I'm wondering how all of you folks think about this.

As a Maran or Outlander, after the first time any given nexuns attack your outer, how can you in the future accept help from them?

As a Scion, you are encouraged to use people for your devious ends, etc. As an Imperial you are supposed to play the political game and if people have their use, you use them. Most Acolytes have a certain forgiving nature.

I see Maran and Outlanders as zealots for their causes however, so how are you supposed to wrap your RP around Nexus?

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

I always felt that for Outlanders to accept help from ANY other cabal was basically against the whole idea of an independent band of brigands. It was sort of the mentality that if we aren't strong enough to stand on our own, then what the hell are we doing in Outlander anyway?

I honestly don't know if the Immortals felt that way, but it was certainly the view I tried to espouse to others and as such, would never request or accept help from other cabals. Or go to help them purposefully, though hunting outside the Fort when you knew Empire or Scion would be there was just opportunistic.

And I did raid Empire when the Fort was in there raiding just to steal the Codex from them. It was never planned but if the opportunity was there, I thought it fit the Outlander ideal well.

As for Nexans, they are ultimately an enemy, just not the most important one. They will oppose the return of Thar-Eris (or the supremacy of the Light for Forties) when it looks like you're winning. If they raid, hunt them down and kill them. I wouldn't necessarily think raiding them was in order, but opportunistic kills certainly were.

But that's just my opinion.

I don't see how Maran's in general could accept the existence of Nexus. Nexus as a goal wishes to support evil and as much as good, and in fact as Maran's work to elminate evil Nexus will work harder to hold back good. As a Maran I would for the "greater good" wish to see that Nexus was wiped out just as much as any group of evils because I know the more I do to promote my cause the more they will work against me. Both groups cannot succeed in their stated goals so inevitably they will come to blows. At least that is my view.

Maran's in a conundrum with neutrals period. Nexus is no exception.

Find me a neutral hero and I'll find you someone who almost certainly slaughtered hundreds if not thousands of innocents. (goods)

Generally random neutral guy might have done bad stuff but he might not have. When I play a maran, I kill neutrals if I witness them doing evil, but otherwise I leave them alone. But, Nexus on the other hand requires that they do evil (slay goodies, help evil guys) as a course of action to maintain the balance, knowing this I don't see how a Maran can look at them as anything but a hinderance and something to be stopped.

Again just my opinion on it.

I see neutrals killing goods and attempt to dissuade them without violence first. At least with my last Maran. My next Maran might be someone who very clearly will *not* attack a neutral because he/she is simply misguided. The one after that might be an "attack every neutral in sight" because there is a special spot in Hell reserved for those who won't pick a side and stick with it. (I think it's on the 7th circle but I'm not sure )

These types of situations make for interesting roleplay decisions. Try not to look at it as a bad thing, but a good thing. This would be a pretty boring game if everything was white hands and black hats.

How long would #3 remain A) Maran B) Good.

nt

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

Sure try talking, but since we are talking about a nexan neutral, they obvious can't be conviced to not attack goodies, so then what, your a Maran they are killing goodies, how can it be good RP to turn you back and say "well I tried to talk them out of it, not much else to do", now this happens with every nexan so then what, I just can't convice myself that I, as a Maran, would not start seeing Nexus as just another things that needs to be defeated. Since in my mind they won't listen to reason.

Part that gets me is that Maran's are not free to war with Nexus, Imm's have already put a kobosh on that so it's not really as open to individual RP as you would make it seem.

Again this just my opinion and how I see it, I do agree that variety is what makes the game great.

Enarn was told not to raid for the Key by the time I wanted to declare war. The basic rule seemed to me to be "Maran will not declare war on Nexus."

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

Personally, and this is what I told Enarn at the time, it depends on the situation. If there's 10 of you on and 1 empire guy and a gazillion Nexus and Nexus is helping that evil guy, then by all means raid Nexus and take them on for doing 'evil'. However, I felt that logging on and raiding for the key when there were evils in range was wrong. Especially if good is not winning, because then Nexus _sort of_ counts as good. (I emphasize sort of)

However, the thing that often happens is that when Fortress should be fighting Nexus there are too many of them to hold off, so by nature they want to hit Nexus when it's weak. That's the problem with playing a goodie - it's not optimal because of those damn morals.

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

Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to cry
So come on courage
Teach me to be shy
Cause it's not hard to fall - Damien Rice

What doesn't kill you makes a fighter, footsteps even lighter - Kelly Clarkso

Was that there was a blanket moratorium on raiding Nexus. If the rule was something like "If you have the scepter and codex, then you can start worrying about the key" it would have made a bit more sense to me. I'm certainly not trying to advocate that Nexus should be a primary enemy of Maran. I just misunderstood.

