It's getting pretty ridiculous how the Outlanders are consistently just camo'd outside the Fort. And they're never scared to reap the benefits of it.

Can we at least just please change the streambed leading to the entrance to civilized?

The problem lies mostly within the spectrum of 'team evil' being less of a real entity than it's ever been. Fortlander is not a big issue when you have an organized and balanced group of evils, but it's the worst thing in the world when you're alone going to retrieve.

Empire is structured to have more numbers than any one of its many enemies, but when does it? Scion is a far cry from the days where roaming summon gangs scared most of the playerbase, and even if you're playing an Imperial, Tribunal is more likely to be against you than on your side.

General and simple answer to this: No.

A bit more complicated - I've invited people multiple times to play a serious Fortie that has issues with how much wilderness is outside Redhorn and do a quest, pay for, put the RP and effort in to pave the damn thing. But people would much rather bitch ooc about things.

And, really, the day that happens Fort ranger becomes pretty much unplayable, too. It's already marginal as hell.

But agree with you that even if that awesome type of RP event did happen, there would have to be something to make fort ranger viable.

Follow it up with the Padwei follower that turns the courtyard into a park.

Splntrd

for instance druids are a wilderness class that does seem shackled to wilderness rooms like rangers are.

a

Splntrd

Opposite the defiled grass outside of Scion.

This is blessed ground that has a chance each round to randomly fire off faerie fires, curses, cases fear (Similar to the ranger spell Ancestral Spirit) on any non-good ranger camo'ed there.

Doesn't that make the problem, if we assume for the sake of argument there is one, worse?

If I'm an evil Outlander, lurking outside Fort to catch Empire raiding/retrieving from Fort is one of my better ways to kill Empire, but lurking out there is probably my best way to kill Fort.

My idea still allows for them to hang around, but their are penalties for it, i.e. Fear and Fog. They could just hang out on the planes and rush in, but camping right outside the Maran, not such a great idea anymore.

It's less of a penalty than rangers have camping outside of Scion... which they can't (Unless Bedouin). They need to go to the mountains or get plagues if they come out of hiding at the casm.

Great specific examples and inspiring comments towards the playerbase. This is a perfect example. Not sure how to offset Daevryn's issue below though even if this did happen

It's something I've brought up when I've had Fortress leaders, but nothing ever has happened with it. Maybe things are different now. I think all the Fortlander woes, as well as issues with other cabals, could be addressed by rehashing several cabal locations and trying to make them more balanced.

I have ideas on how to do that, but no point in going into it unless you all are on the same page with that. If you are, let me know?

Have you led Fort since I took it over? I can't honestly remember.

I need to be approached clearly about it, but I'm generally willing to update area files and add/change things by player initiative. That reminds me that I need to update Nexus Island one of these days soon.

I think the last time I was in a leader spot was when it was you and Aarn, and maaaaybe Vynmylak? It was a long time ago, for sure.

I'm pretty sure Vynmylak was gone before I heroimmed, and I don't think I rolled Baer until after Aarn deleted, so. Try the New and Improved Fourth Age Fortress some day!!

nt

I've got a single #### to give...and it's just for you.

nt

Walking in and out of your own cabal gets to be scary as #### when you're playing a combo that dies in two ambushes.

Outside Fortress is mountainous, which is Outlander-friendly.

Outside Empire is civilized. Not Outlander-friendly.

Outside Scion is desert, which I would place as more not Outlander-friendly than Outlander friendly. Add to it the room directly outside is despoiled, it's very not-Outlander friendly.

Therefore, if you're an Outlander and want to find targets of opportunity, Fortress is the best spot to wait for the raid/retrieve game, whether you want to go after good or evil.

Is what I'm alluding to in caps in my post - albeit in a much nicer, clearer way.

Splntrd

My last Fortie was a dwarf.

And I was attacked outside the Fort by Outlanders all the goddamn time. The only one who ever "helped" was another Padwei follower, which is an exception to the rule. They help all goodies.

