If I am chaotic evil and in a cabal. Will I be allowed to kill who I want for any reason?

Does being CE give me the wriggle room to justify why I wiped out a non-enemy or just randomly target people?

Or am I expected (And held to account) that by signing up for a cabal that my own personal behavior must fall in line with cabal goals.

This is not a Nexus rant.

As others have said, pick a role, and roleplay it faithfully, and your character is a success.

That said, everyone else has their role, and if they are playing it faithfully, then you playing your role faithfully might result in negative consequences for your character, including but not limited to cabal eviction.

Getting booted from a cabal in and of itself is not a failure the way I see it. For example, let's say a Baer follower was in Outlanders and outright refused to kill a good-aligned individual, ever. Let's say they were particularly zealous about their faith, and refused even to kill a paladin Provost who was raiding. (NOT to be confused with RP rationalization for apathy - they RPed the situation - showed up, pleaded, healed the Huntress and Spirit, maybe even attacked the paladin to try to drive them off but avoided lethal blows - and immediately went to retrieve if all else failed - but just out-and-out refused to kill the paladin.)

This character might get evicted for their stance, by either the mortal leader or an imm. They might not. Interpersonal dynamics are at play here.


A boot in this case is not a failed character. It's a consequence of the character's actions. If that consequence occurred as a result of the player remaining true to the character's role, I consider that character a success. The character might re-enter the cabal at some point, or might go on another path - and live a really interesting, involved life and enjoy great fame and rewards.

The CE example is a little hairier, because the alignment is permissive rather than restrictive. I've seen CE Outlanders do the indiscriminate killing in the past. I even booted one from the cabal not all that long ago. Are they *allowed* to kill whoever they want for any reason? Sort of. In assessing such a character, I try to look at the whole picture. If the character is killing indiscriminately while completely ignoring cabal goals, then out they go. The character I booted last in this situation, I don't consider a successful character - as not only did they kill indiscriminately, but neglected RP of awe when confronted by the Ancients about the situation. Basically the response was a sort of "#### you - I don't care what the Ancients think."

Some might argue that this is is still legitimate RP, because he's a chaotic evil sociopath that knows no fear or whatever, but I am rarely convinced of this argument. The foaming-mouthed nihilistic criminally insane murderer character is 99% of the time, I am convinced, a powerplay - the PLAYER knows that there are no consequences of meaning (since it is, after all, just a game), so they play their character as if their character knows this, too. If you were reading the character in fiction, you'd think the character was poorly-written drivel. All characters of substance have restrictions and limits.

That said, it's still within the rules of the game to play your shallow drivel chaotic-murder character if you want, and so long as there are no rules violations you will be left to play as you please. Cabals, however, are for characters who embrace some level of substance.

Cabal evictions or not should have nothing to do with the quality of RP, but be based solely on what the character contributes to the cabal goals vs. how much the character infringes on rules or counterworks cabal goals. I.e. net cabal contribution.

RP quality is handled well through other reward incentives +- immexp, rewards, etc. And blatantly going OOC is a rules violation.

Basing cabal leadership decisions on stuff like the amount/quality of emotes just destroys immersion for me, because it is a completely irrational and OOC thing for a cabal leader to do, making it poor RP by the cabal leader (including cabal imms).

There is not a single cabal where RP is not part of your equation. Excellent RP based on cabal ideology "contributes to cabal goals", and crummy RP that counters cabal ideology absolutely "counterworks cabal goals." I wouldn't expect any character to be evicted for mediocre RP, but RP that flips the proverbial bird at the cabal's ideology is absolutely an evict-worthy consideration.

There is "blatantly going OOC", and just crappy RP that isn't necessarily OOC. If an Outlander wants to RP that Ancients are illusions and that he's personally nothing more than a beast whose primary purpose in life is to butcher anything and anyone that he's strong enough to kill, including neutral uncaballed druids walking by in the forest, then I don't care how many times he's retrieved the fetish or raided Tribunal - his RP is crappy and shallow and is not backed by cabal philosophy, and he is risking eviction. However, he's not blatantly going OOC or breaking any rules.

You're not purchasing cabal membership by keeping up with an enemy/raiding checklist - you are signing on to the collective RP philosophy of the cabal.

I think you took my "Cabal contribution" more narrowly than I meant it. It wasn't just about raiding/retrieving or killing enemies although that is of course a big part of it.

But the examples you gave:
- Outlanders killing unaffiliated druids for fun could counter cabal goals since the druid probably is a potential recruit/ally. It could also help the outlander cause by scaring the druid into joining outties just to be left alone. So then it would be judged in how he utilizes the fact that he just killed a random druid.

I was referring to characters getting leevay/special treatment in cabal matters for sending up fancy prays, emoting in the inn, talking to enemies inbetween combat (I see that as a negative thing unless there is a good motive for it. Enemies should be treated with hostility). I.e. stuff that is RP but does not correlate to cabal goals.

