From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 07 Aug 1998 19:17:20 EDT
Kalamere, while I will not go so far as to call the Overlord a hypocrite, I will say this: that the use of the two enemies against each other in such a fashion is two-sided and cannot be looked at in only one light. By one opinion this is a cynical, if grimly realistic, approach to the problem of both Lupton and Bapheloc. I am sure that if Dalamar intervenes there will be a duel between himself and either Evan or Avery before the
match between Baphe and Lupton. There is a good chance that it will end in Baphe and the Overlord crossing swords. If the Overlord wins, end of threat, Lupton can be dealt with by such allies as the Overlord can enlist, which will probably be legion. On the other hand, if Baphe DOES survive and prosper under these condition, it will be he who is in the position of facing many who would not wish to see him as Baron. It would almost seem to be a
win-win situation for Dalamar. Whatever occurs, one enemy is disposed of and another under assault.
By another light, however, this is an old political game. Using your enemies against each other preserves your own strength, and the winner is weakened. Also, while this is merely conjecture, such an arrangement might prevent Lupton from challenging the Overlord, even if he does become Renegade, as he said he intended.
In my opinion, BOTH of these arguments are valid. Yes, this is a time-honored tactic, of proven success. But it is also a cynical and oppurtunistic tactic. Again, I do not deny my tremendous respect for the Overlord. But I think he is wrong. Very wrong.
The White Duke
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: xvevan@aol.com (XvEvan)
Date: 07 Aug 1998 19:30:02 EDT
I spoke my words. Tuff. Don't like them, then go cring home to where ever.
-Evan Rush Rynth
Date: 07 Aug 1998 19:30:02 EDT
I spoke my words. Tuff. Don't like them, then go cring home to where ever.
-Evan Rush Rynth
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sartanz@aol.com (Sartan Z)
Date: 07 Aug 1998 20:14:00 EDT
Baphe,
If memory serves me correctly, you championed Adonai in his challenge to Dalamar. Now, I'm sure you had your reasons, but the simple fact remains that you stood against Dalamar and nearly led to him losing his crown. Can you really blame him if he does step in to prevent you from gaining a Ring?
Sartan
Date: 07 Aug 1998 20:14:00 EDT
Baphe,
If memory serves me correctly, you championed Adonai in his challenge to Dalamar. Now, I'm sure you had your reasons, but the simple fact remains that you stood against Dalamar and nearly led to him losing his crown. Can you really blame him if he does step in to prevent you from gaining a Ring?
Sartan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zen80s@aol.com (Zen 80s)
Date: 07 Aug 1998 20:28:50 EDT
::after reading Sartan's post, flips through the archives before making a reply::
Not only did Bapheloc championed on behalf of Adonai in his challenge to the Overlord, he also did so when Huma challenged Dalamar way back when.
But the records also say that Lupton championed Elijah when he challenged Dalamar even before that.
How odd that two people who had championed challengers to the Overlord would be dueling for a ring, and the Overlord would choose a side to take. I imagine that since Bapheloc did it twice and Lupton only did it once, that Dalamar would choose to intercede for Lupton.
Nevertheless, it is a situation the likes of which I cannot remember ever seeing before.
Zen
Date: 07 Aug 1998 20:28:50 EDT
::after reading Sartan's post, flips through the archives before making a reply::
Not only did Bapheloc championed on behalf of Adonai in his challenge to the Overlord, he also did so when Huma challenged Dalamar way back when.
But the records also say that Lupton championed Elijah when he challenged Dalamar even before that.
How odd that two people who had championed challengers to the Overlord would be dueling for a ring, and the Overlord would choose a side to take. I imagine that since Bapheloc did it twice and Lupton only did it once, that Dalamar would choose to intercede for Lupton.
Nevertheless, it is a situation the likes of which I cannot remember ever seeing before.
Zen
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: shivblade@aol.com (SHIV BLADE)
Date: 07 Aug 1998 22:18:20 EDT
I will make this short. I will step in for the match. Simply put, my reasons are this. Dal thinks that Neutrals should stay out... And yet he steps in to help one. To me...and i do say me.. this does not make since. So i will step in against him. I do this not for Baph... or Because i oppose Lupton. But for the sole reason i became a renegade. Over our disagreement of what Neutrality is, and how it should be
handeld.
