Three months later, another forum Q&A period. So, for a limited time, ask your questions about Outlander,Tribunal, & General Empowerment!

(Note: I reserve the right to not answer some questions.)

-Marcatis

Thank you for the conversation earlier today.

Here are some assumptions I have about goody outlanders:

1. As compared to other branches they focus more on preservation and less on destruction than neutral or evil. This works with their concern for nature in the way Sylvans used to work. This is to the degree that if a goodie outlander didn't want to fight at all except in cabal defense/raiding he could probably do that. Collect items, get yours back, smell flowers would be a viable (if boring) option.

2. Any Outlander is welcome to kill another Outlander but too much killing Outlanders is probably not classy. If you're a goody and an evil treats you with anything more than quiet disdain, go kick their ass if you can. However, if they are keeping to theirs and ignoring you, you can keep to yours and ignore them. There is no obligation to fight them.

2b. Pretty much don't associate with the Reavers. Don't coordinate with them to go do stuff and certainly don't rat out goodies to them. If anything the reverse.

3. An Outlander goody is going to be a little freer and have a harder edge to them than a Maran or Acolyte. I see this really being a factor in dealing with neutrals. For example if you are goody outlander mage and the only guy on to hunt is RBW arial (not an outlander enemy) you do that on the grounds that, hey, he wants to kill you. Nature protects itself. Where my maran or acolyte probably won't go kill a sentient neutral mob, much less a PC, my goody outlander has no problem with it.

4. When it comes to killing other goods, as you say, you have the option of killing them politely, or not killing them at all. You are not obligated to hunt good aligned dwarves/conjurers/paladins etc. Don't befriend them, but you don't have to kill them. My assumption is if they get in the way while raiding all bets are off - but I would like to hear Baer's take on this. Seems like I heard her or Daev say there is pretty much no allowance for goods killing goods. Or maybe that just pertains to Maran, or maybe just to Baer followers? Does Baer think an Outlander goody can kill a good aligned dwarf or conjurer and still be a tattooed follower of hers?

(Side note, I think you miss out on some very interesting RP when you see other PCS in black and white - sometimes great things happen when you have an enemy that you don't deal with via PK and instead oppose them in other ways.)

5. I'd like to hear a little more in depth commentary on the difference between being of the "Sun" vs. being of the "Light". I feel like there is a distinction here and probably only a handful of active players really get it. What are some relevant differences between the two in your minds?

I think normally you like to learn these things in character, but like I say there probably are only a handful of players who really get it - and probably they aren't playing goody outlander right now. With the volume of players being what it is a lot of the little niche areas of CF (Goody outlander, Scarab etc.) seem a little light on membership. It's good that you are taking some initiative to train players new to a particular area on the general direction their characters should take.

Thanks!

> Seems like I heard her or Daev say there is pretty much no allowance for goods killing goods.

My take on this in general has been that it's not exactly that goods can't ever kill other goods, but that if another good character is basically just another enemy to you to be dealt with the same way you deal with any of your character's other enemies, probably one of you won't be good for long.

I'm not sure if that's too nuanced or gets misquoted into unrecognizability too easily or not.

Personally, I don't think it's *that* hard to avoid good on good warfare. I don't ever like seeing a goodie kill another goodie, to me that goes against the spirit of the alignment.

Baer takes that idea and elevates it. The worst thing in her eyes is a goodie trying to hurt another goodie. For her religion, it's completely unacceptable.

I agree that it isn't hard to avoid good on good PK - especially if both parties are trying to avoid it.

Here are two scenarios:

1:

Baer following Outlander raids Tribunal, takes item.

Good aligned Tribunal logs on, figures out the Scales are at the Refuge and reraids for their item.

No one is around to defend except Baer Outlander.

What should Baer Outlander do here?

2:

Marcatis Tribunal is a shield paladin and raids solo for the fetish - he doesn't care about Baer Outlander being a goody, he just cares that Baer outlander is a cabal enemy and chaotic and he wants him dead.

Baer follower Outlander is the only one to defend the fetish.

What should Baer Outlander do?

Baer Outlander would defend the fetish and attempt to chase off retrievers. Baer outlander would probably make a conscious decision not to actually chase the other goodie with intent to kill.

