When I played a few goodies back in the day, Maran was a good mix of holier then though types who obeyed all the rules, and han solo rebels who are rough around the edges do the right thing. With my last few applicants it seems like the Maran code has been replaced with the Paladin code. Everyone is expected to act orderly good. It just seems kind of lame. I remember being turned away from the cabal with a character because I looted an item from the corpse of a neutral and they bitched to the then Marshall about it and I was told I should be following the Paladin code. Even with the few I made it into the cabal with it seems so overly Paladinish now with no room for chaotic goods. Like apparently they aren't allowed to attack evils in town now so I can just hide there whenever I run from them. seems silly that these "MUST STOP EVIL AT ALMOST ANY COST" completely back off if you walk into any of the Theran cities. Has this change been a player driven one that has become dogma, or more likely the Imms nudging leaders towards this?

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

Get rewarded.

Seriously, the "real" Maran I have seen over the past few years always get love.

So do the well rped "softer" Maran.

But yeah, tell Gihn or Balrahd or Java that their hardass Maran's got booted/hated/ignored, hell mine for that matter.

It didn't happen.

-Larcat

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

Being a right proper Baer paladin. Now, you could attack in town (AFAIK) as long as you had a damn good reason not to be wanted.

Because Maran's don't kill goodies. And damnit wouldn't you know it there is like 324712874973274732489723589732578982735 goodie Aggro-wanted mobs in the game.

Arrna did the no looting unless it's your own kill. God knows Jalim and I (and several other people) didn't agree with it, but it's a stance I can understand and applaud (just don't think it's necessarily right for all builds). That isn't to say if you're Joe LVL 43 Human Warrior and Ahtieli up and dies right in front of you, you can't loot the piss out of her (at least I'd do it, Cabal "rule" be damned).

Really depends on the mortal leaders and what they want to enforce.

Depending on the circumstances, I might look negatively on looting stuff from a neutral guy. Or I might not. It really depends on the situation.

I think some of the rules in place currently are a bit stiff at times. But then this is at the discretion of the leadership. Some people accept the current style of leadership, others do not. Ideally, it'd be nice if everyone playing the game can all have fun at one time, and that everyone is pleased and content. That just isn't the case all the time.

But to realistically change things, either stick things out and become leader yourself. Talk to the current leaders (via a crazy little thing called roleplay) and see if they are willing to ease up things. Or you could just piss and moan and not play Fortress at all (which could lead to you rolling up an evil, and killing those bitches).

>When I played a few goodies back in the day, Maran was a good
>mix of holier then though types who obeyed all the rules, and
>han solo rebels who are rough around the edges do the right
>thing. With my last few applicants it seems like the Maran
>code has been replaced with the Paladin code. Everyone is
>expected to act orderly good. It just seems kind of lame. I
>remember being turned away from the cabal with a character
>because I looted an item from the corpse of a neutral and they
>bitched to the then Marshall about it and I was told I should
>be following the Paladin code.

What's the context here?

Is this a neutral that attacked you and you killed?

Or is this you're running down the road, see a wide copper in a corpse, and go "yoink!"

Because I'd argue... that's... not really a good act. It's not "chaotic good" instead of "orderly good"... it's just not good at all. I would support a leader who saw that and told you to piss off, although there are certainly people in the Fort right now that I've seen done this and made snarky comments in the imm comments of.

>Even with the few I made it
>into the cabal with it seems so overly Paladinish now with no
>room for chaotic goods. Like apparently they aren't allowed to
>attack evils in town now so I can just hide there whenever I
>run from them. seems silly that these "MUST STOP EVIL AT
>ALMOST ANY COST" completely back off if you walk into any of
>the Theran cities. Has this change been a player driven one
>that has become dogma, or more likely the Imms nudging leaders
>towards this?

Player-driven, and may I add, in case you were unaware, defaulting to blaming the imms for things you don't like makes you come off as an asshole.

That being said, Baer paladins have to actually obey the part of the paladin code about the laws, because Baer is a hardass about living up to oaths you swore. In that sense, I guess you could blame Baer for recent-Fort-leader Sarien (a Baer paladin) for deciding that the rest of the Fort should live up to his standard. . . but he's dead and gone now, so...

Sarien may have been the originator of the restrictions against attacking in town, but I think Arrna is still supporting them.

I'm pointing that out because your last sentence sounded like you thought (or were implying that) the original poster (and the current forties) might be living under rules that are no longer enforced, when they are.

Splntrd

>Sarien may have been the originator of the restrictions
>against attacking in town, but I think Arrna is still
>supporting them.

Correct.

Here's the real test for that though. What if it were reversed? What if the mortal leadership decided to go the other way and say that "evil should be safe nowhere, you have as much a duty to attack them in a tribunal city as anywhere else. More even, to show that we don't fear or worry about sacrificing ourselves to achieve our goals" and mandates that anyone who *won't* hunt evil in towns can't be a member of the cabal.

