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

Forest Conflict

13468911

Comments

  • DontarionDontarion Member Posts: 154 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished

    Talonia said:
    It is so freaking great that Sarapis Sartan is back and active. 
    Oh, wait.
    -----------------------------
    @DontarionDrakor for twitter boredom.


    SkyeSylvance
  • IdelisaIdelisa Member Posts: 385 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    edited March 2013
    This is what Idelisa has been gunning (archerying?) for.

    Idelisa's ideology has been from the start that Nature is vast and all encompassing. She always corrects herself and Mhaldorians are essentially (now that I know the word) cataclysms.

    Eleusis was a gathering place for people that served Nature. Essentially a home for a bunch of hippies that would otherwise be isolated to their trees, tending their grove.

    When I recently asked a city leader what you would tell a non-warrior to do to serve Nature, he said, "Preach the word of Nature." (Paraphrased)

    When we let the young to to just die, you feed the enemy the easy exp they want cause well, we send everyone. Never mind the fact that young will either quit or become discouraged more likely rather than just becoming better. Then we force people to fight nonstop, and you take people like @Anatral that may have at one point enjoyed combat and make it something downright sickening.

    I think there is nothing wrong with exterminations. Delete Oakstone and make rejuvinating cheaper (ice) and lower the level so that younger forestals can play a part.


    Edit: because my stupid iPhone thinks that "exterminations" should be "determinations." Coincidence? Stupid iPhone.
    image
  • FrohFroh Member Posts: 52 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Sarapis said:
    Kazu said:
     I'm sure you can understand why we become a little testy about that, as it is our previously stated objective to defend Nature above all else. 


    That is actually what I don't understand: I'm an American. But when there's a threat to our country, I don't run out to defend it - that's not my role. The President, whose job it is to protect this country, doesn't run out and personally respond to threats - that's not his role. Does that make him less dedicated to protecting the country? Imagine a 70 year old President. Would he even be useful physically attacking the enemy? No, of course not. We also don't send people who aren't equipped to fight to war (well, in the modern day Western world at least). In fact, in the US, only volunteers go to war currently.

    Similarly, why send someone to fight that isn't equipped to fight? Why does everyone need to be playing the exact same role? Can't someone contribute, for instance, by bashing to earn gold to pay for city expenses that let the active defenders of the forest be safer? The insistence that everyone in an entire city has to be the same is what I don't understand.


    You've created a world in which individual player actions are supposed to feel meaningful.

    In-game, from the character's (not player's point of view) an extermination is framed to be a lot more significant to a forestal than some random guy in the real world tossing a fast food wrapper into the bushes.

    While lots of _players_ are effectively noncombatants by training and inclination, that doesn't necessarily match up with what their characters swear to when they join some forestal orgs.  Many swear to make protecting nature the focus of their lives so in that context making analogies about real people with day jobs and charitable efforts a a hobby/part time good work don't make much sense.

    From the city point of view, should ex-Shallam have cared about visitors from Mhaldor standing around in the market and trashing the place while taunting the church?  From an OOC perspective, "Hey man, you're just not equipped or skilled enough to take them down so just go about your business as a noncom" makes sense.  From an IC perspective, the character might be a devout church member sworn to stand against evil and just passively smiling and continuing on his way seems incongruous.

    The problem with forestal conflict seems (to me) to be more a matter of mechanics than forestals taking things too seriously in the way some seem to be implying.  It may well be that the present mechanics are unworkable, but "if you're not in the mood for combat, just ignore extermination/arson/etc." doesn't seem reasonable from the present in-character perspective.

    Awan
  • IdelisaIdelisa Member Posts: 385 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    @Sarapis I think what a big thing that people are sayin is, "we don't know any other way."

    At this point the RP to respond is so set in stone that it will be impossible for the player base to change things. I used to think that having a different opinion I might have a chance to make a difference but in reality having a different view is Eleusis is akin to treason. If you look back on city logs almost every single city favor is based on DEFENSE OF NATURE. Penwize is trying to make @Gaia and Oakstone and Eleusis an the houses all one thing. It's assanine. Why have different houses at all? Why have different organizations if we can't be different? If we can't serve differently?