And again, I don't think it should matter if the RP is crappy and shallow or not. The issue is whether or not the character does things that is good or bad for the cabal goals. Including fluff concepts like, for outlanders, ancients, burning forests as well as real concepts like raiding/retrieving, killing enemies, etc.

I guess the important thing for me is that leaders and cabal imms act and declide like real leaders and gods, and not as OOC ice-dancing judges.

Edit: Very simple example - a character gets away with repatedly not defending his cabal because his role says he is a lazy coward. Or someone being booted faster for the same behavior because he is sphere courage.

The "RP quality" aspects of the above scenario I think should always be handled through OOC means like imm exp. As far as cabal evictions go, both should be treated the same. So both gets evicted from the cabal, but the lazy-coward-role guy gets evicted and also rewarded with imm exp or more (since he was RPing well), while the courage guy gets evicted and has some immexp taken away, or gets a nasty title, or whatever.


Edit2: Regarding psychopath killer; they are often pathologically unable to feel fear (or they feel it but do not experience it as unpleasant), so it would actually be vaild RP for one to be disrespectful towards gods and ancients. Although it would also be good RP for some god personalities to swat the disrespectful fly..

Here I am reading an in depth thoughtful discertation on why PK should be above RP and how you can use RP to justify ####ty reasons for PK.

All from a guy who uses chase triggers.

I hope it was you she kicked out.

It had nothing to do with PK vs RP. nt

>But the examples you gave:
>- Outlanders killing unaffiliated druids for fun could counter
>cabal goals since the druid probably is a potential
>recruit/ally. It could also help the outlander cause by
>scaring the druid into joining outties just to be left alone.
>So then it would be judged in how he utilizes the fact that he
>just killed a random druid.

Outlander isn't empire and take oath or die kind of philosophy doesn't fit its cabal dogma. I daresay that for vast majority of characters, killing them for "sport" isn't going to persuade them to join Outlander. For most of them, it isn't about great killing RP, but simply wanting more targets.

You'll need to be able to provide good reasoning for the kill if you run around killing Outlander-friendly people. I would say that for most characters, getting killed by an Outlander would be a turnoff rather than a reason to join the cabal.

>I was referring to characters getting leevay/special treatment
>in cabal matters for sending up fancy prays, emoting in the
>inn, talking to enemies inbetween combat (I see that as a
>negative thing unless there is a good motive for it. Enemies
>should be treated with hostility). I.e. stuff that is RP but
>does not correlate to cabal goals.

All bootings are case by case. As for characters getting special treatment for RPing things out, I agree that how it fits the cabal dogma etc. should be the deciding factor. However, the character's motives do play a role here, as the behavioural pattern of the character stems from the said motives. If the motives are expressed somehow, the true situation can be taken into account. If not, it can be reasonable to assume that the guy is just killing people without regards to RP. The point here is that the decision is made based on the best understanding of the situation the people in power possess. RPing it out helps in conveying the information of the correct interpretation of the situation for the decision making and can therefore be helpful for a character that RP's it out to avoid booting (this needs to be coupled with understanding of what is allowed within the cabal) better than a character that does not convey his motives to imms and leaders in any fashion.

>> Outlander isn't empire and take oath or die kind of philosophy doesn't fit its cabal dogma. I daresay that for vast majority of characters, killing them for "sport" isn't going to persuade them to join Outlander. For most of them, it isn't about great killing RP, but simply wanting more targets.

Killing them for "sport", no. But perhaps killing them once and then letting them choose between applying, becoming an informant or being "sport" (or prey, probably more fitting word for an outlander). Outlander also isn't like empire in that you get brainwashed in the induction process, so it has a lot more room for different takes on the philosophy.

>> You'll need to be able to provide good reasoning for the kill if you run around killing Outlander-friendly people. I would say that for most characters, getting killed by an Outlander would be a turnoff rather than a reason to join the cabal.

Maybe I am wrong, but I see bullying people to have your way as a general evil thing, but not specific to any ethos. I mean, obviously it is a corner stone of empire tactics (assimilate or die). But I also see using scare tactics as a plausible thing for evil outlanders (esp. the dumber races) to do (help me or I kill you).

>> All bootings are case by case. As for characters getting special treatment for RPing things out, I agree that how it fits the cabal dogma etc. should be the deciding factor. However, the character's motives do play a role here, as the behavioural pattern of the character stems from the said motives. If the motives are expressed somehow, the true situation can be taken into account. If not, it can be reasonable to assume that the guy is just killing people without regards to RP. The point here is that the decision is made based on the best understanding of the situation the people in power possess. RPing it out helps in conveying the information of the correct interpretation of the situation for the decision making and can therefore be helpful for a character that RP's it out to avoid booting (this needs to be coupled with understanding of what is allowed within the cabal) better than a character that does not convey his motives to imms and leaders in any fashion.

Motives I agree can be relevant, as they are a predictor of future behaviour. However it should be the actions' alignment to cabal dogma that matters, not whether or not a character's motives add up to a believable character. Of course, if the character can convince his leaders that his actions is actually good for the cabal, then it's all good if they let him do it.

vdfv

>Killing them for "sport", no. But perhaps killing them once
>and then letting them choose between applying, becoming an
>informant or being "sport" (or prey, probably more fitting
>word for an outlander). Outlander also isn't like empire in
>that you get brainwashed in the induction process, so it has a
>lot more room for different takes on the philosophy.

If you handle it well, maybe. But once you understand that the guy is friendly towards Outlanders, you shouldn't hunt him very actively. Occasional clash possibly, due to your evil nature and the guy doing something you don't like. If the situation is well RPed in a way that doesn't conflict Outlander cabal dogma, it is fine.

>Maybe I am wrong, but I see bullying people to have your way
>as a general evil thing, but not specific to any ethos. I
>mean, obviously it is a corner stone of empire tactics
> assimilate or die). But I also see using scare tactics as a
>plausible thing for evil outlanders (esp. the dumber races) to
>do (help me or I kill you).

For people like fire giants and other evils, this is a very viable approach. You are both evil, and thus can understand this kind of communication can work if you play it right. It all depends on how smart your outlander is, as well.

>Motives I agree can be relevant, as they are a predictor of
>future behaviour. However it should be the actions' alignment
>to cabal dogma that matters, not whether or not a character's
>motives add up to a believable character. Of course, if the
>character can convince his leaders that his actions is
>actually good for the cabal, then it's all good if they let
>him do it.

I think that prediction of the future behaviour should be the deciding factor in a booting. If the guy is going to be constantly acting in a way that is not acceptable in the cabal, then out he goes.

That's how he sees CF. He'll justify ####ty behavior with elaborate Faux-RP.

Why did I just kill those 3 11th level W-elf Druids in the past with my Reaver Iron wielding Fire giant? Simple, they didn't have any gold on them the first time I killed all three of them, and I really wanted to sac some coin because I'm an Outlander and Outlanders hate coin. So I killed them again to sac any coins they got since I last killed them.

nt

That will always be your legacy to me.

Sad sad sad

Because honestly... Outlander Reavers tend to do some pretty non cabalic killing over all.... and get Leadership for it.

I blame Lyristeon and his favorite follower for this.

This was always an interesting thing when I was watching over Arbiter and Tribunal, since these ethos-based cabals seem particularly susceptible to gray areas when it comes to alignment. But really, I always thought the gray area was part of the appeal.

Even in a cabal like Fortress though, there exists some gray area. I always thought a really well-played chaotic-ethos sphere-destruction Shokai follower could easily get himself kicked out of the cabal, while still embodying his align and religion. I imagine an extreme Baer follower could do the same thing.

For me, the best litmus test for a character toeing the line was always "Why is this character not X", where X is a different align/cabal. So if you're a good Tribunal who is taking questionable actions in regards to alignment, I ask myself "what makes that character different than a neutral Tribunal?" If I consistently can't come up with any good answers, then maybe they need to be turned neutral. If you're a chaotic evil Outlander doing questionable things in regards to nature, the question becomes "what makes this c/e Outlander different than a c/e non-Outlander?" And like before, if there's consistently no answer to that, there might be a problem with the character staying in that cabal.

But of course, it depends. Gray areas are like that.

Not the expectations of other people. Unless you want to be a #### and just play to blend in.

You can generally kill whoever u want as long as u are not neglecting cabal duties. If u prioritize mindless killing over those duties expect to be uncaballed after a while

Three cabals e/c can join:

I would rank then scion/outtie/battle from most amount of freedom to least amount of freedom on target choices.

What determines if they are neglecting their duties and does it become a problem if I am using the cabal to get powers that help me PK who I want?

It's exceedingly common to see Outlanders wiping the board clean even on parties that are fighting "enemies" of their cabal such as the Burners and such of the past.

The same goes for Scions. If they are a cabal of knowledge how does running around slaying everyone increase their bank secrets (Or what ever it is they do.)

Or the guy who plays a CE villager who never declares he is an applicant even after several kills, some of which involve the c "group?" command. He is achieving his cabal goals of killing magi after all.

For example, maybe this uncaballed gomer attacked you one day. Maybe he pk'd you even. You're battle and you come upon that guy ranking with a mage. You target him instead of the mage.

I think you also have to toss religion in here too for consideration. A Baer follower would be expected to take a different line on certain cabal politics than others.

When a Powergamer is summoned place 1 token on a character. All non-leader mortal players will immediately notice the Powergamer and suffer -1 to their desire to play whenever they take damage from a character with a Powergamer token. Suffer additional -1 desire to play for each day the Powergamer is in play. All lost desire to play is immediately transferred to the Powergamer as edge points.

Parody aside why have cabal structure if there are going to be exceptions to the rule? Why is it common to see threads where players are vehemently upset about behavior of a character that was far outside their cabal ideology.