Until Monday,
Avery Shiv Blade
Baron of the 6th
Date: 07 Aug 1998 22:18:20 EDT
I will make this short. I will step in for the match. Simply put, my reasons are this. Dal thinks that Neutrals should stay out... And yet he steps in to help one. To me...and i do say me.. this does not make since. So i will step in against him. I do this not for Baph... or Because i oppose Lupton. But for the sole reason i became a renegade. Over our disagreement of what Neutrality is, and how it should be
handeld.
Until Monday,
Avery Shiv Blade
Baron of the 6th
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xvevan@aol.com (XvEvan)
Date: 07 Aug 1998 23:36:00 EDT
Baphe,
If memory serves me correctly, you championed Adonai in his challenge to Dalamar. Now, I'm sure you had your reasons, but the simple fact remains that you stood against Dalamar and nearly led to him losing his crown. Can you really blame him if he does step in to prevent you from gaining a Ring?
Sartan
Hey Sartan. Now tell me this ... Lupton is to go Renegade as soon as the match is over if he wins. They are both Renegade' in thier ways of thinking so why should Dal step in?
Dal just wants Baph's head on the table more than Lupton's. The only reason. Or Dal would have stepped in for Topaz and tried to stop Lupton from taking the Baron Ring.
-Evan Rush Rynth
Date: 07 Aug 1998 23:36:00 EDT
Baphe,
If memory serves me correctly, you championed Adonai in his challenge to Dalamar. Now, I'm sure you had your reasons, but the simple fact remains that you stood against Dalamar and nearly led to him losing his crown. Can you really blame him if he does step in to prevent you from gaining a Ring?
Sartan
Hey Sartan. Now tell me this ... Lupton is to go Renegade as soon as the match is over if he wins. They are both Renegade' in thier ways of thinking so why should Dal step in?
Dal just wants Baph's head on the table more than Lupton's. The only reason. Or Dal would have stepped in for Topaz and tried to stop Lupton from taking the Baron Ring.
-Evan Rush Rynth
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 07 Aug 1998 23:48:30 EDT
Duc de Clermont,
Though I find myself more impressed with the tactic than you appear to be, I agree with the basis of your assessment. To those who do not like such political maneuvering, Dalamar's position here is no doubt viewed with distaste. To those who do, well, it is a classic ploy.
Both Lupton and Baph have proved to be threats to the crown in the past. Now that both have returned to full time dueling, they appear to be threats once more. By championing Lupton (and assuming Baph is defeated) Dalamar keeps one enemy at bay and presumably makes a truce with another. A nice payoff for the price of one duel.
Deceitful to those who dislike politics, masterful to those who do.. but in neither case do I see hypocrisy. I believe, good sir, that we may be in full agreement for the first time yet.
I remain,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
ps - To Ms. Savage.. Thank you m'lady for your kind words. Evan appears to be oblivious to the finer points of this discussion, as well as those of common courtesy. It was kind of you to attempt educating him.
Date: 07 Aug 1998 23:48:30 EDT
Duc de Clermont,
Though I find myself more impressed with the tactic than you appear to be, I agree with the basis of your assessment. To those who do not like such political maneuvering, Dalamar's position here is no doubt viewed with distaste. To those who do, well, it is a classic ploy.
Both Lupton and Baph have proved to be threats to the crown in the past. Now that both have returned to full time dueling, they appear to be threats once more. By championing Lupton (and assuming Baph is defeated) Dalamar keeps one enemy at bay and presumably makes a truce with another. A nice payoff for the price of one duel.
Deceitful to those who dislike politics, masterful to those who do.. but in neither case do I see hypocrisy. I believe, good sir, that we may be in full agreement for the first time yet.
I remain,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
ps - To Ms. Savage.. Thank you m'lady for your kind words. Evan appears to be oblivious to the finer points of this discussion, as well as those of common courtesy. It was kind of you to attempt educating him.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 08 Aug 1998 00:38:34 EDT
Kalamere,
Actually, I find it both deceitful AND masterful. As I said, both viewpoints are equally correct. The move is as brilliant asd it is deceitful, and as reprehensible as it is perfect. The reason I say it is not hypocritical is simple. Dalamar has established himself as a firm believer in realpolitik wouldn't you say? Therefore it is altogether both understandable and laudable, if you believe in realpolitik that he did so. And yes,
as a Duke, I understand realpolitik very well. I just don't always like it.
