From: zen80s@aol.com (Zen 80s)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 12:34:50 EDT
I thought about this some more, and I came to this conclusion:
First, I tended to side with Evan because I thought of it in terms of rights.
Evan has the right to pick his alignment, and as a neutral he has a right to intercede if he deems necessary. At the same time, Dal has the right to realign him for it. I didn't agree with that because I thought it walked over Evan's right to intercede as a neutral.
But then I thought about it some more, and realized that Evan at the same time can respond by using his other right to challenge Dal, so the rights all evened out.
Then I thought of it in terms of how the neutrality was viewed, as whether one should stay out of the intercessions, or should intercede how he sees fit. Personally I thought he should be allowed to intercede because it would've been futile to be given the right if he were not allowed to exercise it freely, but that went back into the rights discussion, and that got real complicated, and it gave me a headache, so I went to bed.
But then I thought of this scenario: Overlord A and Neutral Baron B. Warlord C challenges Overlord A, and he is Baron B's best friend. The Overlord decides to test him, and being C's friend, Baron B offers to intercede on his behalf. The warlord eventually loses the challenge, for the sake of argument, and then Warlord D challenges. Now Warlord D is the sworn enemy of B, so B asks Overlord A if he can select him for the test, and A obliges.
I think the Neutral alignment was created for some such scenario as that. I haven't seen it yet, and I don't know if anything similar has happened before, but I don't think you can rule it out.
Zen
Neutrality- Whats it mean?
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: shivblade@aol.com (SHIV BLADE)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 15:43:42 EDT
((I hope non take offense to what I am to say in the following. I only hope to feed the debate. Also I would hope that you look at the entire post, not just my response to you. For I think I brought up points to everyone that could be answered by many if they so wanted to))
Well some have replied in great length, and for that I thank you. Yet for some that have replied, I still don't think you get the jest of my point. So let me state it here right now. And then later I will respond to each and everyone of you. It is all well and good to state what you feel about neutrals, but How can you apply what you say to the rules? This is the key factor. In my argument I used the rules. In reality you all make good
points. Very valid points. Yet perhaps they don't apply to this situation because the rules see it a different way. As an example. Say we were talking about a sport....like baseball. Say the argument was over whether or not a pitcher should be able to Hit a batter and not get penalized. Person A says that if the batter is crowding the plate, the pitcher has every right to bust him up inside and hit him, without any consequences.. (a common belief
held by pitchers) Person B says, that if you hit the batter they should be allowed to go to first base. Well obviously the person is awarded the Base under the rules. The rules give him this "Right". His argument can use the Rules to back up his point. Person A can only argue by throwing out non related valid ideas. So I ask those of you to try and keep those ideas out of this, and base your ideas off of the rules. Make since? Another point. Say I
was to ask you to explain what exactly Gum was. Person A was to say that gum is a chewy sticky substance that one can put in there mouth and chew on. A very Valid Explanation. Now Person B says gum is, Sugar, Gum Base, High Fructose Corn Syrup.....etc...that when combined together makes a substance that can be chewed. This is also a valid argument. Both have given a definition of gum. Which is better. Well I would venture to say the latter one. It
not only states what gum is but what is in it, by using the "Rules" of life. So I guess what I am saying is look at the rules and back up your argument. Please don’t just state a proverb or two and expect that to help. For yes you are right.... and the proverb makes since, and does apply. But two important facts are, What about the rules!!, and Proverbs are a dime a dozen....::smiles::
Now on a different note let me respond to you all,
Whitey,
Well done! Now I don’t just say this because you agree with me, but because you did use the rules in your analyzation. You brought up a good counter argument, but then by searching deeper into the argument was able to see why indeed it failed. For a Neutral baron doesn't chose any one side. His conscious decision is one that will, and can be changed later. It does not directly go against the OL. He is afforded the "Right" to sway and stay on one
side. But that does not mean that he must chose that side. Which if I understand correctly...is what you said.
Drake,
I too have heard a similar quote as you have said. A bit different though. I have even been known to speak it on some days. Yet I don’t think it applies to this situation. For example. if Dal were to test someone and I step in..... I would be against him. And perhaps this might happen two or three time. Now it appears that I am against him. Yet then if another challenge came I would stop.....and look at the situation. Obviously the power is getting
out of hand. To many people are challenging. So then I might offer my sword to Dal. I do not directly oppose him, nor do I directly support him. I would ask you now to back up your thoughts in accordance to the rules. After all why have the rules if they can't be used. Another thought. While I like the quote I will say this, as it was told to me long ago. It is easy to use a quote to back up your point...because everyone has a quote for
everything. Example: Look before you leap..... but throw caution to the wind. The pen is mightier than the sword..... Actions speak louder than words. So you see, it is easy to use a proverb to back up your stance.... but everyone has one, and they often conflict over the same idea. Now if you can use the rules to back up your Proverb...well then, more power to you.
Jake,
First off, the debate is not really about whether or not Dal should use the test. I mean even I said I think that he should have. Second off, you are right in one point. If you side against the OL you do take your chances. That appears to be the way things will be for a while. Last, how can you say that neutrals should stay out of it. The Rules allow them to be in it, which if you looked was my entire point to begin with. It is their place
to step in and decide on matters. That is why they are given the "Rights" to do so. And further more they should be able to do so without repercussion in the matter. Now you did exactly what I didn't want anyone to do. You simply stated that neutrals should stay out of the picture. Well then, WHY? Where in the rules does it state this? Other than that....thanks for the contribution.
Var,
Well said. I think you are the first to realize that what you believe,(and most people hold your beliefs) Go against the rules. Which if read correctly is the basis of my argument. That we should respect the rules foremost, and then put in our opinion. You idea of what Neutrality is, is as valid as any others. The difference with you is that you realize the rules portray it differently. And thus, I conclude, you think it okay for a baron to intercede
as per the rules. (my interpretation of your words) My question to you is thus. It is something that Zen brings up later. You also state that the OL has the "Right to change the Alignment". Now this is true, but then why even have the rules for Neutrals? If every time they lift a finger they must chose loyalty or renegade then what is the point of having a neutral baron? You yourself said that you views conflict with the rules....so if one
were to follow the rules, what would you say to this. because of course if we were to follow your view, then none of this would happen, as a Neutral person would do nothing. My last questions is whether you think we should adhere to the Rules, or your views in this matter? In other words.... which is more important?
Zen,
Well I believe you are on the same train of thought as I. We agree to the same points. All I would say to you is in remark to one comment. It is the point where you talk about how the "Rights" equal out. Well I think that just because a neutral has the chance to Challenge does not make it equal. After all it is the prior step that is the key factor. So key in fact that the challenge factor doesn't really matter. Should the OL exercise their right to
Change the alignment? As you point out it infringes upon the Neutrals "Rights". Regardless if The neutral could challenge or not..... this is wrong. If he was banished to renegade then he would get the challenge anyway. Still I think you make very strong points that help out the argument, and thank you for it.
Jeff,
Is that not the neutral barons "Rights". To be able to be for or against the OL on any matter. Now whether this in itself is right or wrong is another discussion. The Rules says that it can happen. So how do you justify it? Should we just not pay attention to the rules? Shouldn't the Neutral Barons under their "Rights" be able to do what they can and not be punished because they were afforded the right to. As Zen points out.... anytime a Neutral
Baron blinks he would have to change his alignment.
Lyon,
I will say the same as I said to Drake. Proverbs are all nice and everything, but don't help the situation at all. After all, You should keep your friends close, but your Enemies closer. Does it help to piss off all your enemies and not give them a little bit of what they want, so as to hopefully avoid getting slaughtered by challenges? I would think that you would want to keep you enemies close(i.e. let them stay neutral) so that you do not
get overrun by them. Yes they are your enemies, but to outright make them thus only makes matters worse for you. So you see, I too can use a proverb. Now tell me again why you would do the same as Dal....and perhaps put some points behind it this time.
