limiting council per player
Re: limiting council per player
Well there lies the politics and possibilities.
However the facts were at the time there was a treaty, negotiated peacefully with their interests in mind that didn't require them to bend the knee. It was just players abusing their power by singling out players and actions they didn't like which they had no actual control over.
If you don't want to treat SS peacefully, then don't but you can't just pick and choose which players/actions you like and dislike and you certainly can't expect SS to universally adopt your laws/values. You can't make a treaty with the Seanchan and expect them to suddenly stop being Seanchan. Of course, they'll respect the laws as per the treaty in your nation but they're still going to be pursuing the Corenne elsewhere.
I also don't know that we necessarily are destroying anyone down south. So far we've lost two wars, we have a treaty with Mayene, peace with Tear (for the time being), and there are a couple of other nations wanting to make deals with us.
At the end of the day, you're all going to swear the Oaths eventually though.
However the facts were at the time there was a treaty, negotiated peacefully with their interests in mind that didn't require them to bend the knee. It was just players abusing their power by singling out players and actions they didn't like which they had no actual control over.
If you don't want to treat SS peacefully, then don't but you can't just pick and choose which players/actions you like and dislike and you certainly can't expect SS to universally adopt your laws/values. You can't make a treaty with the Seanchan and expect them to suddenly stop being Seanchan. Of course, they'll respect the laws as per the treaty in your nation but they're still going to be pursuing the Corenne elsewhere.
I also don't know that we necessarily are destroying anyone down south. So far we've lost two wars, we have a treaty with Mayene, peace with Tear (for the time being), and there are a couple of other nations wanting to make deals with us.
At the end of the day, you're all going to swear the Oaths eventually though.
Re: limiting council per player
Shienaran Lancer's are actually well known in game to get involved in dung that doesn't concern them in any way. I.E. Warranting people for murdering in the south. You think Shienar would give a firetruck if you were a murderer in Tear and came there? They wouldn't even know anything about that dung LOL
Re: limiting council per player
Remember that time in the books where Rand left Emonds Field with Moraine and Lan, and they horse hopped to Fal Dara in 2 hours, then horse hopped back the next morning, because he forgot his favorite book?Rig wrote:They wouldn't even know anything about that dung LOL
While yes, there are some book limits, like someone already said, we have a large amount of freedom in our game due to it being a game. I still think this is complaining about a problem that's not there.
Re: limiting council per player
I am more referring to the problem that players, namely lancers, usually warrant people for things like Cosmo is saying and they have literally 0
right or reason to do so other than to just be a piece of dung. firetruck do I know tho.
right or reason to do so other than to just be a piece of dung. firetruck do I know tho.
Re: limiting council per player
... you received that warrant after attacking a group a Lancer was in and hitting the Lancer. Then after appeal it was lifted. It had nothing to do with Lancers trying to be "world police."Cosmo wrote:To summarise for you though, I received an FD warrant for killing an Aes Sedai in Mayene.
Can we drop some of these grudges already?
In violation of your treaty with Mayene, by the way.for killing an Aes Sedai in Mayene.
e:
The treaty that saysGiven we had a treaty with FD at the time
?6) Any Seanchan army member who proves to be too much of a threat to our allies elsewhere will be addressed with the Seanchan army leadership, with necessary action taken up to removal of their welcome in our lands.
Last edited by Reyne on Sun May 19, 2019 1:42 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Re: limiting council per player
The vast majority of Lancer warrants are straightforward. The rest have to do with when Lancers are outside of Shienar, counterintuitive warranting rules, and players that can’t handle the thought of consequences for their decisions, which is the central component of RP.
It is crazy that Cosmo is still complaining about a warrant that was removed almost instantly and that none of us suggested should be reissued.
It is crazy that Cosmo is still complaining about a warrant that was removed almost instantly and that none of us suggested should be reissued.
Re: limiting council per player
I think you will find I never attacked or hit the Lancer. My account of events to this effect were supported by the Aes Sedai witnesses at the time. Check your facts Reyne
Re: limiting council per player
Thus the warrant was dropped.
Re: limiting council per player
I'm just going to say that even if you never hit him, attacking someone in a group means the others in that group can warrant you regardless of where it is...the rules about warranting were removed and it is back into player control...the very fact that you got immortals involved raises red flags.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Re: limiting council per player
Both of those are incorrect Warranting rules are in this post: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=300Rodger wrote:...the rules about warranting were removed and it is back into player control...the very fact that you got immortals involved raises red flags.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Appeals to immortals are still part of the system, also.