Coup

I've had E. And that's how I had it.

Foxx, you need to understand the difference between being yourself and roleplaying a character and being able to emotionally divorce yourself from decisions that your character would make. I am not my characters. They are themselves. They are like shirts that I put on and take off whenever I want. The goal of roleplaying is to completely act as your character would with your own ideals or ethics having any bearing or influence.

Would a chaotic evil ogre fury berserker barb E not challenge someone and duel them with all his might? Of course he would. So your snide condescension does little but reveals the one dimensionality of your understanding of RP. Surely you've got other things to do than be rude on the internet just because someone disagrees with you.

Please, before giving me RP lessons, learn how to RP yourself.

You can be evil and chaotic WHILE being honorable at the same time, that's what the multi-dimensional RP concept is about. Funny you are giving me lessons while not grasping that concept yourself.

But I guess it's not your fault, since an immortal allowed it and actually encouraged it.

This is a very fundamental flaw with the system. You are free to interpret RP however you wish, as long as you follow the boundaries set by you ethos, align AND cabal.

PS. I would very much like to hear Lytholm's thoughts on this matter too, I know you are reading this.

Please, before giving me RP lessons, learn how to RP yourself.

You can be evil and chaotic WHILE being honorable at the same time, that's what the multi-dimensional RP concept is about. Funny you are giving me lessons while not grasping that concept yourself.

But I guess it's not your fault, since an immortal allowed it and actually encouraged it.

This is a very fundamental flaw with the system. You are free to interpret RP however you wish, as long as you follow the boundaries set by you ethos, align AND cabal.

PS. I would very much like to hear Lytholm's thoughts on this matter too, I know you are reading this.

You're being a child. This isn't conducive to progress in any way. I've played FL for a decade and D&D for longer. Save your "learn to RP" rhetoric.

I'm not giving you lessons; I'm submitting to your candor that your definition of something is not the thing. Your map of reality is not reality. Just because you have an opinion on what it means to be "honorable" or "chaotic evil" or a "barbarian" does mean that's the final word, and you are in no way above people who disagree simply because they disagree. Your condescension reeks of insecurity, a need to feel right, and an inability to cope with people having different points of view.

I'm submitting to your candor that your definition of something is not the thing. Your map of reality is not reality.

Please, I am not defining anything.

If you choose chaotic - you act chaotic.

If you choose evil - you act evil.

If you choose warmaster - you act honorable.

Your RP can be whatever you want it to be, as long as it within those limits, which are not set by me, but by you, when you choose how to create your character. Everything that goes out of those limitations is OOC.

Please, I am not defining anything.

If you choose chaotic - you act chaotic.

If you choose evil - you act evil.

If you choose warmaster - you act honorable.

Sigh. I'll try this again. I can only try to explain something so many ways.

My point is that you are speaking as if your definitions of chaotic, and evil, and honorable are the definitions of chaotic, and evil, and honorable. What you have are not definitions. What you have are interpretations. Definitions are objective. Interpretations are subjective. What you think does not make it so. It just means that's what you think.

Sigh. I'll try this again. I can only try to explain something so many ways.

My point is that you are speaking as if your definitions of chaotic, and evil, and honorable are the definitions of chaotic, and evil, and honorable. What you have are not definitions. What you have are interpretations. Definitions are objective. Interpretations are subjective. What you think does not make it so. It just means that's what you think.

So, by your definition, agreeing on something and doing the opposite is honorable?

