Friendly rebellion - A case for the Titans?

[Anaris]

Also, I don't know why everyone is hating the McGahee family. Isn't that clearly against the rules of the game?

Not in the slightest.

If someone has managed to piss off people badly enough, it's perfectly reasonable for them to come after his family, too.  This is particularly true when various members of the family in question have been seen to act in a very similar manner.

Heck, I just had one character banned because of who she was related to, even though she has nothing but contempt for that particular family member—and OOC, I think it was totally justified, based on who was involved.

IC is a different matter, of course, which I handle IC and IG :)

[Velax]

Also, I don't know why everyone is hating the McGahee family. Isn't that clearly against the rules of the game? I mean, yea, the guy plays many of his characters alike, but it seems everyone is judging Optimus based on Conan when the player has clearly defined IC that they weren't close nor very well related. Seems to me like an abuse to me that pretty much the whole continent is content to not only let slide, but support. Discouraging. I'd hate for Erandi (honorable, well spoken) to be judged off of Carlos (dubious, indignant, near-illiterate...). I'm pretty sure many of us have characters we play differently, and I would hate for the next character I bring around to be judged off of whatever my former character(s) did...

To tell me, or anyone else, that the way I or my characters think about a particular family is an abuse is pretty frigging ridiculous. I'm not going to bother going into reasons why the McGahee family is untrustworthy, hated, blah, blah, blah, but I will say that I'm entitled to think whatever the bloody hell I like about a character in this game and to be told that the way I think is against the rules of the game...the absurdity boggles the mind.

[Chenier]

Interesting. I didn't think about that. Although I don't know how easy it would be to pull off, especially in larger realms. It might lead to someone at the bottom offering himself, voting for himself and getting elected on one vote and the rest then rebelling against him.

If he then steps down, then they are right back where they started. If not, then they get their government change :p

If a smartass elects himself into rulership, then you got a legitimate rebellion possibility right there. Why is rebelling against a twit any more difficult than rebelling against a legitimate ruler?

[TDLR]

Not in the slightest.

If someone has managed to piss off people badly enough, it's perfectly reasonable for them to come after his family, too.  This is particularly true when various members of the family in question have been seen to act in a very similar manner.

Perhaps I'm mistaken then. I could have sworn it was against the spirit of the game to ban someone from a realm based on what family they were from. If someone RPs that a particular character is not very well related to another character of the same family, that should be taken into account and respected. I'm not on the dev. team or anything, but that's just a rule I've been hearing and adhering to for a while.

To tell me, or anyone else, that the way I or my characters think about a particular family is an abuse is pretty frigging ridiculous. I'm not going to bother going into reasons why the McGahee family is untrustworthy, hated, blah, blah, blah, but I will say that I'm entitled to think whatever the bloody hell I like about a character in this game and to be told that the way I think is against the rules of the game...the absurdity boggles the mind.

I don't think I told you or your characters how to think. Your character can think whatever he likes, heck if I care. I think I said you have to judge each character off their merits. If Optimus has said something IC to piss your character off (can be super trivial if you like), then by all means hate the character. But if your character really hasn't had any interaction with Optimus (or Thain, or Jenred, or whoever given all the prominent families on FEI), then your character shouldn't be up in arms when they appear.

It'd be like if I hated everyone with the last name of Smith who walked around the street. There are many Smiths in this world, many of them are cool people, a few have managed to piss me off over the years... just speaking for myself, I'm not going to hate them all as a result (well, unless that's the way you/your characters work, then that's cool too, no worries man).

[Anaris]

It'd be like if I hated everyone with the last name of Smith who walked around the street. There are many Smiths in this world, many of them are cool people, a few have managed to piss me off over the years... just speaking for myself, I'm not going to hate them all as a result (well, unless that's the way you/your characters work, then that's cool too, no worries man).

Our characters aren't Smiths and Joneses. They're scions of the most prominent, most famous, most impressive and important families in the world.

It's not like hating everyone with the last name Smith. It's much more like hating everyone with the last name Hilton, or Bieber, or Kennedy.

[Velax]

Not to mention there are a million Smiths in the world, most of whom aren't even vaguely related. How many McGahees are there? How many de Veres? How many Himouras? Big difference between hating someone who happens to share an extremely common last name and hating someone who's very obviously related and acts remarkably similar to the original person you disliked.

In any case, everyone in Kindara has a reason to dislike and distrust Optimus. He sent a trader to Kindara to threaten a duke and the general with "consequences" if they didn't sell him food. And this was when Cathay and Kindara were still close allies. Reason enough to think this McGahee is like all the rest and act accordingly.

[Hyral]

I feel like this is drifting off-topic from friendly rebellions somewhat, but...>.<

Our characters are entitled to hate who they want, for whatever reason they want, but shouldn't we as players at least try to be a little mindful of the player behind that character and not take the IC hate to extremes? Yes, the player should certainly expect an amount of backlash if he does something to upset a lot of people, but we shouldn't take it too far where our families abuse his family so much that he can barely play. We're supposed to play as though we're playing with friends, that is a rule.  And I take it to include not punishing our friends to the point where they can't have fun anymore. I'm not saying that anyone here is doing that, or that it happens a lot, but it does happen, and it doesn't end well, and maybe we should keep it in mind when playing out these grudges?

[Phellan]

Indirik:

   In a one duchy Realm why must the Capital be "moved"?  There is no option - a one duchy Realm, whether through loss of the other Duchy/Capital through war or succession should probably have the Capital declared automatically, as it's the only place left to have one.    Plus it can be incredibly expensive to move, which is why Cathay hasn't had a Capital since Anacan left.

