So I leave for a weekend concert series, and I can't be a priest in Cyrene anymore?

Vion

Ayami said:

The problem is that you can't have strong factional ideologies if everyone's best friend is an ideological enemy. It's a lot like playing the 'one good drow' in most other roleplaying games: it's interesting the first time, but when 90% of the game is doing that it's terrible and annoying.

No that is exactly how a drow is supposed to act. Probably handing out poisoned apples. And calling out "Hey I'm friendly!" before swiping your stuff and punching you in the face. And so helpful at giving precisely the wrong directions down into that creepy dungeon with the sleeping dragon. It is typical con artist villainy that keeps the surprises coming.

You don't get that any more in Achaea what with those mhaldorian thought police and their Villains union, the only evil comes directly from Lord Sartan in a most puritanical sense. So much bureaucratic red tape, got to hit everything with full retard strength rather than using some classical cunning.

Kaevan

Jacen said:

The whole "You guys are good enough that we'll allow you access to Devotion but lol we'll still rob you if we want to" just doesn't feel right. Outside of that, the only problem I see with the situation is that I think the admin should have stepped in awhile back and prevented class-changing to and joining Cyrene as a Devotion user. 

Obviously I don't know how talks between anyone in game has gone, but historically the conversation on the forums has been "Damn it would be nice if Targ could excom all non-Targ Devotionists, but it'll never happen." Hopefully the admin have previously expressed to Cyrene their tenuous grasp on Devotion and perhaps Cyrene's leadership have been preparing for it.

Regardless, it sounds like Cyrene is taking it like a champ and helping its citizen's adjust to the changes, so kudos for that. Perhaps now Targ can fully resolve Good as a badass force of reckoning without Cyrene's neutral yet Devotion-using population watering it down.

Historically, variations of "Let's excommunicate all non-Shallamese Devotion users" have been walked down before and with varying results. Usually with a loophole of "You must belong to the Church" or other saving throw in there. Of course, the introduction of such a policy usually ends up being messy; like "three different factions (not counting Shallam) fighting in Shallam's streets" messy.

Itkovian

Aodfionn said:

Oh, trust and believe - the ones who choose to stick it out with the excom will be in for quite an interesting ordeal, that will involve being summoned to Targ for a nice little trial. 

Ok, I have to admit that would be pretty cool.

Personally I'd contact the players OOC first and ask if they consent to that RP. It's far too easy to get out of it if they don't, and would be rather anti-climactic.

Itkovian

Silas said:

For what it's worth, I do agree with @Itkovian's overall point. I think this Devo recall is best for both parties in the end, but I do wish that it had resulted from something grander than a pointless shop theft.

Verrucht's response to that - banning Targ teachings and enemying the AP - obviously played into our hands, and in many ways forced people's hands on how to respond, given that Targ can't tolerate such a slight from people who still have Devo; but the whole thing still just comes off as a little scummy because of how it started.

The OOC vitriol against Targ displayed in this thread by some Cyrene players is still funny to see, though, and goes a long way to dampening any feelings of sympathy most people held. Fortunately, I'm sure most sensible people on both sides still understand that this is a game that we all play together, and that we're actually not all out to ruin other people's good times.

And FWIW, my concern with how it happens is about Targ's IC image, not how it looks on forum (which is a mudpit anyway... we all come out of it a bit dirty *grin*).

That image, and improving/promoting it, has been one of my main concerns since leaving Targ (and seeing its perception from the outside was an awakening, I must admit). So how this came about pretty much sucked. It serves as fuel for bad guys to go "See?!? See?!?" and casts doubts on previous events.

A good ole righteous "Expel the foul Chaos Worshippers from thine streets, or face our wrath!" as a catalyst for removing Devotion would have been nicer (and Itk would likely have gone with it, because boo Ashtan *grin*). Naturally, if removing Devo from Cyrene wasn't the original goal, then I guess that wasn't an option.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to figure out why PERFORM RITE OF URUZ isn't working...

Itkovian

Aelios said:

"Then we, honestly, don't care unless you go against the ideals of Lady Aurora, or of Lord Deucalion."

This is pretty much the very core of the issue, NOT the theft itself. Finding out Targossas thought everyone Not Them was fair game was a troubling revelation, as it goes against the very ideals of Honour and civility that form the very core of Cyrene, after all.

Robbery occurred, and (as I understand it) - virtually every person on HELP TARGOSSAS was messaged regarding 'Punishing one of our own who robbed a Cyrenian shop!' 

