clanrules, changes

[arre]

1. forbid repeating murder while reraid in clanwars.

2. remove

 (5)  While clans can be neutral towards each other, NO clans are ever at peace (even the
      Guardians and Solamnia); therefore, characters from different clans should never
      group with each other. Please note that in rare cases clans may be permitted to
      slightly help each other; however, they still may not group with each other.

rule

[Nierth]

I do not see any reasons mentioned in your post.

[Maerryji]

1. forbid repeating murder while reraid in clanwars.

What?!
Person is attacking our clan guard. People can be (repeatedly) killed for much less than that.
I personally would kill someone who dares to heal his group mate I'm fighting with, even if I already did it 10 minutes ago.

[arre]

as for first part, there were already enough grounds put in last few days in other topics. All opinions *tip Maerryji* were presented there. Up to you accept or do not accept it.

Single reason. At 'strong defenders against single reraider'  scheme, players, who play more clan-devoted characters of knightish type, get repeatedly killed now, and so become discouraged to care about roleplay. And powerseeker characters a-la Zoft, or Maerryji characters, who calculate : 'danger to die is too much there.. i will come and flee trice, burn this clan. Will reraid later, when they leave', get edge now. These characters wrote application too, gave oath's of loyality too, but actually care about their life and spit to clan value.

Powerseekers prefer to preserve this benefit, they do not care about roleplay of others. It's perfect, but do you share their reasons ? Do you agree pbh Liora, who found bravery to send his character against superior multiple opponents several times, should be pissed off like it happened ?

as for second, con is potential cheating (or ? not sure why was this rule introduced), and pro - increase of game attractiveness. Not much people here, and extra taboo's for grouping mean more people travel alone. And to be together is more merry. Clan alliances can make fun profit too, as mixed clan battles can do also.

For (re)raiding stays rule that forbids clan members to accept help of anybody other. Well we can cancel it too, but you can find it too harsh

I personally would kill someone who dares to heal his group mate I'm fighting with, even if I already did it 10 minutes ago.

You can kill anybody anytime for any odd reason, another question is how it will be decided above. I lost character once by this reason. Was attacked by man and killed him (one), then he attacked my groupmate and i killed him again (two), then he attacked my guildguard, and i was alone in guild, he could cleave, so i preventivelly killed him (three).

[Maerryji]

Well you obviously shouldn't have lost your character for that. Third kill was somewhat questionable, but even an immortal who's certain you were guilty should have punished you mildly (-1 Con/eq).

Anyone making actions should be ready for consequences.
I fail to see any grounds for general restriction on these consequence in the other topics you mentioned. All there was is that in current circumstances, gameplay possibly degraded after the delete of Liora, which she possibly did because she could not reraid. Even if you replace both "possibly" with "certainly", this is just one situation.

Knightish type characters ought to be ready for real sacrifices. Or they might as well roleplay knights here on forum.

"Liora, who found bravery to send his character against superior multiple opponents several times"
Exactly! What bravery would it require if she knew her enemies cannot touch her?

[arre]

this is just one situation.

Reraid happens often. Sometimes defenders are more powerful, and sometimes reraider gives up his life for his clan. It happened with Liora, happened with Kalit, happened with me, so it is whole class of situations.

Knightish type characters ought to be ready for real sacrifices.

Exactly. Some real sacrifices. One death (and potential loot) per reraid isnt enough for you ? Besides, if there are 3 defenders, each can kill attacker once, total 3 death's per reraid. Imho it's enough sacrifice. Let me remind, some characters get no death at all in this situation, because they just flee trice.

As for now, there are situations, when knightish type character gain condeath per reraid. Pbh them have choice : fail their RP, or loose their character due to condeath. I think these situations and this choice are to be removed, it's all.

[Geryon]

Let's ask imms, how many chars suffered condeath last 10 years. I think that none did.

[Maerryji]

1. If you choose the role of person who would give up his life for his clan, you must be ready to actually do that. Role must correspond to the actions you plan. And your proposed change, by the way, practically eliminates such role because there are no situations you even need that. Oh wait, you can try to raid against three. And they'll sure kill you. Then again, if you've really chosen the self-sacrificing role, why didn't you do that?
2. What did Liora's actions have to do with "giving up life for her clan"? She wasted her life for nothing. There was exactly zero probability for her to reraid (provided Kobe is not idle). If her role forces her to sacrifice her life when she can do nothing else — why not let her play it to the bitter end? I wonder why do people with intentionally stupid role need specific immortals' protection. (As a rule, at least. If some immortal personally loves certain role, he can find ways to support the moron.)
3. No, if the price is clan powers, 1/3 of Con is not enough. Especially for character who has nothing close to power sufficient to reraid. I don't understand why that isn't obvious.

[arre]

1. So they should condeath (or delete) according to you. You care little about other player feelings, right ?
2. Diversity of roles enrich gameplay. Some roles are vulnerable and hard to play, yes, a bit of immortal protection would be nice.
3. 1/3 of Con or 2/3 of Con or smth else - negotiateable.

