Fun way through the character, enjoyed writing the roles, enjoyed all the fun interactions I had with other peoples(Zizzle, you were outstanding. Urgok, you were lulzworthy.)

I was turned evil for fighting one of Baer's Paladins. Lost the singing ability. Got killed a few times while I wasn't able to sing, and didn't seem to get any possible attention regarding getting the voice back. Being as a bard who can't sing is a shifter who can't shift, I just went ahead and deleted after a battlerager stole mah' fiddle(#### off, Grawshen).

Meh.


Either way, very fun.


People who made the game worth playing: Zizzle, Iktul, Urgok, Woldrun, and a few others.

I really wish you would grow up. It's bound to happen some day, I just wish it would happen sooner.

I've played a lot of Baer followers. I killed a lot of people. I full looted exactly zero of them. I died a lot, and was full looted a lot. Exactly zero of my enemies got nerfed because they beat me. I'm pretty sure other people can corroborate that, if you really need it.

I've interacted with several of your characters. Your roleplay typically sucks. You don't play the game well. You got nerfed because you made in-game decisions that you hoped would not have in-game consequences. You were wrong, and instead of paying the price, you deleted.

Oh yeah, and your name alone made it painfully obvious to everyone that you weren't serious about the character. If you're not serious about it, why do you think any of the Imms would go out of their way to help you out?

If you want Imms or players to treat you well, at least make the effort to pretend like your character will be more than a short-lived nuisance.

I like a few of your characters. They're nicely done. Really, some of yours have been pretty cool.

And the name, like I said, was a random. Oh well.

I outgrew those years ago.

Thanks for the compliments on my chars. Honestly, I just wish you would take the game a little bit more seriously.

I know that sounds stupid, but you know what I mean. CF isn't like picking up Halo. It's a deep multi-faceted roleplaying game, and it's frustrating to put a lot of effort into a character, when someone else's half-assed play ruins the experience for you.

Please, go ahead. I'll post them or email them to you if you need. I spent a lot of time on Proleteria.

At least spend a little bit of time coming up with a name that doesn't suck.

Seriously.

The name is the first thing anyone sees about your character. It's the first impression, so to speak. So spend an extra 3 minutes to come up with a decent one.

Granted, I'm the guy that played "Dalek" for 150 hours or so. But.. I'm dumb with some of the geek-culture and I had no idea. If that's the case here, fine.. but judging by your attitude in the past, I doubt it.

Care to say whats wrong with her name (aye, it sucks but for those who know Russian) and RP? PM on dios, if wish keep it privately

Which is a word well known at least in the states, by anyone who has taken a 4th grade English or Literature class.

And aside from the fact that it's an annoying name, it also gives a blatant hint at what his supposed RP is going to be.

As far as Batman, he always comes across as if he's not taking his character's RP seriously or anyone else's.

Compare it to playing poker with someone who doesn't know the rules. Instead of taking it seriously and trying to learn the game, Batman would rather go all-in on every hand, splash the pot, refuse to pay his debts, and generally annoy everyone else until they just stop wanting to play with him. It's frustrating and obnoxious and honestly, I'm well past watching it happen.

since when proletariat is lower class?

nt

this word came out a bit later. However I was just wondering what makes them lower class in your opinion

It isn't a slight on the working class or anything. It's just a word.

Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proletariat
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proletariat

Oh, and FYI it actually came out in the mid-19th century. My bad

what does word proletariat mean?! C'MON!

Man.. I'm never gonna make it in Empire

nt

the Spiderman history comics!

As I told you long time ago, read some history/math/physic books Java, seriosly.

Granted, all of the history I know is slanted differently than yourselves. But that's to be expected with two often-clashing cultures.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how I'm wrong here. Laughing and talking in your pathetically broken English isn't proving ####, when I've posted dictionary and encyclopedia entries proving my point.

I can't speak for the Russians, but in terms of the
English language, history and culture, Java is 100%
correct on this one.

Now are you guys just trying to be difficult or does
it have a completely different meaning in Russky?

nt

And a word's English language definition.

