Can two characters of mine associate?

[louras]

Well.. A big doubt, as i'm sure this is on the border of the CR breach.
I have two situations that i'll explain now.

1) One character traded some goods and is working (together with other people) for another one. This is temporary and each one will follow his way for some time. I believe there's nothing wrong with that.

2) Two other characters met perfectly by accident in the same town.. The thing is.. they met each other, and they have the same objectives (for now) and it's perfectly logical for them to associate. I'm a bit unsure if i should do it or not. In my opinion, I can do it, because as they will be together they will receive info at the same time and one will not be able to use the info of another one.. I don't think it's a breach of the CR.. maybe on the limit.. but i'd like to know your oppinion.

[Jos Elkink]

It is a breach. That is, it's not, really, if you play it well, but it's so close on the borderline that it will be impossible for the PD to distinguish it from breaching the rule, so we have decided that it simply is a breach, to avoid the problem ...

So, you'll have to come up with an excuse not to end up in the same organisation. You can think of many nice roleplaying excuses, I'm sure.

[Nick]

In my personal opinion, which is by no means official but rather a guideline from an experienced player;
Only should two characters interact if caused by the circumstances of another character. For example, if your character Joe controlls the limestone of a region and your character Bob's boss sends you to go trade with Joe, it's acceptable. Otherwise, I wouldn't think it is.

[louras]

Ok.. got it.

Well, I didn't join them on purpose, but now that they have met it would make perfect sense. They will make a trade and each one will go on his way...

[Nick]

It is a breach. That is, it's not, really, if you play it well, but it's so close on the borderline that it will be impossible for the PD to distinguish it from breaching the rule, so we have decided that it simply is a breach, to avoid the problem ...

So, you'll have to come up with an excuse not to end up in the same organisation. You can think of many nice roleplaying excuses, I'm sure.

No, from your situation louras it's been interpreted as a breach, by the big man Jos himself . I'd advise you not to perform the trade.

[louras]

Ups.. too late! I hadn't interpreted that (a trade) as forbidden. Building a partnership yes, but not an accidental interaction.

If it is forbiden for our chars to interact in any way, then wouldn't it make sense to block it in the user-interface?

Anyway... the inportant interactions were with someone else and not between them. This was just a small (3 day work) exchange, and it made sense for both of them (it's not like one is helping the other).

They will probably not speak again.

Thanks!

[Agar]

But if you refuse your bosses order to go trade because you know the guy he'd have to trade with is your character, even though the character who is being bossed has never met or heard of your other character, wouldn't that be acting on knowledge from outside the game, and a breach?



Don't make it a habit, I suppose. I can't think of any "right" way to go about it. Be honest about what you're doing and everything should work out fine in the end.

[Jos Elkink]

I keep hearing this argument ... No, if you figure a good roleplaying argument to avoid your own characters to cooperate, e.g. because one suddenly turns sick or crazy just before (s)he was about to join the same organisation as the other char, then no, this is not a breach.

It is also still true that not all cooperation is by definition a breach, but it must be very obvious to the PD that it isn't, or it will be considered very suspicious. So don't worry about this one trade, but indeed, don't make it a habit ... And more permanent cooperation, or joining the same organisation, that definitely is a problem.