Français

Virg, I read your post, and I read the lore.

Could you please read the paragraph I copy-pasted from the Lore page ?
Pretty please ?

Marauders of the New Lands refer to the 2nd group you were mentioning.

See, I copy-paste it again : Many of the Marauders of the New Lands have served a nation in their past, but, disappointed by their leader and the chafing of the constraints of living under the rule of civilized government, have chosen to break away.

you can find that here : http://atys.ryzom.com/projects/puben/wiki/L_Marauder_Civilization

This is the definition of the faction by the very creators of the faction.
How can this not be a core value ?
Please explain that to me ?
It's a defining value of the marauder faction.

Lore is changed. altered, adjusted - in a living game - we can add to what is there - there is precious little anyway - and any civilization would work to integrate and accommodate all people / homins - and definitely not "label" all the members of any group with same negative traits

I refer to in group/out group and the roots of fascism again ...

Just adjust this narrow label to accommodate difference and look for the similarities

And what better way of integrating some of these marauders than to take them into a guild and give them lots of love and care

This is nothing - we are talking about genocide of a multinational organization here in this land

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.