Our overwhelming reply? : "...so?"

Precisely.

It was at this point someone decided (in proper Mean Girls fashion) to get 'back' at Targossas by banning any Targossian from preaching within its city walls.

To be clear, this was actually removing the special dispensation Targossians had. No citizen of other cities are allowed to preach either (by Cyrenians sharing their beliefs can, always). This is more a matter of seeing that we did not have special status with Targossas, and thus removing the special privilege Cyrene granted Targossians.

Needless to say, the bluff was called, and the "Fine, we'll take our toys and go home" statement thrown around a little bit, and we are where we are.

What bluff? At no point in our side of the situation did Cyrene go "Oi, I hope they back down, because we want to keep devotion." You still can't preach, and if anything Cyrene came out of it more united than ever (a referendum that skewed in RL woud make PoSci majors have convulsions *grin*).

All in all though, I have to admit it was some pretty good RP.

Now, back to that pesky Uruz rite...

Tibitha

Well if you want to get technical, Cyrene DID have special status, aka they were allowed to keep Devotion. They just didn't have as much special status as they thought they did.  

Itkovian

Tibitha said:

Well if you want to get technical, Cyrene DID have special status, aka they were allowed to keep Devotion. They just didn't have as much special status as they thought they did.  

True enough.

Though I think the revelation that Targossas would treat any "neutrals" as fair game was the more troubling one. And the reason THAT took a while to realize is because all other cities are enemies of Targossas (Mhaldor - Evil, Ashtan - Chaos, Hashan - Darkness... and now Eleusis - Blood Sacrifice of Innocents), so actions against them could be rationalized. At least that's how I RPed it.

Like I wrote above, it made for good RP.

Herenicus

Vion said:

You don't get that any more in Achaea what with those mhaldorian thought police and their Villains union, the only evil comes directly from Lord Sartan in a most puritanical sense. So much bureaucratic red tape, got to hit everything with full retard strength rather than using some classical cunning.

We aren't impressed with you, either! Hmph!

Rangor

I feel like you guys are derailing the important topic Targossas should be reacting to. Why is Eleusis killing innocent dwarves and raiding us and what can we do to them? (lol, can't excomm us twice. Rho already did that!)

Linton

I think a concern of the Original Poster that was not entirely addressed is this: From her extensive ingame reading, that she learned about Good as defined by the old Gods of Good. Now people are saying those are being deemed as erroneous by a new set of Good Gods who introduced a new set of doctrine. Consider now a priest character during the time of this transition from old to new doctrine. How do they make the -personal- transition of their beliefs? Can they? What if they followed the old God doctrine not because some God said to do it but out of conviction that those beliefs were right. Would it matter now some new authority is saying something else? Maybe from this we can see how that is a potential problem for players who play their characters to that level of realism. I sensed a few ex-Shallamese players here who are maybe like that. The struggle to stay true to their character in Achaea that perhaps they see more as a world than as a game.

Those who see Achaea more as a world will want it to have open ended possibilities and variations, they see broad/ooc attempts to regulate or define as stifling to roleplay. They want everything to be player driven.

Those who see it more as a game seem more focused on how to compartmentalize everyone so we can have clean and clearcut conflict lines. They feel that ultimately Achaea is a game, and games must have sides and rules, and sometimes fixes that are necessary even if they can potentially hurt realism.

Not one is better than the other, just different. Once we can see that, then I think there will be alot less hurt feelings when things happen. It will help to know which direction Achaea is going too, so we can adjust our expectations and play accordingly if we decided it is still a game we want to play.

Itkovian

Ayami said:

Achaea does not have the population for seven cities. Even six is stretching it thin. There's also no point to a moderate faction in a game where every faction is radical and there's already a radical faction on the same 'side' doing the moderate faction's job but 'better' (as far as actually slaying evil guys and stuff like that). What would Shallam do? They'd either fall in line behind Targossas or they'd be at bitter odds with Targossas. In the first example there's no reason for them to exist, and in the second their existence is actively a hindrance.

Achaea did have the population.

Note that this isn't something I'm suggesting now, that boat has sailed. But back before all the Intra-Shallam radicalization conflicts arose, there certainly were enough players. We were busting 500 players a night back then. Those were good times.

And I challenge the notion that the hardline "ends justify the means" is "better" at fighting the bad guys. You can certainly have a successful militant faction that actually fights with honour and integrity, particularly in a game world. And I can certainly attest through personal experience that it _does_ make a difference. The way you act and fight certainly affects how others think of you (and how they fight you back), and that applies both to individuals and organizations, and can readily elevate or debase the "tone" of a conflict.

