From: beatle6666@aol.com (Beatle6666)
Date: 02 Aug 1998 21:54:24 EDT
::tries to take some weird sort of a poll::
I'd like to see everyones comments on what they think is the proper way for a neutral Baron to act in challenegs....should they fight for someone, or not take sides???
Jozzi
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: sonjasavge@aol.com (SonjaSavge)
Date: 03 Aug 1998 11:11:31 EDT
Jozzi asked, "I'd like to see everyones comments on what they think is the proper way for a neutral Baron to act in challenegs....should they fight for someone, or not take sides???"
From my tattered dictionary (relevant sections only):
Neutral (adjective) 1. Not supporting or favoring either side in a war, quarrel, or contest. 2. Belonging to neither side nor party.
Any answer other than "not take sides" would only serve to make the person look ignorant and foolish.
Perhaps this "re-alignment" will give Evan some time to study just what the words loyal, renegade, and neutral really mean so that next time he doesn't make such a grave error. If Evan is that upset, he should also brush up on the rules and find out what sort of recourse he has in this situation.
-S
Date: 03 Aug 1998 11:11:31 EDT
Jozzi asked, "I'd like to see everyones comments on what they think is the proper way for a neutral Baron to act in challenegs....should they fight for someone, or not take sides???"
From my tattered dictionary (relevant sections only):
Neutral (adjective) 1. Not supporting or favoring either side in a war, quarrel, or contest. 2. Belonging to neither side nor party.
Any answer other than "not take sides" would only serve to make the person look ignorant and foolish.
Perhaps this "re-alignment" will give Evan some time to study just what the words loyal, renegade, and neutral really mean so that next time he doesn't make such a grave error. If Evan is that upset, he should also brush up on the rules and find out what sort of recourse he has in this situation.
-S
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: baphelocl@aol.com (Bapheloc L)
Date: 03 Aug 1998 17:42:18 EDT
On my views of nuetrality,
I am what can be classified as being known as "Lawful Nuetral", with some what seemingly chaotic tendencies. In short, as long as there is a balance, then I remain out of the picture. If I see the balance being tipped one way, then I go to the side to help bring it all back within balance. The paths of light and dark, or good and evil, does not concern me as usually everyone seems godly justified and the more honorable for which I can never seem to understand this. To the victor usually the history is written in their favor regardless of the trueth which is subject again to the observance of the victors and their allies. I usually care nothing for the majority of what anyone does unless I feel that they are threatening my way of life or the balance of my enviroment. I obviously consider the Arena of Swords part of my enviroment and as such will act accordingly to my basic way of life.
Honor to thyself, Respect to others,
Baphelocutis est Lathadoscia
::sealed in wax by the signet ring stamp of the royal family Lathadoscia::
Date: 03 Aug 1998 17:42:18 EDT
On my views of nuetrality,
I am what can be classified as being known as "Lawful Nuetral", with some what seemingly chaotic tendencies. In short, as long as there is a balance, then I remain out of the picture. If I see the balance being tipped one way, then I go to the side to help bring it all back within balance. The paths of light and dark, or good and evil, does not concern me as usually everyone seems godly justified and the more honorable for which I can never seem to understand this. To the victor usually the history is written in their favor regardless of the trueth which is subject again to the observance of the victors and their allies. I usually care nothing for the majority of what anyone does unless I feel that they are threatening my way of life or the balance of my enviroment. I obviously consider the Arena of Swords part of my enviroment and as such will act accordingly to my basic way of life.
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: lexigirl1@aol.com (LexiGirl1)
Date: 03 Aug 1998 23:13:30 EDT
::sticks up::
For myself, Neutrality means that a person can waver between 'good' and 'evil.' I apply it to myself by siding with the opinions of 'good' at one time and at another by defending the opinions of 'evil.' Although it isn't within the realms of challenging rules or what have you, it's just *my own personal* definition.
Lexi Rynth
Date: 03 Aug 1998 23:13:30 EDT
::sticks up::
For myself, Neutrality means that a person can waver between 'good' and 'evil.' I apply it to myself by siding with the opinions of 'good' at one time and at another by defending the opinions of 'evil.' Although it isn't within the realms of challenging rules or what have you, it's just *my own personal* definition.
Lexi Rynth
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xvevan@aol.com (XvEvan)
Date: 04 Aug 1998 06:59:45 EDT
I will just write this. No one knows my reasons for helping Sep. (Though some one came close.) No one will. It is now out of our hands. All most all events from the whole banishment have take place. I ask this. What is a Neutral good for if he can't go by the rules and yet keep his rank. Though, every one has their own thoughts on what Neutral should mean, it was never put in black ink. So let every one have their own thoughts, it don't
matter. I will just remember not to pick it again. (Try to any way.)