[Maerryji]

1. You did not answer the question. If you play a self-sacrificing role, why don't you come and kill yourself trying to raid the clan with powerful defenders? As many times as it needed.
If role is not really about dumb self-sacrificing, then why don't you take real actions that improve your chances to have the powers back (or maybe make you stronger in the future) instead of dying? And what you offer actually inspires "lazy" reraid: hide clothes, come, die, get clothes, reraid. I would much rather have enemies who try as hard as they can (which is the opposite to "coming and dying").

2. Immortals' protection for hard roles defeats the whole point. You want roles or just people saying appropriate words?

[arre]

Geryon, most of people just deleted self being frustrated in these situations.

Maerryji:

1.
- Any idea can be driven into nonsense, but it doesnt indicate idea is wrong. Kill self trying to raid is too close to absurd.
- Sometimes actions improving your chances just do not exist. F.i. Liora case.
- As for 'lazy reraid', i personally do not think clan powers worth 1/3 of Con of my character. Besides, let it be 3 death, i.e. 1 Con. Death amount can be discussed. Way too disgusting enough for anybody but fanatics.

2.
Absense of immortal protection defeats whole role existance now. Even if imm-protected, I strongly doubt you agree to play character granted with this 'privilege'. And doubt i agree to do it too. Imm-protection does not annihilate difficulty of the role, it just soften it and makes it playable. Still, role itself contains no bonuses and drawbacks only, so it doesnt change current balance.

[Durewn]

Still checking forum *giggle*

let me display some situations: Some skilled player comes to reraid against three, and managed to kill one. it is absolutely possible for example for herecy to let this person reraid as he proved that we have lost. And it will not be punished by immortals.

Second: when we were both online with Liora and four takhisis raided us i stated something like " inquisitors definately doesn't want us to go and die" and we skipped reraid (I guess we did more then enough by trying to prevent raid) and I am totaly sure that immortal was online and we haven't be punished.

I can imagine many more, but you got the idea.

But enabling safe reraids, IMHO, not acceptable at all. they take your abbility to choose(see examples) and they force you to do  strange things. Dieing on reraid in any case or any role will give you a ticket to stay raided/log off/ hunt for eq.

solcae was always hardcore and abusive MUD, but that is his style. No corpse protection also.

oops. have to leave on meeting. maybe for the best.

K, i lost my though after 12 hours brake. Idea is to give more freedom. Maybe state that in owefull odds you can not reraid, not only when 3+ vs 1 *shrug* Anyway it is all matter of playing style. If you want to show "Bad odds Logging off loosers" that you are from different clay - go and reraid, and some people will consider that as a brave and honest step. if you value other things nobody will force you to go reraid.

The only problem here is Immortal ativity. there is very little chance that Unseen should notice your bravery and you will be rewarded ;-)
When brave and honest play will bring imm reaction - all that troubles dissapear.

[arre]

i'd like reraid to be action of free will. Person could go and die twice (to each defender) and get power back, or could flee trice in gushing, and decide risk is too much, up to person beliefs.

[Lady Lunitari]

Single reason. At 'strong defenders against single reraider'  scheme, players, who play more clan-devoted characters of knightish type, get repeatedly killed now, and so become discouraged to care about roleplay.

There is a fresh example with Chimara, who died trice against 3 warders. He still cares about roleplay. And he saw that a bolt from heaven didn't smite him when he was sitting in the Temple, waiting for luck there. Warders themselves came to him and killed.

And powerseeker characters a-la Zoft, or Maerryji characters, who calculate : 'danger to die is too much there.. i will come and flee trice, burn this clan. Will reraid later, when they leave', get edge now. These characters wrote application too, gave oath's of loyality too, but actually care about their life and spit to clan value.

When anyone breaks clan rules and it's obvious for me, he is being warned and watched carefully.
Do you know clanned Maerryji chars so we can decide if you are right or not that he did not care about a clan?

Powerseekers prefer to preserve this benefit, they do not care about roleplay of others. It's perfect, but do you share their reasons? Do you agree pbh Liora, who found bravery to send his character against superior multiple opponents several times, should be pissed off like it happened ?  

I agree with Liora, she was brave and she deleted only because she had to do it due to some real-life-curcumstances. I already regret that Geryon has posted this log. Liora would not delete even after 5 deaths, and she was killed trice only because she was going to delete and decided to have some fun at the end. Do not make any statements based only on her actions.

as for second, con is potential cheating (or ? not sure why was this rule introduced), and pro - increase of game attractiveness. Not much people here, and extra taboo's for grouping mean more people travel alone. And to be together is more merry. Clan alliances can make fun profit too, as mixed clan battles can do also.

I am a little humble draconian, there are no draconians in the realms now, can I please walk in a group with elves, please please?