Wed Dec 2 08:09:46 2009

At 10 o'clock PM, Day of the Sun, 20th of the Month of the Grand Struggle
on the Theran calendar Azemaerlor perished, never to return.

Yes, yes, I know. Fastest washout ever. But if I'm anything I try to be honest with myself, and I could tell as I started taking a serious look at what lay before me, did some outlining, and considered the winter ahead that I wasn't going to enjoy it, and my 40 hour a week work already sucks enough to compound my misery with more WORK. I didn't want to be one of the ones who just fades away when the urge to log in flees.


Were I to do it all over again, I'd have an area idea fleshed out and mostly written up before I heroimm'd, to minimize the amount of time spent sitting around not really doing anything. I love the Immortals, who work incredibly hard and sacrifice a great deal for the game that I love to play, but at the moment I'd rather just be playing the game. It's the interactions I love.

Now, onto Mortal affairs.

I rolled Azem as a challenge for myself, to play a TRUE good-aligned Villager. I never once killed a good-aligned character, and that allowed for some very interesting RP, especially given that I worshiped Padwei, who used to BE a wizard. I had also never played anything with STSF, and took Soul to give me more time for STSF to work. It was fine, sometimes it won me fights, more often it didn't come into play at all. In the end it got boring. I was survivable, but had trouble sealing killings.

Village, lots of good interactions. I'm horrible with remembering people's names, but Fulgrum and Macaca were steadfast and reliable friends for Azem, love Malakhi, but seldom saw him around due to playing times not coinciding.

Thror, thanks for the bit of interaction-- I wanted to do more with sapper training but I had already set my feet firmly on the path of floof, which made it hard to be a traditional villager.

Pad: Love the religion and the RP. (Magic is like a sunshine. FTW)


Thanks again to all the immortals who took the time to consider me for Immdom, and I'm sorry I disappointed you all by deleting so quickly, but I think I can do more for CF by being a positive mortal presence than by joining the ranks of the Gods.

See you all in the fields after a bit of a break!


Zz/Azemaerlor/Gruhndef/Zaximun/Unalethekai

>Were I to do it all over again, I'd have an area idea fleshed
>out and mostly written up before I heroimm'd, to minimize the
>amount of time spent sitting around not really doing anything.

You should have read my warnings to prospective heroimms! Learn from my failure. Heh.

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=4&topic_id=31733&mesg_id=31762

Specifically #5.

I don't understand how you were allowed to stay in battle if you refused to kill good aligned mages. I'm possibly the biggest stickler for maintaining alignment rp in cabals, but you still have to follow the cabal's basic purpose to stay in it, meaning sure, you absolutely should be roleplaying sorrow or dismay or whatever else you want to call it when it happens, but you still have to kill the mages. All of them. Including the good aligned ones.

Did you lie to the battle leaders/imms about it and say you would, but actually not? Did you simply ignore all the good aligned mages?

I am really having trouble with this. I think it's a fine role, but not one that fits with being in the battle cabal. You can be a magic hater who doesn't kill good aligned mages, but not within the cabal.

How did this happen?

I sort of go the opposite way... I think a good-aligned Battle who regularly kills good-aligned mages is on a fast-track to becoming neutral Battle.

I don't see how a battle member can say I want to kill all mages, but not the ones who glow gold. Then he doesn't want to kill mages, he's not against magic, he's only against some mages, ones he doesn't like their alignment. Sure, if he targetted good aligned more than others, that's a problem, but it's as much if not more a problem if he refuses to kill good aligned mages at all.

And I'm not saying it's wrong to turn a good aligned rager neutral if he kills too many good aligned mages, especially if there isn't some roleplay demonstrating that there is a difference between killing them and killing non-good mages. But it just can't be that a villager refuses to kill an entire group of mages. It's not compatible with the cabal.

Here I wear my 'I am not a Battle imm and have never that I can remember been a leader of the Battle cabal' hat.

I think what you're saying is true in terms of an archetypal Battle character, and I think it's often true in terms of the standards that Battle leadership may hold the character to, but in terms of "Does the RP of this character make sense?" and "Can this character get inducted into Battle and be generally viable?" I think it's not always so.

I disagree that not killing good mages is incompatible with the cabal. I've even had Leader-to-Leader sit-downs with mages over a cup of mead, and that was as a neutral. A good rager might have even more reason, specifically his common alignment, to find a non-murder way to do battle with a good mage. Come to think of it, the Rites of War aren't just a battle royale. There's a non-murder Test of Wits too.... right?

From another perspective, mages expect ragers to attack on sight. Not doing so shakes things up a bit, and can actually make things a little interesting.

Now, if good rager doesn't show up to defend when good mage raids, that's probably crossing the line. Similarly, that line can be drawn in different places, based on the Commander at the time. A fire giant who hates elves probably isn't going to let a pacifist-toward-good-mages elf rager stick around too long. On the other hand, realizing that there is an exploitable benefit to having this type of rager in your ranks would be a characteristic of a great leader, in my opinion.

The short version is, there's wiggle room everywhere and I like that characters can exist with some form of conflict between morals and cabal. It is (and should be) possible to walk the line and make it work. It is (and should be) possible to stray too far to one side or the other and face consequences. The line is not (and should not be) static or easy to define.

Ragers destroy mages. Period.

>Now, if good rager doesn't show up to defend when good mage
>raids, that's probably crossing the line.

I wonder how you're going to stop a good mage from raiding if you don't kill him.

I understand your point. I just think it's too black and white. Good villagers have to walk a very fine line to balance morals with cabal interest.

Fail the moral side, and now you're neutral.
Fail the cabal side, and now you're uninducted.

Where that line is drawn, and how it is applied to each character who tries to walk it, and how his cabalmates react to it, is what makes the role interesting.

Besides, the shift to a more Students of War style back in uh... 2001 or something provides a good out for this style. Know your enemy and all that jazz.

I'm just throwing my opinion out there. Having played a successful good-aligned rager in the past, I thought it might be a worthwhile contribution.

The Battlerager helpfile leaves no room for soft goofies.
The Tablet and the War room stuff also urgely "recommend" to slay mages.

Seriously, you can't trick it with your role.
If battle imms would like to see peaceful ragers they should change the cabal ideology. Until then you can only balance at the edge and be "lazy" at killing good mages.
Not killing goodies is not valid battle role as it stands now.

... as it is OBVIOUSLY valid.

This dude actually did play a goodie-fluffy-villager. Got titled and did fairly well.

It is the IMMS/leaders that decide what goes and what doesn't. PERIOD.

Then maybe the helpfiles and otherwise written-down dogma should be modified to reflect that Battle is not always, no matter what, 100% about ensuring the death and destruction of (any/all) mages, and instead reflect that magic is nefarious, bad, destructive, and otherwise naughty and that Battle has more of a focus on being a great warrior, tactician, and general undoer of magic.

The man has a point. Everything available in game, including 99% of interactions with current members, is going to suggest to a person that the scenarios described simply should not be acceptable or tolerated in Battle. It isn't that the role is just "hard", it's that most signs suggest that doing it that was is in fact incorrect.

If it's being done this way, and Battle Imms are okay with that, then maybe something is wrong with the way Battle is being presented.

The helpfile also says warriors, thieves, assassins, rangers, bards. I can assure you that Battle is not "always, no matter what, 100%" these classes.

It's f'in hard to pull it off, but it's possible.

Perhaps, but there have been almost a dozen good aligned Battle characters in the past year who clearly didn't get booted or align changed. Granted, I'm making the assumption their roles provided most of the same challenges we're talking about now, and that they didn't delete days before getting the boot or something.

I guess I see a pretty big gap between that and pulling off a Battle Paladin or AP or whatever.

I haven't had a rager in a very long time, and never a good aligned one, so I'll be quiet now though.

