>
>First, leaders aren't always right about everything, as well
>as Imms. No, the debate was full looting and your personal
>feelings. If you expected me to set there and define how a
>Warlock should be fully acting you shouldn't have deleted and
>instead took time to write a note and address what you really
>wanted to talk about. From my view point, you prayed to me to
>whine about how someone full looted one of our enemies despite
>your request. This may not have been what you originally
>intended, but that is how it came across to me. Communication
>is very diffucult sometimes when you are limited to soley
>text.

Agreed, it is difficult. Your read on it was way off the mark, however. I really wasn't too bothered until your RP came into a situation that was predicated on the idea that an Immortal of a cabal, whether in character or not, will resolve an issue to the extent that it needs to be resolved and or dealt with, and you didn't see that through, even remotely. You made the presumption that the looting was the issue, and it wasn't. It was the actions of another of the cabal that bothered me, the circumstances under which it occurred, and how I felt it contradicted the ways of a goodly cabal. We never got that far, because you called X in, and made me shut up. I was typing midsentence the rest of what I had to say, cleared it, threw in an emote, then put in the first delete. Why bother when you made it readily evident you had no interest in listening and or hearing what I wished to say? Sadly, my experience here also forced my hand, as I have never, ever seen any RP situations like that come to fruition...in seven years.
>

>
Its like comparing an
>orange and an apple. They aren't the same.

You don't say? I disagree, as both encompass one major facet that you fail to acknowledge. Riddle me this...what is the difference between a warlock and scion? I don't want the "warlocks are good mages protecting the weave from those who seek power" bs, but more the fact that it's the same damn thing, with a different concept allocated to it so it can actually exist. Without defining an RP difference...you have two cabals fighting, supposedly for different reasons, who act so similar, if you didn't know the races/classes, you'd never be able to tell the difference between them. Enter a moral/ethic code (MARAN) and its apparent absence (WARLOCK). If you aren't going to have one, why not make the cabal neutral, and you can have yourself the warlocks of the grey grimoire. I guess, considering your perspective...maybe it would be akin to comparing the two...but ideally, it shouldn't be.


>And where you failed in your goodly actions is the fact your
>character got pissed.

Again, I would say annoyed. The way you say pissed implies I was a raving, out of control lunatic, and we both know it wasn't even remotely like that. And now you've shifted your focus to my character, and the idea of goodliness. Let's get back on track, shall we?

I wasn't there to witness the actual
>action, but the way you and X were acting, it is obvious you
>were angry as well. Perhaps if you wanted to do "good" you
>should have calmed down and used reason. You simply wanted to
>play witch hunt. That wasn't going to happen.

Uhm...I'm not sure where you managed to pull all that from, but it's wrong, too. You make a lot of presumptions (which wouldn't need to be made if you didn't run off half-cocked).
>
>One evil act doesn't make someone evil, and even if it did,
>redemation is almost never immediate, but further down the
>road.

Okay, so I betray my cabal to the scions, getting them slaughtered. One evil act, but you still see me as that pristine shapeshifter of the light. A blazing icon of all that it is to be a warlock. Right.

If I had to monitor people for everything thing they did
>that was a minor evil, there would be no Warlocks, and I bet
>there would be no Marans.

Try playing a maran.

There is no such thing as perfect
>when you talk about a person. Instead of coming to me, perhaps
>you should have tried to help X to his/her redemaption, or
>perhaps, even, speak of that first.

I did. I was met with the very flippant attitude I told you I was met with. You opted not to listen.

>No, you got pissed and
>deleted.

Yep. I was already annoyed about my last form, so being treated the way I was, from an Imm in my own cabal, was the icing on the cake. I was thinking to myself, "Hey, your form sucks, so what. Get over it and enjoy the character anyway." Then my interaction with you sucked the little enjoyment I had found right back out. Delete;delete.

>This is my last post on the subject, because there is
>no point as things will probably go on and on and I don't feel
>like having to defend myself.

If you took two seconds to think, there would be no reason to defend yourself. I'm not attacking you, but the ideas of the cabal. If you see the attack as being against you, then so be it.

>
>If you want something to happen, then make it happen.

Tried to.

>Everything has a result, not always favorable. You have to
>take the good with the bad and it seemed you didn't want to do
>that to me.

Uh, you blatantly attempted to put me in my place, without knowing a damn thing about what was happening. Great rp, poor Imm decision.

>So I leave it at that.
>
Fine by me.

Cartherlen