Sun Apr 13 15:12:50 2014 by 'Destuvius' at level 51 (128 hrs):
You loot really heavy and its usually stuff you can use. But to loot all the sleeks from a shifter? Lame.

Sun Apr 13 19:33:49 2014 by 'Destuvius' at level 51 (134 hrs):
Came to me asking about being a possible follower. Told to think of how he would best be able to serve the Design and to let me know. Not in sphere so its a long road ahead.

Sun Apr 13 21:51:37 2014 by 'Daevryn' at level 51 (136 hrs):
It's kind of the glory of CF that everyone gets to be the hero of their own story. I get the impression that O thinks he's some kind of gear circulation hero, whereas I don't get the impression that anyone else views him as fa

Sun Apr 13 21:52:00 2014 by 'Daevryn' at level 51 (136 hrs):
favorably, to put it mildly.

Now, I'm obviously very biased here, as I love Shams and think he offers more to the game of CF than anyone else (including current immortals or players). But FFS guys, can you get on the same page? You have immortals claiming they want more people acting out their role/alignment/RP, but it seems that's only if they like the RP or it fits their definition of good.

That ####ing sucks.

Another reason it's just not worth it to log on. To quote the Vines "#### the world".

Well, in my 2 cents. I buy PBFs sometimes only to view imm comments. I find that it's informative and can help me where I may not be able to fully understand how others view my character. Sure, different people have varying view points but that is true of everyone and just because someone notes something they saw, doesn't mean it's going to harm the character in any way. I'm rather glad that the imms don't follow that old rule about not saying anything if they have nothing good to say because, again, I think it adds other perspectives and spice to the game.

Im confused as to why you have the snippet about him wanting to be a follower of mine. Is that part of your concern for a 'double standard' or merely the other comments about his looting habits?

MY BAD.

I actually think Ooglarr was a really effective Imperial. That doesn't mean that I can't think it's interesting that I get a vibe (which could be roleplay) that he sees himself a certain way, while simultaneously being able to observe that other characters don't view his choices the same way.

To be frank, this kind of response is why I stopped releasing feedback from my role contests -- because even if the player in question doesn't take offense at my comments, somebody else (and to be clear, I'll be the first to say there are a lot of people who are a lot worse about this than you are) is bound to go all Shark Week about something I said. It's just not worth my or anyone's time or energy to edit and re-edit these things until we're pretty sure that they're uber-PC enough that nobody could possibly take offense.

If it's not in you to have a little perspective, please don't read PBF comments.

FWIW, Daev's comment didn't bother me.

I think Destuvius's comment about my looting sleeks as a sphere greed character who turned RIGHT back around and sold them to a black for gold was a bit of a meh comment. (I only looted sleeks if there was someone I could sell them/give to if they were on.)

But that said, I get his point. As a warrior I have no immediate use for sleeks aside from it weakening my enemy (which I usually don't care about) or turning them over to my allies (which I kind of cared about since the black sect was kind of in the ####ter and Empire in general needed a leg up.)

EDIT: I also don't think a character should be frowned upon for looting if he can take a loot. If you're a heavy looter but don't bitch when looted, cool. If you don't loot except what you need and want similar treatment, equally same. I made it a point with Ooglarr to try to minimize my bitching about being looted. And I ate some seriously heavy loots. In return, I rewarded myself by being a bit more grabby then I would otherwise.

I was, personally, much more offended by the Zhenyen/Archmage incident given my Gawlar/Nightwalker experience.

I just get the feel there's a serious lack of consistency in Immortal decisions. I'm not sure if that's due to the simple fact of "lot of people lot of personalities" or due to a lack of communication.

Basically, a sphere Greed character with well defined motivations and valid reasons to roleplay a Graatch-like character in regards to looting should be completely free to do so with fear of being seen as "not cool" by the coolest kid you know (Nepenthe).

Obviously the flipside of this is of course, if that character then bitches about being looted without entering in a role entry about being a massive blithely self-delusional hypocrite I (and most of the other players/former players, I'd imagine) have no problem titling them something stupid or mocking them via gecho (my favorite...love ya Grurk).

