[IC] Exile Order for the Ebon Shroud

It's not all about Lexgrad. Some of us, or at least I, am pissed that I now have to deal with a banishment I have done literally nothing to deserve, aside from joining a guild, and I find that incredibly unfair.

As for disguises, who are you kidding? It's kind of hard to disguise yourself when you're undead, in case you hadn't noticed. Anyone remotely magically capable will see through your disguise immediately :/

erwtenpeller wrote:
As for disguises, who are you kidding? It's kind of hard to disguise yourself when you're undead, in case you hadn't noticed. Anyone remotely magically capable will see through your disguise immediately :/

So every undead is part of the ebon shroud?

Pretty much.

"Yo deadie, why are you wearing that veil, huh? You one of 'dem shroudies or somethin'?"
"N-no sir honestly-- "

-> Busted.

erwtenpeller wrote:Pretty much.

"Yo deadie, why are you wearing that veil, huh? You one of 'dem shroudies or somethin'?"
"N-no sir honestly-- "

-> Busted.

I think you're getting it confused with the Ebon Blade. The shroud is just an off shoot of that.

EDIT: Because ICly, the Council couldn't exile the Ebon Blade, that would be god emoting the kings actions. The Shroud are a sub-faction.

erwtenpeller wrote:It's not all about Lexgrad. Some of us, or at least I, am pissed that I now have to deal with a banishment I have done literally nothing to deserve, aside from joining a guild, and I find that incredibly unfair.

Life isn't fair.
And i really don't see the issue with just disguising yourself, or just not wearing a tabard, who in Stormwind would even know your undead is part of the ebon shroud?
And if somebody recognised her and questioned her on the matter, she could easily lie and say that due to disagreements about their recent actions she has decided to seperate from their group.
I really wont stop you from rping in Stormwind unless you let it.

I'm not confusing anything with anything. It's very simple.

Everyone can see/sense you're dead, no point in hiding dead.
When people see a deadsie that's disguised him or herself, they may find it suspicious.
They may ask some questions.
They may cause conflict.

And before you know it you're screwed anyway.

---

There's a lot of people here that are trying to make this right with hollow arguments, but i'll go and explain my personal situation, and problem, with these kinds of "council dicitions".

There is basically a group of players that see themselves fit to make a decision over my characters story. If I don't agree or never wanted to take my character in that direction, i'm supposed to just suck it up. If I where to ignore it, it would be considered "Bad RP", so peer pressure removes choice. I'm forced to take my character in a direction i did not envision for her.

Ezlbag wrote:Life isn't fair.

But this isn't life, is it? It's a game. A game I play to have fun.
All this drama right here? Not fun.

I can understand your pain yher. Been there myself... It's not nice and with it happening two both your mains. Well. Your dread took the oath not long beffor shenny ic. So shenny does not know what has causedbthis and as of tomorow will try and fix relations with as and the dwarfs ( when she finds out the dqarfs hate them too). Mabie dread could join her and help win over as to let them back in??

As Drustai said earlier

Drustai wrote:IC Actions = IC Consequences. People need to stop taking it OOC and start thinking about what they can do with the cards they've been dealt.

It's not people controlling your character. If -you- choose to join an organisation that has been killing/abducting and then gets outlawed, then you have to accept that. Your still part of the guild/order etc. It got really tiresome hearing about what the shroud did this week at every council meeting for AGES.

erwtenpeller wrote:I'm not confusing anything with anything. It's very simple.

Everyone can see/sense you're dead, no point in hiding dead.
When people see a deadsie that's disguised him or herself, they may find it suspicious.
They may ask some questions.
They may cause conflict.

And before you know it you're screwed anyway.

"oh your dead, are you part of that shroud thing?"
"nope"
"oh allright then."

No need to hide the fact that she's dead, only her allegiance.

If somebody suddenly decides you are part of the shroud even though there is nothing to support this Icly, well then its meta-gaming and you can tell them to go fuck themselves.

Ezlbag wrote:

If somebody suddenly decides you are part of the shroud even though there is nothing to support this Icly, well then its meta-gaming and you can tell them to go fuck themselves.

Not true, they can do it to people not wearing the Ebon Shroud tag above their heads also. is it meta-gaming then?

Perturbo wrote:It's not people controlling your character. If -you- choose to join an organisation that has been killing/abducting and then gets outlawed, then you have to accept that.

I joined a knighthood with very strict rules against those practices. Some of my guildies turn out to be IC douchebags. I still don't see why I have to suffer for their dumbass actions.

Because...IC actions...(your guildies being IC douchebags) has brought IC consequences. Now you have an IC situation you must ICly deal with?

The fact is, it was poorly executed and the storytelling behind it is boring and plain. I'm mainly annoyed at the lack of creativity of the whole situation from a group of people who are meant to be thriving with it.

Erwten, you can easily hide it! Death Knights aren't banished!

I don't see how it was poorly executed considering a number involved have said they were told IC and OOC. It's your opinion that the storytelling is boring and plain. It's seem like a suitable response with the amount of compaints with it.

Amaryl wrote:

Ezlbag wrote:

If somebody suddenly decides you are part of the shroud even though there is nothing to support this Icly, well then its meta-gaming and you can tell them to go fuck themselves.

Not true, they can do it to people not wearing the Ebon Shroud tag above their heads also. is it meta-gaming then?

I was more thinking of people knowing without any doubt that the character is clearly part of the shroud with no evidence other than undeath, which to me seems like meta, sure they can suspect it due to undeath, but there would be no easy way for them to prove it.

