Crusader Roleplay

[luminier]

Aslak suggested we just don't have perma enemies in any guild

Delia suggested we just treat traitors accordingly and forbid them entry to any guild

I say we sort of have a mix of both... being an enemy forever? I mean what do I just kill the person endlessly?

I also like the idea of having traitors treated like traitors... lately it seems like anyone can leave any guild and there is 0 RP consequences from any side. How lame is that?

[Delia]

Everyone has their own definition of fun and most people primarily honour that, their own fun. If its fun, they will play. If it is not, they will not play. Finding a balance with all us different people in the game is next to impossible. So while not a solution, a tool to handle this issue could be going OOC when people leave guilds and try to chat it up a bit. Discuss about what you wish from the game, where you see your character going, and what would run things for you. Or anything, really.

This might work on many other occasions as well, having these "after action, after roleplay(or why not before, even?)"-moments. Many unwanted things rise from misunderstandings between people, after all.

[luminier]

Everyone has their own definition of fun and most people primarily honour that, their own fun. If its fun, they will play. If it is not, they will not play. Finding a balance with all us different people in the game is next to impossible. So while not a solution, a tool to handle this issue could be going OOC when people leave guilds and try to chat it up a bit. Discuss about what you wish from the game, where you see your character going, and what would run things for you. Or anything, really.

This might work on many other occasions as well, having these "after action, after roleplay(or why not before, even?)"-moments. Many unwanted things rise from misunderstandings between people, after all.

Yeah, I don't know why I never thought of this. Im really dumb. Thanks Delia. It sounds like a good solution to me.

[Delia]

Might not be worth much, but a remainder and a fair warning might cause someone to pause and consider their actions. If for not anything else, you can feel justified with your "told you so's" afterwards.

[luminier]

Would anyone feel weird about a hard coded block to joining any other guild after leaving the Crusaders?

Just a thought.

[Delia]

It would feel weird.

[glorfindel]

I would think this is not what one would want in any circumstances. Code-blocks very often feel weird. It's more in the hands of those accepting traitors to ask themselves if they really want someone leaving another guild so quickly.

[ferranifer]

And the best way to enforce that is for the former guild to put social pressure on the future guild.

[ghalt]

I really think permanent enemies is the issue. People should be able to recover their characters. If you've made someone miserable for a year, that's really enough. Maybe crusader traitors in time could enter a "don't trust this person under any circumstances" list and not a "evren is constantly shouting in your head for you to kill this person, always and everywhere for all time no matter the circumstances" list?

[luminier]

The problem with that is Crusaders have a very "us vs them" mentality that is beaten into them from every aspect. Evren literally does tell us to kill traitors every time we kneel down to pray.

In fact, how I roleplay Luminier now I consider to be a very strange and exceptionally tolerant Crusader... basically -not- a Crusader. Luminier would fit better as a Ranger with his current roleplay.

Permanent enemies definitely is the issue. Other guilds have permanent enemies but no one really seems to actively hunt them. But then I don't think other guilds get coded prompts to hunt them NOW!

If you create an environment where the mentality is "if you aren't with us you are against us" which basically boils down to, Taniel or Evren? No? Swings spear.

How do we keep Crusaders "crusadery" without being total dicks? Do we just do as poGhalt suggests and just start ignoring enemies after a certain period? And if they start to become friends with our allies? Then we can't team with our old allies. It really eff's up the whole game dynamic if we aren't -constantly- trying to ostracize our ex-members and that is REALLY tiresome for Crusaders and Traitors both.

[ferranifer]

I wonder why is that a problem? I mean... Crusaders are by far the most sadistic, alienating and well, evil of the factions in the game. They were *made* to be that way. As far as I know they are supposed to be total dicks. It's a career choice and I presume the guild was coded with those prompts to reinforce precisely that, yet for some reason they sit in this weird position of comfort and acceptance from society... because their members ignore their own godly mandates.

Stop ignoring Evren and Taniel and do what your gods are telling you to do?

