Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 3.7K All Categories
- 3K The Midnight Age
- 757 Announce posts
- 125 Newbies
- 6 Class Guides
- 804 Harpy's Head Tavern
- 57 Echo Canyon
- 310 Self-Affirmations
- 163 Town Crier
- 135 The Exchange
- 167 Sparring Grounds
- Combat Guides
- 30 Combat Logs
- 188 Idea Box
- 9 Classleads
- 578 Roleplay Logs
- 107 Aetolia Development
- 5 The Void
- 744 Miscellaneous
- 9 Announcements
- 417 OOC Chat
- 217 Tech Talk
- 47 Scripts
Looking for more active discussion? Join our Discord at https://discord.gg/x2s7fY6
Comments
[spoiler]
SHAMANS NEWS #65
Date: 7/10/2013 at 4:27
From: Arbre Silverain
To : Everyone
Subj: Gods
Praadi -
I want to take the time to take a referendum regarding the Gods of our
land and Who is acceptable to follow. I do want to note that I may or
may not follow whatever the results are - ultimately it is my job to
make my very best decision in leading the guild, and I am going to do
that. That being said, I wonder about the Ones that are not strictly
against us in Their tenets and how problematic it would be to follow
Them whilst in the Praadi.
The Gods that directly support Undeath will not be considered in this,
which means this referendum is in regards to Iosyne, Lady Niuri, and
Lords Severn and Maghak.
Iosyne's (and She prefers to be called this, I do not leave out Lady as
a sign of disrespect) tenets are pain (to embrace and learn from),
equality (that no one is inherently better than you), and power (if you
do not have it, get it; if you have it, shape the world in your image).
Aldric Adariel said he is willing to speak with anyone about Her is they
desire.
Lady Niuri's tenets are excellence, purpose, and sacrifice. They believe
that knowledge transcends the mortal battles of live and Undeath, and
spirit and shadow.
Lord Severn is the God of Artifice and this is all the information I can
give you of Him - His followers are difficult to pin down. The big thing
to think about when considering Him is how acceptable Artifice is in our
life. Do the ends justify the means kind of thing.
Lord Maghak's tenets are power, dominance, and control. He does not care
about Undeath in particular though they are allowed in His Order.
Eleanor Junakutz-Lionheart said she is willing to speak with anyone
about Him if they desire.
Here are the options you will be provided with:
1. None of these Gods are acceptable. - If this is unanimous, the
subject will be null.
2. Some of these Gods are acceptable. - This means that at least one God
is acceptable and at least one God is not, and therefore more votes are
required.
3. I need more information. - I will try to dig it up and post again.
4. All of these Gods are acceptable. - If this is unanimous, I will
seriously consider opening Them up to be followed. Even if it IS
unanimous I still may decide not to.
If you feel so strongly on this topic that you need to speak out, I
encourage you to do so. The public boards are open to you as well as
approaching me directly. This is a very big decision and needs to be
handled wisely. If you are of a rank that does not allow you to vote but
wish your opinion heard, let me know and I will keep it in mind.
As a final note, some of you reside in Enorian and most of you are
members of the Duiran Council. Our referendum covers the guild only and
therefore whatever decisions made here may not be acceptable in those
organizations. "But the Hand of the Praadi let me do it," is not an
acceptable answer to them.
A. Silverain
Penned by my hand on the 22nd of Arios, in the year 395 MA.
[/spoiler]
I've thought about something similar ever since @Iosyne returned and her order was created. Pain, Equality, and Power resonates very strongly with my view of nature (albeit from my brief interaction with Xavin it sort of became apparent that it really wouldn't be worthwhile trying to bring any of that to a broader audience in Duiran). There is lots of pain in nature. I'd say it actually is one of the defining points of nature. It is a huge part in learning how to survive and even prosper. Equality because, well, nature doesn't give a crap about who your dad were, that your cousin is the Senator, or that you're the Grandchile of Abhorash; unless you're strong, nature will screw you over. Power is more of thing for sentient creatures, but it's still one of those things that I'd see less civilized cultures striving for. And let's be fair, Duiran is as primal as any of the cities come. I suppose I could have tried telling more in Duiran about it, but I got kind of intimidated because it'd be a daunting project and I got the feeling that people wouldn't be very accepting of a vampire coming to preach about the evil Demonspidergoddess's dogmas. Which is a shame, because She is awesome and Her tenets really make sense.
