Mon Jul 21 17:12:06 2003


At 3 o'clock AM, Day of the Moon, 21st of the Month of the Dark Shades
on the Theran calendar Seflirn perished, never to return.

Hrm, very sorry to see you leave, but I suppose I suspected it when you stormed out of that meeting. I was considering begging pardon for you with Karithia but... she scares me, she's blasted my previous chars more than once and I'm a little cowardly so when she turned that eye on me, my protests shriveled in my throat. In my defense, all I have to say is, you're right. What I did was wrong, it just wasn't nice. I was petulant and was feeling petty at the time due to former annoyances, thus I displaced this anger (Big Freudian term, but I'm a humanist, believe it or not) on this other rager that in truth I've grown to kind of like. It was mean, I agree, and I could have made arguments easily in my defense that would completely absolve me, but then that wouldn't be very meish. Afterwards I did return his things, before I was called for conference, but still feeling petty, this time it was directed at you. I returned the things and didn't tell you, just to... I believe it was to assert my superiority over you because you were making demands of me, instead of conversing and asking politely like they should. Hence I was thinking that you would just stew in your anger and resolve it eventually, but, you didn't. You decided to make a big deal over it and annoyed yourself to deletion. If I had known that you would react in such a way, I would likely have, hrm, I likely would have done the same thing. You were being so annoyingly presumptuous and acting so high and mighty, but still, I regret that it led you to deletion.

P.S. On a sidenote, I would like to say I was extremely amused when the word prattle which I had recently used to describe your argument was repeated by Karithia. Then when it was used again on this forum, sure, with little relation to you, but still the fact that it was just made me laugh a little. Superfluous words and additions are my specialty, like this sentence, teehee. Rambling is fun.

Anyways, sorry to see you go, and that I didn't get to interact with you more before I caused you to be annoyed to death. *wave*

Good defensive form, bad offensive. Almost as bad as my last combo of Anaconda and panther.

Seakrou: I hope someone throws another student your way. You made it fun to be an apprentice.

Synbendorial: Good induction interview. One of my more memorable logs.

Gherian: See Synbendorial. Had a lot to flush out, but I couldn't tolerate the cabal politics, sorry.

Karithia: I would that you'd have listened a bit more before running off half-cocked. There was so much more that needed to be said, and the attitude you express made me want to kick your teeth in, and that was before anything was even said. As it is, what happened was utter ####, and there wasn't any excuse for it, from the way the Imms have chosen to promote the WARLOCK cabal. A rager getting jumped like that is bad...what followed was just ridiculous. I don't give two ####s what the tower's goals are, but if you're going to presume to keep it a 'lightwalking mage' cabal, then ####ing instill some morality in the cabal members.

>>>>Karithia: I would that you'd have listened a bit more before running off half-cocked. There was so much more that needed to be said, and the attitude you express made me want to kick your teeth in, and that was before anything was even said. As it is, what happened was utter ####, and there wasn't any excuse for it, from the way the Imms have chosen to promote the WARLOCK cabal. A rager getting jumped like that is bad...what followed was just ridiculous. I don't give two ####s what the tower's goals are, but if you're going to presume to keep it a 'lightwalking mage' cabal, then ####ing instill some morality in the cabal members. <<<<

First of all, you must understand Karithia's roleplay, which I'm not going to go fully into here. Karithia is going to be half-cocked, arrogant, etc..she's an elven, female, mage, immortal, if that isn't a UMS combo, then who knows what one is. Second your character was acting pissed in character at Karithia, which in turns only makes her mad, so you were losing ground fast. Third, Karithia and the Warlock beliefs are two different things.

You and your fellow compainions choose to fight X with numbers, and then you came to Karithia complaining how someone in your party took all of X's things despite your request. The Tower does not have a policy of returning or not returning gear. That is up to each person. Also, don't try to do the honorable thing of returning some clothing after you just ganged someone down. If you are looking for compassion or mercy, Karithia isn't the person to come too. Compassion and mercy do not require you giving someone all their things. Give them food and water and move on.

Karithia isn't happy to get a prayer and then end up with two warlocks bickering, that does not make her happy, especially when it is just for clothing. In Karithia's mortal time, she was extremely dutiful, hence one of her titles, Dutiful and Responsible. As long as those the Tower was created to protect where not harm, the mission of the tower has always mattered most to her.

Also, how have the Imms choose to promote the Cabal that I apparently did not realize with me being in Warlocks almost since it has existed? I think you are confused with another cabal or have been given missinformation. There has never been a note or an Immortal that I ever can recall saying to return belongings to another. Morality is a funny thing to speak of. I don't think it has ever been defined. Warlocks are a warring cabal and while not bloodthirsty killers, they are ruthless against their enemies, and even more kind to their friends (well in most cases anyhow).

What I want to hear from you, is what you thought the cabal was, how it was suppose to act (or what you were told). I am really curious now.

And remember, the biggest key element in this, is Karithia's roleplay, which while visible I assume. My thoughts OOC and IC are not the same and will not be.

Karithia

Yeh, you are a bit of a bitch in game. *chuckle*

I have no idea about Karithia's rp, but from what I understand of the tower, it's purpose is to put a stop to dark mages or those who would bring dark magic into the lands.

That said, it's funny to picture a pack of ravening good mages beating down a villager, stripping the dead body of all its clothing, wearing the clothing themselves, and thinking what a "good" thing they've done.

"Check the helpfile"
-Valguarnera.

>>>I have no idea about Karithia's rp, but from what I understand of the tower, it's purpose is to put a stop to dark mages or those who would bring dark magic into the lands.<<<

Not so much stop dark mages as much as stop the evil use of magic.