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

That seems like using Nexus ideas for maran, saying they are sorta good or evil is not true at all, they are neutral. If it is ever NOT acceptable then I cannot see how it can be acceptable under any circumstances. I don't see Maran's changing enemies/friends willy nilly like because the balance of good/evil swings a certain way, that's nexus.

I think her point was at times they are the way lesser of two evils, focus elsewhere. You go after the shoplifter first or the serial killer?

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." - Jimi Hendrix

Similarly, if you're Outlander and Empire, Scion, and Tribunal have their items and you're raiding Nexus, you've probably lost sight of your priorities.

I don't think nexus should ever be a maran's primary target, I just don't think they should ever be buddy buddy and generally should be looked at/treated as enemies.

.

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." - Jimi Hendrix

Is it acceptable to take neutral/questionable help to achieve a greater good? There's no answer to that question that's right for every good character.

Hell, this same issue is involved in the plot of many a movie/book/TV show/play/etc. How many times have you seen some variant of: there's a hostage situation, or many people are in danger from some implement of mass destruction, and only with the help of some criminal/anti-hero/questionable character can the situation be resolved? This is the plot of such quality cinema as The Rock or XXX or Rambo III.

On one hand, you can maintain your principles and refuse to work with a criminal like XXX. In that case, millions of people die. On the other hand, you can choose to lower yourself by taking his help, and tragedy is averted.

Is it more selfless to sacrifice your principles rather than innocent lives? Maybe, but therein also lies a slippery slope. That's what makes it all interesting.

If you're leader of the Fort and you need to get the Orb back from the Empire, and you're outnumbered and Nexus offers help, is it more principled to refuse, even if your choice gets three Acolytes killed that normally wouldn't be?

>That seems like using Nexus ideas for maran, saying they are
>sorta good or evil is not true at all, they are neutral. If
>it is ever NOT acceptable then I cannot see how it can be
>acceptable under any circumstances. I don't see Maran's
>changing enemies/friends willy nilly like because the balance
>of good/evil swings a certain way, that's nexus.

It's not willy-nilly. There's a perfect, rational order to it.

You definitely could play a good that takes this hard-line no-compromise stance. I just don't think you're up to it.

To have it actually be consistent, you'd also need to:

- Never group with any neutral.
- Never accept aid from any neutral. You're dying of thirst and no one good is handy? Suck it up.
- Never buy anything from a neutral shopkeeper.
- Never buy heals from a neutral healer.

All neutrals, at some point, will have goals that conflict with Maran.

I'd honestly be very impressed with a good character who could pull this all off and simultaneously not manage to be a punching bag. But if you want to condemn a cabal for, essentially, being neutral while simultaenously taking that gnome invoker with you to get gear or level, you're over into hypocrite country.

>It's not willy-nilly. There's a perfect, rational order to
>it.
>

It appears willy-nilly to outsiders, as any non-nexan you have no idea of the balance in the world, sure as players we can use the who list to get an idea but it doesn't seem rational to think that my character could honestly know the balance as it sits of all Thera, so I as a character outside of nexus it comes across as fickle and not working to some grand design, i.e. willy-nilly :p

>You definitely could play a good that takes this hard-line
>no-compromise stance. I just don't think you're up to it.
>
>To have it actually be consistent, you'd also need to:
>
>- Never group with any neutral.
>- Never accept aid from any neutral. You're dying of thirst
>and no one good is handy? Suck it up.
>- Never buy anything from a neutral shopkeeper.
>- Never buy heals from a neutral healer.
>
>All neutrals, at some point, will have goals that
>conflict with Maran.
>

I basically disagree with all your points here, what I stated in an earlier post was that if I was playing a Maran and witnessed a neutral doing evil, I would treat said neutral as evil. My point is that nexus as a goal must commit evil if they are to keep the balance, random non-nexus neutral doesn't necessarily need to commit evil. Being neutral does not mean you are 50% good and 50% evil, you are neutral, so as a Maran I see no reason to view random herald gnome as a bad guy. But, since nexus must commit evil and I am aware of this, then I have a hard time justifying not treating them as an enemy, this does not mean treating all neutrals as enemies, not even close.

All neutral Battle must by definition kill mages, some of whom will be good. All neutral Outlanders must by definition kill conjurers, many of whom will be good. Etc.

There isn't going to be a neutral character who doesn't do something your good character would find objectionable.

There's a pen and paper RPG cliche wherein the party tries to get the paladin out of the room or otherwise distracted while they torture information from a captured bad guy. I'd argue that at some point, a paladin who lets himself be tricked in this way or habitually surrounds himself with allies who do is really party to the torture and thus, not particularly good. I can't see how a Maran who picks and chooses which neutrals it decides actually do evil is morally any better.