[Sairina]

It really eff's up the whole game dynamic if we aren't -constantly- trying to ostracize our ex-members and that is REALLY tiresome for Crusaders and Traitors both.

Does it really? From what I can see, it currently "effs up the whole game dynamic" that you are doing precisely that... of course the Crusaders are meant to be fanatics and piss people off, but there are ways to do it that result in nice roleplay for everyone (yes, ostracise them, tell everyone that they can't be trusted, refuse to deal with them when they've joined your allies, etc.), and then there are ways that can effectively ruin the fun for another player. We should keep in mind that Geas is a game and supposed to be fun for everyone, and "kill-on-sight-forever" can effectively make a character unplayable because of a single choice they made. Eventually, they should be able to move on and join another guild, even if that doesn't mean that it's forgiven and forgotten. It doesn't have to be a month after they left, and it shouldn't be, but people do play this game for many real life years.

[Aslak]

We all know anyways which godess uses whispers to influence their followers. And it is not Evren or Taniel

The trouble I had with crusaders handling ex-members is that they act very different, depending who left, where they joined, and also which crusader you mean. It ranges from both extrems, still friend, to the other, kill on sight for all time. And it changes a lot over time as well.
Of cause depending under what circumstances one left, I would support Ghalts way of handling it, with a time where you mercilessly hunt the enemy, and then if he did not deserved by other actions to remain being actively hunted, put him on a ban list.
I would not hardcode the change, for there are always reasons to do things differently from it, like a REAL traitor and not just one who left, or one continues to work against Lilit....uhm...Evren and Taniel.

[Delia]

I think if the playerbase were larger it would not be such a problem but now, when three crusaders online at the same time are the ultimate fighting force, they can pretty much do what they want. Meaning, people have to recognize them as a power even if they do not actively wield it. There are few places to hide or seek protection from if they choose to pursue their agenda. If the three crusaders were only three crusaders in a world full of other people it would not be such a big deal, I think.

Also...people might tend to flock to crusaders because they are the only armour using front liner fighter guild and they can be rather easy going at the marketplace gatherings and have close contacts to other guilds.

EDIT
Meaning, if there was some another fighter type guild of sorts the crusader drop-out rata could be considerably lower. If there really was room for one that is.

[glorfindel]

I wonder why is that a problem? I mean... Crusaders are by far the most sadistic, alienating and well, evil of the factions in the game. They were *made* to be that way. As far as I know they are supposed to be total dicks. It's a career choice and I presume the guild was coded with those prompts to reinforce precisely that, yet for some reason they sit in this weird position of comfort and acceptance from society... because their members ignore their own godly mandates.

Crusaders should sit well with the -elven- soceity. They are following the mandates of Taniel, the creator of the elves. They are doing _good_, in the eyes of Taniel and Evren, at least that's how I understand it. That this 'good" is very far from what the average geas po perceives as good, is a different story entirely.

Apart of that, I believe that there's very much in the way _how_ you go about hunting those people. There's no question if you should or not, it would be in my opinion very out of character for a crusader to let traitors slip by. But how you go about this, is entirely in your hand, meaning I believe you can make this in a way that it's fun for everybody. Sometimes you might just try to convince the person that they need to come back and that they have a chance to be absolved of their sins if they do. Sometimes you'll pack them on the stake and try to absolve them partially that way... sometimes your character might just shake their head and tell the others to run... I see a lot of opportunities to make this fun for both sides, but it's likely effort and depends on the personality of the chars involved.

[luminier]

Wow alright a lot of replies! I like!

I wonder why is that a problem? I mean... Crusaders are by far the most sadistic, alienating and well, evil of the factions in the game. They were *made* to be that way. As far as I know they are supposed to be total dicks. It's a career choice and I presume the guild was coded with those prompts to reinforce precisely that, yet for some reason they sit in this weird position of comfort and acceptance from society... because their members ignore their own godly mandates.

Stop ignoring Evren and Taniel and do what your gods are telling you to do?

