Tue Dec 1 02:24:11 2009

At 12 o'clock PM, Day of the Moon, 7th of the Month of Winter
on the Theran calendar Kalsuul perished, never to return.

Race:	elf
Class:	shapeshifter
Level:	51
Alignment:	Good
Ethos:	Orderly
Cabal:	FORTRESS, the Fortress of Light
Age:	363
Hours:	132

ntnt

ntnt

Sorry, I assumed Kalsuul would answer.

Basically he got a pile of edge points, because we "took" a pile of his edge points to get Pseudodragon. He hadn't realized he couldn't shift into his third tier form and still take the pseudodragon edge, so after talking it over with the Imps I gave it to him and took double his edgepoints away (a considerable amount).

The amount of edgepoints he got for RC was roughly equivalent to what got taken away, so you *could* say he got Pseudodragon as his RC reward.

ntnt

He had the same number of forms that he would have had if nothing had happened either way (no imm involvement in helping him get pseudodragon, no RC reward), but one of those forms was superior than it would have been (the merits of pseudodragon v. his original form I'll leave to another discussion, but he clearly considered it superior (at least before getting it)).

Unicorn vs psuedodragon wut?

Basically, the moron that I am, I didn't read the entire helpfile about pseudodragon form. So I overlooked the part about not being able to shapeshift into my second tier air form (there should really be a reminder about this for Elven air shapeshifters--Santa Zulg?). So I went around with some Fortress members trying to gain observation exp and whatnot. I must've had a bundle of edge points, and still couldn't pick the pseudodragon form, because of my earlier mistake. So I prayed about it and asked if they would make an exception. They did. I got the form (prior to the role contest). My role really wasn't that great. But it fit with what Twist was looking for in a role that particular month. So they gave me a bundle of edge points to "make up" for taking all my edge points to learn the pseudodragon form. In essence, this allowed me to choose barrier attunement. Never found a barrier rod though.

Too many screw ups attached to this character's name to have gotten any really meaningful role contest reward.

Hope that helps clear things up?

Good char,

I enjoyed fighting and flying with you that day.

Good luck with next

From my POV it seemed that you freqently hunted Wormell, a neutral
Village thief, probably because he was an easy target at night,
when you could see him.

My question is how you justified this sort of thing from an RP
perspective. Clearly you can go with "anything not of the light is
of the dark," but to me it just seemed like you were Lirad with
pointy ears.

I just feel that a two-hundred-plus year old elf might have the
perspective that even though a Villager's actions might be "evil,"
they are motivated by misguidance and one's first attempt should be
to help the Villager see why indiscriminate killing of magi is bad.

But, nothing, just flyto; murder.

So, cherry-picking or role-justified? I'm curious.

You are part of a group whose stated aim is to erradicate people like him.

Doesn't feel like that much of a stretch in rp to kill you even though you are not evil.

It certainly is self defense. When there is a group that is
dedicated solely to the eradication of another group, it makes
perfect sense for the victimized group to want to destroy the
victimizers.

However, I'd make the argument that it's not "good" to strike first.

Various Neo-Nazi organizations pose a threat to Israel, but I don't
think that the world would regard an Israeli airstrike on any of them
to be an act of "goodness."

That's a crappy analogy.

Good guy and bad guy are subjective. Nonetheless, Fort has a very clear definition of they mean to it, and unless I've been doing Fort wrong lately, attacking neutrals because they're aggressive to you doesn't jive with that definition. The guy's example might be stupid, but who cares?

I would that if Kalsuul was actually going out of his way to kill neutrals just because they were in Battle, a Fort Imm would have eventually stepped in.

But I don't think it's that cut and dried.

I've played Fort characters who would rather avoid fighting neutral characters who wanted to kill them. Most of my Fort characters have fallen in this bucket.

I've also played Fort characters who absolutely would kill neutral characters that they were 100% sure would murder them given an opportunity. Not as their highest priority, but they'd still take that kind of pre-emptive self defense.

She has a very floofy way of dealing with Neutrals.

I'm sure though I'll get a huge response thread reinventing her policies in that reguard though.

Without speaking for her, I remain somewhat skeptical.

You have a bit of a track record for overgeneralizing in some cases.

policies when it comes to dealing with neutrals.

I've tried playing hard core goodies that when they see a child murdered by a gnome they avenge that child to eternity and that gnome is forever tainted. You can't do that in the Fort as it is now.

Perhaps the problem is that Fort tends to follow the policies of it's current leadership. Baer has a master play book, but generally speaking, leaders have been allowed to come up with and enforce their own twists on what a lot of people seem to think is/was "standard operating procedure" in Fort. Maybe this has led us to the point where everyone (because of when they last played a Fort, for example) has slightly different ideas about what is kosher and to what degree.

