Posted by The Arcane(VIP) on July 14, 2000 at 11:00:32:
In Reply to: Four points: posted by Tracker of the Wicked on July 14, 2000 at 10:43:10:
> Good post. Four points in response/clarification: > Hrm. I was very much tongue-in-cheek, as the poster below noted, with my little PS. I find this, on the other hand, genuinely offensive. Firstly, there's hardly anything "pseudo" about the intellectualism--trust me on that count. I think everyone recognizes that her posts are also more or less tongue-in-cheek, as you seem to, but I resent the implication that you're somehow doing me a favor by not letting her comments "reflect on me." > 2. Immortal knowledge can be good for player knowledge. Two situations that illustrate this: > a. Eriwal. Eriwal was the first transmuter to receive a special form. He demonstrated the benefits of quality roleplaying, and stood as an example of what transmuters can accomplish in the game. You will also note, Arcane, that Eriwal heavily restricted his actions both PK and RP. I don't think I fought him outside a raiding situation more than a handful of times, and I do not think you did, either. He could have played a heavy role in Imperial politics, but he stayed in the background, not wanting to interfere. Yes, it sucks, but also, you have to admit the Immortal did take some personal responsibility to keep him from being abusive, and Eriwal did serve as a beacon for shifters. People are still talking about the Wolverine. Eriwal was not a good roleplayer, save for a minor gimmick which is not, in and of itself, roleplaying. The sum of his interaction with my War Master was "Eriwal tells you 'you should hero, we'll kill stuff together.' And his playing a minor role in Imperial politics is somewhat laughable, in light of the composition of the Council/Throne at the time. > b. Aquervoq. Anyone heard of Defiance before him? HumanSunder? Again, Immortal knowledge benefits player knowledge, and the Immortal takes care not to be abusive with it. Questionable, but I see nothing wrong with it. As an aside, Challen and Umoens found both swords during our explorations... Aguveroq wasn't at all forthcoming about where they came from. One or two positive (semi-positive) examples don't exactly justify or negate a slew of negative ones. > 3. Your main point seems to be that we not to look at Immortals as infallible real life Immortals. As far as I can see, literally, no one sees the Immortals in that light. No one has even suggested that we look at the Immortals in that way. What you've done is taken Proud Blade's comments out of context and attributed a meaning to them that did not exist until "Player" and you decided to pipe in. Heh, I wasn't actually suggesting that people literally viewed the Immortals as REAL immortals. Sheesh. Merely that some of them are given more credit than is really necessary, due to a number of factors that I outlined. Immortal posts are rarely flamed. That's not because they are innately more reasonable or wise people than the rest of us. > 4. My opinion: A long time ago, with my first character, Nepenthe and Shokai told me that there are Immortals in every cabal; that they are the silent, competent ones in the background. I still believe this, that the Immortals, with all their knowledge, set examples of tactics and innovations for other players to learn from, and thus, make the game more fun and complex -- all the while carefully remaining in the background and not abusing their knowledge. > In general, I think they do a good and careful job of this. Some, not all. > Proud Blade is recognizing that they do a good job of this. > - Proud Blade is not saying they are infallible. Didn't say he was. > - Proud Blade is not saying they are real life immortals. Didn't say he did. Didn't say ANYONE did. Give me a break. :P > - Proud Blade is not saying we should not question or debate rules. Didn't say that either. Alright, this isn't about Proud Blade, really. I was just responding to a post of his and started a new thread rather than post something that I'd like people to read on the second page of the forum, where it won't be seen. I don't have a grudge, despite my perhaps ill-conceived jab, nor was my intent to single him out.
> 1. Your girlfriend (Player?) adds nothing to any thread she posts on except a psuedo-intellectual, condescending attitude. Literally. There is no substance: her words are consdescending fluff. I would imagine she not only expects to receive the same in response, she cackles in glee at it. Hence the "dearest." I do not see this as a reflection on you, and I do not feel that you should take responsibility for/defend her.