(07-15-2014, 12:59 AM)TheLastCandle Wrote:(07-15-2014, 12:08 AM)Gaspard Wrote: The problem in seperating the guilt of so many people that played on the 'Villain' side, as you put it, is that we're back into assuming how Ul'dah would react. Something we have no feasable way of knowing. They might only try to find the heads behind the operation, or they may want everyone involved in any fashion hanged, akin to a witch-hunt. Guilty by Association, and/or standing on the wrong side.
In the end, it's not as much about deducting the degree of guilt in each character, but rather, what the Ul'dahn society will settle on as viable punishment, and given that Ul'dah follows a rather medieval system of governing, it's not improbable that it'd be rather a witch-hunt then fair, individual set of trials to deduct someones guilt or innocence.
I think that in general people should distance themselves from thinking of this in terms of 'fairness' and or 'Character A is more guilty then Character B'. It's more likely(or plausible), that they'll trial everyone involved as guilty of treason against the Crown and the Citizens of Ul'dah, which will translate into hanging for all of them. There will be too much pressure form the Citizens themselves for a verdict that will please them, rather then be just,as many people will have dead relatives, friends and spouses by that point.
That's all well and good, but this is a cooperative game. Some people are, rather understandably, attached to playing their characters. So going around drawing lines in the sand saying "this is how it should be, and if you don't conform to the way I see things, then to hell with you" is simply not the way to go about it. It does not set a good precedent for the community - and that's what we are, lest anyone forget.
Make no mistake: I thoroughly encourage and support any and all IC reactions as your character (and this is a general "your," directed at no particular person, since it's evident that Aya isn't alone in her thinking) sees fit. What I don't support, on an OOC level, is 1.) blanket statements, for one, regarding a diverse group of characters with numerous motivations and differing circumstances, and 2.) declaring refusal to interact with someone because you disagree with their RP choices. The former is simply making assumptions, and the latter is at best exclusionist and, at worst, metagaming.
Actually, I personally tend to always find a way to get somewhat 'adjusted' to a situation, aslong it is not too outlandish. So you needn't worry about me running around 'shunning people', unless it gets too ridiculous.
As for ""this is how it should be, and if you don't conform to the way I see things, then to hell with you" is simply not the way to go about it." , That's not really the purpose or goal behind the whole Idea. As I mentioned before, It's a drastic, sub-optimal solution, but at times the only one left for players that feel as if there's no other choice in order to take themselves out of a plot/dynamic they don't want to be part of. I mean, what is the alternative? Always go along with plays you consider unrealistic/nonsensical? If so, you'd have to take every single barhopping, naked troll in the Quicksand seriously the moment he says 'i'm srs'. Ofcourse, it's a harsh and kind of over-the-top example, but it I think it conveys the message. What's Logical to you, isn't necessarily logical to others. If you're at a crossroad, you have the option of either : Trying to work it out if the person is willing to listen, or, if ignored in your request, in kind ignore their character.Â
 I for one try to find a way to make things work, by sometimes even finding opportunities and more logical explenations for how they could achieve what they'd wish to achieve. That is, until someone claims he's killed Bahamut, Married Momodi, Or wined and dined with Odin.
I don't understand your point in regards to 'blanket statements', because I don't think any have been rendered. At most, I've voiced my personal theory, that I find logical as a result of that which apparently has, or will happen in this plot, and how the Ul'dahn Npc's (As in Military, Factions, Politicians, the common folk) will react to this scenario in regards to the characters involved.
As for:
2.) declaring refusal to interact with someone because you disagree with their RP choices.is at best exclusionist and, at worst, metagaming.
I'd have to disagree. Metagaming is using OOC knowledge Icly. in the form of 'bob knows your secret without having a way to know your secret' or ' in order to survive, I suddenly know the weakspot nobody ever found out' Outright ignoring a characters existence isn't metagaming, i'd rather call it as it is, ignoring another characters existence. Which again, is perhaps the only viable way for people to get control into their characters and their World/setting if things do not seem 'logical' and/or Lore-cohesive to them. Also, It's not about 'disagreeing' with the characters RP choices, It's about disagreeing with the presumed consequences by the Ul'dahn City State / the NPC's that 'will' react to it. Just as many of us opt out of using story central characters in our backgrounds because you run into that issue of Thancred suddenly being part of everyones background, and it making no sense whatsoever, the same applies, if not especially applies to using large scale locations such as Ul'dah, and 'moreso' applies when using Ul'dahs citizens, thus influencing ALL Characters and all their current situations out of nowhere.
At last point, I'd like to address this:
"Some people are, rather understandably, attached to playing their characters."
I agree, we all carry certain attachment to our characters. However, that shouldn't expell us from consequences. Infact, everyone 'should' be aware that the moment you decide to trade blows with another character, or cause damage of any sort, you'r opening yourself up to negative feedback, which 'will' come in the form of violence or the likes.
Either way, these are all theoretical scenarios so far as the plot is not done yet, nor have the right motions concluded so far. At the very core, we're all just arguing about how severe we assume the eventual feedback against those characters involved will be from Ul'dahs NPC perspective. I've been more or less playing devils advocate in this discussion ,as I'm curious whether some people here 'really' thought about what consequence means, as opposed to 'yeah, I get to be a terrorist and get away with a light slap on the wrist that I will then sell as 'grand consequence' "
![[Image: afvXOt2.png]](http://i.imgur.com/afvXOt2.png)
