Rhisereld

So... uh... why are we leaving Asulon again? IC, I mean. Because I've read the antagonist lore and this post, and I can't see why we'd migrate en masse.

1st Timothy 2:12: For women, they had to obey and submit to their husbands. They did not genuinely have to submit to other men, and were allowed allowed to talk. He is mainly referring to the ranks in the Church. Women did have civil authority over some men, their children and possibly others. Women had to be in full submission to their husbands, but not in total submission to all men.

Good insight here. I won't lie, I had to research this. It's hard to explain to people who don't grow up in the Church x'D One thing you have to understand is that things were harsh back then, and genuinely women did not have as many rights as men. It wasn't just Christians/Jews, but I shouldn't have to point that out.

The verse says a woman cannot have authority over a man. They must be silent. That is what it says word for word. Don't try to wriggle out of this by saying, "Oh, but it's only in X situation". In church, or out of church, this is a disgusting mentality that has no place in society.

And saying that it was a long time ago is no excuse for such an archaic and oppressive statement. If this is how things were ran in that time, then why didn't an elightened man of Christ such as this one speak out against the oppression of women?

I'll tell you why.

It's because religion isn't the word of a higher power that is inherantly "good". It doesn't stand for the rights of women, blacks, homosexuals and transgender people. It stands for old superstition and outdated oppression. Religion is a snapshot of all the bigotry, superstition and irrationality of that time period. As time goes on and people realise that subserviency isn't okay, religion may grudgingly change its mind. But, Jesus, it took God a bloody long time to figure that women aren't animals, huh?

Genesis 2:22: He was testing Isaac's faith to Him. He never actually made him kill his son, he stopped him.

Ephesians 5:22: Above. -.-

No. What was God testing him for? Psychopathy? If so, Isaac definitely passed. In what universe is a willingness to kill your own son a desirable trait? What moral does this teach? That if the voices in your head tell you to kill your own son, you should stab him to death to prove your "faith"? I find that a deplorable example of the filth that is religion.

I conclude this particular argument with an exerpt from one of my favourite songs.

1st Peter 2:18: Clicky. Too lazy to explain it. This goes into better depth than my tiny little mind can. xD

You can't weasel out of the existance of slavery but hiding behind a slight ambiguity of the word. It might mean 'slavery'. I might mean 'hippopotamuses'. But chances are it means 'slavery', and the fact remains that the modern version of the Bible condones slavery.

Judges 19:25-28: If you read before and after, instead of picking out this one verse, it explains a lot. Beforehand it explained how now having any laws and no King would lead to bad things- aka this verse. This is why the Jews demanded to have a King. If you actually read this book/chapter, you would understand that. :3

I actually know quite a bit about what happened before and after, as I have a nice picture book about it and a handy tool called Google. There was nothing said the Jews demanding a King in this chapter. This guy chose to send out his concubine to be abused and raped in order to protect the much-more-important man who was staying with him.

Afterwards, he put the corpse on his donkey and went home, before cutting the corpse into twelve pieces and sending it all throughout Israel. Then they declared religous war and killed pretty much every Benjimanite. Then they felt sorry about that because the tribe would die out, so you know what they did? They went somewhere else and killed and pillaged, and brought back some virgins to give to the Benjaminites. Which God supported.

"Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword; also the women and the little ones. 11 This is what you shall do: severy male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall devote to destruction.” 12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young virgins who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at tShiloh, which is in the land of Canaan."

"And they commanded the people of Benjamin, saying, “Go and lie in ambush in the vineyards 21 and watch. If the daughters of Shiloh come out to adance in the dances, then come out of the vineyards and ****** each man his wife from the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin."

Still think the context of this passage excuses its barbaric contents? All throughout this, God punished the entire Benjamin tribe indiscriminately because of that occurrence, but the man who sent the concubine out in the first place didn't even get a second glance. I'm not even going to touch on the fact that the tribes seemed more angry about the destruction of the man's "property" than the actual loss of the life of a woman.