>
>I guess I see a pretty big gap between that and pulling off a
>Battle Paladin or AP or whatever.
>

Touche. But I would still contend that there is room, even in seemingly straightforward cases, for outside-the-box characters. That doesn't mean they'll always work... but I would hate to outright restrict them and not let someone at least try.

I can't answer on your comment regarding the good-aligned ragers for the past year, other than it's not "good ragers" that are at issue so much as "good ragers who don't attack good mages".

It's been an interesting discussion, though. I imagine some of the other battle imms would react differently in character to this situation than Fjarn would...

There is a difference between an AP who gives up his spells and become a villager and a rager who doesn't want to kill the primary enemies.

AP villager is hard to pull off and is an outside-the-box char, but at least he doesn't betray the main village dogma.

>AP villager is hard to pull off and is an outside-the-box
>char, but at least he doesn't betray the main village dogma.
>

The main village dogma....in your interpretation. But Fjarn! It's in the helpfile! Well, Padwei also highlighted the parts of the helpfile that are more flexible, and laid out her interpratation, which was a lot different than yours.

Your view is very purist - and quite frankly, it's correct. But the biggest problem is that the conflicting, more flexible interpretation that Padwei espoused (and that I agree with) is also correct.

I would expect a Dwoggurd-style Commander to kick this specific type of rager out, burn his hut to the ground, piss on the ashes, grow some grass in the ashes, feed the grass to a goat, and then burn the goat to the ground and piss on THOSE ashes.

Conversely, I would expect a Padwei-style Commander to sympathize with his struggle, and find strategic value in the other contributions to weakening magic that make up for his not attacking good mages, and then exploit those to the Village's advantage.

It's two different styles, and two completely conflicting opinions, both of which are valid IC. No matter how hard you argue to the contrary, there's no single OOC answer that is right - it all comes down to the IC character/imm/leader/cabalmates dynamic centered on this particular role interpretation.

Like Daevryn said somewhere in the middle of this discussion:
"I never really liked goats. Baa." (paraphrasing)

I mean, sure, you can play a char that doesn't follow the primary cabal dogma. And you can put some justification into your role or just be "lazy" IC and let it slip.

Examples:
- a corrupted tribunal
- a rager who doesn't seek death of certain mages (whether they are good aligned mages or just a particular female mage)
- betrayer imperial

You can also write those roles to explain yourself to immortals (and pretend they don't know about it as cabal gods).

But if you openly admit that you don't follow the cabal dogma, that's pretty much nosense (and asking for uninduction).

For example, you can play a corrupted tribunal (and write a such role), but you shouldn't really tell over cb or during interviews, "I'm corrupted and I will not flag him/her".

Same for ragers. You can be "slow" at killing good mages and write an appropriate role to protect yourself against imm-OOC uninduction (telling the imms in OOC sense that you are a freak and "ask" them to let it slip in the IC sense)

If I'm understanding you right, you're saying that both of these polar sides of Battle dogma are correct. I'm down with that.

What troubles me is simply the fact that what you're saying, unless of course I'm wrong, is that a character could basically be ruined (either early on or late in life) entirely by the preference of the current, or soon to be current, mortal leadership.

I'm cool with Fort leaders making adjustments to cabal rules/dogma, when you're taking the difference between okay and getting the boot, that's a bit much.

If I'm a Padwei-style rager under Padwei-style leadership, is it okay for a newly appointed Dwoggurd-style Commander to kick me out of the cabal after 250 hours of work because he's the brass now, and the "ruling point of view" has changed? Yikes.

n/t

If not me, in several months you will end up with roles where a villager is allowed to quaff potions if they aren't too strong or if he does that once in a while to test what magic is like.

Well, these are pretty extreme examples. It really does depend on the situation... but it wouldn't be a hard path if it wasn't hard, right?

Who knows what would happen in this case. Maybe after 250 hours, your character has made a name for himself and can't be removed without immortal intervention. Maybe he gets booted and gets back in by proving himself. Maybe he gets booted and hunted as a betrayer, but gets rewarded by the gods of light for sticking true to his beliefs.