Fortlander isn't a collusion. Fort is just in power - so geographically that's where people are drawn to. Oh, and the area right outside is wilderness, which is pretty good for an Outlander IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT FOR JUST A FEW SECONDS.

Splntrd

They cleared out mountains to construct a HUGE civilized fortress in the middle of the wilds. To an outlander, that should be a threat. That's more than a fortress. It's a god damn outpost. Look at the romans. They constantly had outposts attacked by the indigenous populations where they went. Why? Because building an outpost like that is offensive to natives. Aside from that, they protect conjurers, dwarves, and paladins. How is that any different from a city guarding the same races and classes? It's crap if you ask me, and it adds to the imbalance of the hero ranges. I bet if a scion and an imperial started ignoring each other in raid situations, and only went after whoever else was there, never each other, that there would be punishment for it. Outlander never gets punished for defending fortress against say, empire or scion retrievers. And I've personally seen with my own eyes fortress elf healers defending the tree while there are nightreavers standing right there. In range, out of range...its total crap to me either way.

I'm pretty set on rolling a cloud giant ranger savage mountaineer outlander VERY soon, and con killing anything that comes out of the fortress. If you think about it, the RP would be perfectly fine to not get turned evil.

>I'm pretty set on rolling a cloud giant ranger savage
>mountaineer outlander VERY soon, and con killing anything that
>comes out of the fortress. If you think about it, the RP would
>be perfectly fine to not get turned evil.

You say that, but I'm the guy who can turn you evil and I don't agree.

I just think its lame that goodies can ignore the fact that half the outlander cabal is evil and are enemies (and hunt maran), and that outlanders ignore the fact that the fortress is a big civilized camp that shelters dwarves, paladins and conjurers (that hunt the reavers)

But if a scion ignored the fact that say, they saw empire as a weak shell of what they were before, and empire ignored the scion betrayers, I GUARANTEE that there would be an uninduct or demotion.

It's sort of funny, kind of a double standard. CF promotes unique roles, and roleplay, and thinking outside the box. Look how defensive you got when someone said they were going to play an outlander how they interpreted them to be played. God forbid any player has a differing opinion about the fortress/outlander relationship and how it should be interpreted. A neutral outlander should not have to have fear of turning evil because they hunt Maran. There are plenty of reasons they would want that fortress removed from the mountains. Just as much as they want any form of city shelter removed.

Didn't PLAYERS change the tribunal policy inducting evils? But a neutral outlander that attacks fort members because he sees them as a direct threat to nature would get turned evil? Like I said, it's your game, but this particular situation I just don't agree with.

... But now I've had 2 nightreavers. And yes, I have camped outside the fortress to kill retrieving scions/empire. But, I've spent even more time camping outside fortress, to kill dwarves, paladins, conjurers.

I've personally never seen a fort healer heal the huntress, but if any of my reavers did, I'd just stand by and watch, unless it was a dwarf healer.

The healer on the other hand, most likely an acolyte, sure as hell wouldn't attack a nightreaver unless it's Shapa, but if it was Shapa he'd be a Maran healer and not an acolyte healer.

But also, I don't see the reason for the acolyte healer to heal the huntress, to sanc/heal goodie outlanders to defend though, that's another story.

Always shoot first and then call whatever you hit the target.

You were a reaver. You were SUPPOSED to be doing that. I would argue if you weren't, you were playing a piss poor outlander.


My arguement is that more harbingers should take a more aggressive stance on the fortress, because of what it is.

Just because in the forts eyes they're doing "good" there with their gold auras, doesn't mean an outlander should see that and be like "Oh, its cool, they aren't so bad. But that palace, thats an abomination!"

Harbingers should hunt ALL dwarves, conjurers and paladins. And in my opinion, harbingers should be able to attack fort without consequence because of what the fort is. Everyone keeps ignoring the fact that the fort is no different than the palace with the exception that the palace has a road leading up to it.


I guess i'm wrong, and neutral outlanders should never attack fort members that are not dwarves, conjies, or paladins. But it just doesn't sit right with me.

>Just because in the forts eyes they're doing "good" there with
>their gold auras, doesn't mean an outlander should see that
>and be like "Oh, its cool, they aren't so bad. But that
>palace, thats an abomination!"