That is where I would have gone with that - the sticky situation probably being it's hard for the two imms involved (Baer and Marcy Marc) to gauge intent.

As a total non-roleplaying purely mechanical aside, I would really, really not recommend making a character who both will seek Baer's tattoo and will kill goods.

If you are driving off so and so, and not getting a killing blow are you going to run into non-rp purely mechanical troubles?

Correct. Baer tat cares about kb.

>Correct. Baer tat cares about kb.

Which is why you can never have a villager with the bear tat.

Is it really impossible to play a good battlerager who doesn't kill good mages? For honestly real?

>Is it really impossible to play a good battlerager who
>doesn't kill good mages? For honestly real?

On purpose? yeah, probably, but the point is you can't have it both ways, either the rager is saying to the commander "I won't hunt and kill goodie mages" or the rager is saying to you "I will be killing goodie magies", so either way one of you is going to find that unacceptable. Would you ever tat a guy who said he thinks he needs to kill mages, and he's being good because it's for the greater good, blah blah blah, so he's planning on and intending to kill goodie mages? From everything you've said the answer is a flat No. If that's wrong, ok, correct me.

The same is true from a commander, being told there is a whole class of mages I just won't hunt let alone kill. Induct? From everything I've ever seen and heard the answer is a flat No. If that's wrong, ok, correct me.

The flaw is that you assume a villager needs to kill goodie mages. this assumption may be true of most commanders but a villager who doesn't kill goodies can be done.

Might be easier to manage as a non berserker.


Heck even as a villager who tries to kill goodie mages you have a significant chance of never doing so due to the shear rarity of goody mages in general.

>The flaw is that you assume a villager needs to kill goodie
>mages. this assumption may be true of most commanders but a
>villager who doesn't kill goodies can be done.
>
>Might be easier to manage as a non berserker.
>
>
>Heck even as a villager who tries to kill goodie mages you
>have a significant chance of never doing so due to the shear
>rarity of goody mages in general.


You're talking about ability, I'm talking about intent. It's not about how good you are at actually killing good mages and if you just get lucky and never kill one. It's about telling the commander - before you get inducted - that you intend on never hunting or killing any goodie mages, ever. No commander is ever going to induct someone who says there is a whole group of mages safe from a villager.

I would give them a hard time about it but I would allow it for a goody villager.


It is not so different than a thror defender not healing others

There was a time even when all of the village leaders were elves

> No commander is ever going to induct someone who says there is a whole group of mages safe from a villager.

I can't remember who, but I'm pretty sure I've seen this happen at some point.

Although I personally probably wouldn't make that character because I'd feel like I was rolling the dice on how likely the leader(s) were to support my concept.

Knowing now what Malakhi has said that char would have been above the top 1/3rd of village mage kills as only an applicant and couldn't get the time of day from the commander after I said I wouldn't kill goodies.


Eventually I killed a goody mage and the commander made up something about how now I couldn't be in the village because I was too fickle.

The plan was to be a village baer follower

...if they rationalized it in a way that made sense to my character.

However, it's shades of gray. I also would have uninducted a goodie rager if I saw them not attack a group of goodie mages that were ganging down some poor neutral villager at the Giant (not that that would have happened, but for context).

While Outlanders are theoretically neutral-centric, chaotic heavy, the cabal philosophy doesn't really lean good or evil specifically. Though not required, I believe the basic ideas of protection and killing do have a tendancy to lean towards good, and evil respectively. Tribunal has always had a slight good lean (and I do like current policies which do further seperate Tribpire), and BattleRagers almost always lean towards N/E. Any time your entire philosophy on life involves eradicating a certain group of people, it's a lot easier justifying that as a N or E. That, and being generally viewed as a barbaric culture (as well as just what CF *IS*) certainly doesn't encourate random good talking up good mage about stopping what he's doing.

Not saying it's not possible, just saying you'd really be pushing the standards of the BattleRager role.

I think I killed 4? in my 300 hrs.

I pretty much tried to avoid them as much as possible.

I think I did. Atleast, if they were good and I killed them...I'm not sure if I even knew. But it IS possible. I took the RP angle that elves were superior to other races though. It is hard as a battle rager when you honestly dont know what the alignment of your opponent is half the time. Sometimes, I wish elves got detect evil as part of their infravision.

