Thu Oct 17 18:48:22 2013 by 'Destuvius' at level 42 (85 hrs):
Tried to bait some Blades into Crraya without warning them. Warned, responded poorly. Anathemaed.

As I said on Dio's, I kinda think that's awesome roleplay for a Shadow.

I remember getting multiple 1000s of IMM xp for Khaso for refusing to heal other Empire chars that didn't acknowledge he was the greatest power in the Heavens.

I just kinda thought you guys don't want Team Evil, and something like this (and the relatively poor post by Destuvius on the thread of Akresius's shaman kinda highlights this as well) seems like you do but only for characters you personally enjoy (for whatever reason).

I kinda think the game is hard enough without worrying that an evil, self-serving roleplay style wouldn't work in one of the few evil cabals that are available to people.

I watched the interaction... I think Destuvius probably pulled the Anathema trigger a bit too quickly here, but I think it was Myven's responses to the Shadowy IMM that was why he got booted. They just were a bit confrontational

as one of the blades that died, it kinda felt like Myven was trying to give aid to battle in taking the codex by setting up the blades for them vs trying to do anything to defend the palace or making preparations to recover the codex. Myven had their reasons for hating blades, but end result was two dead blades and village with the codex. This is definitely evil, but doesn't really do anything to advance imperial goals.

I only saw my piece of it, but that was my take.

If you want to color outside the lines, I want to be entertained by it. If you do it in a really poor/bland manner when I am on, I will probably come down and call you out on it. If you respond well, then everything is fine. If you respond poorly, then it won't be fine.

I think that trying to bait other sects into dying to Cabal enemies is valid Shadow RP. In a time where Empire is in the ####ter, I think it is valid Empire IMM RP to warn against that.

The character in question got a warning. If they then choose to mouth off to said Empire IMM, it is valid Empire IMM RP to make them anathema.

If everyone is doing the RP thing and the shadow member goes outside of it, then the hammer should drop.

This follows with the breaking of Imperial law thread on the battlefields. If you're breaking the law just because and cannot RP your way out if it, the hammer should drop for that too. Isn't that one of the reasons behind implementing Roles so they can be read when there is a wtf moment and see if there is an IC reason?

But: also note that you playing your role doesn't necessarily mean you're immune to the IC consequences of playing that role.

They think any sort of punishment from a cabal leader or IMM as an OOC "screwing-over" of their character. IC consequences like getting demoted or whatever are wonderful avenues to develop your character.

If some Trib flags you when you didn't deserve it, the answer is not to post a law "exposing" how they wronged you. Instead, expose them in game. Get a bard to write a note to all about their corruption, speak with their cabal leaders, PK the #### out of them, etc. Have a mechanics issue about it? Send up a pray.

In this case, we're talking about rules that are described in the Shadow Sect hall. Usually when you read the rules inside the cabal, you expect that by following them you'll go further in the cabal rather than get punished.

I think that, should your policies change, you should amend that written policy in game.

Likewise, sending up a pray is better than breaking role. Random tribunal warrants me for doing nothing? I don't want to choose between breaking role by outing them via notes that do nothing or nothing happening to them. It's a huge detriment to the game if you can warrant people for no reason and know they can't complain about you without breaking role (for instance, they're an outlander or a villager).

If cabal powers like Tribunal, Village, etc have weren't so good, then maybe the whole "if you can't complain in game don't complain" angle would work - but being WANTED sucks for a lot of characters, especially low level characters and inhibits to a degree that isn't even fun to play unless you're a character built to deal with it. Same with ragers, getting ganged down by a invoker + rager as a non-mage is messed up and frustrating, those powers don't belong in the game if the people wielding them can do whatever they want with impunity. And by the way I say this as someone who got booted from Tribunal as a Vindicator for not dismissing my guards when a random person attacked me as I was trying to find a criminal. That's not character development, that's a kick to the teeth with no other way to interpret it.