If you join a cabal you get some pretty neat perks, I think the pay off for that is that you need to play your cabal. Using the Role command should not be used to generate exceptional characters, not exceptions to the cabal.

I understand there are cases wherein individuals have bad encounters, but when a consensus is forming and after the PBF is published and it shows the Imms thought so too... That's a lot of time where another player was screwing over other players who ARE trying to play their cabal or at least adhere to the rules as set forth.

I can think of less than 10 posts where someone was booted for bad behavior in a cabal in the last 15 years.

>When a Powergamer is summoned place 1 token on a character.
>All non-leader mortal players will immediately notice the
>Powergamer and suffer -1 to their desire to play whenever they
>take damage from a character with a Powergamer token. Suffer
>additional -1 desire to play for each day the Powergamer is in
>play. All lost desire to play is immediately transferred to
>the Powergamer as edge points.

Sounds like someone is working on a new board game.

>
>Parody aside why have cabal structure if there are going to be
>exceptions to the rule? Why is it common to see threads where
>players are vehemently upset about behavior of a character
>that was far outside their cabal ideology.
>

There should always be exceptions to every rule. Kind of like Drizzt Do'Urden. It's a roleplaying game and without exceptions, variety will cease to exist. Players who get vehemently upset about a character doing something outside the typical cabal ideology are the fault of that player's misunderstanding. It is not the fault of the player behind the offending character.

>
>If you join a cabal you get some pretty neat perks, I think
>the pay off for that is that you need to play your cabal.
>Using the Role command should not be used to generate
>exceptional characters, not exceptions to the cabal.
>

In exchange for those perks, you are expected to follow cabal dogma. It is then up to the leaders and the immortals of said cabals to make sure you are doing what you are supposed to. When someone is NOT following their cabal dogma, it should be handled In Character. Logs should not be posted, posts lamenting the character's actions should not be posted (even if anonymous or offending char not mentioned), and it should all be dealt with IN GAME. This fosters more dynamic roleplay as opposed to cookie cutter "I kill you because rules say you is mah enemy."

>
>I understand there are cases wherein individuals have bad
>encounters, but when a consensus is forming and after the PBF
>is published and it shows the Imms thought so too... That's a
>lot of time where another player was screwing over other
>players who ARE trying to play their cabal or at least adhere
>to the rules as set forth.
>

What dictates "screwing over"? Dying in CF is par for the course. Having your character die is not getting screwed over. Vying for power/cabal positions is also part of the game. The only rules you MUST follow are the ones posted in HELP RULES. These are OOC-based and anything outside of those rules should be handled in game and isn't "screwing another character over." CF is brutal and unpredictable. It is meant to be.

>
>I can think of less than 10 posts where someone was booted for
>bad behavior in a cabal in the last 15 years.
>

People play this game. Not robots. One rule break is not really enough (depending on how stringent the judging PC leader or IC god is) to kick someone from a cabal. I think you'll find that there are typically three cases. Repeat offender who gets kicked from the cabal and promptly deletes, one-two time offender who learns from their mistakes and moves on, and repeat offender who gets kicked from the cabal and rolls with it. The third is rare and they often end up that cabal's enemy or getting back into the cabal later. The key is remaining true to your character.

Acting outside of cabal policy is not breaking rules in such a way that OOC punishment is warranted. IC punishment can come in various forms however. Gods being the most able to #### with the PC.

>Sounds like someone is working on a new board game

Nope. Magic the Gathering.

>There should always be exceptions to every rule. Kind of like Drizzt >Do'Urden. It's a roleplaying game and without exceptions, variety will >cease to exist. Players who get vehemently upset about a character >doing something outside the typical cabal ideology are the fault of >that player's misunderstanding. It is not the fault of the player >behind the offending character.

If every Drow was Drizzt they would be called elves. Drizzt has worn out his welcome as an example on these boards long ago. I favor people who play their race over people who play the exception to their race. It's just an overplayed dog-eared card. And it's often the ground-work for avoiding some restriction their race has. I.E. Pre-Powergamey. You're a newer player than I am so you may not yet have met all the Drizzt's that I have.

>In exchange for those perks, you are expected to follow cabal dogma. >It is then up to the leaders and the immortals of said cabals to >make sure you are doing what you are supposed to. When someone is >NOT following their cabal dogma, it should be handled In Character. >Logs should not be posted, posts lamenting the character's actions >should not be posted (even if anonymous or offending char not >mentioned), and it should all be dealt with IN GAME. This fosters >more dynamic roleplay as opposed to cookie cutter "I kill you >because rules say you is mah enemy."

I disagree. I think the logs should be posted and here is why. There is no investigative process available to Cabal leaders other than to talk to all interested parties. They may not want to, and why should they? They wont get in trouble for not looking into it unless it is Imm ordered. What's more there is very little in the way of physical evidence in CF. Corpses decay, bodies reform, gear changes hands. Some spells that can help with investigation are not available. People lie and you can't read body language. It's pretty much impossible to get a read of a character accused of wrong doing.

