Shattered Kingdoms

Can't IMMs check Cabal Diplomacy and titles? Are you honestly telling me that you helled him to try and figure out why a well-known member of the MC was killing the leader of the Peacekeepers?

Dude, you didn't ask. You demanded. You threatened. You stated basically "stop using charm, period." Not in those exact words, but how would you like it if I told you to stop using the editor or I'll delete you? Wouldn't you go "why? I haven't done anything wrong!"

I mean come on, you back a guy into a corner, then give him a slippery-slope ultimatum, and expect him NOT to react negatively towards it?

You really need to raise the maturity bar in how you deal with folks, otherwise you will just make them upset and they will just leave.

It's unfair, you hold all the power and you still use threats. If you were so concerned that I didn't use RP, why not just curse me already? That is against the rules.

But if I was 'valid', then why did you not go "oh, well, I guess you were doing everything ok. Well, okay guy, we're just going to be taking a closer look at charm since we feel it is buggy. Back you go."

What you were trying to get me to do was admit that I was abusing charm and that I wouldn't do it again so you could delete me. That's a classic sk immortal tactic, and no, I didn't want to play that game.

Can you honestly blame me for not wanting to play and for calling you out on it? If I did it to you, you'd feel the same exact way.


Edit: I'd like to point out it takes a lot of guts for achernar to respond like this. Traditionally immortals like alshain, etc. would just lock the topic/delete it, and not allow an avenue of criticism against the game's staff or their policies or issues with players. They preferred to keep it behind doors, which of course has earned sk the terrible rep it has today, so this is a step up and this current staff is even better than last year's, which was better than the year before's, etc.

Assuming motivations can lead to false expectations. I've been on the receiving end of a few assumptions, and I for one would have rejoiced at a chance to more acutely explain myself and my character.

Of course, during those times, mint juleps may have been involved.

My point here is that both sides of this exchange look to me to have been sane people with decent, if translucent, intent. I think its safe to say both sides would have preferred the whole thing had gone better: perhaps that, in itself, can be tacit enough an apology to bury the hatchet?

I agree. Anyone in war should expect to be killed. I am not disputing this fact. In these cases, we generally take into account various cabal wars.



This is implied by the golden rule, and implied by Dulrik's comment that requires the charmer to roleplay a charm. I agree further notes could be made to the helpfile after charm person is fully reevaluated. I also agree that the charmee has to be friendly, while the charmer does not necessarily have to be friendly. There are many ways this can be demonstrated besides the mindless tactics currently in use. The restrictions currently on the charmee are as a direct result of player's refusal to RP a charmed character, in the same way we are in the cusp of having a wonderful roleplay spell change because charmers have the inability to use it even remotely responsibly.

Do I even need to say what I'm thinking?

Is it just me, or are you contradicting yourself? The entire reason that you're claiming Vaalim is "irresponsible" with Charm Person is because he used it to kill someone he is at war with, something that you yourself said was to be expected.

Where's the foul here? Where is even the hint of a foul?



Again, are the IMMs seriously saying that they helled and threatened Vaalim just to ask him why he killed Bregindor? Could four IMMs really not piece together that there was obviously an established reason for a well-known MC member to kill the leader of the Peacekeepers whom he is at war with?


I do think an apology is in order. You helled and threatened a player without a good reason. You don't have to kiss his butt, but a simple acknowledgement that you messed up in this case would be nice.

Edoras. The problem is the way charm is set up.

Go in, while behind 2 GM barb NPCs with MI up. Charm someone and immediately leave with them. It's ridiculous.

I play a GM sorc. Do I need to run through the list of reasons Charm needs to have an RP requirement with it?

If he'd done a backstab/scroll/etc gank, at least he would've been lagged from that, and then had to be lagged by o all get all, and then hope that NPC isn't fighting before he could leave.

And before we get into the bash Syn fest. Ealuriel probably let over half her charms go after some RP with ALL their eq/etc. And sure, I might've had a few crummy charm ganks, that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be changed.

Please hell ealuriel and threaten her.

I mean, it's only fair, right?

But yeah, I'd take a simple "okay, maybe we did something wrong". It's not much, but that'd be at least SOMETHING to show some level of decency or self-control.

But there -isn't- an RP requirement: Not one beyond any normal RP requirement that involves PvP. Which is why it needs to get nerfed.

In the meantime, IMMs don't need to be picking and choosing random people to hell and threaten just because their victims are crying a river.

Hey. Didn't Grakus play that [REDACTED] [REDACTED] barb I put to sleep for 5 minutes before getting threatened by Imms?