War system questions

[Octavio]

Well, a better question is.. How come Tar Valon gets to participate in these wars without consequence if they really are so neutral?

Take for example the White Tower members who assisted the Red Eagles to kill the general in Amador. They're participating in a war and claiming to be neutral when they clearly are not. Nations should be able to wage war against Tar Valon whether recognized by Tar Valon or not and similar consequences should be apparent. Why should Tar Valon be immune to losing a war?

Aes Sedai are bound by the three oaths which states they cannot be used as a weapon except against shadowspawn or darkfriends. Tar Valon has treaties and allies outside of the Tower and those groups are generally considered to be "safe". Thats why they can group with them. As to who they attack I think it is obvious that the vast majority of warriors in Amador have waged war on Tar Valon and their members for years, since the breaking of the Grand Alliance actually. It is easy to see that by attacking Aes Sedai you are hurting those that seek peace and advance the movement of the dark. Many of these that "serve the light" have gone on to be darkfriends themselves. It's not a big leap to show that the Three oaths actually demand that Aes Sedai attack and kill those that are proven to serve the dark, ie: why they can attack Amador, CoL and others.

That being said Tar Valon has always taken a hands-off approach all things being equal. However now that the allies of Tar Valon are being attacked Tar Valon should actually be taking a more robust role in the battle in support of their allies however, also because of the three oaths they cannot directly "go to war" with another nations. This is why there is not, and should not be a general's office in Tar Valon.

Those that serve the Tower do not seek war but they should do everything they can to protect the light and destroy those that serve the dark.

[Anor]

Many of these that "serve the light" have gone on to be darkfriends themselves.

Two. How many dreadlords from the Tower? That argument doesn't fly. The oaths still bind them to only attacking and using the power in direct retaliation. These generals are not agro.

My issues so far.

1. Tower joining in. Aside from the fact it is against the oaths, we can't retaliate and declare war. So they are immune to losing. Worth no points. And this doesn't even address the massive breaking of the oaths which should have RP repercussions.

2. Random scalps not counting. On multiple occasions we have had groups of 4-5 hitting Amador with only 1 or 2 being a clanned Red Eagle. Meaning even if we take out half the group its worth potentially 0 points. All the applicants, random unclanned and Tower should be worth something if they are involved actively in the hit.

[Cerys]

“Never to use the One Power as a weapon except against Darkfriends or Shadowspawn, or in the last extreme defense of her life, the life of her Warder, or another Aes Sedai“

The important part of the oath is the first part. If the Aes Sedai in question did not channel on the General, she did not break the oath. Whatever political fallout comes from assisting one side or another is a different matter altogether.

[Octavio]

Do you not agree that those that plan death are just as bad as those that implement death?

[Raeza]

When it comes to the oaths, it is just using the One Power as a weapon, as Cerys said, not fighting and certainly not providing support to our allies in the way of Healing, WvD, or other means.

But beyond that, this is a game. We always make substantial alterations to "book RP" for the sake of game play.

In the books, Aes Sedai did not hunt "common criminals," but in the game we do because smobbing is an integral part of the game.
In the books, Aes Sedai did not go out hunting Tar Valon wanteds in order to "bring them to justice" but in the game we do because it is part of the game.
In the books, the White Ajah did not go scurrying around the Blight chasing fades and trollocs, but in the game we do because sitting around alone, philosophising in the White Ajah quarters, provides limited enjoyment in the context of a game.
In the books, it would not be easy for a random Child of the Light to sneak into the White Tower and backstab Novices, but in the game it is.
In the books, no Aes Sedai would stand there and tickle a fade with her staff instead of channeling, but in the game we now have all of these Aes Sedai mobs who do not channel, because balance.
In the books, the Children of Light were soldier types, not rogues skulking around in the shadows trying to backstab people, whereas in the game it seems that most of them are stabbers.
And the list really does go on and on and on.

I mean, c'mon. We certainly try to maintain some semblance of consistent within-game RP, based in the book RP but also distinct from it, and given that this is a new feature of the game, there is going to be disagreement over how this fits into our within-game RP world, and this needs to be worked out within the Tower. But separate from that, is it really surprising that the Tower would aid others against the CoL given that the CoL has been attacking us relentlessly everywhere for months?

While the imms clearly had in mind that the Tower would not "declare war" (hence not giving us a war room and general mob), it does not seem like the intention was necessarily that we would not participate in these events at all. E.g., see the following post by Elysia in this very thread:

We won't be policing who takes out the patrol with any faction, just make sure someone of a clan who is in the war turns in the scalps/banners. E.g. I'd expect Tower to assist Andor in some way, but an Andoran would have to turn in the banner to the Andoran general.

[Yasmin]

So what about the part where the Aes Sedai is inside Amador and channeling on Children of Light trying to defend the General?

I don't think anyone really cares how strictly Oaths are actually adhered to its just people don't seem to give a crap about their IC roles. How can you claim to be neutral when you're invading another city and channeling on their army trying to simply defend their own city? How can you justify even assisting another army in an invasion of someone else's city?

Players behind the Aes Sedai are not Aes Sedai. They lie, they kill people they don't like and team up with their OOC friends. Everything seems to favor them without serious consequence and no one seems to police that. Its just another example of how you get all the perks and none of the consequence.

[Frey]

How can you justify even assisting another army in an invasion of someone else's city?

Because they probably have a treaty...? Treaties mean you work with and defend your allies.



But what do I know, I'm just a Forrester and live in the woods.

[Alayla]

I don't think anyone really cares how strictly Oaths are actually adhered to

I think they do. It's why you mentioned it in your post in Tales of the Light, and Anor I think mentioned it as well. Because that's usually the way to catch one of us screwing up, because we are players and make mistakes. The Tower does punish those who make mistakes - not just breaking other nation's laws, but also breaches in Roleplay. We've done it recently, as you know.

[Raeza]

I don't think anyone really cares how strictly Oaths are actually adhered to its just people don't seem to give a crap about their IC roles. How can you claim to be neutral when you're invading another city and channeling on their army trying to simply defend their own city? How can you justify even assisting another army in an invasion of someone else's city?

This is the Children of Light we are talking about. Do you think in the books that if the CoL (somehow) managed to regularly sneak into the Tower and start murdering Novices, that the Tower would just shrug and say "Oh well, nothing we can do. We don't go to war with men." No way. They would crush Amador. Now, they probably would not do so by marching armies into Amador; they would do it through some behind-the-scenes scheming. But, we don't have that option in this game. We cannot cut-off supply lines to Amador, or whatever other approach. The only option we have is fighting back.

Its just another example of how you get all the perks and none of the consequence.

Sorry, but what direct perks do we get from helping allies with their war, given that they will keep the banner and all the scalps for their own gain, not ours?

[kendall]

From My perspective this is something that falls under 'We reap what we sow'. *ol have been causing problems all over the game for a large period of time. This of course in some ways is their rp coupled with some players personal choices.
The problem is that now there is a mechanism in place for wars to have meaning and a scoring system. This gives an opportunity for repercussions coming from alienating most nations of the map. The *ol declared war on the Red Eagles which has resulted in the immediate support from several nations which are at odds with *ol due to recent issues and their flaunting of other nations laws. If *ol hadn't been so aggressive to other nations, there would most likely not be as much support for the Red Eagles.

As Raeza mentioned above, there may some RP consequences based on the new system and some tweaks that may be made by imms or by nations themselves. Either way I look forward to how this may play out. It gives nations a real reason to get meaningful treaties in place and can promote both lots of pk (the war) and lots of RP (the treaties and trying to end wars). It has already boosted activity in the one war we see so far.