    To sum up I think the point they are making is that even if Gaia said, hey don't go fight them, if people felt it (as you pointed out) people would rise up against Gaia.
    image
    Prythe
  • AwanAwan Member Posts: 40 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Sarapis said:

    If the issue with the above two examples is that you don't -hear- the lost puppy crying because it's 2 blocks away, or that you don't hear the starving kid crying because he's half a world away that is somewhat, maybe easy to solve.

    If that's so, is the issue just that you know about the exterminating? In other words, if you knew it was happening in general, but not specifically where or who (such as might be the case with starving children in other countries), does that fix the problem for you? Serious question.
    If we didn't hear extermination happen and we didn't need to rejuvenate because it wore off by itself within a few hours at most, then it seems to me that yes, that would solve the problem. (I'd like to hear what other forestals think about that though.)

    If we still have to fix exterminations, because they won't heal on their own, then it would be very unfair and frustrating not to get a warning that they were happening. You can't have a system that lets one side "win" and another side "lose" by virtue of something as lame as doing it when no one is watching, and you can't have a system that sticks people with a bunch of tedious work to do without even giving them an opportunity to prevent it (or, an opportunity to prevent it that didn't require us to obsessively watch for exterminators all day, in which case it'd clearly be less obnoxious to just have a warning system). So if you took anything remotely resembling the current extermination system and made it so we didn't hear it happen, then no, that would be completely terrible.

    I think it would be a decent idea to reformulate extermination as something that heals itself within a few hours (and then rename it, because that wouldn't really be "extermination" anymore, would it?). At the moment, the extermination mechanic makes a forest area stop functioning as a natural area, and is unable to heal itself. A forest that's burnt down will heal itself in time; extermination can't be healed except by the intervention of mortals. That seems to imply that Nature's essence has somehow been stripped from that spot or is no longer able to function---otherwise, it would be able to heal naturally the way all other kinds of ordinary destruction can be healed naturally by Nature's own power. Thus the forestal understanding of extermination is that it does a far more radical kind of harm that nullfies the Natural essence of the forest itself.

    If you replace extermination with some other necromantic skill that is framed differently---a skill that draws away a bunch of the natural force of a particular area, thereby weakening or suppressing the natural energies there for awhile, until either mortals intervene to heal it, or Nature heals itself---it would make sense for us to treat that mechanic as something a bit closer to city destruction. We could have a "Nature can take care of itself" attitude, which is really not open to us at the moment given that it is built into the game mechanics that Nature demonstrably cannot take care of itself.

    But it really would have to heal itself quickly, within a few hours at most, unless it was something like the city destruction mechanism where Mhaldor as a whole can only exterminate a handful of rooms every few days. If it were possible to exterminate regularly but took a day to heal, forestals would still end up feeling like they had to patrol all the forests healing exterminated areas, and it would be obnoxious. But there's really no way to dampen down our obligations far enough to just ignore such a thing for an entire day without destroying much that's valuable about the forestal faction.

    But in general, it seems like a good idea to make it so forestals' motivation for preventing extermination is that we don't want them to be gaining their ewwy necromantic power from our precious trees, not because Nature itself has to be protected from destruction.
    KazuSancero
  • IdelisaIdelisa Member Posts: 385 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    edited March 2013
    @Frah while I see your point, the oaths have nothing to do with mechanics. The writing is all RP. And I assume all player written.... To the point of bein almost identical. And it's stupid. We don't force every man woman and child take up arms, we offer incentives for being soldiers and encourage the strong Nd capable. Yet we effectively say to a baby, "hey you, here swear to give your life for the country and if you aren't out there in combat you must be worthless."

    Those things have nothing to do with mechanics or how the game was really intended. Now that's not to say that certin Divine haven't encouraged that but what are game developers supposed to think when EVERYBODY does and says the same thing. We as players know its for fear or recourse but you would think people would have been strong enough to stand up about it.

    Of COURSE developers are going to try to give you what you appear to be asking for.

    Edit: Ninja'd @Sarapis.  Win!
    image
  • SarapisSarapis Member, Administrator Posts: 3,398 Achaean staff
    Froh said:
    Sarapis said:
    Kazu said:
     I'm sure you can understand why we become a little testy about that, as it is our previously stated objective to defend Nature above all else. 