I want to say that your (Arbre's) post looks seriously awesome. I get why there's sides and polarization in this game, but it just feels so... fake, I guess. Generally, when I play fantasy RPGs they have fairly 'realistic' approaches (uh, low fantasy rather than high fantasy) with a focus on character development. In none of these settings, there's 'good' nations or 'evil' nations: there's just nations. Most of these nations have outright banned 'evil' gods, but there's still plenty of evil to be found because most humans with influence, especially aristocrats/noblemen, gets corrupted or caught up in intrigues. Just look at the Game of Thrones series, for example. The Stark/Lannister/Reindeer-families are not good or evil, they are just powerful. And sometimes, even doing the right thing is evil.
Having blatantly good and evil sides feels artificial to me. It's like saying the Christians were good and the Muslims were evil during the Crusades, when in fact they were both good and they were both evil. Things are way more complex than that. This is irrelevant in the context of Aetolia because Aetolia draws on the whole vampiric, predators of the night theme, where the undead/necromancers/demon-summoners are evil. I just wanted to say that there's interesting alternatives: one of my characters in a pen and paper roleplaying game was a necromancer who tried manipulating and harnessing the powers of death because she was suffering from a terminal illness and was afraid of death. To keep people from figuring out, she worked in a hospice (lots of dead bodies supply) as a healer (no one would expect the healer to be using forbidden death magics). It was fun and interesting because of playing an 'evil' character that wasn't motivated by evil or trying to bring doom and destruction to the world.
In short, I think shades of gray can be awesome. I'm just not convinced they'll work in Aetolia as things are now. Perhaps if Sapience got destroyed and everyone was forced to move into a completely new land where everything was new and different and we had to work together to overcome obstacles.
EDIT:
Fixed some spelling. I'm so tired.
EDIT2:
I really liked the invasions from the Dreikathi and later the Nazedha because it didn't feel like either of these people were evil for the sake of evil (sort of like how Bloodloch comes across), but rather we thought they were evil because of what they did and how their societies were built up. These two entities felt way more realistic and interesting than, for example, some of the lore in Bloodloch or the Indorani. I'm not saying that I don't like Bloodloch or the Indorani (I really like both of these organizations), but some of the history/lore/ambitions feel like they were made up to reinforce the image of evil, wicked monsters of death and destruction, rather than having a background that gave them believable reasons to pursue agendas that were ethically and morally questionable. Does any of this make any sense?
I must also say that I don't understand the hatred for polarization - sure, it can be easy to take things a bit too far sometimes, but in the absence of it, you end up with conflicting ideals getting blurred out and factions not really standing for anything and becoming rather, well, pointless. You can maybe avoid this if you have stellar RPers everywhere and stuff, but, you don't.
And let me start by saying that if anybody remembers my character, they remember two things about him:
1. He boffed plenty of baddies.
2. He was one of the most active, vicious and dangerous enemies the baddies faced.
At the SAME TIME OMG.
Here's the thing. Association laws are basically never good. No, not sometimes good. No, not good in certain circumstances. Just bad, bad, bad, bad all the way through.
The things they're slated to be good for are actually not things they are good for. When you say that association laws bring definition or cause conflict or cause tension or support the ideological structure of an organization - you are DEAD WRONG.
This is probably a controversial statement, so I'll elaborate. Association laws only treat the symptom of the lack of the aforementioned things. The point at which you need association laws to sustain your ideological structure is the time at which your organization members already don't give a flying pegasus about the guild's actual stance and you need a law to beat them over the head with when they start making vampire babies. It is not a solution, it is lipstick on a pig. If you don't want them making vampire babies, make it a part of your narrative how dangerous and horrible and bad vampires are. If they're STILL willingly going against the mainstream view of the guild's stance, you let them know and you deal with them as you would with anyone that's preaching opposite ideals. You deal with them as you would deal with a Sentinel trying to turn the Aalen into a desert.
Association laws DO NOT cause conflict - they only stifle it. There is no conflict to be had in avoidance. This should be plain to see by definition. A lack of interaction can only lead to a lack of conflict. Conflict is born in interaction and more specifically - it is born in interaction between opposing viewpoints and if those viewpoints are not opposing to begin with, you have not done your job in promoting your guild's agenda to its own members.