There's a little more difference between what Fort is and what its goals are and what Empire is and what its goals are than that.

Unless you're really really trying hard to find an excuse to justify murdering Fort that's obvious. It shouldn't even require explanation.

>I guess i'm wrong, and neutral outlanders should never attack
>fort members that are not dwarves, conjies, or paladins. But
>it just doesn't sit right with me.

That's not necessarily the point either.

You're aware that there's some gray area between "I might sometimes or situationally attack Fort elf warrior" and "I'm going to perma-camp outside the Fort and make it my life's mission to run the whole cabal out of CON", right?

>I just think its lame that goodies can ignore the fact that
>half the outlander cabal is evil and are enemies (and hunt
>maran), and that outlanders ignore the fact that the fortress
>is a big civilized camp that shelters dwarves, paladins and
>conjurers (that hunt the reavers)

Fort kills evil Outlanders and Outlanders kill dwarves/paladins/conjures in Fort. This happens every day.

But you probably won't see that if you're Empire. (Edit: And if you're Scion and you can't take on both Fortress and Outlander at the same time, you should have rolled Empire.)

A character who wants to run all of Fortress out of con regardless of their rationalization for doing so is evil. Full stop.

Edit: I also question based on the rest of your post if you really understand what being a neutral Outlander is about. It's not my cabal but I feel like the answer is no.

They would be evil to the FORTRESS. In that regard, nexus should be seen as evil to the fortress to. But they aren't. But its not like this giant wouldn't kill imperials, scions, tribunal, and anyone else that wandered into his wilds. Equal opportunity slaughterhouse. Maybe he just particularly takes offense to an outpost in his home.

I don't think the giants acts are inherently evil if he sees almost everyone as a threat to his wilds, and acts on it. Why should he let ANYONE with the stink of civilization live? Unless you're a serious friend to the wilds, I should be able to kill you without remorse.

Nightreavers, on the other hand, should be able to kill anyone, including cabalmates, for whatever they want. They're nightreavers.

A harbinger should have a reason, but if the role was written right, I would be super upset and dissapointed if I got turned evil for what could actually be a really well done role.

If the fortress had a ranger and I didn't attack only him, and I still evil? Sorry if I seem like i'm out of line right now but I totally dont agree with a ranger getting turned evil for hunting all maran, especially with the role command and how diverse roles can be. You didn't turn fjodir neutral or good for hunting basically all evils. His acts were inherently good, so why the difference here?

>I don't think the giants acts are inherently evil if he sees
>almost everyone as a threat to his wilds, and acts on it.

If your role amounts to something similar to "I will kill almost everyone, all the time", I will turn you evil.

>Why
>should he let ANYONE with the stink of civilization live?
>Unless you're a serious friend to the wilds, I should be able
>to kill you without remorse.

Sure, but you're evil.

"I'm evil, but I don't think of myself as evil and have what I consider to be good reasons for all the evil things I do, even though I'm actually evil" describes most of my evil characters, incidentally.

>A harbinger should have a reason, but if the role was written
>right, I would be super upset and dissapointed if I got turned
>evil for what could actually be a really well done role.

Okay, I'm telling you right now to not write that role and play that character if you don't want to be upset and disappointed.

>You didn't turn fjodir neutral or good
>for hunting basically all evils. His acts were inherently
>good, so why the difference here?

I don't think you really understand how the alignment system works. Killing evil doesn't make you good, but killing good can make you evil. The two alignment are opposites but they're not mirror images.

For the record, Fjodir is an immensely more complicated character than you're giving him credit for. Even as much as his concept was to focus on evil he had moments of weakness and frequently did unambiguously evil things. These weren't failings in his roleplay but expressions of it.

>I don't think the giants acts are inherently evil if he sees
>almost everyone as a threat to his wilds, and acts on it.

>If your role amounts to something similar to "I will kill almost >everyone, all the time", I will turn you evil.