>>>That said, it's funny to picture a pack of ravening good mages beating down a villager, stripping the dead body of all its clothing, wearing the clothing themselves, and thinking what a "good" thing they've done.<<<

Well the good mages of the Tower for the longest never assulted ragers. They simply defended themselves. In time the Tower had enough and declared the Village their enemies. At no point, however, should a villager be hunted over a dark mage.

I'm not sure where you are getting Warlock's thinking what a "good" thing they've done. A warlock's thoughts should be closer to that villager cannot harm the tower for a while now since he must regear. That is a form of protection of the Tower. Also the Tower has no policy on how to treat enemies who fall in combat and their clothing. That is for each person to decide.

I believe the way both you and Chasilla spoke to Seflirn, in my less than infinite wisdom, was utterly ungoodly in any way, shape, or form. First of all, the whole vengeance thing smacks of something goodies just shouldn't promote. Vengeance, hatred, are these not the feelings that lead to and stem from evil? A Maran even, despite the fires of his ambition, does not forge his life on hatred. Hatred is a bad thing, imho, for a hero goodie to be basing his decisions on. That being said, there's arrogance but then you're also supposed to be goodly no? That type of attitude, if thats the elven norm, would mean elf races should never give items over following a request. After all, why should they be bothered by mere whelps? If they're talking about their own cabal mate like he was a piece of #### beneath his heel, why would they bother even fighting for anything righteous? I think I can state it best like this, that's the types of things I'd expect to hear in a Scion cabal meeting, not a warlock one. The threats, angst, I think it all was just a bit reminescent of the lower attributes defining mortals. I'm not knocking you or at least not trying to, but I totally disagree with the type of direction the warlock cabal is heading when I see #### like that being considered perfectly fine.

But it'd get deleted. Even though it's deserving. *shrug*

>>>I believe the way both you and Chasilla spoke to Seflirn, in my less than infinite wisdom, was utterly ungoodly in any way, shape, or form. First of all, the whole vengeance thing smacks of something goodies just shouldn't promote. Vengeance, hatred, are these not the feelings that lead to and stem from evil? A Maran even, despite the fires of his ambition, does not forge his life on hatred. Hatred is a bad thing, imho, for a hero goodie to be basing his decisions on. That being said, there's arrogance but then you're also supposed to be goodly no? That type of attitude, if thats the elven norm, would mean elf races should never give items over following a request. After all, why should they be bothered by mere whelps? If they're talking about their own cabal mate like he was a piece of #### beneath his heel, why would they bother even fighting for anything righteous? I think I can state it best like this, that's the types of things I'd expect to hear in a Scion cabal meeting, not a warlock one. The threats, angst, I think it all was just a bit reminescent of the lower attributes defining mortals. I'm not knocking you or at least not trying to, but I totally disagree with the type of direction the warlock cabal is heading when I see #### like that being considered perfectly fine.<<<


Explain to me where being good means you must be nice and polite? Rudeness, arogance, and such can be done by any alignment. These are not evil acts as much as simple behaviors. Not all social acts come with an alignment. That would almost be like saying that a good person can't hate, grow angered, go into a rage. They can.

Why would someone fight for something righteous even though they are treated poorly? Maybe because that is the noble thing. Pride is what damages things, and this was a whole meeting of pride. It plays a big role in things, and too many people turn a blind eye to their own. Karithia could care less what mortals do with tinkets. She was prayed to, came down, determined there wasn't anything really foul then two people disaggreeing on how to treat an enemy. She basically said they each person is in titled to their thoughts and actions concerning full looting. Calling an immortal down for something like this is just foolish and a waste of that immortal's time.

The direction the cabal is heading? Where is it heading? It's direction has never changed. Sure, its picked up an enemy or two, but they were people who made the Tower their enemy first, along with a little immortal prodding so there would not be such buddy buddy in the world.

Warlocks is not and never will be Dawn. If you want to be a wizard who goes around and helping people, then make an Acolyte. If you want to smash those who wield dark magic into the ground and expand your knowledge (notice there was no or), then Warlocks is that cabal.

Karithia

I'm currently at work, so I don't have access to my logs. However, I do not believe that this was the impression I was given through my interviews with both Gherian and Synbendorial, though without rereading the logs I cannot be certain. Rest assured, when I get home, I will bring them here and we can debate what emphasis was placed on maintaining a state of "goodness." Also...the significance of the debate wasn't full looting, but more or less placed the WARLOCK cabal in juxtaposition with MARAN, and their striking similarities and few differences. The question I have is this...

Shokai promotes his cabal on the idea that you do not give in to wounded pride or hate/vengeance, but act according to the need to absolve evil. Further, you do not enjoy it, but do it from a sense of duty. One line that amazed me was player X stipulating that she was angry, so she didn't care that her actions were less than honorable. In fact, that way I see it, they completely broke the bounds of the 'good' RP, and extend even beyond the line of neutrality, into evil. One evil act makes you an evil person. it is up to you to redeem yourself, after the fact. You cannot ignore it, as it sits like a giant blemish on an otherwise immaculate record. So where do you draw the line between an expressed concept of goodness (ie MARAN) and elsewhere claim it to be something else totally(WARLOCK)? It just seems so paradoxical and/or hypocritical, depending on the stance you take.

>>>I'm currently at work, so I don't have access to my logs. However, I do not believe that this was the impression I was given through my interviews with both Gherian and Synbendorial, though without rereading the logs I cannot be certain. Rest assured, when I get home, I will bring them here and we can debate what emphasis was placed on maintaining a state of "goodness." Also...the significance of the debate wasn't full looting, but more or less placed the WARLOCK cabal in juxtaposition with MARAN, and their striking similarities and few differences. The question I have is this...<<<

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.


