We all like that our actions have consequences, right? Right.

We all dislike that Serenwilde has been the target of several fae-hate-you events, right? Right.

Why would you continue to do things that're bound to cause a new fae-hate-you event? Why wouldn't you swallow your pride and, you know, listen to the input from the environment?

Point 1: NPC's are controlled by gods.

Yep, that's right. They're controlled by gods outside of their normal partisan roles. They're a great source of information on how they would like the atmosphere to be. While there's no reason to look at them in the same way that you'd look at an admin decision, a serious NPC should probably be taken seriously.

Point 2: The small change is virtually unknown in Lusternia.

Aren't you all afraid of what the next change might be? I know I am. All of this while there's the push to move away from conflict quests! You're probably not setting yourselves up to get bent over in front of someone with a tube of lube, you're setting us all up for a change that we might not appreciate.

Point 3: There is precedent.

You can't say anymore that you don't know or don't understand what's expected, and what might happen. We know that there can be events to make life uncomfortable for orgs. I don't want the Wilde to have another one. We know that changes can and will be made in specific reaction to players behaving in unexpected ways. I don't want another Faethorn change. Neither should you.

Um... what?

Oh, nothing. Serenwilde's just ignoring Maeve. Again. Screaming bloody defiance this time, too. Was impressive.

I assume Serenwilde was doing something like taking Fae from Faethorn who want to go to Glomdoring...or something?

EDIT: Ah, right.

I'll have to find out what exactly she was doing later.

Or...putting up a war shrine, being told that Maeve would prefer to have it gone, having it confirmed, then...Kalodan screaming about Maeve not mattering, and Ixion and Aerenna proceeding to kill everyone involved in the middle of a strained but civil conversation. After this, we got confirmation that the order, in fact, will flagrantly ignore Maeve's wishes.

Ah.

Not surprised to hear it was Kalodan doing the screaming, but oh well.

But really, it's like...don't do this, people! Don't ruffle feathers until the conflict quest things have gone through. Play nice and we might be able to keep our playground.

To be fair, Jasper was going to have the Order remove the shrine on their own accord, but decided to have Xenthos, yourself, and Pentu do the influence since it seemed you were doing it faster.

But I have to agree, this was all so silly. I was put in a hard spot, I didn't want to enemy any of you guys. Kalodan was shouting that Maeve didn't matter, and Ixion said that they should be enemied - and all this coupled with my own lethargy, I gave up. Then Kalodan said that you all were twisting Maeve's words, so it was just a really messed up thing.

After killing you all, Kalo went and told off Maeve, saying She had no right to order the shrines defiled by Wyrdlings.

She promptly told us she DIDN'T tell you to defile - she said that, if it bothered you, for you to go do something.

And there's a lot going on between the Seren and Fae I'm remarkably surprised some of us have been able to keep our mouths shut over.

Edit: Just so no one can be confused, she said she basically didn't care about the shrine, but that you all came bemoaning it's presence. Several people were there as witness to it.

Which sounds remarkably like the whole, "I don't care if there is Violence in my realm as long as my subjects aren't involved" thing I remember from earlier.

So then we can argue wether Maeve would really want to allow Glomdoring to be able to say she's giving them permission to defile the shrine of an Elder.

Also we have to ask, If Glomdoring raised a Viravain shrine in faethorn would it have the same reaction? Would Serenwilde complain and produce a similar reaction or would they simply try to get rid of it if it truly bothered them?

Of course the Serenwilde would just have gone straight to getting rid of it- you guys don't care about what the fae want / say any more. (See: the kidnapping, the badmouthing Maeve in Faethorn, etc.)

Whereas we do, so we asked first, since it's still Her realm.

And you were told that Maeve didn't care but you still tried to claim she wanted it gone? (I'm only going off whats here) So you care about them but taking what she says and trying to claim her decision works in your favour as opposed to it just being neutral?

That's actually not what her wording to us sounded like.

Queen Maeve of the Fae says, "I do not in particular desire it to be there, remove it if you so wish."

This is NOT "Maeve doesn't care," to me at least. I can see how you can interpret it that way, but that is *not* how it came across to us.

It sounds like "I don't care" to me.

There is a MASSIVE difference between "I don't really want it to be there" and "I really don't want it to be there." One leans far towards apathy, and the other very much to ire.

One leans towards apathy, perhaps, but it is not completely apathy and is still an opinion saying you don't much desire its presence.

I would say that for all intents and purposes it's completely apathy.

Not really. "I do not in particular desire it to be there" isn't the same as "Eh, it doesn't matter if it's there or not." One is saying that you don't desire it but it's not something you care about enough to actually do something yourself (but the person you're speaking to may if they wish), one is complete apathy.

Here is a novel concept, keep it IC!

"I do not in particular desire it to be there" doesn't say that you don't desire it. It doesn't even really imply it. All it says and implies is that she doesn't WANT it to be there - it doesn't say anything about whether she wants it NOT to be there or simply doesn't care either way, so you'd assume the latter by default.

EDIT: Also, this is a pretty lame semantic argument, I wonder why we're participating. *peer*