Chances are, after 250 hours, this conflict would have been brewing with the new leader prior to his leadering. How you (and he) handle that conflict would be up to you guys to sort out IC.

>It is the IMMS/leaders that decide what goes and what doesn't.
>PERIOD.

As a Battle Imm, I'd support a leader who boots wussy good ragers as eagerly as I'd support a leader who lets them stay. I'd also appreciate a pissed off barbarian rager calling gold-aura to the circle, as much as I'd appreciate a suave thinker rager finding value in and supporting the good rager's decisions.

Well, I WOULD have, anyway, if Dwoggurd hadn't uninducted me a few messages up in this thread.

>The Battlerager helpfile leaves no room for soft goofies.
>The Tablet and the War room stuff also urgely "recommend" to
>slay mages.

"Recommend" isn't the same as "do this or face the consequences".

In Azemaerlor's case specifically, "Defenders are dedicated to the
rudimentary battlefield healing arts and protection of their fellow
Villagers in combat." I think he did that fairly well, even dealing with
the added penalties placed upon him from a religious perspective.

Furthermore, the Battle helpfile states "BattleRagers have dedicated
their lives to the study of warfare, and focused that study and their
rage upon the destruction of magic."

Seems to me the focus is on destroying magic, not necessarily magi.
I think with the introduction of the veil, you see a lot more room for this
kind of RP/variation in the cabal than you might have in the past.

Goodies being held to a higher moral standard than other aligns, would
you prefer if they weren't allowed in this cabal? Because it sounds like
that's the only real option you're willing to accept.

>>The Battlerager helpfile leaves no room for soft goofies.
>>The Tablet and the War room stuff also urgely "recommend" to
>>slay mages.

>"Recommend" isn't the same as "do this or face the
>consequences".

Those "recommendations" are pretty much orders (thus quited).
War room plaque quote:
II: The enemies of the village are many and will vary with circumstance. As
the village was formed by betrayal so do they war upon the very essence of
that betrayal. The true mages of Thera, the conjurors, necromancers,
transmuters, shapeshifters, invokers and anti-paladins have the taint so deep
within them, that only death will cleanse them of it.

>Furthermore, the Battle helpfile states "BattleRagers have
>dedicated
>their lives to the study of warfare, and focused that study
>and their
>rage upon the destruction of magic."
>
>Seems to me the focus is on destroying magic, not necessarily
>magi.
>I think with the introduction of the veil, you see a lot more
>room for this
>kind of RP/variation in the cabal than you might have in the
>past.

Quoting the Ragers' helpfile again:
BATTLE BATTLERAGERS RAGERS VILLAGE 'BATTLE RAGERS' VILLAGERS
The ancient betrayal of the anti-magic army by the Mages of Order during the
Chaos wars led to the formation of the BattleRagers, a dedicated group who
seek the utter obliteration of the sources of magic and those who practice the
arcane arts.

>Goodies being held to a higher moral standard than other
>aligns, would
>you prefer if they weren't allowed in this cabal? Because it
>sounds like
>that's the only real option you're willing to accept.

I would rather let them kill good mages.
Something like "they don't see them as truly good because they destroy lands with magic and make all of us unhappy".

He did kill mages, just not all of the ones you wanted him to.

It's fine if you want to take the hard stance on cabal writ, but if
there isn't room for variation, it becomes a far less interesting
cabal to interact with, in my opinion.

As for letting them kill good aligns, eh. We can go around in
circles on this, but once they start hunting goodies, there's
no RP good enough for them to maintain that alignment.

>As for letting them kill good aligns, eh. We can go around in
>
>circles on this, but once they start hunting goodies,
>there's
>no RP good enough for them to maintain that alignment.

See, and I would argue that this is a very purist interpretation of "good". Fjarn, not being a God of Light wielding unimaginable power to bear down upon the wicked, could probably accept that a good rager would hunt down all mages because magic is evil.

Does that keep Padwei from neutering said good rager? I dunno. That's the fine line that the rager has to walk. What's the IC threshold for "hunting", or even "too much hunting"?

