Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Geronus

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 141
Dwilight / Re: Gelene
« on: December 10, 2015, 10:01:19 PM »
Yeah, but you had Everguard to pave the way

Yes and no. I'm sure Everguard absorbed a lot of attention from the northern sector of our borders, but Eidulb Outskirts still got regularly hammered by monsters spawning in the mountains to the east that came at us out of Mountain of Remorse and Shrine of Seeklander. I suppose it's possible it would have taken us longer to break out of Eidulb without Everguard around, but who knows; we were getting a lot of economic support from Morek, so ultimately I think we would have succeeded all the same.

Dwilight / Re: SA vs Morek
« on: December 09, 2015, 05:05:11 PM »
I think that Crusade was actually against Averoth and Caerwyn became collateral damage when they picked the wrong side, but we might very well have declared a separate Crusade against Caerwyn. They expressed some serious hostility toward Sanguis Astroism in the course of breaking the federation with Astrum and siding with Averoth and basically proclaimed their intention to push us out of the west, so we would certainly have had sufficient cause for a Crusade.

Dwilight / Re: Gelene
« on: December 09, 2015, 04:47:48 PM »
This makes me want to come back... I loved those early days in Astrum when we were under constant assault by monsters, food was scarce and we were never quite sure we were going to make it through a winter.

BM General Discussion / Re: Famous Old Characters
« on: December 04, 2015, 07:34:20 PM »
Someone posted about the upcoming island sinking in the Battlemaster Facebook group, which showed up on my News Feed and piqued my interest, so I started skulking around the Forums a bit to see what's up with the game these days :)

BM General Discussion / Re: Famous Old Characters
« on: December 04, 2015, 06:51:47 PM »
There was that guy who founded the first iteration of Niselur on Dwilight, back when Astrum was still young and SA was in its whole Manifest Destiny phase. Boreal Arrakis. Took me a while to remember his name. And don't forget Glaumring, that crazy bastard; he was a player in founding more than one realm on Dwi.

Also I can't quite believe no one has mentioned Ottar, from AT. He ruled Tara the entire time I played this game (and for considerable time before and after too), though I gather he's not around anymore.

Dwilight / Re: Sanguis Astroism
« on: January 16, 2014, 04:59:55 AM »
One thing I've got to say is the church totally played with kid gloves in this war and it bit us in the ass big time. No Auto De Fes and we only excommunicated one person. We could have done so much more damage if we'd played hardball. I think that serves to highlight what's gone wrong with SA.

The problem is we're afraid to be rabble rousers. We're afraid to send priests into lands where they're forbidden. We're afraid to sponsor pro SA rebellions. We think if we do that our priests will be persecuted and our temples burned. We're afraid to excommunicate people. We think if we do that all it means is fewer members. What we fail to realize is that' these are the things which make SA an exciting religion to be in. Some people want the chance to become martyrs or heretics. We shouldn't be afraid to lose characters in this way. If you can't get kicked out of SA then being a member has no meaning. If you can't become a martyr then there's nothing to aspire to. In the end we'll lose way more characters if we simply make the religion boring and bland because people will just plain leave.

The current situation could lead to an exciting age of fundamentalism. Now that the religion has more followers then ever it means more lords and rulers can't risk going against the church. SA players need to start checking their modern day sensibilities at the door and start getting medieval. We need more people to see Pagans and Heathens as their enemies and to see it as their duty to see Sanguis Astroism become the state religion. Priests will be killed, temples will be burned, astroist peasants will riot, duchies will secede, rebellions will be hatched. These are all good things for the game and for Sanguis Astroism.

And this is why we should all miss Allison Kabrinksi. That's right, Haters, Kabrinski was the best thing that ever happened to SA no matter how many people she pissed off. Those of us with vision knew that despite her (many) faults and the amount of trouble she caused, she was worth every moment of aggravation. Because she would do anything to expand the faith, she didn't need official help or sanction to do it, and in the end that meant that her actions could always be disavowed, even when they resulted in major gains for the Church.