I find this absolutely disgusting.

Just cuz?

I don't really know. I guess I know there must be something, but I don't know what. I know it's not the God that Christians believe in though, or he's changed since the Bible was written. He's not a very nice guy, if he's up there.

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

The Christian God hasn't changed. He's always been an asshat.

Also, the price of creating a shop should be raised BECAUSE poor people would never be able to hire a shopkeeper. So before people can hire a shopkeep, they have to sell their wares THEMSELVES until they have enough money, understand?

Yes, a poor character would not hire a shopkeeper. No, that not mean they cannot have a shop. The logical solution to that is to set the NPC's name as your own, and run the shop yourself... not deny the opportunity of a shop to those who are under-established on LotC.

On that note, the ability to temporarily dismiss your shopkeeper NPC would be nice. I can imagine players RPing their shop when online and using NPCs when offline ^_^

If anything this fee would increase the RP, now players may band together to create a shop and have an actual business rather then it being set up a region, come back once a week to refill it. Which was one of the problems in Aegis.

People feel a greater accomplishment when they work for something rather then something they can get easily. Which in effect would cause them to like their shops they worked for more and take care of it better. A Higher fee does not make it impossible, it makes it so players don't set up non-rp shops. Not everything you have to work for is the sin of the server.

Money is not an indicator of RP quality, and high fees do not prevent non-RP shops. A quality roleplayer will form connections to restock their shop and make it a central part of their RP, as they should. A poor quality roleplayer will always fulfil the bare minimum of the game mechanics, regardless of initial cost.

The idea that a higher fee will somehow force non-RPers to RP is a far-fetched at best. It just won't work, and never has. However, raising the cost will create a headache for those who are not well-established in the server, and those who prefer to RP rather than running out to the wilderness to make minas.

I am disappointed by the sheer number of people calling for higher prices for shops. There seems to be some sort of attitude that the average player shouldn't be able to do anything. Combined with excessive regions and the sheer number of applications to be completed, I'm surprised LotC gets any new players at all.

Is there no such thing as a poor stallkeeper? Where are the peddlers? This opportunity should not be limited to the kings, queens and mob grinders.

I like this a lot. It will fix a lot of problems associated with being in a bad timezone.

As for what might realistically be in a shop, it is up to the players to provide quality roleplay. Not game mechanics.

Chronicle 5: The Forgotten Elvish Cousin

For nigh on thirty years, during the reign of High Prince Ralian, Orc diplomat Kragbar’Krump lived in Upper Laurelin and took to him an Elven wife. The practice of elves lying with Orcs had never before been known and hopefully never would be again. So the child was named Govlen, meaning ‘unlikely’ and was raised in Laurelin. The boy was rich in vigor and lackluster in hair. His clumsy scaley body would break windows, knock over market stalls and mistakenly set fire to treetop houses. When it came time for his passage to become a man the Elven Council ruled that Govlen be removed from Malinor upon his return, lest the ancient forest be brought to its knees.

Govlen lived longer than any Orc and took to him many wives of Kal’Urguan. His sprightly fertility bore 18 children, the first of which was Kemal who never took to him a child. His remaining sons bore many children and by the third generation the descendants of Govlen were numbered at six hundred two score and three. They dispersed themselves across Kal’Urguan becoming stall vendors and politicians, never fearful of leeching extra Minas from dim-witted Orcs. Orc brutality for language referred to the Govlen family as Goblins, a name which has stuck with them. As the bloodline continued, Govlen’s blessing of long life and fertility faded and the Golbins became synonymous to their Orcish cousins.

This was posted about a year back in World History. A elf-orc combination is an abomination, but with a lot of inbreeding (and probably dwarvern blood) we got goblins.

From personal experience, ordinary players are driven away from you for a number of reasons:

-too many empty cities with no players

-not enough/expensive housing

-difficulty integrating into a clique

It's fine to do meetings and declaring wars and all that stuff, but to be honest the ordinary player never sees you guys. If people can't find you without TS and OOC communication, there's a problem. Another issue is that the dwarves typically focus on building and huge amounts of resources rather than casual RP. It scares away players who don't want to spend hours mining.

