Talk:Knights of Erzoth - Revision history

Rasheab at 02:07, 16 May 2013

2013-05-16T02:07:20Z

Rasheab at 02:06, 16 May 2013

2013-05-16T02:06:08Z

Bodvarr at 01:27, 16 May 2013

2013-05-16T01:27:47Z

Rasheab at 10:42, 15 May 2013

2013-05-15T10:42:13Z

Rasheab at 06:39, 14 May 2013

2013-05-14T06:39:13Z

Rasheab: Created page with "You aren't "founded" officially until you're on the map. ~ Rasheab"

2013-05-14T06:36:22Z

Created page with "You aren't "founded" officially until you're on the map. ~ Rasheab"

New page

You aren't "founded" officially until you're on the map. ~ Rasheab

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 .  You aren't "founded" officially as a country until you're on the map. ~ Rasheab
-*but in the grand scheme of things, not that big of a deal.
+*but in the grand scheme of things, not that big of a deal.  '''Edit:''' also Froste could be doing things different than Harris did.  All I am working with right now is that the map is shown to be empty, so that's what I'm rolling with.
 .  Please use the "minor edit" button, and the "preview" button liberally.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:06, 16 May 2013
Line 22:		Line 22:

	YOU are essentially forcing, or at the very least pushing very hard for these new players to Dargarth to role play how you want them too. Although I agree that they should work themselves into Dargarth lore as best they can, they shouldn't be limited to playing off of what happened in an area that is now open hexes.		YOU are essentially forcing, or at the very least pushing very hard for these new players to Dargarth to role play how you want them too. Although I agree that they should work themselves into Dargarth lore as best they can, they shouldn't be limited to playing off of what happened in an area that is now open hexes.
		+
		+
		+	[[User:Rasheab\|Rasheab]] ([[User talk:Rasheab\|talk]]) I don't understand where you are going with your argument, Matthew. We are speaking of IC matters, which for the most part lie outside of the rulebook. Going "defunct" is a game mechanic; how/why that happens IC/in lore is a matter to be worked out among us, the players.
		+
		+	I am pushing for a unexplained "cataclysm" because it leaves the map open to colonization, and room for peace between the countries. Compared to other explanations (such as a rebellion or political overthrow/usurpation) from which it would logically follow that our countries would be at odds/enemies. I don't feel like attacking/being mean to new players, so I am attempting (through back and forth roleplaying) establish a mutual story which both groups can live with.
		+
		+	Alliance characters/members '''will''' show up again, so we need to come up with a story that can explain why they have lost their country. A cataclysm allows for the destruction of their country, and the new kids to be good guys, by helping the people.
		+
		+	Things that happen because of game mechanics need to be explained in-game (or they should be; we could just ignore it and pretend it never happened). That explanation, ideally, works for everyone while also being interesting. In the IC thread the Hamlin folks have said they have moved in following the destruction of Alliance; we can spin that several ways, but the easiest way which should leave everyone happy and able to co-exist would be to explain the "defunction" as some sort of natural disaster. It's a neutral event, with no one at fault, explains the game mechanic, and allows everyone to get along.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:27, 16 May 2013
Line 11:		Line 11:

	Additionally, Alliance members will reappear from time to time, so I would suggest working out a history that can be reconciled with that. (In the IC thread you seem to be setting up a country post-cataclysm; that can be reconciled with Alliance showing up later, unlike (in my opinion) the abandonment direction.)		Additionally, Alliance members will reappear from time to time, so I would suggest working out a history that can be reconciled with that. (In the IC thread you seem to be setting up a country post-cataclysm; that can be reconciled with Alliance showing up later, unlike (in my opinion) the abandonment direction.)
		+
		+
		+	Matthew Puddicombe writes:
		+
		+	There is no place in the rule book that describes a country going defunct as a "Cataclysm". It didn't get destroyed, invaded, washed away, whatever. The people responsible for keeping it going didn't meet the requirements to do so based upon the judgement of the Land Marshal and others. So no one HAS to pretend that they suddenly disappeared. You could just as easily reconcile this with an explanation from old alliance characters explaining how the left peacefully and of their own free will. You are personally deciding your going to role play YOUR character as believing there has been a "Cataclysm". They (Knights of Erzoth) don't have to roleplay their nation or characters that way if that isn't what they want to do.
		+
		+	3. Defunct Countries
		+
		+	A country may be declared "defunct" by the noble council if it fields no surcoated members for six regularly scheduled events. In such an instance, the country's land becomes unclaimed, the settlements and fortresses become ruins, the coffers are donated to the realm, and the country ceases to exist.
		+
		+	YOU are essentially forcing, or at the very least pushing very hard for these new players to Dargarth to role play how you want them too. Although I agree that they should work themselves into Dargarth lore as best they can, they shouldn't be limited to playing off of what happened in an area that is now open hexes.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:42, 15 May 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	You aren't "founded" officially until you're on the map. ~ Rasheab	+	1. You aren't "founded" officially as a country until you're on the map. ~ Rasheab
		+	*but in the grand scheme of things, not that big of a deal.

	2. Please use the "minor edit" button, and the "preview" button liberally.		2. Please use the "minor edit" button, and the "preview" button liberally.
		+
		+
		+	"Please don't make up events that can't be reconciled with game history or existing lore." [[Editing Help]]<br>
		+	*Alliance was active in early March<br>
		+	*you guys participated in the event in late March<br>
		+	*Alliance wasn't declared defunct till May.
		+
		+	Additionally, Alliance members will reappear from time to time, so I would suggest working out a history that can be reconciled with that. (In the IC thread you seem to be setting up a country post-cataclysm; that can be reconciled with Alliance showing up later, unlike (in my opinion) the abandonment direction.)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:39, 14 May 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	You aren't "founded" officially until you're on the map. ~ Rasheab		You aren't "founded" officially until you're on the map. ~ Rasheab
		+
		+	2. Please use the "minor edit" button, and the "preview" button liberally.