AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

melfsmite wrote:

It is not possible to simply wander around Amia being EEEVIIIL.

Works great with my character.

Grymia wrote:

Mr Mago wrote:

Grymia wrote:

Barring a very justifiable cause, I feel comfortable saying the Weave Knights will not be the first ones to throw a blow.

There was one Weave Knight who suddenly decided to get involved when Darth battled a huge construct in Cordor, by dispelling Darth of his enchantments, effectively hindering Darth from killing it when it was nearly dead and almost killing Darth at the same time.

No aggression had been made towards the Weave Knight prior to that.

I don't doubt that the Weave Knights tend to be... restrained. But then again, I don't really see the purpose of their existence if so.

PM me the name of the Weave Knight and how long ago this was please?

Why? OOC spanking?

Darthion has the name on his IC deathlist.

Nope, no OOC spankings here.

I think Darth means you should learn about the event ICly if yo're going to make any actions on it.

melfsmite wrote:

It is not possible to simply wander around Amia being EEEVIIIL.

If so, then you're not doing it right!

TormakSaber wrote:

I think Darth means you should learn about the event ICly if yo're going to make any actions on it.

Fair enough fair enough.

Sounds like it happened a while ago in any event but I could be wrong.

6 months.

It's quite irrelevant anyhow.

Yeah probably.. I don't think Vael's even been in the Weave Knights six months (but I could be wrong).

Or the Weave Knight that EDK'd a lvl 3 UNARMED Cyricist, who wasn't attacking.

Man, not submitting after that pissed them off, and had Shria'ae known then that she was /WAY/ out of her jurisdiction, there'd've been hell.

No Specific Incidents On The Forum

You know this, Axl.

I'd say that when I was active and Kjetta and I, or Tranny and I would make rounds about, we were quite 'aggressive'. There was rarely any OOC crying about it. People know if a hoarite sees naughty we punish (or try to) and we took out IC beatings with OOC grain of salt. Even congratulated on the winning team.

Just saying, its entirely possible to have these 'agressive' factions, thats what the pvp rules are in place and such for.

That could've as well been because you had DMs on your team. Yes, it does make things a little different.

True I guess, that being said, even when I did my hunts alone, (which quite often I got into fights then). Things can be worked out violent IC but swell OOCly

GreatPigeon wrote:

True I guess, that being said, even when I did my hunts alone, (which quite often I got into fights then). Things can be worked out violent IC but swell OOCly

That's how it is 95-99% of the time for me.

And me.

xordae wrote:

That could've as well been because you had DMs on your team. Yes, it does make things a little different.

dumb dumb dumb. FYI: There are DMs on both 'sides'.

Mr Mago wrote:

GreatPigeon wrote:

True I guess, that being said, even when I did my hunts alone, (which quite often I got into fights then). Things can be worked out violent IC but swell OOCly

That's how it is 95-99% of the time for me.

Yes I recall a very distince occasion when Rikku met Darth... and preceded to get Dev Critted with the pointer stick faster then hell. Afterwards you gave me pointers how to get my fort save up

... Even with the neccessary "Woah Im Evil get out of here" and the ever more neccessary "You vile banite scum, over my dead body" And the then thrashing of my piggy and me, we worked things out... shame they cant be like that all the time.

I've had folks log off after a pvp thing, come back on another character and attack me, and had folks not give me the courtesy of an ooc raise thingy too...

Shame Shame

OOC Raise, I always laugh when I see that. Almost as stupid as an OOC Rest. Ever seen that shyte?

Its just soemthing nice so the person doesnt have to sit there for 5 minutes so they can raise themselves.

TormakSaber wrote:

dumb dumb dumb. FYI: There are DMs on both 'sides'.

If you have a hostile encounter between two groups, and one of the groups has a DM on the team, it changes how people behave. Say dumb all you want.

It does change their behaviour a bit, unfortunately. It's dumb, but it happens.

There's DMs playing on every side of the Khem area squabbles now, btw. I guess that should balance things out a bit at least in one region, where most of the clashing happens.

O'Raghailligh wrote:

OOC Raise, I always laugh when I see that. Almost as stupid as an OOC Rest. Ever seen that shyte?

OOC Raise is polite, and a good way to help avoid hard feelings.

xordae wrote:

That could've as well been because you had DMs on your team. Yes, it does make things a little different.