Sure, somewhere along the way the devs decided that a grimdark "do-whatever-it-takes" Good faction was the way to go, but it certainly wasn't the only option that could have succeeded. And for a great many of us it certainly wasn't the best. Nor would one option have precluded the other. We had the population for it... and as for conflict between the Good and good factions, that would have made for some fun conflict indeed.

But, of course, that boat has sailed, and it ain't gonna change anytime soon. To be clear, Cyrene is still an excellent place to be as a good character devoted to Honour, but I can't help but wistfully wish for what could have been.

Ayami

You are welcome to roleplay as a character whose convictions remain with the old gods of Good. You'll just face (roleplayed) consequences and have to do it without the devotion skill. That has nothing to do with 'real' roleplay vs 'gamers', it is entirely in-character to be punished for the 'wrong' beliefs.

IRL, the Catholic Church didn't sit around and go 'oh, well, you've believed these heretical things for a long time so I guess we won't excommunicate you.' The idea that this isn't being handled 'realistically' is a passive aggressive attempt at bashing with no basis.

Itkovian said:

Ayami said:

Achaea does not have the population for seven cities. Even six is stretching it thin. There's also no point to a moderate faction in a game where every faction is radical and there's already a radical faction on the same 'side' doing the moderate faction's job but 'better' (as far as actually slaying evil guys and stuff like that). What would Shallam do? They'd either fall in line behind Targossas or they'd be at bitter odds with Targossas. In the first example there's no reason for them to exist, and in the second their existence is actively a hindrance.

Achaea did have the population.

Note that this isn't something I'm suggesting now, that boat has sailed. But back before all the Intra-Shallam radicalization conflicts arose, there certainly were enough players. We were busting 500 players a night back then. Those were good times.

And I challenge the notion that the hardline "ends justify the means" is "better" at fighting the bad guys. You can certainly have a successful militant faction that actually fights with honour and integrity, particularly in a game world. And I can certainly attest through personal experience that it _does_ make a difference. The way you act and fight certainly affects how others think of you (and how they fight you back), and that applies both to individuals and organizations, and can readily elevate or debase the "tone" of a conflict.

Sure, somewhere along the way the devs decided that a grimdark "do-whatever-it-takes" Good faction was the way to go, but it certainly wasn't the only option that could have succeeded. And for a great many of us it certainly wasn't the best. Nor would one option have precluded the other. We had the population for it... and as for conflict between the Good and good factions, that would have made for some fun conflict indeed.

But, of course, that boat has sailed, and it ain't gonna change anytime soon. To be clear, Cyrene is still an excellent place to be as a good character devoted to Honour, but I can't help but wistfully wish for what could have been.

If it had the population, maybe, I don't know. But it doesn't now, and games tend to lose population as time goes on.

I don't know if a hardline Good is better or worse than the other kind, but both existing at the same time would make one or the other pointless.

Itkovian

Linton said:

I think a concern of the Original Poster that was not entirely addressed is this: From her extensive ingame reading, that she learned about Good as defined by the old Gods of Good. Now people are saying those are being deemed as erroneous by a new set of Good Gods who introduced a new set of doctrine. Consider now a priest character during the time of this transition from old to new doctrine. How do they make the -personal- transition of their beliefs? Can they? What if they followed the old God doctrine not because some God said to do it but out of conviction that those beliefs were right. Would it matter now some new authority is saying something else? Maybe from this we can see how that is a potential problem for players who play their characters to that level of realism. I sensed a few ex-Shallamese players here who are maybe like that. The struggle to stay true to their character in Achaea that perhaps they see more as a world than as a game.

Those who see Achaea more as a world will want it to have open ended possibilities and variations, they see broad/ooc attempts to regulate or define as stifling to roleplay. They want everything to be player driven.

Those who see it more as a game seem more focused on how to compartmentalize everyone so we can have clean and clearcut conflict lines. They feel that ultimately Achaea is a game, and games must have sides and rules, and sometimes fixes that are necessary even if they can potentially hurt realism.

Not one is better than the other, just different. Once we can see that, then I think there will be alot less hurt feelings when things happen. It will help to know which direction Achaea is going too, so we can adjust our expectations and play accordingly if we decided it is still a game we want to play.

To be fair, the Diaspora was setup specifically to educate all Devotionists of how Devotion worked these days. It doesn't matter what a character personally believed about Devotion: the reality of things IC is that now Devotion is directly bestowed by the Bloodsworn.

