Log of OOC Meeting 2018-06-23

[Niamh]

It's not fun on the player end either, as should they continue to behave as if what they were told is not the IC reality they typically run into IC problems

There is a belief among people right, wrong, or otherwise that the official story line of the game was that the legitimate ab Harmon line died out a number of RL years ago. There were to my understanding and looking at old IC books and records and old IC Event posts a number of intense plots and a lot of RP that has happened as a result of that very basic IC and OOC belief. And what this plot has done is changed a fundamental understanding of a key piece of the theme and lore of the game or at the least that is the way it sort of feels and that the reaction to it has felt kind of visceral.

The helpfile quoted above is from 2016, which means for 2 RL years this has been the working information people have understood the IC world and built their roleplay and their OOC thoughts based on it. In the case of a lot of noble families, the last accessible information on the Wiki et al in a lot of spots is "and then the ab Harmon Plague killed them all." Noble characters from some of those areas have apped in and existed since then, but current policy for noble apps or liquidations/deaths doesn't seem to require that info be updated so I think overtime the info that staff or the players who played some of those folks have had/worked with and what players at large have had available has gotten (or felt) divergent.

And that occurring has led to some troubles and feelings that IMHO have affected people's feelings about things. So what I might humbly request to help this going forward is a consideration of what other major things this plot brings to the fore that require updating or clarification so the divergence between staff working knowledge and player assumption is closed some what.

Though you and I went over this at great length one on one at the time, we probably should have brought it to the forums to make it more widely known: The theme on the Harmon Plague wasn't changed, but it was consolidated. Loads of discrepancies in contradictory helpfiles (like, everywhere) were brought into line with each other when this was brought up as a point of confusion by Starfish and a couple other folks. It was never a thing that anyone with any amount of Harmon blood, period, had died. That'd be silly, considering we have Harmon blood all over the place, particularly in the Ducal Houses. They're just not asshats enough to think it gives them a right to be King.

As an example of how contradictory the information was (and probably still is in places), Starfish cites a helpfile from 2016 that says every Harmon ever died. Meanwhile, last updated in 2012, the Duchess of Vandago's helpfile cites that her father died of the Harmon Plague. She's the still living Duchess of Vandago, and still descended from a man with strong enough Harmon blood to have been killed in the Plague. Even Ariel's IC book on the Succession Crisis confirms that the weaker Harmon blooded lived. Meanwhile, helpfiles sprinkled around that say not a trace was left. All we can really do is continue to consolidate as we go. And please, do continue to report helpfiles that haven't been fixed.

Edit: Thanks Taunya!

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

Yes, Farra had every authority to review Roland, but let's be honest here, what would have happened if the review had been allowed to take place? I do not believe for a second Roland would have been in a condition to continue the plot in the way it has, if he even remained alive. Yes it goes against established theme, but it also ensures the plot is able to continue and reach the most amount of players as it possibly can, to continue to a point where it has the most impact on the game as it can.

I'm not sure why you would believe that he would not have been in condition to continue the plot the way that it has — the gathering of the Baronical Council can largely be traced to Farra's actions (as per the other plot advances related to the arrest), and getting this more formal meeting was the central hope of Farra making this arrest: in essence, doing something to prevent the war that seemed certain to be brewing by the conflicting claims to the throne and the continual failing of peaceful options. And, as you could see by the information posted, Farra's Review was to find Roland guilty of only very minor sins, mostly centering around Roland ordering his Chevaliers to bar the path of the Holy Inquisition and a failure to regulate the behavior of some of his supporters during the arrest scene. The plot advance I submitted to Staff regarding it had Roland more or less vindicated by not being declared guilty of the serious sins Farra arrested him under and enabled, as far as Farra was concerned, Roland to continue to call himself a King pending the events of the Council she worked to bring into meeting.