Dunno, but the last one or two times I got into a scuffle with Riku-something, (I believe thats the PC of GreatPigeon) things flowed along pretty smooth IC. with IC warnings of imminent battle too. So twas cool.

AxlLeigh wrote:

Or the Weave Knight that EDK'd a lvl 3 UNARMED Cyricist, who wasn't attacking.

Man, not submitting after that pissed them off, and had Shria'ae known then that she was /WAY/ out of her jurisdiction, there'd've been hell.

first off if you follow cyric you will have 90% of the world against you, including all mystra followers, its like playing a drow...expect to be ganged up on ALOT. I personally think its sad it dosnt happen more often, levels has nothing to do with in in my book, but following cyric is like being a rapist ethics wise..theres just no excuse and the punishment is severe...thats just my oppion

O'Raghailligh wrote:

OOC Raise, I always laugh when I see that. Almost as stupid as an OOC Rest. Ever seen that shyte?

Actually, it's not stupid at all if the situation calls for it. If someone dies in PvP and you want to emote dragging their body off somewhere, you can't really do that well when they're stuck on the ground. Thus, OoC raise so they can "walk" with you to whereever you put them down. Not stupid, necessary. I've never seen anyone use a OoC Raise except to move a dead body.

OoC Rest on the other hand is most often utilized by people who want to rest before PvP, and didn't have the presence of mind to actually rest sometime before. That, or they don't want to accept that their character may be PvPed at less then their absolute best, which is kinda sad.

Dark Immolation wrote:

OoC Rest on the other hand is most often utilized by people who want to rest before PvP, and didn't have the presence of mind to actually rest sometime before. That, or they don't want to accept that their character may be PvPed at less then their absolute best, which is kinda sad.

Which is why you kill them while they're resting.

Ooo, can we get a DM ruling on that?

If it's legal, that would make my day. Can't imagine the times I've been about to PvP with my melee/caster at half his spells and think "well, I'll just have to make due, that's what he's at ICly" only to have the other PC go "//OoC rest" and fall defenseless right infront of him. >.<

From an IC perspective, it's kinda like "I'm going to kick your @$$ man.... riiiiiiight after my nap." But I guess that's why it's "OoC".

Kraniumbrud wrote:

AxlLeigh wrote:

Or the Weave Knight that EDK'd a lvl 3 UNARMED Cyricist, who wasn't attacking.

Man, not submitting after that pissed them off, and had Shria'ae known then that she was /WAY/ out of her jurisdiction, there'd've been hell.

first off if you follow cyric you will have 90% of the world against you, including all mystra followers, its like playing a drow...expect to be ganged up on ALOT. I personally think its sad it dosnt happen more often, levels has nothing to do with in in my book, but following cyric is like being a rapist ethics wise..theres just no excuse and the punishment is severe...thats just my oppion

Doesn't matter; the Weave Knight boundaries of conduct are very clear. If she's not misusing the weave or threatening someone under WK protection (She wasn't) or threatening the territory of the WK or their protectorates (She was in no-man's land), they have no jurisdiction. They're not police in the social sense of the term.

Dark Immolation wrote:

Ooo, can we get a DM ruling on that?

If it's legal, that would make my day. Can't imagine the times I've been about to PvP with my melee/caster at half his spells and think "well, I'll just have to make due, that's what he's at ICly" only to have the other PC go "//OoC rest" and fall defenseless right infront of him. >.<

From an IC perspective, it's kinda like "I'm going to kick your @$$ man.... riiiiiiight after my nap." But I guess that's why it's "OoC".

Technicality 7 here and discussion here.

There's no such thing as OOC resting, really. If someone starts to rest or cast in a situation likely to result in PvP, I'd take it as a cue to clean their clocks as soon as they sit down.

Voluntary Attack of Opportunity and coup de grace?

WHY SURE!

AxlLeigh wrote:

Kraniumbrud wrote:

AxlLeigh wrote:

Or the Weave Knight that EDK'd a lvl 3 UNARMED Cyricist, who wasn't attacking.