I will be the judge of that! Making a bear berserker tonight.

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

You raise a lot of points/questions. I will respond in part, though you are right in that I firmly believe a lot should be in character.

See responses commented below:

>Thank you for the conversation earlier today.
>
>Here are some assumptions I have about goody outlanders:
>
>1. As compared to other branches they focus more on
>preservation and less on destruction than neutral or evil.
>This works with their concern for nature in the way Sylvans
>used to work. This is to the degree that if a goodie
>outlander didn't want to fight at all except in cabal
>defense/raiding he could probably do that. Collect items, get
>yours back, smell flowers would be a viable (if boring)
>option.
>
To an extent what you're suggesting (and i'm concurring with) is that there can be "acolytes" and "maran" sunwarden outlander types. There are many role playing perspectives on good, and they may be more or less aggressive.

>2. Any Outlander is welcome to kill another Outlander but too
>much killing Outlanders is probably not classy. If you're a
>goody and an evil treats you with anything more than quiet
>disdain, go kick their ass if you can. However, if they are
>keeping to theirs and ignoring you, you can keep to yours and
>ignore them. There is no obligation to fight them.

Violence is perfectly natural. There is no problem with outlanders settling disputes with blood, and should make sense on a basic level. Now ambushing the goodie healer you dislike while they're communing rejuvenate on the outer would be bad form, but if Reaver Bob starts talking about destroying every elf he can find while chilling at the cabal and you want to disrupt his bones, have at it. Again, not mandatory to engage, but even if you don't want to kill Reaver Bob, you probably don't want to insta-shield/sanctuary him. Outlanders share a common dream (with the caveat that they no doubt have different views on that dream); however, just because you agree on a big picture doesn't mean you agree on how you get there--nor should you feel you can't settle your disputes in a natural bloody fashion.

>2b. Pretty much don't associate with the Reavers. Don't
>coordinate with them to go do stuff and certainly don't rat
>out goodies to them. If anything the reverse.
>
I think this has been covered. Play your alignment--if you want to be neutral, roll as neutral. Now, if you're foolish enough to sanc a reaver, I don't think the reaver is to blame. The reaver just got good stuff to go hunt goodies. To an extent, I will say I expect more of the sun types, just as I think we all expect a paladin to walk a harder road than an anti-paladin.

>3. An Outlander goody is going to be a little freer and have a
>harder edge to them than a Maran or Acolyte. I see this really
>being a factor in dealing with neutrals. For example if you
>are goody outlander mage and the only guy on to hunt is RBW
>arial (not an outlander enemy) you do that on the grounds
>that, hey, he wants to kill you. Nature protects itself. Where
>my maran or acolyte probably won't go kill a sentient neutral
>mob, much less a PC, my goody outlander has no problem with
>it.
>
This is going to depend more on your character. If I play a goodie, regardless of cabal, I don't generally want to hurt neutrals.

>4. When it comes to killing other goods, as you say, you have
>the option of killing them politely, or not killing them at
>all. You are not obligated to hunt good aligned
>dwarves/conjurers/paladins etc. Don't befriend them, but you
>don't have to kill them. My assumption is if they get in the
>way while raiding all bets are off - but I would like to hear
>Baer's take on this. Seems like I heard her or Daev say there
>is pretty much no allowance for goods killing goods. Or maybe
>that just pertains to Maran, or maybe just to Baer followers?
>Does Baer think an Outlander goody can kill a good aligned
>dwarf or conjurer and still be a tattooed follower of hers?
>
> Side note, I think you miss out on some very interesting RP
>when you see other PCS in black and white - sometimes great
>things happen when you have an enemy that you don't deal with
>via PK and instead oppose them in other ways.)
>
Good on good violence will happen for both trib and outlander--particularly since they contain both in their membership. Again, that isn't to say I want to see much good on good hunting and killing, but if you're defending against a trib raid and a goodie trib bites it, i'm not changing your alignment. Now if you begin emoting how you're having his corpse defiled or some of the other things I've discussed before, that begins to cross a line. Friendship also isn't "impossible", take your peace loving outlander and peace loving trib--they could both have a grudging respect and fondness even though they differ in desires.