Avery Shiv Blade
Baron of the 6th
Young Grasshopper
Date: 05 Aug 1998 15:43:42 EDT
((I hope non take offense to what I am to say in the following. I only hope to feed the debate. Also I would hope that you look at the entire post, not just my response to you. For I think I brought up points to everyone that could be answered by many if they so wanted to))
Well some have replied in great length, and for that I thank you. Yet for some that have replied, I still don't think you get the jest of my point. So let me state it here right now. And then later I will respond to each and everyone of you. It is all well and good to state what you feel about neutrals, but How can you apply what you say to the rules? This is the key factor. In my argument I used the rules. In reality you all make good
points. Very valid points. Yet perhaps they don't apply to this situation because the rules see it a different way. As an example. Say we were talking about a sport....like baseball. Say the argument was over whether or not a pitcher should be able to Hit a batter and not get penalized. Person A says that if the batter is crowding the plate, the pitcher has every right to bust him up inside and hit him, without any consequences.. (a common belief
held by pitchers) Person B says, that if you hit the batter they should be allowed to go to first base. Well obviously the person is awarded the Base under the rules. The rules give him this "Right". His argument can use the Rules to back up his point. Person A can only argue by throwing out non related valid ideas. So I ask those of you to try and keep those ideas out of this, and base your ideas off of the rules. Make since? Another point. Say I
was to ask you to explain what exactly Gum was. Person A was to say that gum is a chewy sticky substance that one can put in there mouth and chew on. A very Valid Explanation. Now Person B says gum is, Sugar, Gum Base, High Fructose Corn Syrup.....etc...that when combined together makes a substance that can be chewed. This is also a valid argument. Both have given a definition of gum. Which is better. Well I would venture to say the latter one. It
not only states what gum is but what is in it, by using the "Rules" of life. So I guess what I am saying is look at the rules and back up your argument. Please don’t just state a proverb or two and expect that to help. For yes you are right.... and the proverb makes since, and does apply. But two important facts are, What about the rules!!, and Proverbs are a dime a dozen....::smiles::
Now on a different note let me respond to you all,
Whitey,
Well done! Now I don’t just say this because you agree with me, but because you did use the rules in your analyzation. You brought up a good counter argument, but then by searching deeper into the argument was able to see why indeed it failed. For a Neutral baron doesn't chose any one side. His conscious decision is one that will, and can be changed later. It does not directly go against the OL. He is afforded the "Right" to sway and stay on one
side. But that does not mean that he must chose that side. Which if I understand correctly...is what you said.
Drake,
I too have heard a similar quote as you have said. A bit different though. I have even been known to speak it on some days. Yet I don’t think it applies to this situation. For example. if Dal were to test someone and I step in..... I would be against him. And perhaps this might happen two or three time. Now it appears that I am against him. Yet then if another challenge came I would stop.....and look at the situation. Obviously the power is getting
out of hand. To many people are challenging. So then I might offer my sword to Dal. I do not directly oppose him, nor do I directly support him. I would ask you now to back up your thoughts in accordance to the rules. After all why have the rules if they can't be used. Another thought. While I like the quote I will say this, as it was told to me long ago. It is easy to use a quote to back up your point...because everyone has a quote for
everything. Example: Look before you leap..... but throw caution to the wind. The pen is mightier than the sword..... Actions speak louder than words. So you see, it is easy to use a proverb to back up your stance.... but everyone has one, and they often conflict over the same idea. Now if you can use the rules to back up your Proverb...well then, more power to you.
Jake,
First off, the debate is not really about whether or not Dal should use the test. I mean even I said I think that he should have. Second off, you are right in one point. If you side against the OL you do take your chances. That appears to be the way things will be for a while. Last, how can you say that neutrals should stay out of it. The Rules allow them to be in it, which if you looked was my entire point to begin with. It is their place
to step in and decide on matters. That is why they are given the "Rights" to do so. And further more they should be able to do so without repercussion in the matter. Now you did exactly what I didn't want anyone to do. You simply stated that neutrals should stay out of the picture. Well then, WHY? Where in the rules does it state this? Other than that....thanks for the contribution.
Var,
Well said. I think you are the first to realize that what you believe,(and most people hold your beliefs) Go against the rules. Which if read correctly is the basis of my argument. That we should respect the rules foremost, and then put in our opinion. You idea of what Neutrality is, is as valid as any others. The difference with you is that you realize the rules portray it differently. And thus, I conclude, you think it okay for a baron to intercede
as per the rules. (my interpretation of your words) My question to you is thus. It is something that Zen brings up later. You also state that the OL has the "Right to change the Alignment". Now this is true, but then why even have the rules for Neutrals? If every time they lift a finger they must chose loyalty or renegade then what is the point of having a neutral baron? You yourself said that you views conflict with the rules....so if one
were to follow the rules, what would you say to this. because of course if we were to follow your view, then none of this would happen, as a Neutral person would do nothing. My last questions is whether you think we should adhere to the Rules, or your views in this matter? In other words.... which is more important?
Zen,
Well I believe you are on the same train of thought as I. We agree to the same points. All I would say to you is in remark to one comment. It is the point where you talk about how the "Rights" equal out. Well I think that just because a neutral has the chance to Challenge does not make it equal. After all it is the prior step that is the key factor. So key in fact that the challenge factor doesn't really matter. Should the OL exercise their right to
Change the alignment? As you point out it infringes upon the Neutrals "Rights". Regardless if The neutral could challenge or not..... this is wrong. If he was banished to renegade then he would get the challenge anyway. Still I think you make very strong points that help out the argument, and thank you for it.
Jeff,
Is that not the neutral barons "Rights". To be able to be for or against the OL on any matter. Now whether this in itself is right or wrong is another discussion. The Rules says that it can happen. So how do you justify it? Should we just not pay attention to the rules? Shouldn't the Neutral Barons under their "Rights" be able to do what they can and not be punished because they were afforded the right to. As Zen points out.... anytime a Neutral
Baron blinks he would have to change his alignment.
Lyon,
I will say the same as I said to Drake. Proverbs are all nice and everything, but don't help the situation at all. After all, You should keep your friends close, but your Enemies closer. Does it help to piss off all your enemies and not give them a little bit of what they want, so as to hopefully avoid getting slaughtered by challenges? I would think that you would want to keep you enemies close(i.e. let them stay neutral) so that you do not
get overrun by them. Yes they are your enemies, but to outright make them thus only makes matters worse for you. So you see, I too can use a proverb. Now tell me again why you would do the same as Dal....and perhaps put some points behind it this time.