That would mean all Baer paladins (at least) would be unable to join the fortress. Do you think that would be allowed?

Make leader and implement it.

It'll get repealed in a week of course, but I want to see the forum posts of you rejecting Baer paladins when you ask that interview question.

Baer is still in charge of the Fortress. She would put her foot down, if leaders made rules that countered her most fundamental beliefs.

You can't expect an Imm's RP to be ignored entirely. Particularly the Imm that leads that cabal.


And yeah, I agree the 'no attacking in town' rule was retarded. I would have fought it, except it happened to be one of the rare times I didn't have a char in Fort.

Eh. No, I don't think it would be allowed, but I think if you took a more moderate position and roleplayed disappointment in and disdain for Brigade members who refused to attack in town you'd probably be fine. I think it'd be pretty cool, actually.

Splntrd

Baer believes in finding your own path, using smart battle tactics to approach pretty much everything in life, and generally if you're going to be a leader you should lead. Therefore, I am pretty hands off with the way the leaders run the cabal as long as what they do stays within the basic dogma of the cabal and remains what I believe to be 'good aligned'. I think your situation is one that would probably never come up but if it did just happen to I would probably gently nudge that leader to thinking more on what benefits the light instead of what just benefits their ideals. IE, part of being "good" is accepting that there are many flavors of goodness and while you don't have to agree with them, you should respect them. I've never come down on anyone for breaking one of the Fort leader's laws either for that matter. Nor do I tend to tattle tale unless one of the Fort leaders asks. Personally, I think allowing this sort of freedom to the mortal leadership of a cabal enhances the RP aspect instead of takes away from it. Nexus is run similarly.

The problem here is the inherent inconsistency.

You say "accepting that there are many flavors of goodness and while you don't have to agree with them, you should respect them."

Ok. Then why weren't the leaders "nudged" to let those that want to attack in town? Why wasn't that flavor of good accepted?

The point being on the one hand you have an exclusionary policy (forcing people to exclude their rp if it means attacking evils in tribunal protected cities) that you as fort imm (not as jaguar religion) say ok and do nothing. But on the other hand if you had an exclusionary policy (forcing people to include in their rp the attacking of evils in tribunal protected cities) that went the other way, you would in fact intervene and try to get the leader to change.

Bottom line, you are making the fortress follow your religion, even if it means to the exclusion of the rp of non-baer people. Which makes it more like scarab and less like fortress.

I agree with you, if you're going to be a leader, you should lead, and that's why my fortressite under Sarien didn't attack in town. It was a deliberate decision to follow that. But if the next leader went the other way and in fact encouraged or demanded attacking evils in town, by your own words you'd have been more interventionist.

And I think you're right, it probably wouldn't come up, because you'd never make someone with those beliefs leader. Which is a result of your religion's dogma, not fortress. That's the problem right there.

If you really meant it when you said "allowing this sort of freedom to the mortal leadership of a cabal enhances the rp" then you'd be fine with having a leader that does exactly what I describe. That would force the baer paladins of the time to make a choice between their religion and their cabal. Couldn't have both. What's wrong with that? It's the same choice you've been willing to accept for all the characters that want to attack evil in town but don't because the leader's outlawed it....

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

No, more that you just like to use it as a cop out when you don't have anywhere else to go. And your doing so is what imbues such threads with distaste, changing from discussion to confrontation.

You argue when there's nothing to argue about. Distaste is developing on this thread, but it's toward you, from me. Just stop.

The person who made that rule (Arrna) is a follower of Iunna, not Baerinika?

She has her reasons for making that rule, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Baerinika's religion. It actually had to do with a deal with Oethipius, in that he was trying to cleanse the Spire and they didn't want to interfere with one another.

And for the record, not attacking in town has nothing to do with Baerinika's religion, exactly. It has to do with her view of the Paladin Code. From an IC perspective, she would probably not be a fan of ANY Paladin that attacked in town, because she would view it (again.. IC) as breaking an oath.

FYI, I had a tatted Baerinika Shaman, that was Captain of Fort and I frequently attacked in town. I also acted a little peeved whenever someone refused to fight in town (if no Magistrates were present). She didn't seem to care about that at all.

But you CAN'T expect ANY Immortal to entirely disregard their own role in respect to the cabal. Baerinika is an actual being, with actual opinions, and actual power. She leads the Fortress, and it's plain retarded to expect the Fortress to ever go completely opposite of her beliefs.

That's like saying your Captain of the Brigade will make a rule "Any goodie that joins a cabal with evils is to be hunted". It doesn't matter if you try to make that rule, it will simply be overruled by her.