Certainly, many Devotionists still tried to act according to the old doctrine (Itkovian has never forsaken the Holy Codex, for example), but they would certainly know that to remain a Devotionist they needed to adopt the teachings of the Bloodsworn Gods.

And, of course, the conflict between the old teachings and the new is precisely what drove the tensions within the Diasporate, Cyrene, and Targossas... and inevitably led to the current break. Along with some pretty good RP.

Itkovian

Ayami said:

If it had the population, maybe, I don't know. But it doesn't now, and games tend to lose population as time goes on.

I don't know if a hardline Good is better or worse than the other kind, but both existing at the same time would make one or the other pointless.

On the first point, I agree... well, maybe. When I see Cyrene's population it certainly feels like it could be redistributed a bit without harming the game much. But as a Cyrenian, I admit our population numbers make for a very fun city. But still, it is too late now.

As for both at the same time being pointless, I'll have to disagree. Few things make for fun RP as a good old Schismatic conflict, especially with religious undertones! There's so much historical precedent for it too! The conflict schema between factions would have been awesome to see.

But sadly that's not gonna happen now, so we'll never find out. It's probably best to simply agree to disagree.

Morthif

Itkovian said:

Tibitha said:

Well if you want to get technical, Cyrene DID have special status, aka they were allowed to keep Devotion. They just didn't have as much special status as they thought they did.  

True enough.

Though I think the revelation that Targossas would treat any "neutrals" as fair game was the more troubling one. And the reason THAT took a while to realize is because all other cities are enemies of Targossas (Mhaldor - Evil, Ashtan - Chaos, Hashan - Darkness... and now Eleusis - Blood Sacrifice of Innocents), so actions against them could be rationalized. At least that's how I RPed it.

Like I wrote above, it made for good RP.

Targ doesn't really recognize nuetral. You're either for the Bloodsworn or you're not.

Krypton

Tesha said:

The point of it was Cyrene was expecting Targ to punish Antidas for breaking Cyrenian law, even though they don't punish Cyrenians for breaking Targ law (hunting innocents).

Something that still baffles me. Is it because you were just trying to not stir the pot while holding out hope that Cyrene devotionists would one day leave the city by their own volition?

Interesting to see if Targ will act on enforcing this now that we (will soon) have no devotionist hold.

Truthfully, I'm of the opinion that Targ/Deucora have exercised far more patience toward Cyrene than is due, even when measured in real-life time (two years). To say nothing of the 50+ years of patience that translates to in-game.

Achilles

Verrucht said:

Achilles said:

Ahmet said:

Daeir said:

... blah blah ...

I am the most excited for the prospects of a new set of relations between Targossas and Cyrene, as Jurixe has already outlined above. Open and forthright hostility can now finally be brought into the picture without awkwardly treading on people's toes. This is nothing but a good thing, and I very much look forward to how things are going to progress in the coming weeks and months.

This is the problem with Targossas though. They're out to pick a fight with everyone, even the people who supported you. Yer gonna end up worse than Mhaldor. 

This isn't true.  Targossas has gone out of its way to not fight Eleusis for instance, ignores Hashan (and I'm sure the same towards Cyrene a few months from now) for the most part and spends most of their time fighting Mhaldor, and defending against Ashtan.

idk where you been, but that's patently untrue.

Pretty sure we ignore them, the only people who actively attacked Hashan were Caladbolg and Draqoom.  I guess by Cyrene standards we don't ignore them because we actually attacked them once a couple of RL months ago.

Wynedere

This is the first truly good thing to come out of Achaea in quite a while, and I applaud Cyrene for their refusal to back down. In saying that, I am sorry for those who lost real money in the process, but it looks like Cyrene is stepping up to help supplement that loss. 

Go Cyrene! I'm proud of you guys.

Itkovian

Achilles said:

Verrucht said:

idk where you been, but that's patently untrue.

Pretty sure we ignore them, the only people who actively attacked Hashan were Caladbolg and Draqoom.  I guess by Cyrene standards we don't ignore them because we actually attacked them once a couple of RL months ago.

Well, this may have changed these days, but Targossas certainly actively raided Hashan on many occasions, at least back in the fall/winter. No idea what is happening these days.

Rangor

Daeir said:

Well, there's three flavors to outward approach from our end:

1. You're a sworn adherent to Good. One of us! We protect you and adore you forever. Lashing out against someone in this category without good reason (lol) will get you in serious shit.

