World of Warcraft®

Some of <The Exiles of Azeroth> have already left the realm. More will be leaving. The <Ironforge Guard> is going to be rather inactive. If anyone wants to save the Guard, speak up.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to. Frankly, I think Orwyn, the Stormwind City Watch, the rest of the Ironforge Guard (both former and current), Kyalin, The Chimaera and anyone else (collectively known as "the law") trying to play as any kind of law enforcement in any location anywhere deserve far, far more credit than they are given, especially considering the circumstances they're up against. They face insurmountable, overwhelming and unconquerable odds. They face "neutrality" and "rebellion" from all sides. The "neutral" Horde guilds have no police force looking for them for betraying Garrosh and the Horde, and by all logic, these dissidents would be hunted down and killed. Likewise, the "neutral" Alliance guilds would face a reckoning by "loyalists" and, if they weren't merely chased out of the cities by mobs with torches and pitchforks, likely face the same fate.

However, there is no way to police people who refuse to answer to any authority but their own, and they claim that right by this neutrality (despite, for the most part, operating out of cities that are anything but neutral). This is being done so there is no accountability for their actions. Cenarion Circle has become a Wild West of roleplaying. As it stands, there are enough criminals and bandits and outlaws hiding in neutral groups that hide behind the premise of neutrality that "the law" has been rendered impotent (even when dealing with people who aren't "neutral").

Ignoring any mention of lore, what it comes down to is "neutrality" is the new path to being a Mary Sue, and when you point out that your authority should hold as much weight as their neutrality, you're causing trouble - you're disrupting their stories and plots. The ones playing "the law" become the bad guys. The neutral groups can (and often) do and say anything they'd like anywhere they want and the law is forced to smile, wipe their chin and walk away. Hiding behind secrecy, the people who can "out" the neutral groups aren't, and it's become redundant to have any kind of authority (regardless of how much sense it would reasonably make).

At some point, a "rebellion" of neutrality becomes so popular, it ceases to be a rebellion and starts to be a regime.

Without accountability, why bother hiding behind the pretense of possessing any kind of weakness? Admit you're a Mary Sue, declare yourself the High Holy Paladin Archmage Warrior of Azeroth and be done with it. At least then, the people who don't want to deal with a nigh-unstoppable force doesn't have to, and there's no need to peel away layers of "good roleplay" to discover that you're never going to let your characters be held accountable for anything they do.

tl;dr - If someone wants the Ironforge Guard, get ahold of me. To "the law" of the roleplaying community, good luck uncovering and dealing with The Neutral Mary Sue Neutral Army of Neutrality.

Not how I wanted to spend my morning, but alright. I'll respond to this....

If there is a real problem, posts like this actually accomplish very little. If people are exhibiting behavior that you don't like, it solidifies a person's position, stirs up unnecessary conflict, and aligns people against you.

Playing a law enforcement character isn't easy, and requires OOC communication with the mark, and even then it is hampered by restrictions imposed in the limits of Role Play, such as the inability to godmod, direct, or entrap a person's character unless they consent. This is not a bad thing, but it is a thing that we must understand and work with. For future reference though, having mooks, redshirts, and other disposable "NPC" characters and alts helps with this. Even so, playing the law isn't easy. It requires work and patience, and no matter how nice or reasonable you think you are in carrying it out, your character will still be painted as going too far. I guarantee it! But then, that happens in the real world too, and is a reaction that you should expect.

As for the "Mary Sue" charge. There are neutral groups, and people who work with and had worked with neutral groups in the past, who regard those affiliations more highly than they do the Alliance. Quest for Pandaria shows a good example of this sort of thing happening, and I find the idea of cracking down on them during a time of war to be an interesting and warranted storyline considering that the sandbox acknowledges a full scale war between the factions. (Buldin does have a point here. The Azeroth that Blizzard has given us to play in acknowledges a full scale war between the Alliance and the Horde. It has since Cataclysm, and that is only escalating with Mists of Pandaria. Not everyone has fully acknowledged this, and I encourage people to move forward to understanding that this is the environment in which we have to work with until Garrosh is punted like a two dollar gnome off of his throne.)

The parenthetical comment aside, calling someone a Mary Sue just isn't warranted here. There are neutrals and partisans alike within both factions. The existence of both groups is acknowledged in existing lore, and the conflict between them is inevitable. I am interested in pursuing that conflict, but let's not act like we shouldn't have to deal with it, or that it should be wrapped up in our favor quickly, and let's certainly not stir up problems with people who I at least consider to be friends.

