Mon Mar 30 23:45:44 2009

At 5 o'clock AM, Day of Thunder, 31st of the Month of the Spring
on the Theran calendar Videlea perished, never to return.

No comments at all here? Was also interested what you meant in your history comment about being power gamey, and why you would think that?

Videlea struck me as a slightly borderline paladin char..it wasn't so much the big clear cut issues, but all the little things here and there, and stuff I'd hear about the char when I wasn't around to see for myself.

We spoke about that summoning of evil mob at the Village for example..Yean really despises the use of servitors, and while in that particular instance it wasn't your pet or anything like that, still, you *did* use the mob directly or indirectly.

Next, we spoke about that kill in the tribunal cabal area itself. While the religion is about seeking knowledge in other things, Yean expects her followers to put their guild and cabal duties first as well, since they take their paths seriously and stuff. Paladin code 9 regarding respect, while yes like you said, does not mean obey or agree with, I don't see how killing someone on their grounds itself as respectful at all. It's like walking into an acquaintance's house and slapping someone you hate there.

Like I said, they're all grey area issues, but all these little things do add up, and grey is still half black and gave room for doubts.

Regarding the power gamey comment..well you seemed to talk about gears and ranks more than anything else (based on what I saw while snooping at least), which is you know, not impressive but not wrong either. I didn't have much against that, or I wouldn't have upped your empowerment and virtued you in the first place.

Anyway I don't want this to become a flamefest, hence the no reply in the first place. If there are things you still want to clarify, ask or drop me an email, and I'll reply a final time perhaps. GLWYN.

First off,

I think you and I got off to quite a rough start. Videlea didn't seem to posess the defining things a Maran does when it comes to "not becomming what you fight" no joy/happiness in her life. You were very adamant on not changing that either. I'm not going to bring up our post interview discussion, because I don't see the point in nitpicking. The end result was me inducting you, hoping you'd change that outlook.

I don't know exactly why you deleted, but I don't think it was because of our brief discussion. I am not big on handing down harsh discipline, so you got off with what was comparable to a small wrist slap.

It should be also noted that your character did grow on me, and I am sad to see that you have deleted. Best of luck in the future.

-S

As I've said several times now, I did not delete because of you. I obviously disagree with your choice to impose your character's beliefs on how to interpret the code on others who are different (let alone people who aren't even paladins, I can't imagine being a chaotic warrior or thief or mage or whatever and having to accept your personal belief in some mortal tribunal law that protects evil, honestly I'd think you were soft on evil) but you were in charge and the character either could live with your rule or leave the fortress. And she almost did leave the fortress. But it was worth it to her to stay in and live by your edict - though she was going to talk to kasir about getting it changed at some point.

She was deleted because your view was representative of everyone, including Yean, which makes no sense at all, and everyone (in game at least) seems to think they know best and would send tells based on ooc things telling me how to be a paladin, that it's wrong to break the laws (which she only did once, in her whole life, by the way), blah blah blah.

She (I) thought you were a very good captain, the law thing notwithstanding. The one thing I think that makes you one level shy of a great leader or maran is what you said above: "didn't seem to possess the defining things a Maran does when it comes to 'not becoming what you fight' no joy/happiness in her life." Nothing at all in the maran creed or to be a maran means you have to be a happy person. Nothing. Zilch. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with becoming what you fight, meaning becoming evil. You can be as good a soul as possible and still not be a happy laughing joyful person. And there have been many many many maran examples of that, Niheriva being a good one. People who only drink bread and water, people who are serious all the time, etc. They are totally separate things. I've had marans that argued as you did, a maran paladin in fact who was always very concerned with people enjoying the fruits of the light, being happy, all that jazz, and was exasperated by all the very serious marans he was surrounded by. But that didn't make them less maran or him more maran. Just irrelevant. I think you are mistaking that, and it causes a bit of friction. You get to make the rules for your people while you're leader, but you don't get to define what a maran is, that's been done by shokai and the rest over time, and is in the creed, etc. It's a subtle difference perhaps, but important, I think. Without it, you really curtail roleplaying and fun, because you narrow and narrow and narrow the box for people to play in.

But that's a lot about what is really a very small issue. You're doing well, at least as I saw it, and she liked you as much as she liked anyone, and certainly had a lot of respect for you. It was a bit difficult at times to live with the patronizing, but that's not unexpected when you have a captain talking to a squire. I hoped to head off some of it by showing some knowledge, but I don't like to do that too much, it's a bit out of character for someone to know *too* much. (I did violate that with Lortas though, who seemed a bit clueless on one occasion and I tried to help him out and save some needless pain, hope you didn't mind that Lort!)

I wish you would have been more helpful!

None of us had the slightest clue about that place.

Or was it the single time we went out together vs 5 scions and an orc? You made me doubt/question myself like 3 times in the span of 2 minutes, which bothered the crap out of me, since I DID have a plan going into that.