Conversely, perhaps Immortals who have a tenuously grasp on certain roleplaying nuances should refrain from interacting with specific characters re: Cabal business. Though it may work out for some characters without harm (like Zhenyen or several of my own characters), it's putting the Immortal and the player in a very dicey situation that can go wrong at one mis-typed command or one simple miscommunication (IE It's definitely Cador in this mob so it may color how a player views the interaction).

>I just get the feel there's a serious lack of consistency in
>Immortal decisions. I'm not sure if that's due to the simple
>fact of "lot of people lot of personalities" or due to a lack
>of communication.

And this is basically it.

If you expect Arvam to be consistent to a decision Reksah made a year earlier (or whatever), you're going to have a bad time. Different people have different ideas of what is fair, and also weigh the context at hand (which can't be boiled down to the level of a PBF comment) differently too. Nobody's out to get you or the players or a particular alignment or whatever in a general sense, but opinions on what's appropriate vary a lot. We try to reign in the extreme outliers (for example, we didn't let Eshval unempower other people's paladins for carrying a spare weapon) but even within that range there can be big variations.

For the record, it's not like I haven't been on the "bad" side of this as a player myself more than a few times. Twist or anyone else on staff who plays mortals has been, too.

To this day I believe that what happened to Gawlar could have been his Dhaevor moment, but it wasn't. That's too bad for everyone involved.

My main recollection is that he killed a lot of people, used strange bracers and Drizzt's sword that cast chill touch, but could justify that IC.

He was one of the better PK'ers all the time, but was definetly always pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable mechanics wise.

I forget the exact specifics/ordering of it, but the gist is that he got thrown out of Battle for ganging a guy, wrote stuff about the importance of following the tablet, became kind of a born-again tablet hardass, got back into Battle and got a special title about being the defender of the tablet.

In this context what I'm getting at is based on what happened to Gawlar and the way he reacted at the time to the Archmage cracking on him, I thought he was going to turn his setback into a character defining moment in similar fashion.

You have players that selectively log off when at risk.

Fair that they loot when they avoid the risk of it happening to them by cheating?

I'm not even attempting to mention any current characters but Ooglarr.

And if he selectively logged in/logged off, I'd be really surprised.

My preference is that we would continue to be frank in our feedback. I don't think the PBFs would be very interesting to read if we fully sanitized every comment like a corporate release so that everyone cannot possibly be offended by them.

Additionally, while I'm interested in feedback from the player in question (*) about PBF comments, I care much less what a third party thinks of the comment, divorced from the context it was in. This is especially true of a few players (**) who have an axe to grind and actively hunt for things that will make them weep into their oatmeal. I hope no one believes they actually care about the character in question, vs. merely stirring the pot.

In this case in particular, we're discussing advisory comments based on first-hand observation, with no action taken. These happen, and we can either note them in a semi-public format, or keep them in our heads. You're not going to make us not think them, and I think the semi-public disclosure is a good thing.

*: In particular, that fact that the alleged lootasaurus was taking things for sale bothers me less. That said, it's the kind of motivation I'd probably make more explicit with a comment/taunt to the victim (which might also tip off the Immortal who is observing, vs. making him follow you around while you arrange it later). This is also why movie villains tend to explain their machinations to the heroes, often to their own detriment. RP is better when it's not only in your head.

**: TMNS: I'm not saying you in particular, but let's all admit there is room for less rage/drama in the top-level post of this thread.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

And yeah, probably a little too "blue" for the first post, my second post was much more reasonable I'd like to believe.

I'd like to think that most people can handle a bit of criticism. There was a while years ago where I felt like some of the imm comments went a bit overboard in terms of 'trashing people for fun'...but the ones the OP is talking about are fine.

The thing people don't get I think is that full looting down to the pies and smack talking is not what the Imms mean when they say they like 'seeing people who are evil *being* evil'. "Being evil" is a lot more than that - it's about being willing to tell an 'ally' that they're a fool or betraying someone or in general being all about you. I think that full loots are a "lazy attempt" at being evil - at least in a vacuum.

Edited to add : I don't actually know this character that's being discussed. I have however seen a few people try to substitute being evil or villainous as a character with just looting heavily as if the two were linked.