    That is actually what I don't understand: I'm an American. But when there's a threat to our country, I don't run out to defend it - that's not my role. The President, whose job it is to protect this country, doesn't run out and personally respond to threats - that's not his role. Does that make him less dedicated to protecting the country? Imagine a 70 year old President. Would he even be useful physically attacking the enemy? No, of course not. We also don't send people who aren't equipped to fight to war (well, in the modern day Western world at least). In fact, in the US, only volunteers go to war currently.

    Similarly, why send someone to fight that isn't equipped to fight? Why does everyone need to be playing the exact same role? Can't someone contribute, for instance, by bashing to earn gold to pay for city expenses that let the active defenders of the forest be safer? The insistence that everyone in an entire city has to be the same is what I don't understand.

    In-game, from the character's (not player's point of view) an extermination is framed to be a lot more significant to a forestal than some random guy in the real world tossing a fast food wrapper into the bushes.

    But the example I used was the President of the United States. The guy charged with protecting the US. And yet he does it without ever personally facing a single enemy. Same with the generals who work for him. Same for the folks in the Pentagon. Same for the folks at Boeing, building the weapons for the soldiers who go fight to use. Or the tax collectors collecting the money that pays for the equipment that the soldiers wear. Or the farmers growing the food that feeds the fighters. I mean, we even have a whole structure already set up for you like this that lets you partition people off into various roles (ie Eleusis).

    From the city point of view, should ex-Shallam have cared about visitors from Mhaldor standing around in the market and trashing the place while taunting the church?  From an OOC perspective, "Hey man, you're just not equipped or skilled enough to take them down so just go about your business as a noncom" makes sense.  From an IC perspective, the character might be a devout church member sworn to stand against evil and just passively smiling and continuing on his way seems incongruous.

    So, a Boy Scout, who is not armed, should rush a group of gunmen because he's sworn an oath to help people at all times? You realize even police don't do this, right? That they actually do things like wait for backup, and tend not to intentionally rush into situations where they are sure to be slaughtered unless there is no other choice. The situation you presented to me is not one of no other choice. The Mhaldorian can't cause any permanent damage that can't be undone, unlike, say, someone being murdered irl. 

    While lots of _players_ are effectively noncombatants by training and inclination, that doesn't necessarily match up with what their characters swear to when they join some forestal orgs.  Many swear to make protecting nature the focus of their lives so in that context making analogies about real people with day jobs and charitable efforts a a hobby/part time good work don't make much sense.

    That's players running those forestal orgs, not Gods. You guys are free to make your induction requirements and ceremonies what you wish.



    IdelisaSylvance
  • IdelisaIdelisa Member Posts: 385 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    @Awan what is wrong with us fixing things?

    If there is a limit to how much they can exterm there is no fear of them wiping out an entire forest, so what's wrong with us going around cleaning up after them? Especially if lower levels could replant and rejuvenate.

    It's something to do to make us feel like we are special. Plus it puts meaning back to patrolling that is a stupid freaking tradition we have carried on for no reason at all.

    I bet you would have a much different response to "ct clean up crew on aisle Aalen" than "ct exterm EI."
    image
    OceanaWysteria
  • AwanAwan Member Posts: 40 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Sarapis said:
    Similarly, why send someone to fight that isn't equipped to fight? Why does everyone need to be playing the exact same role? Can't someone contribute, for instance, by bashing to earn gold to pay for city expenses that let the active defenders of the forest be safer? The insistence that everyone in an entire city has to be the same is what I don't understand.

    Forestals don't obligate people to fight who aren't equipped to fight. And not all forestals are obligated to defend. There is no law in Eleusis, or even in Oakstone, that everyone is obligated to fight. So the thing you're not understanding doesn't exist.

    The problem is a different one. It's that the forestal community as a whole is obligated to respond to exterminations whenever they happen. We as a community have to defend, even if that doesn't imply that every single individual is going to be participating in that. And this is true in a way that isn't true for any other faction, in that it's not open to us to decide that some other thing we as a community were doing was more important than defending, or that we're all just not going to bother because we're outnumbered or sick of it.
    PrytheRangor
  • MishgulMishgul ROTHERHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMember Posts: 5,372 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    "We don't want to change doing what we don't enjoy because we decided it was better for us" is what i am hearing.

