High Clan Totems

Xith

But a member of the organisation can claim them, so what is the question?

Saying that all members of an organisation should be able to claim/reject?

Sena

Xith said:

But a member of the organisation can claim them, so what is the question?

Saying that all members of an organisation should be able to claim/reject?

She's saying that an organisation's designated totemer should be able to claim totems on behalf of that org even if they're not a member.

Xith

Ahhh, makes sense that way. Thanks. And I guess I'd approve.

Tanaar

Then you run the risk of an org contracting out some mass totem work and a malicious totemer dropping a totem somewhere obnoxious or dangerous like UW exit root or a crossroads or something. Because it was tuned for the org, they're responsible for its actions, even though no member was involved at any step. Nope, having a member claim it still makes more sense.

Kyrra

The org is equally as responsible for its totemer as any other member of that org that can totem anyway. Unless I am mistaken, only leaders can appoint that position and why would they choose someone irresponsible in the first place?

All designated totems should be recorded in the logs and a single probe of a totem shows who the totemer is as well as which org owns the totems.

It's why I declined toteming for a high clan before they can claim totems as an org, I would be held just as responsible as the person they ended up designated to.

By the way, the idea of toteming all of Moghedu makes me swoon. So many totems.

Xith

Yeah, about 226 rooms.

But is there actually an 'official totemer' position available now or is that part of the suggestion?

Kyrra

Cities, houses and orders have the position already.

Kresslack

Why would someone who is not part of the organization be able to claim it? To me, that doesn't seem very sensible. If an organization doesn't have an official totemer as a member, they should look to recruit one. Otherwise, stick to the conventional means. If it's a real organization, any member should be around to easily claim it. 

Xith

Unless that org doesn't allow runists. But ranking members should be around often enough to get past that.

Even so, the idea would be a nice convenience, I guess.

Cahin

I don't like this idea very much.

The benefit of city totems is that the blame for them can't be placed on any one person and enemying does not have the same confines as an enemies list.  Because of this, they are entirely restricted to the city + defendable.

What restrictions will high clans be held to for totems?  Most of them have no designated domain and the whole thing sounds like a very slippery slope that would require too much divine intervention.

Xith

First of all, I think if absolutely needed, Divine can yank them out of the ground without taking any time.

Second, I believe totems are always legal to protect an "area of interest", so of course only land that the org either owns or legally protects, as in the case of official alliance.

But third, legal/illegal toteming is ambiguous with the new pk rules. Namely, I don't know whether it gives "cause" against the implanter or the owner. HELP TOTEMS doesn't say anything about repercussions.

"Cause" is also ambiguous when it comes to hiring Marks now, which is why I know there's a Mark rework in the pipelines to make them more rp-ish orgs.

So I imagine if the adventurers want totems uprooted enough they can do so themselves.

Cahin

This would also effectively give high clan organizations the ability to more adequately defend mutually allied denizens than cities themselves, due to restrictions on city totems.  This idea would be fine if it didn't extend beyond whatever private estate out of subdivision house that the organization owns (as long as this is handled in a responsible, nonQashar manner).  When it extends to allied denizen zones it is no longer fun.  I know you are desperately looking for a way to make your enemy status have impact now, but you've already got it with the mutual alliance with Mog.  Adding totems to 'contested' hunting areas protected by organizations with vested interests doesn't do well to increase conflict in the area, it stifles it.  If that is your goal, you should probably let Iocun talk to you for a good while.

Xith

As much as I'd love to see all of Mog totemed, that's a lot of maintenance, so we'll really be choosing specific sections of the place.

Cahin

Again, no, for all of the reasons I've listed that you have neglected to address.  Not to mention it would not merge correctly with HELP 15.4.3 

Denizen Defenders

-----------------

It is your responsibility to make certain that anyone attacking denizens you

wish to defend are aware of the potential consequences of his or her

actions. Where any doubt at all could exist, an explicit warning must be

given before you defend the denizens.

You cannot attack another adventurer for simply being in a denizen area you

are defending and nothing more. Your alliance is not a free ticket to

indiscriminately attack anyone you see in the allied denizens' vicinity.