Forgive me but how many times do I have to say it had nothing to do with Sarien or his rule, that's not what I was talking about nor was it the point of the post. Really. Read my post and the response to Kasir, which was before the rest of you harping on the whole "follow cabal leader rule" crap. Totally irrelevant, not at all what's being talked about here.

Sigh.

People are forced to assume certain things in order to put your whine into context.

So what happened? Did an Imm tell you (as an administrator, not as a character playing a role) that you aren't allowed to kill people in town?

Or was it someone like Baer (the character), who strongly believes Paladins should follow laws, tried to lecture you in an IC manner?

Because the two are not the same thing, obviously.

Tell us what happened, if you want to bitch about it. Otherwise, don't get so upset when people make false assumptions.

You likely did not know this but I was the cause of the small nightwalker that killed you in organia. I knew you were there, I prepped before the veil, called a portal, saw a small nightwalker take off, moved two rooms and bam there was your corpse, I was totally surprised. I did not intend to leave you half naked, I looked at a lot of you rgear and left it by your corpse, only as I was leaving and the first thing I had dropped crumbled did I realize that things droped in the outerveil would crumble. It was not my intention to make all your gear go away buddy I am sorry it happened but there was really no IC mechanism i saw to make it right.

Having to deal with another player setting policy you dont agree with is a rough situation. I have been there and there is nothing about it thats great, thats why as a leader I tend to prioritize whats important and allow the other players in the cabal leeway in their rp, that of course is not everyones stance and at the end of the day you can either accept it and change or just move on. You seemed to be a terror to a lot of people and I hope your next character will be more rewarding. Ciao

Well, certainly does suck when people just suck up ooc information and use it ic.

But forget all that, one of the things that's just wrong these days is how people have evolved into their beliefs on paladins and tribunal law. Let's review a few things.

Long ago they changed ethos from lawful to orderly exactly because you can be orderly but not give much of a damn for the tribunal laws, or at the very least not feel particularly bound by them. This seems to have been forgotten by most people.

Long ago they changed paladins so they are not default orderly, but rather can be neutral. Let us refresh ourselves on what the game says about neutral good. This is what a new character sees in the academy:

"As a neutral good soul, you value that which is right and good above all things. While you may possess some standards of behavior that you adhere to when you can, they are secondary, and you are willing to bend rules when you must for the greater good. To be either strict or impulsive might compromise your dedication to doing what is right. You must always remain flexible in your actions without losing sight of what is right and good."

If, as many these days seem to be asserting, a paladin must obey the tribunal laws, then how is that not a direct violation of what a neutral good is supposed to be? Either paladins are all orderly, or they aren't, and long ago that decision was made. People seem to be forgetting that. All things being equal (meaning, don't come and talk about "well maybe some good guard will get hurt" or whatever, the paladin knows not to kill or hurt good people, so don't confuse the issue please), a neutral paladin who doesn't at least sometimes decide the greater good is served by killing that anti paladin or whatever in a city in violation of a tribunal law is just not roleplaying well.

Lastly, long ago, they came up with the paladin code, and since that very first day every imm who has spoken about it has said that it was *intended* to be a bit ambiguous so that people can interpret it as they wish, and make different roles that are still within the code. The codes says to "respect" the laws, not "obey" the laws. That's an enormous and deliberate difference. If you want to intrepret it that way for your character, fine, that's your choice, but it's no more valid than other interpretations or beliefs. Otherwise, you can only believe that there is one and only one meaning and interpretation to all the tents of the paladin code, and that's already been declared incorrect. Further, why would a neutral paladin view it the same as an orderly paladin? Or, in more specific terms, why would a Shokai paladin view it the same as a Marcatis paladin? A tribunal paladin the same as a fortress paladin or a non-cabal paladin who just hunts evil everywhere, everytime? Do you truly think such a paladin isn't a paladin?

In the end, the game is lessened if you ignore all the things that I mention above and just put all paladins in one box. Even worse when it's done by someone on the staff.

Paladins can be fun, I'll probably roll up another some time. Oh, and Sarien, that sword you showed me that we talked about, that I couldn't request for myself? Orderly only. Couldn't use it anyway.

Was all this prompted by Sarien's policy re: the Tribunal laws?

If so, then most of what you wrote is irrelevant.

If it was something else, then I can sort of see your point.

He's only one of many that are doing it, both player and staff, over the last year or two. So no.

Yeah. But all your arguments center around Videlea and her ethos. Sarien may be orderly, and may interpret the code to imply obedience to the Tribunal laws. And he's the one in charge. So he gets to set policy for anyone who serves under him, of which you were one.

I'm with you that it's valid role-play for a neutral-good paladin to break the law with some frequency. Kasir is neutral good. I've argued against Sarien's policy. At the end of the day, though, he's the Captain and I'm not.