Man, not submitting after that pissed them off, and had Shria'ae known then that she was /WAY/ out of her jurisdiction, there'd've been hell.

first off if you follow cyric you will have 90% of the world against you, including all mystra followers, its like playing a drow...expect to be ganged up on ALOT. I personally think its sad it dosnt happen more often, levels has nothing to do with in in my book, but following cyric is like being a rapist ethics wise..theres just no excuse and the punishment is severe...thats just my oppion

Doesn't matter; the Weave Knight boundaries of conduct are very clear. If she's not misusing the weave or threatening someone under WK protection (She wasn't) or threatening the territory of the WK or their protectorates (She was in no-man's land), they have no jurisdiction. They're not police in the social sense of the term.

Its called common sense, do you not stop a rapist? or a mass muderere?..

i dont think people realise just how insanely evil it is to worship cyric..i would say one has a moral obligation to do whatever you can to stop them, juristiction or no jurisiticion, they kill goblins who attack them outside cordor..i dont see the difference between that and killing cyricist (ic wise that is)..and just a small clarification, following cyric..is a threat to everyone you love, they are utterly insane and known to pull out plots that kills thousands..its not about police its about stopping a real threat to everyone including the weave and mystra..cyric is not as bad as shar in this perspective..but he is a runner up of serius magnitude

I'm well aware of how evil it is.

But do you kill someone just because they /might/ do something evil?

That's...pretty much misusing magic, in my book. ANYONE /might/ do something evil. Is it more likely worshiping an evil god? (Any evil god, pick one). Yes. But just the same...do you kill a person who isn't doing anything, and that you can't prove HAS done anything?

'Cause isn't /that/...you know....evil?

Quote:

But do you kill someone just because they /might/ do something evil?

Someone /might/ kill someone else who /might/ do something evil. Just as the villain in this case, the actions of the good guy are not set in stone. He will not be put in an OOC straitjacket for deviating from the laws and regulations of his faction. This is stuff that is handled IC, and even then chances are that no one would listen to a Cyricist because, you guessed it, it's a Cyricist!

Every character has the ability to do something that's wrong, and discussing just how wrong it is is pretty useless IMO. The interesting question is "will someone find out?"

That's why you blow things up publically.

XD

There's a big difference between worshipping the Faerunian Pantheon and giving tribute to whichever god you needed favours from, even if they are evil, and dedicating your life and all your worship to an evil deity who seems to be the antithesis of civilisation.

The average Faerunian is polytheistic, and you're already dedicated to evil, chaos and all other things Cyric-y to forsake all others in favour of worshipping one who is recognised by many to be utterly vile. Good luck in convincing the good guys you don't deserve to die.

TormakSaber wrote:

If it weren't for the EO and Banites and the aggreesive Sun Elves there would be a (censored) ton of extremely bored players on all sides.

Personally, I like the EO and Banites because of their constant presence and devotion to their causes. Some of you people may not like their style of agrro play, but I think they have good leadership and are doing a sterling job.

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

I think the DMs and developers found a good compromise to set up the module such that you can avoid whatever RP you are not interested in.

Oh god, I hope not. Did we foster that? We need to change that, right now. You shouldn't be able to avoid a damn thing just because you OOCly dislike it, because this is the world your character lives in and no one should give a rat's ass about their feelings OOCly towards Jim Bob's Player, because they're too busy interacting ICly with Eric Bigsword the Fighter.

This used to be the case, and one of amia's main selling points back then. It wasn't a rule, but it used to be expected that if someone is not interested in your kind of rp, you leave them alone or simply ignore them. IC justifications were not considered valid reason to grief someone against their will.

It was also why you were required to get another person's permission before you did pvp, and it was considered a custom to ask people before involving them in rp that may be hostile or negative to them.

Being able to say //sorry, but I don't like how this rp is going // , because it may traumatize the pc or take their story in a direction the player did not like, or was not comfortable with, it was commonly accepted and one was expected to let the other person go.

Amia was considered Free for All, in that you can do whatever you want, just find willing participants and don't drag the unwilling in.

The current team is clearly trying to chance this, by pushing for more hardcore realism, consequences, challenges and conflict, basically more action oriented, but this is not the direction Amia used to be going a year or so back.

I think it was a good practice. The social players could rp and adventure in peace with each other, while the action and conflict seeking players let them alone and did their thing with other action players, the two groups rarely brushed and could just ignore each other for the most part.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think hostile factions ruin the game for those who are not interested in conflict if they don't seek willing recipients for their hostilities.