Denizen defense is fine as it is.  Absolutely no to adding zero liability organizationally owned totems to 'contested areas'.  This is coming from an unbiased person who doesn't hunt areas protected by alliance'd organizations.

That is incredibly stupid and you should feel bad for considering it.

The idea of denizen defense is designed to create conflict and interaction, not to develop some OOC emotional attachment to the denizens to the point that you wish to stop the conflict entirely.

ETA: This isn't to say I'm opposed to organizational totems in areas they explicitly own, such as an out of subdivision plot of land, but an alliance with an organization does not constitute a merger with an organization.  GoM does not own Mog, just as the Dwarves high clan does not own any of the dwarven settlements, nor are they considered part of their organization.  They are simply mutually allied which gives them permission to defend the area.  The precedent set by Cities and Orders that totems cannot extend beyond the defendable (hardcoded) should not be broken, because it is level and fair.  

No organizationally owned totems outside of areas that your organization explicitly owns.

Xith

Cahin said:

Again, no, for all of the reasons I've listed that you have neglected to address.  Not to mention it would not merge correctly with HELP 15.4.3 

Denizen Defenders

-----------------

It is your responsibility to make certain that anyone attacking denizens you

wish to defend are aware of the potential consequences of his or her

actions.

Offenders are messaged as soon as they're enemied, which constitutes awareness of consequences. Totems being a form of defense, nothing particularly unfair there. The fact is, GoM isn't a city, so we'll have a hell of a time as it is dealing with smudging and uprooting all the time. I'd say if 'we' or our rune people are willing to deal with that, it's their prerogative.

Yilkon

Xith said:

Offenders are messaged as soon as they're enemied, which constitutes awareness of consequences. Totems being a form of defense, nothing particularly unfair there. The fact is, GoM isn't a city, so we'll have a hell of a time as it is dealing with smudging and uprooting all the time. I'd say if 'we' or our rune people are willing to deal with that, it's their prerogative.

You missed the pertinent point in Cahin's post.

You cannot attack another adventurer for simply being in a denizen area you are defending and nothing more.

Which is precisely what a totem does.

Xith

Yilkon said:

Xith said:

Offenders are messaged as soon as they're enemied, which constitutes awareness of consequences. Totems being a form of defense, nothing particularly unfair there. The fact is, GoM isn't a city, so we'll have a hell of a time as it is dealing with smudging and uprooting all the time. I'd say if 'we' or our rune people are willing to deal with that, it's their prerogative.

You missed the pertinent point in Cahin's post.

You cannot attack another adventurer for simply being in a denizen area you are defending and nothing more.

Which is precisely what a totem does.

Erm, buddy. You can attack another adventurer in an allied region if they've been warned of consequences.

So by definition, anybody enemied to the clan who would hit a totem has had their warning.

Nothing more =/= killing the denizens.

Sylvance

This is getting a little ragetastic guys. Let's reel it in.  Say with me: WOOOOO-saaaaaaaah.

Veldrin

Xith said:

Yilkon said:

Xith said:

Offenders are messaged as soon as they're enemied, which constitutes awareness of consequences. Totems being a form of defense, nothing particularly unfair there. The fact is, GoM isn't a city, so we'll have a hell of a time as it is dealing with smudging and uprooting all the time. I'd say if 'we' or our rune people are willing to deal with that, it's their prerogative.

You missed the pertinent point in Cahin's post.

You cannot attack another adventurer for simply being in a denizen area you are defending and nothing more.

Which is precisely what a totem does.

Erm, buddy. You can attack another adventurer in an allied region if they've been warned of consequences.

So by definition, anybody enemied to the clan who would hit a totem has had their warning.

Nothing more =/= killing the denizens.

Only if you've seen them hunt for that interaction. You need to give verbal warning each and every time to uphold the mentioned rule. If they are just in the area not doing anything to the denizens you do not have permission to attack them.

Xith

You cannot attack another adventurer for simply being in a denizen area you

are defending and nothing more. Your alliance is not a free ticket to

indiscriminately attack anyone you see in the allied denizens' vicinity.