>In this case, we're talking about rules that are described in
>the Shadow Sect hall. Usually when you read the rules inside
>the cabal, you expect that by following them you'll go further
>in the cabal rather than get punished.

I'm at a loss. If you are referring to the warning given to the Shadow as a punishment, then you've taken away half of my interaction abilities as an IMM. I'm sorry, but I am not going to limit my interactions to when you do a great job. If you are referring to the anathema as a punishment, the PBF clearly states the Shadow was made anathema for mouthing off, not for leading blades to their deaths.

>I think that, should your policies change, you should amend
>that written policy in game.

See my above post about valid RP from ALL parties, not just the Shadow's.

>Likewise, sending up a pray is better than breaking role.
>Random tribunal warrants me for doing nothing? I don't want
>to choose between breaking role by outing them via notes that
>do nothing or nothing happening to them. It's a huge
>detriment to the game if you can warrant people for no reason
>and know they can't complain about you without breaking role
> for instance, they're an outlander or a villager).

I disagree with some of this statement. At the moment, I don't have time to address it. Maybe I will later.

I would love for someone to actually tell me where it says that Shadows are exempt from Imperial Law, and that they are exempt from being called out on doing something wrong?

At this point the discussion has stopped being a relevant, sensical discussion about Imperial Law and how you can bend it to your (and vis a vis the Empire and your Sect) benefit. Mostly everyone is just on your back now because they cannot leave things in game. Even when they're "white knighting" for people who neither require or want their help.

As usual, various people are letting their personal problems and misconceptions ruin their perspective on IC events that they had no part in. If they even play CF at all.

I'm not white knighting anyone but myself. I like Shadow the way it is but if we want to change it, that's cool too.

My only point was that if you want to change the policy, change the written guidelines. I didn't realize that was terribly controversial.

I've played more Imperials than anything else. I know the Sect laws like the back of my hand. Black, Blade, Shadow and Divine. As well the Imperial Laws.

You still have a free hand to be a Shadow the way you're thinking. You simply may have to justify yourself now and then. If you can't handle that, you're not ready for whatever rank you've attained in Empire.

The outcome of having to justify yourself isn't set in stone. Destuvius gave Myven an opportunity, and he basically asked for a punishment by mouthing off to an Immortal Lord of Empire. That's kind of basic Empire character RP.

I want to ask, what exactly do you think "don't get caught" means? For the most part the people who might "catch" you (eliminating in your mind the Immortal Lords of Empire for no reason) won't be anywhere near you or able to see you. You're just mad because you assume that gave you carte blanche to do whatever you cared to do to whoever you care to. That's not Shadow Sect. That's not Orderly. That's Scion.

nt

Sounds to me like you might be part of the "I don't need to practice rescue, wait why won't the shadows trip spam for me?" crowd. Manipulation is what being a shadow is about, because if not for manipulation, shadows would just serve as scouts for black sect and blades.

And while I hope that I myself could talk my way out of it, what's getting written here isn't very reassuring.

But what do I know, I didn't practice rescue right?

nt

.

If you feel like nothing has changed regarding this and that 'baiting blades into a rager' is generally fine then I feel like you guys are really struggling to just say that instead of drawing analogies with bad tribunal flags and so on and so forth.

Honestly, what prompted me to post was your (you, Daevryn, Destruvius) responses to the thread. Or at least, there's certainly nothing in this thread that reassures me that anything Vargal is saying is true (that you can talk this kind of thing into an xpadd) and from the outside it looks like he's just 'white knighting' (to borrow a term) you guys.

So for the responses I've seen from you guys have been :

1) Calling it coloring outside the lines and that doing that needs to entertain the imm in question.
2) Likening it to a tribunal giving someone a flag for no reason.
3) Saying that you should be able to freely warn/punish people for inappropriate behavior.

