A Rule Change: Moderator Non-Player Characters

[Lord_Of_The_LEGO]

Greetings, Roleplayers.

The moderators, Mike and Micah, and myself, have decided to get back into the original spirit of the Classic Castle Roleplay, which was originally intended to be about individual adventures, and not all consuming faction-wide stories. Therefore, all factions leaders in Dametreos should be turned into a new type of character, called Moderator Non-Player Characters, or MNPCs for short. These MNPCs will maintain the peace of Dametreos. MNPCs can be controlled by any member, but only the Gaming Admin and Moderators can use the MNPCs to dictate events that effect entire factions. MNPCs can not be killed by assassination or any other violent means. Only the Gaming Admin and Moderators can kill, replace, or change a MNPC.

We understand completely that those of you who own king characters might feel upset about this. Therefore, we have set up a six-month period where character kings may either become a MNPC, resign from their position so that a MNPC can take his place, or die/be killed so that a MNPC can take their place on the throne.

Creation of further faction leader characters is now banned. Below is the list of factions and their corresponding leaders:

Crusaders: King Robert (MNPC)
Classic LEGOland: Emperor Constantius VII (MNPC)
Dragon Masters: Lord Void (Main Character)
Forestmen: Lord Bjarn (MNPC)
Dark Foresters: Queen Arabella Louis Fornsir (MNPC)
Black Knights: King Sirion (Main Character)
Black Falcons: unstable, currently Martin Humboldt (Secondary Character)
Knights Kingdom I: King Leo (MNPC)
Knights Kingdom II: King Matthias (MNPC)
Fright Knights: She-Of-The-Barrow (MNPC)
Wolfpack: undecided
Royal Knights: King Kjeld (Main Character)
Bull Knights: Lord Barbod (Main Character)
Shadow Knights: unspecified (MNPC)
Ninja: unspecified (MNPC)

The unspecified kings (or queens) of Wolfpack, Shadow Knights and Ninja will remain unspecified until roleplayed. Currently, Lord Void, King Sirion, Martin Humboldt, King Kjeld and Lord Barbod are the only character leaders. I have already formulated a plan into giving the Dragons Masters a MNPC leader, and will be spending the next six months enacting that plan. Justin, Nick, Dan and Brian: you have six months to convert your characters to MNPCs, or open up the throne so that MNPCs can take their place. Turning your characters in MNPCs will not cause you to loose control of your characters, you will simply be allowing the us (the Admin and Moderators) to control your character when the situation requires it. You can still RP your character for personal issues (say, if Barbod wants to get married), but not political ones that affect the faction (Barbod ordering the Bulls to attack the Black Falcons).

The decision to convert the faction leaders into MNPCs was decided for one main reason. With or without meaning to, faction leader characters affect the entire faction positively or negatively. Take the current Black Falcon / Royal Knight / Bull plot for example. Whatever Martin Humboldt or the Rebel Resistance does instantly effects the Royals and the Bulls. Entire nations are pitting against one another, perhaps forcing some members to do stuff with their characters that they didn’t want to do. What if I created a Black Falcon character and wanted him to visit Bull Isle? Unless he was against the current Black Falcon leader (AKA a Rebel Resistance member), he would be shunned or killed by the Bulls.

A king can be a hard character to properly roleplay. His duty is to his country and that cuts down on what you can do with him. Barbod and Radjar are prime examples of this. Others, like Kjeld and Sirion were made to represent and control one side of two kingdoms at war.

I’m not saying political plots are bad, far from it, but the original intent of the Roleplay was not politics-based epics, but character-based epics. We have been, admittedly, slack in enforcing this conception, as the BloodVaine Epic and the Fell War will bear out. Dametreos (and the Roleplayers in general) has pretty much had it’s (their) fill of these political plots, and the Admin and Moderators have decided that large-scale politics is an experiment that has gone awry, and is not (as of the current time), intended to be repeated.

Note also that this does not mean that you cannot have characters of importance. You may have royal spouses (Queens, Prince Consorts), princes and princess, great nobles (dukes, earls, etc), powerful members of court (prime ministers, chancellors, advisors, Wormtongues). You will still be able to influence politics in general, and we realize that political influences often play a part in a small-scale story. We are simply taking steps to ensure that major, faction-wide plots are no longer as easy to create accidentally, unwittingly, or deliberately.