And around and around we go...

(This complexity, this sense of "not everything is cut and dry", is one of the reasons I love this game)

hur hur hur.

You're reaching.

Considering there is a very marginal reason for any Good mage to be attacking the Battle cabal, I think Nep and Fjarn are spot on with how the Battle Immortals see good-aligned members of the cabal and how they choose to discipline any open defiance towards village policies.

>I disagree that not killing good mages is incompatible with
>the cabal. I've even had Leader-to-Leader sit-downs with
>mages over a cup of mead, and that was as a neutral. A good
>rager might have even more reason, specifically his common
>alignment, to find a non-murder way to do battle with a good
>mage. Come to think of it, the Rites of War aren't just a
>battle royale. There's a non-murder Test of Wits too....
>right?
>

I never said a battlerager couldn't talk to a mage. I never said a battlerager couldn't try to convince a mage to give up magic with words and persuasion. I've done both as much as anyone. But what you're not addressing, the real point here, is that those things are to be in addition to, supplementing, the battle rager's killing of mages. It can't be the sole method. It's the battlerager cabal. A cabal based on two things, hating magic and being the best fighters in the world. That test of wits? To make sure you are the best fighter and leader of fighters. Killers. Of mages. You absolutely can and should try to convince mages to give up magic, particularly as that good aligned rager. But if (when) that fails, you can't just then say "Oh well, too bad" and let them go their merry way and never try to kill them. Just doesn't fit the cabal. (You're free to do that as a non-villager magic hating character, of course.)

>From another perspective, mages expect ragers to attack on
>sight. Not doing so shakes things up a bit, and can actually
>make things a little interesting.
>

Sure. But not attacking on sight doesn't mean *never* attacking. That's what he was doing, and that can't be villager behavior.

>Now, if good rager doesn't show up to defend when good mage
>raids, that's probably crossing the line. Similarly, that
>line can be drawn in different places, based on the Commander
>at the time. A fire giant who hates elves probably isn't
>going to let a pacifist-toward-good-mages elf rager stick
>around too long. On the other hand, realizing that there is
>an exploitable benefit to having this type of rager in your
>ranks would be a characteristic of a great leader, in my
>opinion.
>

Well, he hasn't specifically answered, but that's a fine question, what if a bunch of good aligned mages attacked the village? Would have have killed them? If the answer is "no" then why is it ok that he won't kill them in non-raid situations? The cabal exists to kill mages. Are they somehow worse because they bring the fight to you at the village? More worthy of killing now than they were five minutes before? Of course not.

>The short version is, there's wiggle room everywhere and I
>like that characters can exist with some form of conflict
>between morals and cabal. It is (and should be) possible to
>walk the line and make it work. It is (and should be)
>possible to stray too far to one side or the other and face
>consequences. The line is not (and should not be) static or
>easy to define.

I like wiggle room too, and like you and others I'm sure I've played edgy chars as well as archtypal. But at some point there are rules. How about a tribunal who wouldn't flag a good aligned person for committing a crime? They know it's a death sentence, so they won't do it. Is that compatible with being in the cabal? We're talking about the fundamental purpose of the cabal. It's foundation. Killing mages and stopping the use of magic. Saying you won't do that is, well, saying you won't do that. Not cabal compatible.

>How about a tribunal who wouldn't flag a good
>aligned person for committing a crime? They know it's a death
>sentence, so they won't do it. Is that compatible with being
>in the cabal? We're talking about the fundamental purpose of
>the cabal. It's foundation.

I think you're being facetious, but I've seen basically that character made a few times now.

Actually, I wasn't. I know of plenty of goodie tribunals that won't actually do the killing of good aligned criminals, or do all they can to avoid it. But I've never heard of a tribunal who wouldn't do the initial flagging when the crime is broken. The former I still have problems with, but can accept because of the presence of the vindicator role. But the latter? Don't see that. At least not for a tribunal who isn't deliberately deciding to be corrupt. Which sure, people do. But in theory when that corruption is discovered there are consequences, like change or uninduction.

