Discussion about the Dissent in the Kingdom of Stormwind

Dissenters are on the rise in Stormwind. So I think it is good if we have a pro-active discussion about that topic instead of waiting for first drama to break out and trying to solve it then.

How far are people allowed to go in opposing the Church/the State? Are they allowed to shout seditionist propaganda in the streets, publish seditionist articles, hold peaceful demonstrations, hold secret seditionist meetings? How harsh can the Law crash down on them if they are caught in the act? Is 'hate' against player-made 'authority' (Magistrates, Guards, Council) just as bad as 'hate' against Lore-figures such as the Church or King Varian?

I especially invite the 'dissenters' to post in this thread and think about what 'consequences' they think are fair and fun for what they are doing. After all, dissent is boring if it is permitted


I -think- that the are inofficially two sets of laws on the matter. One for citizens and another for non-citizens. One thing is to have a man raised and bred in Stormwind complain about the situation, another is to have some Gilnean migrant clamour on the streets. I think that 'guests' would realistically be given an ultimatum: keep ye mouth shut or be exiled.

For Stormwinders the law once again inofficially breaks into rules for commoners and rules for nobles/important people. If a nobody calls the king a shithead, it is no real cause of worry. If a Lord does it, then it is nothing less than treason. It is dangerous. So actually I think 'sedition' and 'sympathy with ' are about the only crimes where punishment gets harsher the more important you are. Nobles&rich men can face confiscation of their property, revocation of their titles, house-arrests, exile from the realm or a very uncomfortable long-term detention.

Little seditionists who just get drunk and hate on the Church would probably be cuffed and dragged to jail where they get a wee little abuse for a night and are let free with a warning.

Professional Seditionists and 'revolutionary leaders' will likely face a covert campaign to discredit them as long as they don't actually cause trouble and only preach. Once they ACT, they will most likely be treated as terrorists and punished severely.

Your thoughts?

Sorry, dont mind my trolling.

Do carry on.

I doubt a guard will come and barge in on a conversation between two drunks whining over this terrible Church.

I'm somewhat confused by the way this anger towards the Church is played. Lorewise we have been betrayed, yet again (whoop dee doo). It's only natural we are doubted, investigated, questioned.
What I'm less confident about is this rebellion against the "oppression" from the Church. The Wow Church of the Holy Light is wholistic, community minded and lacks any position of power 'officially'. Any power it had was through the support of Lords who allied themselves with the Church.
So I'm unsure if a direct attack on the authority of the Church is really fitting, simply because we aren't supposed to have that authority in the first place.

For the dissent itself, I think that openly declaring your discontent of our King earns you a night in the brink at least. This doesn't hold true for the Church. However, stirring up the hatred would probably seen as rousing people to disorder and as a threat to the public peace.
So... I think that disagreeing with the Church can happen, even openly, and certainly is viable through cool-headed debate with the Church itself.

But rousing people up to oppose the Church or take action against the Church... There I believe the IC line is crossed.

OOCly, of course, it is about damn time the Church gets what's coming for having their Archbishop turn on us.

Church is hard, aye. I guess only a small group of radical clerics (chapter included) will see as any dissent against the Church as criminal. Most will just be ready to stand up against it and enter a dialogue. However when dissent turns into open calls for violence and lawbreaking, the line is crossed indeed.

You can hate the church.
You can preach against the church.
You can't preach to break the church's windows, though.

Quieting down propaganda/slander against King and nobles and throwing the individuals found doing such in jail/whipped/beat up by "patriots" in an alley/etc is the way I picture things being done.

The church I'm not so sure about, tough the more zealous individuals in the church would obviously move to strike against those who would openly smear the good name of the church. I would have another ideal setting for my tastes when it comes to the church and how it's done but I don't feel that would go well with the mainstream church of holy light in warcraft and hence be part of another setting all together.

I fail to see a reason for any dissent at all. If anything people should be rejoicing the world is once again at (relative) peace, with Deathwing's demise.

The rebuilding and healing process can finally start.

As for Archbishop Bendicitus' betrayal, it hardly matters what you decided before the actual patch did go live, as one didn't knew how it was going to pan out lorewise.
Sure, there can be -rumours- of Benedictus' betrayal, but it would -never- be a public fact. Just like there are rumours lorewise about Bolvar being the new Lich King. (And the fact there is a new Lich King)

If anything they'll say the Archbishop gave his life in the defense of the realm.