Avery Shiv Blade
Baron of the 6th
Young Grasshopper
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: shivblade@aol.com (SHIV BLADE)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 15:43:42 EDT
((I hope non take offense to what I am to say in the following. I only hope to feed the debate. Also I would hope that you look at the entire post, not just my response to you. For I think I brought up points to everyone that could be answered by many if they so wanted to))
Well some have replied in great length, and for that I thank you. Yet for some that have replied, I still don't think you get the jest of my point. So let me state it here right now. And then later I will respond to each and everyone of you. It is all well and good to state what you feel about neutrals, but How can you apply what you say to the rules? This is the key factor. In my argument I used the rules. In reality you all make good
points. Very valid points. Yet perhaps they don't apply to this situation because the rules see it a different way. As an example. Say we were talking about a sport....like baseball. Say the argument was over whether or not a pitcher should be able to Hit a batter and not get penalized. Person A says that if the batter is crowding the plate, the pitcher has every right to bust him up inside and hit him, without any consequences.. (a common belief
held by pitchers) Person B says, that if you hit the batter they should be allowed to go to first base. Well obviously the person is awarded the Base under the rules. The rules give him this "Right". His argument can use the Rules to back up his point. Person A can only argue by throwing out non related valid ideas. So I ask those of you to try and keep those ideas out of this, and base your ideas off of the rules. Make since? Another point. Say I
was to ask you to explain what exactly Gum was. Person A was to say that gum is a chewy sticky substance that one can put in there mouth and chew on. A very Valid Explanation. Now Person B says gum is, Sugar, Gum Base, High Fructose Corn Syrup.....etc...that when combined together makes a substance that can be chewed. This is also a valid argument. Both have given a definition of gum. Which is better. Well I would venture to say the latter one. It
not only states what gum is but what is in it, by using the "Rules" of life. So I guess what I am saying is look at the rules and back up your argument. Please don’t just state a proverb or two and expect that to help. For yes you are right.... and the proverb makes since, and does apply. But two important facts are, What about the rules!!, and Proverbs are a dime a dozen....::smiles::
Now on a different note let me respond to you all,
Whitey,
Well done! Now I don’t just say this because you agree with me, but because you did use the rules in your analyzation. You brought up a good counter argument, but then by searching deeper into the argument was able to see why indeed it failed. For a Neutral baron doesn't chose any one side. His conscious decision is one that will, and can be changed later. It does not directly go against the OL. He is afforded the "Right" to sway and stay on one
side. But that does not mean that he must chose that side. Which if I understand correctly...is what you said.
Drake,
I too have heard a similar quote as you have said. A bit different though. I have even been known to speak it on some days. Yet I don’t think it applies to this situation. For example. if Dal were to test someone and I step in..... I would be against him. And perhaps this might happen two or three time. Now it appears that I am against him. Yet then if another challenge came I would stop.....and look at the situation. Obviously the power is getting
out of hand. To many people are challenging. So then I might offer my sword to Dal. I do not directly oppose him, nor do I directly support him. I would ask you now to back up your thoughts in accordance to the rules. After all why have the rules if they can't be used. Another thought. While I like the quote I will say this, as it was told to me long ago. It is easy to use a quote to back up your point...because everyone has a quote for
everything. Example: Look before you leap..... but throw caution to the wind. The pen is mightier than the sword..... Actions speak louder than words. So you see, it is easy to use a proverb to back up your stance.... but everyone has one, and they often conflict over the same idea. Now if you can use the rules to back up your Proverb...well then, more power to you.
Jake,
First off, the debate is not really about whether or not Dal should use the test. I mean even I said I think that he should have. Second off, you are right in one point. If you side against the OL you do take your chances. That appears to be the way things will be for a while. Last, how can you say that neutrals should stay out of it. The Rules allow them to be in it, which if you looked was my entire point to begin with. It is their place
to step in and decide on matters. That is why they are given the "Rights" to do so. And further more they should be able to do so without repercussion in the matter. Now you did exactly what I didn't want anyone to do. You simply stated that neutrals should stay out of the picture. Well then, WHY? Where in the rules does it state this? Other than that....thanks for the contribution.
Var,
Well said. I think you are the first to realize that what you believe,(and most people hold your beliefs) Go against the rules. Which if read correctly is the basis of my argument. That we should respect the rules foremost, and then put in our opinion. You idea of what Neutrality is, is as valid as any others. The difference with you is that you realize the rules portray it differently. And thus, I conclude, you think it okay for a baron to intercede
as per the rules. (my interpretation of your words) My question to you is thus. It is something that Zen brings up later. You also state that the OL has the "Right to change the Alignment". Now this is true, but then why even have the rules for Neutrals? If every time they lift a finger they must chose loyalty or renegade then what is the point of having a neutral baron? You yourself said that you views conflict with the rules....so if one
were to follow the rules, what would you say to this. because of course if we were to follow your view, then none of this would happen, as a Neutral person would do nothing. My last questions is whether you think we should adhere to the Rules, or your views in this matter? In other words.... which is more important?
Zen,
Well I believe you are on the same train of thought as I. We agree to the same points. All I would say to you is in remark to one comment. It is the point where you talk about how the "Rights" equal out. Well I think that just because a neutral has the chance to Challenge does not make it equal. After all it is the prior step that is the key factor. So key in fact that the challenge factor doesn't really matter. Should the OL exercise their right to
Change the alignment? As you point out it infringes upon the Neutrals "Rights". Regardless if The neutral could challenge or not..... this is wrong. If he was banished to renegade then he would get the challenge anyway. Still I think you make very strong points that help out the argument, and thank you for it.
Jeff,
Is that not the neutral barons "Rights". To be able to be for or against the OL on any matter. Now whether this in itself is right or wrong is another discussion. The Rules says that it can happen. So how do you justify it? Should we just not pay attention to the rules? Shouldn't the Neutral Barons under their "Rights" be able to do what they can and not be punished because they were afforded the right to. As Zen points out.... anytime a Neutral
Baron blinks he would have to change his alignment.
Lyon,
I will say the same as I said to Drake. Proverbs are all nice and everything, but don't help the situation at all. After all, You should keep your friends close, but your Enemies closer. Does it help to piss off all your enemies and not give them a little bit of what they want, so as to hopefully avoid getting slaughtered by challenges? I would think that you would want to keep you enemies close(i.e. let them stay neutral) so that you do not
get overrun by them. Yes they are your enemies, but to outright make them thus only makes matters worse for you. So you see, I too can use a proverb. Now tell me again why you would do the same as Dal....and perhaps put some points behind it this time.
Avery Shiv Blade
Baron of the 6th
Young Grasshopper
Date: 05 Aug 1998 15:43:42 EDT
((I hope non take offense to what I am to say in the following. I only hope to feed the debate. Also I would hope that you look at the entire post, not just my response to you. For I think I brought up points to everyone that could be answered by many if they so wanted to))
Well some have replied in great length, and for that I thank you. Yet for some that have replied, I still don't think you get the jest of my point. So let me state it here right now. And then later I will respond to each and everyone of you. It is all well and good to state what you feel about neutrals, but How can you apply what you say to the rules? This is the key factor. In my argument I used the rules. In reality you all make good
points. Very valid points. Yet perhaps they don't apply to this situation because the rules see it a different way. As an example. Say we were talking about a sport....like baseball. Say the argument was over whether or not a pitcher should be able to Hit a batter and not get penalized. Person A says that if the batter is crowding the plate, the pitcher has every right to bust him up inside and hit him, without any consequences.. (a common belief
held by pitchers) Person B says, that if you hit the batter they should be allowed to go to first base. Well obviously the person is awarded the Base under the rules. The rules give him this "Right". His argument can use the Rules to back up his point. Person A can only argue by throwing out non related valid ideas. So I ask those of you to try and keep those ideas out of this, and base your ideas off of the rules. Make since? Another point. Say I
was to ask you to explain what exactly Gum was. Person A was to say that gum is a chewy sticky substance that one can put in there mouth and chew on. A very Valid Explanation. Now Person B says gum is, Sugar, Gum Base, High Fructose Corn Syrup.....etc...that when combined together makes a substance that can be chewed. This is also a valid argument. Both have given a definition of gum. Which is better. Well I would venture to say the latter one. It
not only states what gum is but what is in it, by using the "Rules" of life. So I guess what I am saying is look at the rules and back up your argument. Please don’t just state a proverb or two and expect that to help. For yes you are right.... and the proverb makes since, and does apply. But two important facts are, What about the rules!!, and Proverbs are a dime a dozen....::smiles::
Now on a different note let me respond to you all,
Whitey,
Well done! Now I don’t just say this because you agree with me, but because you did use the rules in your analyzation. You brought up a good counter argument, but then by searching deeper into the argument was able to see why indeed it failed. For a Neutral baron doesn't chose any one side. His conscious decision is one that will, and can be changed later. It does not directly go against the OL. He is afforded the "Right" to sway and stay on one
side. But that does not mean that he must chose that side. Which if I understand correctly...is what you said.