... I challenged a gladiator halfer ranger. He won the dice roll. I was already prepared' date=' and being evil, and a barbarian, I attacked him immediately. I three rounded him... [/quote']

I am not jumping on anyones opinion just throwing my thoughts in here. When I was Lurnaal, I wholeheartedly agreed and was vocal about if anyone under the WM flag felt they were more capable than I, then by all means there should be a way for them to take the reigns as a stronger elder. Unfortunately there isnt any system in place like that so it was kept IG as a motto or just her creed. I think there should be some kind of honor challenge, survival of the fittest kind of mentality here. The only problem here would be the blurring of OOC and IC. I think alot of the motivation behind this would be 'skills' and 'power' over the actual running of the camp. Where as that big strong ogre may beat the tar out of me, is he truly fit to be the leader? He can barely grasp the common language. Eldership and higher is alot of diplomacy, I was constantly fielding questions from randoms about the very minute of things up to big discussions about our alliances, pacts, etc. In a sense though now that I think about it, it would kind of undermine Tongar's authority, he placed someone in that position for a reason, and to just change it up would ruin things in a way, with the way of life WM leads. Maybe it could be in the form of lets say a vote or a note? WM Trusted thinks they can run things better than WM Elder. A note is sent to Tongar stated why, and a challenge is set up IMMORTAL controlled and sanctioned. As far as an elder using his skills against an inductee, my character personally didn't do it because it was her way, I am not sure if this would be considered OOC because every warrior wants to fight as strong as she or he can be, but I personally wouldnt use sanctions and such on an inductee as anyone who has been an inductee knows its a killer (but fun). I have so much more I could say but I have already wrote a novel. Hope my two cents was worth the effort.

So' date=' [b']by your definition, agreeing on something and doing the opposite is honorable?

Here's where you're failing to understand RP and divorcing yourself from your character.

What my interpretation is is of little importance. I was not in the game.

My Chaotic evil barbarian was, who is a completely different entity with completely different interpretations of ethics and metavalues. He was barbaric, and chaotic, and evil. If you asked my dozens of paladins over the years what they thought, they'd probably echo your sentiment. Fact of the matter is it was a bunch of warmasters who were having a good, casual time, with their imm, who supported it and had a good time with us. Stop trying to make me out to be some heretic that ought to be burned at the stake. If you don't like it, too bad. You weren't in WM at the time, you weren't the imm, you weren't who my barbarian dueled, and ultimately have and had absolutely no say in the matter at all. Stop getting buttfrustrated over something that you weren't a part of that happened years ago that had nothing to do with you and derailing a thread about an idea that seems to be pretty well-received.

Here's where you're failing to understand RP and divorcing yourself from your character.

What my interpretation is is of little importance. I was not in the game.

My Chaotic evil barbarian was, who is a completely different entity with completely different interpretations of ethics and metavalues.

facepalm

Whatever suits you best mate.

I actually think your sticking a bit too hard into the barbs are honorable. Barbarians are exactly that. Barbaric. They are violent my nature, and live mostly to crush others through combat. While I cannot see a goodie being sneaky about it too often, I can completely see a neutral/evil not caring if your prepared. The reason being you should always be prepared.

F0xx, me and you had a conversation a while back about your Gladiator slith thief who killed my inductee (also a wm) in cabal. Then I tried to stay ic, and you saw fit to deathmark me, stun me, stun me AGAIN, kill me then loot. So be careful who you are calling Black, you pot you

F0xx' date=' me and you had a conversation a while back about your Gladiator slith thief who killed my inductee (also a wm) in cabal. Then I tried to stay ic, and you saw fit to deathmark me, stun me, stun me AGAIN, kill me then loot. So be careful who you are calling Black, you pot you [/quote']

F0xx' date=' me and you had a conversation a while back about your Gladiator slith thief who killed my inductee (also a wm) in cabal. Then I tried to stay ic, and you saw fit to deathmark me, stun me, stun me AGAIN, kill me then loot. So be careful who you are calling Black, you pot you [/quote']

Yeah, you badmouth me, I kill you, since I am stronger

Exactly WM RP

Dunno why you even bring that up YET AGAIN, especially when we've discussed this a million times.

I always thought the Warmasters should have a monthly "games" to decide who leads them. Brunt, force, and of course, those with wits would also have a shot at the title of "Barbarian Leader".

Four or so games, one victor. (Elders for second and third, and so on and so forth.)

nice idea

Yeah, you badmouth me, I kill you, since I am stronger

Exactly WM RP

Dunno why you even bring that up YET AGAIN, especially when we've discussed this a million times.