The theme breach that I wasn't okay with was the idea that these nobility were beyond the scope of the Inquisition — shoot, the game is called the Inquisition, after all! This possibility was something I was made aware of before submitting the plot advance (I'd hoped to have the Review handled in a quicker process in tells with Niamh, since it wasn't going to involve anything I saw as a super big problem, just a slap on the wrist) hence why I included the "This would be ridiculous" narrative. To touch on the point of if it would fall outside of the Grand Inquisitor's authority the actions of that priest: the Grand Inquisitor is an Archbishop, so therefore absolutely of higher rank than a Bishop, and the Coronation physically took place in her thematic control by a clergy from outside that domain. It'd be like a noble coming into another noble's land and declaring something a law. What troubled me more was the choice of using NPCs to validate NPCs in a way that invalidated PC reaction. if, for further example, staff chose to have Reeve NPCs document the legality of Roland's claim, then told the Lord Justiciar that "Like it or not, the Reeves have let this happen and there's nothing you can do about it" I would expect the LJ to be pretty pissed off that his involvement in the storyline is being decided outside of his control.

And I'm not saying that Staff, like, broke any rules, or that the plot isn't fun — I'm super happy to see political RP resume after a very long period of being given a dismissive shrug. RPing with Roland and the Queen was super enjoyable, and I have high hopes for the future of the plot and hope that players continue to engage with it and each other. Certainly part of me is sad that Farra won't be part of that; however, when I'm constantly OOCly frustrated about minute decisions and stressed about what the next Staff decision of my guild will be, then it's healthier for me to not be in that position. That this issue has ballooned into larger points is only due to the matter being brought up by Kinaed in a way I felt was — intentionally or not! — deceptive and misleading to the playerbase. Some will agree, some won't, and that's fine.

I think what people may have been viewing as staff forcing an outcome is instead staff bending or changing theme to help facilitate the plot.

My issue comes where the alterations in theme come at the expense of someone's involvement, in this case the Inquisition's, without a discernible reason. Revoking the Inquisition's ability to review nobles by the claim that they are a "legitimate monarch" despite many reasons to ICly question that legitimacy is a significant reduction to the power and perceived authority of the Inquisition. What's to stop, after all, a mage noble from getting a corrupted Bishop to ordain them, effectively removing any ability for the Inquisition to enact their sacred duties of sniffing out and cleansing taint (again, important to note that 'Lawlessness' is a Sin, and that one of the duties of a Faithful Davite is listed in the EP as showing proper respect to the authority of the secular throne). And, even if Farra was planning to Review the Baron in a way that was detrimental to the plot, I would have hoped Staff would allow the RP to go through, potentially with the warning that it would involve serious consequence, and then have the Cardinal step in and issue a revocation of the Review's results, as that creates the conflict and tension these plots are supposed to generate for players to have choices to pursue with their characters. I do not expect Staff to say "Like it or not, you can't do anything."

[Kinaed]

I think arguing about what might have been is a waste of the vast majority of people's time. Please, let it go.

No one told Farra not to Review or arrest Roland either. I simply stated that Royalty typically was not arrestable within the GI's power (that had already happened regardless) and that the GI cannot arrest the Cardinal because of the Cardinal's game function. There were no issues raised about the RP thus far, and we did not ask Farra to null, revert, or quit her line of RP. I viewed myself as simply clarifing theme as I saw it, and I acknowledge that I missed a change/help file when doing so.

The rest of this is a lot of supposition in a vacuum, as if nothing and no one could have or would have disturbed the perfect scenarios we have in our heads.

Seriously, if anyone has a crystal ball to read the future, look me up. I'd make a badass investment partner.

[Niamh]

What troubled me more was the choice of using NPCs to validate NPCs in a way that invalidated PC reaction.

This is a disconcerting perspective that makes me uneasy. It definitely wasn't my intention to invalidate you guys' choices by holding the coronation event and including an NPC Orderite in it. As far as I knew the only thing that had been decided upon was that the cut of the marriage proposal's jib was unsatisfactory-- that GL influences had taken it off the table. I did get Farra's strongly worded letter telling Roland he'd be coronated at his own peril, I just didn't take that as "this has been decided by consensus it won't be supported by anyone" so much as "you do this and you're digging your own grave, ala me." I tried to weave in the impact of her letter by including the now notorious totally unintentionally sneaky NPC at Harmon Tower, but that was the worst.