The White Duke
Date: 08 Aug 1998 00:38:34 EDT
Kalamere,
Actually, I find it both deceitful AND masterful. As I said, both viewpoints are equally correct. The move is as brilliant asd it is deceitful, and as reprehensible as it is perfect. The reason I say it is not hypocritical is simple. Dalamar has established himself as a firm believer in realpolitik wouldn't you say? Therefore it is altogether both understandable and laudable, if you believe in realpolitik that he did so. And yes,
as a Duke, I understand realpolitik very well. I just don't always like it.
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: baphelocl@aol.com (Bapheloc L)
Date: 08 Aug 1998 02:01:48 EDT
On my view of hypocirsy,
I just find it hypocritical to say a neutral should stay out of the Overlord's bussiness, then turn around and have the Overlord get involved in the Neutral's bussiness. Am I wrong in my view of hypocrisy in the Overlord's actions?
Honor to thyself, Respect to others,
Baphelocutis est Lathadoscia
::sealed in wax by the signet ring stamp of the royal family Lathadoscia::
Date: 08 Aug 1998 02:01:48 EDT
On my view of hypocirsy,
I just find it hypocritical to say a neutral should stay out of the Overlord's bussiness, then turn around and have the Overlord get involved in the Neutral's bussiness. Am I wrong in my view of hypocrisy in the Overlord's actions?
Honor to thyself, Respect to others,
Baphelocutis est Lathadoscia
::sealed in wax by the signet ring stamp of the royal family Lathadoscia::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: shadowsiv@aol.com (Shadowsiv)
Date: 08 Aug 1998 03:39:26 EDT
I find it illogical that the Overlord will make a Baron renegede for challenging him, but will not make a baron loyal who supports him..when we see the results of the challenge, much will become clear, but am I the only one who sees this logical conundrum? For it must work both ways to be consistent..A Neutral Baron intercedes on behalf of a challenger...fine, make him renegade..by this same logic, should not
a neutral Baron become loyal for interceding on behalf of the Overlord? ((merely looking for a clarification, here, not trying to fuel this debate, just trying to understand the reasoning involved here))
Shadowsiv, Humble Grandmaster of DoS
Date: 08 Aug 1998 03:39:26 EDT
I find it illogical that the Overlord will make a Baron renegede for challenging him, but will not make a baron loyal who supports him..when we see the results of the challenge, much will become clear, but am I the only one who sees this logical conundrum? For it must work both ways to be consistent..A Neutral Baron intercedes on behalf of a challenger...fine, make him renegade..by this same logic, should not
a neutral Baron become loyal for interceding on behalf of the Overlord? ((merely looking for a clarification, here, not trying to fuel this debate, just trying to understand the reasoning involved here))
Shadowsiv, Humble Grandmaster of DoS
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 08 Aug 1998 04:33:01 EDT
Interesting precedent as we see for certain... a gate with good hinges swings in both directions, but eventually they rust.
Odd how Evan was condemned for stepping in because he believed a ToW was wrong and was punished.. YES PUNISHED.. regardless of how you look at it his rights as a neutral were taken away from him by Dalamar's whim. Yes, you read that correctly, yes, it is his "right," but to paraphrase Billy Ray.. "having the right doesn't make doing it the thing right."
Colleen MacLeod-Lasher
Date: 08 Aug 1998 04:33:01 EDT
Interesting precedent as we see for certain... a gate with good hinges swings in both directions, but eventually they rust.
Odd how Evan was condemned for stepping in because he believed a ToW was wrong and was punished.. YES PUNISHED.. regardless of how you look at it his rights as a neutral were taken away from him by Dalamar's whim. Yes, you read that correctly, yes, it is his "right," but to paraphrase Billy Ray.. "having the right doesn't make doing it the thing right."
Colleen MacLeod-Lasher
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 08 Aug 1998 04:39:59 EDT
::corrects her note::
>> "having the right doesn't make doing it the thing right."<<
"having the right doesn't make doing it the right thing."
Date: 08 Aug 1998 04:39:59 EDT
::corrects her note::
>> "having the right doesn't make doing it the thing right."<<
"having the right doesn't make doing it the right thing."