Well... Unas want really has nothing to do with the church as he has no strong beliefs to anything. However forcing an acceptance of all belief would be good for him as a church of shadow in SW would likely be better allies than Lighties. Alot of the Shrouds actions are down to missunderstanding, mistakes and fear of the return of Lexgrad anyway. (yes, Una is the new moon )

Shroud PoV is gloriously Nihilistic anyway, hurt those who slight us or who plot against us (for more infomation see the to kill list). A reduction of lawfulness would also serve them in SW.

We will be doing some covert stuff, but as the plot develops expect DKs to march places and put boots to arses. An OOC wish is that the 5 min zerg and enemies from now until the end of time kinda things are avoided. I would like to one day return to SW without having to kill the guild.

Raelan wrote:I fail to see a reason for any dissent at all. If anything people should be rejoicing the world is once again at (relative) peace, with Deathwing's demise.

The rebuilding and healing process can finally start.

As for Archbishop Bendicitus' betrayal, it hardly matters what you decided before the actual patch did go live, as one didn't knew how it was going to pan out lorewise.
Sure, there can be -rumours- of Benedictus' betrayal, but it would -never- be a public fact. Just like there are rumours lorewise about Bolvar being the new Lich King. (And the fact there is a new Lich King)

If anything they'll say the Archbishop gave his life in the defense of the realm.

Also lets not go into the whys and such like. We can debate for hours other peoples chars motivations yet clearly there are some chars who are motivated for this. Less sad face more rubbing your hands together with glee for a feast of RP.

Melnerag wrote:... another is to have some Gilnean migrant clamour on the streets.

Oh, you!

Melnerag wrote:How far are people allowed to go in opposing the Church/the State? Are they allowed to shout seditionist propaganda in the streets, publish seditionist articles, hold peaceful demonstrations, hold secret seditionist meetings? How harsh can the Law crash down on them if they are caught in the act? Is 'hate' against player-made 'authority' (Magistrates, Guards, Council) just as bad as 'hate' against Lore-figures such as the Church or King Varian?

Any form of sedition should be punished within the realm of Stormwind, at least. To scream in the streets is similar to disturbing the peace, and should be treated as such. Articles, manifests and other works are nothing new. If the writer is found, he should be punished for the words he has written. Therefore, I suggest to write articles with another name, since you wouldn't want the Magistrate or Chapter to come looking for you. Peaceful demonstrations should be allowed, if they are peaceful and by no means insult any higher power. Secret meetings should be forbidden. However, they are secret for a reason.

The laws we have now should be rewritten, for they are lacking. There are no laws on adultery,for example, whilst the Church would've stoned women that committed this crime back in the day.
Sedition should be treated as sedition. Exile is appropriate, so is imprisonment. To have a lowly citizen whipped for his words is harsh, and to cute out his tongue more so. A warning, fine, community service, exile, imprisonment or public humiliation should be in place. A combination of these is always welcome.

I believe this hate is very specific. Does the player realistic authority realistically? Has the player bothered to rise to power, or has claimed such upon rolling the character? Does the player operate from old-fashioned standards, or does he abide to the social standards of today? These questions are quite influential when determining whether I dislike (not hate) an authority created by players. For instance, I believe the Magistrate is far too powerful, but this judgement could be misplaced since I haven't looked in to the influence of judges in the 17th century. It is also easy to 'hate' on the Chapter for playing an Inquisition. Fair enough, but to only mindlessly 'hate' on a player created authority only because their ideals are those of the 15th and 16th century Inquisition is not acceptable. They are what they are. They worked their way to their current position. Nobody likes them for it.
So yes, I do respect the player made authority, but I also believe these should be checked every once in a while to prevent abuse of such power, OOC and IC.

Melnerag wrote:I -think- that the are inofficially two sets of laws on the matter. One for citizens and another for non-citizens. One thing is to have a man raised and bred in Stormwind complain about the situation, another is to have some Gilnean migrant clamour on the streets. I think that 'guests' would realistically be given an ultimatum: keep ye mouth shut or be exiled.

