Darkwater Forum

A place for staff and players to come together for discussions regarding Darkwater MUX.
 
HomeRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Oath Discussion: Packages?

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Should we keep the 'packages' as part of the Oath?
Yes - they''re an incentive.
50%
 50% [ 11 ]
No - they clutter the oath up, keep it simple!
50%
 50% [ 11 ]
Total Votes : 22
 

AuthorMessage
Alexander



Posts : 35
Join date : 2011-01-26

PostSubject: Re: Oath Discussion: Packages?    Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:03 am

Polly wrote:
I just think the original Pledge was pretty much a thinly veiled 'anti-nix law". I would like the players here to think big picture, maybe even get a little meta; so that we can make something that will be fun over the long term.

I would suggest something along the way of "eye for eye." If you take something from a freeholder the Crown will pledge you to suffering a loss of your own, poetically linked to your crime.

IE: Gwen wounded someone with her hands. She should loose the use of her hands (Maybe she has to wear bells over her hands, or she must keep them in her pocket for a lengthy period of time.

Or hell, maybe she should have to be Kailins butler for a while.

Stuff like that.

And actually banishment isn't so bad as it's written in the books. That kind of stuff may spice the game up a bit.

See, THIS is why I want monarchs with the power to mette out punishment. That's awesomeness to the power of twelve right there. Since it didn't kill him, the punishment shouldn't be as bad. Take into account the situation, the person involved, and something like having to wear mits over her hands for the rest of the season (the kind with the big portion over four fingers plus your thumb) and have to serve so many hours (read as a number of scenes) doing "community service." If two characters have an IC issue, though, I don't think that the community service should have anything directly to do with the victim. That'd likely just cause /more/ problems.

While this is a dark, horror filled game, I think we could inject some humor into it when appropriate.
Back to top Go down
Kailin



Posts : 14
Join date : 2011-01-27

PostSubject: Re: Oath Discussion: Packages?    Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:57 pm

Brand wrote:
I just had a chat with someone about the current oath and laws, and came to a few realizations that I think most of us have missed, me included.

1. Gwen didn't break the oath. Unless Kailin went up to the crown and complained and asked for arbitration, she didn't break a law. That law says quite clearly the crown won't do anything unless the offended party brings it up to the crown. If Kailin did not, she broke no law.

2. The Oath itself, having the wording about the I pledge that all grievances and disputes with my fellows shall be resolved in a manner both honorable and honest, for whatever our disagreements may be we are still as family. -this is totally pointless. It has no Task in the mechanics, and hence, is just word fluff. The only Task is the Fealty.

So. Yeah. This needs reworking for sure.

1) ??? Um, Kailin wasn't the one that needed to go to the crown and ask for arbitration. Gwen was. She had a problem with something Kailin did and rather than handling it through the Crown, she shot him. Yeah, she broke the Oath. Its really kind of apalling that the whole thing was ruled otherwise. It was miraculously convenient and not overwhelmingly surprising, but whatever.

2) The Fealty task is "the task" that makes the wording NOT pointless. As the person you're swearing fealty to, part of your obedience to the crown is your agreement that the Crown specifically extends your Fealty to his subjects, your fellows, who have also pledged the same. It is extending part of the Fealty based on the fact that by dealing with your fellows dishonorably or dishonestly you're harming the freehold and the Crown. That's not fluff. Its actually very necessary. And completely sensible.


I don't really see what everyone else seems to think is wrong with the pledge, to be honest. It seems to be quite straightforward. Seems more like the pledge is being blamed for things that have nothing to do with the pledge itself more as an excuse than anything else. Just my opinion.

The wording itself is fine for what is intended. Now if people don't like what is being asked for or given, then that's a different matter, but there's nothing wrong with the pledge for what was intended except that it was broken by a popular character/player. There's very few Oaths that aren't going to have loopholes or technicalities in it because it doesn't specifically state this or specifically state that. This is why lawyers draw up contracts that are thick as a book. That's just not feasible here.
Back to top Go down
Brand



Posts : 13
Join date : 2011-01-26

PostSubject: Re: Oath Discussion: Packages?    Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:43 pm

1. That's something I can agree with, Kailin - if reading the laws, Gwen should've gone to the crown, if you bend it that way. ANd of course, since it's unclear and arbitrary, this law is bad - people don't know or understand when the Oath is broken. And the Oath is broken when you break the law. I agree that Gwen broke the law, I definitely think there should be consequences, and the ruling that she hadn't broken the oath sat very badly with me - I am glad this was looked at and changed.

