Wed May 29 15:28:48 2013

At 11 o'clock AM, Day of the Sun, 27th of the Month of the Winter Wolf
on the Theran calendar Ieralaine perished, never to return.

Highlight: * Do not impersonate someone else's character on the Official Forums.

If someone has lost posting privileges on this forum, it means they don't get to post here. Please keep that in mind and do not re-post what you posted.

I really don't read your rules section...

Out of curiosity, when was that made a rule?

nt

So as usual I have no idea who these people are, I can't even find logs about this guy on dios, but because of my personal history here*, and also the lawyer in me, I feel compelled to post. (And note, for full disclosure, I was away last week but when I got back last night I saw I had an email from this guy (girl?) asking me to post his farewell, obviously he sent to more than one person. Hence my coming and looking at this thread specifically.)

First, assuming he was posting the same thing I got, and assuming he said he was doing it for this Irelaine guy, then Satchmo was not impersonating anyone, he was posting on behalf of someone. You're obviously smart enough to know what the word impersonate means, and he wasn't doing that.

Impersonation rules came about because people would come here and claim to be the character and then answer questions or make comments as if he were the character, potentially ####ing that person up. That's not at all what happened here. No one would have thought Satchmo was this guy, it was specifically said he was not him. Right? So I'm not seeing what rule was broken.

Also, in the email I got, it made it sound as though the person was choosing not to post here rather than being incapable of posting here, but I don't know, I suppose I could reply and ask, but honestly I don't care enough. In any event, it seems as though you are removing something for a thin if no reason at all.

Which brings me to my second point, and that's something we in my line of work call the smell test. If literally anyone else had deleted the post it would still raise my hackles, but probably not enough to post. But the fact that it is you doing it, the one person being described as doing a LOT of bad #### here, well, it just makes it smack of a real cover-up, with you looking to sweep stuff under the rug. Really smells.

I'm a big believer in responding to speech with better, truthful speech. I know you won't listen, none of you really do for the most part, but if it were me I'd restore and respond. You have literally perfect memory for all of this because you have access to all the logs. There really are only 3 possible responses: you can use your full knowledge to post a response showing this guy totally wrong, a liar, etc., and everyone will have newfound respect for you and give your word more credence in the future. Or, if you were lying or otherwise mistaken, you can say oh, yeah, you're right, and I'm sorry, and people will respect you for being adult about it. Or, lastly, it's somewhere in the middle and again you can show it with all your proof because you have the logs, and for the parts where you're wrong, admit that, and so on.

Doing it as you have here is just about the worst way possible, in my opinion. I hope you'll take my suggestion and restore and respond.

*My history here refers to the fact that I have had at least one character that the imms did in fact #### with, secretly. They altered the pfile, by - among other things - putting in false history entries. It was denied, denied, denied... until over a year later it was admitted. I subsequently learned they were trying to find an imm leak, and were using a false entry to see if someone told me. I get their logic, but it's still ####ty. It was a paladin and I was trying to get empowered and the history said I was killing orphans in balator. The imm obviously wouldn't empower me, saying other gods had "told" him of my evil deeds, etc etc etc. I of course had no idea what the hell was going on. I prayed. A lot. Spent a few weeks trying to get empowered, as I recall about 40 or 45 hours. All wasted. They just threw me under the bus and sacrificed me and my time for their purposes. Which is pretty ####ty. I'd like to see how some of them would react if their time (now that they have jobs and kids etc.) was messed with and 100% wasted. In any event, it's because of that experience that when I read things like this guy's email post to me, I get interested.

Why don't we start by admitting who played the character in question?

After that maybe we could tackle the massive multi strawman assault that is that set of goodbye. Maybe.

Seeing as the player either can't or won't, and other players don't have the tools to do as much... Save maybe for those who were e-mailed? Though e-mail can be more anonymous than any of the forums related to CF.

As Scarabaeus once said to me about a decade and a half ago, that's a "hey, look over there!" argument. Doesn't really in any way actually respond to what was said, just another way of deflecting.

As for who played it, I have no idea, it was sent to me from a yahoo account. Maybe Satchmo knows, since he actually posted it.

But really, does it matter, so long as what's being said is true? If it's not, then just show so, and nobody will care. If it is, well, you really ####ed this person, and that's craptacular, to use one of your pet phrases that I now use all the time. Nobody knows better than I.

It's not a "look over there" if you're the player.

And frankly, you are. Which your post above makes exceedingly obvious to anyone who didn't already know. It also makes you look a little unhinged.

If you want a response to your goodbyes, it's this: start by rereading it and understanding the many times you responded to a different claim than the one that was actually made. For example, trying to refute a point about Scribes with a claim about Acolytes. Most of the post is that grade of (possibly unintentional) weaseling.

: )

I don't know about any of the rp stuff all I know is you brought it and were clearly a dominant pker and I hate you for that mostly out of jealousy nice job from what I seen

You had my number every single time. I think I manged to get less than five spells ever to land on you. I don't know much about the alignment change, but I do think that playing a goodie in the village will come with some trouble that neutrals and evils don't need to deal with.

--Mylene

I'm interested to find if this is related to the gray elf title. We didnt see eye to eye on things IC, but I thought it was an interesting take on good. I had also wondered if the Oshui hatred / attacking him at the watcher was an IC thing or an attempt by the player to push the issue of Oshui's "fringing on neutral behavior."

Editing to note that I didnt notice this wasnt a rage delete.

A tough loss, you were great and always up to kick butt.

After a long run of an assortment of questionable good-align behavior, he got a warning pointing out that there's about a million things you can harvest for the Veil and it doesn't have to be from good-aligned mobs every time. His chosen response was indignation and profanity which I had no patience for.

How was he approached?

I'm really hoping it was Tahren himself who brought it up, in which case I'm sorry that he didn't roll with what could have been a very cool interaction.

Might be an indication.

All of the ooc notes and angry prays aside, this character's RP was never good aligned. An elf does not hit the Watcher trying to kill Oshui. They don't say it's ok to kill good aligned mobs just to get stuff for the veil. They don't mow down hapless scribes and cackle. They don't raid Tribunal specifically to attack the paladin that has to defend. Etc etc. It was a lot that added up to this.

In other words, all the ooc crap this guy pulled aside, if this had been a wood elf or dark elf char things would have been fine.

Can Villagers not request magical stuff?

>Can Villagers not request magical stuff?

I believe that they can't.

My first character after a long hiatus several years ago was a goodie villager named Jun. He requested the mace of holy empowerment and gave it to Tahren. Twist RP'd with me about why it was wrong through the paladin and according to the PBF comments, he requested the code change.

When you try, they say why would I give you that, when you would only destroy it.

The whole watcher/oshui one. Hitting is different than killing and it's as much on oshui for involving the watcher as it is on him for going after him there.

But all the other stuff sure sounds like an align change was in order and that he got a significant amount of warning/rope/leeway before the change was done

>The whole watcher/oshui one. Hitting is different than
>killing and it's as much on oshui for involving the watcher as
>it is on him for going after him there.

This kind of strikes me as movie villain / terrorist logic. (Edit: Which is fine, if you're roleplaying an evil character but not if you're trying to roleplay a good one.)

Hypothetically, how do you think Oshui should play that situation, keeping in mind that by his creed he's not allowed to attack or kill Ieralaine?

If he isn't allow to attack or kill the elf there is no reason to be there at all. Hitting the watcher to bait you only works if there is a danger they will follow through and take the orb. If they do, then they have made themselves a valid(ish) cabal enemy and Oshui could probably act accordingly. And the elf is going to go gray a lot faster if he's killing the watcher...

Or Oshui could simply wait for the orb to get downed and take if from the battle outer, which would give him the highest of moral high ground. Give him enough rope to hang himself and all that.

>Hypothetically, how do you think Oshui should play that
>situation, keeping in mind that by his creed he's not allowed
>to attack or kill Ieralaine?

Simple:

Pray *Lords and Ladies of Light* I beseech You to tear down this grey elf's duplicitous cloak so that his aura matches the villainous heart within him - and so that I may unleash Your Wrath upon him!

Never works, but makes me feel self satisfied as I type c teleport immediately afterward.

Was a fortress app. Told Malthalia multiple times I would never fight her, yet she kept trying to kill me (easy frags are easy frags). Eventually, she pit-sat me and slept me at the Voralian pit.

Some poor paladin basically stood there and watched me die horribly as I could do nothing (since I had the golden grimoire edge and was fiended) but die.

Not sure if that's relevant, but yeah, that's a difficult situation for Oshui.

While only Oshui/Ieralaine or an imm snooping them at the time could speak to the exact context and if there was interaction via tell during or prior to it. I was present and defending the Fortress when this took place so wanted to clarify the idea that Oshui "involved" the watcher.

What I recall without having logged it:

Oshui and I were defending versus imperials, or rather I was trying to defend and Oshui had just woken/driven them off. The Maran was slain, the watcher was plagued and injured from imperial attacks. I do not believe Oshui left the fortress whatsoever from the time he woke until this point. Ieralaine entered the Fortress and attacked Oshui at the watcher. The attack by the elf took place within a few ticks of the imperials retreating, and neither Oshui or I had fully recovered. We would have left the Fortress for the Maran to return if more time had passed. I healed Oshui during the battle at the watcher. But I was unclear as to the context and did not strike the elf, I thought perhaps he came to aid us against the imperials and had made a mistake. To my knowledge he did not declare his purpose prior to striking, and I believe he caught Oshui out of form.

I do not believe Ierelaine fought the imperials whatsoever my supposition would be that he came to the Fortress specifically to kill Oshui when he saw that he was awake. He found the Maran dead so entered the Fortress to pursue this goal.

Oshui fled from him and refused to fight him, insisting that Ieralaine leave the fortress. Ieralaine did not strike me, though I used potions and magic in front of him. Oshui interacted with Ieralaine via yell, Ieralaine insisting that Oshui perverted the fortress with his magic. Ieralaine eventually left the Fortress without further conflict.

Personal echo.

NT

But I don't think it's THAT hard. Just act like you have a little morality. There's one goodie villager right now that saw a good aligned mage in the area with them and....gasp ROLE PLAYED with them instead of bashing. He left the area instead of engaging. Why is this too difficult? I know it's a violent game but it's also an RP game.

...while the RP you just described is fantastic for a good-aligned enemy of another good-aligned (by dogma or religion), it's kind of piss-poor RP for "most" villagers.

As in, "most" villagers subscribe to the belief that magic = bad and thus, anyone using magic is doing "bad" things.

So, to finish this thought, playing a good-aligned villager forces you to constantly battle against Cabal dogma vs Good-aligned dogma. Obviously this is much easier if you are a scout or defender, but a good-aligned berserker is basically a waiting game for either uninduction or alignment change.

Maybe it's as simple as not having good villagers around if that's the case. You can't induct a bloodcrazed lunatic and call them good however. Good is defined by the society (and to a large degree our own society), not by an individual belief. The belief that magic is bad is not one shared by the mass of Thera, just that particular Cabal. So, if a good character can't show reservation toward other good beings or respect life in some way, the can't be defined as good. On the other token, if magic were to be considered an evil or bad act, then all mages rolled would be considered evil... which wouldn't make any sense.

just saying, can they do it? Yea but its pretty piss poor in the context of the goals and belief systems of their groups.

Since maran also have a "convert" branch to their philosophy its not identicle but there is no convert branch to village philosophy. If you read the tablet and writing its guild oriented, not actually just using magic oriented.

Some leaders will give that kind of leeway to let goodies not be death of goodie mages oriented, but many (I would argue most) won't. And most other villagers if they saw a brother just chattin up a mage instead of hunting them should call them to the circle and kick their ass.

"Some leaders will give that kind of leeway to let goodies not be death of goodie mages oriented, but many (I would argue most) won't. And most other villagers if they saw a brother just chattin up a mage instead of hunting them should call them to the circle and kick their ass."

I would grant that leeway to any defender or scout to talk to a mage (more so for goodie on goodie) and even as Commander I would talk to mages in certain situations (mainly they are a ghost- or it took place at the Inn or some other prearranged meeting set up via tells, or an Imm was present). Not to a berserker though, I'd say no matter what, they have to be hunting mages down absent all but the most rare circumstances.

I had no problem with a non-berserker laying down the weapon temporarily to try and persuade a mage to give up magic, especially if the villager initiates it and calls the mage to him under the pretense of talking (not to get the mage there to betray and slaughter him which would be boot worthy to me). Then again, I also let non-berserkers work the veil by gathering items more so than killing mages if they wanted to go that route. But I figured a berserker should be persuading by force and killing mages whenever possible, even if he was a goodie and the mage was too.

It's not really about converting the person to a belief as a villager more so as it is eliminating magic and getting people to forego it's use. If a mage swore to me he'll never cast magic again, I would order him left alone, though technically he still has the ability to use it. If he ever did use magic though, I'd say hunt him relentlessly before all others for being a betrayer of his word as well as a mage. I think a trib mage gave up magic for a while and got a pass from the village not too long ago.

Then again, I always was too nice to play a true villager.

I seem to remember one of my Villagers having long same-room conversations with a certain Rhyme.

I think we made up for that, though.

