Posted by Mendeiron on March 27, 2000 at 10:15:19:
In Reply to: sigh posted by Grallon on March 27, 2000 at 09:40:30:
> > Theres seems to be a serious conceptual gap somewhere in here, Sylvan are anti-civilization, that means they don't like it, or those who support it.
>
>
> Is it just me, or is there a general tendancy in the past year or so to increasingly generalize what is considered "enemy" in order to fit more people into the "to be killed" category.
>
> 1)Ragers are anti-mage
> but, if you are a warrior and not a rager, you must love magic, so must die. This nolonger requires proof of magic use.
I was a magic-using syvlan bard, and I didn't
really get bothered by ragers. If they saw
me using it, they'd attack me. If they did
not, they wouldn't.
> 2)sylvan are anti-defiler/civilization
> but, if you are not sylvan, you must love civilization, so must die. This requires nolonger requres proof of actually defiling.
What? Huh? I can't possibly begin to tell
you how many discussions over cb over who is
a defiler and who isn't went on. Sylvans
don't attack discriminately.
> 3) Arbies are anti-criminal, but at least we have imms constantly looking over our shoulders to at least make sure there is some semblance of proof before flagging a criminal
And what the hell does this have to do with
anything?
> 4)Masters seem to be getting better...
> Started out as pro magic
> then turned anti-nature
> then anyone who was not pro magic was pro-nature, and must die
> Now they are becoming a bit more pacifistic, thanks in large part to manshoon.
Masters have *never* been given a "X must
die" mandate. The closest thing to it was
the anti-nature bit where you were *allowed*
to kill rangers/druids/sylvans.
>
> Empire is empire.
>
> Scarab is kill everyone you have a chance of killing
>
> Maran is kill everyone with red aura.
>
> We need more troup/dawn type cabals.