Drake,
I too have heard a similar quote as you have said. A bit different though. I have even been known to speak it on some days. Yet I don’t think it applies to this situation. For example. if Dal were to test someone and I step in..... I would be against him. And perhaps this might happen two or three time. Now it appears that I am against him. Yet then if another challenge came I would stop.....and look at the situation. Obviously the power is getting
out of hand. To many people are challenging. So then I might offer my sword to Dal. I do not directly oppose him, nor do I directly support him. I would ask you now to back up your thoughts in accordance to the rules. After all why have the rules if they can't be used. Another thought. While I like the quote I will say this, as it was told to me long ago. It is easy to use a quote to back up your point...because everyone has a quote for
everything. Example: Look before you leap..... but throw caution to the wind. The pen is mightier than the sword..... Actions speak louder than words. So you see, it is easy to use a proverb to back up your stance.... but everyone has one, and they often conflict over the same idea. Now if you can use the rules to back up your Proverb...well then, more power to you.
Jake,
First off, the debate is not really about whether or not Dal should use the test. I mean even I said I think that he should have. Second off, you are right in one point. If you side against the OL you do take your chances. That appears to be the way things will be for a while. Last, how can you say that neutrals should stay out of it. The Rules allow them to be in it, which if you looked was my entire point to begin with. It is their place
to step in and decide on matters. That is why they are given the "Rights" to do so. And further more they should be able to do so without repercussion in the matter. Now you did exactly what I didn't want anyone to do. You simply stated that neutrals should stay out of the picture. Well then, WHY? Where in the rules does it state this? Other than that....thanks for the contribution.
Var,
Well said. I think you are the first to realize that what you believe,(and most people hold your beliefs) Go against the rules. Which if read correctly is the basis of my argument. That we should respect the rules foremost, and then put in our opinion. You idea of what Neutrality is, is as valid as any others. The difference with you is that you realize the rules portray it differently. And thus, I conclude, you think it okay for a baron to intercede
as per the rules. (my interpretation of your words) My question to you is thus. It is something that Zen brings up later. You also state that the OL has the "Right to change the Alignment". Now this is true, but then why even have the rules for Neutrals? If every time they lift a finger they must chose loyalty or renegade then what is the point of having a neutral baron? You yourself said that you views conflict with the rules....so if one
were to follow the rules, what would you say to this. because of course if we were to follow your view, then none of this would happen, as a Neutral person would do nothing. My last questions is whether you think we should adhere to the Rules, or your views in this matter? In other words.... which is more important?
Zen,
Well I believe you are on the same train of thought as I. We agree to the same points. All I would say to you is in remark to one comment. It is the point where you talk about how the "Rights" equal out. Well I think that just because a neutral has the chance to Challenge does not make it equal. After all it is the prior step that is the key factor. So key in fact that the challenge factor doesn't really matter. Should the OL exercise their right to
Change the alignment? As you point out it infringes upon the Neutrals "Rights". Regardless if The neutral could challenge or not..... this is wrong. If he was banished to renegade then he would get the challenge anyway. Still I think you make very strong points that help out the argument, and thank you for it.
Jeff,
Is that not the neutral barons "Rights". To be able to be for or against the OL on any matter. Now whether this in itself is right or wrong is another discussion. The Rules says that it can happen. So how do you justify it? Should we just not pay attention to the rules? Shouldn't the Neutral Barons under their "Rights" be able to do what they can and not be punished because they were afforded the right to. As Zen points out.... anytime a Neutral
Baron blinks he would have to change his alignment.
Lyon,
I will say the same as I said to Drake. Proverbs are all nice and everything, but don't help the situation at all. After all, You should keep your friends close, but your Enemies closer. Does it help to piss off all your enemies and not give them a little bit of what they want, so as to hopefully avoid getting slaughtered by challenges? I would think that you would want to keep you enemies close(i.e. let them stay neutral) so that you do not
get overrun by them. Yes they are your enemies, but to outright make them thus only makes matters worse for you. So you see, I too can use a proverb. Now tell me again why you would do the same as Dal....and perhaps put some points behind it this time.
Avery Shiv Blade
Baron of the 6th
Young Grasshopper
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 20:08:39 EDT
Allright.. let's talk rights..
I thought I had brought this up, but apparently I mislaid my pen.
Each Baronial Alignment has rights put in place and that is what is truly in question here.
Dalamar has the right to Intercede on behalf of his loyal barons and give tests of worthiness to those that challenge him. Many do not agree with his use of the ToW, however, it is HIS right and because he is OverLord that right is enforced because no one can "legally" challenge his right to do so. Say for instance the Baron's Council had the right to tell him he had overused the ToW and nullified his ability to do so.. and it set a precedent. Would
Dalamar continue to use the ToW? Perhaps.. but perhaps he would take more consideration as to who he uses the test on.
It is Evan's or any "neutral" baron's choice to take a side when they chose. It is their right as per the rules of DoS. I do not support the man he assisted, however, I feel that that forced change of alignment by Dalamar to Renegade has set a precedent.. Why bother being a neutral Baron if you can't excercise the "RIGHT" of your alignment without being chastised like an impudent child?
Speaking of rights.. isn't there something in the rules about the test of Worthiness concerning a defeated Baron's ring being challengeable by the one that defeated him/her? I forget exactly how that one works.
Colleen MacLeod-Lasher
Date: 05 Aug 1998 20:08:39 EDT
Allright.. let's talk rights..
I thought I had brought this up, but apparently I mislaid my pen.
Each Baronial Alignment has rights put in place and that is what is truly in question here.
Dalamar has the right to Intercede on behalf of his loyal barons and give tests of worthiness to those that challenge him. Many do not agree with his use of the ToW, however, it is HIS right and because he is OverLord that right is enforced because no one can "legally" challenge his right to do so. Say for instance the Baron's Council had the right to tell him he had overused the ToW and nullified his ability to do so.. and it set a precedent. Would
Dalamar continue to use the ToW? Perhaps.. but perhaps he would take more consideration as to who he uses the test on.
It is Evan's or any "neutral" baron's choice to take a side when they chose. It is their right as per the rules of DoS. I do not support the man he assisted, however, I feel that that forced change of alignment by Dalamar to Renegade has set a precedent.. Why bother being a neutral Baron if you can't excercise the "RIGHT" of your alignment without being chastised like an impudent child?
Speaking of rights.. isn't there something in the rules about the test of Worthiness concerning a defeated Baron's ring being challengeable by the one that defeated him/her? I forget exactly how that one works.
Colleen MacLeod-Lasher
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: krollon@aol.com (Krollon)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 20:16:47 EDT
Well, well, well... finally, someone sits down and thinks it out instead of posting in haste. Well stated Avery.... not that I entirely agree, mind you, but you make a compelling argument.
Simply,
Krollon
Date: 05 Aug 1998 20:16:47 EDT
Well, well, well... finally, someone sits down and thinks it out instead of posting in haste. Well stated Avery.... not that I entirely agree, mind you, but you make a compelling argument.
Simply,
Krollon
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: krollon@aol.com (Krollon)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 20:16:47 EDT
Well, well, well... finally, someone sits down and thinks it out instead of posting in haste. Well stated Avery.... not that I entirely agree, mind you, but you make a compelling argument.
Simply,
Krollon
Date: 05 Aug 1998 20:16:47 EDT
Well, well, well... finally, someone sits down and thinks it out instead of posting in haste. Well stated Avery.... not that I entirely agree, mind you, but you make a compelling argument.
Simply,
Krollon
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 22:11:40 EDT
Jeff wrote: " If yer involved in da intercession part of being baron yer either with da Overlord or against him, in such a case yer either Loyal or Renegade. "
Succintly put, Jeff! And a hearty "well said" to Lyon, as well!
