ROLEPLAY


The Treaty of the Four Nations

Let's focus on the original referral "madman on the loose, a war lord, or a colonialist". It's hard to argue on examples because the context always is amiss. Let me try.

If the Zorai declare war on the Trykers my likely stance will be to remain neutral as I try to be in political and religious debates. However, if some mad Zorai would have killed Mabreka himself and succumbed all of Zorai, now invading Trykoth, I'd be volunteering to the Taliari as a helping hand. If, on the other hand, the Tryker had set fire to the marvellous trees in the Jungle, threatening to do the same to the cities, I'd fight them with all my heart.

You are right, and I've not intended to imply the opposite, that every stateless has to speak for himself. All homins have to make up their own opinion, stateless or citizen. That is what I call true freedom. Report to your own conscience as the highest instance.

Do not mix up the stateless with the Rangers, please. I may be stateless. I may aspire to become a ranger. In fact I feel more like a ranger already, especially without an official "promotion" - especially because I have - like you have - survived in the wild during the second swarm. As we both know, we both admired the rainbow bridges together at the time in the Kami Oasis without making the big step. It was a hardship during those cycles to just stay alive. So I still cannot believe your words now, and still hope this is some kind of misunderstanding...

Again, my protest aims against your wording that "the stateless will not rise to help a nation which is attacked by a madman on the loose, a war lord, or a colonialist.". This is phrased in an absolute term. "Everybody who is not a citizen will not defend freedom from outside dangers" is what I interpret into this statement. And this is simply not true. We both know that. So what is the point of this provocation?
Show topic
Last visit Thursday, 28 March 10:36:42 UTC
P_:

powered by ryzom-api