Welcome to the Achaea Forums! Please be sure to read the Forum Rules.

Forest Conflict

1356711

Comments

  • KyrraKyrra Sanctum of the SkyMember Posts: 4,826 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I was just optimistic about toteming entire forests. The highway pales in comparison ;)

    @Trilliana, I remember back when you could implant in groves. Kind of miss those days.
    (D.M.A.): Cooper says, "Kyrra is either the most innocent person in the world, or the girl who uses the most innuendo seemingly unintentionally but really on purpose."

    Sherazad
  • SherazadSherazad Planef UrthMember Posts: 956 @ - Epic Achaean
    Kyrra said:
    I was just optimistic about toteming entire forests. The highway pales in comparison ;) @Trilliana, I remember back when you could implant in groves. Kind of miss those days.
    Haha, cute.

    NU. >(
    Bleh, work ate my gaming life.
    내가 제일 잘 나가!!!111!!1


    Kyrra
  • MishgulMishgul ROTHERHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMember Posts: 5,314 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Implanted totems not conducive to fun. Giving people more reasons to entrench in any fight is the wrong way to go.

    Fix icons using something similar to exterm mechanics causing temporary damage to create renewable and sustainable combat, and have icons give a better boost like an extra major trait or something.

    Exterminations are fun for some people on both sides regardless of snide remarks or complaints from either side. The issue has always been lack of respect towards players shown by either side, which is not something i have seen from anyone except Ravien and Rangor (personally speaking).

    I've come not to expect it really, most of Mhaldor and Eleusis treat each other with childish disdain which breeds a foul OOC atmosphere into the conflict, making it ten times worse than it should be. It's a shame because i love the atmospheres in both cities a lot more than any other place in the game, and have active characters in each.

    -

    One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important

    As drawn by Shayde
    hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae
    SherazadRangor
  • DelphinusDelphinus Member Posts: 896 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Trilliana said:
    We used to have totems EVERYWHERE, every grove had one, and then the forests ate the totems, IIRC. Great event too if I remember it.
    The removal was a bit more justified in the days of grove trap/cage, and especially in the days of pre-nerf Oakstone defences. There's still the minor point about people wandering off the highway into totems, but if Oakstone and exterm go, that'll be a non-issue as well.

    Really, I'm mostly thinking of org-owned properties here. It'd be nice to rezz people in a place where we don't lose XP for doing so.

    Nizaris said:
    [2] Where is "the suck" in my suggestion? It's true that I envision it as essentially a flavoured monolith that stops flow/summon/forest defenses. Hell, I don't really object to your suggestion, as it would certainly be easier than exterming: monoliths are quicker to throw down/flame, monos stop more than just flow/summon, monos don't cost essence. But, there's still a flavour that's missing -- Evil needs to be, well, evil, dammit. :D
    The word "extermination" carries an awful lot of baggage, and is less than ideal as a result.

    That said, I'd be opposed to monoliths stopping grove summon. Alchemy displace already works that way, and without the environmental constraints.


    Mishgul said:
    I've come not to expect it really, most of Mhaldor and Eleusis treat each other with childish disdain which breeds a foul OOC atmosphere into the conflict, making it ten times worse than it should be. It's a shame because i love the atmospheres in both cities a lot more than any other place in the game, and have active characters in each.
    Hey now, I disdain both sides equally.
  • SkyeSkye The Duchess BellatereMember, Seafaring Liason Posts: 2,912 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Delphinus said:

    Mishgul said:
    I've come not to expect it really, most of Mhaldor and Eleusis treat each other with childish disdain which breeds a foul OOC atmosphere into the conflict, making it ten times worse than it should be. It's a shame because i love the atmospheres in both cities a lot more than any other place in the game, and have active characters in each.
    Hey now, I disdain both sides equally.
    ^^^


  • XithXith Member Posts: 2,602 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Replace the forest defs with lycopods. Problem solved.

    But in seriousness, is the problem that one side is underpowered?
    Because it seems to me that forestals should be overpowered in the forest, and that if you manage to exterminate a room and establish those footholds to cancel forestal power, you've earned your foothold.

