avatars and cabal

[Sandbox]

can an avatar join a cabal?

[Deykari]

Yes. Knight for definite. I do not believe Avatars can be Savant or Warmaster (and rightfully so), and if they can be Tribs, I disagree with that.

There are roleplay considerations to bear in mind. My Avatar's views conflicted with every cabal going, and when I joined Knight it was a relatively short stint before I quit out of roleplay reasons. Avatars stand for the eradication from evil - cabals can often require a more diplomatic approach, making you choose between one or the other.

Looking at it from a pure PK perspective, Avatars have more than enough strength to warrant not being in a Cabal. The roleplay can be fun too, being an Outlawed chaotic good that is despised by Knight and other goods for example.

Dey

[Evangelion]

That's a very limited perspective, Dey.

I would say that it would be incredibly fun, and well within a reasonable RP, to play an Avatar that believes that lawlessness or magic/melee (Warmaster/Savant, respectively) is the epitome of evil, and therefore seeks to root it out and destroy it with the help of a Cabal.

[KRins]

I'm fairly doubtful of an avatar ever being in Warmaster...I mean, no undeads/demons...they are just as magically influenced as an avatar. Savant...I could see it, but you would be doing a lot of infighting. Tribunal, I could see that also with the same amount of infighting.

[Evangelion]

I mean, call me the Devil's Advocate, but I'm just saying that the guy who played a faerie berserker shouldn't be taking such a dim view of the infinite possibilities of RP.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Avatars who belong to cabals are going to get pulled in six different directions. If you think you can handle your avatar responsibilities (smash all evil, not just what YOU believe is evil, cause, trust me, Purity has a specific outlook on evil) and your cabal responsibilities, go for it.

But I think you'd find that Avatars are quite free spirited, fit better into the Chaotic ethos, and generally don't fit a cabals ideals, depending on the current make-up/IMM of the cabal.

[Deykari]

That's a very limited perspective, Dey.

I would say that it would be incredibly fun, and well within a reasonable RP, to play an Avatar that believes that lawlessness or magic/melee (Warmaster/Savant, respectively) is the epitome of evil, and therefore seeks to root it out and destroy it with the help of a Cabal.

I know exactly what you're saying, and I've had this reply window up for about 15 minutes because I know exactly in my head what I mean, but have no idea how to word it.

It's not as simple as that though. You can't just take the religion of purity and beliefs of an avatar and make up your own idea as to what 'evil' is, to a certain degree. An avatar answers to Irumeru, and as such, you are at the mercy of what Irumeru considers evil - which in terms of game-mechanics, are those of evil alignment.

Sure, you can have an avatar that detests lawlessness, melee or magic, but are you going to consider that evil? If you did, how would you, as an Avatar Savant, react to a morally good Warmaster? Consider them evil because of their love for melee combat, and kill them, regardless of where their morals lie? What about your example of viewing lawlessness as evil? Does that mean you will regard morally good lawbreakers as evil, and pursue them with the intent to see them executed? What about morally evil people who follow the law? Will you forsake your Avatar duties to Irumeru in favour of following the law?

Dey

[Trick]

I think Tribunal should allow coups...

-Trick

[Sandbox]

my thought was more along the lines of... putting your religion above your cabal... using your cabal as a tool to "preach" if you will. I don't find it completely unreasonable that someone would become a cop to "spread the word of god." I could see a zealot seeing catching criminals as a way to prevent people from going down an evil road. am i making any sense? if not stop me..

[Sandbox]

I think Tribunal should allow coups...

-Trick

lol... honestly i could see any cabal other than tribunal or herald being able to coup, their whole concept is order.

i was actually VERY surprised when i found out warmasters cannot.

[Jacobis]

There have been Avatars in Savant before. Warmaster, no.

It'll be a difficult road if you plan on trying for something other than Knight or uncaballed.

With that being said, you are more than welcome to try. Be original.

[Sandbox]

With that being said, you are more than welcome to try. Be original.

does that mean i can roll the firegiant thief i wouldn't shut up about last night?

[Trick]

Tribunal allows evils and the help says lawful evils bend the law to their will and use its power. Plus, politics are nasty. I believe a lot of political figures have been assassinated by their successors.

Warmaster would be neat too.