Soucivi if I recall never killed a good mage. Neutral rager. Absolutes are never true. Is torture inherently evil? My personal stance has always been morality and truth are subjective. Catholics say homosexuality is a sin and they will all go to hell. Does that make it true? I'm pretty sure most gays don't think so.

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." - Jimi Hendrix

>There isn't going to be a neutral character who doesn't do
>something your good character would find objectionable.
>

That is just not true. You are making a blind assumption that all neutrals have some conviction/idea that will drive them to commit evil and thus are no different then any nexan. You can make that statement for other cabal neutrals if you want but not for all neutrals and certainly not for random neutral NPC.

>... I can't see how a Maran who picks and chooses which neutrals it decides actually do evil is morally any better.

The difference is nexan's must stand in the way of the maran, they must maintain their idea of balance and thus MUST do evil. This is a hard statement to make in a convincing manner about ALL neutrals.

condemn a cabal for, essentially, being neutral

I disagree. Neutral is not taking sides or having any part in wars. There are plenty of neutral characters. There is only one neutral cabal, and they sew ####. Nexus however is neutral only when they type score, unless we're talking balancing every good deed with a bad one type of neutral. Give a baby a piece of candy kick an old lady in the stomach. Or maybe the other way around. The real difference here is that most neutral characters not in nexus will have no impact on a maran's job, whereas an entire "neutral" cabal will. Sure, they all have goals that conflict... are any of them to ensure evil remains in the world? If not it isn't even close to the same.

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." - Jimi Hendrix

I can play a good that hates all evils and all neutrals and wax them with impunity so long as I don't accept help or assist or use said neutrals and evil in any way? Sign me up!

Nope. But you can sure justify being plenty surly to Nexus in tells!

Not that you'd be up to the no accepting any form of neutral help part of it, of course.

I may have to give it a go someday.

I've played the non-sylvan-cloud-druid-of-a-Master-imm-during-magic-nature-war.

I've played countless "won't pk in a group"s.

I've played won't accept help from or help in any way anyone chaotic...

heck, I even got empowered by Astein back in the day.(talk about asking for punishment...heh.)


I've played the Necro who was logically (to himself anyway)convinced he was a lightwalker.

I've played the Warlock who won't use any mechanical magic.


Now you got to go mention this, and I have roles running, skipping, prancing (in frilly pink tu-tu's with plastic tiaras and large amber pendulum earings and knee-high green and purple stripped leg-warmers) through my head....


Damn you.

One of these days I'll have to get past newbie-lvls again. All your fault.

".....they just pull me back in!"

I'm not getting baited into this because A) My list of "next characters" is too long already and B) I'm fundamentally opposed to playing good anymore than I have two, and C) I've already got enough goodies on my list. That said, someone will take this up, and I suspect the consequences will be highly negative for them.

Actually, didn't come across quite like that. It seemed that it was just forget about raiding nexus, period, but if there aren't any evils around feel free to put the smack down on them. That could have been me misunderstanding you though. In my view if someone does enough evil it doesn't matter what good they do, they're still in need of a beating. To overuse him just a bit more, if Hitler opened a thousand orphanages and soup kitchens I don't think it would have made anyone want to kill him less. I just really hate nexus, you'll see me play a dozen heralds before one of them.

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." - Jimi Hendrix

I agree with you when it comes to neutrals, generally. We are talking about folks who are active in the Cabal wars though, striking the Tara'Bal with frequency. As a Maran I don't see a hedonistic calculus as being viable. Utilitarianism doesn't vibe with the Maran philosophy which is absolutist (I mean the Creed here). This leads to interesting RP situations, surely, but conflict between Nexus/Maran seems inevitable to me, given the Creed. And not conflict of the transitory sort.

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

I think there's some truth to that; however, how is this different than any other non-evil cabal?

The last time I seriously played Fortress, there were periods (depending on the strength of each cabal) where Tribunal was striking the Tara'Bal frequently and also summon/killing Fort characters from the Fortress. There were periods when Outlander and Battle (minus the summoning) were doing the same.

Does it matter if the reason is "because some of you are criminals", "because some of you are dwarves, conjurers, paladins, etc.", "because some of you are mages", or "because you tip the balance"? My feeling is no, but your mileage may vary.

Personally, I find dealing with non-evils who want to kill me to be the most frustrating part of playing Fortress. It is, for me, the closest Fortress equivalent to not using magic, not using money, or having to futz with donations. It sucks, but dealing with it in some fashion that still preserves your goodness comes with the territory.