By all means have your Crusaders run afoul of the Black Falcon border guards, let your Ninjas turn up on Black Knight wanted-posters, let your dukes start a feud with the neighboring earl. Just don’t start anything that will make a faction (or all Dametreos!) a place where Roleplaying is restricted due to wide-sweeping plots.

This change is obviously not going to be perfectly easy, especially for the Roleplayers with king-characters, but if everyone accepts that the change is coming, and does their best to compromise and move on with it, the change will be smoother for everyone, and no feelings need be hurt.

If you strongly disagree with this policy for one reason or another, or wish to discuss it in general, you are welcome to PM or chat with any of the Gaming Guardians.


~~ Nathan Wells, Gaming Administrator,
~~ Michael A. Joosten, Gaming Moderator
~~ Micah Berger, Gaming Moderator.

Moderators’ Note: The above may be changed at any time by the Gaming Guardians, should they feel that it is no longer necessary, in need of further change, or should the general direction of the Roleplay be changed.

[Loneranger]

I thought this point of action wasn't going to, quote Mike. "Anytime soon."



LR

[lemon_squeezer2]

Thank you for doing this Nate, Mike, and Micah - I welcome this decision as I myself have been trying to get into the real spirit of RPing, that is, the way it was done in its fomative months.

However, you did leave out one very distinct and interesting possibility. What if a democracy or parliment of sorts was set up? Would a legislative body have the same status of a MNPC?

Thanks

Nick

[Formendacil]

I thought this point of action wasn't going to, quote Mike. "Anytime soon."



LR

You're misquoting me, I'm sure.

Or at least, misinterpreting.

As I recollect, my words were more to the effect of "I've heard about it, and discussed it, but we have yet to make a final decision."

If that isn't what I said, then it is more-or-less what is intended.

Furthermore, an off-the-cuff remark by myself is not to be taken as concrete evidence. I am but one of three Mods. At the moment we were waiting to get Micah's input. It has now been received, and the above post contains the combined input of all three of us.

In addition, please note the postscript to the above post:

Moderators’ Note: The above may be changed at any time by the Gaming Guardians, should they feel that it is no longer necessary, in need of further change, or should the general direction of the Roleplay be changed.

This applies, in general, to everything we say. Consistency is our intention, and we have no current intention of taking a different stance, but if reason comes up and we change our minds, we are entitled to do so without consequence.

However, you did leave out one very distinct and interesting possibility. What if a democracy or parliment of sorts was set up? Would a legislative body have the same status of a MNPC?

An interesting question, certainly, and any answer I give now cannot be taken as affirmative, by any means. None of the Mods have discussed this possibility, mainly because there is no apparent reason to do so at the current time, considering that all the RP is ruled by monarchial figures.

However, considering the current direction being taken by the Black Falcon plot, I can understand your questioning, and I would agree that it certainly merits further discussion.

My own personal thoughts, those of the RPer and not the Mod, are that there isn't really a place in the RP for a democratic style of government. In the real middle-ages, NONE of the great nations of Europe (to the best of my knowledge the infinitisemal San Marino is the only possible contradiction) was ruled by a democracy. Much like the ballista question, I am against the general principle just because it feels out of place.

As noted, that is just my personal opinion, and further discussion is most likely to occur. Again speaking personally, I definitely feel that an alternative form of government is possible for the Black Falcons other than a kingship, perhaps a military takeover (in the manner of Julius Caesar), a rule by council, or maybe a semi-democratic system not unlike the Roman Senate (where only the nobles and the rich could elect or be elected).

However, should ANY sort of system occur in which the BFs are ruled by a group of people rather than a single person, there are, as of yet, no rules in place for the Moderation of the Black Falcons. What I imagine would happen, but is still speculation on my own part, is that the leader, the Prime Minister, Chancellor, or what-have-you, would be MNPCed, and should his/her term come up, he would be de-MNPCed, and replaced by a new MNPC. Control of the ruling council/house/party would then be exerted through the MNPC (and possibly some assistant MNPCs), and thus over the entire nation.