>>>Shokai promotes his cabal on the idea that you do not give in to wounded pride or hate/vengeance, but act according to the need to absolve evil. Further, you do not enjoy it, but do it from a sense of duty. One line that amazed me was player X stipulating that she was angry, so she didn't care that her actions were less than honorable. In fact, that way I see it, they completely broke the bounds of the 'good' RP, and extend even beyond the line of neutrality, into evil. One evil act makes you an evil person. it is up to you to redeem yourself, after the fact. You cannot ignore it, as it sits like a giant blemish on an otherwise immaculate record. So where do you draw the line between an expressed concept of goodness (ie MARAN) and elsewhere claim it to be something else totally(WARLOCK)? It just seems so paradoxical and/or hypocritical, depending on the stance you take.<<<

Yes, and Shokai has a group called the Marans. The Warlocks aren't them so what he promotes his cabal idea should not always be put up there for comparassion. Its like comparing an orange and an apple. They aren't the same.

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

One evil act doesn't make someone evil, and even if it did, redemation is almost never immediate, but further down the road. 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. 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. No, you got pissed and deleted. 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 want something to happen, then make it happen. 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. So I leave it at that.

Karithia

>
>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

And remember, the biggest key element in this, is Karithia's roleplay, which while visible I assume. My thoughts OOC and IC are not the same and will not be.


I think at least some people are able to comprehend the frustration I feel at the way the cabal is run. Maybe not. Regardless, to answer the question within your post, I would say that it's a matter of personal belief/ethics that define, for each person, the idea of goodness. What I do know, is that goodness is not found in hatred, vengeance, or any of the like.

As for your roleplay...it's yours. I saw it with you as a mort, and a couple of times now since you Imm'ed. I haven't liked it yet, but I respect the path that you chose to take, and we'll leave it at that.

>>>I think at least some people are able to comprehend the frustration I feel at the way the cabal is run. Maybe not. Regardless, to answer the question within your post, I would say that it's a matter of personal belief/ethics that define, for each person, the idea of goodness. What I do know, is that goodness is not found in hatred, vengeance, or any of the like.<<<

Imagine alignment on a line. Good way to the right, evil to the left, and neutral at zero. Now not everyone who is good is at the greatest right point, just as people who are evil aren't always at the greatest left point. Most fall in between. What you will see is that there is a range for people to fall in to be good, neutral, or evil upon that line. Things like hate, vengenance, or any of the like move a person along that line. Does doing one evil act turn someone from being good? I would not think so. It is their consistance actions that really determine their alignment.

Someone who spends 95% of their lifetime doing good and 5% doing evil things (minor, maybe a few majors). All in all that person is going to be good, unless they did an extreme evil act and never sought redemption for this. Now Paladins, should be always gunning for that 100%, as they are ulimate force of good. Everyone else should be doing as much as possible if they wish to be good. No one is perfect and if you expect people to play that way, then you will sell yourself short.


>>>As for your roleplay...it's yours. I saw it with you as a mort, and a couple of times now since you Imm'ed. I haven't liked it yet, but I respect the path that you chose to take, and we'll leave it at that.<<<

Agreed. Not everyone likes everyone. Karithia has always been a hard person to warm up to. A lot of times people dislike another if they don't see eye to eye, which is probably the case between us. So, that's that I suppose.

Karithia

I fail to see how goodies can be compared to Imperials in Golden Auras and get away with it. Why not have evil/neutral/neutral-evil?

Almost every single goodie I see has some sort of vengeance and its getting very old, very fast.

Back then I thought The Tower really needed to rethink some of its policies as a Lightmage Cabal as well, so I rolled up a chaotic good sphere reason character to try and promote changes IC which I considered to be more than reasonable for a cabal such as Warlock. But I pretty much failed doing it due to my newbieness and a bit of bad luck in general. I'm glad to see someone else felt the same way about this, and actually went all the way for it.

Well done, Seflrin.

>>>Back then I thought The Tower really needed to rethink some of its policies as a Lightmage Cabal as well, so I rolled up a chaotic good sphere reason character to try and promote changes IC which I considered to be more than reasonable for a cabal such as Warlock. But I pretty much failed doing it due to my newbieness and a bit of bad luck in general. I'm glad to see someone else felt the same way about this, and actually went all the way for it.<<<

And the problem falls here when one or two people try to change things. It takes more than that often enough and these people must not go against the Cabal's ideals that are already in place. You cannot force change, so don't try. Instead try to mold it over time. No one wants to invest that is that is why too many people get upset when they do not see results right away.

Karithia

' And the problem falls here when one or two people try to change things. '

Beg your pardon there, but 'one or two people'? I didn't play Itaeapheqim that long all in all, and in that short time I came across two characters within Warlock that quit the cabal over those policies (all IC of course) and a heck of alot more characters that responded in a positive manner to Pheqim's reasoning and goals. I can understand you wanting to do a little crisis-management here, but minimizing the issue won't be solving it either.

Look Karithia. All that this basically comes down to is that a healthy portion of Warlock players feel that the Tower is starting to give up certain aspects such as nobility and grace in favor of the current Maran-like stance against even those opponents it is not supposed to be fighting with too much passion to begin with. And for a cabal that is made up almost entirely out of highly sholared, good-hearted and enlightened mages of goodness, those aspects are as vital as the foreboding and gloomy stuff is to Scion. Lose it, and you lose the IC atmosphere and the mood that makes players want to join the cabal with their characters in the first place. That whole Warlock-Sylvan war that was going on when I played and that made Pheqim want to tear his feathers out was just one example of this. Seflirn's actions are another such example. From an IC point of view it just felt like the Tower was losing itself and the ideals it stood for. Now, you have those that just tag along with the whole thing even if they don't fully agree with it either, and then you have some who find inspiration for a role or a certain course of IC actions in it. Itaeapheqim and Seflirn were two such characters.

