Kevin's Watch

Vadhaka, i think that you are right.

Xar please clarify the rule

Vadhaka wrote:What this seems to be saying is that I'm not allowed to attack Maeror (for example, I don't actually want to attack him).

Ah! Now you hope he believes you won't be attacking him!! Clever, Assassin, very clever!!

Well, I never said you can't attack him; I only said that in attacking him, you would be acting outside of Law.

The way I see it (which is mostly the way Law has been portrayed in fantasy, including games such as D&D), there are natural laws that cannot be broken (a la Covenant) and other laws that stem from law being a way for a society (even a society of immortals) to coexist peacefully, which CAN be broken, but might carry consequences.

Originally, I thought this would a rather self-correcting mechanism; if Nor Yekith attacked another deity, for example, most if not all deities would have come to the attacked deity's defense, all the while complaining with Nor about his attack. This process begins to wear down IF things don't work like this the other way around (i.e. if, say, Maeror could attack Nor Yekith without fear of reprisal or complaints from other gods). Since the purpose of the game is for everyone to be able to play without worrying that having an "evil god" as character would mean you could be smashed without thinking twice about it...

For example, a certain deity recently remarked how things would be much better if he could destroy Astavyastataa Kadna before the latter grew to power. This may make sense from a purely roleplaying point of view - given that AK has consistently belittled and threatened deities, and is the patron of destruction - but it does nothing for AK's player, and may even detract from his enjoyment (given that, if this were allowed, he would likely be immediately besieged by most other deities in an effort to kill him as soon as the newbie protection wore off). Not only that, but this would actively discourage people from making evil gods, since it would mean that deities would likely always make sure no evil deity would grow in power.

Not only this would be unfair for players of evil deities, it would also risk creating an atmosphere where people create deities belonging to the moral alignment most other deities share, just so they can avoid being immediately killed afterwards.

Placing a "law of Eiran" which says you can't attack someone unless you are attacked first doesn't mean you can't do it at all; it does mean, however, that if you do attack first, you'd better make sure you have good reason to do so, because otherwise the gods of Law and Justice might be require to establish a ruling to your disadvantage. It also encourages manipulation and politics to some extent, and most importantly, permits everyone - be it a good or evil deity - to have fun without constantly worrying that, just because your deity is on the wrong end of the moral spectrum, he will be attacked and annihilated after four turns.

Xar wrote: The way I see it (which is mostly the way Law has been portrayed in fantasy, including games such as D&D), there are natural laws that cannot be broken (a la Covenant) and other laws that stem from law being a way for a society (even a society of immortals) to coexist peacefully, which CAN be broken, but might carry consequences.

AllFather...

Having never taken part in RPGs or TCGs, or whatever, I am beginning to feel at a distinct disadvantage in all the subtleties of the Game. This may explain some of the questions I've sent you recently, as I just don't understand a lot of the actions going on around me.

One of my brothers has offered to send me a little information regarding game play in other games which I suspect will be extremely helpful. But, do you know of a website or anything that I can access that would help make sense of the all of this intrigue and manipulation to me?

Thanks...

O-gon-cho wrote:

Xar wrote: The way I see it (which is mostly the way Law has been portrayed in fantasy, including games such as D&D), there are natural laws that cannot be broken (a la Covenant) and other laws that stem from law being a way for a society (even a society of immortals) to coexist peacefully, which CAN be broken, but might carry consequences.

AllFather...

Having never taken part in RPGs or TCGs, or whatever, I am beginning to feel at a distinct disadvantage in all the subtleties of the Game. This may explain some of the questions I've sent you recently, as I just don't understand a lot of the actions going on around me.

One of my brothers has offered to send me a little information regarding game play in other games which I suspect will be extremely helpful. But, do you know of a website or anything that I can access that would help make sense of the all of this intrigue and manipulation to me?

Thanks...

Unfortunately, I'm afraid I cannot think of anything you could read to make sense of all these intrigues, mostly because - as you know - many dealings are held privately, and of course each deity only sees the end results of those dealings, if any. Thus far, several players have reached various levels of sophistication in their dealings, and in their actions, base purely on trial and error (as far as I understand). What I mean by this is: there aren't really rules as to how to behave towards other players, how to have dealings with them, the kinds of favors one can ask, and so on; it all depends on individual players. A bit of confusion is natural at the beginning, but it should wear off soon; however, if you do wish more active help, you can always pm or email me. Additionally, you might want to consider vassalage to another deity - which could help you by virtue of having a more experienced deity able to directly help you in game as well as possibly offering you advice and support out of game.

Xar wrote:Well, I never said you can't attack him; I only said that in attacking him, you would be acting outside of Law.

The way I see it (which is mostly the way Law has been portrayed in fantasy, including games such as D&D), there are natural laws that cannot be broken (a la Covenant) and other laws that stem from law being a way for a society (even a society of immortals) to coexist peacefully, which CAN be broken, but might carry consequences.