I was thinking more along the lines of a specific role for a specific foe. The biggest threat to the wilds in this giants eyes would be the fort and palace, with good reason to him

>Why
>should he let ANYONE with the stink of civilization live?
>Unless you're a serious friend to the wilds, I should be able
>to kill you without remorse.

>Sure, but you're evil.

>"I'm evil, but I don't think of myself as evil and have what I >consider to be good reasons for all the evil things I do, even though >I'm actually evil" describes most of my evil characters, >incidentally.

This is a fair assessment of how evil chars should see themselves, sure. Most of mine play out this way.

>A harbinger should have a reason, but if the role was written
>right, I would be super upset and dissapointed if I got turned
>evil for what could actually be a really well done role.

>Okay, I'm telling you right now to not write that role and play that >character if you don't want to be upset and disappointed.

If I play a battlerager that kills fortress mages, am I still in risk of being turned evil? I could argue that GENOCIDE of all mages, or the fortress encouraging GENOCIDE of all drow and duergar, are inherently evil thoughts in themselves. In my eyes, the fortress is a lot like the Nazi party. They don't think they are in the wrong. They have this idea of a perfect world and they are slaughtering anything that doesn't fit into that mold. Forcing their beliefs of purity on others that don't believe the same thing. I know this is a game and all, but say whatever you want. That's ####ing evil, regardless of how the fortress views themselves So i'm just saying, maybe making that cloud giant evil for his actions is a bit rash, since basically everything in CF is open to interpretation.

>You didn't turn fjodir neutral or good
>for hunting basically all evils. His acts were inherently
>good, so why the difference here?

>I don't think you really understand how the alignment system works. >Killing evil doesn't make you good, but killing good can make you >evil. The two alignment are opposites but they're not mirror images.

>For the record, Fjodir is an immensely more complicated character >than you're giving him credit for. Even as much as his concept was to >focus on evil he had moments of weakness and frequently did >unambiguously evil things. These weren't failings in his roleplay but >expressions of it.

This is fair, I was just trying to find an example to use. My fortress nazi example works fine. I actually had quite a few conversations with Fjodirs player about the choices he made, so I can see why he did what he did.

It's a good argument in my eyes. I'm sure people can argue both ways for it. Like I said though, it's your game at the end of the day, and if you want the mechanics done a certain way, that's how it should be. Just my own opinion on the outlander/fortress thing and how I view it is all.

>If I play a battlerager that kills fortress mages, am I still
>in risk of being turned evil?

If it's just Fort mages and it's that because, really, it's all mages, no.

You might end up neutral if you started good, but not evil if you started neutral.

>So i'm just saying, maybe
>making that cloud giant evil for his actions is a bit rash,
>since basically everything in CF is open to interpretation.

It is open to interpretation. Someone ultimately makes the call on whether or not something is still in neutral country or not. Often that someone is me.

I think there are a lot of valid ways to make a neutral Outlander or a Fort character that ups the friction between those two cabals -- I just don't think that what you've described so far qualifies. If I read the role and my first thought is, "This player must have spent his last character in Empire or Scion and is still pissed off about having to fight Fortress and Outlander together sometimes", you've probably failed.

Appreciate it. I like to duke out a good friendly conflict of beliefs sometimes to try and get a fair view of all angles of it sometimes. I'm far from hard headed, I play every cabal and every align and every class, so whatever I argue for I am eventually going to have to face later anyhow.

I'm glad you stay open minded to interpretation. That is one of the things about this game that keeps me coming back.

Cheers

Generally, when I have Outlanders camping outside my doorstep, they're here to hunt our Paladins/Dwarves/Conjies. If they're Nightreaver-types, then they're probably kicking back at the end of a long day of hunting Paladins/Dwarves/Conjies by ambush/snare/deadfalling me.

Gralnath steps out from his cover.
Gralnath's surprise attack MASSACRES you!
You yell 'Help! I've been ambushed by Gralnath!'
Gralnath is in perfect health.

