Talk:Events of the year 3 DY

Under the section Demesne of the Damned(11/17) it was stated that: On the mainland, Erzoth, buttressed by heavily armored allies and mercenaries from Mardur, again sallied forth against the warriors to their south-east. Despite displaying the colors of Alliance, Erzoth claimed them to be little more than bandits, and set upon them in short order. However in the chaotic melee the lightly armored skirmishers were again able to rebuke those that trespassed against them, without taking casualty. When one of the warriors questioned Thorne, before he fell, as to why he led his country against those defending their sovereign territory, Thorne replied: "Because we're being paid good gold.".

I have conferred with people who were there at the event and they said that they did not recall Erzoth claiming them to be little more then bandits so I would inquire to the source of this information? I was not there this event and as this slanders on my countries good name I figured it would be best to look into it.

-Alaric

On the FB group members of Erzoth have referred to them as bandits on several occasions. That bit is just me reconciling what has been said with what has happened in game.

If you guys don't care for that, it's easily amended; it can be hard to differentiate what is meant to be said strictly OOC. After all, mechanically (on the encounter chart), they are "bandits." However encounters are often re-skinned*, and the "bandits" have never given any indication they are anything except survivors of Alliance.
*(it would be redundant to have four encounters that are exactly the same, except with different names)

I try to keep things unbiased in the log, but if Mardur kills orcs/goblyns, the Explorers kill "pinkie" members of defunct contries, or Legion kills peaceful intelligent Dargarth denizens, I'm not going to ignore it. And since the stated mission of Erzoth (on the wiki and multiple times in person) is to protect the people of Alliance, and twice now Erzoth has attacked the same group of Alliance citizens, that might need to be reconciled. ;)

P.S. Don't forget to log in.
~ Rasheab (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2013 (PST)

I believe on the FB group the people who referred to them as bandits were more referring to what they were in the encounter not stating they were bandits. I don't feel as if the facebook group is the best place to get IC statements from. I understand that reskinning encounters is a good way to keep things interesting but reskinning brigands as either brigands disguised as Alliance men or just actually Alliance men(I was never really sure if it was one or the other), and then having them fight the country who is trying to protect the former citizens and having them refuse all forms of negotiation(lets be real nothing we could've said would've convinced you guys not to attack us) feels a bit gamey to me. Its a good way for countries to mess with each other by NPCing as other peoples encounters and being like "Hey guys I'm from this thing you promised to do but now I'm going to attack you". Just saying my opinion on the matter there and if I'm misinformed about anything sorry.

-Vaiird (talk)11:29, 16 December 2013 (PST)

P.S. I remembered this time

Thanks; it's awesome you signed your comment, it's just that most people forget. (And it's easier for me to track wiki changes as a mod when folks are signed in.)

(Out-of-character) you're probably correct that little would have made us change our mind. It's kinda counter-intuitive to roleplaying to demand that every set of characters be open to any suggestions they are presented with. That specific set of warriors (at least as far as I can speak, as one of said characters) has survived that long by their own skills, and is simply uninterested in being under the dominion of a foreign power. Why should they? It's their home/country; why should they turn it over to foreigners/strangers?

Also, and I could be forgetting it (it has been a couple of months), but I don't recall anything particularly noteworthy or awesome (aka convincing) being offered during the first battle's negotiations. And I don't recall the NPCs beginning the assault either time; they told you that was their home, asked (ok, told) you to leave, and you attacked. The first occasion is a bit foggier, but the second time you guys started attacking pretty much right after lay-on (and since you died, you shouldn't recall what happened the first time, so why didn't you try to negotiate again?). (You guys also always "negotiation" with weapons in hand; why would they trust strangers who show up with weapons?)

For comparison, Legion has offered a dragon 1,000 gold, and been bluntly turned down. And the last set of bugbears were literally told by the land marshal they were not allowed to negotiate. :) On the other hand, Lucas gained his entire island through negotiation (with the exceptions of undead and slavers, which were about half the encounters). I (and I can only speak for myself) as an NPC have accepted negotiation before, when the context fit. For a possibly more apt comparison, when the Explorers went to the Albion capital (5 templars), the templars did negotiate, but they also did not surrender (and in the end the Explorers didn't get the hex; it's still independent. If you want to hear that story I'll tell you about it sometime).

Anyway, I just view it as part of roleplaying (and being an NPC) to come up with different motivations for each encounter. Sometimes you get barbarians who are bought off with Lucas' pants (true story), and sometimes you get Angry Peasant (mobs). :) Some NPCs are honorable, and some will stab you in the back. Etc and so on.

And sure, it can be a way to get in some extra "mess with country X" time. (For example, there have been times when Legion NPCed against Mardur and vice versa). But don't forget that most (over 85% at least) of encounters result in combat, regardless of who is NPCing. So I don't think it's ever a case of a country trying to be dicks. For example, I'm personally protective of Alliance (as you know), but Mowgli isn't; and both of the "bandit encounters" have been no more than 50% Legion. I like NPCing because it's one of the few times that we actually get to roleplay with nothing on the line if we lose or are convinced to give up/concede/go peacefully.

In closing (man, I didn't mean to write that much), I honestly (out-of-character) don't know if they are bandits wearing Alliance tabards, actual Alliance members, or Alliance warriors who have turned to banditry to survive. I'm partial to option #2 (and I think Bodvarr said we could choose), but it could be #3 (or #1, I guess). BUT, since in-character you guys don't have anyone who can detect disguise, you shouldn't know what the truth is. :) (And we're not supposed to assume/second guess if people can use disguise. So I've been told. Unfortunately. Sadly.)

P.S. I hope you guys are having fun. It's definitely not personal; we're all playing a game. And I (personally) think encounters that happen within former country's territories are interesting; we rarely have a good excuse to get into character (and it's a good way to build in-game lore). :\ Legion has only run into (un)dead Endorians and Solarians.

P.P.S. And yeah, FB can be the confusing sometimes. But since it's where most of the talking happens, we can't just completely ignore it.

P.P.P.S. Speaking of slanderous, did you read what Thorne as the lore marshal wrote about the Kingmaker adventure? A huge portion is slander and out-and-out lies (from what I've been able to gather). :) BUT this is supposed to be a record of events, not something to upset anyone. So if you actively/officially are not cool with how it's written up, we'll talk about it, k? (Remind me at the Triumvirate meeting this weekend?)

~ Rasheab (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2013 (PST)