Bay 12 Games Forum

Wait, Indaria was still mute.

Replay everything but with Indaria miming her heresy

I'd forgotten that. oops.

Ahrian carefullly settled on the stool she'd dragged to the table near the wall, needing room for her tails that a chair with a back just does not provide and wanting to avoid having them anywhere near a walking area.
"So, um, I know we've been traveling a bit, but I don't think we've ever really just sat down and talked about ourselves much. Um... So, I'm Ahrian, as you... already know. Um, and my parents were traveling doctors, taught me a lot, so I'll likely be our medic on this trip and all. Um... I also know a bit of magic, uh... What about each of you? Like, are you-" she gestures towards Xin "-a trained knight?"
She quivers on the stool a bit, unsure how open her traveling companions will be to discussing themselves and their pasts.

---

Ahrian doesn't take action towards the competitors, simply remaining aware of them in case they try to approach her.

I wanted to let Indaria play on the edge of things, treat the offered choices as actual choices, and to not play into the forced extremism that 40k is known for. Thought that since RTs are human but outside the normal imperial structure, and with more freedom to do as they pleased, that it could be done here. I had forgotten that freedom and choice is a privilege of power. She needed to be the RT herself if she was going to do that. As things are, she's a problem now, and will be a problem again the next time something like this comes up. Nobody wants this kind of drama.

Cael, have Marco shoot Indaria on the spot. Don't give her a chance to fight back.

I'll just leave.

Cael, if the choice is between -we don't, and removing Indaria from the game, I'd prefer to remove myself from the equation. I think there's other options that are better, but if push comes to shove, I'd prefer to be able to spectate a still-alive game.

regarding evil. if I'm reading it correctly, we don't actually have anything we (the players, not the characters) have to address here. No real disagreements. So moving on.

next part is the meat of the matter, I'll address that in a second, because IMO it's the most important bit for actually solving things, even if it's not anything to do with what I'm mad at you for Max.

and finally there's the end bits. first regarding kicking players out, you haven't made your position clear, and frankly I don't want to argue about it. The way you phrased things made you come accross as saying exactly what I characterized it as. You know, the characterization you called dishonest? It wasn't dishonest. If you weren't saying that then you suck at communication.

I think that if I'm coming across as supercilious (which I had to google), then I'm fucking up. So I'll need to work on that. When (not if, no way am I going to get this right at first), you spot that happening, please PM me a quote of what I'm doing so I can cut it out. What I'm trying to do is to take the high road and not respond to you going out of your way to start a fight for fighting's sake, and I had to stop myself from making a really direct response calling you out on it. So what I replaced it with was pretty much what I told myself when I made myself stop writing that reply.

Also, it's silly how you claim to think I want a fight considering how many times I had to stop myself from accusing you of writing self-contradictory lies just to get a rise out of me and attempt to cause a fight.

---

and now to the meat of the matter

I genuinely don't see how you don't get it. I'm not saying you literally said those words, I'm saying those are the functional effect of you saying that 1) Caellath's clear statement of what he wanted to do is "unreasonable and unacceptable", and 2) there are things you consider non-negotiable. If that's the case, then you're saying there is a bright-line region where other players are not allowed to act the way they believe their characters would act. I also want to point out that, while you did only mark your third line as "non-negotiable", you also only offered room for negotiation in re: keeping the chaos artefact that included you not actually losing it for real, which implies that you consider it non-negotiable to have it removed or destroyed; you reacted badly to Caellath suggesting changing your decision to make the deal; and you also clearly reacted to my proposal that included destroying it with contempt. If that's not the case and you are willing to retcon its existence completely, then I acknowledge that it's true that you haven't specifically made any retcons non-negotiable; that was only my impression. That doesn't change, though, the thrust that you're declaring choices other players might make to be unacceptable without letting them do the same to you.

So we've got two things to cover here, and I think the second will resolve the first. The first is the bright-line region, which I do believe exists, but I think it's smaller and less encompassing than you think it is. And the second section where I gave examples of easilly accepted variants of the points I want to argue for, I think you thought those were the only acceptable ones. They were not, not even close. They're just mild examples that I was and still am prepared to accept instantly without any argument. Other, stronger, versions also exist and are also acceptable, though I'll want to talk them through first instead of them being the auto-ins the given examples are.

I think that showing how the bright-line region as you called it is much smaller than you described, solves this.

---

Now, my only lasting grievance with you is this piece of shit.

Yes, obviously, you could change your story so that your character just lies to him and we all have to pretend not to know, but I hope it's obvious that that would be an incredible dick move. I imagine it would leave a sour taste in Caellath's mouth; it certainly would in mine. "Sorry, I wanted to tell you the truth, but your reaction was wrong, so I'm taking it back." Still, I'd accept it, but you can rest assured I'd be doing my best to find an excuse to uncover the truth afterward.

To quote yourself:

in the context of the game, your value as a player of the game is the enjoyment you are giving to other players. If people don't enjoy playing with you, your value as a player is negative and other people are not required to play with you. As of this last post, I feel that I have officially moved firmly into that camp, but I think this is something you can understand if you try to empathize with the other players.

You're literally declaring a personal vendetta against me, saying that even after the conflict between me and Cael is resolved you're going to hunt me down and fuck me over. By your own reasoning, you should kick yourself out.

Please retract your declaration of a vendetta. Thank you.

(Not quoting to avoid unreadable walls)
Max, you appear to be dead-seriously arguing that Indaria's choice fucks you over because it provides an opportunity for Stirk to maybe have it narratively become a problem at some future date. I'd like to point out the same opportunity applies no matter what. A GM doesn't need an excuse to add an element to a story. If Indaria didn't have the item some NPC would.