>5. I'd like to hear a little more in depth commentary on the
>difference between being of the "Sun" vs. being of the
>"Light". I feel like there is a distinction here and probably
>only a handful of active players really get it. What are some
>relevant differences between the two in your minds?
>
Anything here would be purely rp. I don't believe you have to see any differences, though one probably could. Through a role and a coherent set of beliefs, you can make an argument for almost anything.

>I think normally you like to learn these things in character,
>but like I say there probably are only a handful of players
>who really get it - and probably they aren't playing goody
>outlander right now. With the volume of players being what it
>is a lot of the little niche areas of CF (Goody outlander,
>Scarab etc.) seem a little light on membership. It's good that
>you are taking some initiative to train players new to a
>particular area on the general direction their characters
>should take.
>
>Thanks!

It seems like we're more or less on the same page. For a second there you guys had me thinking a Baer following Outlander was out of the question.

Also, I got a chuckle that you started your post by stating,

"You raise a lot of points/questions..."

not,

"You raise a lot of GOOD points/questions..."

For one thing, I'd differ on Outlander goodies necessarily having a harder edge to them than Marans or Acolytes. That'd go for neutrals, too, for that matter. I'd say good Outlanders can run the exact same kind of gamut as Fortress characters do - from righteous environmentalists to healer/protector types and everything in between. The primary difference is that the good Outlander assigns additional morality on nature and immorality on the destruction of nature as the highest moral concern, while the Fortress type is concerned with sentient good and sentient evil individuals.

As for Outlander goods killing goods, it pretty much shouldn't happen. I'll never say never, but I'd go farther than to say "you're not obligated to hunt good dwarves/conjurers/paladins" to say "as a good, you're pretty much obligated NOT to hunt them, but as an Outlander, you'll treat them with a healthy dose of suspicion." Frankly I'd even be OK with a good Outlander forming situational alliances with such individuals, provided such decisions were made consciously and thoughtfully and against common enemies (mostly in the case of paladins, dwarves, or thieves/assassins, where the wariness is inspired by associations and culture - rather than with, say, conjurers, where the objection is based intrinsically on the type of magic practiced.) So, you'd really get no guff from me if a good Outlander, for example, chose to team up with a dwarven paladin of Amaranthe to hunt down a dangerous necromancer.

I know a lot of people find it complicated. The Decree of Outlanders is largely by my design, I sometimes look at it in retrospect and think - perhaps we really should have designed something more straightforward.

The bottom line is, Outlander is a cabal that offers a lot of dynamic PK possibilities that force you to really establish an individual ethic based on the premise of environmentalism and how it relates to your character's alignment and worldview. The Decree has offered some guidelines as to why various races and classes might be considered a threat to nature. Some are straightforward (like necromancers), and others are gray areas. Early on in the cabal when I was active with immortal guidance, I even tried to actively foster selective relationships with good Outlanders and select dwarves, etc, and evil Outlanders and select orcs, etc, specifically with the intent of creating conflict and drama *within* the cabal.

The whole initial premise is that the Ancients represent conflicting spirits/forces of nature that are eternally at odds, but the threat of expansive civilization has forced a tenuous alliance. But even on that goal, the Ancients differ - some want to return Thera entirely to its primordial state, and others are content to allow confined pockets of eco-friendly civilization exist in harmony with the land.

The very idea of being *moral* and *good*, however, involves some level of tolerance and desire for peace with moral sentient beings. The decree can absolutely foster *prejudices* for all Outlanders - but *prejudice* is not to be equated with being *genocidal* against non-evils in the case of Good Outlanders.

And dwarves/paladins/conjies aside, a good Outlander who runs across a goodie slaughtering bears and wolves is going to find themselves with a decision to make if said poacher does not cease and desist. (And if the alignment is not immediately apparent of the alleged poacher? What then?)

So it's complicated and in many cases as clear as mud, but it is a chaotic cabal, and one which challenges many characters to come up with a really cohesive understanding of what their character is doing and why, PKwise, especially in the case of good aligns. The cabal is not for those who want clear G vs. E play.

j

1. What exactly should elf tribunal paladin your follower do when there is criminal elf fortress paladin online? Your follower offers criminal paladin to turn himself in, but he refuses. What to do next?

2. Do tribunals need to spend some % of their time in the city they guard for anything? If yes - how much % of their time.