While it might be fine role-play for Videlea to break the law in a vacuum, it's probably not great role-play for her to intentionally ignore a policy set by someone in authority over her, i.e. Sarien.

You gotta respect the rules set down by the leaders.

Case in point, a while back there was a battle leader who made a rule where battle guys can't hide behind the giant/destructor - ie unless it's a raid, you can't go back to the village to lick your wounds. Few people did that and they were taken to the rites and kicked out for disrespecting the rule.

If you can't handle the rule set by a leader, tough it out.

You asked if this was about Sarien's policy, and what did I say? I said "No." So why did you post all this about Sarien and Videlea at all?? Obviously, as I said, Sarien can have his own interpretation on the code and do what he wants. Nobody suggested otherwise. Nobody said he couldn't make policies for the fortress.

Also, the Captain is not more important than the Marshall, or vice versa. They're equal. They have somewhat different duties but they are equal leaders, it's not one then the other.

Lastly, Videlea did not intentionally break anyone's policy. Sarien never said anything about the law to her when he inducted her. Which he knows.

The point, as you agree, is that a neutral good paladin is perfectly valid to break the tribunal law. That is something people seem to be ignoring. I want to know why, and obviously I think it should stop. Sarien's intractability is annoying and Videlea thought wrong, but obviously within his purview. She intended to go talk to you about it since you had the power to change it. That obviously never happened, and by what you write here now seems would have been fruitless, until you realized your own authority.

>You asked if this was about Sarien's policy, and what did I
>say? I said "No."

You said he was one of many, meaning his policy was "part of the problem". I don't think it is, because Sarien laying down that policy isn't the same as someone in an OOC "role enforcment" capacity saying it's not kosher for neutral ethos paladins to break the law.

>Also, the Captain is not more important than the Marshall, or
>vice versa. They're equal. They have somewhat different
>duties but they are equal leaders, it's not one then the
>other.

Sure. He does have seniority, however, and the policy was in place long before I became Marshall. We've talked about it. There was some IC disagreement. In the end, Sarien won out because for his character it was a "moral" issue whereas for me it was just a matter of pragmatism. So it didn't seem worth making a fuss about. Also he has seniority. That isn't the most important thing in the world, but it's also not totally insignificant.

Okay, that second sentence about seniority was totally redundant. That's what I get for over-editing my posts.

...I gotta agree with you on this. Never understood how a paladin could stay empowered in Tribunal. Associating with evil seems like a giant no-no for a paladin IN MY OPINION.

I don't set policy though, so I could see where the IMMs/players disagree with you.

GLWYN.

I've said it on many occasions, and I'll say it here one more time because I think it's relevant (based just on what you're posting -- I doubt I even know half this story):

You RPing your character correctly does not render you immune to the RP of other people.

> Or, in more specific terms, why would a Shokai paladin view it the same as a Marcatis paladin?

They wouldn't -- but that doesn't mean the Shokai paladin just shrugs and says, "hey Marcatis paladin, you do it your way although I disagree with you, because it might be right for you!" He should play it out as it makes sense for his character.

>In the end, the game is lessened if you ignore all the things that
>I mention above and just put all paladins in one box. Even worse
>when it's done by someone on the staff.

No one on staff, with with administrator hat on has, to the best of my knowledge, said all paladins have to be lawful. Some imms, wearing their immortal-IC-persona hat, have set that standard for their religions for varying reasons. I'm not sure why this difference isn't clear.

You can be "orderly" without following the Tribunals specific laws. But you CAN'T be a paladin without following the Paladin Code.

And if your character specifically follows any "code" or listed set of rules, I don't see how you can justify calling them "neutral" ethos.

As far as the specific situation with you and Sarien.. your cabal leader made a rule. You can choose to either follow it or not. But as a Paladin, not following it would mean leaving the Fortress rather than deceiving the cabal leader. Sucks, but that's how it works. You can't expect other people to tone their own RP down, just to accomodate your own role.

Paladins are a tough class, but that's balanced by the fact that they have vastly heavier RP restrictions than any other class.

Neutral works perfectly fine with the code. "Respect the laws" doesn't imply that you always have to follow the tribunal laws. Just respect them, which suits well with the helpfile in the newbiearena about ethos neutral.

I think an orderly paladin would have a REALLY hard time braking the laws to hunt down the wicked, BUT, a neutral paladin could easily argue that he do respect the laws, but that he would have to brake them for the greater good of many. (Of course not in anyway that he would be forced to possibly harm another goodie, but still.)

That's my 2 cents, and it seem to fit what currently are in affect.

A Paladin does not have to follow the "laws". But a Paladin MUST strictly follow the Paladin Code.

How can you say you dedicate your entire life to following a set of written guidelines, yet you are not "orderly"?