I was just saying you did everything your downing on in this post.

You attacked a HEAVILY damaged, unprepared foe who had no idea there was even a challenge, let alone that he there was even a chance he was going to be attacked. That is all, just trying to remind you that there are reasons that people do this. IF that is within their RP char wise.

Keep in mind I am not trying to debate what happened between the thief and my warrior, thats old news that really does not matter. It was just an example I could provide that directly involved you, and the topic of this thread.

You attacked a HEAVILY damaged, unprepared foe who had no idea there was even a challenge, let alone that he there was even a chance he was going to be attacked.

That was a deathmark, not a challenge... slight difference.

Ok, you deathmarked a wm inductee you had just beat, and killed him, while in cabal, and took armor lol.

Like I said I am not trying to fight about it or anything, I just felt that was an example that fit this scenario that involved you.

Ok' date=' you deathmarked a wm inductee you had just beat, and killed him, while in cabal, and took armor lol.[/quote']

I deathmarked and killed and inductee who badmouthed me because I used the same tactics he used against me when I was inductee....

Jeez that happened 3 years ago, you don't even remember the details anymore.

I was just saying you did everything your downing on in this post.

You attacked a HEAVILY damaged, unprepared foe who had no idea there was even a challenge, let alone that he there was even a chance he was going to be attacked. That is all, just trying to remind you that there are reasons that people do this. IF that is within their RP char wise.

Keep in mind I am not trying to debate what happened between the thief and my warrior, thats old news that really does not matter. It was just an example I could provide that directly involved you, and the topic of this thread.

A cabal mate at that, with nothing to gain from it, and stole. All my WMs frowned upon warmaster fratricide other than barbarians trophying, who only did that when there was in-house squabbling. My warmasters generally would've condemned that, rallied the troops, killed you, and written a letter to warmaster and battle alike, as they are the incoming young'uns, that said something along the lines of discipline will be maintained in the ranks and hordes. I'd have called a formation of everyone in battle and yelled at them and told them this had better never happen amongst them.

emote grabs by the throat! "You stand at attention when an officer is speaking to you. Fix it, now."

The looting is as unbrotherly and uncooperative as it gets. It wrecklessly lessens the cabal's fighting capability. I could see this in Nexus for sure, or Syndicate, but in Warmaster this flies in the face of everything it stands for.

Don't tell me how to RP, f0xx. And lecturing me on WM ideals?

noun

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

This has been blown way out and derailed, with Emp bringing up a situation that happened 3 years ago without mentioning all the details.

You wanna act like a nexus in a honorable cabal, then don't get mad when your character ends up like his back then.

Peace.

I actually think your sticking a bit too hard into the barbs are honorable. Barbarians are exactly that. Barbaric. They are violent my nature, and live mostly to crush others through combat. While I cannot see a goodie being sneaky about it too often, I can completely see a neutral/evil not caring if your prepared. The reason being you should always be prepared.

F0xx, me and you had a conversation a while back about your Gladiator slith thief who killed my inductee (also a wm) in cabal. Then I tried to stay ic, and you saw fit to deathmark me, stun me, stun me AGAIN, kill me then loot. So be careful who you are calling Black, you pot you

I dunno... I think that as a warmaster, if you're not bringing all you can bring then you're not being honorable?

Sure you can humor someone and fight without sanction but its not a 'true' battle. True battle is only when everyone is doing the utmost to win. Even if they have no abilities then in my opinion its a case of "Oh well, guts for you because I'm about your whoop your pansy inductee ***."

Why would someone who is a barbarian not want to crush a lower/weaker person to prove they are better?

FROM DICTIONARY.COM

bar·bar·i·an

[bahr-bair-ee-uh n] Show IPA

noun

**1. **

**
a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person. **

**
2. **

**
a person without culture, refinement, or education; philistine.**

What part of this screams honor and refinement? Manners and class?

I think you're holding onto your honor creed too much for the barbs. If you want to be 100% honorable, play a glad.