We aren't talking about the tragic history of the Russian Empire. We get it. And it's irrelevent.

I've posted 2 dictionary listings and 1 wikipedia entry which defines Proletariat as the "Lower class". I could probably post more, but I really don't want to look it up again.

This isn't a slight against any of you as individuals, or against mother Russia, or against any of your history or past struggles. It's the definition of an English language word.

Words mean different things in different languages and different cultures. Luckily, Carrion Fields is based out of the United States, and that's the culture I'm basing my definition from.

>> I've posted 2 dictionary listings and 1 wikipedia entry which defines Proletariat as the "Lower class".

All those entries you posted contain dual definitions; either working or lower class. One of those definitions is relevant to modern history, the other one is not. And I'm not russian FYI (nor a leftie.. not even in hockey).

His point is that in modern English usage, the word is commonly used to refer to something other than the Marxist working class.

You could also argue that the "working class" and "lower class" are largely the same. So when Java says "proletariat = lower class" he's not necessarily contradicting Marx's definition.

>Mon Dec 8 15:35:19 2008 by 'Lyristeon' at level 51 (229 hrs):
Ilvakihj: You know... I think there should be a tournament hosted on who is avoided the most in Thera... I guarantee you I rank just under the Liches... my enemies will just not even give me a chance at a clean f

>Mon Dec 8 15:38:53 2008 by 'Lyristeon' at level 51 (229 hrs):
(cont.) me a chance at a clean fight. Umm...you have 72 deaths and you are murdered by the self-reliant. Maybe they just are tired of picking on you.

It's clear at this point you're just out of sync with reality.

The Java the RP counsellor thing is a bit weak. While your RP is solid, it tends to be marked by petulant dikkishness. Regarding the whole "you don't play the game well" criticisms. . . I'd live and let live if I were you.

Lighten up. You'll have more fun.

.

My most recent characters (that have heroed and have PBFs published) include:
Enrai
Kenric
Aelyrion
Jaisel
Llondolis

Feel free to quote THEIR PBF's at me, if you want.

That came off sounding like I was bragging about those characters. That wasn't the intent. All I'm saying is, my characters don't exhibit the flaws you saw in Ilvakihj. RP-wise, I think I'm always pretty solid. But now that you know which characters I DID actually play, I'm open to criticism as always.

yea, it did

Yeah, she did.


I got it off of the name randomizer.


Made me lol.

So I used it.


Just like your mom.

Great job. Your originality with names and humor is legendary.

asdf

asdf

But if you want to spend all of your time grouped with evil characters, ganging on good characters, and raiding good cabals with no role reason or discerable non-evil RP, you're going to be turned evil because you're acting evil.

All I learned about you on this character, from over 15 other players, is to avoid you. My favorite quote : "Just run from Baer's followers. If you lose, they'll loot you anyway. If you win, she'll ruin your time with the game".

And I can see how. I had been attacked by numerous elves even when I was without a group--Of course Proleteria adopts the mind-set of not liking Elves. Then, to top it off, an Elf takes her voice. That's reason for a genocide, there. And that's where I was heading for. Seems fine to me. When goods are constantly attacking me, and evils area actually and constantly helping me--I could take a wild guess on which way ANYONE would lean.

I was playing an uncaballed neutral/neutral. It wasn't about good/evil at all. It was about a drunk girl who tumbles into misfortunes, so she latches on to any kind of luck she gets.
Oh well.
I mean, sure, you ruined my time with it and left a bad taste in my mouth, but I'm going to take the advice I was given.

Flat out run from Baer' followers.

No harsh feelings though, Baer. You're an Imm, and I respect the position. Just not you.

As player who pkilled, looted and even full looted more Baer's followers than anyone else (Do I? ). I've never got my expirience ruined by her. Unless you will count some interesting imm comments in pbfs or ignoring my sad ass most of the time

So it must be something else.

Also keep in mind that turning into evil was ALWAYS more easy to archive than any other align change. I don't think that it's fair but that's how it is.

nt

"Why is she running, dad?"