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 08 Aug 1998 11:46:47 EDT
Baph, Shadowsiv and Collie,
I address all three of you in this missive because it appears to me that you share a common point of view. I hope you do not mind.
Beginning with Baph: I will not go so far as to say you are wrong, perhaps mistaken is a more civil way to state it. The Overlord can be seen as hypocritical here, I simply believe that this is too shallow a view, likely caused by your direct involvement in the issue. It should be noted, before I continue, that I am by no means Dalamar's largest fan. I believe he has demonstrated hypocrisy in more than one instance during his reign, it is only
the issue before us, however, that I address.
There are three things that must be observed to understand my viewpoint here. They are:
1) Alignment runs from the Baron to the Overlord and not by necessity in
the other direction.
2) In the case before us, Lupton has made no action that would violate his
claim of Neutrality.
3) The Overlord has no power to realign a Neutral Baron to Loyal, only from
Neutral to Renegade.
Let us begin first with Lupton. In order to violate the vow of Neutrality, he must make some action that either supports or runs against the Overlord. Here, however, he takes no action at all. Some might claim that he is allowing the Overlord to intercede, however it should be noted that he has no choice in the matter. The Overlord may intercede at his whim, despite the feelings on any baron, so long as the Baron is not Renegade. Furthermore,
while Lupton may change alignment to prevent such an intercession, it must be admitted that such a realignment would be a greater violation of Neutrality than a passive allowance of the Overlord's right. Hence, unlike Evan who took up arms to question the Overlord's politics, Lupton has done nothing that would violate his Neutrality.
Secondly, look to the relationship between Overlord and Baron. As stated already, the Overlord may align Barons to Renegade, not to Loyal. Friends must be won over, while enemies may be chosen. This in itself should make it evident that not every instance of Overlord involvement in a challenge to Neutral Barons will be hypocritical or illogical. Often times, I would imagine, such a stance will be taken to win the fence sitter over to Loyalty.
That statement ignores the facts of this issue, but I find it relevant to dismiss the broad generalities.
To take another view of the current situation, I would put forth the example I used previously concerning the dealings of Nations. Once more we have the Nation of Balance positioned directly between the Empire and the Rebellion. The Empire notes that the Rebellion is marching towards the outskirts of Balance and is certain that once Balance falls they will soon be assaulting the walls of the Empire itself. Rather than wait it out and hope Balance
can defend themselves, it would certainly make more sense for the Empire to march through the lands of Balance and meet the Rebellion at the walls of Balance. This is for two reasons. First, by moving the battle into the lands of Balance, the Empire removes the threat of damage occurring to its own lands. Better to let another's walls suffer from the siege, yes? Secondly, if the Empire should lose, they have a path of retreat. The Empire should
be able to make it safely back through the lands of Balance and behind their own walls, while the Rebellion must still fight Balance to reach those same walls.
Does this sound so illogical? Dalamar has nothing to lose and everything to gain from this intercession. Such tactics may not be liked by many, but they most certainly meet the tests of logic.
Lastly, I don't find the Overlord's involvement here to show any interference with the dealings of a Neutral Baron. I do not believe the Overlord has an obligation to act with neutrality towards a baron of that alignment, but also I do not believe his involvement here is in defense of Lupton. Rather, he appears to see Baph as a threat to the crown and so is defending himself, not the barony. A few days ago I outlined in this thread why I believe
the powers of intercession and the like were granted to the Neutral Baron and examples of times when those powers could be used while staying truly neutral. This would fall into one of those categories.
There is much that could be said on the matter, but I believe I've gone on for too long as it is. I shall save the other arguments for any responses.
I remain,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
Date: 08 Aug 1998 11:46:47 EDT
Baph, Shadowsiv and Collie,
I address all three of you in this missive because it appears to me that you share a common point of view. I hope you do not mind.
Beginning with Baph: I will not go so far as to say you are wrong, perhaps mistaken is a more civil way to state it. The Overlord can be seen as hypocritical here, I simply believe that this is too shallow a view, likely caused by your direct involvement in the issue. It should be noted, before I continue, that I am by no means Dalamar's largest fan. I believe he has demonstrated hypocrisy in more than one instance during his reign, it is only
the issue before us, however, that I address.