If you really do believe that Pheqim was all about 'forcing things through', then you really should spend a little more time watching the Warlock members and discovering the IC reasons of their characters for joining the Tower, instead of just showing up and making clear who the boss/lady of the house is and then dissapearing from sight again. From my side I never did write a role down with that character, so I guess I am to blame for the confusion that Pheqim's behavior brought as well there. That I won't deny.

It all is not such a big deal really. But I did like that little shock-effect that Seflirn's deletion probably brought with it. It's a message to you as an Immortal of the cabal. Listen to it, because he isn't its only messenger. He was just one of the more loud ones, as Pheqim and Parcan were back then too.

If you want to go into this further we could always open up a relevant topic in Ilraeth/Savraeth's forum. You are the one with the gun, so it's up to you.

I could have saved myself from replying again to her post from above. Well put, and it's nice to know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Guessed it was comming as I saw how dissapointed you where with your form... would have complimented mine well though...But its hard when your an independant soul... And I had yet to teach you a trick or two...
Well guess it will have to be another time...
Seakrou was really pleased to have such an eager student... But was in dispair as his second was gone missing... And now both are gone...
Hope you have better luck next time.. I liked what I saw so far atleast.
LH

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone looting from a corpse of an enemy, unless there's specifically some policy or roleplay forbidding it. In a world where the enemies you kill can come back alive to kill you again, it makes sense that if you are going to kill them, you are going to take all their armor and weapons to impede them when they return alive. This notion of honor and lightmage cabal have nothing to do with the roleplaying of war in such a world, and certainly not for a magic cabal like the warlocks, but are the birth of an ooc ideal, that is, the knowledge the world is make believe, for fun, and there are real people behind those characters whom we don't necessarily need to cause undue pain for. Then there are grey areas like multi-killing, taunting, etc. But I won't go into that.

So in this respect, there's nothing wrong imho with X's looting of the corpse. As Karithia pointed out, if the four of you are going to hunt him down as you did, it's a bit late to suddenly develop a conscience. Perhaps it would be a different story if all of you had a prior agreement to return his things, which you might have called for before he died.

What I found annoying was the way you summoned an immortal to complain, and then delete when your complaint wasn't taken to the level that you wanted. Warlocks have never been about returning equipment. Sometimes the equipment is returned. Sometimes a leader or an adept may order certain items returned, if they are specific reasons. But for you to kill yourself that way after prattling on...

On Karithia's tone and roleplay, yes, during my stint as a warlock, she did present herself in the arrogant, condescending, reactive roleplay that she typied in your log. That's not the first time she's acted in such a way, and her roleplay also shows her quick to become emotional, in terms of rebuke, anger and sorrow. It's her choice to roleplay such, she knows that it's not going to make her the most popular person. I think that's partly why Shokai probably wins the popularity contest as immortals go in the mud. In my interactions, he is never mean spirited or arrogant in what he says or does, and almost always speaks with kindness and patience. It's the OOC player who likes Shokai. On the flipside is someone like Zulghinlour, whom you will be hard pressed to find saying half a decent thing without it being sarcastic or a cut at you. I won't go into whether the real life personalities of immortals have anything to do with their roleplay, but I will certainly say that if there were not a broad spectrum of immortals representing all the different emotions and personalities available, CF would be a little monotonous.


Warlock Maran

Shokai and I have had it out. He's a good guy. Karithia may well be a great person, too. You missed the point, though, by a long shot. Also, I was unaware that offering your opinion these days was classified as whining. I've an idea, though. Get up from your computer, and head to the nearest closet/storage space, and see if you might find a clue somewhere in there. Peace.

Cartherlen

While I'm in Cold Storage, I might find your dead cadaver because you kill yourself when you don't get your way. At least you didn't miss the point, that being, suiciding like a petulent child when instead of Karithia scolding the other warlock, you get a chiding.

Awww shucks.

I have to jump in here. I read your log on Dio's and I can't argue with your position on the matter. You obviously had your position, came to it rationally (as anything in CFland comes rationally) and defended it against a being who could smite your pants off. Good job.

But, deleting when you didn't get your way is just sorry. AFAIK there are two imms above Karithia, there is the option of leaving the cabal (folk are so scared of this option, but from my experience you will not get your mana set to 0 or slayed fifteen times. I leave it as an excercise to the reader how to pull this off), or like the imm said, you can swallow your pride and work for change from inside.

Once you delete you have no say in the IC sphere except in the memories you leave behind in "living" chars. I can't imagine, after 100 hours, that you left behind much of anything.

Why is it that people make so much of a fuss over a deletion? I'm not stressing it, at all. I deleted because there was nothing left in the character to enjoy. I have other characters, just like I had Seflirn when I deleted Grikletun, who started to be a droll play. Why don't you let me worry about the time I spend playing my characters, and instead focus on trying, through your own chars, to make the mud more enjoyable. Thanks.

Cartherlen

Don't get all salty, I'm not worried about your 99 hours. However, I did read your log, and you deleted suddenly in the middle of a talk. You tried to make a point, but then shat upon your own words when you up and quit in the middle of the conversation.

I hate when threads degenerate into childish name calling, but I can't help put point out...