~Michael A. Joosten - Gaming Moderator~

[Daimyo]

I think this might be ok, but I don't see the point of it at all. If the Roleplay is about individualism, then why not have the INDIVIDUALISTIC right to be king? or...
Have the right to be king, but not to make hard decisions. Radjar (who ONCE was king... how he got to be prince I do not know as of now, as I was not consulted about this) I do not know of making big decisions other than the Fell War. I do not want some NPC character deciding the fate of my nation! My homeland! Why should we hand over the reins of leadership to some moderator NPC who might do things we don't like? The Roleplay is a multi-authored STORY. It is not a GAME. What would Tolkien do if say, some other writer decided they would kick out Aragorn and write another king who did everything his way?
For example... Radjar has the hereditary right to be king. Even if he did resign there would of course be huge civil war for the succession, or at least a political debacle. No unknown is going to somehow ascend the throne. Though I suppose I should not be using this as a point, as Radjar was no longer king even before this rule...
In response to Formendacil and his argument that democracies are out of place in the Roleplay because there were no medieval democracies, let me remind you high-collared history buffs that this IS NOT MEDIEVAL EUROPE. THIS IS DAMETREOS. USE YOUR IMAGINATION AND NOT YOUR HISTORY TEXTBOOK. No legislative bodies in the roleplay yet INDIVIDUALISM and JOIN MOD DECISIONS to undermine our power? Now people, there's hypocrisy, and then there's HYPOCRISY!!!
The whole concept of the MNPCs... is heh... a lot like the way things are ran around CC, don't you think, guys? Say! Here's an idea! Why don't we give Mike, Nate and Micah six months to resign and replace THEM with MNPCs? (sly grin of sarcastic satisfaction)
The statement that this will "not be easy" for king characters is an understatement. Its like a revolution for "our own good" that undermines our leadership (through the avatars of our characters) and cuts us off from decisions. You once said, Nate, that you didn't want people telling you what the Forestmen were like, you were their leader. Now you get to have all of that that you like. No more ez-kings deciding their own nation's culture. I probably now have the "individualistic right" to have my own kingdom's histories and established customs swept aside by some uninformed newbie.

It looks like you guys should've paid more attention to the old song "Won't Get Fooled Again." It states that a revolution overthrows a government for the better... but in the end, its just as bad as the first in its struggle for a better regime.
So much for "individuality."

Your local "dissident," Daimyo, signing out.

[The Green Knight]

Your local "dissident," Daimyo, signing out.

Well everything needs its cynic they say.

I think this might be ok, but I don't see the point of it at all. If the Roleplay is about individualism, then why not have the INDIVIDUALISTIC right to be king? or...
Have the right to be king, but not to make hard decisions.

Well as far as I understand it you can do that. Like it says...

Turning your characters in MNPCs will not cause you to loose control of your characters, you will simply be allowing the us (the Admin and Moderators) to control your character when the situation requires it. You can still RP your character for personal issues (say, if Barbod wants to get married), but not political ones that affect the faction (Barbod ordering the Bulls to attack the Black Falcons).

Radjar (who ONCE was king... how he got to be prince I do not know as of now, as I was not consulted about this) I do not know of making big decisions other than the Fell War. I do not want some NPC character deciding the fate of my nation! My homeland! Why should we hand over the reins of leadership to some moderator NPC who might do things we don't like? The Roleplay is a multi-authored STORY. It is not a GAME. What would Tolkien do if say, some other writer decided they would kick out Aragorn and write another king who did everything his way?

Now I can understand where you're coming from there. For while I don't have any King characters I do have the Neverwood which I do feel very passionately about. For instance, in the beginning I always wanted to be in complete control of the Neverwood. And it really irked me when someone (the time during the BV epic with the whole Classic army is a good example) waltzed right on through without so much as a mosquito bite. Now I begin to realize that this isn't the best strategy. It makes the Neverwood very inaccessible to most RPers. What I hope for Neverwood is to make it less of a fortress(keeping people out) and more of an arcade room(a place where you can send your PCs to have some good old monster hacking fun.) Now admittedly it isn't there yet, but that's where I want to head it when I get the time.