The decision to select a Priest from Asglen to preside over the coronation was based in a few factors-- Farra's reputation in the Order had fallen to "Disliked," which was taken into account for the question of, "Before I decide who in the Order would be willing to do this, would there actually be anybody?" She had been VERY outspoken about her dislike of Roland since the plot first opened, so would anybody be willing to piss her off? Due to being Disliked within the Order, the answer was "Yes, but within reason." On top of that, we have the Cardinal advising the Order to stay out of it, let secular matters run their course, etc. So there's two big considerations-- who, if anyone, would be willing to act on Roland's behalf? I determined: Nobody higher or more influential than his own Priest. I couldn't see anyone who had earned significant rank or influence being willing to risk their careers (or heads) for a maybe-monarch they had no personal investment in. I can see how that would feel like a slap in the face, however, if it felt like a Priest had been given the authority to override Farra. If it helps, his authority is that of a Priest, and his power to officiate should be measured based on that limited status. Him being so much lower than Farra ensured Farra had the easy ability to school his ass if she decided to.

I can say that short of a player deciding to murder one of contenders, both monarchs needed to be coronated so we could bring the plot to its intended culmination-- players using their influence, wealth, and other varieties of plotty goodness to decide who rules the Kingdom. We can't do that without a pair of crowns, even if one or both are pretty brittle.

Things like this (Roland's coronation) are supposed to be questionable, and they're never ever inviolate. It's much like Celeste having a secret coronation, which is unheard of, disrespectful, and deeply problematic. Because of that, people are wildly divided on their opinions about its validity. Likewise, people should be wildly divided on the validity of Roland's-- can a clearly biased Priest really coronate a monarch? What if there's already a monarch? ...But wait, that monarch was crowned questionably too! So on and so forth. Just because they were crowned doesn't mean they're the legitimate King/Queen. It's in contention so the plot can progress. Who becomes the legitimate monarch will depend on the Baronial Council (which, thank you for guiding the plot into that direction, especially after my many blunders!).

Edit: I hit submit RIGHT after Kinaed. Sorry lady!

[Helena]

I'd like to say to Farra's player that I am tempted to agree with Kinaed's point of view, and hope my words can help you to approach the event from another point of view.

• I always felt very clearly that the staff's intention was to give the two aspirant king an equal legitimacy, as to focus the RP on their clash. And like Kinaed said, I felt Farra was holding up that promised RP by arresting Roland.
• We often say that TI-L is non consensual. Yet, everywhere in the game remains that consensus: we attempt, even when being harsh ICly, to provide (good) RP to our fellow players. Maybe that reviewing roland would have lead to great RP, but more surely would that have lead to take him away from a lot of players, and that would have shift the plot to something nobody knows if it would lead to RP at all.
• I have not the historical background of most players, and I have not readen all help files related to the Harmon plague, but on that subject like on any others, it is obvious that the IC information is confused enough to be considered with some distance and should be nuanced. It is easy to think, for the RP sake, that some of this blood remain, even if it's not written somehwere, and that Roland might have enough legitimacy.
• It is very important for me, player of powerless characters, that the cardinal has authority over the GI. The GI has yet immense powers, and I'm glad the cardinal limits that power, because the limits the cardinal represent are for the game sake. And even if the player behind the GI aims to do things for the game sake, he is not in position to do so, simply because he is involved in a character (which shifts things a lot in one's mind), and more broadly because the defined position to do that is "staff", and that staff themselves obey to rules and obligations. So, plotting to arrest the cardinal is a no-no.
• Each time I've seen an inquisitor using the accusation of heresy, I felt his claim not much convincing from an OOC point of view. Yet, nobody can object anything to an inquisitor (ab)using of the word, and the staff even supports the inquisitor's authority in case of abuse. It has something ironical to see it used here against a staff plot, but imho, the term "heresy" is so vague, that when an inquisitor ends up using it, the player behind should remind he is himself likely to interpret the theme in a biased manner.

I hope it's neither harsh nor misplaced (is it?), I'm sincerly trying to sum up the things Farra's decision to arrest and review Roland raised up in my mind.