-Evan Rush Rynth
Date: 04 Aug 1998 06:59:45 EDT
I will just write this. No one knows my reasons for helping Sep. (Though some one came close.) No one will. It is now out of our hands. All most all events from the whole banishment have take place. I ask this. What is a Neutral good for if he can't go by the rules and yet keep his rank. Though, every one has their own thoughts on what Neutral should mean, it was never put in black ink. So let every one have their own thoughts, it don't
matter. I will just remember not to pick it again. (Try to any way.)
-Evan Rush Rynth
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: wksunseen@aol.com (WksUnSeen)
Date: 04 Aug 1998 23:12:01 EDT
An neutral baron is equipped, and in my opinion obligated to take which ever side they feel is more appropriate at the time. The sole reason for having a neutral baron is not to make a DoS version of Switzerland, but to make a baron that, without reprimand can alter their stance as to the overlord at will. To have a baron that can behave in the manner they deem appropriate in any particular
situation. A neutral baron can attack the overlord's decision one day in the boards, and fight for him in a challenge the next day. All as the neutral sees fit.
WksUnSeen's
Date: 04 Aug 1998 23:12:01 EDT
An neutral baron is equipped, and in my opinion obligated to take which ever side they feel is more appropriate at the time. The sole reason for having a neutral baron is not to make a DoS version of Switzerland, but to make a baron that, without reprimand can alter their stance as to the overlord at will. To have a baron that can behave in the manner they deem appropriate in any particular
situation. A neutral baron can attack the overlord's decision one day in the boards, and fight for him in a challenge the next day. All as the neutral sees fit.
WksUnSeen's
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 04 Aug 1998 21:38:38 EDT
First and foremost, I have to agree with Avery. The way he makes his point is well chosen, his arguments are logical, and finally, I agreed with his opinion in the first place so he didn't have to change my mind. However, I am going to argue with one of his points anyway, just because those who disagree will use the same argument and I want to beat them to it.
Oh, and I want to add that I wasn't confused at all. Avery was making perfect sense.
The argument I wish to make (as Devil's advocate, not because it is my own opinion) is that supporters of the Overlord's decision will say that Evan, in acting upon his "Right" as a Neutral Baron, was also making the conscious choice to change his alignment. That regardless of his "Right" under the rules, his excercising this "Right" is a choice to abandon Neutrality and take sides. They would even have a strong point on their side, which is
simply this: once the Neutral Baron makes a choice to support or oppose the Overlord he has committed himself to a course of action and cannot reverse his choice. This very logical and attractive, isn't it? Dalamar, feeling that this action is directly rebellious and that such an action implies commitment to future rebellion, was, under this argument, perfectly right in changing Evan's alignment.
BUT, and this is a big BUT, the rules allow for a Neutral Baron to make just such a decision. They do not say he must change his alignment to make this decision, whether it is in support or defiance of the Overlord. Now, I will say this, a Baron should not act on these "Rights" unless he is willing to take the consequences of such an action. However, the first such action is not grounds for the Overlord to change the alignment of the Baron in
question. This is why I think Dalamar is in the wrong.
The White Duke
Date: 04 Aug 1998 21:38:38 EDT
First and foremost, I have to agree with Avery. The way he makes his point is well chosen, his arguments are logical, and finally, I agreed with his opinion in the first place so he didn't have to change my mind. However, I am going to argue with one of his points anyway, just because those who disagree will use the same argument and I want to beat them to it.
Oh, and I want to add that I wasn't confused at all. Avery was making perfect sense.
The argument I wish to make (as Devil's advocate, not because it is my own opinion) is that supporters of the Overlord's decision will say that Evan, in acting upon his "Right" as a Neutral Baron, was also making the conscious choice to change his alignment. That regardless of his "Right" under the rules, his excercising this "Right" is a choice to abandon Neutrality and take sides. They would even have a strong point on their side, which is
simply this: once the Neutral Baron makes a choice to support or oppose the Overlord he has committed himself to a course of action and cannot reverse his choice. This very logical and attractive, isn't it? Dalamar, feeling that this action is directly rebellious and that such an action implies commitment to future rebellion, was, under this argument, perfectly right in changing Evan's alignment.
BUT, and this is a big BUT, the rules allow for a Neutral Baron to make just such a decision. They do not say he must change his alignment to make this decision, whether it is in support or defiance of the Overlord. Now, I will say this, a Baron should not act on these "Rights" unless he is willing to take the consequences of such an action. However, the first such action is not grounds for the Overlord to change the alignment of the Baron in
question. This is why I think Dalamar is in the wrong.