You tried to make a point, but then shat upon your own words when you up and quit in the middle of the conversation.

that while you may be able to stipulate that I lessened the impact of what I was trying to do, I hardly destroyed my argument. For you see, it still remains a part of the mud, both on this forum and another. In fact, each post you make actually enlarges the thread, as well as assuring its prime location at the top of this forum. Honestly, your posts lose all validity when you fail to provide anything worthwhile, and even more so when you allow your immaturity to shine through. That said,

Have a nice day.

Cartherlen

You seem to be operating on the basic assumption that all full looting is immoral, and bad RP for a lightwalker.


I happen to disagree. In my opinion... Ooc, it kinda sucks to do. Ic, there area many many ways it is the right thing to do...even for lightwalkers.

Am I right in assuming that you deleted because some warlock didn't agree with you 100% on looting...and then you weren't vindicated by the imms...who seem to not agree with you 100% on looting.

Wow...what a bitch delete...no offense.


"Death awaits ya all, wit nasteh big pointeh teeth!"

One thing I dont understand is that is is bad for lightwalkers to full loot. A lightwalker dont have to be a classic servant goodie-goodie, you can have a lot of dark sides. You dont HAVE to have perfect morals as a lightwalker.

There is alot of good people in the world that act like assholes, but in the end they are seen as good because of actions that make up the bad things.

ATK

For a lot of roles, leaving a fallen foe defenseless is not only acceptable, but much better roleplay than the quasi-OOC "I'm going to look for excuses to give gear back".

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>>For a lot of roles, leaving a fallen foe defenseless is not only acceptable, but much better roleplay than the quasi-OOC "I'm going to look for excuses to give gear back".

Wow.

You'd better start denying my chars because no matter who I play, I always look for excuses to give #### back I don't need.

At the end of the day, this game's a game and basing a 'role' on taking people's #### is ####ed up.

Why is basing a role on taking other people's stuff messed up?

What if you're playing the 'evil' role that everyone of the light DISGUSTS you... and they deserve death...

Why do they deserve to keep ANYTHING? Even a scrap of food?

From an OOC standpoint as a player you know that if you full loot somebody, despite the circumstance, that most of the time it is messed up and 'upsets' the player of the character you just full looted.

But, put yourself more into the game for a second. Why SHOULDN'T you full loot? There are exceptions of course... Sphere HONOR, SLOTH, etc.

I sure as hell know that if I'm playing a role where I hate the other side there is none of this 'mutual respect' #### of not full looting. I'm going to full loot you every damn time, and if that upsets YOU as a player then maybe you should reevaluate your ability to RP and keep it in the game.

Most, or at least some, of this is not directed at YOU.

That's because you have issues as a person. People who fail to see this as a game and other people as gamer's totally freak me out. You're so entralled with the escapism aspect that you totally lose being grounded. It's a game, foremost.

Roleplay is cool, but not when you have to lose sight of what makes this mud fun.

Freak.

If it's such a game, and you understand it, and everyone except myself and other 'extremists' understands it,... then why get so upset if your character in some game gets full looted?

You actually help my argument.

The point is this, and it's quite simple. If I'm playing a certain character and I hate a certain group, I'm going to do everything in my power to demoralize them, kill them and strip them of everything they have so that they become less and less of a threat to me, and exist less and less. Because I *know* that the character that I just full looted has a player behind it and that HUMAN BEING might "be upset" does nothing to make me hold back.

Call me a freak... say I have problems... assume that I am a ####, but the fact remains that you are 100% right:

This IS a game.

In no way did I support your argument you overanalyzing goon. By your thought process, you'd put in your 16-year-old-held-back-for-three-years son into a 13 year old Babe Ruth baseball game just so you could further punish the other team- demoralize, taunt, mock, and punish just so you can win and win it big. Games don't work that way, ace. Not in little league, not in any league in America. But anyway, I think you totally missed the point of what a 'game' really boils down to.

Maybe I wasted my 'you were obviously too fat growing up to play competitive sports' comment on Aemelius, and should have saved it for you.

Peace and love, brutha, peace and love.
TF

Ever play Monopoly? Did you ever take all of someone's money in it?

Of course you did. It's part of the game that some people lose their money/houses/hotels. Sometimes you can recover from that, sometimes you can't. In either situation it's a game. Nothing happened to the player aside from some mild annoyance at losing.

You just fought someone, and lost. They don't get to come over and hit you or anything, but they have won your character's gear and any money your character had on them. What the winning party chooses to do with it at that point is up to them/their character. They don't have to be nice, it's not yours anymore. That gear is theirs. Trying to convince an AP to make a donation of something they've won to a shokite would be amusing at best. Would you go giving armor to a sworn enemy? What IC thought process did you go through to make that decision?

"You're bankrupt? Here, have a gold-colored $500 bill. I don't want to hurt your feelings, as a player." In monopoly it makes no sense, it seldom does in CF either. It is a game. You will lose, on occaision. I'm more worried about the issues of someone that's WAY too attached to their gear than I am about someone who can roleplay the exchange between in-game enemies well.

-Falstaff

Monopoly is all about table domination. CF is about knowledge, tactics, and intuitiveness. Not really similar, in my book. But my problem isn't with being looted, it's about people's reasoning of looting. I'm here to competitively interact with other pc's, to use what knowledge I have gained over time to best my opponent. That's the thrill of mudding to me, and that's why I try not to run around ganking everything with a (PK) flag next to it and instead do stuff solo. No, I'm not trying to prove myself to anyone.

If I kill you, and you have some nice stuff I want, then I take it. I expect the same for when I die. But what's the point of taking everything and usually sacrificing it? To me, it means it'll take that much longer before my opponent is ready to rumble again. Counterproductive to why I play.

It comes down to respect, I guess. Not a 'Yes, sir!' type respect, but a mutual enjoyment factor instead.