The concept of character assassination I think is over blown and a cultural knee jerk reaction to roast the person posting them. Even if you don't like someone for posting something negative about a current character doesn't mean the current character didn't do what they did.

As the only viable alternative to providing evidence (Which could be reasoned away as a detailed description of the event) I say post the logs.

If it's truely a BS log, the poster will be flamed and the accussed found not guilty in the court of public opinion.

>What dictates "screwing over"? Dying in CF is par for the course. >Having your character die is not getting screwed over. Vying for >power/cabal positions is also part of the game. The only rules you >MUST follow are the ones posted in HELP RULES. These are OOC-based >and anything outside of those rules should be handled in game and >isn't "screwing another character over." CF is brutal and >unpredictable. It is meant to be.

So are saying we should not have any rules at all and that race/class/cabal's should be nothing more than building blocks for PK machines. We don't need to Roleplay our cabal because everyone get's a medal for being special? That's my take away.

And as far as screwing over, it's like porn. You'll know it when you see it. This is also why I say post it. The consensus will decide. You say "Vying for your cabal possitions is part of the game." Is that only achievable by padding your PK ratio with kills on people who are not traditionally the enemy of your cabal?

>People play this game. Not robots. One rule break is not really >enough (depending on how stringent the judging PC leader or IC god >is) to kick someone from a cabal. I think you'll find that there are >typically three cases. Repeat offender who gets kicked from the >cabal and promptly deletes, one-two time offender who learns from >their mistakes and moves on, and repeat offender who gets kicked >from the cabal and rolls with it. The third is rare and they often >end up that cabal's enemy or getting back into the cabal later. The >key is remaining true to your character.

I can't think of even 5 repeat offenders get kicked from their cabal the harder I try. Those 1/2 time offenders are more often than not Vet's who aren't learning a lesson but are instead doing what they often do and seeing what they can get away with. And your third is among the worst in my book. Rack up edge points, violate cabal dogma suffer a small penalty, come back with even more Imm love.

For a game that's not played by robots our behavior is pretty predictable.

And in closing... You don't need to try to find a ray of sunshine in every #### sandwich. There are some things that resurface as common themes and this is one of them. It is a problem that can be policed and minimized with consistent rules enforcement. Structure is good.

This post has no value and should not be read or responded to by anyone, sort of like the post it is in response to.

>If every Drow was Drizzt they would be called elves. Drizzt
>has worn out his welcome as an example on these boards long
>ago. I favor people who play their race over people who play
>the exception to their race. It's just an overplayed dog-eared
>card. And it's often the ground-work for avoiding some
>restriction their race has. I.E. Pre-Powergamey. You're a
>newer player than I am so you may not yet have met all the
>Drizzt's that I have.


Uhmn how many dark elves have had alignment change to neutral? and of those to good? (as a proportion of total cf Dark elves ever rolled/ cf chars ever rolled).

On that Basis, (and other races that start evil) does the player basse find that Idea jaded? Or carried out in a powergamey way.. I mean spending 75% or more of your time rping with people and trying really hard no to wtfpwn everyone who might be your enemy or not, sounds really powergamey.


>I disagree. I think the logs should be posted and here is why.
>There is no investigative process available to Cabal leaders
>other than to talk to all interested parties. They may not
>want to, and why should they? They wont get in trouble for not
>looking into it unless it is Imm ordered. What's more there is
>very little in the way of physical evidence in CF. Corpses
>decay, bodies reform, gear changes hands. Some spells that can
>help with investigation are not available. People lie and you
>can't read body language. It's pretty much impossible to get a
>read of a character accused of wrong doing.


You understand that if your life was constantly on personal CCTV where every word and action that you said could be played back and reviewed by your peers (without your consent)(Without perspective, or Context, tone or inflection) You'd like that? Now imagine those 'logs' were sliced together or partially edited before presentation? Jesus what if its in the chars role what they are doing etc, and its all over the forums before it comes to fruition.. meh. The fact that you think you need any of things you listed to be able to make a firm decision on what occured in game is mind blowing for me.

>
>The concept of character assassination I think is over blown
>and a cultural knee jerk reaction to roast the person posting
>them. Even if you don't like someone for posting something
>negative about a current character doesn't mean the current
>character didn't do what they did.
>
>As the only viable alternative to providing evidence (Which
>could be reasoned away as a detailed description of the event)
>I say post the logs.
>
>If it's truely a BS log, the poster will be flamed and the
>accussed found not guilty in the court of public opinion.

^^^ See above


>
>So are saying we should not have any rules at all and that
>race/class/cabal's should be nothing more than building blocks
>for PK machines. We don't need to Roleplay our cabal because
>everyone get's a medal for being special? That's my take away.


