Best Of

You are creating subjective rules that fit only your position.

In reality, it is no different from the very opinion you have what I would be doing, it is not that I am doing these things but instead representing an example similarly posed.

We could go round and round trying to justify what is acceptable and what is not, ultimately it will boil down to tether tribalism on what is acceptable. When we are winning, we are right, and when we are losing it is wrong. At the end of the day neither party is correct. There is no amount of justification or rules lawyering that will make it acceptable. It is purely going to take based on the state of things, one side finally having enough that they throw a big enough fit for any appropriate feedback.

This is where things get a bit messy of course.

If we want to foster the type of environment that Elene and others have been bringing up lately regarding OOC feelings being hurt, and lots of player smearing. I think I can reliably say which side will break first. So, really as I see it, lets see what happens, I have been on good behavior as of late, and I'm not going to gather the masses to jump people for things like putting up shrines. (not like any of the defenders are even in the orders of the Gods for the shrines anyways) However, I know myself and others could certainly devolve our standards a bit to see what comes of it.

I feel like you're trying to justify actions in a 'spirit of the law' vs 'letter of the law' - when in reality I personally think you're overstepping in both regards. 'But it's my RP' is such a tired excuse for killmongering that people have tried to use against Aetolia's PK system for a lot longer than you or I have played the game. It was never accepted then, and I certainly don't think it should be accepted now.

This comes down to what we define the game as being 'about', I guess. I think it's a safe assumption, though, that we agree on the notion that a main focus for Aetolia is roleplay and a growing story. This would make the game 'roleplay-centric', for sure. We roleplay everyday. We demand a certain degree of 'roleplay' in pretty much every interaction in the game. Without it, the organizations would have severely diminished stakes because they would just be coats of paint.

So. If this is an RP-centric game, why is 'but it's my RP' a maligned PK reason? Especially when it is done in moderation? I would agree that 'it's my RP' is a bad reason for just walking up and killing citizens of an off-tether city. That's a tremendous stretch. However, that's not what is happening here in any of these situations. In that scenario, the victim is minding their own business. In reality, there is no victim party in the PvP exchanges over the last week or so. The people holding sermons, shouting stuff, and raising shrines are making roleplay decisions - and those decisions are open to consequences or reactions. Violence is a valid reaction, IC - especially with parties you have given up the notion of reasoning with. As it would so happen, my character has absolutely given up the notion of reasoning with Bamathis - there was an entire story arc for it where he tried, even! He has changed after that.

If roleplay is so important to this game, why is the roleplay of rejecting or standing against a cause not an acceptable justification for enmity? Is it because the roleplay is not actively happening in front of you? I would say there is no reasonable explanation for this aside from an unwillingness to accept that there could be consequences for roleplay decisions.

Maybe we define 'roleplay decisions' differently? Not sure.

When I start killing every Duirani novice, because Duiran has Haern as a patron, and it would be uncouth for me to change my RP, for a faction that does things my character doesn't like, I will be sure to reference this. Afterall, I shouldn't have to change my RP because it upsets people. (Sounds real bad when you read it that way, but I'm down to clown)

I think I am beginning to see why my opinion is objectionable to you.

What you just described in my quoted block is the type of bad faith approach to "it's my RP" that I would agree as being unacceptable.

As it would so happen, I'm not doing that right now. My character is killing Bamathis congregants and Bamathis order members that engage in Bamathis business - and only when they are currently engaging in that business. He might pay a little extra attention to where they are so he can catch them doing minors or something, but otherwise he leaves them alone outside of what I'd like to call Work Hours. If you decide to kill absolutely unrelated parties because your character is mad at a god or character, it will be you setting that precedent, not I.

I'm going to use Bamathis as a prime example for my points as the only conflict I see people budging into is conflict concerning Bamathis.

I think there's a little bit of hyperbole in these takes about 'people getting involved' or what is designated as 'allowable conflict'. I think it's disingenuous to blame 'us vs. them' for any of what is being discussed in the last two posts. It feels a lot like we're blaming 'tether tribalism' for what's actually just a bunch of Spirit characters being justifiably angry at Bamathis and banding together to show it. From where I stand: there's nothing established - just unwritten cultural norms. I have no obligation to these norms and nor do you.

The god in question is a divisive figure that not only draws trouble down onto his own order via his own actions, but also empowers mortal representatives and officers who have the exact same effect on people as he does. As I said to someone else, asking people to stay out of fights being picked with that order is asking those players to make unrealistic roleplay decisions. The consistency of my character is important - I am not obligated to breach that just because you think it's unfun to fight extra bodies. I don't think I have to put on a 3 Act Play to prove the existence of that consistency or how it would inform Iesid's decisions as a figure in Aetolia's story. It should be very obvious where he stands, because he makes no secret about his disdain. It would be a betrayal of what his character consists of to step away just because it isn't 'his turn' yet. There are no turns and there is no pecking order. If you insist that one exists, I would claim that you only do so because it serves you better at this very moment to have one.

Along those lines, I think it's a recipe for heartache to hope that every single fight, every single spat, etc is going to be neatly boxed up and only allow certain participants. That is, after all, what birthed the Battlefield system that has gone virtually unused since the Ilhavon 'event'. If people really wanted these neat and organized wargames between specifically selected sides, I would expect them to exhibit in good faith that they desire them by trying to utilize that system. Beyond that? There's absolutely nothing in the rules that says that we must make our characters stand aside or wait in line for their turn to have conflict with someone. I think that's asking us to cheapen the fact that we play characters in a world with an ongoing story.

Similarly, I don't think anyone is entitled to X amount of roleplay scenes before the PK happens. If my character is a publicly acknowledged enemy of Bamathis, I think it goes without saying that you can expect him to want to put a stop to anything Bamathis-related. If you would insist otherwise, you are trying to construct a system of rules that can then be utilized later in bad faith or an excessively pedantic manner. Or perhaps those rules will just set poor expectations. If what you are asking for is rules and regulations that you may then try to impress upon me in OOC tells without any IC interaction whatsoever, I'm going to say that I would just prefer we remain in this limbo.

But this is more than a story. It is also a game and a community of players. For that reason, I often encourage (and adhere to) moderation. I'm not going to go out and gank Bamathis congregants for no reason. They can bash, quest, RP out in the open (for the most part) and I will specifically avoid bothering them unless they have given a recent reason not to. But with that moderation comes an expectation that folks accept the reality of when Iesid will interfere or attack them: when there's some form of stakes. They're raising a shrine? Holding sermon? Defiling a shrine? Attacking villagers? These are all IC actions and they all have IC consequences, up to and including someone coming to interrupt those actions.