That seems fair enough... they're graced until they are able to sanctuary again, and during that time they can't be attacked, but also can't influence or debate themselves.

I like that idea.

It's getting tiring saying it.

We're not talking a way to slaughter people. Stop with the Mags Want To Kill Everyone In Sight. Dear lord, the stereotyping.

Bypass the bloody combat aspect, and look at sanctuary itself. It's unbreakable. Absolutely unbreakable. We can't even put our own sanc in it.

We may be slightly biased towards combat, but note that we're agreeing that peaceful tactics have their place in influencing. Both should be equally viable. Right now they're not.

You want a way to prevent being slaughtered at just about no cost. I can understand that, at the moment, pacifists influencing have it good. If village influencing was never meant to involve combat, there would be a village-wide sanctuary put in everytime a village revolted.

Why also, do you think the Gods gave us crusade? Why not just another version of sanctuary, with a higher power cost, with the influence-enhancing effects crusade gives?

I'm tired of waiting for a good reason to change sanctuaries, but...

I disagree about this. Combat pervades every aspect of the rest of Lusternian interaction. If it was meant to be the equal or primary aspect of village revolution, it would be not be set up to be an INFLUENCE task. I'm glad they let combat be a part of influencing so those inclined towards it can have an additional place to enjoy it, but it is -not- supposed to be the equal or major component.

I disagree.

It's simply a matter of balance. There should be no un-removable, permanent, virtually free way to immunize yourself from physical harm.

That said, I like Gwylifar's suggestion with gaining grace for a short period of time when your ego shatters and your sanctuary drops.

Refer to previous post.

I asked to bypass the combat factor and look at sanctuary itself.

It's unbreakable.

We can't even put our own sanctuary in, much less our own crusade.

Um, you would gain nothing from having your own sanctuary that you don't gain already from having another org's sanctuary.

After reading all the (at times very repetive) arguments on this thread, I'm inclined to concede that change should come in small increments.

Balance debating, give people time for it to sink in and see how it affects influencing.

After that, see where we are and if changes to campaigning are still needed or if debating addressed them.

*looks at politics*

I think the current influencing system is balanced and fair.

This makes it look like you have absolutely NO clue what you're talking about.

Well from Paavik just now, where I've had most of my debating experience, yea, it is utterly a joke. I only used offensive debating on someone who clearly didn't change mindsets and if they didn, would only get a chance to change once before I beat them. Otherwise I just sat and changed mindsets.

Manually.

When I can out debate three people while I'm already influencing one mobile, whilst juggling bromides, sparkles, laetitia, influencing AND shuffling mindsets manually... well... gods that's horrible. A look over would be nice. (And it made my fingers hurt flicking between typing so much so fast and that I really should code systems for it, heh...)

- Narsrim along with several others has relayed a great deal of distaste, disgust, and grief that dwarves from Southgard and Rockholm (independent of who they are influenced by) have been murdered an enslaved as undead in Angkrag.

- Serenwilde was very upset to lose Estelbar and many members pledged to work harder next time it revolts because Serenwilde feel empathy with the furrikin of Estelbar as they are or were in some way related to Ackleberry.

-----

Whereas I would agree that you cannot judge roleplay when you've never seen it, I can say that I -sincerely- doubt that Magnagora has in any way roleplayed the scenarios you have presented. Given Narsrim is my main character and I am not necessarily aware of everything going on in Magnagora, I could easily be wrong. If I am wrong, I would love for someone to shoot me down and show me some wonderful roleplay on behalf of Magnagora to show that they are acting IC and not meta-gaming. Post a log.

However, I can assure you that many Serens have in some form or another expressed anger, sympathy, etc. for villagers who are unjustly murdered by Magnagora. I am sure that several Serens (and Celestians because they are similar in this aspect) would agree.

When you say you feel a certain way, and are acting on those feelings, you are not offering to post a log, you are asking me to take you at face value because truly, there's no reason not to.

And I do take you at face value. Kindly extend the same curtesy to others, because truly, there's no reason not to.

Meh. Jadryga has already said more or less that there is in fact -no- IC reason behind Magnagora meta-gaming. She has said that if need be, they can pull out of their bums (however, none of it has eve been done so far). Whereas I do realize that you may have no experience with my IC roles, it isn't exactly a secret about the dwarves and various other things. I don't feel it is necessary to provide a log, but I could dig something up when I get home tonight if necessary.

My point is simply that regardless if you can makeup some excuse to metagame, don't try and say it is roleplay oriented when it fact it has -never- been roleplayed (which Jadryga admitted).

Control over the sanc. The ability to drop it if needed.

And if you drop it, it can be instantly set up again by anyone else in the room. As you can do if your enemy drops it.

Edit: Although, let me reiterate a point you seem to be missing... THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE ANY ORGANIZATION CAN HAVE IN A SANCTUARY (once demesnes in village influencing is fixed).

Holding an opinion and acting on it is valid role-play in my mind. Do you disagree? It is a touch silly to require a 'documentation of belief' for validity.

I dislike how you are portraying where I have lived for two decades. I've never gotten that impression in all that time. I've just seen people who cared about the Empire and worked to make it strong. Those few among us who act for their own self-agrandizement are removed from the city, by the city. I think that telling for our overall culture.

Please be respectful of that.

If YOU have sanctuary up, I can't break your sanc to put MY sanc in, much less MY crusade.

YOU have total control over the sanc'ed area, because once you have it sanced, I have absolutely no way to take it.

I disagree when the role-play in mind is formulated after a series of events as an attempt to make an excuse for past behavior. The infamous meta-game and fabricate a weak RP excuse later is becoming all too common. Whereas documentation is not necessary, my point was that I was willing to accept any documentation as the perfect counter to my beliefs.

-----

What impression did you gain when Magnagora erected shrines to Fain to attack -around- sanctuary. What impression did you gain when Seren novices who could not influence (and were actually behind the grace of innocence) were simply exploring (CR1, not like they could do anything) only to be enemied to Fain for -no- reason and then butchered? Was this the roleplay that Magnagora had in mind? Notice that it is no longer possible... it obviously was a very low and sickening tactic by Magnagora as a last attempt to try and reclaim a village they could not win by fair play. If given the chance to do it again, I'm sure it would be top priority.

Furthermore, I am sure there are some decent people in Magnagora; however, it just so happens that Magnagora is also filled with the bulk of those who try to meta-game or outright act in a manner to make Lusternia unpleasant for others. I have no respect for these people, and I am sorry that Magnagora as a whole suffers the imagine that these persons bring.

And they know this... how?