All those things already presume that "baiting a blade into a hiding rager without telling them that rager is hiding there" is all of those negative things. The information within the sect hall seems to say the exact opposite of that. So if you really feel like nothing's changed here or that, he had equal opportunity to get rewarded for this behavior based on his reaction, you're definitely not communicating that with your own writing. And as the Empire imms it just seems like it'd make more sense to talk about what you view as "good ways to play a Shadow" so that people have a clear understanding of expectations if they're not interested in going "coloring outside the lines".

The behavior is fine in a lot of instances, and it is also not fine in a lot of them. I have a feeling you will never be satisfied until you receive a single, concrete answer of yes or no regarding Shadow "shady" behavior being acceptable or not. If that is actually what you want, then I'm sorry but you will get it. Each situation is handled differently than the next.

The information in the sect hall is filled with a lot of gray area, and you are free to dance within it as much as you want. Just remember, that Destuvius (the character) is also playing in the same gray area. I imagine that removing the gray area from the way the Shadow sect laws are written would be a much more drastic change than what is currently occurring (which is no change).

Interaction on the Empire front is always going to be part good and part bad. If people are truly that unhappy with the fact that I am handing out IC punishments for what are IC mistakes along with IC praise for IC success, then I suppose it would be possible to go back to how it was just 3 short weeks ago: Empire was receiving literally 0 interaction of any sort and people were crying foul about how Ray/Baer was running Empire and she shouldn't be.

"The behavior is fine in a lot of instances, and it is also not fine in a lot of them. I have a feeling you will never be satisfied until you receive a single, concrete answer of yes or no regarding Shadow "shady" behavior being acceptable or not. If that is actually what you want, then I'm sorry but you will get it. Each situation is handled differently than the next."

What I'm looking for is meaningful guidance of some kind lol. I've been playing this game for a while, never really had problems getting meaningful guidance on how to behave within a given cabal. I don't view that as "at odds" with immteraction at all. Usually the stuff written inside the cabal is a pretty clear walk-through on what's cool and what's not. This whole "world of gray" thing just sounds to me like "world of arbitrary".

Oh well, I'll just keep following what's written up on the wall and if I get nailed to a cross for it I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

>2) Likening it to a tribunal giving someone a flag for no
>reason.

This is not in the spirit of which that example was given. You are taking my words out of context. It was an example of a player roleplaying a bad situation IC rather than posting a defamatory log OOC.

>3) Saying that you should be able to freely warn/punish people
>for inappropriate behavior.

Yes. It has been our perogative to give warnings to characters. Sometimes, players cannot handle criticism and blow up, leading to harsher punishments. I cannot explain in language more plain: THIS is why the Shadow was made anathema, not because he acted "shadowy."

I apologize to Vargal if my agreeing with him makes him look like a suck-up.

This is a case where we will have to agree to disagree.

And not an empire imm being unaware of the sect rules of empire.

Just for an FYI each sect hall in empire has a set of rules that are a variation on imperial law. They are basically sect law and not exactly imperial law. For instance the divine sect changes the order of allegance compared to other sects and shadow basically says that you are free/encouraged to ignore imperial law (although it also says don't get caught).

I always thought the don't get caught thing was kind of awkward. I mean in RL if you ghost someone they don't show back up in their local church able to tell your boss that you ghosted them at the ATM downtown last night.

>For instance the divine
>sect changes the order of allegance compared to other sects
>and shadow basically says that you are free/encouraged to
>ignore imperial law (although it also says don't get caught).
>
>
>I always thought the don't get caught thing was kind of
>awkward. I mean in RL if you ghost someone they don't show
>back up in their local church able to tell your boss that you
>ghosted them at the ATM downtown last night.

I think Murphy pointed this out too:

"Don't get caught" should not apply to getting caught by empire immortals, unless that immortal is already visible and/or in the room visible. and it CERTAINLY should not apply to non-imperial immortals AT ALL.

Reason being is, the dynamic is in place to create interesting scenarios in game. When you add being able to get caught by an immortal that you can't ever tell is there or know if they are watching you... It effectively becomes "don't do it" as opposed to "Do it, but don't get caught"

I am fully aware of what it says in each of the sect halls. What I am still waiting for is someone to point out where it says that Shadow Sect is free to do all the stupid stuff they want without consequence. I'll give you a hint, its not there.