As for the storyline that spawned this, as I said in the other thread. Warden Kyalin Raintree is still in the game, and is determined despite any setbacks that this may cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AgxVqX0IJ3Q#t=16s

I appreciate "The Law" and all the work they contribute to the RP community. Occasionally, Tyr even follows these laws, but I try for the most part to stay out of capitol cities, other than the occasional foray to the Recluse, for reasons exactly such as these. I try my best to respect the authority and power of the players around me, while also remembering that Tyr is a neutrally-affiliated character. Does that make her a traitor to the Alliance? Quite possibly. Does that make me a sue? Don't think so.

While I'm not particularly pleased by the accusations made here, but for the sake of RP and the tentative storyline between Gambit and the IFG that Buldin and I weaved a few weeks ago, I intend to keep RPing with him for the time being. I just hope this opinion doesn't hinder his RP opportunities in the future.

I should say, I can't speak much for Alliance side (though guilds like Pia, LO, the Chimaera, Stormwind City Watch, etc, they all seem far from neutral. Hell, even TI has participated in RP-PvP), but it doesn't sound like it's overwhelmingly neutral over there.

Horde-side, as far as 'Horde neutral' guilds go, we have.. AAMS? Maybe Red Phoenix Council is neutral, I'm not sure. Homeland, in the past, has been far from it and it tends to switch between neutral and not. On the other side of the spectrum, we have Modas, the Razortalons (only neutral in the sense that ICly we do cross-faction trade, but otherwise far from neutral), Da Doctas, Ishnu Por Ah (less active these days, granted), the Stormreaver Clan... there's more, I'm sure, but it's early and I haven't had my tea yet.

We, Horde-side, had an entirely in-character issue with the AAMS not too terribly long ago, and for a long time the Horde as a whole had a less-than-friendly opinion of them. Even today, lotta folk remain wary.

I've found the investigation into the AAMS fairly interesting to read through, as I have an alt in there - for those of you who don't have the addon to see my alts, I'm Xanossa, Aro here, Jean, Vanyris, Kynrae, Dante.. the list is fairly lengthy. I'd say 90% of my characters are far from neutral. Even Aro, a Crusader, harbors grudges and when push comes to shove stands with the Forsaken (though he is quite fond of the Wildhammer).

To get to my point, and to stop rambling, as someone who frequently plays characters who are anything /but/ neutral, I don't see the issue. Perhaps it with a specific group, or guild, A-side, but I don't think that warrants a thread on the forums.

On a side note, I've chatted with Orwyn a few (rare) times OOCly, and I don't keep it a secret that I think he runs one of the hardest guilds to run on the server. Yes, it's frustrating, but I don't think it's worth leaving the server because a plot didn't go the way you wanted it to.

Sidenote part two: There may be credibility to your frustrations, on that note, but slinging around insults instantly loses any credibility you may have had. It's just not the way to go about this sort of thing, and if you truly wish to make a difference in people's opinions I recommend amending your first post.

While you do have a point about treasonous actions (I actually avoid Orgrimmar and anywhere with a large Kor'kron presence ICly on my main due to differing opinions with the Horde leadership,) I do need to point out that the AAMS is a neutral organization that has existed for roughly 7 and a half years and operates out of Booty Bay. I do not see the Alliance and Horde hunting down and arresting every member of the Argent Crusade, Cenarion Circle, Earthen Ring, and varying other neutral factions that do not claim fealty towards the Horde or Alliance. To angrily call a whole guild mary sues while upset is hardly becoming of you.

That said, a deal of OOC and agreement is required to operate an organization that is supposed to uphold the law. If just anyone was able to put on a guard outfit and claim to be the law, we'd have people forcing their own self appointed power on others - which can just lead to potential for OOC abuse when one might target others to try and settle a vendetta.

Moving on, any group that deals with upholding the law can only do as much as the other party allows them, and it can be frustrating quite often. As someone that RPs as a loyal member of the Kirin Tor, I twitch a little every time I see someone do something that would literally get them executed on the spot or hunted down, knowing that there's not exactly much I can do about that. The best you can unfortunately do in a situation where someone is saying "lol I don't care about the lore /ignores" is just not not acknowledge them. If someone is running around changing the timelines and knocking up lore characters, then that's the point where you just disregard any mention of them and let anyone that tries to bring it up to you know that you're not participating in that and it would be appreciated to not drag you in it.