DO you feel everyone gets a medal for being special at the moment? Or do you think people who excel in rp/pvp get the occasional perk/shout out ? Yes there is punishment for not acting like you would be expected to in your cabal. Dont expect to come out the other end with the super shiny rewards every time though. On the point of enemy selection, and chaotic evil, me wanting your tasty pie, is probably a valid reason to stab your face in most cases. As a scion thats prolly ok, as an outlander thats prolly ok, if your battle, it better be a ####ing magic pie, but again so long as its not excessive... so what?


>
>
>And as far as screwing over, it's like porn. You'll know it
>when you see it. This is also why I say post it. The consensus
>will decide. You say "Vying for your cabal possitions is part
>of the game." Is that only achievable by padding your PK ratio
>with kills on people who are not traditionally the enemy of
>your cabal?

^^^ I dont think Cabal positions are based on number of pks, or being a pk badass... maybe I am missing something, generally it seems to be consistent presence, skilled play (running away is a skill), defense/retrieval and quality RP. Remember as an elite or leader or what ever you are going to embody that cabal for anyone that meets you, and I think that image is important in a text based fantasy game.



>I can't think of even 5 repeat offenders get kicked from their
>cabal the harder I try. Those 1/2 time offenders are more
>often than not Vet's who aren't learning a lesson but are
>instead doing what they often do and seeing what they can get
>away with. And your third is among the worst in my book. Rack
>up edge points, violate cabal dogma suffer a small penalty,
>come back with even more Imm love.

Sure because they get brutally ass raped by their enemies who dont genrally give a #### that you arent in the cabal any more, you go through that for 50, 100, 150 hours in some cases... you dont think a little bit of love for all the frustration and pain, and effort is fair?



>And in closing... You don't need to try to find a ray of
>sunshine in every #### sandwich. There are some things that
>resurface as common themes and this is one of them. It is a
>problem that can be policed and minimized with consistent
>rules enforcement. Structure is good.
>

This ray of sunshine brought to you by The-me enterprises.

>Nope. Magic the Gathering.
>

Never played it.

>
>If every Drow was Drizzt they would be called elves. Drizzt
>has worn out his welcome as an example on these boards long
>ago. I favor people who play their race over people who play
>the exception to their race. It's just an overplayed dog-eared
>card. And it's often the ground-work for avoiding some
>restriction their race has. I.E. Pre-Powergamey. You're a
>newer player than I am so you may not yet have met all the
>Drizzt's that I have.

I've been playing for ten years give or take 1-2. I've met 1 dark-elf with a changed alignment. Doesn't seem overplayed. Just because someone does something outside the box doesn't mean it is power gaming. In fact, going outside the box is often the opposite of power gaming. Align change cripples you for a long time. Consistently going outside your cabal policies gets you booted. So on and so forth.

Fact is, player characters in Thera ARE exceptional. By their very nature. Everyone knows their name in the entire world. They are "special." That's what makes us all important enough to roleplay and people give a damn about.

>
>I disagree. I think the logs should be posted and here is why.
>There is no investigative process available to Cabal leaders
>other than to talk to all interested parties. They may not
>want to, and why should they? They wont get in trouble for not
>looking into it unless it is Imm ordered. What's more there is
>very little in the way of physical evidence in CF. Corpses
>decay, bodies reform, gear changes hands. Some spells that can
>help with investigation are not available. People lie and you
>can't read body language. It's pretty much impossible to get a
>read of a character accused of wrong doing.

If the cabal leader doesn't want to enforce the cabal rules and pay attention to what his followers are doing, he souldn't be cabal leader. There doesn't need to be physical evidence. There are plenty of roleplay routes to get someone in trouble provided you don't go about it in a blatantly OOC way. Outlander warrior going to Tribunal leader to complain about one of his Magistrate's warrants is not an IC way to go about it. Yes people lie and you can't read body language. People lie in real life too and you can't always tell. It's not impossible to infer things, investigate, ask around, and even if you can't, you can always make a decision based on roleplay.

>
>The concept of character assassination I think is over blown
>and a cultural knee jerk reaction to roast the person posting
>them. Even if you don't like someone for posting something
>negative about a current character doesn't mean the current
>character didn't do what they did.
>

I'll come right out and say it. If you post a character assassinating log (ie. "calling someone out for 'bad' roleplay"), that is a sign of inability to roleplay yourself. It's an inability to separate your in game self from your out of game self. It's a failure to understand the concept of CF and to play the game within the spirit of the game. You completely destroy the chance for subterfuge or espionage-esque roleplay by posting logs of such caliber. You again limit people to only playing very cookie cutter roles. If you are tired of the exceptional Drizzt role, how could you possibly still be ok with the cookie cutter Fortress, Empire, etc. roles?

>
>As the only viable alternative to providing evidence (Which
>could be reasoned away as a detailed description of the event)
>I say post the logs.
>

Yeah, character should be able to lie about it if it is something their character would do. It isn't your job to police and punish outside the bounds of the game. That is again, a failure to roleplay and instead the equivalent of throwing an OOC tantrum.