Also, it has been brought up by a few people that in many instances they are forced to act a certain way. This is almost never true. Our characters are in the end controlled by the player. A kelemvorite is not forced to kill a necromancer, a elf is not forced to hunt and harass drow. It is a choice of you, the player to either do that, or just ignore them. In the end it is always you who chose your characters action, none other forces you to do things a certain way.

IC roleplay should never be justification for griefing, yet many excuse their actions by saying it is what their character would do and they had no choice. But consider, what is the difference between the following statements?

A: My character Jack is a psychopath who will kill, mutilate and imprison any woman he comes across. It is his character, when I see a woman, I must pvp her, or I would be metagaming and going against his character!

B: My character Elwith is a racist elf who will kill, mutilate and imprison any drow he comes across. It is his character, when I see a drow, I must pvp him, or I would be metagaming and going against his character!

C: My character Jane is a zealous kelemvorite who will kill, mutilate and imprison any necromancer she comes across. It s her character, when I see a necromancer, I must pvp him, or I would be metagaming and going against her character!

D: My character Bobby hates blondes... etc, I guess you get the pattern by now.

Character A and D from the above example would likely end up getting themselves banned for griefing sooner or later, while characters B and C are not only present, but praised and encouraged by many.

In other worlds... if you are playing a character that is due to his personality that YOU CHOSE forced to act in a hostile and antagonizing way, you should maybe reconsider the type of character you want to make. A murderous sun elf that hates drow and will hunt them at any oportunity is valid from a lore perspective, but on an occ level is a pain in the arse for most who are forced to deal with him.

Factions like the banites, the kellies, winyans are valid, and rped correctly... but due to their hostile and agonizing nature, they may not be suited for Amia's environment, which I believe what Ron was trying to imply.

And lastly, it is commonly considered bad rp to attack someone ''because they are evil'', and you need more reason to that. So why is it acceptable to attack drow, tieflings, necromancers or cyricists, isn't that the same thing?

AxlLeigh wrote:

Kraniumbrud wrote:

AxlLeigh wrote:

Or the Weave Knight that EDK'd a lvl 3 UNARMED Cyricist, who wasn't attacking.

Man, not submitting after that pissed them off, and had Shria'ae known then that she was /WAY/ out of her jurisdiction, there'd've been hell.

first off if you follow cyric you will have 90% of the world against you, including all mystra followers, its like playing a drow...expect to be ganged up on ALOT. I personally think its sad it dosnt happen more often, levels has nothing to do with in in my book, but following cyric is like being a rapist ethics wise..theres just no excuse and the punishment is severe...thats just my oppion

Doesn't matter; the Weave Knight boundaries of conduct are very clear. If she's not misusing the weave or threatening someone under WK protection (She wasn't) or threatening the territory of the WK or their protectorates (She was in no-man's land), they have no jurisdiction. They're not police in the social sense of the term.

No but as individuals people (including the Weave Knights) do have the freedom of choice. Yes, it might not be an action that'd be officially pleasing to hear of or sanctioned but to be perfectly honest and blunt, Axl:
A Cyricist? Don't tell me they aren't a threat/playing the innocent.

You seem to think you know so much about the Weave Knights and are trying to keep them pigeonholed. Two problems with that theory:

1) The direction they take as an organization is a discretionary decision currently on the shoulders of their Lieutenant and Captain. *Note the two people whom I cite, higher ranked officers within the Knights*.

2) They have a lot of history and a lot of time under their belts, and have changed from their original incarnation when Silvarus formed them.

Dramatic_Prince wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

If it weren't for the EO and Banites and the aggreesive Sun Elves there would be a (censored) ton of extremely bored players on all sides.

Personally, I like the EO and Banites because of their constant presence and devotion to their causes. Some of you people may not like their style of agrro play, but I think they have good leadership and are doing a sterling job.

QFE. I agree with the green haired hin lass.

Kraniumbrud wrote:

AxlLeigh wrote:

Or the Weave Knight that EDK'd a lvl 3 UNARMED Cyricist, who wasn't attacking.

Man, not submitting after that pissed them off, and had Shria'ae known then that she was /WAY/ out of her jurisdiction, there'd've been hell.

first off if you follow cyric you will have 90% of the world against you, including all mystra followers, its like playing a drow...expect to be ganged up on ALOT. I personally think its sad it dosnt happen more often, levels has nothing to do with in in my book, but following cyric is like being a rapist ethics wise..theres just no excuse and the punishment is severe...thats just my oppion

Extremist as Kranium is, there is a point to be had here.