I agree with you on the one hand. But when I play to be a total dick all the time it's really tiresome for me, and from what I have heard tiresome for the victims. I don't mind hunting people down and going to war. I've done it a lot in the past.

Does it really? From what I can see, it currently "effs up the whole game dynamic" that you are doing precisely that... of course the Crusaders are meant to be fanatics and piss people off, but there are ways to do it that result in nice roleplay for everyone (yes, ostracise them, tell everyone that they can't be trusted, refuse to deal with them when they've joined your allies, etc.), and then there are ways that can effectively ruin the fun for another player. We should keep in mind that Geas is a game and supposed to be fun for everyone, and "kill-on-sight-forever" can effectively make a character unplayable because of a single choice they made. Eventually, they should be able to move on and join another guild, even if that doesn't mean that it's forgiven and forgotten. It doesn't have to be a month after they left, and it shouldn't be, but people do play this game for many real life years.

Well my point was if we aren't hounding people all the time, other players sort of just accept the "bad people". People are so easily accepting of others in this game. Why would you ever trust a Crusader? Why would you ever trust a Sathonite? Why would you ever trust an Asralite? As a -normal- person I mean. But people DO trust them. And if I don't alienate them it basically means I need to either break RP and just accept them as well or I just don't talk to many people which is boring for me.

We all know anyways which godess uses whispers to influence their followers. And it is not Evren or Taniel

The trouble I had with crusaders handling ex-members is that they act very different, depending who left, where they joined, and also which crusader you mean. It ranges from both extrems, still friend, to the other, kill on sight for all time. And it changes a lot over time as well.
Of cause depending under what circumstances one left, I would support Ghalts way of handling it, with a time where you mercilessly hunt the enemy, and then if he did not deserved by other actions to remain being actively hunted, put him on a ban list.
I would not hardcode the change, for there are always reasons to do things differently from it, like a REAL traitor and not just one who left, or one continues to work against Lilit....uhm...Evren and Taniel.

Hehehe maybe Lilith is who we worship!!!

I am not sure who you mean exactly, but traitors are always treated with extreme contempt. Every traitor that has left the guild I've actively slandered publicly, gone to hunt, and attack on sight.

The only reason I wouldn't do that is if they wanted to repent and rejoin, and then I stop hunting or ignore them.

And thats fair I guess Ill make their life hard for a while then just stop after a few months. But a -lot- of things can happen in a few months. Even a few days. The Asralite-Crusader war over Mona was very quick and extremely damaging. Mona rejoined the Crusaders at the end, and hasn't played since.

I think if the playerbase were larger it would not be such a problem but now, when three crusaders online at the same time are the ultimate fighting force, they can pretty much do what they want. Meaning, people have to recognize them as a power even if they do not actively wield it. There are few places to hide or seek protection from if they choose to pursue their agenda. If the three crusaders were only three crusaders in a world full of other people it would not be such a big deal, I think.

Also...people might tend to flock to crusaders because they are the only armour using front liner fighter guild and they can be rather easy going at the marketplace gatherings and have close contacts to other guilds.

EDIT
Meaning, if there was some another fighter type guild of sorts the crusader drop-out rata could be considerably lower. If there really was room for one that is.

Thats true, Three Crusaders can be very powerful, but three of any guild can be very powerful! Also the Rangers can be front line fighters. Chainmail and a long spear? Sounds Front line to me!

I wonder why is that a problem? I mean... Crusaders are by far the most sadistic, alienating and well, evil of the factions in the game. They were *made* to be that way. As far as I know they are supposed to be total dicks. It's a career choice and I presume the guild was coded with those prompts to reinforce precisely that, yet for some reason they sit in this weird position of comfort and acceptance from society... because their members ignore their own godly mandates.

Crusaders should sit well with the -elven- soceity. They are following the mandates of Taniel, the creator of the elves. They are doing _good_, in the eyes of Taniel and Evren, at least that's how I understand it. That this 'good" is very far from what the average geas po perceives as good, is a different story entirely.