>
>If it's truely a BS log, the poster will be flamed and the
>accussed found not guilty in the court of public opinion.
>

BS log or not, doesn't matter. You are tainting a character's roleplay even if you somehow managed to incorporate all aspects of context that are necessary (which you couldn't since it is from one side only).


>
>So are saying we should not have any rules at all and that
>race/class/cabal's should be nothing more than building blocks
>for PK machines. We don't need to Roleplay our cabal because
>everyone get's a medal for being special? That's my take away.
>

I'm saying policing IC rules/policies should be done IC.

>
>And as far as screwing over, it's like porn. You'll know it
>when you see it. This is also why I say post it. The consensus
>will decide. You say "Vying for your cabal possitions is part
>of the game." Is that only achievable by padding your PK ratio
>with kills on people who are not traditionally the enemy of
>your cabal?
>

Stop being afraid of supposed "power gamers." Some people are good at PK and some aren't. Both types have had and do have successful characters. I was nearly made leader of a cabal with a 3-15 ratio. I deleted too quickly.

>
>I can't think of even 5 repeat offenders get kicked from their
>cabal the harder I try. Those 1/2 time offenders are more
>often than not Vet's who aren't learning a lesson but are
>instead doing what they often do and seeing what they can get
>away with. And your third is among the worst in my book. Rack
>up edge points, violate cabal dogma suffer a small penalty,
>come back with even more Imm love.
>

So you have ominscient power over CF? What makes you think you are aware of even 1/2 of the cases where people get kicked out or punished IC? Players command shows currently over 600 unique characters logging in.

As for the second part. I'm sorry that you have such a problem with people being successful and garnering rewards. You do seem to consistently be unable to see things from any perspective but your own and seem to assume the conclusions you immediately jump to are the correct ones. This isn't the case and I urge you to be a bit more open minded when it comes to imagining your opponent's or fellow player's motives. Has no one ever accused you of doing something for some reason that wasn't the case at all? You aren't ominscient and neither are they. Yet another reason why logs should not be posted as well.

>
>For a game that's not played by robots our behavior is pretty
>predictable.
>

The more you add restrictions to how someone roleplays, the more predictable everyone will become. Yes, lots of people play cookie cutter roles and shoe horn their character into typical play styles. There are plenty of people playing off the wall roles too. Just because you limit yourself and your characters to thinking a certain way doesn't mean everyone should. We have very loose definitions of align/race for a reason.

>
>And in closing... You don't need to try to find a ray of
>sunshine in every #### sandwich. There are some things that
>resurface as common themes and this is one of them. It is a
>problem that can be policed and minimized with consistent
>rules enforcement. Structure is good.
>

On the contrary, you don't need to find a #### sandwhich in every field of green grass and lollipops. The only common theme here is you assuming the worst of every interaction and motive. I can understand that considering your background, but that doesn't mean everyone you deal with is always the scum of the earth. Structure is good and we have that via "help RULES." Everything else is fair play and should be considered IC.

I get aggravated when people set the standard for an discussion to minutia.

Don't be so literal. I provided more than enough information in my response to you to explain every counter argument you just tried to make.

Matrik was 10 years ago?

Between this post and your post below, I can see you are not interested in civil discussion so much as stating your opinion as the right and just law of the land. Damned are those who disagree with you. Damned are those whose point of view you can't quite see from your box.

Matrik was around 2007 or so. He was my first hero and probably my first character beyond level 20. I've played since around 2002 or so.

Hence forth you will receive no responses from me, helpful or otherwise as I can see you are quite set in your ways and not interested in enjoying the game within the spirit of the game. I had hoped you would never use that childish line "you didn't read what I wrote bro!" on me, but you did and that's that.

I strongly suggest you find a game more to your liking in which everyone is held to very strict rules and entirely too-long EULAs. Many MMO's offer this.

No offense is intended, I'm just not going to bother.

n/t

I had responded to your post paragraph by paragraph.

It was straying from the original topic as it was, but you split it into a half dozen subtopics.

I'm not interested in that. I responded to you initially because I generally like your posts. But you just ranged to far and wide.

That is you keep having to ask people if the "read what you wrote" that maybe the problem isn't other people. In fact you should probably consider that perhaps your outlook is the problem in general and not that other people aren't playing right or arent giving your posts a fair chance or whatever.

Yes I realize I'm wasting my metaphorical breathe.

of ways for you to handle things IC:

1. kill

2. kill + loot

3. kill + full loot

4. kill + full loot + sac

5. Pay to have them killed.

6. Spread word of their deceit In Character.

7. Bard note about their deceit In Character. (Bard notes just proclaiming they full looted you is in bad taste. As are other notes designed to appeal to a player's OOC concepts of "fair play.")