I get that Faerun typically holds to X-value. This is Amia mind, and I'll bet (especially in places like Cordor) the NPCs WILL be acting more traditionally to Faerunian ways.

Funny enough, in playing my Banite I've only had one direct PvP battle. It didn't surprise me nescessarily, because as a Banite, it's part of the territory to have EVERY OTHER SANE FRICKIN' RELIGION WANTING YOU DEAD. It's quite similar with Cyric, he's the insane and Chaotic god of murder amongst other things.

Mago talked about people's reactions to fear and threats. I wonder, has he taken into account the results that form from things like say, Serial Killers or other heinous mass murderers?

Specifically I speak of the organization of multiple entitites intent on ensuring said Serial Killer is dealt with.

Axl, a final note: When in the prior message to Mago I asked curiously about the golem incident, I did ask for a PM specifically.

I don't really think its fair to pvp another PC just because you learn they're a cyricist, and your character hates cyricists.

I think its lazy, really. It seems more like looking for an excuse to kill someone without properly RPing with them.

I think its fair and lore accurate for cyricists to be hated by 90%+ of the server. But not killing them just for that, even if you think that is lore accurate.

I mean come on, if Amia cyricists were playing 100% lore and character accurate, they'd be breaking pvp rules all the time for all the people they were killing just for not worshipping Cyric. So ya gotta pay them the same courtesy, server rules.

Vaylek wrote:

I don't really think its fair to pvp another PC just because you learn they're a cyricist, and your character hates cyricists.

but then what about undead, flip side would be druids and such cant kill peoples undead summons just because they are undead.

corypx wrote:

Vaylek wrote:

I don't really think its fair to pvp another PC just because you learn they're a cyricist, and your character hates cyricists.

but then what about undead, flip side would be druids and such cant kill peoples undead summons just because they are undead.

Mm they shouldn't be able to do that either. Use it to justify aggressive RP, sure.

Vaylek wrote:

corypx wrote:

Vaylek wrote:

I don't really think its fair to pvp another PC just because you learn they're a cyricist, and your character hates cyricists.

but then what about undead, flip side would be druids and such cant kill peoples undead summons just because they are undead.

Mm they shouldn't be able to do that either. Use it to justify aggressive RP, sure.

PVP is RP,aggressive RP... this is D&D not carebear cloud not everyone hugs it out.

good and evil kill eachother, if you got necros walking around the forest with undead and you have some OOC rule stating you cant PVP people, then you will get into some stupid hunting partys later on like some paladin and druid joining a party with a necro whos using undead and a banite blackguard

then next you will see the sunelves going down to the underdark for tea with loth.

It would help if people got creative with encounters of course =)
But I dont blame anyone if they played a fanatic that would not negotiate with an undead. It always does irk me abit that an elf or human that had his family die from a goblin/orc skirmish would stop to talk to a goblin PC outside cordor after killing the 20th gobo without word when in actuality, he would hostile without word.

Ideally, it should be up to the goblin(sub this with any monstrous race/undead totting necromancer) to quickly attempt to talk his way out and show some semblance of being different from the others if he doesnt want any PvP. Afterall, this is what one expects when playing a monstrous race, the IC prejudice etc.

I have no clue what you guys are talking about anymore. Once everyone started quoting and commenting, and commenting on the comments, it got pretty much unreadable.

But eh, carry on.

Quote:

Being able to say //sorry, but I don't like how this rp is going // , because it may traumatize the pc or take their story in a direction the player did not like, or was not comfortable with, it was commonly accepted and one was expected to let the other person go.

This is the attitude that will break Amia. It' not "Your Story." It's a multiplayer world an untold number of external influences at any given moment.

Selmak wrote:

I have no clue what you guys are talking about anymore. Once everyone started quoting and commenting, and commenting on the comments, it got pretty much unreadable.

But eh, carry on.

You can ignore the side tangent about Cyric and the Weave Knights. It's random kvetching and it shouldn't be here, it should be taking place ICly.

Agreed. I'd ask kindly this be kept on topic, if you have a grievance with the Weave Knights, please send a PM to myself or Ulrik. Elsewise, let us continue on the topic itself.

Aggressive Factions:

Who is online