Hell, for all intents and purposes, she provided the spark that set off the war between Caerwyn, Astrum and Averoth, which up until the current war was the most danger Astrum ever faced. Rowan eventually found out what she did, before his death, but he did nothing about it, said nothing about it. Because he knew how much she was needed, and how much the Church stood to gain if the war was successful, which in the end it was.

Dwilight / Re: Sanguis Astroism
« on: January 16, 2014, 04:53:41 AM »
The wars have been good for Dwilight and ultimately will lead to soul searching for SA. I know many will look and or act/say this is the end etc but often its times like these where a realm or characters can rise like a pheonix and make this a part of their character RP and history. I think this is an awesome time for Astrum and its players, now they have a goal, they have a drive, they have history and culture and they can be like the underdog and reorder things and create a new narrative one where their great and ancient civilization fell to foreign barbarians in the west. Its almost a Roman narrative of history. If you are playing BM souly to win then you are not paying enough attentiom to who your character is. Glaumring isnt great because of how awesome he is but by how frail and with foible his history has been. His entire history is clawing upward and failing and getting back up and fighting. This is Astrum now bloodied but unbowed. I know many of you will cry into pillows and quit or not log on as much because victory and gold and glory were what defined you, that when it comes down to it you were just here for yourself. For the ones who take this time in history and use it to enrich their characters and RP this is the best time to be active because drama and travesty, tragedy are the greatest stories ever written. And I know that many of you still have fight in you and its been a pleasure to take on Astrum and after years of failure finally actually winning. If you think it has only been tough for Astrum remember that Asylon was for much of history a pathetic backwater.

For once, you and I can agree.

Magistrates Case Archive / Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
« on: January 16, 2014, 04:48:08 AM »
Might be time for an actual Magistrate decision on this. It's been, what, two weeks now.

As things stand, the verdict is guilty by a 3-2 vote, but no one has taken the lead in writing a verdict or splitting the difference in the guilty votes (as the three votes for guilty are all for different results). I voted Not Guilty, so I don't feel I should be the one writing the verdict in this case if Guilty is to be the end result.

Honestly without Vellos or I being deeply involved, I'm not sure who is up to actually managing the Magistrate cases... Tom had said quite a while ago that he intended to end the Magistrate experiment but it seems apparent that the mechanics are still there for people to open cases.

Atamara / Re: Atamara Update
« on: January 13, 2014, 10:36:06 PM »
Doesn't this theoretically mean that Lyonesse can start TOing Darkan regions (only possible with active League support, obviously)? And wouldn't that put Darka in a far, far more dangerous position now than they were in when all the League could do was loot their regions into the ground, but not permanently remove them from Darkan control? Sure, militarily Lyonesse contributes next to nothing to the war against Darka. But strategically, their ability to actually TO Darkan regions could be a death blow for Darka, assuming I'm not missing something important.

Magistrates Case Archive / Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
« on: December 31, 2013, 02:26:17 AM »
I'll try to avoid chiming in too much on the specifics of the IC and/or OOC reasoning, as I'm rather far removed from the specifics, but I would be hesitant about punishing someone for an attempt to liven up the game. Obviously a broken rule is a broken rule and must be dealt with, but I've often seen (and done myself) IC actions done for the sake of a better playing environment and don't think that should be discouraged. I would hope players would also keep it within IC sensibility in not breaking their character's style either.

I think a key element is that FR is continuing as a realm, however much diminished. There is no movement of nobility leaving Golden Farrow to join Asylon and reconquer GF, as you would seen in a merger that wasn't also a bug exploit. Asylon had two choices for interacting with GF without merging. Conquer it in a war based on various grievances between farronite nobility and those who left for Asylon. Or ignore it. They're taking the latter route.

I am inclined to agree with you at the moment. An argument could be made that in some cases a move like this one would be a true realm merger, but I just don't see the intent here, not really.

