|
|
Post by theredeemer on Aug 25, 2004 6:55:54 GMT -5
Now - I am not making this to make a problem, I am simply stating an opinion and perhaps making a few points.
I read the rules, and the castle wards - the first thing I will touch on is in regard to the Wards. Some people actually play as people that must move in shadows to survive - Sean, a freind of mine has a Persona called Shade. He is what is known to him as a Shadow Beast, a race of Demonic creatures that cannot be exposed to intense light. Shadows are their home. The castle wards would prohibit this person from ever entering the castle - and possibly kill him.
A second note on the wards - not everyone can be bothered to read a profile and a webpage. If someone enters and they have not read the wards then there may well be a problem. Back to Sean for a moment here - he himself has read these wards and the rules of many other Guilds. His solution? He follows no rules but those of the Guilds he has actually joined. He does not allow anything in the environment to affect him, as it would be a breach of Mun Consent.
"(Anyone disregarding this notice will be considered to be moding and booted from the room)" This was taken directly from the Wards page. To most who read it they will think that the wards themselves are a mod. Why? They interfere with the Persona and breach their right to Mun Consent.
I will add more as I see them - again this is not meant to cause a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Queen Solace Rayana Klojhen on Aug 25, 2004 7:01:37 GMT -5
Those wards are up there for a base purpose. We don't refuse every "shadow" type creature that comes to visit. We have shadows that belong to the kingdom. If you read further you will also see that the castle is a living entity. That has to do with it too. The wards were put in place for those that think they can just "poof" in anytime they want and try to kill anything that moves.
Ex: ~appears out the shadows behind the king and kills him~
I mean gimme a break. That is what we were dealing with for a long time. The wards are mostly there to warn Nicho of incoming. There is nothing wrong with that when you are a target, constantly.
Any other questions, feel free to contact me.
Solace mun ~ Web Mistress
|
|
|
|
Post by King Nicho Klojhen on Aug 25, 2004 7:04:37 GMT -5
The wards are not designed to kill, only to channel such creatures to a specific point of entry.
Most of the time, people's entrances are not a problem, but if such a person was to insist that he "arrived" through shadow at a point not designated by the wards, then he could simply be booted or ignored as not following the rules.
Mun consent does not apply in this case. You are dealing with a group of muns vs one mun.
|
|
|
|
Post by theredeemer on Aug 25, 2004 7:09:31 GMT -5
While I see the logic in that Lady Solace - the fact remains that a creature of Shadow can be killed by that ward.
Another thing that should be noted - said friend has requested that I also post a few things from him at times - one of them is thus: "Considering that the rules state Medieval Only, would this mean you would not seek an allaiance with a Government that travels the Temporal Plane. A Government that resides in the future? My government would like to forge such an alliance if it is at all possible - yet this statement is prohibitive."
Edit: Sir Nicho - this is direct from Sean: "Mun Consent is followed regardless of the number of Muns on either end. Breach of said consent is a breach. There is no argument. If you wish to 'discuss' this point feel free to IM or E-mail me on my Screen Name, Elfin Runes." Again, his words not mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Nicho Klojhen on Aug 25, 2004 7:15:59 GMT -5
By "Medieval" we mean we don't allow futuristic weapons, such as guns or blasters. We have no problem with people having them, but they do not work in this realm.
In this case, our world is a cross between medieval Europe and Middle Earth.
And a shadow would only be killed by that ward if he refused to enter at the proper place.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Nicho Klojhen on Aug 25, 2004 8:21:56 GMT -5
As to a breach of mun consent, we simply do not care.
If one does not wish to follow our rules and regulations, one is more than welcome not to visit.
|
|
|
|
Post by theredeemer on Aug 25, 2004 8:32:17 GMT -5
This could be a problem when dealing with him. He has a view that places the emphasis on following the rules set down by individuals when they come knocking. while he will follow some of your rules to avoid a problem - he will not follow anything he views as a breach of Consent. Such things are viewed by him as a way to manipulate a Persona.
|
|
|
|
Post by Queen Solace Rayana Klojhen on Aug 25, 2004 10:49:34 GMT -5
Well you can calm down now. I've been rping with him for a couple of hours now and I think he's great.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kolava on Aug 25, 2004 15:24:28 GMT -5
I feel that Mun Consent is a right, not a priviledge. It is a fundamental of RP which must be understood if there is to be any harmony and continuity in our play. To have this right revoked causes a feeling of frustration that harkens back to the days when we were all children playing monopoly, and someone made up a new rule on the spot concerning "Free Parking", thus earning themselves a jackpot. I make this analogy because the offender hasn't actually cheated, they've just bent the rules in their favor without really caring about fairness.
That said, there is another problem. "Mun consent", as a term, is nebulous to the point of complete pointlessness. Some individuals and institutions, working under a rigid framework of conflict-resolution rules, ignore it. Others, on the other end of the spectrum, embrace it and wrap themselves in it to such a rediculous extent that pretty soon they are effectively stating "I am going to do whatever I want and you can't stop me because you don't have consent to."
Niether of these extremes are desirable...but where is the comfortable middle? No one can agree for certain where sovereignty rests, and this debate will doubtlessly continue ad infinitum as new players join.
What does "sovereignty" mean? By sovereignty I am reffering to the final say, the indisputable fact of a situation. Many idealists would like to believe that sovereignty belongs to the RP world itself-- fire demons can ignore fire attacks, a monk has enough willpower to fight off mind control, a shield will stop a sword of equal quality --but this quickly falls apart when players introduce maximized characters based on comic-book science who are usually immune to whatever they wish to be at that moment and whose attacks lack any practical defense. In a world full of these characters, it's obvious that common sense and good science are no place to turn to when resolving a conflict.
Those who demand absolute sovereignty over their characters are missing the point of having a dynamic RP with uncontrolled elements; they might as well log off the internet and open Word if they want to control every element of the story. Those who demand that sovereignty belongs to the majority are screwing the minority. Those who claim that the attacker deserves sovereignty often change their story when they are being attacked. And, finally, claiming that sovereignty belongs in the hands of numbers often leads to absurd situations, like an icicle blast defeating the Lord of Ice.
Getting back to the point, I think the real solution is simply to try to appeal to common sense, fairness, balance, and camaraderie. "Turn Based Logic" is a good step in the right direction, but is still very flawed. Simply realizing that RP is not a competition that you win but, rather, a cooperative experience where everyone helps each other have fun does wonders. In this case, just look at the wards for what they are: assassin foils. As long as you don't do mischief, and you appear somewhere near the gate, no one will really care if you appear in a burst of nethersludge or whatever. We have no desire to harm shadow-oriented visitors, but if we did, we would do so in a fair way. Similarly, we hope you have no desire to harm us, but if you do, please go about it in a fair and dramatically feasible way.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesilentone on Aug 29, 2004 12:27:37 GMT -5
Lady Solace - thank you for your opinion of me. I am flattered that someone thinks me to be 'great'.
Sir Nicho - something that should be made aware to you - such a view generally causes others to distrust or even hate you. I know - I have the same attitude. Trust me when I tell you that being flexible is seen as a strenght - not a weakness.
Kolava - good points - I hope someone learned from that.
Look - I try not to disrupt the experience of others - but when I see something like that I feel it is my duty to point it out. I normally have an extreme hatred of Guilds that see it as fine to force others to adhere to their rules when they are not associated with said Guild. The sole reason I followed any rules at all was to show something - being flexible does help.
|
|