There are three things that must be observed to understand my viewpoint here. They are:
1) Alignment runs from the Baron to the Overlord and not by necessity in
the other direction.
2) In the case before us, Lupton has made no action that would violate his
claim of Neutrality.
3) The Overlord has no power to realign a Neutral Baron to Loyal, only from
Neutral to Renegade.
Let us begin first with Lupton. In order to violate the vow of Neutrality, he must make some action that either supports or runs against the Overlord. Here, however, he takes no action at all. Some might claim that he is allowing the Overlord to intercede, however it should be noted that he has no choice in the matter. The Overlord may intercede at his whim, despite the feelings on any baron, so long as the Baron is not Renegade. Furthermore,
while Lupton may change alignment to prevent such an intercession, it must be admitted that such a realignment would be a greater violation of Neutrality than a passive allowance of the Overlord's right. Hence, unlike Evan who took up arms to question the Overlord's politics, Lupton has done nothing that would violate his Neutrality.
Secondly, look to the relationship between Overlord and Baron. As stated already, the Overlord may align Barons to Renegade, not to Loyal. Friends must be won over, while enemies may be chosen. This in itself should make it evident that not every instance of Overlord involvement in a challenge to Neutral Barons will be hypocritical or illogical. Often times, I would imagine, such a stance will be taken to win the fence sitter over to Loyalty.
That statement ignores the facts of this issue, but I find it relevant to dismiss the broad generalities.
To take another view of the current situation, I would put forth the example I used previously concerning the dealings of Nations. Once more we have the Nation of Balance positioned directly between the Empire and the Rebellion. The Empire notes that the Rebellion is marching towards the outskirts of Balance and is certain that once Balance falls they will soon be assaulting the walls of the Empire itself. Rather than wait it out and hope Balance
can defend themselves, it would certainly make more sense for the Empire to march through the lands of Balance and meet the Rebellion at the walls of Balance. This is for two reasons. First, by moving the battle into the lands of Balance, the Empire removes the threat of damage occurring to its own lands. Better to let another's walls suffer from the siege, yes? Secondly, if the Empire should lose, they have a path of retreat. The Empire should
be able to make it safely back through the lands of Balance and behind their own walls, while the Rebellion must still fight Balance to reach those same walls.
Does this sound so illogical? Dalamar has nothing to lose and everything to gain from this intercession. Such tactics may not be liked by many, but they most certainly meet the tests of logic.
Lastly, I don't find the Overlord's involvement here to show any interference with the dealings of a Neutral Baron. I do not believe the Overlord has an obligation to act with neutrality towards a baron of that alignment, but also I do not believe his involvement here is in defense of Lupton. Rather, he appears to see Baph as a threat to the crown and so is defending himself, not the barony. A few days ago I outlined in this thread why I believe
the powers of intercession and the like were granted to the Neutral Baron and examples of times when those powers could be used while staying truly neutral. This would fall into one of those categories.
There is much that could be said on the matter, but I believe I've gone on for too long as it is. I shall save the other arguments for any responses.
I remain,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: blaznslow@aol.com (Blazn Slow)
Date: 08 Aug 1998 12:20:09 EDT
<wsw> They speak of politics and I seek vengence.
Date: 08 Aug 1998 12:20:09 EDT
<wsw> They speak of politics and I seek vengence.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sonjasavge@aol.com (SonjaSavge)
Date: 08 Aug 1998 15:34:04 EDT
Baphelocutis writes: "I just find it hypocritical to say a neutral should stay out of the Overlord's bussiness, then turn around and have the Overlord get involved in the Neutral's bussiness. Am I wrong in my view of hypocrisy in the Overlord's actions?"
There's nothing that says a side can't persuade a neutral entity to change their alignment. It isn't hypocritical, it's strategy.
-S
Date: 08 Aug 1998 15:34:04 EDT
Baphelocutis writes: "I just find it hypocritical to say a neutral should stay out of the Overlord's bussiness, then turn around and have the Overlord get involved in the Neutral's bussiness. Am I wrong in my view of hypocrisy in the Overlord's actions?"
There's nothing that says a side can't persuade a neutral entity to change their alignment. It isn't hypocritical, it's strategy.
-S