It's not even about shades of gray. Define your guild in as stark or in as soft a palette as you desire. If your people are then violating the guild's spirit as soon as they start talking to enemies, then they weren't convinced of the ideals to begin with. How is it that syssin can send their guys out to corrupt/bribe/screw up members of lighter guilds without being afraid the syssin agent is just going to start breeding lighter babies?
Association laws are a product of the fear that your guildmembers can't hold their ideological ground, while the members of opposing guilds CAN.
I haven't been able to read or write in this post until no, so forgive me if I return to the situation that started it all. If you don't want to answer, that is perfectly fine, I just really need to vent a few things, since I was the one who got this whole thing rolling. (Big apology to the mods and their yellow texts telling us to drop the Ascendril issue.)
Moirean and Tralendar
[spoiler]
Sessi has -Always- been open with her associations, even if she was reluctant to mention names directly. All names has been out in the open for some time though. She has never gone behind anyone's back. When she was invited to Moirean's home for a chat and was asked why she was there, she said it was to get some answers for some questions, which was entirely true. She was there to learn more about Tralendar, who was one of the founders of the Ascendril. That was it. That has basically Always been the reason she has spent time with her or Tral. To learn.
[/spoiler]
Muffins
[spoiler]
Xenia later found out about her muffins and asked if she would be willing to sell some to her, so that she then could sell them in her shop. That's strictly business. It was a way for Sessi to earn some gold and get the Word about her muffins out into the World. From what I know, crafters -do- accept work when people ask for jewelers/woodcrafters/tailors, despite affiliation. Right? So why would it be different to sell wares to Xenia, or to help Piper with her brunch? It was work, nothing else.
[/spoiler]
The apprenticeship
[spoiler]
The only time I had met Eleanor Before she made the offer for apprenticeship was at the Iron Epicurean. Never talked to her Before that. Since I know Eleanor is an awesome rp'er -and crafter-, I saw this as a chance to better my crafting and to get some rp out of it as well. Once again, in my Eyes, this was business. It would have made me a better crafter, -and- help my grammar, -and- help me work on my emotes.
[/spoiler]
What I was told (or how I read it)
[spoiler]
I was told different things from different leadership people in the Guild. I was told to not take the apprenticeship and even though I was not told straight out to sever all ties, that is what was implied. Sessi had spent too much time with the Spireans and that was not a good thing. Stop it.
Another one told me that it's okay to do it, just never tell anyone about. So I was adviced to lie and sneak around when doing it, instead of being open and honest the whole way, both with who I was seeing and why. That doesn't seem right to me.
I was also told that there are plenty of crafters in Enorian, so go ask them about apprenticeship instead. I never asked about the apprenticeship to begin with. Eleanor asked Sessi.
Sessi is constantly told that people trust her not to do anything stupid, they trust that she won't leave the Guild or become a traitor. I think that's what annoys me. Gather all the information about the shadow plague was all good and well, but gods forbid you actually do something for yourself. The worse thing is that I actually feel like I grabbed as much information as I possibly could and then ran, which is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. But that's how it's made me feel.
[/spoiler]
My overreaction
[spoiler]
Yes, I overracted and I'm sorry about that. I know the people involved read this thread and I hope you all accept my apology. Ciarelle said that she was getting frustrated and annoyed and quite frankly, so was I. I was not in Spinesreach selling our secrets to the Syssin. I was not humping Spireans on Ulangi, (even though I know Ciarelle might think something like that will happen, since Moirean tries to marry Sessi off to all the single men around. <.<) But not, that's not gonna happen.
Sessi is not interested in living in Spinesreach or Bloodloch. She is not interested in joining another Guild and she is not interested in having a relationship with anyone who Thinks undeath is a good thing. What she wants though, is to learn and grow. What I as a player wants is rp. Aetolia is a refuge from my everyday-life. It's a place where I can relax and have some fun and get away.
I don't like forcing myself on people, be it irl or with rp. I don't feel comfortable just walking up to people to strike a conversation and hope that rp comes from it. At least not all the time. Of course I understand that I can't expect rp to come to me, but I don't want to be the one who is all in-your-face all the time. I know I need to change my attitude about some things like that and I am working on it. Just don't expect big changes in notime.