My experience was that of all the above *only* the nexus strikes as a cabal. Not all outlanders struck at marans, only a couple I ever saw even tuched the tara'bal. Those that attacked anyone I would mark off as an enemy though. Ragers, again only a couple struck the tara'bal, but they were all enemies anyways whethe I wanted them to be or not. Tribs two of them struck the tara'bal one time and I let them know that #### wasn't flying. Of all those, only one group can really be lumped together as aggresive acts towards us as a whole, warranting being considered all enemies. Now if it happened that all the tribs were attacking, or the other two, sure, declare war and beat them. Where does it say that being good means taking whatever #### is shoveled your way? I hated that when everyone would say that nexans were not tainted, stand up for yourselves people. Wrath is good, righteous anger, smite on.

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." - Jimi Hendrix

>My experience was that of all the above *only* the nexus
>strikes as a cabal.

During Enarn's life that's probably true. To see multiple cabals reach the level of strength to get sassy you'd probably need to keep a character for more than a month or so.

I think Maran does have some answers that don't necessarily involve rolling over and taking it. Part of the trick there is that you end up dragging Acolyte along with you in some things.

With the other cabal's they have good members sometimes they might not have any, but in general they have some. The problem I have with actively hunting/raiding* these cabals as a Maran is that your actions might put you in direct/mortal conflict with these good pcs which as a maran I cannot do. Thus, I don't see treating these cabals as a whole being the same as nexus since all nexan's are neutral there is no possible conflict with a good pc.

(*) This assumes there is some conflict between the groups, evil tribs attacking the maran etc.

That does complicate things, and make them more interesting. It is further compounded by the fact that Maran and Acolyte have the same cabal item. Which is sort of a pity, because if it wasn't the case, you could have much more interesting conflicts between Acolytes/Maran. I can see a decent Maran argument for Acolytes being dangerous, and the Acolyte argument for the reverse is obvious.

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

They use to have seperate items (actually it was dawn not acolytes but same difference you ask me), and the knight was a pain in the ass unless you could solo raid him. Not to mention you'd have to deal with defenders at one inner, then the other.

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." - Jimi Hendrix

Hey, I think Enarn was like two months thank you very much. =P
Edit: I had to go check, Jan 17 - Feb 24. Not two months, but it was more than one damn you!

The acolytes I agree with, but then I don't really like seeing them going to hunt down anyone really. Thing is, this is a game, options are limited really to killing or talking. Tried the talking, which basically came down to I see your point but nothing is going to change. Which leaves killing. I suppose I could try bribery, but that seems pretty weak. Or help a whole bunch of evils to power rank and let them take the orb so the nexans will go fight them =P

And I have had other fort characters, although I don't think any were during the old nexus and this was the only one for the new for any amount of time. I've had battle and outlander characters and I still stick by that raiding the fort is not a norm or even fairly common occurence. Attacking certain members? Sure. Blanket hostility? No.

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." - Jimi Hendrix

In the case of Fort, probably in much the same way they'd accept help from, say, Battle in the future despite Battle having attacked their Outer. (Who, truth be told, attacks at least Fort's a lot more than Nexus does, despite what you'd expect.)

In the case of Outlander, I think it depends a lot on the Outlander. The kind of uncompromising nature zealot Outlander you're describing is definitely a kind of Outlander you could play, but I'd be surprised if at any time even half of the cabal went under that umbrella.

Ultimately, there are characters that shouldn't accept help from Nexus. This doesn't necessarily stop Nexus from providing help whether you want it or not. If you go to get your item back from Empire and half of Empire are dead, or the Vanquisher is already convulsing, what can you really do about it? I've seen some of the more suave Nexus roll this way in just that situation.

I haven't read a ton of Dragonlance (only the first trilogy, actually - Dragons of Summer whatever, Dragons of Winter Night, and Dragons of Spring Dawning(?)). I probably never will, because their char development isn't exactly really really deep, and though I despise the eternal wait between books for the whole Wheel of Time series (and sheer number of books) I still can't wait to get my hands on the next one.

That being said, that first trilogy has some good examples of archetypal roles and how various chars can interact with each other.

In the case of your question, I think we're talking Maran (Sturm, the Paladin-type-guy) and Nexus (Raistlin, prior to going all...evil). Raistlin is very much just trying to survive and gain power. He happens to be along with this group of goodies because it benefits him. Sturm doesn't trust him and would prefer not to have him along, but the rest of the group calms things between them and they make uneasy truces periodically. Raistlin agrees to the truces because he's basically getting his way. Sturm agrees to the truces because it's for the "greater good".

So I sorta view it that way. You know this guy is bad news, but for the "greater good" (getting my item back from Empire) you choose to work with them. Trust is not there, and you are ready to extricate yourself from danger if you need to. (Sturm was always trying to keep one eye on Raistlin and one on the enemy).

You don't. If I know for a fact, as in seen them do it personally, that they attacked any one of my cabal members or an outer or inner guardian, I won't even talk to them. And if I do happen to exchange words, it'll more than likely be something not-so-nice.

Or you could just be neutral towards them. Try and understand that they have their own cause just like you, but don't associate yourself with them.