..."Because we have to chase her."

"She didn't do anything wrong."

"Because she's the hero Galadon deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt her, because she can take it. Because she's not a hero. She's a silent guardian...a watchful protector...a neutral bard."



heh

Funniest #### I've read all day.

The second a goodie sees you butchering storm giants in Kiadana or massacring elven children in the Vale, its not as if he or she can just ignore it and a week later ask you to group.

The second a goodie catches you in a bad situation, where you gang down a goodie or kill goodie NPCs, oftentimes ONLY acceptable course of action would be to declare you evil and get all his allies to hunt you down and kill you - only a really unrealistically played goodie would be tell you

"Oh, you killed all the kids in the orphanage? Thats okay, they probably deserved it anyway, why don't you repent your evil ways and join us?"

"Oh, you slew my blood brother, sworn to defend the Light? Don't worry about it, your soul can still be saved."

The second a goodie sees you kill another goodie, NPC or PC, your ass should be pinned to the wall by the entire good-aligned community.

Count yourself lucky that only Ceyraia was hunting you consistently.

nt

Acolytes particularly are pretty much required to have an open mind about things like that.

A big part of an Acolytes job is to try to bring people to the "Light". Be they neutral or evil. Evil people can be redeemed, as can neutral people who occassionally do evil things. If they don't give you the chance, then they're failing at their mission in life.

Acolytes are obviously the extreme, but there's no reason that thought process couldn't apply to any other goodie as well.

And stop assisting defilers. Even when you were not in range. I killed you for being with defilers when you got into range. And until hero, you always were with defilers and evil. You had no intentions of being anything else but a defiler yourself.

He was using potions all the time, I killed him (c) villager

He was grouping with mages, I killed him (c) villager

He was travelling with darkwalkers, I killed him (c) maran

He was breaking the balance, I killed him (c) nexun

I think I just got a green card from imms to follow that rp line. Thanks.

You dont even understand. This has been an ongoing tussle since the 30's. And in the end, my actions were correct. This bard was evil.

>That's reason for a genocide, there. And
>that's where I was heading for. Seems fine to me.

Oh, sure. It's very RP justifiable.

But... it's also evil.

Reading a rant like this about an alignment change -- a character I've never seen -- but that is completely justifiable from your own words in this thread reminds me why I don't log on a whole lot anymore.

No, I appreciate that you even commented.
I'd agree, the whole 'kill da elfies' is evil, yeah. It was a built up taste from being hunted by them for so long. I'm not going to go Fortress/Outie hugging after they rape me continuously.


L2log

How I was punished as goodie conjie Fort-wannabe for striking elf (hm, elf again!) thief, who constantly stole my stuff. I dont mean once or twice. I mean constantly. Totally unprovoked from my side, more even, she started to steal when I was helping Fortress to defend, heh and then simply laughed at my face.

And such striking was considered as evil action.

I don't care if he stole from you. Deal with it in a way other than murder.

Rule #1 out of Maran is not to hurt other goodies. That's pretty much the only rule, and if you break it you're in trouble.

There are instances were you have to hurt goodies.

I pretty much agree with this, and consider it to be one of the major drawbacks of being Fortress.

(Note: I consider, say, attacking another good character to wake them up or the like to not be a violation of this, but a really hardline Maran could make an argument for not even doing that.)

What should Maran CG conjurer do if he attacked by elf villager/elf trib (being wanted)/elf outlander?

n/t

There will be no white flag above my door. - Dido

If the dude attacks you, imho you're justified in defending yourself. I would even encourage the maran conjie to defend himself.

That said, I wouldn't want him chasing down the elf rager if the latter had to withdraw.

And I certainly wouldn't want him actively hunting good/neutral ragers, or doing something retarded like attacking the massive giant to force a guy to defend.

(I'm looking at you, Shapa.)

Why doesn't the elf villager/trib/outlander suffer alignment change reprecussions for attacking the Maran CG conjurer?