Magistrates Case Archive / Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
« on: December 31, 2013, 12:55:25 AM »
The Thulsoma/Summerdale merger was that the Queen or king got lightning bolted for a couple of days and we were told not to try a merger. Which we did anyways by abandoning Thulsoma inthe end but never tried to recover the old regions because the Summerdale nobles were extremely paranoid of SA nobles in their realm, which Thulsoma was so they didnt want to actually see it succeed, even though it would have been beneficial. After they combined Averoth was to join ad we would have been a large force in the north. It was my idea to found a federated united kingdom under the Summerdaliam crown with three kings in revolving leadership etc. it would have been cool and we could have offered a good bit of strength in that region. What happened instead was fragmenting and little wars and the Thulsomans left to Asylon where we thrived.

This is the incident I remember, and it sounds like the bolt came down before anyone even tried anything, just based on the idea being discussed. But again, curious as to how that's different from this case - it doesn't seem to me like the proposed Thulsoma-Summerdale-Averoth merger was about exploiting game mechanics any more than the current case is, which calls into question that narrow interpretation of the rule and would seem to place more emphasis on the idea that realm mergers between equals are not permitted for other reasons (game balance? promoting conflict? keeping with Tom's interpretation of medieval governments?).

There are arguments to be made that interpreting this rule too narrowly will encourage more virtual mergers like this one and lead to consolidation of smaller realms into bigger ones, something that I am certain Tom would not care for since it replaces expansion by conquest and limits conflict. There are also arguments that this sort of merger should be permitted anyway in an era of a shrinking player base, as Graeth is arguing, but that would definitely be a departure from current practice.

Magistrates Case Archive / Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
« on: December 31, 2013, 12:42:11 AM »
If you are considering zapping players in a dying realm who are trying to keep the game fun admist game-wide declining populations then I think you need to seriously reconsider your policies.  I foresee this sort of case becoming more common as the game continues to lose players, banning your existing and loyal player base seems counter-intuitive.  This is a holdover rule from another time in this game's life.  It is also extremely obscure and poorly worded.  Realms can never merge as equal entities, and if they can it is not applicable here.  Asylon maintains its governmental system, personnel (especially in regards to our King), name, capital, distinct history, distinct culture and overwhelming player amount.  Further, Asylon unilaterally culled out FR nobles that it deemed politically harmful, explicitly demonstrating its overwhelming advantage in the duchy change.  And that is considering the fact that you are ignoring that FR still exists in GF and might be able to exist indefinitely and perhaps even expand with the new addition of sea travel.

Your post is extremely troubling.  In character wise I'm not sure what the problem is, it isn't like nation states in the past never conglomerated together.  It seems like you want to bring down the hammer just because you don't like the way the rule has been applied or not, and not for mechanical or roleplaying atmosphere reasons.  A dying realm can takes months to be finished off naturally, and I imagine that natural attrition is extremely boring for those involved.  In this case a Duchess decided to proactively change her duchy in a way that made sense in character and in line with explicit or implicit political strife in her realm.  The fact is that strategically this does not help our realm in our war, we now find ourselves in a food shortage after accepting the duchy change, further none of the regions would allow us to change the capital to a more strategic position.  Finally, it lowers our population density per region. 

I do not want to clutter this post, however I feel that the overwhelming amount of magistrates on the other side of this conflict puts Asylon and former Farronites at a severe disadvantage.

I think you're reading too much into what I posted... I have no particular desire to punish anyone. I am merely concerned now, as I was in the prior case concerning strategic secessions, that the rule could be so narrowly interpreted as to be pointless in which case why have a rule at all. That said, my thinking on the topic continues to evolve and these discussions contribute to that evolution. I hear what you are saying. Also, Please do not derail the topic with accusations of bias. Vellos and I happen to be the two Magistrates who do most of the posting in these cases, but we aren't the only ones who vote, and I haven't had a character active on Dwilight for months now.

Magistrates Case Archive / Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
« on: December 29, 2013, 07:29:23 PM »
Cleaned up some more posts... Try to stay on topic.