There is a difference between that being something you do on occasion vs that being your total approach to the village goals with certain groups of mages

Basically my opinion is, if to your character Jack Blaguar and a lich are equally disgusting and worthy of death, good is probably not your actual alignment.

It's an extremely valid RP choice! It's just one that sticks you with neutral or evil.

This goes back to that point I believe you made about the difference between chaotic good and chaotic evil. because they are chaotic they pretty much feel inclined to do whatever they want but the different between the 2 is what they would want to do (as opposed to what they could do).

Any member of a cabal should want to pursue their cabal dogmas.
Tribunal = killing criminals (can be any align)and working alongside with cabal mates productively (can be any align)
Outlander = varies based on branch but involved coexisting with other branches (though not neccesarily without inter tree violence)
Battle = killing mages (can be any align)
Fort = killing evil or helping good (SAFE from controversy!)


Now being good means (1)never hurting other goodies and (2)never working with evil.

Can't join trib without compromising both 1 and 2 (though for some reason they can freely use the, its part of my cabal duty, excuse but those in battle/outlander can't)

In outlander you can get away with 1 easily and make 2 work without being a bad outlander, can be kind of rough though when it comes to cabal defense but thats a pretty niche situation.

In battle you can't comply with (1) and the whole concept of village brotherhood really makes (2) a challenge, though its possible to do (2) without being a bad villager.

End of the day when you make universal rules for an align and they are in direct conflict with those of almost all cabals you force a lot of people to either be ####ty in align RP or ####ty in cabal RP. This is further exacerbated by the fact that this behavior ideal isn't followed by good align mobs at all which creates weird situations, especially for wanted goodies.

I think its worth examining the never harm goodies aspect of goodies and coming up with a different system that would still make goodies more in tune with each other across vastly different belief structures but not be so... awkwardly designed. Maybe some mechanical consequences like a really long - morale affect for killing goodies or some automated cleansing rituals. Maybe even make automated paths for cabal oriented change (mages giving up magic, evil converting to goodness, empire converting goodies to darkness) and get rid of those over the top mechanical penalties associated with align change, perhaps even give some sort of reward to mages that give magic up like a chance to pick up a new class.

I think its worth examining the never harm goodies aspect of goodies and coming up with a different system that would still make goodies more in tune with each other across vastly different belief structures but not be so... awkwardly designed.




Or you know..people could just RP their alignment.

...and call you the worst commander ever or an IMM-friend

The way I always looked at Battle re: Good alignment (berserkers, scouts and defenders are a bit different) was this...I didn't hunt good-aligned mages. I didn't group with any evil character ever. I hated duergars for 275 hrs of the characters life, and only Marcus being Elgroth stopped that (and I still "talked ####" to Elgroth all the time). I also went out of my way to help non-mage goodies. Tesline remembers I'd help him fight evil/neutral Outlanders when he was playing his n00b Trib bard.

Cavaet to this is: I fully expected to either get booted from Battle or turned neutral (and I booted myself so I guess this turned out to be true?). So yeah.

Either you role play a goodie well
Or
You role play a cabal member well

You can do a good char but you are going to be making a sacrifice in one of those categories.

Given that the vast majority of players prefer to be in a cabal it is a design flaw

I don't see it as a flaw. I see it as part of the dynamic nature of this game. Trying to balance discordant views creates opportunities for role play that wouldn't arise without the natural difficulties that come from such a balancing act. It's not surprising there tends to be few good Battle, Outlander, and even Tribunal is more neutral then good, it is not easy to be good in those Cabals, and shouldn't be.

I don't view characters as failures just because they have to make sacrifices or don't live up to some expectation of what it means to be a well role played cabal member or have an alignment change. If these types of difficulties didn't exist it would go along way to making alignments less relevant.

for actually taking an active role in applying consequences. These are the types of things that often go overlooked or because an imm doesn't want to mess with the fallout. Not doing something only makes more players irritated when someone 'gets away with it'.

Which is why I never blamed the imm that booted fazril from trib.

I actually wasn't doing anything wrong but I can see why it would have looked bad to an imm, and getting booted is probably a worthwhile thing when you look at the good of the game as a whole. I didn't even mind my title of "cheaply bought".

What I was actually doing was getting paid to leave town so a wanted guy could raid hamsah Necro guild, but what the imm didn't realise was under the terms of my agreement (leave town until I gained a rank) I would be back in time to attack the criminal, who otherwise wasn't coming near. I was only a few exp from ranking and had summon.