Originally, I thought this would a rather self-correcting mechanism; if Nor Yekith attacked another deity, for example, most if not all deities would have come to the attacked deity's defense, all the while complaining with Nor about his attack. This process begins to wear down IF things don't work like this the other way around (i.e. if, say, Maeror could attack Nor Yekith without fear of reprisal or complaints from other gods). Since the purpose of the game is for everyone to be able to play without worrying that having an "evil god" as character would mean you could be smashed without thinking twice about it...

For example, a certain deity recently remarked how things would be much better if he could destroy Astavyastataa Kadna before the latter grew to power. This may make sense from a purely roleplaying point of view - given that AK has consistently belittled and threatened deities, and is the patron of destruction - but it does nothing for AK's player, and may even detract from his enjoyment (given that, if this were allowed, he would likely be immediately besieged by most other deities in an effort to kill him as soon as the newbie protection wore off). Not only that, but this would actively discourage people from making evil gods, since it would mean that deities would likely always make sure no evil deity would grow in power.

Not only this would be unfair for players of evil deities, it would also risk creating an atmosphere where people create deities belonging to the moral alignment most other deities share, just so they can avoid being immediately killed afterwards.

Placing a "law of Eiran" which says you can't attack someone unless you are attacked first doesn't mean you can't do it at all; it does mean, however, that if you do attack first, you'd better make sure you have good reason to do so, because otherwise the gods of Law and Justice might be require to establish a ruling to your disadvantage. It also encourages manipulation and politics to some extent, and most importantly, permits everyone - be it a good or evil deity - to have fun without constantly worrying that, just because your deity is on the wrong end of the moral spectrum, he will be attacked and annihilated after four turns.

Obviously, there are differences of all sorts between the Game and rl. But it is equally obvious that there are similarities. Hitler got much much much farther than he should have. The world give him a free hand not because of any Laws (which he would have been the one to have broken anyway), but because they figured, "Well, it's not my people he's killing." In this respect, what would happen if we played the Game as rl? If someone joins the game as an evil deity, they should expect the same reaction and consequences as an evil person in rl. They will likely be left alone to torture their own people (unless oil prices are involved), at least for a long time, but they'd likely not go around saying they intend to destroy the world.

Xar wrote:Additionally, you might want to consider vassalage to another deity - which could help you by virtue of having a more experienced deity able to directly help you in game as well as possibly offering you advice and support out of game.

:::bowing head:::

Thank you for answering, AllFather.

I was offered vassalage when I first joined the Game, and turned it down. It didn't seem to fit in with the way I desired to play the Game.

However, even without the formal commitment of vassalage, said deity has been very generous with his advice, encouragement to keep playing, and time. I will always appreciate that.

We may soon come to a parting of the ways, as I make decisions regarding Game play I think will be frowned upon. But, all weyrlings must spread their wings and fly at some point, yes?

Could you give me an idea on how long you take before responding to questions via PM's? I am hoping to hear back from you on the PM I sent a couple of days ago before I tackle writing my Turn submission, whenever I come up for air from my Creation myth...

Are the turns due Saturday, May 12th?

No, the turns are due the following Saturday, May 19.

I thought it was every two weeks. If it is due on May 19th, then it is three weeks because our last one was due April 28.

Is that right or did I not get the memo?

Jove wrote:I thought it was every two weeks. If it is due on May 19th, then it is three weeks because our last one was due April 28.

Is that right or did I not get the memo?

:::was under the same impression:::

So, turn submittal on the 19th and Creation myth on the 20th?

Jove wrote:I thought it was every two weeks. If it is due on May 19th, then it is three weeks because our last one was due April 28.

Is that right or did I not get the memo?

The last one was due April 28, but the turn came out in the next week, so basically I'm giving you 2 weeks

EDIT: Although, if everyone submits moves by Saturday 12, I can see if there's anything I could do...

Xar wrote: EDIT: Although, if everyone submits moves by Saturday 12, I can see if there's anything I could do...

Yay!!!

:::but, I still need answers to some of my questions in my PM:::

YEAH!!!!

Ok, everyone, let's get our moves in. Heh.

eheh, i can easly send my moves this saturday

Me too.

Yeah, mine are ready to go. Unless anyone gives me reason to change my mind about anything. I always have them ready ahead of time, and wait until the last minute to send them, just in case anybody has anything.

I COULD, but I'd rather not - the 19th suits me much much better!!

OK, then. No problem to wait another week. Well, no problem other than extreme anxiety and impatience.

Bhakti wrote:OK, then. No problem to wait another week. Well, no problem other than extreme anxiety and impatience.

Aaaargh!!!

What are you saying???

Isn't that going to make the next Turn submittal due during ElohimFest?