Regarding your "making demands" argument. Your argument only works if Cael is the GM, and if the proposed consequences were simply the natural result of what was going on. He's not, and they aren't. The only thing I have demanded is "don't fucking kill her then, and I'm fine with retconning some things to make it palatable." You are attempting to put words into my mouth, saying I'm demanding things that I am not, and then attacking those nonexistent demands instead of responding to what I've actually said. Don't strawman people please.

Regarding the "Lenglon should be booted from the game as a problem player" argument, I invite you to edit what you have said once you've had some time to think things through.

Your section at the bottom was already addressed. You're busy explaining that what she did was a bad idea. I knew all that when she did it. Calm down and recognize what's going on here. If you want I could give you a full breakdown of why she made that choice, but that doesn't seem relevant right now.

Also, you seem to think my position is that I get what I want and give up nothing, which is absurd. Why do you think I made a point of stating that certain things from what I want for Indaria ARE negotiable? Because I expect I'm going to have to give ground on at least one of those and am prepared to do so. For example, one workable middle ground is to retcon things so that Indaria shows some self-preservation and doesn't fucking tell Marco about it. I would prefer to let her be completely open with him at all times, but if that's what needs to happen, then it's what needs to happen. Other solutions exist as well. Hence why I want to retcon things and plan them out a bit so that we don't stumble into another deadlock like this.

Okay, so lets start from the top.

Marco and Indaria are naturally incompatible.

This is true, but it's so very much not my fault that it's true that it's silly. I view it as a nobody's fault kind of thing, it's just something that happened, and I think you view it similarly? Not sure if there was a point you were driving towards with this section or if you were just setting the stage and showing how this kind of problem was semi-inevitable.

I wonder, though, if Marco would accept as a solution the immediate surrender and destruction of the chaos amulet, followed by Indaria's complete demotion and placement under the supervision of the ship's ecumenical authorities. If you need an excuse to keep them from defaulting to immediate execution, you can say "I just noticed the tail for the first time!"
It's the only context I can think of where my character would be okay with Indaria staying on the ship, so I thought it might work for you too.

We seem to have a values dissonance problem here.

Lenglon, though... you need to pull your head out, here.

Well that's hostile, guess we aren't going to get to have a polite conversation.

rant about how Indaria ate babies by making a choice that put herself in danger and nobody else.

Yeah, definitely values dissonance.

trying to draw red lines about what's "negotiable" for you is doubling down

The only thing that I labeled as not being negotiable, in my conversation with another player, not the GM, was that she remain a playable character. I drew the red line so far back it's absurd, and the simple fact that I felt the need to draw it at all should tell you how extreme the situation has become, all about a choice that I made a point of staying public about from start to finish in case someone wanted to say, oh, "please don't do that?". I know it's hard for you to understand that asking someone to not do something might influence them into not doing it, but that's because I'm less of an asshole than you are, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm an asshole.

But besides the question of whether the thing is evil within the game itself, the important part is that you do not get to demand unrestricted freedom of choice, then refuse the same to others. You are being incredibly selfish.

In what world have I demanded anything of the kind in the first place? Unlike you, I abide by a rule of not fucking over friendlies, which, of course, restricts my freedom of choice substantially. You had the freedom to choose for yourself as well. All I'm asking for is that Cael abide by the same, and I have clearly labeled that I'm fine with her getting punished to a reasonable extent and explicitly am fine with it within limits, even though that's not normally a thing a PC should do to another PC.

---

Values dissonance problem:
So we've got two major aspects of values dissonance going on here. First, there's the simple fact that the 40k universe fosters extremely domineering, judgemental, prejudicial, and hateful behavior. It's all part of the grimdark flavor, which is fine. The problem comes from the fact that this shit is unhealthy as hell when applied to fellow real human beings. Just because the imperium would shoot Indaria on sight, doesn't mean Cael should shoot Lenglon on sight. I think nobody here disagrees with that. However there's some other aspects to it. For example, Macro is the RT is the lord and god of the ship. Cael is just another player the same as you and me. No better, no worse. Although Marco gets to make demands of Indaria, Cael doesn't get to make demands of Lenglon. Not hard, right?

So take a moment and actually fucking look at what you're saying. You're saying that this choice, made publicly, with zero objection and straight up implied consent of the other players, is a reason to remove another player from the game entirely. You're declaring me a problem player for... taking a risk to my own character, and requesting that I don't be unilaterally executed for it. Yeah, if You and I were in the 40k universe this kind of treatment of other people would be nothing, normal, mild and friendly. This isn't the 40k universe, and people actually do have value here in reality.

Second aspect of values dissonance is the simple question of was Indaria's choice an evil choice? Apparently you say yes it was. The Imperium of Hate would agree with you, 100%, no question. But was it ACTUALLY an evil choice? I think not. It was a risky choice, yes. It was unwise, yes. However, did she put anyone at risk other than herself? No. She did not. She has harmed nobody, she's put nobody at risk other than herself, and I want you to seriously sit down and think for a moment about if it actually was evil at all.

Let me make my bad decision. I, the player (Lenglon), think having Indaria's story being one where she treads on the edge of falling to Chaos but resists actually doing so, will make her have a fun and engaging story. That's my choice. It's my risk to take.

---

And I'm still waiting for Cael to bring literally anything to the table here. So far he's stated that his hard line is remove Indaria from play permanantly at a minimum, which completely unreasonable and unacceptable, so he's going to have to give, since I've already given quite a lot and don't have a lot more room to work with. I would like to talk this out like functional adults, but a negotiation requires more than one participant, and Cael isn't posting.