2. You're no adherent of Good, but neither are you an overt threat to Creation beyond simply choosing not to accept the blessing of Good. We don't actively seek you out and kill you, but we don't protect you from anyone else or exclude you from hunting. This is the basic "neutral" state for us. This is why Targossas did not respond to Antidas stealing from Cyrene - you're not under our protectorate, you simply exist without overt hostility from us as a citystate. Our citizenry is not sanctioned to protect you or spare you from whatever they want to do. With sufficient justification, you could openly murder people in this category and get away with it, so long as it is justified under our ideology in some way.

3. You are an acknowledged enemy of Creation, abhorred utterly by Good. Any who are open followers of Evil, Darkness or Chaos fall squarely into this category and are unequivocally treated with the utmost hostility that we can muster. Anyone else not of those ideologies but known to aid or abet those who are, or otherwise performs actions damaging either to Targossas or to Creation at large also falls under this category. Anything and everything goes. Free game.

Cyrene was always firmly in the no. 2 category there, and probably always will be. The people in Cyrene who are getting close to the no. 3 category will be getting their shit kicked in within the coming irl months (I strongly suspect, at least) now that the last fleeting tie to no. 1 that Cyrene had is now gone.

But where does this place Eleusis? Plz help us understand Daeir.

Achilles

Eleusis is definitely a deuce

Trey

Huh, so a bear -does- shit in the woods. It all makes sense now!

Aminah

Linton said:

I think a concern of the Original Poster that was not entirely addressed is this: From her extensive ingame reading, that she learned about Good as defined by the old Gods of Good. Now people are saying those are being deemed as erroneous by a new set of Good Gods who introduced a new set of doctrine. Consider now a priest character during the time of this transition from old to new doctrine. How do they make the -personal- transition of their beliefs? Can they? What if they followed the old God doctrine not because some God said to do it but out of conviction that those beliefs were right. Would it matter now some new authority is saying something else? Maybe from this we can see how that is a potential problem for players who play their characters to that level of realism. I sensed a few ex-Shallamese players here who are maybe like that. The struggle to stay true to their character in Achaea that perhaps they see more as a world than as a game.

Those who see Achaea more as a world will want it to have open ended possibilities and variations, they see broad/ooc attempts to regulate or define as stifling to roleplay. They want everything to be player driven.

Those who see it more as a game seem more focused on how to compartmentalize everyone so we can have clean and clearcut conflict lines. They feel that ultimately Achaea is a game, and games must have sides and rules, and sometimes fixes that are necessary even if they can potentially hurt realism.

Not one is better than the other, just different. Once we can see that, then I think there will be alot less hurt feelings when things happen. It will help to know which direction Achaea is going too, so we can adjust our expectations and play accordingly if we decided it is still a game we want to play.

Thanks for being sensible @Linton and saying this. The established players, with a few nice exceptions, are caught up on their own stuff to worry about people like me. 

However, it MUST be said. No one, no clan, no afk deacon, no book makes it known that the current good in vogue means the others are totally replaced and not active law. How am I supposed to know these copies of texts are simply outdated? Because the org is gone? Nobody bothered to reach out. That's not my fault. That's the fault of the establishment player base, which, again with a few kind exceptions, is enormously self-serving and embarrassing.

Tesha

Rangor said:

But where does this place Eleusis? Plz help us understand Daeir.

Depends on if Sylvans are fixed yet or not. I'm okay with fighting crazy numbers, guards, and worldburn, but fighting Sylvan is just suicide.

Ayami

Aminah said:

Linton said:

I think a concern of the Original Poster that was not entirely addressed is this: From her extensive ingame reading, that she learned about Good as defined by the old Gods of Good. Now people are saying those are being deemed as erroneous by a new set of Good Gods who introduced a new set of doctrine. Consider now a priest character during the time of this transition from old to new doctrine. How do they make the -personal- transition of their beliefs? Can they? What if they followed the old God doctrine not because some God said to do it but out of conviction that those beliefs were right. Would it matter now some new authority is saying something else? Maybe from this we can see how that is a potential problem for players who play their characters to that level of realism. I sensed a few ex-Shallamese players here who are maybe like that. The struggle to stay true to their character in Achaea that perhaps they see more as a world than as a game.

Those who see Achaea more as a world will want it to have open ended possibilities and variations, they see broad/ooc attempts to regulate or define as stifling to roleplay. They want everything to be player driven.