-Trick

[KRins]

I gonna say that since Tribunals are the law personified, I'm going to doubt that they would kill each other (violating laws) to move up. I could WMs fighting duels for dominance though.

[Deykari]

I mean' date=' call me the Devil's Advocate, but I'm just saying that the guy who played a faerie berserker shouldn't be taking such a dim view of the infinite possibilities of RP.[/quote']

I'm not taking a dim view on roleplay, IMO Avatars simply have a much more 'defined' roleplay role than just a normal character following purity.

I'm not trying to say that an Avatar in Savant, WM or Trib is wrong if you look at it as if FL was 'real' and not restricted by game mechanics.

In theory, you could most definitely have an Avatar Tribunal, but to stay true to his Tribunal duties he would need to find a way to deal with lawful evils who reside in towns, would he not? Avatars do not discriminate between evil, they are to be dealt with equally. Having thought about it, I could justify it if one was allowed to Outlaw evil. You could have Warmaster/Savant Avatars denying entry to evil applicants.

Further for Warmaster/Savant, again - my argument is this. A warmaster Avatar would be at odds with evil Warmasters. Whilst combat with cabals is completely normal, what if it was at detriment to the cabal itself? What if a Warmaster Avatar was online with a Warmaster evil and Savant good?

I think my problem here is the way I view Avatar. I believe (and this may not be fitting with what Imms feel Avatars are) that an Avatar should place the eradication of evil before anything else - there should never be a situation where an Avatar is 'letting off' evils for the sake of cabal duties or the like, because by becoming an Avatar, you are becoming Irumeru's personal messenger and carrying out his will. Your duties as an Avatar should always come before your duties within a Cabal IMO, and with that in mind, why would any organisation in their right mind take on someone who could potentially drive it into the ground?

I'm sorry if I came across as anti-roleplay or anything. I suppose I should have mentioned from the beginning that I have always had my own personal strong beliefs as to what an Avatar should represent.

Dey

[Malchaeius]

Avatars:

Deykari is correct. Avatars can join cabals. However, diplomatic situations will put them in very awkward situations. An Avatar will not do well within any cabal that allows Evils. Their job is to eradicate evil; they are required to do their jobs well. The only Avatar which is allowed leeway in terms of aggressiveness is of the rare variety: Healer Avatars.

Tribunals and Coup:

Coup is a very devious method of attaining power. It fits in very well with Syndicate and Nexus RP, but not so much with the other cabals. The Tribunal are too bound to their bureaucracy and politics to endorse something so crass as murdering their own.

Coup and other Cabals:

While I do not agree with coup for Warmaster, I would like to see something of an honorable challenge for Trusted or maybe even Eldership. Two Warmasters agree to a challenge - to the death if they see it fit - and the loser acknowledges the might of the winner. For example, Flame the Fire Giant is at Member level and challenges the supremacy of Greeny the Ogre who is Trusted or Elder. Flame believes Greeny has shown a lot of weakness and that she would better serve at the position. There are no Savants online. There are no immediate threats. Greeny and Flame decide to settle it like Warmasters. Flame beats Greeny and sends a note to the cabal. Lytholm sees it and promotes Flame to Greeny's level and demotes Greeny. The major downfall to this is that it would of course require maturity between two players. That is to say, Flame would actually have to have a solid reason for believing Greeny was showing weakness or incompetence at the position and not simply because she thought he was an easy target. Greeny would actually have to be brave/bold enough to put his position on the line knowing that the risks far outweigh the benefits. Yet he would risk it because his pride as a Warmaster was on the line.

A Demon can dream, no?

[f0xx]

First on Avatars:

Avatars kill evils. Evils are defined as such at character creation and not by what *YOU* think evil is. Therefore you cannot play "an Avatar that believes that lawlessness or magic/melee (Warmaster/Savant, respectively) is the epitome of evil, and therefore seeks to root it out and destroy it with the help of a Cabal". To you that may seem a flexible RP, to me it seems like a way to abuse, and while you don't do it for the sake of abusing it, if the immortals allow it there will be people who after you will be doing it for the abuse. I think we've had a similar discussion about your evil Tribunal?