In this sport and as the rules have been interpreted by many of us, a "neutral" Baron is not really neutral at all. They seemingly have the ability to "shift" their alignment as they see fit ((Fit to Flit :D )). That cannot be construed as "neutral" no matter what each of our personal definitions are. I might say that my definition of an apple is that it is a root vegetable, but I would be wrong. The correct definition of neutral means to be
disengaged from any side whatsoever. Neutral does not mean and will never mean, despite whatever personal beliefs or how the rules are interpreted, Balance, Balancing, Balancer, Shifting, Flitting, Fence Sitting, Indecisiveness, "Wishy-Washy," or any other synonym one might think of to justify their definition.
If a Baron decides they do not want to stand loyal to the Overlord or stand against for whatever reason, declare your alignment as neutral. But realize, that no matter what a neutral Baron is allowed to do or not to do, it does not override the Overlord's decision to "correct your alignment" (::smiles, having heard that is what the Overlord said::). It simply means you are indifferent to the political sphere of DoS and do not have to commit to one
side or another UNTIL you make a decision that puts you squarely in one camp or another. From my understanding, it means that a Baron can choose to stand neutral until a situation causes them to change their stance and step into the fray. This really only cuts out a few steps when a loyal or renegade Baron requests a change of alignment for whatever reason as they deem fit.
Morgan
Date: 05 Aug 1998 22:11:40 EDT
Jeff wrote: " If yer involved in da intercession part of being baron yer either with da Overlord or against him, in such a case yer either Loyal or Renegade. "
Succintly put, Jeff! And a hearty "well said" to Lyon, as well!
In this sport and as the rules have been interpreted by many of us, a "neutral" Baron is not really neutral at all. They seemingly have the ability to "shift" their alignment as they see fit ((Fit to Flit :D )). That cannot be construed as "neutral" no matter what each of our personal definitions are. I might say that my definition of an apple is that it is a root vegetable, but I would be wrong. The correct definition of neutral means to be
disengaged from any side whatsoever. Neutral does not mean and will never mean, despite whatever personal beliefs or how the rules are interpreted, Balance, Balancing, Balancer, Shifting, Flitting, Fence Sitting, Indecisiveness, "Wishy-Washy," or any other synonym one might think of to justify their definition.
If a Baron decides they do not want to stand loyal to the Overlord or stand against for whatever reason, declare your alignment as neutral. But realize, that no matter what a neutral Baron is allowed to do or not to do, it does not override the Overlord's decision to "correct your alignment" (::smiles, having heard that is what the Overlord said::). It simply means you are indifferent to the political sphere of DoS and do not have to commit to one
side or another UNTIL you make a decision that puts you squarely in one camp or another. From my understanding, it means that a Baron can choose to stand neutral until a situation causes them to change their stance and step into the fray. This really only cuts out a few steps when a loyal or renegade Baron requests a change of alignment for whatever reason as they deem fit.
Morgan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 23:17:30 EDT
I'm not one fer long wordy posts, just got a question or two...
Fact: Evan was Neutral
Fact: Evan stepped in ta fight fer Seraph, so Seraph could have a chance ta remove Dal
Opinion: Evan used his position as Baron ta act against our Overlord (rather than just for Seraph -- I don't recall them being best friends)
Question: Where's is da confusion in all of it? Evan acted against Dal, Dal "banished" him ta renegade so dat he would carry a title more fitting of one against da current Overlord.
Second question: Why are we so offended by Dal makin' Evan renegade?
Last question: Is it Evan would rather be called Neutral? He can still fight against Dal as both titles, he still must take a challenge que as both titles, what's da difference?
~J
just confused about why its so hard ta figure out
Date: 05 Aug 1998 23:17:30 EDT
I'm not one fer long wordy posts, just got a question or two...
Fact: Evan was Neutral
Fact: Evan stepped in ta fight fer Seraph, so Seraph could have a chance ta remove Dal
Opinion: Evan used his position as Baron ta act against our Overlord (rather than just for Seraph -- I don't recall them being best friends)
Question: Where's is da confusion in all of it? Evan acted against Dal, Dal "banished" him ta renegade so dat he would carry a title more fitting of one against da current Overlord.
Second question: Why are we so offended by Dal makin' Evan renegade?
Last question: Is it Evan would rather be called Neutral? He can still fight against Dal as both titles, he still must take a challenge que as both titles, what's da difference?
~J
just confused about why its so hard ta figure out
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 06 Aug 1998 11:21:43 EDT
Avery,
Unfortunately, I am unable to respond to your original message, as it appears to have fallen from the board. Allow me to address the follow up written yesterday though.
I believe that, while this discussion has educational value, it is severely flawed by its dependence on "the rules." This is because the rules of the Duel of Swords are not so straight forward as they are in this game of baseball that you allude to. In the example that you give there is but one possible outcome. The batter goes to first base. That is a mandate with no choice to be made by player or official. In our current example however, two
people have rights and there are multiple possibilities.
It has perhaps gone unnoticed, but whenever referring to "the rules" of DoS, I tend rather to call them the "standards and traditions." The reason I do this is related directly to this non-exclusivity of rights. In regard to challenges and the rights of the titled ranks, they are written much more as a governmental constitution than like the rules of a sport. This has been done purposefully. The titled ranks are more than just players in a game.
They have been granted political type powers, some of which have great leeway, but also which contradict the rights of others. The contradiction is there for balance. In a sport, such as your example, the players seek to win and should follow exactly what is in the rules to do so. Those types of rules do not allow for personal judgment as the standards and traditions of DoS do, which is what separates it from the lines of sport and makes it
impossible to adhere strictly to the rules.... Rather, a person holding a titled rank must act upon what they believe to be right and we judge them accordingly.
Look to the rules argument. It's been stated that the Overlord's right to realign interferes with the Neutral Baron's right to intercede. However, to state it any other way would impede the Overlord's rights. The rules explicitly state the Overlord may realign any loyal or neutral baron. Such realignment may be done at *any* time with the only clause being that it must state a reason in writing. There is not, however, any guideline to what this
reasoning must be. Therefore, the Overlord may decide tomorrow to realign a baron from Neutral to Renegade, based on the reason that said Baron wore a pink sash and the Overlord despises pink. So then, to say the Overlord may not make this haphazard type of decision directly after said Neutral baron has employed the right to intercede would drastically hinder those rights of the Overlord, or worse yet, make him lie about the true reason behind the
decision.
The Duel of Swords cannot be understood by attempting to make a brightline reading of its rules. Rather, we must look to the titled ranks and judge them as we would a ruling class. They have the authority, but do we agree with their use of that authority? Simply because a thing may be done, does not mean that it should.. so should it have? Just as you have stated in regard to the use of proverbs, the rules may assist either side of this debate
and are therefore of no use to us when read into our arguments.
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
Date: 06 Aug 1998 11:21:43 EDT
Avery,
Unfortunately, I am unable to respond to your original message, as it appears to have fallen from the board. Allow me to address the follow up written yesterday though.
I believe that, while this discussion has educational value, it is severely flawed by its dependence on "the rules." This is because the rules of the Duel of Swords are not so straight forward as they are in this game of baseball that you allude to. In the example that you give there is but one possible outcome. The batter goes to first base. That is a mandate with no choice to be made by player or official. In our current example however, two
people have rights and there are multiple possibilities.
It has perhaps gone unnoticed, but whenever referring to "the rules" of DoS, I tend rather to call them the "standards and traditions." The reason I do this is related directly to this non-exclusivity of rights. In regard to challenges and the rights of the titled ranks, they are written much more as a governmental constitution than like the rules of a sport. This has been done purposefully. The titled ranks are more than just players in a game.
They have been granted political type powers, some of which have great leeway, but also which contradict the rights of others. The contradiction is there for balance. In a sport, such as your example, the players seek to win and should follow exactly what is in the rules to do so. Those types of rules do not allow for personal judgment as the standards and traditions of DoS do, which is what separates it from the lines of sport and makes it
impossible to adhere strictly to the rules.... Rather, a person holding a titled rank must act upon what they believe to be right and we judge them accordingly.