Of course my situation isn't exactly the same as yours but I can relate.
This said, I wouldn't worry about the spirit of the Dark Forest being lost. What I would suggest here is that you write up a summary of that faction and submit it to the dictionary. (Hmmm, Maybe I ought to do something like that for the Neverwood)And with Radjar as prince you still have a large say in the country's atmosphere. At any rate, I know I will do my utmost to insure that the Dark Forest retains its barbarian roots.

For example... Radjar has the hereditary right to be king. Even if he did resign there would of course be huge civil war for the succession, or at least a political debacle. No unknown is going to somehow ascend the throne. Though I suppose I should not be using this as a point, as Radjar was no longer king even before this rule...

Well I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the above statement but I'd like to say here that I never have seen the appeal of king chars. I mean, talk about responsibility. As Corin of Arkenland would say: "It's princes that have all the fun!"

In response to Formendacil and his argument that democracies are out of place in the Roleplay because there were no medieval democracies, let me remind you high-collared history buffs that this IS NOT MEDIEVAL EUROPE. THIS IS DAMETREOS. USE YOUR IMAGINATION AND NOT YOUR HISTORY TEXTBOOK.

Yes, I believe you have a valid point there. And I feel any rules about the type of governments allowed should be discussed with all before being applied. Anyway, this really is only a side topic so back to the topic at hand. Which I'm not quite sure what it is but.........

No legislative bodies in the roleplay yet INDIVIDUALISM and JOIN MOD DECISIONS to undermine our power? Now people, there's hypocrisy, and then there's HYPOCRISY!!!
The whole concept of the MNPCs... is heh... a lot like the way things are ran around CC, don't you think, guys? Say! Here's an idea! Why don't we give Mike, Nate and Micah six months to resign and replace THEM with MNPCs? Smile (sly grin of sarcastic satisfaction)

Well I'm not quite sure what you're meaning here but I'll try to answer what I think you're getting at.

See, the reasons for the changing the way things work is that if you're having a war in your country it can make it difficult for new players to have there own adventure there. Again, like the Neverwood, it becomes very inaccessible. Like the equivalent of taking C.S. Lewis and saying "Alright, you can do your Narnia stories, but they have to happen in Tolkien's middle earth and during the LotR trilogy."

On another note, I wouldn't want to take Radjar (if he was and mnpc and he isn't) and have him attack the wolfpack for example. Firstly, I'm not really good at those things (Lofty ambitions that require tons of thought) and Secondly because there would be no point to it.

The statement that this will "not be easy" for king characters is an understatement. Its like a revolution for "our own good" that undermines our leadership (through the avatars of our characters) and cuts us off from decisions. You once said, Nate, that you didn't want people telling you what the Forestmen were like, you were their leader. Now you get to have all of that that you like. No more ez-kings deciding their own nation's culture. I probably now have the "individualistic right" to have my own kingdom's histories and established customs swept aside by some uninformed newbie.

Ok, I think I see what you're getting at here and I think you're taking it the wrong way around. Don't think of it as someone mind controlling your char. Think of it as a restraint to keep you from invading the Black Falcons because they poisoned your meatloaf. (hmmm, now there's a story)

Now as to the uninformed newbie, there really shouldn't be such a thing if they do as they're told and read the old threads. In my own humble opinion it seems we should be more concerned about our major plotlines sweeping aside those newbies

It looks like you guys should've paid more attention to the old song "Won't Get Fooled Again." It states that a revolution overthrows a government for the better... but in the end, its just as bad as the first in its struggle for a better regime.
So much for "individuality."

Well I don't know much about politics, but please understand that what we're trying to do is help the new guys even if, regrettably, some of the load falls on veterans like yourself.

Oh and if there's anything you'd still like clarified, feel free to ask.