Walk into the shadow sect, type in 'read rules'. It's written on an extended description inside the room. I don't think I've misrepresented what it says either, it seemed really clear to me on my last shadow and it coincided with how other shadows played.

Mostly the last line of both #5 and #6

Not really...based on your argument, I can't ever do any of the things mentioned in those laws because again, Wizinvis imms can be anywhere. Why even have that stuff written if it's a demotion trap?

To me "don't get caught" meant by other imperials in positions of power over you. Failing to announce a hidden enemy, for instance, seems perfectly in line with what you're supposed to do...to a point where you'd get a warning if you *didn't* do that under some of the former Imperial Imms...

I just feel like there was a policy change and no one notified the guys playing the game .

More than a sentence long.

It also has nothing to do with Myven other than, it probably should have been handled privately or passed to the Emperor, not appropriate for the cabal inner to call him out in the open, if only because he's a Shadow.

Then you would know that I am taking great strides to do a lot of pop in interactions with pretty much everyone that I can. This instance with Myven was to begin as one of those. These instances are me the character going to RP with them, not me the admin. What Myven was doing did not jive with Destuvius the character. He received a verbal warning and a demotion. His response was to argue with Destuvius the character. That is a pretty awful choice when you are interacting with Destuvius the character, not a cabal inner. That is why he received the anathema.

I am still eagerly awaiting someone to point of where I have somehow managed to miss the 'free pass' of the shadow sect...

edit: found a typo and fixed

Nobody has made it explicitly clear, but Drond's case is a better example of confusion over Shadow Sect rules based on how you want to see them tweaked (and how they want you to rewrite the sect rules to be more clear even if in the end they say the same thing), nobody is debating Myven shouldn't have been punished including Myven himself.

It wouldn't hurt for you to rewrite #5 and #6 to rule out breaking Imperial Law entirely without an explicit order from the Sect Leader or Emperor or something equally specific.

Shadows under that ruleset, whether you like to say they are being misinterpreted or not, are basically paid uncaballed rogue classes, not Blade-Lites.

Drond's case is one where there are literally dozens of things that could have been different on the characters part to receive little to no punishment. It just so happens that the course of action taken by the character was the one that led to the hammer falling as far as it did.

Grouping with Scion to get back the Codex is pretty much awful RP for ANY imperial. Grouping with Scion to get back the Codex and then walking away like your best friends? Yeah, that's just too much. You want to save face after doing something like that, you can do literally anything to inconvenience him and not end up in the spot that Drond did.

Team Good with a red aura.

"Grouping with Scion to get back the Codex is pretty much awful RP for ANY imperial."

MmmmMMmm more cookie cutter loving immortals.

"cookie"

If you only pick the part you want, even the negativity of you guys is delightful. The rest of that thought is fairly relevant to the initial point though.

I can't help if you draw it out of me with smugness and deflection tactics. I'm a sucker for flashback.

Just to be clear, I like gods coming down and punishing people. I think it should happen WAY more often than it does. Smites, slays, diseases, lightning bolts, etc. Seriously, gods being active on Thera would be fantastic imo. I know why it can't be done (whiney entitled player base), but man it would be cool.

I just can't wrap my head around how it's this specific section of the game that is suddenly getting god punishment. It's the one logical spot I would think "hmm, game administrator probably WANTS Shadow to be acting shady (because where is more shade found than a shadow) and won't come bust on me In Character, because he will have good game master sense that this is what I'm supposed to be doing."

What do I know though. Uncaballed ftw! Uncaballed, where you can actually be a unique character.

One of the cooler things I've ever had happen while playing was to log on to the Village having The Scales (I was not personally involved in any of the Battle/Trib animosity) and a Paladin came to retrieve.