Also the text clearly indicates that scenarios like this are not planned for in the coding:

Capital Moved!   (8 hours, 46 minutes ago)
Me'hoe Chan'gu'Con, King of Cathay, Duke of Azros has ordered the capital to be moved to Azros. There is considerable unrest among the population, especially in the old capital, Anacan. The troops are also irritated.


Anacan suffers unrest?  Its not even part of the Realm anymore. . . and why are the troops upset?   We finally ahve a Capital in the REalm.  Havent been able to recruit for a long time.

[Bedwyr]

I don't exactly know where the line is between Toupellon's planned secession and the most rebellion in Cathay, but I do know that there isn't much of one. Both were planned with the blessing/knowledge of the ruler, both were coordinated awkwardly well. Anatole even said today "Fair elections? I laugh at that, for none that I know that minted the crown of Cathay took part to them." Boycotting an election (which the ruler won with a paultry 14% of the vote) just to rebel against his rule a few days later seems similarly contrived. Especially when Erandi heard IC at least a month prior that Colasan was planning to secede anyway. Maybe this is a point that should be raised IC, but if Anatole was so interested in Cathay's future and dedicated to her, then why did he and all the other ruling Dukes (save Optimus) run away from Cathay? Why not win the election and, if Optimus was really that despised, banish/exile him...

There's a difference between OOC maneuvering and IC maneuvering.  Even if the election were boycotted (which it wasn't, to my knowledge, Anatole's primary plan was to take the throne and fix things that way), maneuvering to get himself a better IC justification to secede is fairly standard politicking.

Also, I don't know why everyone is hating the McGahee family. Isn't that clearly against the rules of the game? I mean, yea, the guy plays many of his characters alike, but it seems everyone is judging Optimus based on Conan when the player has clearly defined IC that they weren't close nor very well related. Seems to me like an abuse to me that pretty much the whole continent is content to not only let slide, but support. Discouraging. I'd hate for Erandi (honorable, well spoken) to be judged off of Carlos (dubious, indignant, near-illiterate...). I'm pretty sure many of us have characters we play differently, and I would hate for the next character I bring around to be judged off of whatever my former character(s) did...

As I and others have said in-game...It's not just that he's a McGahee.  It's that he's acting like Conan, and also in political opposition to some important groups.  There's a McGahee in Zonasa, for instance, that Jenred's had quite civil conversations with and has put down on his list of "people I can probably work with".  Optimus' little emissary threatening Kindara if they didn't sell him food brought back bad memories, making his first act as Duke in Azros to tear down the Order of the Elders temple reminded everyone of the religious purges, and (as relayed to Jenred, at least) his pushes to move Cathay more toward the southern sphere rather than the northern sphere made him significant enemies both within and out of Cathay.  The fact that's he's a McGahee is convenient, but I assure you that had he acted differently (hell, even if the only difference had been making pacts with Jenred) then things would be very, very different right now.

[Bedwyr]

I feel like this is drifting off-topic from friendly rebellions somewhat, but...>.<

Our characters are entitled to hate who they want, for whatever reason they want, but shouldn't we as players at least try to be a little mindful of the player behind that character and not take the IC hate to extremes? Yes, the player should certainly expect an amount of backlash if he does something to upset a lot of people, but we shouldn't take it too far where our families abuse his family so much that he can barely play. We're supposed to play as though we're playing with friends, that is a rule.  And I take it to include not punishing our friends to the point where they can't have fun anymore. I'm not saying that anyone here is doing that, or that it happens a lot, but it does happen, and it doesn't end well, and maybe we should keep it in mind when playing out these grudges?

This is important.  Tom has said very firmly that you cannot ban someone just because of their family (unless you get extreme edge cases where several family members have all been traitors to the realm, with the only example that I saw him agree qualified being a case where four characters from the same family with only slightly different names joined the same realm, got banned/killed in death duels/betrayed the realm in single-digit months and kept sending more).

It's the difference between a strike against someone and an instant-fail condition, I suppose.  The first is fine (even encouraged, I think the family aspect of the game is somewhat underutilized), the second isn't.

[Chenier]

This is important.  Tom has said very firmly that you cannot ban someone just because of their family (unless you get extreme edge cases where several family members have all been traitors to the realm, with the only example that I saw him agree qualified being a case where four characters from the same family with only slightly different names joined the same realm, got banned/killed in death duels/betrayed the realm in single-digit months and kept sending more).

It's the difference between a strike against someone and an instant-fail condition, I suppose.  The first is fine (even encouraged, I think the family aspect of the game is somewhat underutilized), the second isn't.

I'd like you to find a quote on that.

I remember him saying that you can't ban someone just because he had another character in an enemy realm, but that he saw no issue with banning someone of a family you have real issues with. After all, family was everything back then.

Unless you and I have different definitions of "extreme". The criteria, to me, always was something concrete and reasonable, as opposed to something so generic that it could apply to any newbie family.

[Bedwyr]

I'd like you to find a quote on that.

I'll see if I can, now to remember if it was on the forum or the d-list...

[Chenier]

I'll see if I can, now to remember if it was on the forum or the d-list...

Is the d-list available once more somewhere, or is it still gone?

I think I vaguely recall the message you are talking about, and I think it's the same I was talking about. I cannot recall either, though.

[Anaris]

I remember him saying that you can't ban someone just because he had another character in an enemy realm, but that he saw no issue with banning someone of a family you have real issues with. After all, family was everything back then.

Believe it or not, I think Chénier is right  :o  ;D

[Velax]

You lie!