I do agree with this. Foreigners should not be treated as citizens, for they are 'out-of-towners'. Their ways are alien, and their demands are misguided.
The citizen of Stormwind should be treated differently to, say, a Gilnean citizen. If a Stormwindian vandalises, he should be fined and warned. If a Gilnean resorts to vandalism, he should be exiled from the Kingdom. How dare an immigrant destroy our property? If he cannot conform, he should leave. Is this common sense, or am I brabbling? I'm trying to see this from a 19th century perspective. How would people from this century react to foreigners breaking their window?

On the subject, I believe Braiden should've exiled all the Gilneans involved in the pea--- assault on the Abbey. It was by far a more obvious solution than to first have them imprisoned, then questioned, and finally fined. Again, am I speaking common sense here, or am I brabbling?

Melnerag wrote:For Stormwinders the law once again inofficially breaks into rules for commoners and rules for nobles/important people. If a nobody calls the king a shithead, it is no real cause of worry. If a Lord does it, then it is nothing less than treason. It is dangerous. So actually I think 'sedition' and 'sympathy with ' are about the only crimes where punishment gets harsher the more important you are. Nobles&rich men can face confiscation of their property, revocation of their titles, house-arrests, exile from the realm or a very uncomfortable long-term detention.

Nobodies are nobodies, and should be treated as such. If a person steals, he should be fined, and warned. However, if a Noble steals, he should be publically humiliated. He must bear the shame that is bought to his family name by his own doing. If a Lord opposes the King, the decision lies with the people how to react. If they disobey the King, and agree with the Lord, they have all committed treason. Quite funny, how this one man is the true law of a nation, and even if everybody opposes him, his word is the only true one, and they are all traitors.

Sedition and sympathy. I agree. The above doesn't state the punishment, but a mere social consequence. If you are more influential, saying the wrong thing can be more harming than the words of a simple peasant. The fall should be harder, and this should be reflected upon in role play.

Melnerag wrote:Little seditionists who just get drunk and hate on the Church would probably be cuffed and dragged to jail where they get a wee little abuse for a night and are let free with a warning.

Somehow I believe this wouldn't work at all times. Surely you are right, but how could the guards be everywhere, hearing and seeing everything?
What if the seditionists are guards or priests themselves? Should they be treated like citizens, simply beaten up and imprisoned for the night, and released at dawn?

Melnerag wrote:Professional Seditionists and 'revolutionary leaders' will likely face a covert campaign to discredit them as long as they don't actually cause trouble and only preach. Once they ACT, they will most likely be treated as terrorists and punished severely.

Hai.
I feel that the leaders of such organisations have yet to be punished for their crimes against the ruling powers.
Preaching sedition should be, as stated by yourself and myself above, be punished as needed. If a person is caught preaching by a guard, surely his motives should be questioned. I have never seen a person be publically denounced. This might be the first step to a more realistic scenario.

There is also a difference between preaching hatred, and preached for change. Where does one pull the line between a Jacobin revolution, and a social movement? If one demands representation, what is he? I believe the failed revolution last year tried to be both. Both a social movement, as a Jacobin uprising. There was a desire to replace government, seperate the Church from the state, but also improve life of the average citizen, and implement proper education and minimum wage. It's only an example, of course, but how would such a movement be judged properly?

Just some of my badly composed thoughts. Cold hands. Little time.

Lexgrad wrote:

Also lets not go into the whys and such like. We can debate for hours other peoples chars motivations yet clearly there are some chars who are motivated for this. Less sad face more rubbing your hands together with glee for a feast of RP.

I don't care for their motivations as long as it doesn't go directly against established lore.

Lorainne wrote:There are no laws on adultery,for example, whilst the Church would've stoned women that committed this crime back in the day.

Adding a rule for adultery *shurg* Either is fine by me. I do oppose the analogy with the Church "back in the day". Whatever tie that Church and our Church of the Light may have had, it has been severed since WC3 quite severely. WoW, despite the stereotypes and sexed up chars, is a fairly liberal, modern minded world. More than the Church back in the days at least.
The Church back in the days was also a powerhouse. This isn't the case with the Church of the Light who, basically, lacks central government. We have an archbishop, but he doesn't boss around the smaller churches. The Church of the Light is NOT a reflection of the Catholic Church, not anymore.

