On the other hand, how do we explain players like Ragyn receiving council positions?Elysia wrote:If a council appears to have a greater say, it's because of respect extended to them by other players. Either because they are old as nails or better pkers or whatever other reason that got them said respect.
limiting council per player
Re: limiting council per player
Last edited by Benito on Sat May 18, 2019 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: limiting council per player
Let's turn that around then.
If people like Ragyn can make council, there's obviously no one else willing. 


Re: limiting council per player
Well I think there's quite a few examples of this and it really comes down to players making IC judgements based on their OOC prejudices. You've only got to take a look at the world police approach of the Lancers.Ragyn wrote:I mean if they have the blessing of their clan to do what they are doing, there isn't really any abuse is there? Seems to me the issue the OP had was that Councilfolk might go behind their clan to do stuff that presumably would benefit their other Councilalt in another clan.Or even worse, when the whole clan backs them and endorses their behaviour as acceptable
Is that really their RP? No.
Their fundamental RP of Robert Jordan's world is that they don't care for southern politics and any care about the battle against the shadow.
Just because you OOCly feel one way, doesn't mean your in game character would or should.
Re: limiting council per player
Oh boy. Here we go.
Re: limiting council per player
All I am saying is being council or not being council doesn't seem to stop or limit that kind of abuse by players. Thankfully staff did stomp on the Lancers regarding my warrant and I believe Boboliosie's following the last big thread about it.
I also just think some players really need to re-evaluate their mindset and prejudices against others.
Eventually the people you pick on for no reason are going to stop playing because they can't achieve anything because small groups of players have some irrational prejudice. Then we're going to have even less players and the only people you'll have to kill is yourselves. If you like that kind of empty game environment to get lost in your own thoughts as you mindlessly kill mobs alone then there are plenty of other dead muds you can play.
It's a no win situation. Just be nice and stick to the RP of the Robert Jordan's world.
I also just think some players really need to re-evaluate their mindset and prejudices against others.
Eventually the people you pick on for no reason are going to stop playing because they can't achieve anything because small groups of players have some irrational prejudice. Then we're going to have even less players and the only people you'll have to kill is yourselves. If you like that kind of empty game environment to get lost in your own thoughts as you mindlessly kill mobs alone then there are plenty of other dead muds you can play.
It's a no win situation. Just be nice and stick to the RP of the Robert Jordan's world.
Re: limiting council per player
Don't really see how their dealing with the SS have been based on OOC prejudices. Granted I don't have a lancer, so I don't really know the inner workings, but seems to me they've been fairly sensible towards SS both from a gameplay and an IC/RP approach.
While the mud is based on the world of RJ and that is where our fundamentals come from, the mud has its own history and there are plenty of instances where the "core" rp of clans have been bent a little to lend way to gameplay, although I don't see your example of Lancers being a break of RP. I mean you could look at SS making treaties with nations who haven't and won't swear the Oaths. Everyone not hunting Dragonsworn. Most likely wouldn't happen in the world RJ presented to us, but it can happen here. Tower/FD had some real bad blood some years back, think it almost came to blows at some point, which obviously would never happen in RJ's world, but it is possible here, since the players' actions have consequences for their clan and mud as a whole. If a clan as a whole decides to do X then I don't see an issue with the clan doing X. It is what creates dynamic on the mud in my eyes.
While the mud is based on the world of RJ and that is where our fundamentals come from, the mud has its own history and there are plenty of instances where the "core" rp of clans have been bent a little to lend way to gameplay, although I don't see your example of Lancers being a break of RP. I mean you could look at SS making treaties with nations who haven't and won't swear the Oaths. Everyone not hunting Dragonsworn. Most likely wouldn't happen in the world RJ presented to us, but it can happen here. Tower/FD had some real bad blood some years back, think it almost came to blows at some point, which obviously would never happen in RJ's world, but it is possible here, since the players' actions have consequences for their clan and mud as a whole. If a clan as a whole decides to do X then I don't see an issue with the clan doing X. It is what creates dynamic on the mud in my eyes.
Re: limiting council per player
Superficially perhaps.
To summarise for you though, I received an FD warrant for killing an Aes Sedai in Mayene. I believe Bobo got re-warranted for killing a White Tower person in Tar Valon.
Given we had a treaty with FD at the time it was comparable to an Illianer getting a warrant for killing a Defender in Tear. It all had nothing to do with Shienar.
It took radically action by staff to overturn the decisions made by the players and even still those players feel they were righteous in their wrongdoings.
Sometimes the dynamics that exist because of Robert Jordan's world provoke and ensure a dynamic game world, not just players pissing each other off. For example it is because there are groups that kill the White Tower that there are opportunities for politics, same side PK, etc etc to occur and for things to change as events happen as a result.
Where an entire clan decides to do X that is in line with their core RP and provoked by genuine in game interactions between players then I think that kind of stuff should be 100% encouraged. What I struggle with though is that sometimes when it does happen certain players who do wield influential power seek to undo it through any means necessary because they don't like XYZ or it might negatively impact one of their alts or some other OOC baseless prejudice they might hold.
To summarise for you though, I received an FD warrant for killing an Aes Sedai in Mayene. I believe Bobo got re-warranted for killing a White Tower person in Tar Valon.
Given we had a treaty with FD at the time it was comparable to an Illianer getting a warrant for killing a Defender in Tear. It all had nothing to do with Shienar.
It took radically action by staff to overturn the decisions made by the players and even still those players feel they were righteous in their wrongdoings.
Sometimes the dynamics that exist because of Robert Jordan's world provoke and ensure a dynamic game world, not just players pissing each other off. For example it is because there are groups that kill the White Tower that there are opportunities for politics, same side PK, etc etc to occur and for things to change as events happen as a result.
Where an entire clan decides to do X that is in line with their core RP and provoked by genuine in game interactions between players then I think that kind of stuff should be 100% encouraged. What I struggle with though is that sometimes when it does happen certain players who do wield influential power seek to undo it through any means necessary because they don't like XYZ or it might negatively impact one of their alts or some other OOC baseless prejudice they might hold.
Re: limiting council per player
I would challenge that proper Shienaran rp is being completely hands off from anything that happens south of Fal Dara. They most certainly got involved in the Aiel war and that had nothing to do with shadowspawn. In fact, there are more similarities between the Aiel war and the Seanchan invasion than dissimilarities. They got involved because their allies were getting destroyed by an invading army.
I also have a lot of trouble imagining Lord Agelmar allowing slaves to be kept in his walls just because they are being forced to fight shadowspawn by their masters. Maybe if the most Ta'veren Ta'veren that ever Ta'verened who was also Commander of an almost completely unified human race ordered him to.
I also have a lot of trouble imagining Lord Agelmar allowing slaves to be kept in his walls just because they are being forced to fight shadowspawn by their masters. Maybe if the most Ta'veren Ta'veren that ever Ta'verened who was also Commander of an almost completely unified human race ordered him to.
Re: limiting council per player
Especially Aes Sedai slaves, they were pretty revered in the borderlands iirc.Pallaeon wrote:I would challenge that proper Shienaran rp is being completely hands off from anything that happens south of Fal Dara. They most certainly got involved in the Aiel war and that had nothing to do with shadowspawn. In fact, there are more similarities between the Aiel war and the Seanchan invasion than dissimilarities. They got involved because their allies were getting destroyed by an invading army.
I also have a lot of trouble imagining Lord Agelmar allowing slaves to be kept in his walls just because they are being forced to fight shadowspawn by their masters. Maybe if the most Ta'veren Ta'veren that ever Ta'verened who was also Commander of an almost completely unified human race ordered him to.