    Portable extermination was an interesting suggestion, but extermination might need a different dynamic altogether. Few options:
    1. Extermination is an essence investment that in turn can return essence to the necromancer. But right now it's one shot per room and takes a long time investment.
    a) give exterminating a room destruction flair, where if multiple necros do it at once, the exterm is faster and each gets a yield of essence on completion
    b) or when a room is exterminated, other necros can syphon additional essence from the room, making eventual repair more difficult for forestals
    c) just damage the forest room in stages, pulling more life essence out of the room

    2. Make extermination temporary, but increase the time based on adjacent rooms also being exterminated. A sort of spreading decay mechanic perhaps. Something like Permeate, useable in an exterminated room that forces a level of decay into adjacent rooms and restores the present room to 100% decay.
    - Add entities to Necromancy that can be summoned into an exterminated room, the way Apostasy ents require a pentagram, thus giving necro defs to a room after forest defs have been negated. And give extermination or permeate possibilities inside Eleusis to take the fight home.

    3. For the reverse, give forests more power.
    - Change the timing and such on wolves and vines. 
    - add other forest defs like an occasional tripping vine or ensnaring tendrils, small bee attacks, offbalancing birds, poisonous spitting flowers like in Jumanji, snakes, etc. BUT make them random and timers infrequent enough that they aren't predictable or overly harassing, allowing forest enemies to still successfully navigate through places they might need to without dying.
    - you'd see more trouble from the forests, but on the flip side, let exterminate decay a room in stages, slowly stripping certain forest defs from the location. ex: 20% destroyed removes poisonous flowers and entangling effects, 40% removes bees and birds


    I like my steak like I like my Magic cards: mythic rare.
    Mishgul
  • AwanAwan Member Posts: 40 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Nizaris said:
    I propose neutering extermination quite fully: one room per necromancer, have it not even generate an Oakstone warning because no damage is truly done:
    • Picture a cloud that inhibits natural processes; not one that destroys and burns nature.
    • Shorten time limit of extermination to something similar to rites/vibes/harmonics, at which point, the cloud dissipates and natural processes continue.
    • Cloud is moved when summoned to a different location. This allows natural processes in the original location to continue as though nothing had happened in the first place.
    • Give forestals the ability to gust the cloud away when in the same room in one of their morphs.
    Evil wouldn't even have a goal to accomplish in the forest itself; the goal would be in Eleusis, or shrines within the forests, perhaps -- systems that are already balanced in the sense that each side can attack the other equally. Extermination would just be reduced to a defensive measure to facilitate those conflicts, not a conflict in itself.
    I guess this could be okay, actually. We'd have to not call it "extermination," but you could replace extermination with a necromantic ability that gave no warning, was entirely temporary, didn't need to be fixed, and caused no long-term harm to nature but merely "suppressed" Nature's power for a brief time. If it was framed that way, we could freely decide to not be anxious about that or to need to defend against it. But it would keep a little bit of the flavour: we could keep grove flow/grove summon as our special naturey skills, while giving necromancers in particular a way of countering them.

    Sure, that sounds nice to me.

    Sherazad said:
    Honestly, these threads tire me so much and I sort of feel bad about people who are optimistic with it. There are so many good ideas but it's like the thing with Sartan. There's a problem but it looks like it's being forgotten. I mean, I wanna be optimistic in everything but ugh. 
    Who's optimistic? It's become crystal-clear that fixing nature conflict, despite how desperately broken it is, is an incredibly low priority for the administration. :(
    Nizaris
  • SherazadSherazad Planef UrthMember Posts: 956 @ - Epic Achaean
    edited March 2013
    @Awan: People continuing to post their ideas on forest conflict counts as optimism, yes?

    EDIT: I just woke up and I think my eyes, lips and nose are misplaced.
    Bleh, work ate my gaming life.
    내가 제일 잘 나가!!!111!!1


  • BlujixapugBlujixapug Member Posts: 1,833 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Xith said:

    But in seriousness, is the problem that one side is underpowered?
    No. The problems are that...

    1. Forest defendable territory = any and every forest or jungle environment room, spanning hundreds of areas across islands, continents, and planes.

    Imagine your city had lone guards standing around in dozens of random areas, from Ulangi to Jaru and Arcadia. Now imagine defending them. You can't ignore them or leave them dead because roleplay.

    2. Necromancers can attack the forests, but have nothing to defend. Forestals must defend the forests, and have nothing they can attack.