    -

    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
    IdelisaSherazadDrauka
  • AwanAwan Member Posts: 40 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Idelisa said:
    @Awan what is wrong with us fixing things? If there is a limit to how much they can exterm there is no fear of them wiping out an entire forest, so what's wrong with us going around cleaning up after them? Especially if lower levels could replant and rejuvenate. It's something to do to make us feel like we are special. Plus it puts meaning back to patrolling that is a stupid freaking tradition we have carried on for no reason at all. I bet you would have a much different response to "ct clean up crew on aisle Aalen" than "ct exterm EI."
    Yeah, maybe you're right that it would be okay if we had to clean it up, so long as the mechanism was framed in a different way (and I do think to convincingly re-frame it, you'd have to make it so that it heals itself eventually). The clean-up has truthfully never been the part I minded except when it was cleaning up 150 rooms at a time. The roleplay obligation to defend no matter what, and the constant harassment that we can never put a stop to, is the problem. And clean-up does give non-combatants a way to help out, which is valuable.
    IdelisaOceanaPrythe
  • MishgulMishgul ROTHERHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMember Posts: 5,372 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    So in less than three lines because reading on my phone hurts when you write such large paragraphs, what is the point of the role play obligation from a player having fun perspective, and why can't this be addressed? You guys are currently a lot more unforgiving than Mhaldor when it comes to raiding and raid defense, which is both what I think forestals should be, and also completely weird considering your mindsets that you shouldn't be like that, even though you do it.

    -

    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
  • KaevanKaevan Member Posts: 152 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    Awan said:
    Now I'm afraid the message that's going to get taken from this discussion is that Gaia's going to be told to start urging forestals not to bother protecting Nature when it's inconvenient, or something.

    No such divine intervention could possibly work, and any such attempt would completely do away, permanently, with every last bit of authority Gaia could ever hope to wield. Forestals take their ideology to outweigh whatever any god tells them, and they always have. They're not going to stop doing that. Nor should they, frankly. I have no interest in seeing Eleusis go through the operation Shallam went through, where they were turned into a theocracy and told that their gods defined the nature of "Good." That didn't make a ton of sense in Shallam at the time, but it would make absolutely no sense in Eleusis given that Nature, unlike Good, is actually tangible and visible, and given our history of cases in which forestals have been betrayed by their own gods in one way or another.

    If you want to change the culture, you actually have to change either the game mechanics, or the official description of what it is that the game mechanics are accomplishing (or probably both).


    I see part of your problem here already. If you're already expressing an unwillingness to listen to the Divine being that is supposed to more or less be the embodiment of the concept you seek to espouse and uphold despite that he or she insists that something should be different, you're shooting your own faction in the foot. 'Evil', for example, is not necessarily what people would say it is IRL and has been conveniently and concisely defined by Sartan for the Team Red(TM) faction.

    Granted, Eleusis is vastly different in Mhaldor as when Sartan says 'Jump!' the rest of the city is supposed to say 'How high? And how many people do you want to die on the way down?' That said, I find it troubling that you're already ready to say 'Nooooooooo!' when the question posed might be 'Do you all feel like jumping today?'

    As Sarapis (word of God) has said that extermination isn't going away, I think that I may safely assume that forest defences and the huge advantage forestals have in the forests are here to stay, as well. I'm all for allowing Nature for strike out and make an impact against urban environments (and Mhaldor). Expecting to not have people hit you back in the face for it is a bit ludricious, though. On the note of costs, I don't see how expensive it is to rejuvenate exterminated rooms when compared against repairing destroyed city rooms from sanctioned raids. It costs, what? One elemental ice and then a bit of time to replant the plants that normally grow in that environment, right? It's nowhere near as long as it takes to sanction and destroy (and with good reason since extermination is fairly quick when compared against city destruction). I swear that I once exterminated a location and by the time I came back from praying, the room was nice and green again.
    IdelisaKatzchenSherazad
  • AwanAwan Member Posts: 40 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Sarapis said:
    It has to be a mutual process though, and from what I've seen in this thread, some of you insist on no possibility of change to your roleplay (see discussion above).