Look to the rules argument. It's been stated that the Overlord's right to realign interferes with the Neutral Baron's right to intercede. However, to state it any other way would impede the Overlord's rights. The rules explicitly state the Overlord may realign any loyal or neutral baron. Such realignment may be done at *any* time with the only clause being that it must state a reason in writing. There is not, however, any guideline to what this
reasoning must be. Therefore, the Overlord may decide tomorrow to realign a baron from Neutral to Renegade, based on the reason that said Baron wore a pink sash and the Overlord despises pink. So then, to say the Overlord may not make this haphazard type of decision directly after said Neutral baron has employed the right to intercede would drastically hinder those rights of the Overlord, or worse yet, make him lie about the true reason behind the
decision.
The Duel of Swords cannot be understood by attempting to make a brightline reading of its rules. Rather, we must look to the titled ranks and judge them as we would a ruling class. They have the authority, but do we agree with their use of that authority? Simply because a thing may be done, does not mean that it should.. so should it have? Just as you have stated in regard to the use of proverbs, the rules may assist either side of this debate
and are therefore of no use to us when read into our arguments.
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 06 Aug 1998 13:02:10 EDT
Kalamere, that was an excellent and well written and reasoned post. However, we have not been arguing about whether Dalamar could do what he did. He can, he did, and it is done. Arguing about whether he could or could not do it, after the fact, would be pointless. We are discussing what Neutrality means, and whether or not we think Dalamar made the right decision, not whether he was allowed to do it.
And since I think everyone is probably more than a little tired of hearing my position, I won't state it again:).
I will, however, say that "Neutrality" does need to be better defined. There are two very strongly held opinions, and holders of at least one of thsoe opinions seem to not be willing to even consider that someone else might be right.
But then, opinion are like fecal matter. We all excrete it in great quantities, and we all think ours doesn't stink.
The White Duke
Date: 06 Aug 1998 13:02:10 EDT
Kalamere, that was an excellent and well written and reasoned post. However, we have not been arguing about whether Dalamar could do what he did. He can, he did, and it is done. Arguing about whether he could or could not do it, after the fact, would be pointless. We are discussing what Neutrality means, and whether or not we think Dalamar made the right decision, not whether he was allowed to do it.
And since I think everyone is probably more than a little tired of hearing my position, I won't state it again:).
I will, however, say that "Neutrality" does need to be better defined. There are two very strongly held opinions, and holders of at least one of thsoe opinions seem to not be willing to even consider that someone else might be right.
But then, opinion are like fecal matter. We all excrete it in great quantities, and we all think ours doesn't stink.
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 06 Aug 1998 14:43:32 EDT
Duc de Clermont,
I agree with you that this discussion is not about the rights of the Overlord, however I fear that a debate on whether or not Dalamar made the right decision cannot be couched in terms of the rules, as Avery has requested. We cannot, in fairness, rely strictly on the rules to discuss the issue from Evan's standpoint while at the same time ignoring what they grant to Dalamar. The greater objective of my missive was to address the futility of relying
on the rules themselves, not to put forth the idea that Dalamar was correct.
If I might stray from Avery's terms, I would be happy to take on the issue of what it means to be a "neutral" baron.
It was either Var or Zen who said this initially: A Baron's alignment is in regard to the Overlord, and no other. To that end, a Baron of neutral stance should take no stand that is directly opposed or in favor of the Overlord. That is not to say, however, that there will be no scenarios where the Barons stance to the Overlord remains neutral, yet s/he is compelled to become involved with the challenge. It is for those such occasions that the
standards allow the baron to do so without changing alignments... it is then up to the Overlord to accept that Baron's reasoning or not and either realign or not.
Allow me to propose a couple scenarios.
1) Let's imagine, for the moment, that Iain MacKenzie, in a fit of ex-husband jealously, slays the lovely Queen Luthien. Furthermore, assume that Roland, her betrothed, is a Neutral Baron and that Iain is challenging Dalamar for the Overlordship. Roland now has a severe hatred for MacKenzie and obviously doesn't want to see him holding the title (he'd like to see him dead, I'm sure.. but that's neither here nor there) so Roland intercedes against
Iain's challenge. His stance to the Overlord here hasn't changed... in fact he could really care less if it was Dalamar on the throne or if it was Jonalyn. He just doesn't want Iain to have it....... In my opinion, he has remained neutral in this case.
2) In this scenario, let us imagine that Dalamar allows Adeena to intercede against the challenge coming from Gnimish. Dalamar has publicly stated that he isn't really in favor of the intercession, but that he is granting Adeena's request as he feels that he owes her for some past deed. Furthermore presume that Lupton dislikes the thought of this personal matter interfering with the legitimate challenge to the crown. Since the Overlord himself has
stated that even he is not really in favor of this test, it wouldn't be in opposition to him for Lupton to step in and champion Gnimish against Adeena... or at least some might say it isn't.
3) Last scenario - Two Barons are in the arena one Sunday night. One by name of Elijah (neutral) and the other by name of Leto (renegade). Out of boredom and sport, or perhaps just too much to drink, they wager on a duel. The loser of the duel has to challenge the Overlord (this one is actually less fictitious than the other two.. ;). The loser happens to be Elijah. As a matter of honoring a bet (even though in hindthought, he has trouble
believing he was that drunk) he issues challenge to Dalamar...... Now he doesn't even really want to be Overlord nor does he mind Dalamar holding the title, but he does feel that he has to issue the challenge.... Perhaps arguable, but it can be said that here, despite issuing direct challenge, the Baron has actually remained neutral.
Of course it remains for the Overlord to decide, in each of these cases, whether the Neutral Baron has presented a threat to the crown. The point here is to say that there such examples of challenge matters where a Baron may justifiably believe that he is acting neutrally and it is for these scenarios that the rules have been crafted, not for cases of blatant opposition to the Overlord or his politics.
~Kalamere...
Date: 06 Aug 1998 14:43:32 EDT
Duc de Clermont,
I agree with you that this discussion is not about the rights of the Overlord, however I fear that a debate on whether or not Dalamar made the right decision cannot be couched in terms of the rules, as Avery has requested. We cannot, in fairness, rely strictly on the rules to discuss the issue from Evan's standpoint while at the same time ignoring what they grant to Dalamar. The greater objective of my missive was to address the futility of relying
on the rules themselves, not to put forth the idea that Dalamar was correct.
If I might stray from Avery's terms, I would be happy to take on the issue of what it means to be a "neutral" baron.
It was either Var or Zen who said this initially: A Baron's alignment is in regard to the Overlord, and no other. To that end, a Baron of neutral stance should take no stand that is directly opposed or in favor of the Overlord. That is not to say, however, that there will be no scenarios where the Barons stance to the Overlord remains neutral, yet s/he is compelled to become involved with the challenge. It is for those such occasions that the
standards allow the baron to do so without changing alignments... it is then up to the Overlord to accept that Baron's reasoning or not and either realign or not.
Allow me to propose a couple scenarios.
1) Let's imagine, for the moment, that Iain MacKenzie, in a fit of ex-husband jealously, slays the lovely Queen Luthien. Furthermore, assume that Roland, her betrothed, is a Neutral Baron and that Iain is challenging Dalamar for the Overlordship. Roland now has a severe hatred for MacKenzie and obviously doesn't want to see him holding the title (he'd like to see him dead, I'm sure.. but that's neither here nor there) so Roland intercedes against
Iain's challenge. His stance to the Overlord here hasn't changed... in fact he could really care less if it was Dalamar on the throne or if it was Jonalyn. He just doesn't want Iain to have it....... In my opinion, he has remained neutral in this case.