[Daimyo]

In reply to Green Knight's post...
I'm glad I got at least some of my points across as valid. It's a comforting thought to know you will preserve the Dark Forest... but no one is perfect, and I am still opposed to this rule, or at least part of it.
The whole thing seems unrealistic to me. Six months IS a lot of time. And no character should live forever... which is also an issue. Some characters might be king forever without an afterthought. Which is not good. There is a time where you must pass the torch. But shouldn't it be the player's choice when to step down?
Often it is Nate's wooden-sounding posts when setting up rules that get me angry. I probably would be much less mad if you would sound a little more human, Nate, and less like some robotic overlord, like in your RP posts .
But that's off-topic.
I say... change the rule. Be less restrictive. I'm sure that the players here are responsible enough to know when its time to quit.
It also goes into Nate wanting to control what plots go on. This is a place of free expression. Why should we have to do what plots YOU want? So what if you're gaming administrator. Just because Bush is president doesn't give him a constitutional right to do whatever he wants. It goes into when you didn't want any fighting in the Roleplay. Same goes for no political plots. "We feel the Roleplayers have had their fill of these plots..."
Heck, I sure as megablocks haven't, and I'm a Roleplayer. Nate, speak for your self, not the whole roleplaying community.
About Radjar being prince now...
Its not about responsibility... but ever since Rad became king, Nate and Formendacil have become touchy about him adventuring while king. They have told me constantly to settle him down... and now he's been ousted by a wooden, little known puppet queen... without my consent OR acknowledgement, which I consider a personal attack on my person. It's not about the responsibilities of being king... its about the title, the legend. Will I be renowned now as High King of the Dark Forest, Vanquisher of Grimtongue, Hero of the Bloodvaine War and Great Warrior? No... now Radjar will be known as that one guy who ruled for a few months and then got thrown out by some chick nobody has heard of. I didn't even go to Orion for cryin out loud! Truth is I didn't get my six months... and plenty of important (as in bad) things have been happening to Rad in my absence. Oh, so Daimyo, who used to be the big blow up dude, is gone, let's gang up on his character!
This is spilling over into something else, so I'm just going to quit while I'm ahead...

[Formendacil]

Daimyo, Micah has done a great job of replying to your rather insolently toned posts (if our posts are wooden, at least they try not to be inflammatory), but here's an addendum from me:

The Rules are the Rules.

We have added MNPCs because there was a need. The concept of the RP, from the beginning, was to have INDIVIDUAL adventures. As the Fell War and the BloodVaine epic demonstrated VERY well, once a war or major political plot is going on, characters are unable to have the individual adventures that they were once able to have.

In response to Formendacil and his argument that democracies are out of place in the Roleplay because there were no medieval democracies, let me remind you high-collared history buffs that this IS NOT MEDIEVAL EUROPE. THIS IS DAMETREOS. USE YOUR IMAGINATION AND NOT YOUR HISTORY TEXTBOOK.

Please reread my post concerning this. It is stated, VERY clearly that this is my own personal opinion, and not the decision of the moderating team.

And yes, Dametreos is not medieval Europe. That is why the Mods are 100% decided that there will be no nationwide wars henceforth.

The Fell War was created in an era when the rules were generally unwritten, or there was no one to enforce them or remind people of them. Hence, you are suffering blame for it. With regards to the BloodVaine Epic, it happened because Nathan forgot the rule, and got caught up in the war as much as everything else.

What happened then was a disaster. It is NOT going to happen again. That is why Micah and myself were made Moderators. That is why the new rules are in place.

The whole concept of the MNPCs... is heh... a lot like the way things are ran around CC, don't you think, guys? Say! Here's an idea! Why don't we give Mike, Nate and Micah six months to resign and replace THEM with MNPCs? Smile (sly grin of sarcastic satisfaction)

I have no ruling chars. Constantius was an MNPC from the outset. Neither does Micah have any ruling characters. Both of us never created a character that ruled a country to use as a flagship or main character. As for Bjarn and Lord Void, neither of these characters were intended to be rulers when they were created. Both became ruling characters through the posts of OTHER Roleplayers. Bjarn has already been turned into an MNPC. And Nathan is making good use of the six months to oust Lord Void from power so that he can roam around Dametreos as a butt-kicking wizard with no country.

So look at it this way: we've done you the favour of freeing Radjar from ruling and thus the imminent MNPC-dom that would have befallen him had he been on the throne when the rule was created.

About Radjar being prince now...
Its not about responsibility... but ever since Rad became king, Nate and Formendacil have become touchy about him adventuring while king. They have told me constantly to settle him down... and now he's been ousted by a wooden, little known puppet queen... without my consent OR acknowledgement, which I consider a personal attack on my person. It's not about the responsibilities of being king... its about the title, the legend. Will I be renowned now as High King of the Dark Forest, Vanquisher of Grimtongue, Hero of the Bloodvaine War and Great Warrior? No... now Radjar will be known as that one guy who ruled for a few months and then got thrown out by some chick nobody has heard of. I didn't even go to Orion for cryin out loud! Truth is I didn't get my six months... and plenty of important (as in bad) things have been happening to Rad in my absence. Oh, so Daimyo, who used to be the big blow up dude, is gone, let's gang up on his character!

