be no NPC's, and they are not blocking anything, like a barricade would.

Well that would be a completely different request - I was treating it in context of this thread.

Treehouses in the forest would be interesting IMO.

That was also the original request behind the blinds, as I understood it. But it got drowned by the outburst against golems.

QPR wrote:

That was also the original request behind the blinds, as I understood it. But it got drowned by the outburst against golems.

There was mention of building golems/having elementals too, which is what probably worked as the firestarter; not so much as platforms patrolled by PCs.

And, yep, Yurell. It was me who used that analogy.

EDIT! Stupid grammar could allow misinterpretations.

Still since QPR happens to be a ranger irl and two of my uncles are professional hunters, tree blinds had not thought to be so bad. If a PLC could be fashioned for what amounts to a seat in midair in a tree, those would likely be well received after a course taken/taught by seasoned rangers ICly. Wouldn't want people making blinds and then falling out of them because they didn't know how to make one properly, eh?

A few treetop areas would be nice ((and likely something the other nature faction will request again at a later time for B. *shushing motion*)). They also provide excellent tactical vantage points up high. The tree house transition will place people on another map entirely even if elevated so that goes back to the same issue of being far away if someone needs aid. Pros and Cons. Hmm...

It still goes back to the OP. What would be the feasibility of them?

....though the tree houses are frigging cool! ><;; SOooo tempting, stop being a tempter Mago. ...oh wait...I just noticed the horns you have there... :wink:

It is certain that the OP did include the a request for two things. Any might have noticed that both the blinds and the created beings were mentioned there. It's even restated about the blinds in almost every single one of my replies but as QPR said, those got drowned out.

I suppose any additional nature input will arise after the factions gather in a few days to speak with one another and there is a better consensus for a more formal request from those parties.

colanah wrote:

Still since QPR happens to be a ranger irl and two of my uncles are professional hunters, tree blinds had not thought to be so bad. If a PLC could be fashioned for what amounts to a seat in midair in a tree, those would likely be well received after a course taken/taught by seasoned rangers ICly. Wouldn't want people making blinds and then falling out of them because they didn't know how to make one properly, eh?

Bwa ha ha! *Starts thinking of ways to test the balance of the PCs.* :twisted:

Quote:

A few treetop areas would be nice ((and likely something the other nature faction will request again at a later time for B. *shushing motion*)). They also provide excellent tactical vantage points up high. The tree house transition will place people on another map entirely even if elevated so that goes back to the same issue of being far away if someone needs aid. Pros and Cons. Hmm...

Yep. In a way, it kind of... doesn't make sense. Because if it is a transition to a new area, the moment you are up in said blind you will be cut off from RP happening below. Unless if this is made in a way that allows visibility of what's going on below.

Otherwise, it would be pointless.

Ah gods now I'm thinking of the Ace Ventura 2 movie with the spitballs. ...spears to poke them... Someone casting earthquake... *shakes head* Bad mind.

At the larger trees, it would be conceivable that there may be something like a rope hammock (not the ones with the bones in them) or platforms fashioned. The initial notion for the medium trees might have called for too much scripting and if so, I would offer apologies now.

In Khem Djedet at the location of the Lost River is a rock that one can sit upon. It was that rock which inspired the idea of a seat...in a tree. A few here or there in the forest, along the roads or such to serve as 'blinds' RP wise. Truly the military wood ramps in the forest are an abhorrent thought which inviso-seats had hoped to avoid.

Also since the information on non-soul/spirit ripping creation techniques had not been found and what was found is unusable due to the DnD editions, there is something proposed in lieu.

Stone Spirit by the ruins. 50% concealed with a trigger just off the side of the road (nothing spammable). Description:

You see what appears to be a head among the vine covered rubble but you cannot be certain. Is there truly something there or simply the way time and the elements have fashioned the fallen stones?

Air spirit to the north. Invisible. Trigger again non-spammable and off to the side of the road a bit. Description:

Your clothes are ruffled as though by an errant but strong breeze and if one could say the very air itself held emotion, the one you feel would be of an inquisitive nature. After a moment the sensation passes and then fades.

South entrance, wood wright by the badger trees. Offset trigger would conceal it if someone tried to approach but it would be visible if no one did. Still at about 50% or so like the ghostly bartender in Uhm and Chillywick. Description:

You are almost certain that the tree limbs are moving without the benefit of a breeze. A weightless gaze is felt that you do not know. From the corner of your eye, you spy movement however when you approach it seems to vanish. Perhaps it was nothing?

Maybe they're there because of the presence of the nearby Grove? Maybe they're wandering through and curious about the forest and the travelers? Not sure.

Would invisible seats in the trees be possible in the toolset?

btw, to those who are curious I'm not color blind or color insane...maybe not fully color insane. Playing with the coloration allows me to review what I've written in the attempt to catch anything written in the first drafting that might not be understandable. Not always successful but...

I've actually found you colours quite nice on the eye. Helps separate ideas.

As for the spirits ... there's a big difference in a request between guardians and just having what you're suggesting now. The request for NPC guards is likely what got everyone riled up.

Mhmm, the request for blind's didn't get many replies because nobody is worried about them. People agree, or don't mind. The NPC thing is rather a big deal, people argue with it because it's controversial and rather an unfair request. So more is said about it.

Hidden Golems and Ranger Blinds/Towers

Who is online