I would say that any good-aligned character in a non-purely-good-aligned cabal is always serving two masters, and can never serve both perfectly.

They're always walking a line where, based on their choices, alignment change is a possibility or uninduction is a possibility.

I'd like to state a disclaimer before going on my wild-goose chase of logic with respect to the golden aura'd rager. I wholeheartedly agree that the more ambiguity and variation possible the more fun it is to both watch and participate in, character and cabal wise. I'm much more a proponent of variety than I am of boundaries and so forth. I've never played a goody rager, but I disagree that a goody rager has to tow any line except for RP wise with respect to actively hunting good mages.

And here's why...

Which is the greater lodestone of goodness for a goody rager?

To avoid fighting and killing ALL good aligned mages because they are an elf, or have a golden aura, etc. Or is it morally incumbent upon the rager in question to feel that it’s his/her duty to cleanse the misguided (already questionable in terms of actual goodness in the rager’s eyes) mages from using what is of necessity, only something that the gods can safely use.

The whole hatred of magic aspect of spellbane and so forth, (in my eyes) isn’t so much a hatred of magic in truth, it seems more likely that their hatred of magic stems from the byproduct of its use which is moral and martial corruption, ie. Creating rager slaves who are largely protected from magics effects to go and die for you so you don’t have to face your enemy yourself. (in that case slavery bad, being a wimp who can't fight his own battles, bad) Magic in and of itself is a corrosion of all of the things a villager sees as important. The highly personalized struggle with making your way in the world, whether it’s being a farmer, or doing battle with one's foes, the use of magic is a decay that weakens the one who uses it. The farmer grows weaker and becomes less able to do what he could do before, with nature's help, and more dependant upon magic to make his living. The warrior sends others to do the dirty work for him, whether via servitors, slaves, undead, etc. This is the low road, there is no honor to be found here. I know, so many say villager doesn't equal honor, you could say there's nothing of true value here instead I suppose, honor sounds better though.

There is a correlation between time and magic in terms of their affects to some degree. Time robs a warrior of the ability to face his foes and win, the farmer of his ability to labor himself, etc. But these things happen in their own good time, and the byproduct of such time is worthwhile experience and hopefully wisdom not to mention a sense of accomplishment. Magic, does what time does only unnaturally so, rendering no useful byproduct as a result.

If only the gods can safely utilize magic because its very nature corrupts, (and being Immortal, they are not hindered or helped by time) then the good battle rager is doing a service to his fellow goody by actively hunting any goody mage who refuses to eschew the use of magic. Just as he or she would be doing a favor to any evil type who lacks a conscience, and will not turn from wickedness

Based simply on the fact that in the eyes of a good aligned person, the death of someone with no conscience is akin to protecting both others from that person and limiting the stain the conscienceless person would be tainting its soul with, however wretched and small such a soul most likely is, is a service to one and all in the eyes of the goody. The exact same argument can be made against good mages. Though granted, in the eyes of another goody the assumption would lean more towards the mage being misguided, not seeing that the ends can never justify the means where magic is involved, because of its corrupting influence that must make itself felt whether the mage is aware of it or not.

In that light it seems incumbent upon the goody rager to try and persuade the goody mage to cast aside magic before he or she does irreparable harm to themselves and others, but failing in that, it seems like it would be required RP for the rager to hunt the mage in question as one who is willfully turning towards corruption and vicariously the darkness itself.

All of this being said, it's not beyond reason that a goody mage could present very convincing proof and arguments as to how the rager's interpretation of magic to be a source of corruption could be flawed, and essentially take him/herself off the list of mages who must be expunged (at least for the goody rager), but the weight of proving that and RP'ing it would fall upon the mage and to a lesser degree the rager.

Outside of this, it's hard to imagine that a goody rager who lets his viewpoint be known about such things via his/her role and RP would ever need to worry about going neutral unless they didn't bother RP'ing it in game with the goody mage(s) in question.

But that's just my two cents...