Way back when I played a (wanted) CG maran shaman, I remember a Tribbie paladin came into Shokai's shrine to attack me while I was showing off some of my elite RP with a low level pre-empowerment guy. I pleaded with Shokai to turn the tribbie neutral or at least let me lay down some punishment for violating his shrine, but he wouldn't pull the trigger.

I would say that we watch good aligned Outlanders and Tribunal and Battle who pk good aligned 'enemies' of their cabals. You can make an RP justification for it within role. Personally, I never like seeing a goodie killing another goodie, which is why one of Baer's main things is avoiding it if you can.

So, in sum, it does get watched, it does get commented on and acted upon if it's within reason, though at least if you're cabaled you have some RP justification. Random neutral bard who declares genocide on elves for who knows why and doesn't even bother to update their role about it...doesn't get that kind of slack.

Random elf villager or elf outlander's role, and roleplay are magic bad, conjie bad, etc...and they're in a cabal that agrees with them, so everything meshes.

CG elf Maran has the roleplay of evil = bad, and is in a cabal that's philosophy of evil = bad, protect good. It doesn't really mesh with that roleplay, when you're hurting the goodie, even if you think them misguided. Standard CG elf probably wouldn't have that same stigma where they should run away from that nessecarily, since they're not in a cabal that says it's bad. Honestly, what's the worst that usually happens to such CG Maran elf conjurers? They get removed from maran.

Well, I was thinking of a Gameplay thread from what I thought was a few months ago (but turns out it was from 2006!..!! Jeez how time flies. Ever since I turned 30, my memory has been shot with regard to relative time periods. Jeez.) Anyway, this thread:


Aarn says the following, and the other IMMs (Kasty, Nep) essentially sign on:

Aarn Quote:
"I think we as a staff tend to be too lenient on goodies killing goodies if it fits within their cabal dogma. Battle, Tribunal and Outlander are particularly susceptible to this. If you're a goodie Outlander that makes a living out of slaughtering paladins, you should expect to be turned neutral pretty quickly - because you've chosen to disregard alignment for a different moral compass. I would put forth that you need to find an alternative method of dealing with good-aligned cabal enemies that doesn't involving killing them. That's why you're good, not neutral. Then in cabal raid situations and the like when you're forced in to fighting them, is the time to roleplay all that remorse.

Just look at it this way: If you're planning on fighting people of your own alignment regularly, even if you plan on roleplaying remorse, you should just be neutral instead."
End Aarn Quote.

This thread stuck with me because from my perspective, the only characters that consistently play Good Aligns in this manner are Fortress-types (In the Fortress, you even have RP psychos that are less likely to attack a neutral than ragers/tribs/outlanders are to attack a good). The vast majority of good align Ragers/Tribs/Outlanders happily attack opposing good align cabal members without any real remorse.

And then I started thinking about good-aligned mobs. Why is it that elves in Darsylon will murder WANTED Good Aligns travelling through Darsylon? Why is it that good aligned guards in Voralian will murder WANTED Good Aligns travelling through Voralian? Does this make ANY sense in light of Baer/Nep/Kasty/Aarn's opinion? Shouldn't Baer be turning all these Darsylon guards neutral?

There seems to be a basic and unreconciable disconnect between what the IMMs say about RPing a "good align" and how the IMMs actually go about enforcing restrictions on "good align vs. good align" attacks and how the game treats "good align vs. good align" attacks. I understand there is a gray area here, but the lack of consistent enforcement and game mechanics (e.g., Darsylon guards) end up making the Good-to-Neutral alignment changes seem terribly arbitrary.

(Yes, I realize this has nothing to do with Batman's change from neutral to evil which seems well deserved.)

Maran are a special case, in that they should never intentionally kill a "good" person. Ever.

But in general, I don't necessarily have a problem with it. In every war that has ever been fought, "good" people have killed other "good" people without beating themselves up over it.