Those who see it more as a game seem more focused on how to compartmentalize everyone so we can have clean and clearcut conflict lines. They feel that ultimately Achaea is a game, and games must have sides and rules, and sometimes fixes that are necessary even if they can potentially hurt realism.

Not one is better than the other, just different. Once we can see that, then I think there will be alot less hurt feelings when things happen. It will help to know which direction Achaea is going too, so we can adjust our expectations and play accordingly if we decided it is still a game we want to play.

Thanks for being sensible @Linton and saying this. The established players, with a few nice exceptions, are caught up on their own stuff to worry about people like me. 

However, it MUST be said. No one, no clan, no afk deacon, no book makes it known that the current good in vogue means the others are totally replaced and not active law. How am I supposed to know these copies of texts are simply outdated? Because the org is gone? Nobody bothered to reach out. That's not my fault. That's the fault of the establishment player base, which, again with a few kind exceptions, is enormously self-serving and embarrassing.

If it's anyone's fault, it's Cyrene's for being largely ignorant about Devotion despite their insistence on keeping it until now. This resulted in a lot of Devo users being pretty misguided by their own peers.  Targossas had a Diaspora for educating people precisely on these issues!

Aodfionn

Aminah said:

However, it MUST be said. No one, no clan, no afk deacon, no book makes it known that the current good in vogue means the others are totally replaced and not active law. 

You're not far off on the book part - but I do know that pretty much every discussion the Diaspora had, all of our meetings and chats with Cyrene, as well as the CLHELP scrolls for the clan were pretty up front about what is and is not Good. They contained everything you needed to know as far as the basic "Okay, are we all good that this is the Bloodsworn's say in the matter? Cool" sort of stuff. 

The Diaspora had a Trial of Worth, which was essentially just a ten (sometimes more) minute long conversation about Good. You had to take it within 2 years of joining the Diaspora (novices got longer, couldn't take it til 21), and you couldn't keep Devo if you didn't pass it. It is infinitely easy, and all of the answers can be found in the small CLHELP index.

I totally understand that people are frustrated with the books or with me not always being available as Deacon over the last little bit. That said, I don't quite get this complaint when everything else about what you said has been patently untrue for as long as the Diaspora's been around. Longer than I've been on Team Good, at least.

Makaela

I find it funny that it is only Good whose definitions are changed.  The Te'Serra had the right to ex-comm before and suddenly these New(Old) gods are saying they are wrong and their definition is the right one.  Seriously if the gods cant agree then they need to leave mortals be until they all figure out. I mean Aurora and Deucalion were brought back to life. What will happen if the Te'Serra suddenly come back? Oh oh they need to all go timeout and talk to find the real definition of  Good.  BTW I would love to see this play out.

Antidas

Makaela said:

I find it funny that it is only Good whose definitions are changed.  The Te'Serra had the right to ex-comm before and suddenly these New(Old) gods are saying they are wrong and their definition is the right one.  Seriously if the gods cant agree then they need to leave mortals be until they all figure out. I mean Aurora and Deucalion were brought back to life. What will happen if the Te'Serra suddenly come back? Oh oh they need to all go timeout and talk to find the real definition of  Good.  BTW I would love to see this play out.

Fyi, this was the biggest reason why the admins got rid of the Te'Serra and brought back Aurora and Deucalion. Because the Te'Serra kept changing the proper definition of Good until it was so convoluted that no one really knew what it was. Thus, we got Aurora and Deucalion to set a single proper definition for Good. Te'Serra won't be coming back, and Deucora's definition of Good is THE definition of Good - the rest is no longer relevant.

Makaela

Except that the old Gods are still canon. And you can not say for certain that the Te'Serra will never come back people once thought this about Deuc and Aurora.  Also in reality forces of good can be in conflict as they feel the other is not truly good. Bring the Te'Serra back give them to Cyrene.  Then Remove Miramar from them and make her a Neutral divine which she should have been from the start.  Her ideals just don't work when she is trying to side with good.

That or recall Runewardens to Cyrene along with Bards.

Invent Chaos knights for Ashtan
Invent Knights that pull on Darkness for hashan.

Eleusis does not need knights they have 3 factional classes already! Also knights are a civilization thing.. so why does a village of forest savages have them?

Ayami

None of the other gods had as strong of a claim to Good as Aurora/Deucalion though, that's the point. Two(right?) were ascended from mortals, which is already a tenuous position, one ditched Good entirely. Aurora/Deucalion are the equivalent of a direct, proven descendant of a king, and the others were simply regents.