When you play, your character isn't reacting to the situation. You are. You, the player, feel empathy towards your fellow competitors and want them to be able to fight again quickly.

I completely understand that, really I do.

When I, and others, play we let our characters respond to the situation. I, the player, feel empathy for other players and even sometimes wish I could find a way IC to give you some of your things back. This is why my character tends to send tells asking why a fight started if it wasn't obvious. (This it probably Valg's "ooc desire to return things".) Given that, it's still generally hard to justify returning items in character. I don't want to make someone who just tried to kill me any stronger at all. In fact, the weaker they stay, the longer I'm relatively safe from them.

I think it's just a matter of perspective. I sometimes get stuck doing things IC that make me, the player, cringe. The character has to react to the situation it's in, without all the OOC interferance.

Just a difference of opinion, or point of view I think.

-Falstaff

Not full-sacc'ing every single one of his pies makes your character less of a man.

Personally, I put full-sacc'ing equipment you don't need or have no intention of using anyway at the same level as maphacking in warcraft 3. In the name of your own in-game progress you tear down the fun for another player and add up to their overall frustration.

Congrats. Way to be.

You might find roleplaying interesting then.

-Falstaff, who's starting to not care about this discussion and already doesn't care enough to login again.

You can't come up with a counterargument to what I said and now are actually claiming that one who does not full-sac and full-loot isn't roleplaying.

You're an idiot. No offense.

Here's a response to you, so you feel you've received the attention you deserve.

You wrote:"Not full-sacc'ing every single one of his pies makes your character less of a man."

I never claimed that my character gives a damn what your character thinks of him/her. In general, my character is going to have a really hard time justifying returning something to someone who just tried to kill him/her in character. If you have valid reasons in character to return some of someone's things, great! I actually tend to look for reasons to return things. Generally though, I don't see them. OOC I hate being looted and don't get any particular jollies out of doing it to others. It makes things difficult for the next 15 minutes or so. That doesn't change what my character would do.

You wrote:"Personally, I put full-sacc'ing equipment you don't need or have no intention of using anyway at the same level as maphacking in warcraft 3. In the name of your own in-game progress you tear down the fun for another player and add up to their overall frustration."

I don't do things like that for my character's progress. I don't measure my characters progress in gear. Generally, I don't play agressive characters. If I kill you, it's because you killed/attacked me in the past. If I attack someone for any other reason, it has some strong RP to back it up. Given that I found enough reason to want your character dead IC, why would I want you to get stronger again quickly IC? It doesn't make any sense.

You wrote:"Congrats. Way to be."

I just don't really care about your opinion of me. Apparently my view is shared by (at least some members of) the immstafff. What does that tell you about your view?


Let me refer you to help tips, as a final note:

"13. Don't whine when you get killed. It happens to everybody."

-Falstaff

Like Forsaken said up there, you are having problems seeing the difference anymore between roleplaying a character and having fun as a player/enjoying the game alongside the other players. Which doesn't exactly sound healthy to me.

I just hope you don't end up shooting a person outside and expecting his ghost to come back for his clothes five minutes later. This is a game. A game with restricted playerkilling. That means that you have a set of fine items that are limited in their numbers, and if you want them you have to kill the one that has them for it. This is called looting, and is something I fully agree with. But sacrificing every single thing on a corpse however has nothing to do with IC or your character's roleplaying. *Nothing*. The fact that they come back even after you dismembered every single one of their limbs is a result of pure game mechanics. The fact that good-alligned players ruthlessly slaughter even neutral mobs for nothing but a piece of cloth is a result of pure game mechanics. The fact that the mobs keep returning in the first place is a result of pure game mechanics. There is no IC value or IC meaning to this to begin with. It's not part of your character's life, it's part of the GAME.

The way you are actually suggesting it would mean that we all should start including in our roles and roleplaying the fact that all the mobs we kill in our character's lifetimes always come back. Again. Exactly like they were before. And again. And again. And again. Endlessly. And when we do run into them after all that, they greet us with that warm smile again or ask us 'What will you have?'.

Looting a player you've killed is nothing but your just reward for a job well done. Full-saccing even equipment that is of lesser value and of no use to your character because 'he's going to get re-incarnated soon and will slay even more of my friends/those who I must protect (who actually keep returning non-stop as well) is the logic of someone whose begin to lose his grip on reality.

Forsaken was right. You really are a freak.

For whatever reason, I'm going to give this one last try. If you don't understand roleplaying at that point, so be it.

You said:"Like Forsaken said up there, you are having problems seeing the difference anymore between roleplaying a character and having fun as a player/enjoying the game alongside the other players. Which doesn't exactly sound healthy to me."

I am not Zepachu. The Forsaken never responded to me. If you're referring to Foraken, he never said anything like what you're stating. Read his post again.


"I just hope you don't end up shooting a person outside and expecting his ghost to come back for his clothes five minutes later."

Ummm, huh? Where the heck did this come from? What part of taking equipment off a dead character in game has to do with me going postal? You're so far offbase at this point I'm not sure I should bother going forward, but what the hell. it's been a slow night.

" This is a game. A game with restricted playerkilling."

Agreed

" That means that you have a set of fine items that are limited in their numbers, and if you want them you have to kill the one that has them for it. This is called looting, and is something I fully agree with."

Ok, no problems so far...


" But sacrificing every single thing on a corpse however has nothing to do with IC or your character's roleplaying. *Nothing*."

Oooohhh, looks like he hit the whammy (dated gameshow reference). Ok, follow the bouncing ball. I'm an elf. You're an orc. I off your orc. Why would I leave anything for you? Why would I want you to have it easy coming after me/other elves/other goodies? Please keep your reasons or lack thereof restricted to IC responses. "Because I as a player am a swell guy" isn't an acceptable response.