I've never really understood why this rule (or say, the strategic secession rule) is so contentious. It's always seemed simple when looking at Tom's words and the context of every other rule. Is this done to circumvent mechanic limitations put in place for game balance? Hence why strategic secessions are prohibited to avoid realms seceding just to better prosecute the war with a capital that has quicker refit times to the front. Hence why merging is prohibited to avoid realms combining messaging interfaces, command structures, easier to send gold to each other, or whatever else to advantage a war effort (also, I recall Tom mentioning that no sovereign would willingly cede their authority to another just because it makes war easier to organize or what have you).

As I've said with strategic secessions before, this is one of those rules that is often accused, but quite rarely actually violates the rule.

And I have the same issues with interpreting this rule that way as I did with how the strategic secession rule was interpreted in our last case on the subject. If the only way to violate this rule is to explicitly say "I'm merging realms so that I can take advantage of game mechanics," then it's basically never going to be applicable and we might as well say "realm mergers are fine," because for all intents and purposes they would be. Furthermore, I recall that several of the characters involved in attempting to merge Summerdale and Thulsoma back in the day got lightning bolted for their efforts, and that case was similar. If that was an illegal realm merger and this isn't, I'd be curious to know why people think this is different.

Magistrates Case Archive / Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
« on: December 27, 2013, 09:35:14 PM »
I have cleaned out some irrelevant posts and pared down some others.

At the moment I see two conflicting characterizations of events. In one of them, the player of Khari Kye (posting here as cenrae) grew dissatisfied with the state of FR from an OOC perspective with too few nobles and too little activity in the realm, and resolved to essentially merge the vast majority of the realm with Asylon in an effort to achieve an increased noble density and perhaps liven up the game for her/himself and the remaining players in FR as well as deal with the problem of too many regions/not enough nobles. In the other, there was some sort of power struggle between pro- and anti-Asylon factions in FR that led to Khari making a power play and defecting with her duchy to Asylon.

Just based on what I've seen so far (and with no first-hand knowledge of the situation), I have to say that the case looks a bit stronger for the first characterization than the second (though I'm also sure they're both grounded in truth). It's hard to believe that there was much actively ongoing political conflict within FR given the OOC message that Khari sent to SA:

FR has dropped dramatically in its player count and was becoming near silent.

This is not generally how one would describe a realm with an active power-struggle on-going. The proximate cause of the action appears to have been not any sort of IC conflict per se, but rather OOC motives related to player count, realm viability and boredom. The other characterization of events seems frankly to be a bit of a ret-con... I'm sure there were some nobles in FR that were pro-Astrum, but it appears to me just from what's been posted here that the relative importance of the conflict between them and pro-Asylon nobles is being rather overstated for the sake of applying an IC justification to the secession ex post facto... Vellos had already paused by the time Khari acted, and I have seen no evidence so far of any sort of IC argument or conflict that led directly to what happened. I find the justification contained in Khari's OOC letter to SA to be far more believable, and have no reason to imagine that if there had been a genuine IC motivation for the whole thing, Khari wouldn't have mentioned it then.

So, I would ask you to dispense with the arguments about the IC justification at this point, unless there's more compelling evidence to be had. Instead, the question is (assuming the motivation of the action is as described by Khari in the OOC message), is this an illegal realm merger?

Magistrates Case Archive / Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
« on: December 24, 2013, 04:00:15 PM »
Please read the message posted by the player that did the merge. Their stated intention was to destroy the realm by merging with one of their two neighbors. There is no power struggle or ic political scheming here. If there is, then it should be quite easily provable with a few messages to show it. Without that, all you have the player's own message stating their intentions to merge the realms.

As for the assertion of "its not a merge because FR still exists", that's irrelevant. The realms we merged to the extent possible by game mechanics restrictions. To get any more, you'd have full combine this with a bug exploit, which is a violation all on its own.  If this isn't a realm merger, then it is impossible to have a realm merger that doesn't involve bug exploitation. Which makes the realm merger rule superfluous.

These are good points...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 141