Français

In French, the term "nation" refers to a "nation-state".
And since the authors of the lore are Frenchspeaker, I'll play it safe and bet on a hasty translation of the original version into English.

Let's expand on that and let me copy-paste the French version (tant qu'à faire) : Les Maraudeurs des Nouvelles Terres rejettent également les Homins des Nouvelles Terres. Beaucoup parmi eux ont dans leur passé servi leur nation, mais, déçus par celle-ci, ont choisi de s'en détacher.

In French, it is said that the marauders were let down by their "nation" (- déçus par celle-ci-, literally means "disappointed by it" (it being the "nation")). The funny fact is that there is no mention of constraints or of governments in French. Maybe the English translator felt it was needed to give some more explanations ? It would be interesting to have an official stance on this, especially since core explanations are so different o_O.

Anyway, this does in no way invalidates your way of seeing thing, which is actually interesting and answers to the core value of the Marauders : You are saying that you wish to destroy all the governments, which are sources of poison and corruption. So it means that you actually are the ennemy of every citizen that accept such government.

Then it means that you are actually breaking away from every governement/civilisation/nation, right ?

So you are actually defending not your way, but the way of some other people who decided that Marauders should be able to live in the civilized areas, under the rule of governments ?
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Please Binarabi, stop using he word genocide in this context. It is disrespectful. What is happening here in a "virtual" game (and I stress on "virtual") does not compare with a genocide at all. Nobody is actually dying. The term genocide should be used when there is an actual genocide, so it does not lose its strength and its importance.

Same goes for racism. There are human beings suffering from that IRL. I don't think you are actually helping anybody by applying it to a discussion about the gameplay of a video game during a discussion on an Internet forum. If you feel like you actually need to fight against racism, I invite you to go to your local Anti-racism association and learn more about what they do and actually help them in any way you can.

Some words are not to be toyed with.

To those who are calling for "official" intervention, some comments:

If your point of view (that Marauders should not be a part of any aligned guild) is so correct, then Marauders will NOT be a part of any aligned guild; the Guild Leaders who absolutely control membership will not let them join or will kick them out if some officer accidentally invites them. In fact I am in agreement with that point of view. I would never invite a PvP'er to join the pacifistic Phaedrea's Tears. If you are a Kamist Matis guildleader, however, who sees in the Marauder a kindred revolutionary that you think you can "use" to gain power over your enemies in the Nobility, feel free to invite her and take the political consequences.

If your point of view is that Guild Leaders should be *forced* (via game mechanics) not to allow Marauders into the guild, then I stand against that. Let Guild Leaders choose their form and level of roleplay and choose who shall be a member and who shall not. Let the sandbox be free to evolve. (I am actually in opposition to the Nation restrictions as well -- not sure about the religious ones: I don't want either party (Jena or Ma-duk themselves) directly intervening in Atys.

Wait, so it's a case of 'them and us'?
This discussion is over then... we will continue to play however we like as you will, in turn, play however you like.

I think also this has to be clarified.

A patriot may be close friend with zorai, he cannot enter a zorai guild, while a marauder can.

Nothing can prevent you subtle way of interpreting the marauder's lore. But it has to be in the same gameplay limits than others.

OR ... free all the limitations. In a way it could be more realistic, but it's a high risk to flatten the game.

Maybe the guild fame could be more usefull in game's mechanics. And mixed guild would have strong penalty on it's fame, preventing them to do this without a deep willing.
For exemple the guild fame could influence the price to declare op war. This is just a exemple, and not enough to my point of view.

Not really them & us, more.. the way to play

That's it ! Just play as you want and let people say what they want ( well in a respectfull way of course !)
Only two things could change that, open another server (no need to say why or for who ) or close the game ( i don't like the 2sd one !)
:)

works for me :) 


erm... yeah... i'd like to avoid the second one if possible.

Just a little word on here to say how I consider things here.

Kamis can't join Kara guilds. Marauders can join any guild. Neutrals can join any guild.

A neutral's "ideal" fames is +50 everywhere: basically, supportive of everybody. Ideal between quotation marks because different roleplays may induce very different fames.

A marauder's ideal fames is -100 everywhere, but at least under -42 because of the marauder rite. Making them ennemies of every state. From a logical point of view, if Karas and Kamis can't mix, then Marauders shouldn't be able to mix either. Heck, Kamis and Karas can't even enter neutral guilds.

It is not racism, fascism or whateverism driving those who request marauders not to be able to guild in non marauder guilds, and maybe they're adressing the topic in a way making the marauders feel like they're singled out and mistreated. The fact is, though, that it's closer to asking equality in the way Marauders, Kamis and Karas said are treated.