I object to my coined term being used in a subtly derogatory manner. Celenwilde and Magdoring were used in reference to shared conflicts IN-GAME.

I detest segments of the playerbase being categorized by in-game affiliations, especially when laced with implied derision. eg - "Mags are all griefers! Serens are all stupid snugglers!! Celestians are dishonorable bastards!!"

So yes, I'm going to go copyright it, so no-one else can use it. Neeners!!

Well, what I mean is, there are hardly any posts worth reading anymore. In the past, forums were thriving and every day when I woke up I could literally spend hours just catching up. Or those hot threads that I was reading all the evening and night.

Right now, among those few posts, I usually find nothing interesting. And yeah, even flames got boring.

Yeah, I totally agree! They sort of... died.

Its hard to keep track if people are in serenwilde or celest sometimes.

I almost attacked serenwilde's guards when Triden and Malicia killed the Glomdoring ones, isntead of attacking Celest...

Stop it. Name people who are leaving. Name people in the situations you describe. Thus far, you have never been able to give a concrete example. That says to me that you are fabricating.

I hate it when people demand that you spread more private information to people for the pure sake of an argument, just to later have those people get torn a new one for something someone said about them in such an argument...

I think it is also worth noting that Narsrim and Munsia have been elevated to Commune status by themselves. When defending Celestia and Water, we were the only two Serens there most of the time. There was a small expection when Munsia had to go and Yukari was recruited for a short period... and Selwin was with us for under an hour at one point. At no point that I can recall were 2 more than Serens present.

Celenwilde, a Commune of two Serens and some Celestians? Doesn't seem to fit all that well for me.

Well, Narsrim. You are like, the equivalent of 10 people. Hmph.

If the information was private, it should have never been used as a justification in an argument.

We have this ongoing trend on forums where people make ridiculous claims (most of which are blatant lies) and then try and hide behind them with the reason you posted above. At this point, if people were leaving Lusternia in the mass exodus that so many people try and portray over insubstantial matters, we wouldn't have a player base. Literally, the game would be dead.

Furthermore, I know for a fact that in combat situations 99% of the time, no one is slain because they were either

1. Present
2. Tainted

The people who are slain are people who attack. There is a huge lack of responsibility among players to say: "Hey, I raided X to the ground yesterday, so it makes sense that Y group of people beat in my face when they got the chance." Instead, we have people who whine that they were just bashing and were just massacred because they were tainted/celest/x/y/z. .

EDIT: Watch your language. ~Shiri~

Although I don't disagree with your reasoning... why is the fact someone raided any better of an excuse than that they are enemies/tainted/spreading propaganda/etc?

There aren't PK rules that say its ok to kill if you've raided in the past, or if you've committed X crime against me.

I think the answer to your question is decent roleplay. If someone raids/murders/attacks something you cherish and adore, something you are sworn to protect... do you just disregard that?

I'll also note that you've killed people in Magnagora, Glomdoring, etc. Elryn. Why? What was your reason?

Voices. The voices told him to.

How is that any better roleplay than someone who says that the Taint/Light itself is a raping of what you cherish, and any who further it represent an assault on your beliefs?

I'm not going to make this personal, I'm sure both our characters have done things we are proud of, and othertimes ashamed of, but that really doesn't matter. I'm asking why there is a certain belief that killing raiders is 'better' RP than killing those who don't.

In the end, it comes down to personal values and morals. I feel it is more justified to attack and kill someone who struck first. If someone has not aggressively taken action first, attacking them may not be the best means to defeat them long term. And in Lusternia specifically, striking first may strategically alter your position for later events (such as Avechna getting in the way).

That's an interesting question because I have found some Seren like to kill Athana for raiding Celestia/Water even though she is not enemied to Serenwilde for any reason.

Some Seren..like, who? Narsrim and Munsia?

If you haven't gotten it by now, you never will. They've always assisted Celest against her enemies. Athana is tainted. Narsrim and Munsia are anti-taint. They are in no way neutral to the struggle.

Nope, not just them Malicia

Who else?

And on that note, Narsrim and Munsia are Veradins of Lord Hajamin. I don't understand the questions that arise when we defend His city. It wasn't really for Celest, it was a duty expected of all Order members.

I don't really understand this comment (aside from Avechna, which doesn't operate in all places).