3. Should elf tribunal paladin your follower fight any goodie outlander in any situation? When exactly if yes?

1. There isn't really a single answer to this question; I think the person's actions should follow their logical thought process--that might be to avoid them as long as they are out of the city, or to hunt them, or something else altogether. However, I would say that there are things they clearly shouldn't do...convince empire to raid the fort, or full loot/sacrifice all, or start calling their mother every name in the book.

2. I'm going to make this a bit broader in response to help explain some of my perspective on tribunal. More than any other cabal, I view Tribunal as a "job" insofar as you've taken up a certain role in the towns. If you want to be promoted up the ranks, you'll need to spend a certain amount of time on the job. That doesn't mean necessarily in Seantryn Modan, just being on duty.

3. I"m going to point you back to 1, but with a bit more detail. As noted in the helpfile, Marcatis is anti-chaos just as anti-evil. I could see those guys fighting with ease, but again their should be thought and interaction when feasible.

Baer would put goodness over ethos, and Marc sort of does the opposite. Just kind of interesting.

I don't want to come off as praising Good on Good violence...however, it will happen (particularly in his third case of outlander goodie v. tribunal goodie). Alignment does matter, as does action and behavior, and it annoys me when it doesn't appear to.

As an example, though this is from outlander, there was a case about a month ago where an evil who I really liked kept getting healed, with no conversation, no interaction, by a good outlander. In point of fact it was occurring after the evil retreated from fighting a fortress invoker. Were this invoker raiding, sure, I get it, but beyond that--you two shouldn't like each other. Share an item? Definitely. But insta healing and haste? That's just silly.

So if a tribunal paladin wants to hunt a criminal, that's fine. If that criminal is another paladin, that is also acceptable, but it should be clear that they do not relish it, and should avoid poor choices (like those mentioned in the earlier post).

What do you look for in a Vindicator? How many criminal kills? Is it more than just criminal kills?

Also, What do you look for in a Justiciar? This one seems a lot harder to quantify unless you actively watch someone.

btw, I am using Drident's experience to put together a list of city specific badge/power ideas that I mentioned the last time you did this. I will be sending it to you shortly I hope.

Something that perhaps only Tribunal leadership realizes is that the bureaucracy extends both ways. A provost chooses their provincial magistrates (with only as much oversight as they requests ), and similarly justiciars and vindicators come off the recommendation of the Provost (although not their direct selection). In other words, to get those jobs you'll likely have to be supported up by your direct superior (think of it as a meritorious promotion case).

From what I look for, it is often more about what the player does with a character. Some of my favorite vindicators have been terrible at pk but brought a lot of heart to the role. I will say that if you've been promoted up to provincial and likely on the way to more, I've probably seen you a fair amount.

I know you may be looking more for clear guidelines, but I would say everything is taken into account--including your preferences, your time of service, dedication, and whatever memories I've formed of you.

You are like the great mystery of CF imms - always around, always there to interact with people who want you but otherwise almost no presence. How long have you been around? What's your philosophy behind the way you run your cabal and religion? Is it true you're Pico?

Inquiring minds......

nt

I'm not Pico. Beyond that, let me say that I believe the mystery is worth keeping. My biggest fear about these occasional forum posting periods is the possibility of losing that mystery. Admittedly we are all just people behind screens, but I want and hope that interactions are dramatic and unexpected events.

I will say that some people get a small interaction and may not even realize it, or in the case of the battle cabal periodically, annoyed by it.

Regarding philosophy, from a cabal management standpoint, I want the mortal leaders to be in charge. I want to be easily accessible, but not overshadow what they do. People should know that Tryphen or Grafacut are the points of power, with imms as the watchful option of last resort.

That still happening? Isn't it well past any of the players who would have implemented it? Doesn't changing Tribunal to G/N (sort of) only sort of change that cabals dynamic?

Good morning,

This remains the current tribunal policy. I think its important to recognize that Tribunal is a bureaucratic entity; until it is changed, which would take real action from mortal members, it (or any other policy) would likely remain in place.



Regarding the cabal dynamics, I agree it does, but I don't believe that this is necessarily good or bad. Personally, I believe changes can be very interesting both from an RP and a practical outcome standpoint(such as a cabal like empire becoming gender segmented, favoring males always over the females of their ranks).