2. It is word fluff. Sorry, Kailin - but no matter how you twist and turn it, the Fealty is a task in itself according to the rules of the book. Anything added, as far as a task of some sort, need to have the modifiers for it in the mechanics. So, the word fluff is there, but it has no negatives in the mechanics. There's no Task in the mechanics for it. Mind, the Fealty is badly written, and the example pledge in the book breaks the rules of mechanics too (I'm on my way out and don't have time to quote, but I suggest reading it.)
Back to top Go down
Kailin



Posts : 14
Join date : 2011-01-27

PostSubject: Re: Oath Discussion: Packages?    Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:35 am

I read the pledge. Didn't see any issue. Again, there won't be any pledges on a MUSH that are contractually iron-clad. Just won't happen. That's why the Wyrd is there to enforce the spirit of the Oath when it is given and taken. That's the part of this that failed. Whoever was deciding for the Wyrd bent over backwards to allow the spirit of the Oath to be ignored. (Although, I'm still unsure of what the actual justification was that allowed for someone to haul off and shoot someone in the head without breaking the Oath. I've only heard about it secondhand.) If that same lattitude is given to all players and situations, there's really no need to have a freehold pledge, except for the illusion of it and (most importantly, I guess) the free stats. So while everyone is saying the pledge needs to be fixed, yeah, okay, fine. But under these circumstances, good luck with coming up with one that doesn't.
Back to top Go down
Alister



Posts : 33
Join date : 2011-01-27

PostSubject: Re: Oath Discussion: Packages?    Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:23 am

Kailin wrote:
I read the pledge. Didn't see any issue. Again, there won't be any pledges on a MUSH that are contractually iron-clad. Just won't happen. That's why the Wyrd is there to enforce the spirit of the Oath when it is given and taken. That's the part of this that failed. Whoever was deciding for the Wyrd bent over backwards to allow the spirit of the Oath to be ignored. (Although, I'm still unsure of what the actual justification was that allowed for someone to haul off and shoot someone in the head without breaking the Oath. I've only heard about it secondhand.) If that same lattitude is given to all players and situations, there's really no need to have a freehold pledge, except for the illusion of it and (most importantly, I guess) the free stats. So while everyone is saying the pledge needs to be fixed, yeah, okay, fine. But under these circumstances, good luck with coming up with one that doesn't.

Im going to say it but it seems to be that the real reason all this is has really come up was the fact Gen diid /not/ become oathbound and i think many people think otherwise. The only reason we got that she wasn't oathbroken is because of an attempt to amend? I do not think it is sitting well with people which causes people to question the why's.
Back to top Go down
Lawless



Posts : 22
Join date : 2011-01-27

PostSubject: Re: Oath Discussion: Packages?    Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:13 pm

I have a general suggestion on the packages. Would it be at all possible to allow the packages to be adjusted to taste? One thing I wasn't aware of is that bonuses from many pledges don't stack up. Which makes it a bit wasteful when you might have two pledges that boost the same skill or merit and they overwrite each other. Not to mention, though the three subsets of package do cover a decent span, they might not actually hit a character's specialties, which is where the points should hit, since part of the oath is to hone one's abilities to the utmost. So might it be a bit better to merely have a note to increase 3 skills and have two dots in merits or something similar(I think that's what the pledge gives, roughly).

It would make the pledge a bit more of an incentive)which is is somewhat already to me).

Edit: As an aside, this would factor in no matter how the bonuses are handled in the future. Since not every fighter, nor every spy or otherwise has just hte same skillset and focus.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Oath Discussion: Packages?    

Back to top Go down
 
Oath Discussion: Packages?
Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» OPEN FOR DISCUSSION -ONE GOOD COUNTER AS AN EXAMPLE
» Cheapest internet packages in Srilanka..
» Stock Market words - For the New Investors (Beginners)
» Environmental Resource Investment: Real value
» How to find sector P/E via DFN or CSE.LK

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Darkwater Forum :: Changeling :: Freehold-
Jump to: