Since people are worried, I was just wondering if there should be some rule to make sure that the candidates are not accused of having the potential to grief.

Maybe a rule such as nobody who's ever been shrubbed can apply for godhood, or shrubbed within the last year or six months or something like that.

Or would something like that be too unfair? (I don't know how common that is but I hear its the most severe punishment, second only to the "permashrub").

This is true. In order to win this you will need military power.

My point is that this power divided up based on what org you belong to, but rather who YOU think is best, and who YOU are willing to guard with your life. Not who the person with the itchy ousting finger likes.

Umm... huh? How does a god grief people? This god will be scrutinized intensely by Estarra anyway.



If a Celestian thinks a Magnagoran would be a better god than a fellow follower of the Light, and the Celestian supports the raising of a tainted god in that way, that Celestian does not belong in the city.

Uhhhhh.. So somehow because a person is going to be raised to Divinity, it's ok to violate your allegiance?

For example, if Forren started campaigning for me to become Warlord of Mag as a Celestian citizen, he'd get seriously reprimanded and punished

How is it ICly different if Forren were to campaign for me to ascend to Divinity?

You're applying OOC logic to an IC situation

You seem too idealist. Most people only interact with others in their org, and people who've suffered from the actions of say, Ialie, will not support her. *snicker* My character knows absolutely no one from Glomdoring, for instance. Why would I even consider supporting Kaervas, whom she has never met save on the receiving end of a boulderblast, even if he is one of the best suited for the job?

I guess we need to figure out if we're gonna judge this based on IC or OCC requirements. A clarification by the admin would be helpful here. Will it be like "Wargames" where you can team up with your enemies, or be totally an org-based competition.

This is probably like the old "RP" argument. Remember, sportsmanship and the game as a whole will always trump the RP if necessary.

Not idealist. Just applying OOC concerns such as "balance", "fairness", "suitedness", etc to an IC event.. When in reality all those OOC concerns will be well in hand by the administration.

IC your right. OOC I doubt any of us realy don't care what city they are from as long as they make a good God or Godess. The persons skill at roleplaying and lack of bias should be of greater concern then the pride of a virtual city.

Right. So you're looking at it from an OOC perspective when it's an IC thing.

The event is IC.

Yes. Not all people RP supporting their city mindlessly, I hope.



All I am saying is that the city leaders shouldn't use their city powers to force the vote in their favor. If your charcter would support someone and they are not a leet speaking morron OCC, throw your lot with them.

The point isn't to decide this OCCly, but give every player a chance to have their charecter do what their charcter would do.

Right but RP does not exist in a bubble. Your character can do what your character would do, but other characters will do what they will do and that will impact your actions. In this case, you may want to support someone else, but the city leader may want you not to.

it's not fair, it's not unfair, it just is.

It may not be fair or unfair, but doing this will hurt the diversity of RP that makes me and many others like this game.

The fact is that if we let the leaders of the citys oust any that disagre most people aren't going to think about to picking anyone other then who the leader wants. They know that being ousted is realy unpleasent OOCly, as being a rouge is realy unpleasent OOCly. Most people aren't going to ruin the game for themself over their roleplay. If we allow them to RP without a OOC barrier, good things will happen that wouldn't otherwise.

Err... did you just argue that RPing things contrary to the city's general philosophy would result in RP consequences, like being kicked out of the city?

No ! IC actions lead to IC consequences.

No I didn't. I said that roleplay that does not strictly agree with the city leaders roleplay should not result in ousting.

The root of the problem is that being a rouge is not something you want to be. This is intended, I know, but it has the side effect of making a person that would use ousting as a political tool too powerful. If there was a perfect solution to this I'd love to see it implemnted, but I don't know what it is.

A celestian ousting a person that kills angels and raids the Supernals: Good

A celestian that supports one person ousting any that don't like them: Bad

I would imagine that ousting would be reserved only for severe cases, i.e. a Celestian outspokenly supporting a Mag when there's other candidates available.

Exactly. Don't abuse city powers to get Godhood for the guy you like.

Maybe in the final challenge, there could be some sort of anonymity imposed on the Astral Sphere other than the competitors - for example, supposing I wanted to support Trader Bob in his bid for divinity, I would be able to defend him and all that good stuff, but others trying to attack me and get me out of the way would only be able to see and refer to me by a number, or some such...we could explain it as the Soulless starting to break through, and leeching the identity from everyone not in possession of a seal, or something (yes, I'm tired, I know that doesn't make much sense) - but at least it would give you some freedom to support someone not necessarily along city/commune lines.

If Richter becomes a god, will that keep him off the credit market?

If I become *cough* God *cough*, I'm gonna go to the Avatar State and use the elements at my will.