Re: City Laws, Alliance

by **Littlepip** Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:57 pm

How about the adventures, and those in the slaughtered lam, and the teachers? There has been a lot of warlocks helping the world to, don't stereotype.

by **Helmut** Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:06 pm

Thorvald wrote:How about the adventures, and those in the slaughtered lam, and the teachers? There has been a lot of warlocks helping the world to, don't stereotype.

Well yes, but can we once again look at this from an IC/server lore perspective? The server has no knowledge of the Slaughtered Lamb and, based on what has happened on the server, has if not all evil, terrorizing organizations had large involvements from outspoken shadowusers. And based on that, I think its totally legit for CHARACTERS to stereotype people, because the little world that we play our small avatars in is not a perfect little playhouse, and I don't want it that way. Do you?

by **siegmund** Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:07 pm

Only from the Cataclysm or around so have some certain warlocks started to try and prove themselves to the Alliance. One specifically being the coven under the lamb, having you kill a noble in sw with a poisoned drink pre-cata that as previously mentioned here knew too much.

Please don't compare it to a racial thing.

by **Rae Wulfgnar** Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:10 pm

Vaell wrote:Being a warlock in the city shouldn't be illegal - but having your demons out or performing fel magic should. Well, it not only should, it sort of is.

Rihani made the law to allow it, and its allowed as long as they do not use their magic in the city.

by **Rae Wulfgnar** Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:12 pm

Thorvald wrote:

Imagine the 1700-1990, just instead of black people we have Warlocks.
Hope I wrote this understand able, I have a tendency of being difficult to understand.

I had a good laugh at this. I'm pretty sure Black people didn't destroy planets nor tried to corrupt races so that they would slaughter each other. Perhaps you should redo the whole burning crusade quests.

by **Vardrek/Burgen** Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:13 pm

Thorvald wrote:This server has it fair share of problems, restricting roleplay, to few roleplayers and elitists. I am fixated on fixing as many problems I can, but to do that I need people that are open for ideas and listens to the new guys! A lot of people here however refuses to learn from the young because they -think- they know the best because they have roleplayed the longest!

I'm not saying I'm right in everything, infact I'm wrong in many things and you have to sometimes read behind the lines in order to understand what I'm even talking about!

So please, for the love of roleplay stop drinking you noble vine and listen on the ideas that people are giving!

Their is restrictions that are bad and then their is restrictions that are in place because it is part of the -role- in roleplaying. The laws as they currently stand serve that purpose it's not elitist to stand for a select set of boundaries to have a line drawn somewhere in the sand, the laws as they are work, they have always worked nothing about them is particularly broken just the imagination of others in relation to them since vanilla onwards no warlock Rp'er or shadow priest has ever in my knowledge ever complained about them as it was part of the role they picked and was part of what they enjoyed.

In short pick the role for what it is not for what you want it to be don't role a DK and expect everyone to love you etc.

by **Ixirar** Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:08 pm

Mind you, my point was about the law banning the tabard of the Scarlet Crusade. Because of the Renegade faction that also uses the same tabard, this law bans an organisation that is, lorewise, acknowledged by the king (presumably) and as such is a decision that is largely comparable to, for example, the council declaring Darnassus an enemy of the Alliance. While it'd certainly make for some entertaining RP on some level, it's not a decision that should fall on the council.

On the point of shadow magic: I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with how it's illegal to openly practice "evil" magic openly in the streets. However, I have a problem with the fact that the permit system was scrapped. A year ago, at least, you could apply for a permit to be a registered warlock as a way to opt out of the prosecution RP.

Erwt's "Adventurer's permit" concept would serve the same function. It'd serve as a way to allow people to exist in Stormwind, opting out of the "ban on dark arts" RP without having to opt out of the entire council scene. And no, it's not really feasible to just ignore the council's laws when they're enforced by the guard guilds (and since more than half of the guilds around SW apparently have guard rights, that's a huge frikkin' chunk of the playerbase that you suddenly have to stop RPing with just because the council insists on making no opt-out mechanisms in their bans.

It is my belief that restrictions and regulations are able to facilitate conflict RP, while blanket bans only serve to alienate RPers. A player run council shouldn't focus on combatting those who align themselves with controversial powers/factions, but should instead focus on facilitating RP. Let it be up to the individual guilds to combat the controversial powers.

The council shouldn't concern themselves with outlawing shadow users. The council should concern themselves with providing a scene that allows the church of light to combat its enemies. They shouldn't outlaw the Scarlet Crusade, but should provide a scene that allows the Scarlet RPers to exist and provides opportunities for them to get into the conflicts that may happen from having that allegiance.

by **Amaryl** Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:36 pm

I might be blind but...

