Rank steadily in Emerald forest and the holy grove on creatures that consider comfortable in the wilds

If an implementor says it ok then I will drop it for ever

If its not okay I would like something telling us what we can and can't do in outlander based on alignment

Seriously. I killed dryads for a few levels as Zoslaun. Not to defend Thar-Eris (which doesn't need defending according to many roles) but because I was evil and felt like being mean to those little acorn-tossers for a while. And growing in personal power.

I also would have been ok if an Ancient had smacked me while I was doing it.

Let me repeat. Drop it.

And now I have new ranking areas for my evil Outies.

We all win!

Thanks for the response.

He did say that he would be okay if an Ancient made a problem for his character.

I'm a sensitive guy myself, I rem. being made anathema for doing something that someone else did but blah blah blah it does not matter. It's like getting a speeding ticket for driving 5 miles above and blaming the cop for not giving a ticket to the guys doing 15 miles above.

I'm just saying be careful with that line of thought and understand not everything will go your way in CF, esp. when it comes to religion/cabal policies etc.

The best thing to do to really put your voice in is to become a leader of a cabal and then smack someone else down for something you think is wrong.

Anyways, just thought I'd offer that piece of advice.

But I don't think it will based on what I have seen and what I am reading here.

Lyristeon is down with it so it does make things a lot easier.

It's a big reason I didn't play many reavers because I was out of the woods to much and couldn't even get in.

There is a timer of sorts that requires you to have so much wood time.

Emerald forest and Forest of nowhere here I come.

I'm really quite pleased with this. In terms of making both a Ranking/PK oriented character.

To kick it off, I am going to say this:
I have never played an outlander.
I have not read the bark (other than the snipet you posted)
I know jack #### about outlander dogma

But just after reading the few threads you have posted on about the matter makes me fairly certain you should be seeking help for the likely severe mental handicap you are suffering of.

You claim, based on a rule that forbids hunting game, that Mrreishe (sp?) roleplayed his outlander poorly. However, nowhere have you mentioned Mrreishe hunting 'game' for sport. All you speak of is natural creatures. Now, let me tell you something about the druid guildguard consider you posted earlier. That mob is in fact a tribunal sympathetic mob (or at least used to be a few years ago) that attacks wanted players.

You have been told that you are wrong. By players of several nightreavers. By Lyristeon. And what did you do? You insult them all. Because clearly they are all wrong, and you are right. Guess what? You are wrong.

Anyone who can tell their head from their ass should realise fairly swiftly that cf is a dynamic game. Interpretation of IC rules, aswell as cabal dogmas change. Sometimes the game does not keep up. Is the wording on the bark as intended? Maybe it is misleading, perhaps outlander dogma has even strayed off far enough to be entirely different now. The bark is not the only source of cabal dogma. It is the immortals and mortal leader's interpretation of the dogma that dictates the final say at any given time or place. And clearly you are in the opposition.

But that does not matter. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. Only when you consider your own opinion infallible and argue it in an abrasive manner, is it YOU who becomes the asshole.

For the sake of your own sanity, play your role, and let others play theirs. If you dissagree on something (such as right now the disparage between what you percieve as being intended on bark rule #1), bring it up for discussion. Perhaps even argue your point. But when you end up in the opposition, don't throw a ####storm.

Don't act like a whiny bitch if you don't want to be treated like one.

I say that because outlander is only a losely affiliated group of people as opposed to an organized coherent force. What you want is to have outlander be more formally organized which is exactly what it is pretty much against.

Like the tea party where there is no actual leader the only reason leaders exist in outlander is because mechanically someone has to induct and outduct other then that they don't really perform any other function. You don't like the way another outlander is handling things then you do something about it, the cabal is supposed to be internally policed in a manner somewhat similar to the village and the circle but not as formalized.

The only thing that unites outlanders is their desire to topple sentinent societies that dominate nature. Just because an outlander and a emerald forest dryad might have similar goals doesn't make them allies. Just because one outlander has allied himself with a group doesn't mean another outlander will.

The outlanders have a written set of rules.

The first rule is don't wack wild things.

The Imms themselves came out and said don't do that.

End of story.

Boar = Game and Wild Thing
Deer = Game and Wild Thing
Sprite = Sentient forest spirit and wild thing but not game.
Dryad = Sentient forest spirit and wild thing but not game.
Brownie = Sentient forest spirit and wild thing but not game.
Ranger = Sentient Being and wild thing but not game.

and outlander dogma is one where rules are not hard and fast (that means its ok to break them or bend them). In general outlander expects you to be working toward its general stated goal of returning Thera to a more primitive state where creatures are shaped to the land as opposed to shaping the land to the creatures. They don't give a flying hoo haa really how you go about doing it as long as thats the direction you are pushing towards.

It's not the sylvan warders. Any evil outlander can justify it without too much effort.

The strong survive, those pansy ass dryads died. They weren't strong.

I need good practice to hunt real foes. There are plenty of these in the forest, they won't miss one or two... or twenty.

I was hungry.

Those are some ideas for you.

that stands in the Emerald and whines at everyone who attacks anything there. I mean protects.

Read the first rule of the bark. Right under the part where it says, You must Obey these rules.

It covers everything you said.

There isn't ANY thing written anywhere in the tree or any Outlander Imm's religeon that says reavers can slaughter things like Dryads wholesale.

You people are arguing for the sake of arguing.

I have laid out where the rules are written.

They are there so we have certain dynamics in the cabal.

Outlander isn't I get powers for free. It's a Nature centric cabal where in nature is protected and nurtured and

I'm not make this #### up. It's right there in the games rules.

Do we need to make everything have an OOC translation to prevent people from using the role command to powergame?

First you ask if something is possible and then when someone suggests that it is possible, you argue why it isn't possible. Fricken' weird way to do business, man.

Anyways, I'll lend you my 2 cents and say that I've had a Nightreaver who solo ranked in Emerald forest on dryads and rangers for as long as I could and never got whacked for it. My role was that I wanted to see things bleed into the forest floor.

Things hunt things in the wild all the time, don't they?

Jesus... quit doing the lawyering crap and play a ####ing role. It's not that hard. Who says the role has to be 100% cool and legit with what's expected. You'll find the cool ones weren't like that at all.