EDIT: Sorry, I had not seen Kinaed's post before posting.

[Kinaed]

No worries, guys... I don't mind continuing discussion. I was minding extrapolating aimlessly about potential futures that didn't occur, particularly with the rising tension. This is because it's easy for those kind of posts to devolve into an argument with no objective truth, just highly subjective opinions. I got the sense it was going that route, and the posts were really long. Happy for people to continue discuss opinions and point of view in general though.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

We often say that TI-L is non consensual. Yet, everywhere in the game remains that consensus: we attempt, even when being harsh ICly, to provide (good) RP to our fellow players. Maybe that reviewing roland would have lead to great RP, but more surely would that have lead to take him away from a lot of players, and that would have shift the plot to something nobody knows if it would lead to RP at all.

I think there's this broad misconception of what a Review of Faith is. Often times people talk of it OOCly as this hyper-strenuous, torturous behavior where the person being Reviewed is submitted to immense amounts of pain and torture to see if they break. Without getting too much into it, there are IC, thematically-approved literature casting this into question, but I expect that it is a reputation the Inquisition doesn't mind maintaining. A Review can (and should!) be a high-stress situation, but the length that it is torture is left a lot up to the individual. The Inquisition of Lithmore is not the Spanish Inquisition. In this case, a Review entailed a lengthy interview with Roland, review of his personal finances and mail, discussions with those close to him, and nothing else. I'm unsure how this — and, again, Staff was made aware of the Review as part of the plot advance, so this result wasn't a mystery — would take away from RP from other people.

This point really sticks with me, and it bothers me a lot. Can anyone tell me how conducting a Review of Roland, with the results given in the advance, took away from other people's RP in a way more extensive than arresting Roland? I have always tried to do things in a way that creates RP for people, often choosing actions that don't align with my character to do it. This point, more than the others, insults and troubles me, especially because while people vaguely mention it at the peripheral of their discussions, they never seem willing to have an actual conversation about it. Players and Staff included.

It is very important for me, player of powerless characters, that the cardinal has authority over the GI. The GI has yet immense powers, and I'm glad the cardinal limits that power, because the limits the cardinal represent are for the game sake. And even if the player behind the GI aims to do things for the game sake, he is not in position to do so, simply because he is involved in a character (which shifts things a lot in one's mind), and more broadly because the defined position to do that is "staff", and that staff themselves obey to rules and obligations. So, plotting to arrest the cardinal is a no-no.

Just to re-iterate: Farra wasn't going to arrest the Cardinal. There was some brief discussion ICly of this when it was not sure who was coronating Roland behind the Lord of Asglen's guards, but my plan was never to have Farra arrest the Cardinal if he had invalidated the arrest. Rather, Farra would have approached the synod with a portfolio of the Cardinal's ineptitude and tried to get them replaced with someone more sympathetic. Farra hates the idea of people going above her head; again, she's an App 5 noblewoman who has had people around her who were willing to defer to her opinion. She was arrogant and over-confident. She had problems with authority if she didn't respect that authority. I was happy to RP out this — but again, never did the Cardinal say these things. Never did the Cardinal override Farra's authority. Rather, staff chose the route of saying that authority never existed in the first place, or was able to be removed by a clergy of lesser rank than the Grand Inquisitor, which is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Not everyone will agree, but this assumption of Farra's actions stems from Kinaed's misinterpretation of the situation, not from anything I presented to Staff. [/quote]

Each time I've seen an inquisitor using the accusation of heresy, I felt his claim not much convincing from an OOC point of view. Yet, nobody can object anything to an inquisitor (ab)using of the word, and the staff even supports the inquisitor's authority in case of abuse. It has something ironical to see it used here against a staff plot, but imho, the term "heresy" is so vague, that when an inquisitor ends up using it, the player behind should remind he is himself likely to interpret the theme in a biased manner.