    There is no defensive win condition or end. Imagine a game of Team Fortress 2 where one side is an engineer defending their base, and the other side is a spy attacking the base, with no time limit, and the game only ends when the spy wins or logs out. Or imagine a penalty shootout in soccer ("futbol") where one side has unlimited kicks and can keep trying until they score, while the other side can only endlessly defend the goal.

    3. Forestals have no option to turn around and be the aggressive ones and get some payback.

    There's no extermination equivalent, they can't go Febreze the red fog. They can raid Mhaldor - but so can Mhaldor raid Eleusis, so it doesn't count. They can defile shrines - but so can Mhaldor defile their shrines, so it doesn't count.

    That's why you see people saying "just delete the whole thing", because minor patch fix nerfs or buffs will not make up for the huge fundamental problems.
    image
    KyriellaSilasDelphinusKazu
  • NizarisNizaris The Holy City of MhaldorMember Posts: 537 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    Delphinus said:

    Nizaris said:
    [2] Where is "the suck" in my suggestion? It's true that I envision it as essentially a flavoured monolith that stops flow/summon/forest defenses. Hell, I don't really object to your suggestion, as it would certainly be easier than exterming: monoliths are quicker to throw down/flame, monos stop more than just flow/summon, monos don't cost essence. But, there's still a flavour that's missing -- Evil needs to be, well, evil, dammit. :D
    The word "extermination" carries an awful lot of baggage, and is less than ideal as a result.
    Remove name "extermination"? Deal. I think that's what I was going for, anyway.
    Awan said:
    Nizaris said:
    I propose neutering extermination quite fully: one room per necromancer, have it not even generate an Oakstone warning because no damage is truly done:
    • Picture a cloud that inhibits natural processes; not one that destroys and burns nature.
    • Shorten time limit of extermination to something similar to rites/vibes/harmonics, at which point, the cloud dissipates and natural processes continue.
    • Cloud is moved when summoned to a different location. This allows natural processes in the original location to continue as though nothing had happened in the first place.
    • Give forestals the ability to gust the cloud away when in the same room in one of their morphs.
    Evil wouldn't even have a goal to accomplish in the forest itself; the goal would be in Eleusis, or shrines within the forests, perhaps -- systems that are already balanced in the sense that each side can attack the other equally. Extermination would just be reduced to a defensive measure to facilitate those conflicts, not a conflict in itself.
    I guess this could be okay, actually. We'd have to not call it "extermination," but you could replace extermination with a necromantic ability that gave no warning, was entirely temporary, didn't need to be fixed, and caused no long-term harm to nature but merely "suppressed" Nature's power for a brief time. If it was framed that way, we could freely decide to not be anxious about that or to need to defend against it. But it would keep a little bit of the flavour: we could keep grove flow/grove summon as our special naturey skills, while giving necromancers in particular a way of countering them.

    Sure, that sounds nice to me.
    Awesome. I'm glad that we're on the same page, and can get something constructive done. The way that you put it is exactly what I envision, and I support your wording. I'm especially pleased that both sides get to keep flavour and utility. Garden, please make it so.
    image
  • DraukaDrauka Member Posts: 243 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Sarapis said:
    Xith said:

    But in seriousness, is the problem that one side is underpowered?
    No. The problems are that...

    Imagine your city had lone guards standing around in dozens of random areas, from Ulangi to Jaru and Arcadia. Now imagine defending them. You can't ignore them or leave them dead because roleplay.

    Forests being quite spread out is not something you can do anything about of course, nor is that something that's going to change, but the latter point, re: "roleplay" is a self-created problem. You define your roleplaying, and if you choose to define it as requiring that you respond to every extermination, then that's how you've decided to rp. If you decided that, for instance, that you have limited resources to fight back and so are only going to worry about certain forests, that'd also be roleplaying. If you decided that you're not going to worry about it at all because <in-game justification>, that'd also be roleplaying. 

    Roleplaying in a shared world is about reacting to the world around you, not about defining your character and its actions in the absence of consideration of the environment/context in which you exist, to me. It's also not about picking a class and then adopting an unchanging "template" for your behavior based on that class. 

    Extermination isn't going anywhere, btw. It may see some changes, but it will still be what it is now: The severe damaging of normal nature within that room. The mechanics by which that happens may see some adjustment.