    Literally not a single forestal who has spoken in this thread is advocating that there should be no change in our roleplay. I believe we would all like there to be a change in our roleplay around extermination.

    But the way it has to work is this: there has to be a path from our characters' current ideologies and values and beliefs, which will lead them to that new perspective we'd like to have. There have to be arguments we can give, from the position we're in now, that will lead us to that future position. That's how a change in roleplay works and I think everyone who's spoken in this thread is in favour of that. But if you understand the current forestal community, you'll see that there's no way to do that without changing the game mechanics significantly.

    What no one finds acceptable is throwing the past decade of forestal roleplay in the garbage and buying a shiny newer model. It has to be something we can arrive at in ways that make sense in-character.

    I appreciate you hearing us out. So long as you understand that the situation with extermination is different from that surrounding raids or something, and why, then I feel a lot better about the idea of preserving some form of extermination mechanic. But if the current, completely horrible situation is to be fixed, you need to respect the value of the current forestal roleplay, and modify the actual game mechanics and the official hard-coded story that comes with them sufficiently that we will be able to change what we do without throwing our old roleplay in the trash. If you start from the assumption that extermination is basically like the city destruction mechanic, and that to the extent we treat it differently that's our problem and we could just change if we wanted, that could not possibly lead to a good outcome and the situation we're in would remain unhappy and imbalanced.
    SanceroIdelisaPrythe
  • AaricAaric Member Posts: 47 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Awan said:
    Forestals don't obligate people to fight who aren't equipped to fight. And not all forestals are obligated to defend. There is no law in Eleusis, or even in Oakstone, that everyone is obligated to fight. So the thing you're not understanding doesn't exist.
    This is not strictly true, from what I can tell. The Eleusis rules on raid defense, which I took particular note of starting out, specifically state:
    • Those who are "able" are obligated to defend Nature
    • Not defending will result in "appropriate action being taken"
    • "Every single one of you are able-bodied"
    Idelisa
  • SkyeSkye The Duchess BellatereMember, Seafaring Liason Posts: 3,071 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Idelisa said:
    @Sarapis I think what a big thing that people are sayin is, "we don't know any other way." At this point the RP to respond is so set in stone that it will be impossible for the player base to change things. I used to think that having a different opinion I might have a chance to make a difference but in reality having a different view is Eleusis is akin to treason. If you look back on city logs almost every single city favor is based on DEFENSE OF NATURE. Penwize is trying to make @Gaia and Oakstone and Eleusis an the houses all one thing. It's assanine. Why have different houses at all? Why have different organizations if we can't be different? If we can't serve differently? To sum up I think the point they are making is that even if Gaia said, hey don't go fight them, if people felt it (as you pointed out) people would rise up against Gaia.
    I really don't think that's what Penwize is saying at all.

    We all want to learn from mistakes of other organisations, and for me, I always look at Shallam. At its lowest point, they suffered from practically everything that could have gone wrong in the world. Bad Divine leadership, the inability to even agree on what their ideology was or meant (or how to carry it out) and the different Houses (factions) all wanting to go their own way or acting as though they didn't really want to be in the city. The last was probably the worst of it because every time the leadership wanted to make a decision the naysayers would veto it on the basis that it was a decision that would take them out of their comfort zone and *gasp* actually force them to take responsibility and action for their oaths.

    Every House has its own identity, that is true, but it is not an excuse to be contrary or insist upon some bizarro form of autonomy that only divides a faction that desperately requires its members to be like-minded.

    Like-mindedness and cohesion is not tyranny, it is not 'being like Mhaldor' or the end of personal identity, and it's certainly not a bad thing.


    Prythe
  • IdelisaIdelisa Member Posts: 385 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    @Awan - It's not technically a law, but it's implied and stated time and time again.  Ide regularly gets in trouble for not defending Nature. 

    Sylvans: "...I swear to care for and respect all of Nature, tending to it and defending it to the best of my ability, even if this demands my life in return." 

    Eleusis: "I swear to defend Nature with whatever strengths I may possess."