2) In this scenario, let us imagine that Dalamar allows Adeena to intercede against the challenge coming from Gnimish. Dalamar has publicly stated that he isn't really in favor of the intercession, but that he is granting Adeena's request as he feels that he owes her for some past deed. Furthermore presume that Lupton dislikes the thought of this personal matter interfering with the legitimate challenge to the crown. Since the Overlord himself has
stated that even he is not really in favor of this test, it wouldn't be in opposition to him for Lupton to step in and champion Gnimish against Adeena... or at least some might say it isn't.
3) Last scenario - Two Barons are in the arena one Sunday night. One by name of Elijah (neutral) and the other by name of Leto (renegade). Out of boredom and sport, or perhaps just too much to drink, they wager on a duel. The loser of the duel has to challenge the Overlord (this one is actually less fictitious than the other two.. ;). The loser happens to be Elijah. As a matter of honoring a bet (even though in hindthought, he has trouble
believing he was that drunk) he issues challenge to Dalamar...... Now he doesn't even really want to be Overlord nor does he mind Dalamar holding the title, but he does feel that he has to issue the challenge.... Perhaps arguable, but it can be said that here, despite issuing direct challenge, the Baron has actually remained neutral.
Of course it remains for the Overlord to decide, in each of these cases, whether the Neutral Baron has presented a threat to the crown. The point here is to say that there such examples of challenge matters where a Baron may justifiably believe that he is acting neutrally and it is for these scenarios that the rules have been crafted, not for cases of blatant opposition to the Overlord or his politics.
~Kalamere...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 06 Aug 1998 14:53:53 EDT
Kalamere, with all due respect, only the third of these scenarios is really believable. Moreover, to accept that argument, the Neutral Baron's "Rights" can only be used in one of two cases. Either:
1.) Because of some bizarre extenuating circumstance. Or
2.) When they plan to change alignment anyway.
Here is a scenario for you that I think is fairly accurate.
Overlord Blank is challenged by Warlord A. No one really likes Warlord A, and everyone wants to see him get his rear smeared. Overlord Blank invokes the Test of Worthiness, which many people applaud because they don't like Warlord A. Baron Doe doesn't care whether Warlord A or Overlord Blank wins the match. He doesn't really like Warlord A either, but he thinks he deserves to have the chance, if nothing else. So, though his feelings toward the
Overlord are completely neutral (he doesn't care who wins the challenge after all, he just wants the match to take place), he intercedes. Not because he is for or against either combatant, but because he wants the match to happen. Is he Neutral or Renegade?
I say Neutral. He doesn't care who wins, or who the Overlord is. He just wants the challenge match to happen, and let everyone take their fair chances. Just a hypothetical, and much more believable, scenario. Oh, wait, it isn't all that hypothetical, is it?
The White Duke
Date: 06 Aug 1998 14:53:53 EDT
Kalamere, with all due respect, only the third of these scenarios is really believable. Moreover, to accept that argument, the Neutral Baron's "Rights" can only be used in one of two cases. Either:
1.) Because of some bizarre extenuating circumstance. Or
2.) When they plan to change alignment anyway.
Here is a scenario for you that I think is fairly accurate.
Overlord Blank is challenged by Warlord A. No one really likes Warlord A, and everyone wants to see him get his rear smeared. Overlord Blank invokes the Test of Worthiness, which many people applaud because they don't like Warlord A. Baron Doe doesn't care whether Warlord A or Overlord Blank wins the match. He doesn't really like Warlord A either, but he thinks he deserves to have the chance, if nothing else. So, though his feelings toward the
Overlord are completely neutral (he doesn't care who wins the challenge after all, he just wants the match to take place), he intercedes. Not because he is for or against either combatant, but because he wants the match to happen. Is he Neutral or Renegade?
I say Neutral. He doesn't care who wins, or who the Overlord is. He just wants the challenge match to happen, and let everyone take their fair chances. Just a hypothetical, and much more believable, scenario. Oh, wait, it isn't all that hypothetical, is it?
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 06 Aug 1998 16:40:44 EDT
Duc de Clermont,
While unbelievable, two of the three scenarios have taken place, though I've changed the names and there was no such title as neutral baron at the time. Only the first of the examples has not taken place, however, it is very similar to a case in which a Neutral Baron were to despise the given challenger for any other reason.. be it feud or public insult, and that too has occurred.
I give you such extreme examples to demonstrate why the Neutral Baron was granted such rights by the rules. They are indeed uncommon, but so to should be the case that a Neutral Baron takes a stance in an Overlord challenge.
Before coming back to your example, compare this alignment of barons to the alignment of nations, for it cannot be reasonably denied that it be more similar to the dealings of kings than any sport.
The Nation of Balance has declared it shall take no part in the wars of the surrounding kingdoms. The Empire and the Rebellion agree to leave Balance alone in their dealings of war so long as Balance continues to abide by that stance..... What minuscule amount of aid will Balance need to lend the Rebellion to cause the Empire to think that it now has two enemies? Very little I would think. Neutrality is a rare thing and is not fully at the whim
of he who declares himself such. The party who wishes to remain neutral must take pains to remain firmly in that stance, else risk being turned upon. When the stance is broken, he must be able to defend himself with reason sufficient to impress the offended. Such is the way of war my friend, as a Duke I trust you recognize as much.
There is no difference here. Evan had taken the stance of neutrality, yet directly, and with force of arms, questioned the Overlord's politics. Dalamar felt threatened by this action and realigned him accordingly. Would many King's have acted differently? I doubt it. I offer no opinion on what I might have done, if in the Overlord's position, but I certainly cannot fault him for the choice he made.
~Kalamere...
Date: 06 Aug 1998 16:40:44 EDT
Duc de Clermont,
While unbelievable, two of the three scenarios have taken place, though I've changed the names and there was no such title as neutral baron at the time. Only the first of the examples has not taken place, however, it is very similar to a case in which a Neutral Baron were to despise the given challenger for any other reason.. be it feud or public insult, and that too has occurred.
I give you such extreme examples to demonstrate why the Neutral Baron was granted such rights by the rules. They are indeed uncommon, but so to should be the case that a Neutral Baron takes a stance in an Overlord challenge.
Before coming back to your example, compare this alignment of barons to the alignment of nations, for it cannot be reasonably denied that it be more similar to the dealings of kings than any sport.
The Nation of Balance has declared it shall take no part in the wars of the surrounding kingdoms. The Empire and the Rebellion agree to leave Balance alone in their dealings of war so long as Balance continues to abide by that stance..... What minuscule amount of aid will Balance need to lend the Rebellion to cause the Empire to think that it now has two enemies? Very little I would think. Neutrality is a rare thing and is not fully at the whim
of he who declares himself such. The party who wishes to remain neutral must take pains to remain firmly in that stance, else risk being turned upon. When the stance is broken, he must be able to defend himself with reason sufficient to impress the offended. Such is the way of war my friend, as a Duke I trust you recognize as much.
There is no difference here. Evan had taken the stance of neutrality, yet directly, and with force of arms, questioned the Overlord's politics. Dalamar felt threatened by this action and realigned him accordingly. Would many King's have acted differently? I doubt it. I offer no opinion on what I might have done, if in the Overlord's position, but I certainly cannot fault him for the choice he made.
~Kalamere...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 06 Aug 1998 17:29:03 EDT
For reference, I am using Evan's scenario, for it seems to be what brought up this debate.
Evan stated that he, essentially, interceded because he thought the overlord should fight for himself. While this sounds fair, suppose Seraph did win. He would be the overlord, but he didn't fight for himself; Evan fought for him. His reasons were not in correlation with the principle of Seraph fighting for himself. Granted, Seraph was a warlord, but this is the title of overlord we are talking about, and in Evan's belief, he thinks the
overlord should fight for himself.