" The fact that they come back even after you dismembered every single one of their limbs is a result of pure game mechanics. "

Agreed.


"The fact that good-alligned players ruthlessly slaughter even neutral mobs for nothing but a piece of cloth is a result of pure game mechanics."

They really shouldn't be, but I'll agree with you here. True good-aligned characters, for the most part, shouldn't be offing neutral mobs willy nilly. I'll admit that it happens though.


" The fact that the mobs keep returning in the first place is a result of pure game mechanics. There is no IC value or IC meaning to this to begin with. It's not part of your character's life, it's part of the GAME. "

Yes and no. Certain game mechanics, according to Imms, are known to the characters IC. Those with identify for a spell, things like that. Your characters are aware of the interesting form of reincarnation present in Thera. If my character knows you're coming back after weapons/armor/etc to use on me why would he/she/it leave them? Still waiting on you to answer this one.


"The way you are actually suggesting it would mean that we all should start including in our roles and roleplaying the fact that all the mobs we kill in our character's lifetimes always come back. Again. Exactly like they were before. And again. And again. And again. Endlessly. "

To some extent you do. When you've cleaned out an area for ranking purposes, do you move somewhere different assuming that the area you were in will never repopulate? Somehow I doubt that. It does affect the way you play your character. If not, I'd be interested to know who you've played. I call BS before you even name one.

"And when we do run into them after all that, they greet us with that warm smile again or ask us 'What will you have?'."

Now here's the game mechanics peeking through.

"Looting a player you've killed is nothing but your just reward for a job well done. "

Agreed.

"Full-saccing even equipment that is of lesser value and of no use to your character because 'he's going to get re-incarnated soon and will slay even more of my friends/those who I must protect (who actually keep returning non-stop as well) is the logic of someone whose begin to lose his grip on reality."

Ok, Listen to me very carefully. I am fully aware that Thera is a pretend, sometimes annoying, text based world. A neat one, but pretend all the same.

Given that, when I roleplay in CF I'm trying to react as my character would in the given situation. If my aforementioned elf sees an orc killing other elves, he's going to react. He's then going to do everything in his power to make sure that orc can't do it again anytime soon.

Now I admit I mitigate that a bit. I don't have my character stand at people's pits waiting on them to unghost. I don't let my character hunt people I've killed recently, unless they are dumb and come up to me talking #### or otherwise ask for it.

Read help OOC sometime. It starts out, "As a roleplaying game, Carrion Fields requires that you remain IC (In Character) at all times." Read the whole thing. Then come back here, and explain to me why the aforementioned elf would help an orc out in any way whatsoever. Yes, I see leaving the orc his gear a way of helping him. IC, our characters are aware of the reincarnation of our enemies and ourselves. There's seldom a reason to help an enemy out, though they do exist. Come back here and reply when you can figure out the difference between your OOC reaction and your IC one. Yes, there is a difference. From your posts, I'm starting to think you can't see that.

"Forsaken was right. You really are a freak."

Point out where Forsaken said that. Really, learn to read. I refer to my earlier post wherein I stated I don't give a damn what you think of me. I don't know you, and have no real reason to want to. *shrug*

-Falstaff

' I am not Zepachu. The Forsaken never responded to me. If you're referring to Foraken, he never said anything like what you're stating. Read his post again. '

Save if for someone who cares, seriously. It's the subject of this debate that interests me so, you can either win the lottery or walk into a train tomorrow as far as I'm concered. Either way is perfectly fine with me.

' Oooohhh, looks like he hit the whammy (dated gameshow reference). Ok, follow the bouncing ball. I'm an elf. You're an orc. I off your orc. Why would I leave anything for you? Why would I want you to have it easy coming after me/other elves/other goodies? Please keep your reasons or lack thereof restricted to IC responses. "Because I as a player am a swell guy" isn't an acceptable response. '

I've already explained this in all due detail in my previous post, but since you are obviously quite slow of mind I'll try and make it even clearer for you.

' I'm an elf. You're an orc. I off your orc. Why would I leave anything for you? Why would I want you to have it easy coming after me/other elves/other goodies? '

Here we go once again, from the start. I'll hold your hand and walk you through it this time, so don't worry.
If we engage in a PK with one another, and one of us gets killed as a result, then the whole IC funk surrounding our characters becomes strictly limited to the tell and/or the emote and esay commands for a short while. Now, why is that exactly? Because if one of us dies in a PK, then from a pure IC perspective (which you keep clinging to up to the point of pure extremism) that person which you defeated should be done away with alltogether. Permanently. You've *killed* him after all. But is this the case in reality, however? No, it is not. And why not? Because within a few minutes after the death of the defeated character, that defeated character will unghost, and re-enter your PK range again. That's step 1. Now for step 2.

Now, why exactly does this player unghost and re-enter your PK range, even after your character has killed his or her's? Because of *game mechanics*. If all characters would permdie or be permdefeated starting from their first single death, the MUD wouldn't be nearly as much fun or as playable as it is now, especially considering the high mortality rate in it.

So what does this all exactly come down to then?

It means that the whole unghosting and re-entering the PK range after a death is a result of the *game mechanics*, and has no IC meaning nor any IC value AT ALL. The unghosting and continued re-emerging of the characters even after their continued dying is there to make the GAME more enjoyable for the PLAYERS, and has nothing to do with any IC aspects whatsoever. Do you ever see or hear any Rangers complain or fall to their knees in despair about how they are fighting a completely hopeless struggle, because the mutant things they kill in the forest of nowhere just keep coming back over and over and over again? No they don't, because it simply doesn't make any SENSE to go and interpret this result of game mechanics to such an extreme IC perspective to begin with. The fact that those mobs keeping returning simply does not have any IC meaning to it, not in the least. The exact, and let me say that again here, the exact same thing goes for any player that got pk'ed and then unghosts a few minutes later on, re-entering your PK range. Trying to attach any form of IC value to this is simply not only plain stupid, it's also pretty damn freakish. And that's exactly what you keep doing to the extreme. Don't act surprised when you're called a freak then, because that word didn't exactly just pop up out of thin air here.