[/spoiler]
And finally:
Association laws
[Spoiler]
I think there are -some- association laws that's not too bad. Aiding the enemy, like fighting alongside them, Point out where foci can be found, giving sensitive information, romantic/physical relationships. I get it. Not good and I absolutely approve of that. What I dislike is when you as a Lighties can't meet up with people who play Darkies, just because. That I don't get. Especially when the excuse is that they are murderous gangsters who will corrupt or kill you, cause let's face it, there are Lighties who are just as bad, just the other way around. I just want to have fun and get some rp and I honestly don't care where I get it from, as long as it's enjoyable. But I really do dislike breaking laws to get it.
[/spoiler]
Message #17059 Sent By: Oleis Received On: 1/03/2014/17:24
"If it makes you feel better, just checking your artifact list threatens to crash my mudlet."
Message #17059 Sent By: Oleis Received On: 1/03/2014/17:24
"If it makes you feel better, just checking your artifact list threatens to crash my mudlet."
I have heard this from several enorianites now, which makes me very curious about who it actually was that complained to the Ascendril leadership. But that's not something to discuss on forums, I'll handle that icly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(The Front Line): Daskalos says, "<-- artifacts."
Before Aetolia, I played a sentinel in Achaea, at times fully forestal, and at other times light/good/Shallam etc rp.
Aetolia opened, and I made an alt here, purely to play the opposite sort of character - evil, anti-nature. That didn't last long - I ended up a sentinel in Haern's order. Why?
Because Haern's order at the time was full of infernals, pallies, priests, occies, druids - everyone. They would fight anyone (including each other), ally with anyone, and had their own agenda which was unashamedly and very clearly neither good nor evil. Not just the anti-civ part; that was just a manifestation of it which was fun for a while and tedious by the end.
Slowly, over the years, that freedom and uniqueness was eroded away. And while I would like to blame this admin or that dev or that rp god for it all, the truth is that most of it was due to pressure put on them by the players.
"Its stupid to have necromancers in Haern's order, make him stop!"
"But necromancy is just magic deal with death, a celebrate part of the rhythm of life blah blah blah." (More to the point, why did you people care? Not your order; what you, a born-again Haernite, door knocking in Aetolia?)
"Yeah well it's stupid and necromancy should be changed so that your rp isn't acceptable anymore."
Devs: OK. We'll tweak necromancy so Haern has to reject them.
That kind of thing happened over and over, in different ways and for different reasons (a huge one being the war system), until eventually Duiran became Enorian 2.0
Over time, players and patrons have worked hard to redistinguish Duiran, which is great - but it is still very much constrained by that life/undeath divide.
The new continent, and a new enemy, with new conflict mechanisms unrelated to undeath, promised to lessen the importance of the life/undead divide, giving people opportunities and justifications for temporarily allying. Also perhaps for some groups to ditch the prejudice altogether and work for something else.
It hasn't delivered all that in practice, but it has to a degree and certainly will in the future, particularly once the plotline eventually begins to move forward again.
@Irruel fixed it for you.
@Irruel - Part of the problem is that Duiran left Enorian out to dry on several occasions, leaving them 2v1'd in the war system. No one likes a war you can't win, and so a group of players, including a certain Enorian Herald (Sibatti) left to 'fix' Duiran. They tried to balance it with Ashtan\Eno vs Reach\Loch but the problem is that when it would be 1v1 (Say, Enorian\Reach) the moment Reach started losing, they'd ask Loch for help, who would give it. Then Eno is being 2v1'd. The war system is what forced the changes more than anything, to try and keep it balanced. It's why I hate the war system and am glad it's gone, because -now- the 4 cities can pursue individual RP again and conflict, but until Spinesreach and Loch have a big wedge driven between them (never going to happen) Enorian and Duiran can't risk major inter-org conflict.
Message #17059 Sent By: Oleis Received On: 1/03/2014/17:24
"If it makes you feel better, just checking your artifact list threatens to crash my mudlet."
I'm of the opposite mind on that matter. I think it was quite fine for each city to be responsible with its politics to the point where it wouldn't be put in the position to 2v1. It meant you had to work for maintaining your allies rather than just acting like whatever way you choose to screw them over, you'd still be guaranteed a safety net.