So as constructive criticism, stay in one city and establish a hangout zone where casual RP can be found. Sit in this area, or AFK if you must. Don't rely entirely on TS to communicate as it alienates others, rather discuss your decisions in RP to give citizens a chance to participate. Try to make housing easier to achieve, but don't push new players into selling their souls. Allow players to be citizens without requiring they serve you or provide you with resources. Your future lies in new players so help them as much as you can, rather than charge them taxes like so many cities do nowadays.

And lastly, accept this as constructive criticism. If any of this was offensive or hurt your feelings, I am truly sorry and will edit it accordingly. I do not wish to argue here.

Tried teleporting to a soulstone pillar for the first time today. Suffocated. Just so you know that it needs a fix.

If general consent is not given, a defender is free to accept or decline a warclaim put against them. This is conditional consent. If their reason to decline is "we don't have a military and we don't feel like getting our peaceful RP ruined by 200 armed men", that is their right.

Yes, just yes. I am concerned that the new warclaim system won't address the issue that small peaceful factions are completely vulnerable to obliteration by nations. Consent is required for most other roleplay - I don't see why it should be waived so easily for warclaims.

If they act in a provoking way, then sure. Knock yourself out. Just remember that if you're looking for an excuse to file a warclaim with the sole purpose of getting moar lootz/vast tracts of land, you're doing it wrong.

A common issue I've faced with warclaims is that they have been posed with the sole purpose of obtaining the defender's land/town, with no intention to spark a good storyline. Once a warclaim is written, it feels as though the attacker is then entitled to a war, even one that the defender will not enjoy. Eventually you get to the point where you can come up with any excuse to go to war, and the defender just has to deal with it.

Roleplay is for the enjoyment of all. I can understand that it's considerate to back down and "lose" occasionally. However, I do not think that one person should completely destroy another person's enjoyment in order to "win".

-slow applause-

Become a district in the human capital. The last thing 3.0 needs is another kingdom.

Or:

Nonexistent.

I started in January. Do I win?

I'm not concerned with what you do inside the ruins.

What I don't want to see is a city being built on that plot. If this is to be a well-hidden settlement, I will be holding you to that. Keep your builds in the ruins and mind our short distance.

I don't want to see you compromising the fun of the other inhabitants of the Mallowyn either. I will be extremely upset if you see this as an invitation to start warclaiming left right and center.

And I absolutely do not want to see any Mallowyn trees missing. None. I have screenshots of the placement of the trees and I will be checking to see that they are still there.

After all, I can spare 25 seconds.

I do not feel that this changes anything.

The existence of some guy already living in the ruins does not permit you to raise an entire army there. Two wrongs don't make a right and it certainly isn't fair on us and the other existing charter.

Did you know that it takes 25 seconds to walk from the ruins to the Nawari Camp?

I don't see why we can't war claim a village that's already built just because it's near two other places. What's also to stop us from talking to the Nawari or Ursakar and coming to a peaceful agreement with them?

Is this town protected from a war claim because of it's location? If so I think that's just silly.

I see no village there, only a ruin with a room or two that has been renovated. It is small, so its proximity doesn't impact much on the other charters. If it was claimed by an army, the distance issue would become much more prominent. That is the problem.

By all means, you could warclaim it. The issue comes when you attempt to put a charter on the land you have taken. This is a clear rule that should not be sidestepped.

This is relevant a couple of pages back, so excuse my absence. I feel that an important detail has been overlooked.

I have also visited the ruins and discovered that it is roughly 100 blocks away from the Nawari Campsite, and roughly 100 blocks from another charter to the north-west. The minimum distance between two plots is 200 blocks. The Nawari already have a town within 200 blocks of it to the east, Ursakar. It's getting quite crowded in here!

The warclaimed area is within 200 blocks of two different existing charters. One being the Nawari Camp, which already has another town intruding on our space. They cannot build an army here.