    Beyond that, let's just say we're going to even things out a bit and give Nature a way to be aggressive rather than purely defensive.

    Dang, and I came back into the game as an Apostate. Druids are pretty awesome.
  • AwanAwan Member Posts: 40 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Sarapis said:
    Forests being quite spread out is not something you can do anything about of course, nor is that something that's going to change, but the latter point, re: "roleplay" is a self-created problem. You define your roleplaying, and if you choose to define it as requiring that you respond to every extermination, then that's how you've decided to rp. If you decided that, for instance, that you have limited resources to fight back and so are only going to worry about certain forests, that'd also be roleplaying. If you decided that you're not going to worry about it at all because <in-game justification>, that'd also be roleplaying.

    This is absolutely not a fair response.

    Forestals didn't just make this up and decide to be obsessive about protecting Nature whereas the other factions decided more sensibly to be chill about things. The game gives us a different relation to this: the forests are Nature Itself, which is the thing we're dedicated to protecting, as our highest goal, by the definition of the faction itself.

    No one else has such a thing. There's no physical thing such as Evil Itself which we can attack, and there's no way to make one, because that wouldn't make sense. So anything we could do to Mhaldor would have, in the game, a far less important status. That's not by virtue of our decision. It's by virtue of the way the game world is written.

    So sure, we have a choice. We can either drop everything to protect every forest every time it is attacked, or we can decide to play bad, hypocritical forestals who care more about our own convenience than about Nature. Maybe we could give up the whole idea that we're dedicated to Nature at all, and make protecting it just a sort of part-time hobby?

    But no one is going to want to do that, because it would require giving up everything that is valuable about roleplaying in the forestal faction to begin with. And that's not our fault. No one else is forced into a choice where they would have to absolutely abandon the in-game ideals of their faction in order to make the game tolerable to play.

    Acting as if forestals themselves are the source of the problem is incredibly unfair. The administration has a responsibility to handle this situation in a way that works for us, given that we are obligated to respond to all attacks on Nature as our first priority.
    DelphinusKazuOceanaAlyssea
  • SarapisSarapis Member, Administrator Posts: 3,398 Achaean staff
    Awan said:

    Acting as if forestals themselves are the source of the problem is incredibly unfair. 
    (First, let me just echo other peoples' frustrations with how annoying it is to try and break up quotes to respond bit by bit to them.)

    Forestals didn't just make this up and decide to be obsessive about protecting Nature whereas the other factions decided more sensibly to be chill about things. The game gives us a different relation to this: the forests areNature Itself, which is the thing we're dedicated to protecting, as our highest goal, by the definition of the faction itself.

    So sure, we have a choice. We can either drop everything to protect every forest every time it is attacked, or we can decide to play bad, hypocritical forestals who care more about our own convenience than about Nature. Maybe we could give up the whole idea that we're dedicated to Nature at all, and make protecting it just a sort of part-time hobby?

    Actually, you did decide to be obsessive about protecting Nature. That's your choice.

    Let's say you work for the Humane Society, irl, and that you are very dedicated to animal welfare. How many of those people, do you think, spend every single waking moment doing nothing but rescuing lost puppies? Not very many, I'd bet. Instead, they are probably whole individuals with multiple interests and cares, including but not limited to their family, their friends, their personal health, what brings them satisfaction in life, their religion (if they're a religious person), their hobbies, etc.

    This doesn't make them any less of a real character who really helps animals. It just means they don't do it 100% of the time and that it is not their only priority in life to the exclusion of all others.

    Or how about soldiers? The military, quite wisely, does not stick people into 24/7 battle continuously for years on end. They let people leave combat between tours of duty, and go pursue other things that are important to them. Or just recover, because it is not reasonable to expect people to be vigilant all the time and give up everything for a single goal (though of course soldiers irl actually do that sometimes, due to rl having permadeath). 

    If it's your character's roleplay to have one and only one thing you care about in life, that's your choice. We all have different ideas about what good roleplaying is, but I tend to look at good roleplaying as resulting in characters that feel real, that have flaws, and are multi-dimensional. The number of folks who would be, realistically, interested in being on 24/7 guard duty in any situation approaches 0, so why would you consider it necessary for -everyone- in your faction to roleplay that way?


    But no one is going to want to do that, because it would require giving up everything that is valuable about roleplaying in the forestal faction to begin with. And that's not our fault. No one else is forced into a choice where they would have to absolutely abandon the in-game ideals of their faction in order to make the game tolerable to play.

    So, when the folks at the Humane Society want to go on a date rather than searching for lost puppies to help one night, that's making them absolutely abandon their ideals?

    When a firefighter takes a vacation, he's abandoning his ideals?

    When a military service member retires after 20 years to do other things, he's abandoning his ideals?

    The administration has a responsibility to handle this situation in a way that works for us, given that we are obligated to respond to all attacks on Nature as our first priority. 

    You're the one saying that you're obligated though, not us. You are not an automaton, and actually can make choices for yourself.


    Xer
  • AktillumAktillum PhilippinesMember Posts: 1,368 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    My one complaint during my time as an Eleusian was that Team Green had no retaliation for exterminate except to try a counter-raid. I would love to see forestals able to turn red fog rooms into forest rooms, turning the entirety of Sartan Isle into a lush, tropical forest that fights against them until they exterminate it back to ashes.

    JacenExelethrilPrythe
  • ChryenthChryenth Member Posts: 1,323 @ - Epic Achaean

    Sarapis said:
    A legitimate complaint, and there will be tears.
    Business as usual, then.
    Jhui
  • GuhemGuhem Member Posts: 42 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    From what I can see, the problem right now stems from perspective between @Sarapis and @Awan.

    I remember as a Druid now, and as it continues on, part of the ideology of is that Nature and protection of Nature is above all. So to us, it is an obligation we do have to see through. To forsake Nature for something else is in fact becoming a hypocrite. It's something that starts from the foundation of becoming a forestal.

    The whole forestal faction is based on dropping everything for Nature, because that is the oath that all forestals (correct me here if I'm wrong, it's this way with the Druids') have taken.

    To choose to be a forestal is to choose to have this obligation, it goes hand-in-hand.

    If this is the resolution that the garden has chosen, then I do think there has to be a huge change for the Nature faction, starting from the very foundations.
    ChryenthAwanOceana
  • MishgulMishgul ROTHERHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMember Posts: 5,314 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Awan said:
    Mishgul said:
    When Mhaldor gets raided and i'm doing a newbie orientation, i go off to Thera and finish the orientation, for example. I am not "abandoning" my duties, I am -doing- my duties, in a different way. If there was a sermon, or a ritual going on, I would not stop either, because I, the character, am a fanatic, and see that spreading of my words as something that would benefit everyone more.

    That's exactly the point. That reasoning you offer makes perfect sense when it's a matter of raid defense. I would also not stop a sermon or ritual to defend against a raid if it were possible to ignore it. It is perfectly consistent with Mhaldor's actual roleplay ideals to prioritize sermons, rituals, care of newbies, and other such valuable things over raid defense.

    But suppose I was giving a sermon about or holding a ritual around dedicating our lives to protecting Nature, and then someone started exterminating. Are you seriously suggesting that I should continue talking about the importance of protecting Nature, and everyone should continue listening and nodding their heads piously, and thus that we prioritize talking and ceremonies about protecting Nature over actually protecting Nature? No, that would be crazy.

    The situations are not at all analogous. They cannot possibly be analogous unless we either a) replace extermination with something which is characterized as doing something other than actually harming nature, or b) delete the forestal faction entirely, do away with its ideology entirely, and replace it with a group of people who like living in treehouses.

    Pretending nature defense and raid defense are analogous and then blaming forestals for treating them differently is completely unfair.
    Why is talking about nature talking about -protecting- nature.  This is somewhere where I believe your ideals fall short. Your city has become exactly that. The city of "defending" nature. Just by your ideals you're already on the backfoot.  And then people seem to join Eleusis for reasons other than defending nature then complain that they have to defend nature.

    What exactly is going on?

    -

    One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important

    As drawn by Shayde
    hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae
  • ExelethrilExelethril Member Posts: 3,350 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I think the tl;dr version is - 
    • Forests are vast and can be accessed and attacked easily(as opposed to cities), often to the convenience of the raiders.
    • Hit and run tactics are viable with gravehands, especially when there are so many directions to run around in without totems and guards to worry about. This wouldn't be possible in other cities.
    • Experience loss to defenders when other cities don't suffer from it.
    • No real repercussions to raiders beyond getting counter-raided. They don't lose exp if they die in Mhaldor either and it' s much easier to "turtle" there.
    I know it's probably taboo to talk about experience loss but it is a factor and Eleusis is the only faction that fights with disadvantages other cities do not suffer from with a much larger area to defend.