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: deucemack@aol.com (Deuce Mack)
Date: 04 Aug 1998 21:56:13 EDT
Yeah, y'all got me confused. What the hell's a Neutral whatever, and what the hell's a PH?
Deuce
The Puzzled
((Author's note.. well, question. Ah, go see the OOC thread.))
Date: 04 Aug 1998 21:56:13 EDT
Yeah, y'all got me confused. What the hell's a Neutral whatever, and what the hell's a PH?
Deuce
The Puzzled
((Author's note.. well, question. Ah, go see the OOC thread.))
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: karnafexx@aol.com (Karnafexx)
Date: 04 Aug 1998 22:24:55 EDT
If the cocksure braggart was around to read the posts he would most likely say a few things.
1. Just because someone has the "right" to do something doesn't mean it's right ti do it. On both sides of the coin.
2. Switzerland is neutral...do they get actively involved in wars or such or do they merely state opinions. (Knowing most don't even know what the hell a Switzerland is)
3) A great man named Rocky once said "If you wanna dance you gotta pay the band, if you wanna borrow you gotta pay the man" Or something to that effect. Meaning that unless someone is ready to have their arse royally reemed they should stay the hell out of affairs that aren't their own.
4.Last and most important he would tell Evan and those who don't like what Dal did to "suck it up and screw em if they can't take a joke.
(Of course he isn't around so it won't ever be posted :P )
Date: 04 Aug 1998 22:24:55 EDT
If the cocksure braggart was around to read the posts he would most likely say a few things.
1. Just because someone has the "right" to do something doesn't mean it's right ti do it. On both sides of the coin.
2. Switzerland is neutral...do they get actively involved in wars or such or do they merely state opinions. (Knowing most don't even know what the hell a Switzerland is)
3) A great man named Rocky once said "If you wanna dance you gotta pay the band, if you wanna borrow you gotta pay the man" Or something to that effect. Meaning that unless someone is ready to have their arse royally reemed they should stay the hell out of affairs that aren't their own.
4.Last and most important he would tell Evan and those who don't like what Dal did to "suck it up and screw em if they can't take a joke.
(Of course he isn't around so it won't ever be posted :P )
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 02:10:09 EDT
I find I must agree with Dalamar here...
The following are words of wisdom from the king of a land long since forgotten by those who live on those lands even now, my Father told them to me and I understand them well.
"If you stand with my enemies, you stand against me. If you stand at my side, you stand with me. If you stand to the side, let there be nothing between us."
I can understand a friend who argues with me, but I cannot understand a person who aids my enemies, yet claims not to be against me.
Perhaps one of you can explain that.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon
Date: 05 Aug 1998 02:10:09 EDT
I find I must agree with Dalamar here...
The following are words of wisdom from the king of a land long since forgotten by those who live on those lands even now, my Father told them to me and I understand them well.
"If you stand with my enemies, you stand against me. If you stand at my side, you stand with me. If you stand to the side, let there be nothing between us."
I can understand a friend who argues with me, but I cannot understand a person who aids my enemies, yet claims not to be against me.
Perhaps one of you can explain that.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jakethrash@aol.com (JakeThrash)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 03:29:56 EDT
Might makes Right!
If anybody has earned the right to apply the test of worthiness, it would seem Dalamar has earned it. He's held the title longer than anybody prior to him, and he's fought off a year's worth of challengers.
If ya' disagree with his right to employ the test, challenge him, take him down, and be the Overlord yerself. Then you can decide who's "worthy."
If ya' wanna side against the Overlord, expect the Overlord to deal with you accordingly. Don't matter if ya' think ya' have a "right" to disagree with him or not. If ya' side against the Overlord ya' takes yer chances. If ya' don't agree with him... challenge him, take him down, etc... etc...
It ain't the place of the neutral barons to decide whether a test of worthiness is "just" or not. If yer neutral, stay out of it. If ya' don't wanna be neutral anymore, change to renegade and challenge away.
::signed in red crayon::
Jake Thrash
((Author's note: References to AD&D manuals (e.g. the "PH") and its use of the term neutral with regard to alignments are not applicable to the FFGF))
Date: 05 Aug 1998 03:29:56 EDT
Might makes Right!
If anybody has earned the right to apply the test of worthiness, it would seem Dalamar has earned it. He's held the title longer than anybody prior to him, and he's fought off a year's worth of challengers.
If ya' disagree with his right to employ the test, challenge him, take him down, and be the Overlord yerself. Then you can decide who's "worthy."