This is, thematically, very intentional. Heresy is never defined in clear measures; this gives the Inquisition immense power and authority. The Inquisition should be feared by even devout Clergy. The Order is not, in its entirety, a benevolent and pure institution. While I have always RP'd that, more or less, the Lithmorran clergy isn't corrupted because of the focus applied to the capitol, I expect that in outlying areas the presence of an Inquisitor is seen as the worst thing ever, because who knows who they will accuse and why. It should also be noted that being accused and even found guilty of Heresy is not, thematically, seen as the kind of end-case RP. According to the teachings of the Order, even Heresy can be cleansed and purified without death, and once that cleansing is complete the matter is settled in the eyes of the Church and no longer is an inhibition against the quality of the soul. (Look at the Earl Marshal — a branded, but repentant, heretic.)

[Kinaed]

Rather, staff chose the route of saying that authority never existed in the first place, or was able to be removed by a clergy of lesser rank than the Grand Inquisitor, which is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Not everyone will agree, but this assumption of Farra's actions stems from Kinaed's misinterpretation of the situation, not from anything I presented to Staff.

Oh please, seriously? You were talking liquidation before I ever wrote jack diddly about the theme. I'm exiting this thread as my temper is fraying beyond my ability to remain reasonable.

[Voxumo]

We often say that TI-L is non consensual. Yet, everywhere in the game remains that consensus: we attempt, even when being harsh ICly, to provide (good) RP to our fellow players. Maybe that reviewing roland would have lead to great RP, but more surely would that have lead to take him away from a lot of players, and that would have shift the plot to something nobody knows if it would lead to RP at all.

I think there's this broad misconception of what a Review of Faith is. Often times people talk of it OOCly as this hyper-strenuous, torturous behavior where the person being Reviewed is submitted to immense amounts of pain and torture to see if they break. Without getting too much into it, there are IC, thematically-approved literature casting this into question, but I expect that it is a reputation the Inquisition doesn't mind maintaining. A Review can (and should!) be a high-stress situation, but the length that it is torture is left a lot up to the individual. The Inquisition of Lithmore is not the Spanish Inquisition. In this case, a Review entailed a lengthy interview with Roland, review of his personal finances and mail, discussions with those close to him, and nothing else. I'm unsure how this — and, again, Staff was made aware of the Review as part of the plot advance, so this result wasn't a mystery — would take away from RP from other people.

This point really sticks with me, and it bothers me a lot. Can anyone tell me how conducting a Review of Roland, with the results given in the advance, took away from other people's RP in a way more extensive than arresting Roland? I have always tried to do things in a way that creates RP for people, often choosing actions that don't align with my character to do it. This point, more than the others, insults and troubles me, especially because while people vaguely mention it at the peripheral of their discussions, they never seem willing to have an actual conversation about it. Players and Staff included.

I do not believe it's a broad misconception, moreso that it's an opinion based on all those who came before Farra. The Order, and by extension the Inquisition, has a history attached to it, both oocly and icly. That history kind of dictates a Review of Faith being somewhat of a death sentence, and more a formality than a actual chance to be proven innocent. And even if proven innocent more harm done to the reviewed, be it mentally or physically.

This history is perhaps what lead to the belief that Farra conducting a review of faith on Roland would result in such. Hell knowing Farra was content to stab someone outside of a review also lead to my own view of a review of roland would not end well for him, not mention other tidbits that are not publicly known.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

... Stuff! ...

I want to make something very clear to anyone reading this: I have no meaningful complaints about Niamh's handling of anything related to this plot or anything in a broader sense. I don't necessarily agree with her on some points, but Niamh's always been willing to talk about decisions, or approach me with clarifying questions, in a fashion which muted the stressors rather than expand on them. When I've raised frustrations, she's been willing to talk about them, offer her own views on them, find a common-ground, and present approaches which might go better in the future. Even if, behind the scenes, she might be shitting on me harder than a triceratops on Jurrasic Park (idk! She might be! Gotta be wary of that Niamh, tricksy beast), she's always come across to me as someone sympathetic of frustrations and willing to resolve the kind of misunderstandings that cropped up, rather than accuse those on the other side of the misunderstandings from the get-go.

Ninja Edit: this isn't meant to be a way to bash on Temi, either, by praising Niamh and not her. I've had conversations with Niamh that I haven't sought out with Temi, as I've a much longer history with Niamh.