    [ SnB PvP Guide | Link ]

    [ Runewarden Sparring Videos | Link ]
    PrytheJhuiSkyeOceana
  • TaloniaTalonia Member Posts: 152 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    The foundations for new offensive forestal RP are there - in fact, I think they've been made quite explicit by the Garden with several recent admin-level moves, including the effective replacement of the Nature goddess Melantha and the pseudo-Nature god Lupus with Gaia, the Wildwood Queen. Gaia uses a lot of thorn and weed metaphors and imagery from what I've seen or heard of her thus far, and is generally far more aggressive than recent predecessor divine. I'd take this to mean that Nature doesn't have to be represented by blankets in groves and tidy gardens and perfectly-maintained treehouses with tsol'aa and treekin inside. There is room for ruthless spear-thrusting barbarians who hate and disdain civilized folk (Artemis' tribe could be this, and barbarian isn't used as an insult here), vine-wreathed prophets preaching destruction of all five other cities to make way for new forests, and hulking, ancient, feral monsters summoned from the depths of the forests.

    If Eleusis oriented itself toward an "overgrowth" ideology, with a long-term strategic goal of undoing built environments in favor of natural ones Sapience-wide, they could allow for short-term losses like a few dozen exterminated rooms here or there with the mantra "in the end, we will return all to its Natural state." There has to be a way of making it so that losing one room is not a tragedy anymore. 

    Unfortunately, if Delphinus' comments above are any indication, this is highly unrealistic at this point, which is too bad.

  • AwanAwan Member Posts: 40 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    edited March 2013
    I should say: I'm not totally closed to the idea that there could be some version of extermination conflict which could be okay.

    But if you approach it with the idea that you're going to make it "fair" and "even" by giving us something to do to Mhaldor in return, then you've failed to grasp what the problem even is. There is no way to have an extermination system which doesn't thereby give far more leverage to Mhaldor, even if there's something we can do in return which is, in the most basic game-mechanic terms, equivalent. It won't actually be equivalent, and can't possibly be.

    The only way a system could be created which filled that role and didn't suck for forestals would be if the administration actually took seriously the perspectives of those forestals who participate in extermination conflict, but hate it. But it's obvious from this conversation alone that the administration is not at all interested in doing that. After years of waiting for you to fix this, you're still prioritizing the concerns and interests of Mhaldorians and those handful of forestal combatants who actually kinda like the current system but wish they could do something back.  And that's not fair, because it's that other 95% of forestals who have always paid nearly all of the costs of nature conflict, and are going to continue to do so.

    To deal with the things that make nature conflict so intolerable, you will need to do a lot more than this farce of trying to make it "even-handed" by giving us something to do in return. Giving us something to do in return would be nice, but that was not the only problem, and there'd be a lot more to it. At the very least, extermination would need to become more difficult to accomplish than raiding, rather than an easier alternative than it is now, and it would need to be majorly nerfed and limited.

    I get that people want there to be an avenue of conflict other than raiding. It seems to me that a better method would be to invent one that applies even-handedly to all 6 factions. But extermination will never actually be equivalent to those other things you could invent, and it is unfair to pretend it could be. If you just invent something that is mechanically equivalent to extermination, then modify those systems to be "reasonable" as considered from a perspective that ignores the unique importance of protecting nature in forestal roleplay, then Mhaldor will still have a great deal of unfair leverage over forestals and forestals will still be in a very crappy situation, with the added insult of being told we have nothing to complain about now because everything is "even."
    PrytheAlyssea
  • DraukaDrauka Member Posts: 243 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    What do forestals do all the time? Would they like to get into combat and raiding more? Have Nature be an equal force as Good and Evil (suppose Chaos people don't care as much, Babel did come back?)?

    Just curious. The grand vision of improves forestal presence would be a more definable footing to engage other forces?
  • MishgulMishgul ROTHERHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMember Posts: 5,314 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    That was my question. What else would Eleusis do if not defend nature.

    -

    One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important

    As drawn by Shayde
    hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae
Sign In to Comment.