And as such a very personal thing. Rather than a literally enforced set of rules.

Also, the code is a set of guidelines. A guideline is 'you should', while a rule is 'you must'.

Granted, some parts of the code can be interpreted in different ways, however your character interprets them means the character will follow them strictly.

It's really quite stupid to argue that blatantly breaking a law in a Blood Tribunal city does not go against the spirit, if not the letter of this rule of the paladin code.

I might respect you and all, and maybe call you friend, but I'm still going to punch you in the face when I believe you deserve/need it. (just an example, ofcourse )

between the meaning implied in respecting laws and people

Respect the laws means the same thing as obey them.

How on earth are you respecting a law by breaking it - especially ones as obvious as most of those in the Blood Tribunal handbook?

rather than a particular person vs person situation.

I mean it's perfectly valid for a neutral Paladin to be a law-abiding citizen, until something far more important (to him), forces him to break the law. And he would gladly accept any legal consequences that would follow, rather than having not reacted to the situation at hand, while he believes he should have.

An orderly Paladin would be far more strict in that and say, the law is the law.

.

>I mean it's perfectly valid for a neutral Paladin to be a
>law-abiding citizen, until something far more important (to
>him), forces him to break the law. And he would gladly accept
>any legal consequences that would follow, rather than having
>not reacted to the situation at hand, while he believes he
>should have.

I agree that this is one very appropriate and valid position to take as a paladin re: the laws. (Although that still doesn't mean you can successfully get it past all paladin-empowering imms; I know because I tried!)

This is the disconnect. You are mistaken when you say that "Respect the laws means the same thing as obey them." They do not. If respect and obey meant the same thing, you wouldn't have two words for them. They are different. Which I think you know.

And in fact what you are doing by making them equal is *less* valid than someone who just takes the plain meaning of the words (which, as I said, is different) and uses them as-is. You are choosing to take an extra step and decide they are in fact the same thing (which they are not). And while we can accept that, it doesn't make it the only way, or even the most valid way, of interpreting the words.

Respect =\ Obey. If the staff wanted all paladins to always obey the laws at all times, they would have made the code say Obey. Just like they would have made all paladins Orderly instead of giving them the option to be either orderly or neutral in ethos.

> If respect and obey meant the same thing, you wouldn't have two words for them.

That's not really true. There are plenty of examples of words that mean basically the same thing and yet are both common in spoken English. In the case of "respect" we have the following definitions:

1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.

The second one basically means "obey". When talking of respecting an individual, generally there's no connotation of obedience. But when you're talking about respecting a body of regulations, that seems to connote the second definition of "respect".

> If the staff wanted all paladins to always obey the laws at all times, they would have made the code say Obey.

Not necessarily. "Obey" doesn't necessarily imply "esteem". By using "respect" they may have wanted to imply both obedience to the laws and holding them in high regard. This would differentiate a paladin's obedience from, say, a random Imperial Citizen's obedience.

> Just like they would have made all paladins Orderly instead of giving them the option to be either orderly or neutral in ethos.

As you pointed out elsewhere, the "orderly" ethos now has very little to do with being "lawful". It's more about whether the character is organized and plans things out and/or follows some structured internal code, instead of whether they follow the Tribunal laws per se.

Likewise, the "neutral" ethos also no longer specifies a character's location along the lawful/lawless spectrum. Given that all paladins must follow the paladin code, though, maybe you're right in that all paladins should be orderly. The neutral paladin, then, is in a position of conflict, sort of like the good-aligned rager.

On the one hand he's supposed to be flexible enough to do the "good" thing in any given situation. On the other hand, he's forced to follow the paladin code. For the code to have any meaning, a neutral paladin is going to have to be "more respectful" of the Tribunal laws than would a random neutral-good non-paladin. On the other hand, he's probably also going to play more fast and loose with the paladin code than would an orderly paladin.

What did Videlea do with regard to that part of the paladin code to differentiate her from a random neutral-ethos good-aligned character? I'm not necessarily saying she didn't do anything; I'm just curious what it was.

Now what giant gonna do?

Who's gonna tell him to stop being so bossy? Or say things so polite yet so pointed he's struck wordless a moment.

I enjoyed the character alot, I think I got what you were aiming for RPwise.

Damn shame you deleted, hope everything is going well in life.

GLWYN

Your interview was crazy. Sorry I am such a hardass with it...you taught me I was too much of one.

You CONSTANTLY made me second guess myself. I make a lot of stupid mistakes, but I do always go in with a plan of some kind. Doesnt always work out, but I have an idea, and when you would say things it was like gah what am I doing?

Id always lose track of my plan. You were interesting, and I really would have liked you on my ass in the future.

GLWYN

A real shame to see you go, I enjoyed watching the world through your perspective, and especially the development of your character.
See you inthe fields.