If ya' wanna side against the Overlord, expect the Overlord to deal with you accordingly. Don't matter if ya' think ya' have a "right" to disagree with him or not. If ya' side against the Overlord ya' takes yer chances. If ya' don't agree with him... challenge him, take him down, etc... etc...
It ain't the place of the neutral barons to decide whether a test of worthiness is "just" or not. If yer neutral, stay out of it. If ya' don't wanna be neutral anymore, change to renegade and challenge away.
::signed in red crayon::
Jake Thrash
((Author's note: References to AD&D manuals (e.g. the "PH") and its use of the term neutral with regard to alignments are not applicable to the FFGF))
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 04:49:21 EDT
::Writes a few words::
This is a rather confusing issue, since both aspects have pros and cons. What seems to make sense to me, is that the alignment of neutrality is toward the overlord, and the overlord only.
If you have neutral loyalties toward someone, does that come to the social perspective of indifference? In my opinion, if you're indifferent to someone, you neither raise your blade nor set it down.
But my opinion seems to conflict with the rules. It states that you can raise your blade for the defense or the fall of the overlord. They give the neutral baron benefits of a loyal, and renegade, along with the price. The price is:
1) challenge que
2) the fact that if the overlord doesn't like how you are handling your loyalties, he can change your title to renegade.
But, this goes both ways. If the neutral baron doesn't like how an overlord does things, he can challenge him. Essentially, Evan stepped in on behalf of the challenger, because he didn't like what Dal did. Dal doesn't think Evan's actions were neutral, so he changed the baron's alignment to what he thought was fit. This is a balance of power.
In the sense of loyal barons, if they don't like what the overlord does, they can change alignments, then challenge the overlord. On the flip side, if the loyal baron isn't being so loyal, the overlord has the right to change his title.
Despite my ideas of neutrality seem to be different from the rules, there seems to be no real problem thus far with the way things are. I think if you're neutral to someone, you're indifferent. If you're indifferent, you stay out of it. However, if you take part in it, you're not neutral. You're acting as a renegade or loyal. That's what I think.
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: 05 Aug 1998 04:49:21 EDT
::Writes a few words::
This is a rather confusing issue, since both aspects have pros and cons. What seems to make sense to me, is that the alignment of neutrality is toward the overlord, and the overlord only.
If you have neutral loyalties toward someone, does that come to the social perspective of indifference? In my opinion, if you're indifferent to someone, you neither raise your blade nor set it down.
But my opinion seems to conflict with the rules. It states that you can raise your blade for the defense or the fall of the overlord. They give the neutral baron benefits of a loyal, and renegade, along with the price. The price is:
1) challenge que
2) the fact that if the overlord doesn't like how you are handling your loyalties, he can change your title to renegade.
But, this goes both ways. If the neutral baron doesn't like how an overlord does things, he can challenge him. Essentially, Evan stepped in on behalf of the challenger, because he didn't like what Dal did. Dal doesn't think Evan's actions were neutral, so he changed the baron's alignment to what he thought was fit. This is a balance of power.
In the sense of loyal barons, if they don't like what the overlord does, they can change alignments, then challenge the overlord. On the flip side, if the loyal baron isn't being so loyal, the overlord has the right to change his title.
Despite my ideas of neutrality seem to be different from the rules, there seems to be no real problem thus far with the way things are. I think if you're neutral to someone, you're indifferent. If you're indifferent, you stay out of it. However, if you take part in it, you're not neutral. You're acting as a renegade or loyal. That's what I think.
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: zen80s@aol.com (Zen 80s)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 08:15:40 EDT
I think if you're going to be realigned every time you do something as a Neutral, it defeats the whole purpose of the alignment. Nobody becomes Baron so they can sit around and do nothing.
Zen
Date: 05 Aug 1998 08:15:40 EDT
I think if you're going to be realigned every time you do something as a Neutral, it defeats the whole purpose of the alignment. Nobody becomes Baron so they can sit around and do nothing.
Zen
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 11:33:14 EDT
Zen,
I would argue your point because doing nothing at all is very different from doing nothing at all regarding challenge matches concerning da Overlord. Barons have impact on da sport in ways other dan intercession matches.
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.
Date: 05 Aug 1998 11:33:14 EDT
Zen,
I would argue your point because doing nothing at all is very different from doing nothing at all regarding challenge matches concerning da Overlord. Barons have impact on da sport in ways other dan intercession matches.
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.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: lyonxx@aol.com (Lyon xx)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 12:17:34 EDT
The friend of my enemy is my enemy. I would have done the same thing Dal did.
Lyon
Date: 05 Aug 1998 12:17:34 EDT
The friend of my enemy is my enemy. I would have done the same thing Dal did.
Lyon