Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Is it possible to remove a leader from a company if there are multiple leaders?

Thod-Theodum
Here is the problem right now

a) any leader can promote any other member to become a leader. So promoting a single 'wrong' leader will end up to cause the potential of near complete takeover
b) You can't currently give officers the ability to take out bulk goods from company secure - you have to promote them to be leaders to be able to take out stuff from there
c) You can't currently give leaders from any but the founding company access to settlement secure

So I have NO clue how to manage bulk good access for different companies (for example one might produce wood but needs ore for upkeep) without promoting additional leaders which causes it's own problems.

The problem is not that you can't demote a leader. The problem is that you are forced to promote some characters to leader positions because it is the only way a settlement works unless you have a single leader online 24/7.
Thod/Theodum are the OOC/IC leaders of the Emerald Lodge - a neutral settlement in the center of the mal that tries to the first to explore the Emerald Spire - should that part of the game ever become available. We have a strong in game and out of game relationship with the Pathfinder Society.
We welcome both hard core players as well as casual players with or without tabletop experience. We have a strong group in Europe and are slowly expanding into the US. We are predominately PvE as our neutral political stance means that we tend to use PvP only in self-defence. We are not anti-PVP - but expect limited PvP opportunity with us.
Giorgio
Thod-Theodum
So I have NO clue how to manage bulk good access for different companies (for example one might produce wood but needs ore for upkeep) without promoting additional leaders which causes it's own problems.

Easy, just go threw a lot of pointless work, needless work arounds, frustration and annoyance like most of use settlement leaders do. smile

First Elder Durin Steelforge; Leader of Forgeholm; Founder of Steelforge Engineering Company

PM Giorgo on Paizo Forums
PM Admin George on Commonwealth of the Free Highlands
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Thod-Theodum
The problem is not that you can't demote a leader. The problem is that you are forced to promote some characters to leader positions because it is the only way a settlement works unless you have a single leader online 24/7.
It is unrealistic for oen person to do everything when it comes to managing a settlement, and it is equally unrealistic to imagine that we should be able to hand off the scutwork/responsibility for the work without handing off some of the power. Every Monarch or dictator in history has been forced to trust someone to get some of the work done, and every one of those people took a risk that putting power in someone else's hands might lead to them losing control. There is no good reason why PFO should be any different.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Thod-Theodum
Ryan said early on - Hard is fun

The problem is when hard become stupid then the fun vanishes

At the moment I soak up a lot of the frustration / annoyance for my members - but that is not a healthy long term strategy.
Thod/Theodum are the OOC/IC leaders of the Emerald Lodge - a neutral settlement in the center of the mal that tries to the first to explore the Emerald Spire - should that part of the game ever become available. We have a strong in game and out of game relationship with the Pathfinder Society.
We welcome both hard core players as well as casual players with or without tabletop experience. We have a strong group in Europe and are slowly expanding into the US. We are predominately PvE as our neutral political stance means that we tend to use PvP only in self-defence. We are not anti-PVP - but expect limited PvP opportunity with us.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Phyllain
Call it biggest leader or something if the word founder offends you. The fact that two propel have the exact same permissions is a big problem. Say one guy decides he hates all of pfo. He can now make that company completely useless for the rest of for ever. Imagine if andius had made it till now and yesterday had his melt down. He could make what ever company he had leader alts in completely worthless for the rest of forever.
The word founder doesn't offend me at all. and having the same permissions is risky, but only a big problem if you misplace your trust. You want to be able to make someone else responsible for making sure that the bulk resources get put in the holding and that the training is set so your people are not inconvenienced, but at the same time retain 100% control of the settlement. That is not a realistic position for a game where people are expected to vie for control. Either do it all yourself, or risk someone else causing you problems.

Andius could only make that company useless forever if Goblinworks let him. And that company can only continue to be an issue forever if there are a bunch of accounts supporting it. Everyone else can leave and the company will have insufficient influence to be anything but a minor nuisance.

The answer is for Goblinsworks to implement charters, so that an established number of people can go to them and say "we want this person removed under our charter." End of problem. And a pretty simple end at that. It doesn't even require an in-game mechanic, just a poll of the specified accounts by email as to whether the charter has been upheld.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Phyllain
Caldeathe Baequiannia
. Every Monarch or dictator in history has been forced to trust someone to get some of the work done, and every one of those people took a risk that putting power in someone else's hands might lead to them losing control. There is no good reason why PFO should be any different.
Imagine the USA had two presidents that had equal power and nether one of them could get ride of the other. That is what we have right now in game and what you are advocating to keep.

What would be ok is if we have a "president" and then a cabinet. Each of these cabinet members (officers) have as much ability to bind and loose in their specific areas as the "president" does. but they ant mess with the other cabinet members and the "president" can fire them. That is what I want and you seem to be against.
Thod-Theodum
@Cal
The problem is that at the moment it is an all-or-nothing approach. There are bits I like to share responsibility - there are areas where I don't want to hand responsibility over.
I assume over time there will be a more granular approach - but in the meantime it can be painful.
Thod/Theodum are the OOC/IC leaders of the Emerald Lodge - a neutral settlement in the center of the mal that tries to the first to explore the Emerald Spire - should that part of the game ever become available. We have a strong in game and out of game relationship with the Pathfinder Society.
We welcome both hard core players as well as casual players with or without tabletop experience. We have a strong group in Europe and are slowly expanding into the US. We are predominately PvE as our neutral political stance means that we tend to use PvP only in self-defence. We are not anti-PVP - but expect limited PvP opportunity with us.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Phyllain
Caldeathe Baequiannia
. Every Monarch or dictator in history has been forced to trust someone to get some of the work done, and every one of those people took a risk that putting power in someone else's hands might lead to them losing control. There is no good reason why PFO should be any different.
Imagine the USA had two presidents that had equal power and nether one of them could get ride of the other. That is what we have right now in game and what you are advocating to keep.

What would be ok is if we have a "president" and then a cabinet. Each of these cabinet members (officers) have as much ability to bind and loose in their specific areas as the "president" does. but they ant mess with the other cabinet members and the "president" can fire them. That is what I want and you seem to be against.
Nope. What you want is a president-for-as-long-as-he-wants-to-be-or-life. What I want is way for a specific group of more than one to be able to depose either or both of those presidents, or any others, if they aren't doing as they agreed.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Phyllain
No one can dispose anyone atm. Which is the problem.
Phyllain
Also this is a video game. If your leader is doing stuff you don't like vote with your feet and leave the group/start your own
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post