Hope no one minds giving my perspective on this.

>Ask yourself this. Does embracing prayers of priests include
>allowing shamans to summon your prey to your snare?
>Accepting sanctuary is bad of course, accepting healing is
>bad of course, is them summoning for you bad? You make the
>call. I know for a fact that villagers have been kicked out
>for allowing a paladin to summon people out of a cabal
>during a "raid" situation, do you think allowing Danical to
>summon me for you in the dwarf forest is worse or better
>than what villagers have been kicked out for?

Both Goapa and Gabe have some very valid points. I'm not saying either one is wrong, since it's your perspective. That's for Thror to decide in the game. I am saying 'here is how I would judge this situation,' which is a pretty difficult situation to judge:

I think it was pointed out wisely in another post that any rager who 'asks' a priest to summon someone for him, will most definately get the boot. There is really nothing any rager can do about MaranShaman summoning. I'm pretty sure both the players and characters are capable of making the distinction between faith/communes and magic/spells.


>Now allying with sylvans is yet another shifty thing in my
>book, but that is me. You have shamans and bards and
>warriors hanging around wearing magic stuff and having
>pendants and magical preps and everyone seems to look the
>other way. Oh and disregard that their cabal embraces mages
>as well.

I totally agree with you here. Intronan more than I have been kicking ragers around and are to the point of throwing ragers out for being seen with individuals who wear 'invis' or spellcasting items. It's not enough that these ragers tell the individuals to 'put it away'. Since the character "in good faith" knows that the magical item is still 'on' the character in question.

If anything, there should still be a history between Battle and Sylvan from the war. I don't think the example of 'the cabal embraces mages' fits. Unless you want the funstick for ragers to hit rock bottom and they can't associate with any cabals.


>This is a disagreement between the new age ragers and the
>older ones. I would treat sylvans as temp allies at best,
>not attacking them but also not embracing them wholeheartily
>like the village has been doing recently. The combo raids of
>Maran/Sylvan/Battle just scars the village's supposed best
>warriors of the land and the independance that comes a long
>with it. I experienced one raid where a shaman who is still
>alive now came with two other paladins, a sylvan bard and
>warrior, and a rager warrior who is still alive now and they
>proceeded to summon me out, gang me, and when I unghosted,
>summon me out, gang me again. That is 6 on 1 and we didn't
>even have the sceptre because they came previously and got
>it! Is that cool in your book? What is being a rager mean to
>you? Not using magic but being cool with prayers that
>emulate magic. I would think you would be at LEAST a little
>bit suspicious of it and at most saying, "You do that again,
>I will kill you for disrespecting me".

The above line is your perspective. I think you are entitled to it, but no one should have to live by that alone.

Gang-bangs are never cool, regardless of the cabals. It's ten times more uncool as a Rager to participate in these. Then again, I also lay a bit of fault on the individual who tries to stick it out in those overwhelming situations.


>The village has turned into a mob of flunkies who beckon to
>priests and mage protecting warders. They no longer stand
>alone and stand for the "Best of the Best". What happened to
>"If I can't do it with my own kin then it is not worth doing
>because it would mar my reputation and history of battle".

That's unfair. You haven't been gone from the Battle cabal long enough to make that statement. There are bad apples in every cabal. I can name a handful of great ragers that are alive and kicking right now.

>Whatever, you find it cool to have shamans and paladins
>summon for your ragers, that is cool. I just hope Thror
>opens his eyes and uninducts you for it. Beyond those
>instances, I didn't have much interaction with you nor could
>I facilitate any because you were always camoed. I comment
>on what I experienced. As to that short time we did interact
>where you wanted to change how we viewed each other, I was
>so tainted by your previous action I had no faith at all in
>your proposal. Oh well.

Eyes are open. With another set of eyes to help me out *tackle Intronan* Again - no rager should attack/kill a priest for summoning. No rager should even be participating in any summoning that involves a massive gang-bang.

>Go

Easy on the bickering, heavy on the ale.