Have you ever heard of Edward VIII, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Emperor of India?

Radjar's story reminds me of his: a well-beloved prince, destined to become a great and popular king succeeds to the throne. His reign proves not to be as successful as he had once thought, and when several months have passed, he is confronted by his government, telling him to resign or smarten up. The king chooses to abdicate, and so be able to go on doing what he loves.

Did the British people forget the Prince of Wales they had loved so much? No. But they felt he was better off as a prince than as king. He did not have the right stuff to be a good king. Neither does Radjar. Radjar is a great prince, a great adventurer and captain, but he did not make a great king.

If Nathan and I have been telling you to settle Radjar down for months, its because THAT is what a king does. A king who gallivants around the country, goes off on adventures, may remain a king that his people love, but he is not a king that cares for his country in a serious sense. He may love it, but he does little for it. In essence, he is ruining it.

It was not a matter of gang up on Radjar because we don't like him, and his protector is gone. You left, and bequeathed your characters to the common ownership. We felt that Radjar was better served as a prince and not as king. Personally, I have always like Radjar: he's a very charismatic and friendly character, but his true love seems to be adventuring, and as a Moderator concerned with the overall atmosphere in which our Gamers are supposed to be trying to have individual adventures, he was a liability that needed to be moved.

My apologies if you find this offensive, but these are the reasons we have put the rules in place. The rules are going to stay in place, in all likelihood. Be warned that defying the rules and/or stirring up trouble too much will likely get you banned.

Sometimes the rules suck. Nathan had big plans for Lord Void before I suggested the MNPC-ing of the king-chars, and was loath to give them up, but he is willing to make the sacrifice, and think up a new storyline that can be just as good, or better. I suggest that you do the same.

~Michael A. Joosten - Gaming Moderator~

[Lord_Of_The_LEGO]

Just updating the list:

Crusaders: King Robert (MNPC)
Classic LEGOland: Emperor Constantius VII (MNPC)
Dragon Masters: Lord Void (Main Character)
Forestmen: Lord Bjarn (MNPC)
Dark Foresters: Queen Arabella Louis Fornsir (MNPC)
Black Knights: King Sirion (Main Character)
Black Falcons: Queen Helen Tillshire-Falconis (MNPC)
Knights Kingdom I: King Leo (MNPC)
Knights Kingdom II: King Matthias (MNPC)
Fright Knights: She-Of-The-Barrow (MNPC)
Wolfpack: King Willem Blackcloak (Main Character)
Royal Knights: King Kjeld (Main Character)
Bull Knights: Lord Barbod (MNPC)
Shadow Knights: unspecified (MNPC)
Ninja: unspecified (MNPC)

And as a reminder, all leader characters must be converted or replaced by October 5th. Lord Void, King Sirion, King Willem Blackcloak and King Kjeld remain to be converted.

[Sir Kohran]

That is why the Mods are 100% decided that there will be no nationwide wars henceforth.

I'm a bit confused by this sentence. Does this mean we won't see any wars across the land anymore? I hope not. For the most part, I agree with the new rule, but I don't like the idea of the story of Dametreos being simply character driven, without anything for people to get involved in as a group.

Hopefully, someone can clarify this for me.

[Formendacil]

That is why the Mods are 100% decided that there will be no nationwide wars henceforth.

I'm a bit confused by this sentence. Does this mean we won't see any wars across the land anymore? I hope not. For the most part, I agree with the new rule, but I don't like the idea of the story of Dametreos being simply character driven, without anything for people to get involved in as a group.

Hopefully, someone can clarify this for me.

This means that there will no longer be wars involving an entire nation or more- unless in some far, far, far distant future the admins feel that they are going to change this policy. Which is unlikely.

We are not banning fighting. We are not banning group fighting. We are not banning localised conflicts. If Baron A wants to fight Earl B, then he can, but the conflict cannot occupy the majority of space in any kingdom.