Second on Malch's view on warmasters and coup:

I think that is quite a good idea actually, but I can see that challenge lasting forever and I think that if Greeny can face a possible demotion then Flamey should face a possible expulsion if he loses the challenge, without a second chance to apply for Warmaster or after a long period of waiting, but overall I think it is a bit of an Utopia dream, since we know the level of maturity of our PB.

[Psycho Child]

Evils are defined as such at character creation and not by what *YOU* think evil is.

Hence why I would probably never play an Avatar. Sure our align system simplifies alot of things, especialy in regards to combat. But it also limits some things.

[inscribed]

there was a time when savant didnt have a leader, instead having 3 elders, 1 good, 1 evil, and 1 neutral. ruindorf's old avatar battlemage held the goodie seat. lumina i think? i remember he came after my crusader because i had a custom title that resembled one of the dark knights titles.

[Anume]

There's been two WMs duking it out on order of their Imm leader before. I think it quite a fitting way if two people have shown some skill + dedication but WM just needs one E. It also has the advantage - IF the two WMs behave like they should - that the winner will have the loosers support.

[Celerity]

Charim (fire giant warrior warmaster leader) and Luorath (undead warrior) had a duel in front of Virigoth for the warrior hero spot.

Needless to say, Luorath got demolished:cool: and was made the warrior hero whereas Charim was made into the Warmaster hero (first and only cabal hero?).

Then again, Charim was a lawful neutral fire giant.

[Evangelion]

And that's why I will never play a Tribunal again, Foxx.

We talk so much about broadening our horizons, about coming up with original RP, about utilizing new ideas and harnessing our creative powers. And then we say something stupidly concrete such as, "An evil is an evil is an evil," or "A criminal is a criminal is a criminal." When you make rigid, restrictive statements like this, you are limiting the RP potential of every person playing this game.

For example, none of you will remember Vesarius. Vesarius was a drow cleric who got to V in Militia and took the Entrance Exam, back when Prax was running things. I had an RP where I was a double agent, and I was in cahoots with a Syndicate at the time. My character's religion was Greed, and I was going to serve Malanith by helping the Syndicate overthrow the Tribunal from the inside. And so during one of my "secret" meetings with this Syndicate, I find myself accosted by an Immortal who had been snooping me - who just happens to be Prax. So my character, who was about to be allowed into Tribunal, instead was kicked out of the clan and Outcasted.

I think it's terrible that we have such a limiting view of the scope of RP. And I personally believe it speaks volumes of the limitations of our RP that three of my last four characters have (or would have been) Outcasted. Did I take actions that justified that punishment? Probably. Do I feel the RP behind those actions was a justification to not be punished? Yes. I think if someone has a good RP reason for doing something, we should reward them, not make their life more difficult.

When I deleted Precila, Eshaine asking me to play an ethos/alignment appropriately is really a signal to me that we have too limited of a view of RP. Which is depressing.

[f0xx]

There is no such as limiting your RP Bali. What you have to realise is that you must pick the correct ethos/align for your RP. The situation which you described with the drow is simply not a lawful ethos.

If you wanted to filfil your RP, then pick an evil/chaotic and try to get in Tribunal with RP. If you are successful in that, then that is where people will see your RP as original. But not. You chose the easier way, the lawful ethos while your character WAS NOT lawful, therefore you knowingly broke the rules.

Lawful character means that he follows the law no matter if he is evil/neutral/good. He follows them, not just pretends to.

Same goes for Avatar. You eradicate evils. Not neutrals who you see as evil.

[Deykari]

I would go as far to say that with something a little more complex, run it past the Immortals first and get their opinion/advice on how to run with it.

Dey

[Evangelion]

I disagree.

And I find it rude that you claim that me picking the align/ethos I thought best suited my RP was the "easy way out". I chose to play Vesarius as a Lawful Evil follower of Malanith. And I believe that the religion (what I think is the HEART of a character's RP) is more important than the align/ethos, and therefore by serving Malanith while being in Tribunal, I would have been perfectly within what I believe to be the scope of my RP. (You'll notice I use the words "I believe" a lot, because this is my opinion)

But hey, if you want to continue making your concrete, restrictive statements, go ahead. I'm still going to come up with what I believe to be original RP, and if I get Outcasted for it, oh freaking well.

Maybe I'll just ask for a perm-Outcast to be applied to my ISP, so I can just do whatever the heck I want.