Posted by Umguy on May 26, 2000 at 13:10:42:
In Reply to: OK, assuming your logic was right... posted by $.04 on May 26, 2000 at 12:42:14:
> But it seems that Arbiters would, but especially Sylvans would, not make a treaty which basically throws out a portion of thier Cabal. If I was a Sylvan mage and thought some other Sylvan just handed me over to the Ragers? I'd be pissed. And that just doesn't sound like a Sylvan anyway.
Well, no, I'm not saying the ragers should expect a sylvan mage to be thrown to the dogs by sylvans. But neither should the sylvans expect a duergar rager to be thrown to the dogs. It becomes a matter of "how badly do I want my enemy dead? Badly enough to kill him AND the people he's with at this time of day? Or do I wait until he's alone?" I imagine Sebeok (and Bria) would be all over any sylvan (or arb) warrior that sat back and let a rager kill a mage, if that warrior could do something about it. I myself have played sylvans that run up and start attacking a rager that I normally wouldn't, because that rager just attacked one of the sylvan mages. Later on, (after the rager has "paid" for it), I watch him walk by, instead of calling a wall of thorns and beating him up again. It's a matter of choosing your enemies.
As for the Imperials, look at how it is now. They let Master sit in the tower and do nothing. Why? Because nobody in empire wants to mess with Master. However, if Minalcar were able to turn the blades and divines against the imperial magi, the imperial magi would side with the tower, and the others with the village. At that point, if I'm a rager, I hope for a split in the empire where the mages are cast out to make their own cabal or join masters, and then I have little problem with the empire.
(The inherent problem is it's tough to say "We're out to rule the world. Oh, except you.") That's why the truce won't last long. I'm simply saying it's not bad roleplay for Minalcar to try.