^ Map showing the warclaimed area, an existing charter, the Nawari Camp and the small nation town Ursakar.

I rummaged around for a map and found one posted by Shiftnative here:

http://www.lordofthecraft.net/forum/index.php?/topic/37475-charter-information/

This land is within Cloud Temple protection.

I have also visited the ruins and discovered that it is roughly 100 blocks away from the Nawari Campsite, and roughly 100 blocks from another charter to the north-west. The minimum distance between two plots is 200 blocks. The Nawari already have a town within 200 blocks of it to the east, Ursakar. It's getting quite crowded in here!

Gaius' described scenario of a guerrilla warfare type situation sounds neat. However, I doubt that it will be delivered. The warclaim states that the attacking faction will build a home here, which I take to mean houses, an inn, a well, perhaps a few shops. They need space.

The warclaimed area is two thirds Mallowyn forest with uneven ground and dense trees.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2mez6dc.png

The ruins are built in a water-filled chasm.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2l912s6.png

This isn't to say that the land is unsuitable for an army. They would just need to cut down a lot of trees. If they built on the land under the agreement that they would not cut down any of the trees, I would find this agreeable. The problem is, without the removal of the trees they would not have the space to build the settlement they are envisioning.

Coming back a little bit, I would like to talk about Ursakar. It borders the Mallowyn Woods to the east of the Nawari Camp. The town is not built around the Mallowyn trees. They were removed to make way for it. One of the biggest trees sitting atop a hill was removed for a wedding pavillion. I don't know how to put this nicely, but the area is an eyesore.

I cannot trust players that I have not met to be considerate towards the Mallowyn Woods and its inhabitants. I know that Ursakar is here to stay, but I do not want to risk an identical situation.

If we could stop slinging mud at each other for just two seconds, the issue of the Mallowyn Woods and Cloud Temple lands still needs to be addressed.

Small interjection due to my proximity to the warclaimed area.

The Nawari are not abandoned. The attitude that you can walk in and take the camp whenever you want quite frankly disgusts me.

I have also noticed that the warclaim includes a large chunk of the Mallowyn forest. I am vehemently opposed to the constant chipping away at the area of this beautiful landmark, as I consider it to be landscarring.

If people are still not convinced, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. We've all said our opinions and nobody is going to change their mind, it seems. I'd still like to put this rule change forward as a suggestion though, and hope it isn't omitted or ignored due to the topic poster's personal opinion on the matter.

I do not see how letting small, active, peaceful, roleplay groups not participate in war allows empty towns to flourish. I really don't. You can still attack inactive towns if you want.

Heck, maybe the server shouldn't accepting so many charters in the first place. I still see empty towns around, so obviously attacking them hasn't been working.

The fundamental problem with your suggestion is that not every roleplay group is a generic medieval town #322. It simply doesn't make sense for a lot of independent communities to become part of the nearest nation, especially if they're peaceful. If you force them to do that to survive, you're basically forcing them to alter their culture. Things will become very bland very quickly. Especially if you happen to be near the human nation.

In the end, you can either force people to assimilate themselves into a nation or let them decide whether they can be attacked. Neither solutions prevent empty towns. However, one of them ruins roleplay and one of them doesn't.

Game mechanics aren't really going to help with player behavior. However, it does affect the level of player frustration. I've been killed in my home so many more times than while travelling. I try very hard to be careful, but I've died countless times from lag, glitching, fall damage, and mobs attacking me in my own home. It really can't be helped. I've only been killed by players about three times since Asulon began. Why? Because I don't pull the tiger's tail!

I would prefer if all items dropped on the ground again. If that's unpopular, then items in the hotbar should be kept. The chest suggestion sounds OK, but permissions make it almost impossible. It's also pretty difficult to justify in RP.

Perhaps junk items could be coded to disappear on death? Things like slime, sticks, paper, etc. At the very least, it won't clutter up the inventories of you guys who like to PvP.