...Ow

As for your Nazi analogy, the Maran punish action, not bloodline. Acolytes are constantly keeping the zeal of the Maran in check, so that they dont become silvery-white balls of murderfrenzy (before promptly falling from the grace of the Light). Maran who actively hunt the untainted will find that they will not be in the Fortress for much longer. Neutrals who crap all over the Light dont get a 'free pass' per se, but Forties must express a higher level of restraint against them as one of their self-imposed restrictions.

Illanthos Elurien, Führer of the Golden Sun

>As for your Nazi analogy, the Maran punish action, not
>bloodline.

If your logic were true they would not kill children or many other npc's, but they do. Red aura = maran bait. It was an argument had many times and every time the staff came down on the other side (I argued your point, and lost), saying if it has a red aura, kill it. Infant duerg for example. Newborns. Kill it, they said. Le sigh.

>If your logic were true they would not kill children or many
>other npc's, but they do. Red aura = maran bait.

Really, you have to accept that red aura is both psychic and omniscient. You can get it either for evil actions you have done or evil actions you are going to do. Infant duergar? The mystical red aura dispenser in the sky has the foreknowledge that this duergar is going to do evil things.

Sure, there could be a vanishingly rare duergar that will never do enough evil to earn a red aura. And when you find that special Duergar, you will know this, because he won't have a red aura. But if he does have the red aura, then you know he will, because the red aura dispenser is psychic.

nt

Look at a character like Rhone, he was killing non-evil mobs like crazy in a quest to kill evil.

The fact that he was played by an immortal invites discussions of bias. I mean if Tzaritzawah had played the character Rhone he would have been turned evil, booted from the Maran and hunted. But it was played by a well-respected immortal so everyone makes whatever argument is necessary to justify it.

It is the subjectiveness of CF that all of us hate coming into play.

CF is way less subjective than say, DnD.

I accept the subjective parts as part of its charm - it's not a soulless mechanism like WoW.

Splntrd

To this argument, I submit that perhaps the requirements and roleplay time involved in turning an evil race character neutral be lowered, because every time I have seen someone try, they have given up because they either were ignored by their intended immortal savior or they were persecuted to death by Maran.

I am not saying make it smooth sailing, but maybe go a little easier on them to add to the dynamic of the game.

The argument of them having tainted their souls by that point, thereby making it hard to change doesn't really apply, unless that is what is included in their role - because it's their role, not their race, that determines what they have done so far.

A good character (unfortunately this usually seems to happen more often to ones that their patrons don't like) can perform one or two evil or unsavory acts and be shat on forever. This is (usually) normal, and reflects a modernized look at the fantasy-rpg setting.

An evil character, however, can strive for fifty hours of real time (which amounts to years and years of in-game time) and not even lose their red aura?

Never will be a perfect game

I just figured that out, it never will be.

About the best post I ever read, go figure. Thanks nep.

This will help out with my next char role play a lot

I mean anyone playing an evil right now has dealt with Fortlander, there is a ton of posts in this thread, Scion has as many members as Herald, there are no evils allowed in the Spire, and you really want to say Team Goodie from two different cabals should be working together every day?

You either have information you aren't sharing with us, are blind to the truth, or are just downplaying this situation altogether.

This is the exact type of thread where a huge disconnect between players/staff just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

You're kind of hating on a strawman version of what I said, here.

Is Fortlander just a figment of evil players imaginations? Or are you just defending certain specific incorrect examples people are using?

It IS often the case that as an Empire or Scion character you'll find Outlander or Battle lurking near the Fort when Fort has your item, sure.

It's not usually because those cabals are actively colluding, it's more that people go where their enemies are going to be.

It is the case that Fort and Outlander or Fort and Battle fight each other in that same area a lot more than feels like the case when you're playing Empire.

The path outside Fortress is wilderness and Outlander has a home turf advantage in wilderness while in civilized terrain they pretty much lose their powers. It's really as simple as that. Fort doesn't need to call in Outlanders. Outlanders just check Fort frequently because that's where the action is and they have the home turf near them as well.

When was the last time you gave playing a fortie a serious go?

My last was a human conjurer hero. Actually Ive had about 3 of those in the last 6 months. I have also played a bunch of storm warriors, elf muters, and a multitude of other fortress midbies pre 40. In the last 6 months, I would guess about 5 or 6. But I tend to not live characters over a couple hundred hours too.