    Yes, it says to the best of my ability.  But people don't take into account skill.  There are level 70 blademasters that could walk all over a ill "equipped" dragon.   Perhaps it if it said SERVE nature, there might be a different mindset. Perhaps if Eleusis didn't (essentially) only CF (or otherwise praised) for combat?  Perhaps if the Village fostered other programs more, heck, even perhaps if patrolling even had purpose, things might be different. 

    Regardless, I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts on mechanics.

    - A cap on Exterms would make it so that a side couldn't "win," but leave it high enough so that there would still be a sense of urgency to those that choose to be combatants and seek out those fights.

    - Removing Oakstone and having Lady Gaia say, "Yo! There's other ways to serve Nature, you don't HAVE to do COMBAT." would make it possible for a chance in dictatorship leadership.

    - Having essence slowly recover over time would make it so that @Wysteria doesn't wake up to 100 burned rooms because we got lolexterm'd with timezone "abuse."

    - Removing the FEELING of the exterm (clearly  that would happen with oakstone removal but just to emphasize) would allow a person to have a lovely picnic spying on people up in the membrane without feeling AS obligated to come back. (still have that long distance communication :P ) - As I previously stated, it would also bring back purpose to patrolling.

    - Making replanting and rejuvenation something that lower levels (mid range, not just basically trans), could have a greater purpose in the community.

    image
    AwanPrytheAnatralWysteria
  • AwanAwan Member Posts: 40 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Kaevan said:
    I see part of your problem here already. If you're already expressing an unwillingness to listen to the Divine being that is supposed to more or less be the embodiment of the concept you seek to espouse and uphold despite that he or she insists that something should be different, you're shooting your own faction in the foot. 'Evil', for example, is not necessarily what people would say it is IRL and has been conveniently and concisely defined by Sartan for the Team Red(TM) faction.
    It makes sense to have gods be the "embodiment of the concept you seek to espouse" when the concept you're espousing is abstract. There is no tangible Evil or Good to be served, so it makes sense to make gods as the tangible thing you can serve instead. But it would be ludicrous to call a god the embodiment of Nature. Nature is tangible; forests and things are the embodiment of nature. So we serve Nature by serving natural areas, not by serving a god.

    When I joined Artemis's order, one of the promises I made was to put Nature above all else, including Her. We all did. The idea that Nature is the greater or deeper object of devotion than even the gods is a big part of our roleplay. And in the past, this has been made of practical significance. We had a god get possessed and start telling people to do harmful things, at which point her followers started disobeying her. That's a morality tale of what a forestal should be like: nature before obedience to gods, even a Nature goddess.

    The fact that Eleusis doesn't work the way Mhaldor does isn't a bad thing. The fact that Eleusis can be a very strongly aligned faction, but not by virtue of any primary allegiance to particular gods is one of the cool things about it, and it makes for variety.
    IdelisaPrythe
  • MishgulMishgul ROTHERHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMember Posts: 5,372 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    even if said god was the god of nature i.e. is nature. Unless you are literally defending trees which I doubt, you are defending the essence of Lady Gaia which is what gives the forest life iirc.

    -

    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
  • IdelisaIdelisa Member Posts: 385 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    @Skye - we will just have to disagree on the Penwize point, since many of us younger players feel that he's in his little bully group.

    And you're right, there's nothing wrong with cohesion and like-mindedness, but even like-minded people have differences, strengths, weaknesses, etc.  A good community embraces those differences and a tyrannical one forces people to strictly follow a narrow-minded set of rules, which is exactly what the forestal community is doing.
    image
    Prythe
  • MishgulMishgul ROTHERHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMember Posts: 5,372 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    why does eleusis have to be nice?

    -

    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
    SkyeIdelisaDelphinusSherazad
  • IdelisaIdelisa Member Posts: 385 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    @Carmain, it's pretty darn silly to declare yourself the anti-Mhaldor then act just like them.
    image
    Prythe
  • JacenJacen Member Posts: 2,305 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    First, I'd like to start with a disclaimer: I totally see Awan's point. Eleusis is the only organization with a physical representation of their guiding philosophy, and its makes perfect sense that they must defend nature at all times. Even (I think it was) Aerek's example, of being a knight sworn to defend Cyrene, falls short, because at most you are saving 5 buildings and some trips through Thoth's halls. No one can physically (mechanically) attack Darkness, Chaos, Light, Evil, in the way that necromancers are able to attack Nature. Its very much a unique, unparalleled situation in Achaea.