8. Speak to their leader

9. Speak to their fellow cabal mates

10. Speak to their fellow cabal mates and leader.

11. Petition their deity or a deity of their cabal(via note, praying (IC), or a visit to their shrine (IC)).

12. Anything really, as long as you keep it In Character.

What are you doing? It's like you are ignoring what I wrote.

People get booted from battle with a bit more regularity then that. Honestly, I actually see lots of people getting the boot, relatively speaking. The problem is, most who do Delete instead of playing it out, and so people don't really know that it is happening.

Allysia got booted for travelling with goodies when light tipped when I was the cabal leader.
Kark got booted for breaking village rules
Gyrillious got booted for breaking village rules
Bulquin (I think it was) got booted for greed
There was a captain of the fort that got booted for hunting nexus.

And then you have anathemas, don't forget about them.

As to the original topic, being chaotic evil is not a license to murder any and everything if you are in a cabal like Battle. Batlteragers do not have free reign and if they run around killing non mages they will get booted- but reavers and scions do have broad leeway for the most part. Uncaballed generally do as well.

Basically, if you are in Battle, you're going to be booted if you make a habit of PKing non enemies. Coming up with half assed explanations for it also won't fly, since the guidelines are pretty damn clear in the village. The problem is leaders/imms generally have to catch them in the act before doing it.

Some people stretch the whole you wear something flagged magic/travel with a mage/pk'd me in the psat as license to hunt people, but really if that's going to be allowed will depend on the cabal leadership at the time.

To me C/E is not I kill all the time. It's I do whatever crosses my mind when it crosses it. So I may save an elf's life just because I felt like it. I did a C/E bard once and my whole role was I had no idea I was evil at the start- I had a taint from my past but I did not act evil at all. I was just a bard that wanted to perfect her ability to sing. So I sang to people all over, even if it harmed them, it didn't matter, because to her practicing was all that mattered. And a master does every song, even the ones that caused harm. If people died, so what- to her it was all one big rehearsal before she would be dragged back to her prison. From doing this I eventually got recruited by the chancellor who basically saw me as a personal pet and was made a full scion about ten seconds after pledging. And through out the char's life I gradually became an ever increasingly amount of evil, but I still followed the general scion guidelines (I'd try to defend the cabal and I respected the chancellor and what he told me to do I did for example).

It was reported and yet, there he is a shiny new berserker with a buddy who helped him get away with said shady stuff. And it wasn't only on one occasion.

The problem is, for me to report this I would not be able to because I am an enemy of the cabal. So if I complain, it's going to likely be poorly received and what is the commander supposed to do? Take his enemies word for it?

So I don't know that I am far off and Battle is one of the bigger offenders I am thinking of. Perhaps there are more players kicked from it because the powergamers I am referring to are attracted to it.

I saw you pray about this (at least on one occasion) and the situation did not seem to be what you interpreted it to be.

In-game, characters are allowed to lie, deceive other characters, get away with what they can, etc. and injustices are allowed to happen--such is the fabric of the story of history. IC deceit is not a rules violation.

What IS a rules violation would be going OOC in those interactions. I watched you tell the offending character that you had logged the interaction (in barely-veiled language) and then call his compatriot by his forum handle. That's not cool.

I hate rogue though. I'll try not to call him out no matter when I catch him in the future.

And of course I told him I have it logged. I think it was absolutely crap what happened.

Can you still not understand why people get upset when they deal with you? Just take a step back and look around your posts for the last 2 weeks and the responses you give when people try to make you see reason. It makes no sense.

sdfs

n/t

Scarab says that in a two person interaction it was inappropriate to 'out' a character and in response you 'out' that character to the whole community on the forums...

You need to get a grip, take a breather from the forums and get your head straight

In a post in this very thread you claim that "I have never understood them ."

How can you put yourself in a position to judge whether or not a person is living up to their cabal when you, admittedly, don't know what that entails.

I judge people all the time, just like they judge me.

I didn't initially say anything about Scions. Someone else did and I commented on it as part of their comment.

Learn to read.

>The same goes for Scions. If they are a cabal of knowledge how
>does running around slaying everyone increase their bank
>secrets (Or what ever it is they do.)

Man. That's a cabal you really do not get.

or being ignored because I don't know anything about them.

People who want to become Scions thirst for personal power. The way that scions differ from empire (which has roughly the same goal) is that the method to gaining power is through knowledge and magic. The nightwalkers you see so much of tied to them is an example of them entering into an agreement to seek out power.

Also keep in mind that what is published about the prophecy and how scions may convey to the world around them and even to each other how the prophecy will play out is potentially (highly likely) to either be a flat out lie or a half-truth (remember they are in it for personal power not for the legacy of the Scion cabal)

The reason that *some* scions are pk machines, roleplay wise, is that they are constantly trying to prove their worth to their extra planar allies, much akin to a conjurer's murderous reputation. When they succeed at bringing the night, if they are weak or not feared, whats to keep the nightwalkers from breaking their deal?