Also, it is perfectly fine to PLOT to take over a kingdom, so long as your plotter never gets close enough to actually disrupt the workings of the kingdom, and set it and/or its neighbours off-balance.

I hope that answers your question somewhat. If not, please throw up a new question, and ask again.

~Michael A. Joosten - Gaming Moderator~

[Sir Drake]

Sry, but I have a question: If person A of kingdom A wants to raid villages of kingdom B, is that allowed? I mean, if no nation wide wars come of this, than it cannot become a big problem for the kingdom, can it?

[Sir Kohran]

That is why the Mods are 100% decided that there will be no nationwide wars henceforth.

I'm a bit confused by this sentence. Does this mean we won't see any wars across the land anymore? I hope not. For the most part, I agree with the new rule, but I don't like the idea of the story of Dametreos being simply character driven, without anything for people to get involved in as a group.

Hopefully, someone can clarify this for me.

This means that there will no longer be wars involving an entire nation or more- unless in some far, far, far distant future the admins feel that they are going to change this policy. Which is unlikely.

~Michael A. Joosten - Gaming Moderator~

Hm. I'm not sure this is such a good idea. I appreciate that you guys are trying to help newbies in, and but I don't this is the right way to go about it. Ever since LOTR, nation-wide wars have pretty much become a staple of modern fantasy. I doubt restricting is the best thing to do. A better idea would be to make the RP easier to understand. Yes, there are the archives, but only some stories are there, and Dametreos is a massive realm with dozens of stories and sagas in it.

Hopefully, I don't sound like Daimyo, but I just want to state my POV.

[Formendacil]

Hm. I'm not sure this is such a good idea. I appreciate that you guys are trying to help newbies in, and but I don't this is the right way to go about it. Ever since LOTR, nation-wide wars have pretty much become a staple of modern fantasy. I doubt restricting is the best thing to do. A better idea would be to make the RP easier to understand. Yes, there are the archives, but only some stories are there, and Dametreos is a massive realm with dozens of stories and sagas in it.

Hopefully, I don't sound like Daimyo, but I just want to state my POV.

Stated and heard. But this is not the Lord of the Rings. Nor should it try to be. And as far as it has gone so far, there is as much in the mix of real medieval as there is fantasy.

And in any case, the goal of the Roleplay is NOT to be an epic fantasy in the Lord of the Rings tradition. The Roleplay is, as noted, an adventure/storytelling adventure, and not a war-oriented Roleplay.

It's hard, I'll admit, for every newbie we get to come along, and have to take our word for it that war isn't good. But you have to. We HAVE been through wars. We saw the effects of the Fell War and the BloodVaine War firsthand, and we know that the enthusiasm that drives the war at first isn't always there at the end. Quite apart from keeping new members away- which is a very legitimate concern- we also have to worry, if wars were allowed, that the wars would not get ended, if those perpetuating them lose interest or leave.

For example, if Sir Drake had just left the Wolfpack war hanging, and hadn't gone in to fix it up, that burden would have fallen on the Mods to finish it up. Plots affecting entire nations can't just be left hanging.

So I appreciate that you feel otherwise, but the Mods are quite firm in their policy. No wars. If you want to fight, fine. If you want to have a BATTLE, fine (but be careful in setting up the circumstances around it. If it affects too many people, or is set up to burst into national or greater conflict, then you're in trouble).

The Mods know what they are doing. The Roleplay has run a lot more smoothly and easily since the end of the BloodVaine epic, and has attracted more new members than that period could have hoped to (it attracted a grand score of zero). Finally, while some of our members have questioned our wisdom, the consistently large amount of posting, at levels comparable to the BloodVaine epic, in recent months will show that wars are not necessary to have fun.

Our apologies if you find this policy hard or biased. Of course it is. All policies are biased. This is the bias the Mods have chosen.

~Michael A. Joosten - Gaming Moderator~

[Sir Drake]

Sry, FOrmendacil, but you haven't asnwered my question with your last post:

Sry, but I have a question: If person A of kingdom A wants to raid villages of kingdom B, is that allowed? I mean, if no nation wide wars come of this, than it cannot become a big problem for the kingdom, can it?