So the discussion on dios about ragers having personal vendettas gave me an idea.

What if, instead of saying well now that you're a rager you need to only be killing mages and specific cabal enemies and you need to forget that uncaballed warrior who kept kicking your ass as an applicant and saccing your pies, you had the option of taking off your mantle of battle rager and hunting whoever you wanted, except you did it without cabal powers?

This would mean that battle berserker drow who hates elves would be able to 'cabal power off' or however it would be named, and go hunt down that elf paladin who talks smack to him all the time, or that uncaballed gnome warrior for fun, without repercussions. He wouldn't have resist spellbane or deathblow with which to do so, but now he has more options. Perhaps it would give a temp title or something that would indicate to everyone they are acting without regards to cabal.

I especially think this idea is viable because it requires little or no immortal oversight.

Stupid officials being down.

Anyway.

No.

Quas is totally correct about this. When you join The Village you don't just give up magic, you give up almost everything other than the war on magic.

You can be a Drow who hates Elves, but you can't be a Drow who hunts non-mage Elves.

As for turning off The Head, that's not something that any Villager should ever be interested in doing, ever. Those powers are hard-won and they serve a very good purpose, namely killing mages.

The war on magic pretty much never ends. Did you kill every single mage in your range? Do you have The Key? Do you have The Scepter? Are you at war with any cabals who have stinking magescum in leadership positions? Do you have their items? How's the Veil?

Even if the Veil is thick, you don't want the Rhyme logging on and going to grab a dozen things to weaken it again, so you better go get all the stuff that is available.

Who has time to go hunt the Elf who made nasty comments to you in the Academy?

I should lead off by saying that there is a difference between principles and rules. Principles are the guiding philosophy of a cabal while rules are one method of trying to communicate that philosophy to members and enemies.

One of the guiding philosphies of the village is that once you become a villager your war is the villages war, and it is all consuming. This is different then other cabals that are simply a joining of an individuals personal crusade to the cabals objectives, when you join the village your old life ends and your new life begins.

Its silly to suggest a mechanic to let villagers pursue old vendettas because a villager (not you the player) shouldn't want to pursue them in the first place. If your goal is personal gratification then you don't belong in the village. That is as true for chaotic evil villagers as it is for orderly good ones.

And if it was considered part of the village philosophy to take vengance for previous slights they wouldn't stop using cabal powers to achieve it.


The village goal doesn't is not only not tied to alignment like that of tribunal/outlander. It also supremely doesn't care about it. The range of expected behavior of an elf is very similar to that of a drow, just because you are good, or you are evil, has no sway when judging if a persons actions are in line with village philosophy (this is why the cabal pulls everyone towards neutral because the philosophy is neutral at its heart and doesn't have good and evil variations like outlander, there is only one standard).



Having to deal with these situations is just one of many trials a villager goes through and makes the experience unique and different from other cabals. Its not just rooted in practicality (otherwise you would gank everyone and use priests) its rooted in principle and the principle is that to be a personal enemy someone must first be a village as a whole enemy (not the other way around). Note that not even the mortal commander of the village has the authority to declare an individual hunted by battle, that is how important a decision that is, its not a decision that a mortal character gets to make on their own.

What you're suggesting is a mechanic to encourage bad RP. The idea of battle isn't "we're too powerful we need to go easy on other people" it's "If you aren't so dedicated to mages you forget your past grudges, we don't want you" although tempered somewhat. But the idea is that if you'd rather kill your past grudge non-mage than go out and hunt a mage, you're not villager material. There might be some exceptions like if there really are no mages, you have the key and your grudge is wandering down eastern.

If you ever voluntarily drop the mantle of battle to go kill people, then that means you don't have the heart of a villager.

I feel no remorse/sense of bad rp/whatever in flat out murdering him with some deathblow.

Anyone who calls this 'bad rp' is wrong in my opinion - plain and simple.

People don't tend to forget people that are overly mean/cruel/etc to them in their 'earlier' life.

While the person may not be an enemy of your cabal, that person is YOUR enemy, and you are justified in killing him.

In fact, I've justified my paladin killing a gnome in this fashion, and was captain/virted/etc. And since that was acceptable, I think that a bloodthirsty warrior would have an 'easier' RP reason than my pally did.

my .02$

Insert Mind control thief "nocabal"

Call friends, perma lag. Full Loot.

1.Add the same line of code that prevents you from using mind control with quit or delete.
2.???
3.Profit?

Or else we'd have seen suggest leader uninduct ally years and years ago.