Beats me, I just know that Fort's "official" policy on a handful of topics seems to change slightly every once in a while.

This is exactly what I was saying above.

That your Fort character who wants to kill neutrals concept doesn't fly does not mean that no Fort character who will kill some neutrals will not fly.

Who of neutrals is against you and who is just neutral.

From Jeqo PBF

Sun May 4 10:04:22 2008 by 'Daevryn' at level 41 (152 hrs):
IMHO, way way way too many non-evil kills to possibly be playing Fort conjurer right. Probably should be neutral.

A Maran should be there to kill evils. They should be hard core about it. I will probably look down on them if they go out of their way to kill neutrals instead of evils. Does this not make sense?

Baer believes neutrals (any who do not follow her at least) are pretty much two catagories: Fence sitters and road blocks. If they are in your way when you're trying to kill evil, you can knock them down to get to the evil. If they are fence sitting and committing evil acts (leveling on goods, trying to murder goodie mages etc) they should pay for that crime at that moment. However, she does not believe a grudge should be necessarily held against them. IE you should not hunt them forever because you see them leveling on goodies.

If you think I'm froofy because I don't think you should be, for example, raiding battle to kill neutral battle guy, well..it is what it is.

Just because of a perceived balance?

I don't, and neither would any self-respecting goodie I ever played.

Nor would any dwarf I played forgive the slaying of Akanians. Or an elf forgive an assault on Darsylon (If he was from there for instance.)

I think it's terrible rp for Goods to give clemency to neutrals who have killed goodies, or even massacred sentient neutrals for personal gain.


This is just my opinion.

But the exception is nexus. A maran should not only be allowed but in no way looked down upon if they start killing nexuns over time. Nexun philosophy makes them just as much an enemy of the fortress as anyone else. They seek its eradication. The more fortress "wins" the fight against evil, the more nexus wants to fight fotress, until in the end nexus would have to be all evil, all the time.

Sure, I think it should be a process. But a maran who gets attacked by nexus and sees the fortress attacked by nexus should be considering them an enemy. Just because one might understand their (nexuns) philosophy doesn't make it ok for them to do what they do. As Daev's said many times, hitler thought he was right and good. That doesn't actually make him so. Nexus thinks it's doing the right thing. That doesn't mean everyone else would think so.

Marans shouldn't be discouraged from killing nexuns - again, after the process of seeing them do what they do and trying to get them to change. Once they won't, you should be able to be proactively self-defensive with them as much or more than anyone else.

I agree.

Caveat: Nexus is helpful too, and I just don't see players (not characters, players) sticking to that line of RP when being friendly with Nexus, even 50% of the time, leads to more PKs, easier defenses, and more gear/explore trips. And Fort LUVZ some gear runs. Srsly. <3's eq. A lot. Especially the shiny kind.

I think you can make a Maran who takes that as a justification for always killing Nexus; I think you can make with roughly equal validity a Maran who has a justification for always killing Tribunal or Battle or Outlander.

(I understand you don't agree.)

Are you speaking purely on your opinion of what's valid RP, or do you seriously think a Maran who actively hunts non-evils (second to evils) using the justifications you described wouldn't take a whole ton of #### for it?

Judging by Immortal comments, cabal notes, IC interactions, and forum posts, I just don't see that character not getting ridiculed and penalized for that by Baer.

EDIT: I know you're all busy and this and that, but man it would be nice if you had some updated forum software that made splitting/splicing threads easy (among a handful of other modern forum features) so I wouldn't feel guilty about ruining this guys thread. You could always contract out the database conversion.

I don't have a problem with this role, but what I really want to emphasize is that a Maran's goal should be to kill evil. Period. That's what Maran do. They shouldn't be ####ing around with Nexus if there's evil to kill instead.

I agree 100%. 1000%. I am surprised to hear you say that though, because my last maran got a lot of flack for turning against nexuns after a while and not just waiting for them to attack him. I'm glad to hear that's changed and I now feel better about perhaps rolling up another maran sometime in the not too distant future.

Sure you can say what ever you want or write extensive dogma, but the fact is they kill everyone for their own selfish purposes.

The fact is they do more killing for the sake of killing than anyone else.

But I'm glad to see Maran can have a go at them now. I pretty much find myself at odds with Nexuns no matter what cabal I play, but especially Fortress.

>Sure you can say what ever you want or write extensive dogma,
>but the fact is they kill everyone for their own selfish
>purposes.

(The word being 'fact')

Let me be crystal clear about my take on this to save everyone some pain:

It is possible to construct a Fort role that would be willing to kill Nexus.

This does not mean that the rest of Fort, including the mortal leadership, will agree.

This does not mean that whatever character you come up with is proof from consequences or will work; it just means that it's possible.

Probably, if you're one of the players with an obvious OOC hatred of that or any cabal, you're going to have a harder time selling Team Fort IMM that what you're doing isn't just your player preferences bleeding into your character.