But yeah, i do see your point, i was just trying to say that nothing really keeps him from rping in Stormwind.
Yes there will be a increased IC risk, but risks are fun! Right?

Perturbo wrote:I don't see how it was poorly executed considering a number involved have said they were told IC and OOC. It's your opinion that the storytelling is boring and plain. It's seem like a suitable response with the amount of compaints with it.

It doesn't really make logical sense.

The disarmament for example is a much better role-play story. With the amount of people who think it lacks excitement and good storytelling, I could say the same for the opposing side. As I've said many time before though, it is the attitude of some people that annoyed me.

Looking at the list Kitt linked, I don't see how it doesn't make sense, and that's just her list.

Monrena wrote:I can understand your pain yher. Been there myself... It's not nice and with it happening two both your mains. Well. Your dread took the oath not long beffor shenny ic. So shenny does not know what has causedbthis and as of tomorow will try and fix relations with as and the dwarfs ( when she finds out the dqarfs hate them too). Mabie dread could join her and help win over as to let them back in??

If ya wanna fix it with the dwarves, the senate is tonight 20.00. Next week we're in alterac so that senate wont be held. I suggest ya come un-armed or something as we have rule of not trusting non-dwarven DK's. ( Or barely dwarven ones, out of 311 members we have 8 DK's, 2 active ones )

Perturbo wrote:Looking at the list Kitt linked, I don't see how it doesn't make sense, and that's just her list.

Her list isn't exactly accurate from what I've heard! They haven't commited murder or mind control, that was the Night Elf and his 3 girlfriends.

Spyre wrote:

Monrena wrote:I can understand your pain yher. Been there myself... It's not nice and with it happening two both your mains. Well. Your dread took the oath not long beffor shenny ic. So shenny does not know what has causedbthis and as of tomorow will try and fix relations with as and the dwarfs ( when she finds out the dqarfs hate them too). Mabie dread could join her and help win over as to let them back in??

If ya wanna fix it with the dwarves, the senate is tonight 20.00. Next week we're in alterac so that senate wont be held. I suggest ya come un-armed or something as we have rule of not trusting non-dwarven DK's. ( Or barely dwarven ones, out of 311 members we have 8 DK's, 2 active ones )

I wish I could but sadly I'm at work all night . Assume I left a message saying I wish foe a private meeting. I will be sending out ic letters tomorow

Perturbo wrote:Because...IC actions...(your guildies being IC douchebags) has brought IC consequences. Now you have an IC situation you must ICly deal with?

IC actions my character did not participate in.

This has nothing to do with dreadnettle, yet now I find her banished. No matter how much sense it makes in character, it's still bullshit ooc. I'm having a really hard time understanding why this seems to be so difficult for some of you to understand.

My character commited no crimes.
My character has been nothing but polite in any situation, especally when dealing with "the living".
When all of these events happoned my character was not around, nor me as a player. There is nothing I could have done to influence this in any way. I had no part in any of it, therefore the consequences should not be for me to bare.

We are contemplating adding a clause in the exile order that excludes the most vocal members of the Shroud from it, but really, this goes to the same vocal members currently spawning the same circle arguments here, what different means would you use ICly? Give us some suggestions, or ideas or even hints.

erwtenpeller wrote:

Perturbo wrote:Because...IC actions...(your guildies being IC douchebags) has brought IC consequences. Now you have an IC situation you must ICly deal with?

IC actions my character did not participate in.

This has nothing to do with dreadnettle, yet now I find her banished. No matter how much sense it makes in character, it's still bullshit ooc. I'm having a really hard time understanding why this seems to be so difficult for some of you to understand.

My character commited no crimes.
My character has been nothing but polite in any situation, especally when dealing with "the living".
When all of these events happoned my character was not around, nor me as a player. There is nothing I could have done to influence this in any way. I had no part in any of it, therefore the consequences should not be for me to bare.

So, wait. The Shroud have been known to be committing crimes and been complained about every other council meeting, but Dreadnettle has been polite so she should be let off the hook? No, the simple fact that you're in the Shroud makes you accountable. It does having something to do with Dreadnettle. You cannot banish a guild for their collective actions and but add a clause which says: "but Dreadnettle, DK 1 and DK 2 are allowed in SW because they're okay' - its not a minority of DK's in the ES that have been doing bad shit, so the collective have been punished.

Deal with it and adapt to the consequences of the Shroud's action, when the Chapter was outlawed 3/4 of the guild wasn't even around when the crimes levelled at them were actually committed.

Vaell wrote:

Perturbo wrote:Looking at the list Kitt linked, I don't see how it doesn't make sense, and that's just her list.

Her list isn't exactly accurate from what I've heard! They haven't commited murder or mind control, that was the Night Elf and his 3 girlfriends.

That's not true, actually. The actions I listed weren't anything to do with the Nelfie off on his own, but mainly directly ordered from Lex, and stuff I saw or dealt with first-hand, dating back to October/Nocember of last year. There was a long period of trying to reach IC truce between Shroud/Blades around the start of this year, facilitated mainly by Dru, once she left it fractured due to continuing attacks/kidnaps.

I can understand some of the Shroud member's frustrations, but have to say, I honestly, oocly, DID believe Lex was pushing for this kind of eventual backlash and legal sanctions, considering at Council meetings Jarric would be one of the ones shouting most loudly for banishment or outlawing? And the continuing aggression, threats, and attacks despite the increasing hostility/wariness in return.

Jarrics actions are completely seperate from my other chars, as is true of all of my alts.

Kitt you write as if you are agreeved, OOC you can accept that it was RP and it was IC fault that cut both ways right?