Lorainne wrote:Does the player operate from old-fashioned standards, or does he abide to the social standards of today? These questions are quite influential when determining whether I dislike (not hate) an authority created by players.

A very good point, I think. The impression I sometimes get is that the "old-fashioned Church which has no business in wow" is judged by "social standards of today", when it should be the opposite. The Church is closer to today's social standards and morality, whereas we are expected to be civilians closer to the "old fashioned standards".

Never the less, it might be a good spark to roleplay, and we can't dictate how others should see it ICly.

I'd be very careful on basing your roleplay and laws on an historical paralels. World of Warcraft as a modern fictional construct is both a product of this age, and an entity that pretends to exist outside of time. Any attempts to place it in a historical period is nonsensical, so any arguments like "In the real world, in location [x] at time [y], things would have been done like so and so" is quite useless and without any firm footing whatsoever. We'll have to figure out what to do and how to judge ourselves, independant of any one historical anchor. I've seen this attempted so many times I've lost count, and it has never managed to convince me. Sure, there's nothing wrong with being inspired by certain periods in history, but never take it for granted that things in WoW should be like things in location [x] at time [y].

Raelan wrote:I fail to see a reason for any dissent at all. If anything people should be rejoicing the world is once again at (relative) peace, with Deathwing's demise.

The rebuilding and healing process can finally start.

As for Archbishop Bendicitus' betrayal, it hardly matters what you decided before the actual patch did go live, as one didn't knew how it was going to pan out lorewise.
Sure, there can be -rumours- of Benedictus' betrayal, but it would -never- be a public fact. Just like there are rumours lorewise about Bolvar being the new Lich King. (And the fact there is a new Lich King)

If anything they'll say the Archbishop gave his life in the defense of the realm.

This isn't massively wrong y'know. RP all the way, but bear in mind what Rae has said here. This is the complete opposite time for people to be unhappy with things. We're actually at the turning point right now, where things aren't really that bad at all.

I like the idea of Stormwind effectively going into chaos again, don't get me wrong, but I think doing it based on things that are currently the opposite according to lore seems a tad off. Server lore is creating new things, not reversing the lore already handed to us :p

http://www.wowpedia.org/Stormwind#People_and_culture

Is a rather good description in my eyes. It combines in it the corrupt nobility, the 'ignorant' but heroic citizens and the idealistic church.

Church of the Holy Light is true to its core ideals, while for instance the Chapter is more of a 'Church of the People' from this perspective.

"Opposition to the Horde, Scourge, Burning Legion, and Shadow are near requirements to live in the city. Anyone who speaks out in support of these groups, of even suggests it, is likely to be hanged or driven out, for these beliefs are enforced like law by the will of the common man.

Most citizens of the city are practitioners of the Holy Light, and nearly all at least respect it. The religion is tied closely to the government, for the church has enough political influence to directly impact the actions the King decides to take.

Those criminals who survive arrest and trial reside in one of the city's two prisons. Common criminals from pickpockets to murderers stay in the Stockade. More dangerous types — demons, rogue mages, and the like — are left to rot in the Vault, which is surrounded on all sides by water."

So yes, the Church (some priests) have political influence. The thing is, the Church is decentralized enough and is 'divided' between three Bishops with such divergent views that anything goes, really.

Lorainne wrote:On the subject, I believe Braiden should've exiled all the Gilneans involved in the pea--- assault on the Abbey. It was by far a more obvious solution than to first have them imprisoned, then questioned, and finally fined. Again, am I speaking common sense here, or am I brabbling?

Then again exiling in essence entire guilds isn't something that would be advisable to do on my part... there is an OOC aspect to be considered, I'll end up being the guy that just exiles/kills everyone and "ruins" their RP. The ones I sentience to harsher punishments are always asked OOC out of respect for the player behind the character. Plus in this case you and several others from your group wanted to stress a verdict OOCly since you had other commitments, obviously the quality of the RP involved gets affected to some extent when there are time restraints.