I don't like a cabal as a Player. (And I don't like Nexus at all as I have said.) Is there something wrong with writting a role for a character so I can fight that cabal? reguardless of an alignment?

Every single character I have had recently ended up hunting nexus to some extent, some more than others ofcourse.. but..

I dislike the cabal and its purpose and philosophy. I've been shouted at by cabal mates countless times because I screwed up nexus relations when we where the ones they wanted to help. So many times we have been 2-3 on, with the enemy holding our item and havign 2-3 on. Now enter nexus, which puts our numbers at 4-5+ and we go retake the item. After a few times like that I started activly looking for reasong to ask nexus characters to f*uck off, aswell as looking for reasons to make them my enemy.

Oh and.. nexus is almost always willing to help if their aid gives a big number advantage. However, if their help still puts us at a big disadvantage you can be pretty certain most nexus would not offer their aid and look for excuses if you ask.

You should play the Nexus guy who's cool and doesn't do the things you describe. :)

No more characters with a first name that begins with V.

FWIW, I tend to agree that nipping an overly-aggressive neutral in the bud is a fine thing to do as a member of Fort, especially when that person attacks me over and over or has a history of helping evils. I've always disliked the "Evil is defined not by actions, but by (Red Aura)" mentality of much of Fort's past leadership, both mortal and Immortal.

It's just never I've never really seen any of the Fort Imms suggest or allude to the second sentiment you described being the case. I have seen people get punished for it though.

I'd make the argument that if you've ever attacked goodie mobs or PCs with the intention of killing them, you're a valid target for Fortress.

Of course, you shouldn't be the only target, or the highest priority target, but you're cracked if you think goodie mages should never attack villager, when they know perfectly well that villager will kill them given the chance.

In fact, I think its sort of stretching it for non-mage fortress to not kill villager or nexus on sight - they know that given the right situation, a villager or nexun would not hesitate to murder their cabalmates in cold blood. That isn't something a goodie should tolerate, ever~

Furthermore, if they see a villager or a nexun killing or attempting to kill one of the people they're sworn to protect (i.e. any goodie and goodie cabalmates in particular), I don't see how they could ever justify leaving aforementioned killer alone ever again, unless maybe there's a more immediate evil threat in the exact same area. Forties might have higher priorities, but protecting goodies (by definition, killing people who kill goodies) is usually more important to fortress than the actual act of killing evil people.

Given the choice between fighting a lich who is sitting in imperial lands or killing a bunch of neutrals fighting storms in Kiadana, I think Fortress RP - all about protecting the light - pushes forties towards killing the neutral group in order to save the giants over raiding the lich who isn't doing anything. Though most fort groups would probably raid the lich over helping out the storm giants, anyway.

awerfgwer

No Text

awefawefr

The first time I attacked you, I asked over CB <prior> to attacking you. The general consensus was that you hated magic and were evil. Then I attacked you.

You then questioned why I did, I think I made some stuff up, looked back through the log, and noticed you were actually neutral.

I never attacked you again after that, unless you were doing something questionable. If you have logs to prove otherwise, please do so.

Thanks for being an utter prick about the whole situation.

And I have only one log of us fighting. I tend to only log kills and
deaths, not the close ones (of which Wormell had many.)

It is entirely possible that I blamed other owl attacks on you. If
that's the case, I apologize.

And I don't mean to come across as a prick, I'm sorry if I did.

The fact is that until this thread popped up I didn't even know you
were in the Fort. I just figured that you were a flyto; murder elf,
which I'm not sure should be something that is tolerated.

Was that he ranked with and travelled with my characters and talked of being an explorer character.

To me that read as, I'm looking for my wands and can't be troubled to defend. Oh look! I have them and I hero'd! Let's apply!

Weaksauce.

No Text.

And you're a powergamer.

no text

gr

Not on this planet.

Even if you believe something is true, if everyone else knows it isn't that doesn't mean that in THEIR reality it isn't a lie when you tell it your way.

Note: I don't even recall what this thread was about and I'm speaking only about what defines a "Lie".

A lie is when an untrue statement is purposfully given. If a person makes a statment knowing full well the information therein is false, it's a lie. If a person making the same statment thinks the erroneous information is true and gives it in good faith it isn't a lie it's just being wrong. There is no wiggle room, there's no exception to this.

If you are Jalim I can see how this might confuse you. Having witnessed first hand your penchent for blatantly lying to win points here I personally find you to be this communities worst player.

Yes, I know, sticks and stones and all that, but you are the quentisential definition of a liar, and for that matter a troll.

I'm consigning you to my pile of PDR-DNR's (Pro-Derangment-Syndrome and Did-Not-Read) so you might reply to this but I won't waste my time reading it.

nt

n/t