I agree. And in fact I've had more than one goodie rager with this exact or in one case a very similar philosophy. It's one way of handling the goodie killing goodie aspect of being a rager, making magic = evil. And as you said, in the end, they have to kill those mages.

<insert sarcasm>

Just because someone doesn't mold to how YOU perceive the Battle cabal, doesn't mean they aren't a good Battle member.

FYI, I never interacted with this character. I don't actually know anything about them.

But I see nothing wrong with a good aligned Battle character not killing good aligned Mages.

His was a perfectly valid question, with no vehemence or malice or sarcasm in it whatsoever. Just makes you look like a douche.

If it were anyone besides Graatch (who thinks he is Carrion Fields' gift to Battle), I wouldn't have given such a response.

It isn't a valid question, because he is outright saying Azemaerlor was WRONG for not fighting any good aligned mages. That is just stupid.

First, you're a douche.

Second, you can't read.

I said it's not a viable battle role. He can of course do what he wants. But once the leadership of battle saw or learned he would never kill an entire group of mages, they should have uninducted him. He would still be fully able to go pk all the evil and neutral mages he wants. Just not as a member of the battle cabal.

You can't be a magic hating battle rager, member of the cabal, but say you won't kill a group of mages. You just can't.

Again, that's not to say there should be no difference between killing a good mage and a non-good mage. You (and I have done this with my good aligned ragers) need to roleplay consequences, sorrow, remiss, actions as a result, whatever you come up with. But you can't refuse to kill the mages.

>You can't be a magic hating battle rager, member of the cabal,
>but say you won't kill a group of mages. You just can't.

Here I can only say that this is your take on Battle, and it is some Battle imm/leader's take on Battle, but it isn't every Battle imm/leader ever's take on Battle.

BATTLE BATTLERAGERS RAGERS VILLAGE 'BATTLE RAGERS' VILLAGERS
The ancient betrayal of the anti-magic army by the Mages of Order during the
Chaos wars led to the formation of the BattleRagers, a dedicated group who
seek the utter obliteration of the sources of magic and those who practice the
arcane arts.
...


F**k me, I'm agreeing with Graatch.

"the utter obliteration of the sources of magic and those who practice the arcane arts."

Maybe I seek the utter obliteration of "magic and those who practice the arcane arts" by destroying magic at its source, i.e. closing the veil once and for all, rather than by physically destroying every current practitioner?

Maybe I have no qualms about the physical destruction of evil and neutral mages and actively work towards it, viewing them as already too far corrupted by magical influences as to ever be salvageable, but consider that good-aligned mages are not yet too far gone.

Destroy the livelyhood of an elven mage who has a wife and kids that rely on him for survival.

You destroy the source and we have mass unemployment of mages across Thera. That is still not the act of a 'good' person.

-----Abernyte

They're smart. They can be scribes. Historians. Pick up a hoe and eke an honest living from the land, like they should have in the first place.

Maybe, once magic is destroyed, this guy's next act will be to team up with the paladin's guild and create a charitable organization dedicated to providing for ex-mages.

~

nt

F**k me, I'm agreeing with Dwoggurd.

Is why there's this notion that good people don't kill good people for good reasons (At least to them) that can be perfectly justifiable to both sides.

I'm certain some perfectly kind and just Germans were killed by God fearing Americans and visa versa. Do you think a soldier ever once held his fire on the battlefield because he thought the other guy was a saint?

The circumstances are right. But it's pretty ####ing easy to feel bad about it when they aren't.

Killing an enemy combatant or collaberator isn't something most soldiers lose a wink of sleep over, that's Hollywood, it's quite the opposite, a lot of guys do play by play accounts of their kills. Does this make them bad? I don't think so. Was they guy he killed bad? I think so, but I wouldn't care if he wasn't, he's the enemy. That doesn't require any moral relivance, just an opposing possition.

And they are comming for your wands.