Key phrases being "nothing more" and "indiscriminately" and "anyone".

Also: Where any doubt at all could exist, an explicit warning must be

given before you defend the denizens.

Sylvance

@Veldrin - What you're quoting seems a little bit like a hearkening to old-PK rules.  Are you sure that's still the case?

Nemutaur

Sylvance said:

@Veldrin - What you're quoting seems a little bit like a hearkening to old-PK rules.  Are you sure that's still the case?

Well Xith got shrubbed for something so I bet some of those rules still apply.

Sylvance

Wow... shrubbed for what? I didn't think they were actually PKing folks.

Xith

The shrubbery has nothing to do with GoM. Nice try though.

Rulf

I doubt he was "trying" anything @Xith, merely pointing out the fact that you are shrubbed, and as of late, this GoM stuff has been pretty prominent in some discussions.

That being said, I think it would be alright for High Clans to have totems, but only in areas where those High Clans are "based."  New Hope being a refugee camp wouldn't apply in my mind. Moghedu would, but not the entirety of Moghedu.  I'd go as far as toteming where the Great Mhunna is, and probably the living areas on the same floor.  I doubt an agreement would allow the entirety to be totemed anyway, seems like (a) a bad choice and (b) a lot of work for the GoM anyways.

Xith

The living areas to start with, which is where the women and children are. I'd like to meet the person that has an IC problem with that. :P

Cooper

I would. There are also keepers and knights there, and they need to die

Mathonwy

The last page or so is kind of ludicrous.

Areas are generally put into the game for the explicit purposes of filling out Achaea's rich mythological tapestry and the implicit purposes of bashing/questing/etc., and while being able to defend them on RP grounds is a very awesome touch and that sort of thing should be highly encouraged, there is absolutely no reason why parts of or even all of Moghedu (or any other bashing area) should be totemed the way that cities are. The reason you're defending the area is to advance or generate roleplay, not to grief anyone who dares bash Mog, and considering the GoM (or Ashtan if we're talking about New Thera, Hashan if Tasur'ke, etc.) lose absolutely nothing if the denizens die, the stakes are considerably lower than where cities are involved.

Also, totems take the impetus off of high clans to be vigilant in assuring that their mandate is fulfilled. They should be able to make an area frustrating and/or impossible to bash; they shouldn't be able to do so passively. The reasons, after all, that you're making it difficult to bash there in the first place are roleplay reasons, and implanting two hundred totems (or even two) misses the point of that entirely.

New Hope is a completely different story, in that Shallam doesn't have a city and New Hope ICly agreed to host them (or something similar?), although they do have access to a saferoom, which is substantially harder to quantify in terms of balance.

Xith

Most Moghedans aren't on par with the city guards or quantity of citizens present in a city. And we can't station them in specific places, so the totems are fairly likely to be vandalised anyway. All it takes is the smudging of a wunjo rune to render them useless.

I'm not saying it'll be cut and dry, but totems in cities can't usually be smudged or uprooted because of guards and active defenders. I actually don't know if people are enemied to a city for attacking its protectorate, but even if they were, that denizen city wouldn't fall within the city's jurisdiction so toteming wouldn't be advisable. In GoM's case though, the clan was founded around this denizen city itself.

Basically, any military actions they take will be in line with social and political goals. If it comes to totems, it'll be within the guidelines.

Cahin

Xith said:

Most Moghedans aren't on par with the city guards or quantity of citizens present in a city. And we can't station them in specific places, so the totems are fairly likely to be vandalised anyway. All it takes is the smudging of a wunjo rune to render them useless.

I'm not saying it'll be cut and dry, but totems in cities can't usually be smudged or uprooted because of guards and active defenders. I actually don't know if people are enemied to a city for attacking its protectorate, but even if they were, that denizen city wouldn't fall within the city's jurisdiction so toteming wouldn't be advisable. In GoM's case though, the clan was founded around this denizen city itself.

Basically, any military actions they take will be in line with social and political goals. If it comes to totems, it'll be within the guidelines.

Mog is not your city state just because you have a high clan mutually allied.  You need to get this through your head.