Français

Thanks Virg, I like you too : )

Sorry Bittty, it wasn't my intention to imply all neutral guilds are devoid of Role Play. I know you role play and I applaud you for it, and hope it's delightfully fun for anyone who does.

I don't expect to be involved in every event that comes along, I respect the nature of what they are doing and frankly most of them, I'm not even interested in. When I first came to Zora, I sat in on one of the government meetings just to see what it was all about, and anyone who can sit for that long "listening" to it without feeling the urge to intentionally fall on their weapon and end it all, has my respect.

I recently asked for clarification of the use of "Neutral of Civilization" in Zendae's thread about the upcoming melee tournament because that would be an event I think would be fun. I thought in my coment I was very clear that I thought it was a great idea and would like to come watch even if I couldn't participate. I was immediately called a troll by one and basically told to sit down and shut up by 2 people who have never had one single interaction with me in game. Is asking "Can I play too?" really that harmful to some players' imagined journey here in Atys, that basic politeness is thrown out a window?

/bow

Et tu, Ingfarah?

Maybe if you read a bit further...

"but i won't start the mara's troll" does not mean"your are a troll".

It strongly implies it and definitely exposes your bias to players who don't use the same tp's as you.

I read it all.

It was still said. And moderating it right after won't change the fact that it's been said. And that it is thought by you that there is less roleplay among the neutrals. Unless you take back "not all" and replace it by "all" by "more" in your answer to Bitty?

I did explode in laughter because that particular comment did deserve my laughter. Even after being ammended. There is not less roleplay among the neutrals. Some would argue that there is more, and that it's deeper and richer. So you got no choice but to accept my laughter, because my belief is that your comment DID deserve it.

well, ty for taking time out of your day to laugh at my mistep and completely miss the point I was trying to make.

Exploits? Bugs?

When I open my fame window, it says:
"Civilisation allegiance: Neutral"
"Cult allegiance: neutral"

I'm sorry, but as it stands, marauder, in the eyes of whoever is in charge of runs this game means neutral of faction and neutral of civilization. If civ and cult neutrals are free to join any guild that INVITES them, then why is there a problem? Marauder, on my Fame window shows under "organization" not faction, as I assume, so does "Ranger" or "Trytonist"? If we are all "cult Neutral" then why is it a bug to belong to a cult aligned guild which can allow neutrals?

That is the bug, Aru.

You read it all there;

Marauders are not neutrals. THAT is the bug. And that is not open to debates. They are not neutrals.

And yes, I do believe Rangers should eventually be able to join only ranger guilds, if you wonder that. But just like the marauders, the faction isn't complete (it's even way farther from completion). As it develop, it may end up differently.

But marauders are anti-everything. And anti-everything means that marauders in a faction guild are sharing a guild with ennemies of their faction. Simple enough logic.

So yes, the game lets it happen. But it's not us who will decide when it's fixed. But when it happens, it will still be bug fixing and not a result of any argument going on in here about how legit it is.

So I do agree it's not a priority, but it's still a bug and not open to argument -unless you really want to argue on just nothing worth arguing.

Ingfarah, why do you say that Rangers (once there are Rangers) should only be allowed to join Ranger guilds? Any neutral guild should be agreeable to both having a Ranger in it and agreeable to the Ranger. I'm not at all sure that there is going to be the possibility of aligning an entire guild to Ranger.

Why is that a bug? because it offends your interpretation of Role play? Only positive fame equals neutral? When I took the Marauder rite, the NPC made it clear that I was bound by no laws except that of my own guild, not any government, not any religion.....neutral.

Ingfarah.... Just on my way out but with the logic that you are arguing and your definition of neutral- nobody with above +25 fames or below -25 fames are neutrals. I am sure Bittty would disagree this with you.

I believe that in context of the shift+f tab the definition of 'neutral' means not aligned. In this case Marauders are neutral as they are an organization.

Virg: I'm talking about logic, not sophistry.A neutral''s fames are bound to be 50 or under with no floor. Once you've taken Kami/Kara/Nation rite, one of your fames can go to 100 and another one can't go over 0. I believe you and I both know that a marauder's fame can't go over 0 and that marauders passed a rite.

Aru: it is a bug because it is a bug. Not because it offends my sense of roleplay. Ask a dev. If I'm wrong, let the dev answer here. At the second one of them says I'm wrong with that, then this post has no meaning anymore and it becomes a matter of roleplay (and believe it or not, I'm pretty sure this post wasn't supposed to be about choices in roleplay).

Bitty: If Rangers are to become a faction (like Kami, Karas and Marauders), then the same rules should apply to them as to the other factions. The Ranger faction, though, is not yet in existence, so my opinion here is just an opinion. For the marauder faction, it's a fact on which I MAY be wrong. But you just have to ask the question.

It is semantics and a matter of opinion :) The thing to realize is that many have different opinions and different ways of looking at things.