As a direct result of all the above, full-saccing equipment of a defeated opponent under the excuse of 'it's what my character would do' is total nonsense and nothing but assholish behavior attempting to ruin the fun for the fellow players. This MUD is just a GAME we do to ENJOY OURSELVES whenever we have the time and the inclination for it, and thus there really, really comes a point where you have to *draw the line between the player and the character*. Obviously you seem to lose yourself and start to think you actually have pointy ears whenever you log on with your elf character. Seriously, if that's how you get off on this MUD then that's your problem. But the thing is that through that full-saccing nonsense you decrease the fun of your other players and add to their frustration while you're at it. As such, your behavior is unwanted, questionable at the very least and does not add to the quality and the joy of playing the MUD in any way whatsoever. If anything, it brings the fun of playing Carrion Fields down, and you are one of the people that keep this evolution in motion. And you can go screw yourself for it.

You PK'ed me? Good job. Take what you want from my equipment. You won, so you damn well earned it. Anything there you don't need? Food you already have enough? The rest on him is nothing compared to what you're already wearing? You already have a canteen insulated in wolf pelt for drinking etc etc? Then you leave it for the defeated player or for the lucky smuck that happens to get to that corpse before its owner does. Your arguments (if you'll allow me the overstatement) towards going as far as considering full-saccing even his last piece of bread a way to actually fullfill your roleplaying duties is not only completely nonsense, it's also a sign of a diminished sense of reality as far as I'm concerned. There is no IC value or IC meaning to players unghosting from their last deaths and then returning to their happy killing directly afterwards, as this is a direct result of a *game mechanic* that is meant to make this game more playable and above all, more fun. Nothing more. Not back then, not now, not ever.

And your extreme and irrational IC interpretations, of even those things which to everyone else is obvious that it is just the code in action for the sake of the enjoyment of the players, puts you at the direct opposite of that very same policy.

Freak.

Was meant to say; full-looting the equipment you don't need or don't plan on using.

However, there are several OOC "problems" that affect the game in adverse ways and make it less fun to play.

For example, lop-sided hero range (creates OOC boredom), gangbanging, and rage deletion.

I believe that these OOC problems that make the game less fun to play can be heavily attributed to the high incidence of full looting/full sacraficing. People are less willing to take risks because they don't want to spend 2-3 hours of their life doing tedious activities like collecting scraps of copper to buy bread.

At some point I believe you have to look beyond your character's IC motivations, and seriously consider what you are doing to make the game more fun to play for others.. because the game is absolutely no fun unless there are others to play it with.

As far off track as this argument has come, I'll just add that I completely agree with this.

I could repeatedly push someone when the ref isn't looking in a football game, because I know it will annoy them and make them play worse.

Do I do it? No. Because I'd rather enjoy my game and let them enjoy theirs without it.

You don't have to demoralise someone to beat them, and that's the way most of my role work. I like to leave people their gear so I can fight them at their high, not their low. If they do well after I killed them it just makes my kill look all the better.

If you don't enjoy the game by pushing down the people repeatedly, then of course don't do it.

But what if you had some sort of fetish where you enjoyed pushing down people repeatedly and that brought you the most enjoyment? Why WOULDN'T you do it? Of course you would, since that makes the game fun for YOU.

I'm done with this thread but the simple difference that some people cannot seem to accept, or even to understand, is that this IS a game... and you are ROLEPLAYING a character. If that character is a Maran and HATES evil, there is no valid reason they *SHOULD* give back ANYTHING. If they do, they're only allowing that person to prolong their life.

The mudslinging in this thread is ridiculous. I appreciate your well thought out reply Daurwyn and not calling me a delusional crackhead in the process. You made a good point.

In football, doing what you imply is against the rules.

In CF, full-looting and sacing/dropping what you don't want somewhere isn't against any rule. In fact, a number of the Imms have posted supporting it.

I don't see full looting as demoralizing. I see it as an acceptable response to a situation in character.

I do understand where you're coming from, and I can respect it. I don't think it's the way your character would really respond, given the situation though. It's an inherant flaw in the game, as I see it. Where do you draw that line where OOC info begins affecting your character? We obviously draw that line in different spots, and as the Imms haven't drawn it for everyone clearly in all situations we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

-Falstaff

(n/t)

I think you've gone from a Kingsley clone to a Picachu.

Just kidding.

At the end of the day, this game's a game and basing a 'role' on taking people's #### is ####ed up.

I don't base a role around those decisions. I just do what my character would do in any situation. If that means knock you down and make sure you don't get up quickly, I'm doing it. If it means to display mercy or use the gear as leverage, I'll do that.

All part of roleplaying. Anything else is compromise.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

If I had promoted this whole damned argument by saying it was all about full looting, you guys might all instead focus on the fact that the whole thing was based on something else entirely. Forsaken has it right in his response where he talks about reason, not action. This is about the 'why' and not the 'what'. I stick to my argument that it's paradoxical to allow vindictive, vengeful, hateful people into a 'goodie' cabal. I mean, hell, that HAS been my argument the whole time. Thanks for the tangent, though, Valg.

Cartherlen

valguarnera@carrionfields.com