2.10 Use of forbidden magic
Practicing magic within the city walls that is restricted by the Stormwind magi tower including tapping into necromantic, demonic or shadow sources of any kind without approval from the Stormwind magi tower, the Stormwind ministry of magic or the Stormwind army. This also includes artefacts or objects infused with said energies. Exceptions in section 4.4 applies.
Punishment: one is to be presented in front of the ministry of magic and justice where punishment will be determined.

how is the permit system scrapped? just say you have one. done.

by **Ixirar** Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:45 pm

I had heard that the permit system was scrapped, and that that paragraph was just to cover times of exception. As in, for example, the heroes -desperately need- something that can only be done with warlock magic, mage tower permits it for that one situation, warlock still can't use his magic in the kingdom outside of that one situation.

Since nobody had done anything to make me believe otherwise, I assumed this was the case.

by **Thelos** Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:52 pm

/e shows %T his permit.

Macro that shit and problem solved!

by **Ledgic** Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:40 am

Glad to see the council has gone back to the member system it had in its first "form". During my time on the council in the beginning, I very much preferred it to the last time I was part of it.

And seeing the discussion here, I am not sorry I'm not the one writing the laws anymore. It's a constant headache.

Amaryl and Kitt have spoken the most sense here, honestly. And the call for Warlocks to be embraced by society and given loving hugs is monumentally daft. It doesn't matter if it's feeling "Same old, same old" for those RP'ing the warlocks. You can't change the reality of the setting simply because you're tired of the way your character is treated and perceived.

If you rolled a warlock to be a happy-go-lucky scamp, then I think you're confused.

by **Rae Wulfgnar** Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:46 am

Ixirar/Kavalis wrote: you could apply for a permit to be a registered warlock as a way to opt out of the prosecution RP.

They don't need to do that, just don't flaunt the magic around.

Ixirar/Kavalis wrote: opting out of the "ban on dark arts" RP without having to opt out of the entire council scene.

They can hide. Just not to flaunt it around in-front of RPers that do follow Light vs Dark rp.

Ixirar/Kavalis wrote: the council insists on making no opt-out mechanisms in their bans.

The council follows the lore and server lore, we act as a community and not split up.

Ixirar/Kavalis wrote: They shouldn't outlaw the Scarlet Crusade, but should provide a scene that allows the Scarlet RPers to exist

They did allow, the Scarlets insisted on attacking people constantly and were outlawed again.

by **Ixirar** Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:53 am

How about instead of outlawing a faction clearly alligned with the Alliance, you treat that particular branch of Scarlets? Instead of letting those few rotten apples spoil it for the whole of the faction.

by **Littlepip** Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:34 am

I'm not saying that we should give them a hug and say that "the past is past."
I'm simply arguing that we should change it a little, make it so that you have to have the permit IC in GHI. (Because its cool and that makes sure that only the few people that has deserved it has it.)

The people might not like it, they hate it! So they hate them still, but they can't do shit about it, if a Warlock decides to live in the city, citizens can hate on him and toss stuff on him. "Down with the Warlock!"

For a warlock to work with a project he has to get a seal of approval from the council or someone else of importance.

(( Words, I suck at them. ))

by **siegmund** Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:51 am

After the Scarlet Monastery's quest chain, the Scarlet Renegades' coup d'état is a success but the organization's leadership has unfortunately fallen into insanity, similar to their predecessors (albeit without demonic corruption).

I wonder why...

by **Lexgrad** Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:20 am

Amaryl wrote:Note: I have always enjoyed roleplaying with the council, even though I believe it shouldn't exist.

There are two kinds of guilds/groups/people that don't interact with the council:

The kind that screams fire and hell and claims the councils are fucking elitists forcing their RP on everyone else and are vehemently trying to oppose them. (this is never a good thing)

The second is the group that lets the council do its thing and do their own thing right next to the council's things, having absolutely no problems with each other and are able to co-exist for years and even participate in the same noncouncil events.

This is true yes, from what I saw the difference was completely down to ooc politics more than any RP reasons which is quite sad. The amount of shit RPers do to hurt RP is mind beggering really. (I was in the council and have some criticisms of it, but it isnt from the PoV of being insecure that a group was controlling me).

The duality that really amused me was the ic one that people simultaneously wanted the council to have the power to smite all their enemies and at the same time have no influence at all over their guild.

by **Thelos** Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:49 am

Rae Wulfgnar wrote:
The council follows the lore and server lore, we act as a community and not split up.

Just wanted to quickly add - with all due respect to Wülfgnar, whom I adore very much - that one should be careful throwing that term 'serverlore' around. It implies that there's a unified bundle of lore-articles the entire community unanimously agrees are canon, which I don't really think exists. It's a power-word; it's a word that inherently exersizes some power to proclaim one thing canon and another not.

The most poignant example I can think of is the legality of shadow-magic; I've often heard it said that it's supposedly 'server-lore' that it ought to be illegal, though I never found myself agreeing on this point and would prefer it if it wasn't so. Saying such a thing is 'server-lore' is a way of tricking a person like me into believing I implicitly ought to agree that it really is canon while it really is not.

Having said that however, it's hard to peddle against the tide, so routinely I've accepted the fact that shadow magic ought to be illegal as a de facto truth because that's what everybody I was playing with was doing. When you're on the playground, it's no use denying that the stick in your friend's hand is in fact a stick and not a sword, after all. Make-belief relies on implicit acceptance of one another's imagined realities --

Wait I'm doing that thing again where I try to say something and then derail my own point in nonsensical rambling! I'll stop.