Apart of that, I believe that there's very much in the way _how_ you go about hunting those people. There's no question if you should or not, it would be in my opinion very out of character for a crusader to let traitors slip by. But how you go about this, is entirely in your hand, meaning I believe you can make this in a way that it's fun for everybody. Sometimes you might just try to convince the person that they need to come back and that they have a chance to be absolved of their sins if they do. Sometimes you'll pack them on the stake and try to absolve them partially that way... sometimes your character might just shake their head and tell the others to run... I see a lot of opportunities to make this fun for both sides, but it's likely effort and depends on the personality of the chars involved.

This sort of hits the nail on the head. I like this paragraph. There was a recent scenario that was handled in this way and I feel like it was how things should work moving forward.

[Allurana]

Permanent enemies definitely is the issue. Other guilds have permanent enemies but no one really seems to actively hunt them. But then I don't think other guilds get coded prompts to hunt them NOW!

From what I understand, they are supposed to. The reason certain guilds got designed so deserters are automatically permanent enemies that cannot be removed, amongst other changes, was to attempt to push players into punishing their guild-traitors instead of just going "oh well".

The reason for this was to punish players for treating guilds like a new pair of shoes and hopping from one guild to the next, something that was a rather large issue back then that many players complained about (I believe this was also partial reasoning behind "perma-members", which is something I personally dislike due to the immunity it gives to "bad members").

However, yes, it did introduce at least two new problems:

1. Some guilds are not in a position to hunt certain traitors if they join a more powerful guild (eg; guilds like Rangers or Shaos trying to punish traitors that join Asrals or Crusaders or something). Forcing said avenging guild to commit something akin to suicide (both physically and politically) is not really a practical approach.

2. It can potentially drive characters into retirement. Given a choice of staying in a disliked guild forever or being hunted by said guild endlessly until retirement, a player might opt to quit the character or even game instead. In the long run, that's not beneficial to the game or its community.

Those two things being said, I do feel ignoring or perma-enemies are two extremes of the same situation and that a middle ground would be more desirable, but this would also require responsibility from the playerbase as a whole (namely the guild-traitors, the guild itself, and bystanding guilds) to enforce a satisfactory (judged by wizards) punishment to guild deserters.

This would probably include things such as deserters playing out the consequences of their decision, the guilds themselves actually enforcing consequences for treachery, and other guilds not being willing to grant a "get out of jail free" card by protecting or defending traitors from the consequences of their decisions.

One of the things I remember seeing around the last time I played was an agreement between Taniels, Crusaders, Rangers, and possibly Druids, to not accept one another's guild traitors, and to allow transfer of membership between guilds only after satisfactory punishment/penance for betraying their original guild vows. I don't know if this was approved by wizards or not, but I do feel it was a step in the right direction of having a middle ground dealing with this sort of issue.

I feel even the independent guilds could adapt a similar concept, even for rivaling guilds they aren't friendly with (rough examples based on how I see certain guild personalities: Shaos = responsibility of actions, Asrals = show you have a code of honor, Rogues = don't draw unwanted attention, Mages = prove reliability, Sathos = prove competence/ability to take care of oneself, Order = don't drag your personal issues into professional business).

So, in short, unless players themselves can enforce the consequences for guild desertion, issues like perma-enemies and "kill-on-sight" will persist, as wizards will want this sort of thing to have penalty/consequence one way or the other.

(PS: One thing I would support if it is not done already is for guilds to have two "naughty lists": one for active hunting/PvP, and another for blacklisting/alienation. This way, guilds can keep a list of people to be jerks towards without having to either put them undesirably on a kill list, or leave them off the list and just hope no one forgets past events).

[Delia]

Delia tries to negotiate membership transfers between the "not really guilds"-guilds, meaning skalds or alchemists jumping ship to scribes. She never simply allows them to join without some interaction and a go-ahead from the former guild. Its pretty much as someone tried to join an occupational guild, she keeps the same standards and I personally feel its for the better, even if it sometimes means the scribes do not get a new member which they sorely lack, but I do not think this is asking too much.

[luminier]

Some good info here, Thanks guys!