For instance, Johnny Confederate isn't evil because he fought for his state, and for a cause he believed in the Civil War. Neither is Mikey Union for fighting for a cause that HE believes in. And neither one of them needs to beat themselves up for fighting each other. Both made the choice willingly and chose to accept the consequences, including death.

Now, that isn't saying that Johnny should be talking #### about Mikey's mother, or pissing on his freshly dead corpse. Instead, there is likely a shared respect among the two (as was demonstrated numerously during the Civil War). They fight bravely, and respectfully and move on with no particularly ill will towards each other as individuals.

So it was ok for the German people to fight for "germany" under Hitler because they were fighting for something they believed in? The civil war was a little different, but if you throw slaves into the mix then the south definitely had a part of their ideology that was messed up and not "right." I liked the movie Valkyrie because of what it implied. That many German's wanted to see Hitler gone because of the horrible things he was doing. The problem there is not being willing to stand up for what you really believe in.

ah...now I'm rambling. Just a question.

I've thought about this a fair amount. Applied to real life, not Carrion Fields. I think there's a certain amount of "delusion" that you have to allow people, when evaluating whether they have "evil intent". People can earnestly believe a lot of really wrong things. At some point, though, if they're directly confronted with evidence of the "wrongness", continuing to believe in the delusion becomes willful and no longer serves as a defense of their actions.de.

In the case of ragers, you have to decide whether someone could be so deluded about the nature of magic that he could, in good conscience, take another's life in order to to see magic destroyed. Since there are good aligned characters in the Battle cabal, it would seem that the arbiters of goodness in Thera have made that decision and, yes, one can be that deluded.

I do not like you implying that magic is indeed -not- evil. It is not ragers that are deluded it is the rest of Thera being misguided to think that magic is in fact benign, tolerable, or even good.

Had your village app not been such a doormat of unfortunate events then you would have seen behind the curtain and accepted the Rager Way. Magic bad.

In the CF world I can believe that a good aligned character sees magic as "evil" and therefore is helping that other good aligned character to purge that "evil" from them. I have absolutely no problem with this RP style in Carrionfields.

n.mf.t.

nt

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=godwin

nt

People in the Civil War weren't fighting for slavery, necessarily. They were fighting because their loyalty was with their state, not with the union. And their state was being denied it's freedom to make decisions.

There were people who fought for the Confederates that didn't believe in slavery. But they believed in the concept of States rights.

Not everyone that fights in war is a "good" person. That much is obvious. But many of them are, and that fact was what I was referencing.

And as far as the specific question you asked.. that's tricky. How many soldiers fighting for Germany knew the extent of Hitlers madness? The concentration camps were a well-kept secret, at the time. So yeah.. there were a lot of soldiers in Germany who likely served because they thought they were doing what was best for their country and their families. I can't fault them for that.

You can only judge someone based on the decisions they made with the information THEY had. Hindsight is 20/20. They didn't have the luxury of the History Channel telling them how evil Hitler was. (And yes.. I realize that many if not most soldiers knew what was going on, at least to some extent. I'm referring to the rest of them)

They were gradually introducing the German people a concept that they were superior to other races and that some other groups, such as Jews, were inferior. All this was done in small steps, a little bit more inhumanity for people to endure, but not too much at a time.

Some people didn't wake up and see what they were doing before they saw how their own children had grown to despise Jews. At that point, those people woke up and said that things shouldn't go on like this. Some people, however, didn't wake up before Nazi Germany was defeated. People didn't see what was happening, it was so much easier not to.

And I've had the situation with the goodie thief stealing form my fortressite, and it's ridiculous that there is absolutely nothing to be done about it.

If you, a grown-ass, relatively mature guy.

And you are attacked by a 4 year old.

You aren't going to unleash hell's fury on the kid, stomping him mercilessly into the ground. But you aren't going to stand there and let the kid swat at you repeatedly either. It's a poor dumb kid that doesn't really know what he's doing or why.

Find a non-violent solution. The easiest of them, of course, is running away from the brat.

But what if there were 20 of them?

http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-to-win-a-fight-against-twenty-children/

.