Just don't outlaw Kung Fu, please! <3

by **Vardrek/Burgen** Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:21 pm

Ledgic wrote:Glad to see the council has gone back to the member system it had in its first "form". During my time on the council in the beginning, I very much preferred it to the last time I was part of it.

And seeing the discussion here, I am not sorry I'm not the one writing the laws anymore. It's a constant headache.

Amaryl and Kitt have spoken the most sense here, honestly. And the call for Warlocks to be embraced by society and given loving hugs is monumentally daft. It doesn't matter if it's feeling "Same old, same old" for those RP'ing the warlocks. You can't change the reality of the setting simply because you're tired of the way your character is treated and perceived.

If you rolled a warlock to be a happy-go-lucky scamp, then I think you're confused.

Another one who gets it!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **erwtenpeller** Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:04 pm

No one is asking for warlocks to be accepted by society. No-one in their right mind would complain about discrimination and harassment against their outed warlock character.

What we want is the choice to play a warlock character that is not an evil cultist, but an adventurer or a soldier loyal to the alliance. In the current climate, that is almost impossible.

Rae Wulfgnar wrote:Some of Rihani's laws still apply, that a Warlock/Shadow priest should only be arrested IF they are using their magic irresponsibly. (Just look at the laws in the council thread) So I don't understand what all this post-spamming is about.

The posts in this thread are a response to the content of the original post. If those laws are no longer up-to-date, it would be nice if they could be updated by someone.

Rae Wulfgnar wrote:IC, Rihani tried the exact same thing. Although she turned out to be the murdering demon we had been chasing for months. Their are reasons why the Stormwind council won't allow Warlocks and dark magic, due to players (exactly the same with the Scarlet conversation earlier).

This is exactly the attitude that I find offensive, and destructive. There is someone playing a villain, and in response, you just blanket-ban every other character remotely like it. Treat offenders and criminals on a character basis, case by case, a blanlet-ban is unfair and lazy.

Convict the perpetrator(s), not the weapon.

How many times I night do I see /y ?

Why is there no blanket ban on firearms?

Rae Wulfgnar wrote:The purpose of a Warlock is to be evil! To become a Warlock you have to be evil. Making deals with the Burning Legion means you have to be evil

That is your interpretation. Not everyone agrees to that.

I disagree with them on such a fundamentally out of character level that role-playing with the council and law-system as it is today hurts my immersion in the world, and my joy of role-playing.

I started writing an "adventurers exempt" for the current law system. I've since decided to drop the project, because I don't think it's worth the drama to keep fighting this fight. Also, going to the council and trying to instate these exempts means I have to recognize the laws are canon and the Stormwind council is a valid governing body, which I'm not sure I want to do.

I've been told that if I do not agree to conform to "sever lore", I should get the fuck out of Stormwind.

These exempts where designed with one goal in mind: To make it possible for my guild and like-minded people to role-play a warlock or a shadow priest as we see them presented in the game.

Spoiler:

If anyone wants to use above draft to engage the council, please go on ahead.

by **Ixirar** Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:40 pm

Wulfgnar wrote:They don't need to do that, just don't flaunt the magic around.

Also, there are much too frequent cases of people being arrested just for LOOKING like Shadow users.

by **Krogon Devilstep** Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:45 pm

Alliance nonsense.

pfft.

by **Lexgrad** Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:50 pm

Ixirar/Kavalis wrote:
Wulfgnar wrote:They don't need to do that, just don't flaunt the magic around.

Also, there are much too frequent cases of people being arrested just for LOOKING like Shadow users.

Dont look evil then XD If you walk about with skulls and shit, in black you should kinda expect some shit.

by **Adry** Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:22 pm

Lexgrad wrote:
Ixirar/Kavalis wrote:
Wulfgnar wrote:They don't need to do that, just don't flaunt the magic around.

Also, there are much too frequent cases of people being arrested just for LOOKING like Shadow users.

Dont look evil then XD If you walk about with skulls and shit, in black you should kinda expect some shit.

And yet that contradicts their own laws that they've made up. What's the point in making this Council and pretending to make laws if you're not going to even follow them?

by **Lexgrad** Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:27 pm

I agree to the extent that if you make laws then they should be binding once they are ratified. As the council is the body that makes the laws then that is where it starts, below that it is up to RP between Guards and council to see that they are used.

But.... How a warlock chooses to RP is nothing really to do with that. A warlock can read all this and make up its own RP, their might be trouble if they do however. Plus dejure law and defacto are not always the same, if the law says that wearing skulls are fine but a paladin decides to smite cos evil then you have a conflict (which is quite healthy for RP).

My final point however having played both sides in this is I hope both guards and council can become blind in their use of laws if they are gonna use them.

by **Ixirar** Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:30 pm

There aren't paladins smiting, though. There are Blazing Shields arresting. For something that the law doesn't forbid.

by Sponsored content