I thought it was excellent when Duiran screwed Enorian, after Enorian spent so long trashing Duiran and even having them robbed of comms to bully them into cooperating. And I thought it was goddamn fantastic when Duiran, with Siba and myself, positioned ourselves politically in such a way as to get Spines to sit out our war against Bloodloch. THAT was the height of the war system for me personally. Politics actually making a massive, massive difference for the outcome of massive conflicts.
If you set things up in black and white again, there's no room for political maneuvering. You parrot the mainstream or you get thrown out.
...how could you of all people even say that?
Bloodloch and Spinesreach had a huge wedge between them the past couple of months until recently that probably would've remained if not for Moirean's return/initiative to stitch it back together. Prior to the repair of Bloodreach, I had my character try for something different and cause conflict between the two cities of Enorian and Duiran, legitimate conflict at that, and you were among the people that stonewalled that avenue hard.
The truth of the matter is that the majority of players in both Duiran and Enorian simply aren't interested in having conflict with each other.
Edit: Which is fine. It's perfectly within their right but don't BS that. >_>
Message #17059 Sent By: Oleis Received On: 1/03/2014/17:24
"If it makes you feel better, just checking your artifact list threatens to crash my mudlet."
Eh. It'd seem weird to have inter-org conflict on a large scale when there's even worse enemies just around the corner. In a political climate with four major powers that're separated into two clear-cut sides, it'd just really not make any sense to bicker with the other part of your side before the rest of them are gone. This is probably why the majorety of Duiran/Enorian players don't want major conflicts with each other. Being on enemy status with 75% of the game would get pretty one-sided.
I'm really hoping the new Research trees and the faction systems will fix a lot of the issues here as there's just so much potential for avenues of conflict that don't involve getting the bigger ganksquad and murdering everyone on sight. Makes me miss the monthly development posts.
EDIT:
I personally don't mind there being tension between Bloodloch and Spinesreach or Enorian and Duiran at all, really. I loved hearing about what Haven did and I think it was awesome as an isolated incident. If all the Luminaries went out to burn all the forests every day, it would get kind of strange. I mean, Bloodloch -is- the greater threat for Enorian and it'd probably be a bad move to shift things in a different direction without adding both some sort of lore justification and other conflict mechanics first.
Addendum: Before I get a flood of nay-sayyers, let me make it clear that the war system and the tense RP that it often spawned is one of the main reasons I came to Aetolia. Maybe there wasn't much RP around it in YOUR orgs, but I've been reading log after log after newspost of meetings, planning, plotting, fallouts and intrigue that just plain doesn't exist anymore, or isn't accessible to the average character. Yes, sometimes (and perhaps often) it devolved into petty bickering and half OOC temper tantrums... so?
The old shrine conflict was bad because an offender could bash out a few areas and easily take out several shrines without really anyone noticing. I like the current system, although I wish the time to pray at a shrine were reduced to something more reasonable. Five minutes or so would be better.
I know what the problem is with Haven's actions and attitude. I purposely designed the character to have those flaws because I find it interesting seeing how he grows or deteriorates as a person. I like to portray that tragic mindset and see how others or himself try to mend it. Not to mention the very reactions of other player characters and the world to his antics. I'm not trying to defend his actions whatsoever because I personally think he's a nutcase and am often glad when people rise to stop/challenge him.
That said... I honestly don't believe that the majority of the players in either Duiran or Enorian are actually interested in this kind of conflict at all because they've had numerous opportunities to do so in the past but consistently choose not to with the excuse often if not always being "Well, Bloodreach will discend upon us." And that's just not always true. To say otherwise I cannot help but feel is false.
I've seen the frustration of players from Spinesreach during their feud with Bloodloch. I've seen Bloodloch sit back and laugh/mock at Spinesreach when Enodui marched on them. I've seen Bloodloch try to pull Spinesreach back under their thumb by pointing out their failure to keep EnoDui at bay. I'm not going to say they never cooperated during that enter feud but for the majority of it they didn't.
Edit: My point is the opportunity is there and I think it's a tad bit unfair that you're placing blame at Spinesreach/Bloodloch's feet when you are among the chief people who advocate against any sort of split temporary or otherwise in the game.