>Is why there's this notion that good people don't kill good
>people for good reasons (At least to them) that can be
>perfectly justifiable to both sides.
>
>I'm certain some perfectly kind and just Germans were killed
>by God fearing Americans and visa versa. Do you think a
>soldier ever once held his fire on the battlefield because he
>thought the other guy was a saint?

In CF, probably those guys are neutral.

When I assume you didn't think that thru.

And you assume that because...?

Sorry. I just disagree and that's all I should have said.

What's more important for battle destroy magic/not letting mortals(mages) use it or destroy all mages?

If battle doesn't want mortals use magic, do they must to kill them or it's more important not to let them use it?

You call spellbane to surround yourself with your HATRED of MAGIC!

Hatred goes one way and one way only and it is not DISLIKE of MAGIC

Mages ALL use Magic so I HATE every ####er who uses it.

Now a Goodie might spend a large amount of time trying to educate and turn 'good' mages from using it but the very virtue of them using the filth that is magic, they are not 'good' people morally to the villager who HATES MAGIC.

It is a perversion to have a rager who wont hunt down a 'good' mage because he is a 'good' person. By the virtue of having hate in his heart for ALL MAGIC and wanting the mages purged from the lands he is already 'morally flexible'.

The goodie villager should be an extreme rareity because of this but because of the mechanic bonuses of being a 'goodie' race you see too many of them.

Best case scenario for a goodie rager is that there is an evil mage somewhere he can run after as a priority over the elven mage.

Hell, even a goodie villager killing a neutral gnome mage is a shady act.

-----Abernyte

It was a suitable role for Battle. Everything isn't always black and white, and there are many ways to fight a war besides pincer 2. pincer 2. pincer 2. pincer 2.

Personally I think any goody in battle who actively hunts and kills good aligned characters should have a forced alignment change. That's just me.

Zz

If they came and struck the village, I'd defend. If they attacked me, I'd fight back. But outside of that, I'd try and use a war of words/reasoning (of course it never really worked... but that was how my good villager fought good mages).

I have no problems with goodie ragers not wanting to kill goodie mages (minus cabal defense). I also have no problems with goodie ragers killing goodie mages.

The more important thing is how he or she approaches it.

To give a few clear cut situational examples, a goodie rager attacking a goodie mage first all the time when there are other choices available doesn't show his goodie rp at all. On the other hand a goodie rager raiding alongside a goodie mage from another cabal, I personally don't like that either.

I'd look at it more as a binding alignment principle. It doesn't mean you have to be nice just because you're a goodie.

The whole "no killing other goodies" thing is the Maran's golden rule, not Battle's. While there's no need to bring Fortress into Battle, there's no need to throw your alignment out the window either. Battle history does talk about various aligned races living in harmony as well.

As stated, goodie rager is a real fine line to walk..you just need to constantly assess every situation accordingly.

This is spoken having had a titled con-dead goodie elf rager, and as a battle imm. (p.s.After the elf rager, I never wanted to play a goodie rager again, mainly because of all the flaming you get both in and out of game).

It's so worth it, imo.

Thanks Nep.

My basic idea, but the actual work to do it was easily 90% his.

You were the one i was talking about which could see us invisible at level 12 while you were an applicant. You could also see us at level 18 while you were a member of the village? You found some kind of bug to exploit.

I told the commander that, but he didn't seem to care any. Then, you were made an imm?

What give with this character?

This is copy/pasted from my death thread, which you might have
missed in the ensuing mess.

Aze: You were great for most of Mac's life. Congrats on Heroimming.
Unless I'm badly mistaken I know when it's you on the newbie channel
and you need to know that you are exactly what this game needs to
keep on going.

I really thought you did a great job with this character. Every time I interacted with you I was pretty impressed with your RP. It's a shame you deleted. I expected great stuff from you.

I will admit that I kind of thought something was awry the last time I saw you. I tried to start up a conversation with you in which you didn't reply and then you logged out about 10 minutes later. For some reason my initial reaction was that "something must be wrong in imm town".

n/t

gratz!

n/t

Yeah. Too soon to have missed an area deadline. Sounds like a story there.