    All that being said, what if you shifted your forestal philosophy a bit, not to say defend nature at all costs, but to say that no matter what the necromancers do, a little adventurer effort and the power of nature will completely revert their damages. Defend nature when you are able and prepared to take a stand for nature, but know that the necromancers efforts are futile, for nothing can prevent nature from growing where it wishes go grow.

    Secondary disclaimer: These are the musings of someone who's read the thread, and has never been Eleusian, forestal, or Oakstoney on any characters. If I'm totally off the mark, then just ignore this post. Thanks!
    image
    IdelisaGuhemAwan
  • IdelisaIdelisa Member Posts: 385 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    Nope, but they SHOULD reflect them. Of course that's a philosophical debate.
    image
  • MishgulMishgul ROTHERHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMember Posts: 5,372 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    If that is how it works, then Mhaldor is not evil at all

    -

    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
    Sherazad
  • FrohFroh Member Posts: 52 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Mishgul said:
    even if said god was the god of nature i.e. is nature. Unless you are literally defending trees which I doubt, you are defending the essence of Lady Gaia which is what gives the forest life iirc.


    Debate about that has come up several times over the years: whether guild (this was a while ago), patron, or nature itself is primary and whether it's possible to draw a meaningful distinction.  Awan's comment about explicitly putting "nature" above any particular divine is quite on point.

    Actually replying to a few different people here..

    For what it's worth, Gaia has come and gone and hasn't always been the only nature-related divine.

    Right now, we've got a mechanic in which the forest can suffer something which what appears to be and is announced as harm and which doesn't regenerate itself if left alone.  Some types can even get worse (assuming fires can still spread? haven't seen one in a while).

    Sarapis' comment about RP being on the players doesn't quite seem fair as the divine often nudge things (for example, giving pushes in the relationship between Eleusis and the Sentinels).  The game also supplies mechanics for makign things "feel" more impactful than standing around emoting and talking about how great nature is.  Right now, given the choice between ignoring extermination, defending against it, or roleplaying a cleanup crew that likes to fix the environment while deliberately ignoring the cause of the damage, most people seem inclined towards addressing the cause (defending, making alliances to help defend, etc.)

    We're talking about an IC environment in which emotions/reactions are deliberately allowed to be played up a bit: for example, knight orders which consider it dishonorable to walk away from a fight when challenged.  We've got characters and organizations who for a few hundred years have had a personal mission (endorsed by the divine and even help files).  "Lighten up, Francis" misses the point.  They can change course, particularly if a world event changes mechanics, but any social group has a bit of inertia and mechanics+divine hints go a long way in overcoming that.

    The IC environment actually seems to have evolved MORE towards encouraging the strict interpretation of protecting nature, such as the change from guild to house: monks/jesters/etc. in the Sentinel house obviously aren't there to tend a garden (even the actual sentinel class gets concoctions so there's some positive interaction other than harvesting resources).  There isn't much else that the game provides to "serve" nature other than talking about it or assisting combatants indirectly.

    And Idelisa, "We don't force every man woman and child take up arms,"- well, the ones who do and are then being taken up on it too often and/or in ways which are kind of futile are the ones asking "Hey, can we look at a tweak here?"

    Several people have made detailed comments on the mechanics far better than I could.  The short version seems to be that at the moment forestals essentially have the task of defending a huge spread of area against petty vandalism as well as large scale threats and that some people indulge in petty vandalism purely as an act of provocation.  Requiring meaningful, lasting damage to be the product of a group of people putting considerable effort into the proposition rather than being the result ever time a Mhaldorian or three gets bored and engages in spur-of-the-moment vandalism might be a good step.

     

     

    IdelisaAwan
  • MishgulMishgul ROTHERHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMember Posts: 5,372 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I don't think you understood my post

    -

    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
  • IdelisaIdelisa Member Posts: 385 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    Nor mine. I meant real children and women. <.<
    image
Sign In to Comment.