I am an extremely active CFer. I usually put at least 3-4 hours every day into cf. Sometimes I spend far more time than that, and play long nights too. I'm pretty aware of whats going on at all times in CF, politics and cabal wise.

Maybe I wouldn't have to constantly roll evils if I could get an email back when I asked if you were interested in doing an empowerment character? Tried a couple times now, patiently waiting for the day I can roll my first Baer follower

I wouldn't intentionally not write you back. I looked over my emails from back to Christmas and couldn't find any that I hadn't really written back on. Are you sending from a yahoo acct or something? It's possible you're getting snagged on a spam filter.

That said, unless you're looking for something out of the question like evil Baer druid, I'm open for empowerments with Baer from about 7 am to 3 pm central week days, generally almost always vis, and I like to think pretty approachable. Mergs I want to set up email appts with just cause I don't play her very consistently since Reksah does such a great job running Scion but otherwise - no appt required for Ray or Baer.

This really actually is good to hear. Honestly, not that I've really done anything wrong to warrant it in the past, but I sort of got the impression you didn't like me much. Mainly because we just don't really interact at all with any of our characters/imms, I just figured I was out of favor. Same thing with Daevryn I guess, though I did a great Nepenthe healer back in the day. Part of it is because I deleted Durble after applying to imm without even waiting out an answer after I turned in my stuff. I would be dissapointed with me too.

The email would have been from tfriesejr@gmail.com. I would have to take a look to see when it was sent, it was a while ago though. I just remember trying randomly a couple times over the last year or two, hearing nothing back, then moving on to something else. Now that I have heard something I will for sure try again, a Baer maran is high on my to try list, or a Rayihn nexun. For now though I got my hands full with the absurdly weird role I am trying to play out.

OK you're right, I had one email you from 12.30.10 that I don't appear to have responded to, but I'll use the excuse that right around that time Fussapotamos was super sick, 6 months old, and I'm not sure how much attention I was paying to CF at the time since it was around the holidays.

So I apologize for missing you.

I'm an equal opportunity deadbeat dad as Daevryn at times, despite my best efforts. It isn't personal if you were on the receiving end of it at some point.

I have always wanted to test myself and do a Daevryn follower. I think we could come up with a unique hard list of goals to get done, especially if one of my favorite areas was open

As a conjurer, did you not feel any concern about Outlanders being outside the Fortress?

The ones I see lately seem to be equal opportunity with respect to who they strike. In fact I put a history on one guy that I thought it was kinda weird that he went after storm paladin before mino shaman outside the fort. But he then went after mino shaman next, so I put an "Ah, it's all good" entry in later.

I actually see this sort of behavior a fair amount, and generally the evils in question complain about it almost directly afterward. Either as they've escaped, or as a ghost.

Meanwhile, while they are complaining, often the Outlander they are whining about being buddy-buddy with Fort is either trying to kill some fortguy or running from one.

So let me ask the question again - as a human conjie hero in Fort:
A: Did you call Outlander for help a lot (this is an accusation I see a lot of players making)?
B: Were you never attacked by any Outlanders outside the Fortress?
C: If not, do you think this is because they simply let a conjie walk by, or other reasons?

That when I have played my fort members, I have never really had a strong outlander threat, or any outlander threat really. I'm not sure I can ever really remember any good outlander fights I have been in there as a fort member. Actually maybe none.

So my view is skewed from that particular perspective. I have of course, witnessed epic battles there with other characters both for and against fortress by outlanders.

It always seems to be a problem with my evils though. So from my (limited) perspective, It has seemed like outlander and fortress has been more friendly than I think they should be. Obviously enough people feel this isn't the case where I am ok trusting their judgement.

His logic is sound.

I know what cabal I am not playing next.

Take this with a grain of salt. =)

That part you wrote about smoking weed and jujitsu and then no chance of using it when mma. It made me think a lot on brain chemistry and stuff. Thanks for the last couple days posts heh.

.

x