Baer is actually giving the players a little leeway in that she only nudges Leaders against the 'must attack in town' rule you suggest. Realistically, she should be much more strongly opposed to that idea than she suggests she would be.

It's a misconception to say "Baer followers can't attack in town." Baer PALADINS cannot break the law. This is her sphere purity showing. There is a Paladin Code, it's black and white. It says respect the laws, that means don't break the ####ing law. End of story. None of her other followers have to follow that, though, only the ones who have signed up to follow the Paladin Code. Your chaotic good sha can attack in town all day. Go get those evil bastards!! Baer gives it a thumbsup. Baer is NOT orderly.

It says respect the laws, that means don't break the ####ing law.

Respect the laws does not equal don't break the laws. You as a paladin have to decide what exactly respect means to you.

nt

In general that's true. (Although there aren't a lot of ways to actually respect the laws and break them a lot, you've got some options.)

With respect to that specific religion... no.

I agree with you that breaking the laws *a lot* would be difficult to mesh with an orderly paladin. But a handful of times in several hundred hours?

Have you always done what your parents wanted, every single time, your whole life? Do you still respect them? Teachers? The list is endless. Respect does not equal obey in every instance. That's the disconnect we seem to be having.

A disconnect which is easy to fix by the way. If you really wanted it to mean that, just change the paladin code to say "Obey the laws" and all this goes away. If not, it's because you *want* there to be a difference between respect and obey, you want paladins to have the roleplay option.

He essentially agreed with everything you just said (only he said it a lot more simply): "Yeah, a paladin can break the laws here and there."

What he concluded with is that a Baerinika paladin isn't going to get away with it.

You can argue that point all you like, but it's Baerinika's religion, that's how it is, so arguing it is just going to make you look stupid.

It's a bit like arguing that Twist should tattoo warriors because warriors can use potions. You aren't wrong that warriors can use potions, but Twist isn't likely to tattoo one anytime soon. And you arguing that I should won't change it.

For exactly the reasons Twist labeled.

What the fuc.k is your problem?

It's Baerinika's religion. She can run it however she wants. It's her interpretation. If you don't agree, then GTFO.

There may be a qualitative difference between asking hard-core dude not to attack evil in town and asking baer-pally to attack evil in town.

In the former case, hard-core dude isn't violating his moral code. He's still doing everything he can to kill evil, albeit subject to someone else's restrictions.

In the latter case, baer-pally would need to violate his moral code in order to be a part of the fortress.

You might respond with, "Yeah, but what if hard-core dude's moral code is that he must achieve the greatest net anti-evil effect, and joining fortress means he's not achieving the greatest effect, thereby violating his moral code?"

In that case he'd have to evaluate the opportunity cost of joining fortress (i.e. can't attack evil in town) vs. the benefits he'd receive (powers, and greater ability to work with other people who have the same ultimate goal). I'm thinking for most people "joining fort" will still achieve the greatest net anti-evil effect and so would mesh with hard-core dude's moral code *despite* the no-attacking-in-town policy.

Cool, that's all I was really curious about. I guess my title and tone came off a little harsher then I meant it to be. Thanks for answering.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

I remember when playing my last fortresite, when Malthia (elf-bard villager) came to the fortress to try to kill some of us goodie mages. She proceeded to sleep 2-3 of us while we were trying to defend agaisnt Scion/EMpire (I cant remember which one). She then finishes off the outer guardian and ENTERS the fortress. I prepped up and was going to take her out and you warned me not to touch her.

Kind of lame, yes. I understand as a mage we can avoid harming other goodies, but come on...entering a cabal when you are clearly not welcome, striking the guardian, sleeping and attacking your cabal mates, and you still warn us not to defend ourselves.

Maran needs to have more hard ass, evil must die, period.

Kind of a lame cabal anyhow, but with few options for someone wanting to oppose the evil cabals...we are kind of stuck with it/you.

Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torment of man.

I disagree that obeying the part about laws in the paladin code means obeying the laws. It doesn't say "Obey" tribunal law, it says respect them. And being orderly isn't being lawful. All of which I know I don't need to tell you, but it seems a bit disingenuous for the staff to create a deliberately ambiguous code that is easily interpreted differently and then to say there is only one way to read it. You can respect something without obeying it 100% of the time.

Good times, sometimes.

There's only one way for that particular religion to read it.

Hey, it's her religion, whatever she wants, goes. That's cool.

Don't just respond to the aside though, punk!

Wasn't defaulting to blame the Imms at all, but there's really only two options is it player driven or an Imm policy which is what I was asking. No need to be offended. Because if it's player driven it can be changed, if it's Imm policy it's a lot harder.
As for the nuetral I looted a piece of gear from I guess I always thought chaotic good was like a robin hood type. He stole from rich merchants who I'm sure weren't all evil. So good thieves can only steal from evil? I guess I can see the fine line there.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.