Lorainne wrote:For instance, I believe the Magistrate is far too powerful, but this judgement could be misplaced since I haven't looked in to the influence of judges in the 17th century. [snip...] So yes, I do respect the player made authority, but I also believe these should be checked every once in a while to prevent abuse of such power, OOC and IC.

If people experience an issue with OOC abusing authority on my part then they should by all means bring it up for discussion in a civilized manner instead of implying that there is apparent issues. Plus "checking up" on the player made authority would be done how and by whom?

Also this:

Thelos wrote:I'd be very careful on basing your roleplay and laws on an historical paralels. World of Warcraft as a modern fictional construct is both a product of this age, and an entity that pretends to exist outside of time. Any attempts to place it in a historical period is nonsensical, so any arguments like "In the real world, in location [x] at time [y], things would have been done like so and so" is quite useless and without any firm footing whatsoever. We'll have to figure out what to do and how to judge ourselves, independant of any one historical anchor. I've seen this attempted so many times I've lost count, and it has never managed to convince me. Sure, there's nothing wrong with being inspired by certain periods in history, but never take it for granted that things in WoW should be like things in location [x] at time [y].

I think has said it breaks down to a 'margin' of free speech, people can propaganda against the church, but once you start killing priests and blowing open tombs, you become terrorists and should be treated as such.

Well i've got to say, this is a deeply interesting subject. Now i know its been a while since i had a hand in any RP in stormwind, But i do keep a close eye on things, and i've noted a pattern of sorts.

The word that comes to mind is 'Equilibrium'.

Now, Stormwind goes through cycles of a sort, i reckon its on track to reach the peek of the third soon.

At first theres great IC support for a council, new formed and every character is eager to play there part or support their interests. Then come disagreements, arguments, deceit... so slowly you get grudges and conflict. This creates direct opposition, Of which for the first two cycles was mainly cultists and sympathisers.

Now for the first cycle, the cultists were beaten down by the 'hero' Effect, when things got a little hot. Some celebrity RP'er would come and smash them to bits (bias as it may sound, an example would be Seiken shattering the dark sphere at the dark portal just before TBC hit). But thats a phase in our server now gone, so in the second phase it came down to the holy guilds who fought the cultists, climaxing with Zaraj's rise, his takeover of stormwind, and then defeat. First the hero's, and then he Holy guilds stood united after each 'climax' with newly reformed councils, and then things started to repeat each other...

This phase has been alot slower in its occurance, i have to admit. The 'opposition' have been thinking things out, learning that holy guilds will just pounce on cultists, so they stopped being cultists. Instead, they did something rather radical... They -became- a holy guild. Curious no? The chapter has been slowly and gradually building its support and taking a hold of law and order. Now i dont oppose this at all, its genius and wonderful RP progression.

So Now The opposition is becoming the 'Regime' while the little man, has become the dissident, unhappy with the church and so forth. Where that will lead I could never possibly say, or predict, or even guess. Maybe someone will be Radical in turn, and we'll get good guys acting like the villians? Robin hood style.

Equilibrium of a sorts will come, it always does. It has too. A new council, or gathering will be formed from a fresh crop of Roleplayers as ever after a climax. So my honest opinion is that Dissidents are good, Let them cry out, let the guards crack their jaws, let the chapter scream heretic, let the change come.

It's gonna happen anyway.

Oh, and as for councils, magistrates and such... i was always of the opinion that the house of nobles should make the laws, while the council (formed from the people) should run civic affairs and manage the guards to enforce said laws. But thats just me.

I don't use facebook.

But hot dayumn, Krogon, I want to LIKE that post.

Yeah this forum needs thumbs up button.

Timna wrote:I don't use facebook.

But hot dayumn, Krogon, I want to LIKE that post.

too kind.

Krogon Devilstep wrote:The chapter has been slowly and gradually building its support and taking a hold of law and order. Now i dont oppose this at all, its genius and wonderful RP progression.

Lolwat? Have you really been paying attention?

Raelan wrote:

Krogon Devilstep wrote:The chapter has been slowly and gradually building its support and taking a hold of law and order. Now i dont oppose this at all, its genius and wonderful RP progression.

Lolwat? Have you really been paying attention?

Yeah i was there when they killed ishap on the cathedral steps and nobody batted an eye-lid.

Ishap is dead?? when did this happen?? o.O