In my opinion, Evan's actions did not set an example for his belief. Should Seraph have become the overlord, he still did not fight for himself. That's one reason I disagree with his actions. The second reason is my belief that if you're neutral in loyalties to someone, you neither raise your sword or lay it down.
On the flip side, let me restate the rules. It was Evan's right as a neutral to intercede for or against the overlord if he so chooses. It was, and still is, Dal's right as an overlord to change Evan's alignment accordingly. Additively, being changed to renegade, as Zen said before, it is Evan's right to excercise the immediate challenge to the overlord, Dal. The rules are fair, for it gives a balance of power.
In response to Avery's question, I have to answer by the rules. My personal belief that a neutral must stay out of things cannot override the rule that a neutral can intercede. It's not my jurisdiction. Answering your question, yes, because of the rules, a neutral may intercede on the overlord's or challenger's behalf. However, the neutral should not get angry when an overlord excercises his right to make him/her a renegade should the
intercession be on behalf of the challenger, because the neutral excercised his right. It's this balance of power that makes the rules appealing. Here are some other ways balance would be fair. Make note, I am not saying that the rules have to be changed, but here are some examples of fairness.
Alignments: once a baron chooses his alignment, he is stuck with that alignment until he loses his ring. He may not change his alignment on his own, nor may the overlord change his alignment.
Neutrals interceding: No neutral may intercede on behalf of the challenger or the overlord, should the overlord be challenged. The overlord may not intercede for or against the baron, should a baron be challenged.
Respectfully,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud to put his family first¯|
|¯Unwavered loyalty to Dalamar¯|
|¯Holder of the 10th baronial ring¯|
|¯Attempting to defend what's right¯|
Date: 06 Aug 1998 17:29:03 EDT
For reference, I am using Evan's scenario, for it seems to be what brought up this debate.
Evan stated that he, essentially, interceded because he thought the overlord should fight for himself. While this sounds fair, suppose Seraph did win. He would be the overlord, but he didn't fight for himself; Evan fought for him. His reasons were not in correlation with the principle of Seraph fighting for himself. Granted, Seraph was a warlord, but this is the title of overlord we are talking about, and in Evan's belief, he thinks the
overlord should fight for himself.
In my opinion, Evan's actions did not set an example for his belief. Should Seraph have become the overlord, he still did not fight for himself. That's one reason I disagree with his actions. The second reason is my belief that if you're neutral in loyalties to someone, you neither raise your sword or lay it down.
On the flip side, let me restate the rules. It was Evan's right as a neutral to intercede for or against the overlord if he so chooses. It was, and still is, Dal's right as an overlord to change Evan's alignment accordingly. Additively, being changed to renegade, as Zen said before, it is Evan's right to excercise the immediate challenge to the overlord, Dal. The rules are fair, for it gives a balance of power.
In response to Avery's question, I have to answer by the rules. My personal belief that a neutral must stay out of things cannot override the rule that a neutral can intercede. It's not my jurisdiction. Answering your question, yes, because of the rules, a neutral may intercede on the overlord's or challenger's behalf. However, the neutral should not get angry when an overlord excercises his right to make him/her a renegade should the
intercession be on behalf of the challenger, because the neutral excercised his right. It's this balance of power that makes the rules appealing. Here are some other ways balance would be fair. Make note, I am not saying that the rules have to be changed, but here are some examples of fairness.
Alignments: once a baron chooses his alignment, he is stuck with that alignment until he loses his ring. He may not change his alignment on his own, nor may the overlord change his alignment.
Neutrals interceding: No neutral may intercede on behalf of the challenger or the overlord, should the overlord be challenged. The overlord may not intercede for or against the baron, should a baron be challenged.
Respectfully,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud to put his family first¯|
|¯Unwavered loyalty to Dalamar¯|
|¯Holder of the 10th baronial ring¯|
|¯Attempting to defend what's right¯|
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xvevan@aol.com (XvEvan)
Date: 06 Aug 1998 18:09:21 EDT
Speaking of rights.. isn't there something in the rules about the test of Worthiness concerning a defeated Baron's ring being challengeable by the one that defeated him/her? I forget exactly how that one works.
Colleen MacLeod-Lasher
Sartan does have the right for a free challenge now. But, he is in my 'que'. (Note: He has not challenged yet, but can.)
Evan stated that he, essentially, interceded because he thought the overlord should fight for himself. While this sounds fair, suppose Seraph did win. He would be the overlord, but he didn't fight for himself; Evan fought for him. His reasons were not in correlation with the principle of Seraph fighting for himself. Granted, Seraph was a warlord, but this is the title of overlord we are talking about, and in Evan's belief, he thinks the
overlord should fight for himself.
In my opinion, Evan's actions did not set an example for his belief. Should Seraph have become the overlord, he still did not fight for himself. That's one reason I disagree with his actions. The second reason is my belief that if you're neutral in loyalties to someone, you neither raise your sword or lay it down.
-Var~~
Woo .... slow down a min. Seraph would have fought for himself if Dal had not "Tested" him. See the point Var? Dal felt some thing was 'wrong' with this guy and "Tested" him. So, my actions were to step in and try and stop it.
I wrote this clear, so there should be no need to debate this any more. My view on "Testing" has been put forth by me and not some long written out post. Let it stand at that ...
Fact: Evan was Neutral
Fact: Evan stepped in ta fight fer Seraph, so Seraph could have a chance ta remove Dal.
-Jeff~~
I *was* Neutral. And I stepped in for Seraph, not becuase of tring to over throw the Overlord, but to undo the "test". I could have cared less who the challenger and Overlord was, I don't like testing. There is no shame in being a Renegade, Neutral or even Loyal.
And to the banishment? Why should I worry about it. I was doing what I thought was right, and clearly knew the worst out come. I have nothing more to say intill I feel the need. Also, to those who like to put words into people's mouths, blah, have fun with this.
-Evan Rush Rynth
Date: 06 Aug 1998 18:09:21 EDT
Speaking of rights.. isn't there something in the rules about the test of Worthiness concerning a defeated Baron's ring being challengeable by the one that defeated him/her? I forget exactly how that one works.
Colleen MacLeod-Lasher
Sartan does have the right for a free challenge now. But, he is in my 'que'. (Note: He has not challenged yet, but can.)
Evan stated that he, essentially, interceded because he thought the overlord should fight for himself. While this sounds fair, suppose Seraph did win. He would be the overlord, but he didn't fight for himself; Evan fought for him. His reasons were not in correlation with the principle of Seraph fighting for himself. Granted, Seraph was a warlord, but this is the title of overlord we are talking about, and in Evan's belief, he thinks the
overlord should fight for himself.
In my opinion, Evan's actions did not set an example for his belief. Should Seraph have become the overlord, he still did not fight for himself. That's one reason I disagree with his actions. The second reason is my belief that if you're neutral in loyalties to someone, you neither raise your sword or lay it down.
-Var~~
Woo .... slow down a min. Seraph would have fought for himself if Dal had not "Tested" him. See the point Var? Dal felt some thing was 'wrong' with this guy and "Tested" him. So, my actions were to step in and try and stop it.
I wrote this clear, so there should be no need to debate this any more. My view on "Testing" has been put forth by me and not some long written out post. Let it stand at that ...
Fact: Evan was Neutral
Fact: Evan stepped in ta fight fer Seraph, so Seraph could have a chance ta remove Dal.
-Jeff~~
I *was* Neutral. And I stepped in for Seraph, not becuase of tring to over throw the Overlord, but to undo the "test". I could have cared less who the challenger and Overlord was, I don't like testing. There is no shame in being a Renegade, Neutral or even Loyal.
And to the banishment? Why should I worry about it. I was doing what I thought was right, and clearly knew the worst out come. I have nothing more to say intill I feel the need. Also, to those who like to put words into people's mouths, blah, have fun with this.
-Evan Rush Rynth