I warned him off, but he persisted. Marcatis uncloaked himself and immolated me. I loved it. Personally, I wouldn't have minded being plagued and scourged if it meant that his Paladin could get his item back, but obviously if you do that to the wrong person they get very, very butthurt.

Eventually I killed the retriever and Marcatis humiliated me for killing a non-mage/non-enemy and further humiliated me for trophying the corpse (which I still cringe over and feel bad about because he was 100% correct.)

I wish stuff like this would happen more often and be met with less moaning by the playerbase. But you can't make everyone happy.

She offered him the oath when he was in the teens, he said "No I'm going to be a Scion", she gave him 50 gold and wished him luck. She should have been demoted then if she was going to be demoted for getting a return on that investment. The 15 int fire giant was a long term asset for the 22 int arial to be a weapon she could point at the Fortress. That's why Nabor regularly fought Imperials and raided the palace when Drond wasn't on, but on the occasion she was he offered her a free codex. I guess it was a failiure on the player's parts for not putting that in their roles, but the imm involved leaped to conclusions and jumped in on behalf of the upset Fortie without inquiring. The demotion preceded any interaction according to the log, IIRC. There was no 'explain yourself' prior to being demoted.

It wasn't a case of grouping with a random Scion she'd just met because team evil. Nabor wouldn't have done the same for any other Imperial and I doubt Drond would have done the same with another Scion. It wouldn't have made any sense for her to try and inconvenience him - he was doing what she wanted him to - warring with the Fortress to the Empire's benefit.

"She should have been demoted then" - You do realize that IMMs aren't always around and even if they are they aren't always watching that specific character at that exact moment? That is probably the reason it didn't happen sooner and pretty much invalidates your entire argument.

If that's the line - that if there had been an imm watching that interaction, the correct course of action would have been for her to be de-leadered and uninducted (which your post implies, because otherwise it doesn't invalidate my argument), then that would be consistent and I'd be satisfied.

I don't get where you're getting "free pass". It pretty clearly states "don't help anyone wherein it doesn't directly benefit yourself and the shadow sect". To me that infers you're supposed to mess around with the other sects unless you're directly (keyword) benefited. For instance, I'd never give a weapon to a blade, I'd sell them one - so on and so forth. I would see something like "failing to announce an enemy" as right there with that line of thinking.

Now what you're saying here makes more sense, you're RP'ing it out and that's cool. This whole thing started off as somehow failing to announce someone who is hidden suddenly equating to breaking imperial law and so forth and that's kinda the opposite of what being a shadow is about. Being a shadow is about manipulating people and you can't manipulate anyone without some kind of power over them, with the power of information being the most obvious.

This occurred during a raid on the Palace by Battle. If this was not a raid situation, then it is a completely different ball game.

You are effectively making "don't get caught" into "don't do it" by coming down as Destuvius the character to exact punishment. Unless the shadow could plainly see that Destuvius was around. Yes, it doesn't make sense In Character, but it does make sense from the stance of someone wearing both In Character and Game Master hats.

You're the Empire immortal. Do what you want. I'm just voicing my opinion that this kind of change will make "interesting role play scenarios" more rare under the guise of attempting to give people more interesting role play scenarios. It's counter productive.

I'm still eagerly awaiting the time when you stop acting like you don't get what people are talking about.

nt

So being raided changes the rules a bit.

I wonder if retrieving changes rules too?

Whatever, I don't play Empire anyway. I'm not trying to bust your balls specifically. It's just the general trend towards a "bland" that makes my giblets shiver in fear.

The policy change is that, basically, someone is actually paying attention to Empire again.

I've seen Khasotholas crack on Shadows in the right circumstances. I've seen Enlilth do it. Etc. Just... not for a long time because for a long time rewards and punishments in Empire have been very far and few between.

>If some Trib flags you when you didn't deserve it, the answer
>is not to post a law "exposing" how they wronged you. Instead,
>expose them in game.

From an outsider looking in just wanted some clarity.