The problem with running a Law Enforcement guild isss manyfold, yesss.

On one hand, you are represssenting the "Law", which, basssically, isss what you think it sshsould be, yesss. Now, thisss isss not to sssay that it isss a bad thing, but it isss ssubject to your interpretation versssusss that of othersss, yesss.

Next, another difficulty laysss in when you lay chargesss againssst another perssson or guild or group of guldsss, yesss. There isss really no ssstructure in the game to give sssufficient authority to your actionsss or proclamationsss than that which everyone allowsss, yesss. Sssay you "arressst, try, and convict" sssomeone, yesss. Are they to log on to only ssspendn time in the ssstockade, yesss? That isss not realissstic, yesss.

You could have an entire player court, with judgesss, folksss represssenting Law enforcement and government, but that tendsss to become overly dramatic, yesss. we had thisss happen before, if anyone remembersss the old Horde Council, yesss.

You would need to arrange ahead of time with the perssson or guild you would be invessstigating and prosssecuting, about what would the sstepsss be, the variousss posssssible resssponsssesss, and what the consssequencesss would be, yesss. You alssso have to take into account the variablesss of all othe rRPersss wanting to get into the action, which will invariably through all organized plansss out the window with the bath water, yesss.

It isss a very difficult thing to try to do, but it can be rewarding if you let a few thingsss happen, yesss. You allow for random RPersss and their actionsss, and build contingenciesss, yesss. If you arressst ssosmeone, expect a breakout attempt, yesss. thisss may lead to a nice hunt ssscenario, yesss. Court room scenariosss can abound, yesss. Penaltiesss in game againssst playersss have to be agreed upon, but can in no way resstrict in game activitiesss to the point of reducing sssomeonesss fun, yesss. thisss isss counterproductive, yesss.

If you want to do thisss, you alssso have to allow that othersss will have completely different takesss on thingsss, yesss. And the accusssation of Mary Sssue goesss both waysss, yesss. Sssome could argue that being the Law isss very Mary Sssue, yesss.

I believe that in order to make thisss work, you need to have very willing participantsss, and good communication with thossse who want to get involved when you open it up to the public, yesss. Planning isss essssssential, yesss.

I hope you try to make it work, yesss. good luck, yesss.

Seems to me the root of the problem is more players trying to claim in-game authority over cities controlled by NPCs than it is "neutral" guilds.

As convenient as it would be to know Fodring's opinion of the AAMS, or Thrall's, or whoever's, they're very unlikely to ever descend from their pedestals and tell us. But we can generally assume that neutral guild members are at least tolerated in the cities of their faction-of-origin, where their race isn't shot on sight, since the guards don't attack.

When you get in-character guilds saying those neutrals should be thrown out, that's one thing. When you get in-character guilds claiming a mandate from a "government" that quite clearly doesn't have an opinion on the matter, well, that's another.

As I read the original post, a lot of the frustration seems to boil down to "people aren't doing what I want them to, even though I'm from a police guild."

Which begs the question...how many of the people you're upset with asked for a police guild? And asked, specifically, to have their guild acted upon by it?

((Heya. I'm Rokuro from Conclave. I felt it better to respond from this character, since it's probably more familiar.

I've always tried to get along with other players and guilds. Many times, I've got an alt in the background at events. There are really only a couple of things that I don't like, and even then, my response is to usually ignore it and get on with my life. One of the things I don't like is when people god mode. God modding can take many forms, from the obvious to the subtle. One of the more subtle forms is when a group claims to have been given authority over a territory or players. It causes a problem because it's very easy to translate that authority as justification for opinions and actions that affect other players. It is really difficult to walk that fine line.

The same goes for neutral guilds too. It's easy to claim that you're neutral, but it's incredibly difficult to be truly neutral when all the game mechanics and story refuse to let you.

*sigh*

I dunno where I'm going with this. I'm sorry that this has caused you and your friends to leave the server. I do have an un-guilded dwarf that can hold onto the Ironforge Guard guild for you if you'd like. His name is Maculhene.))

((If I weren't still at least token committed to the Azeroth College, I probably would offer too. Alas, I have NO unguilded characters to offer to take custody of it.))

I normally abstain from forum threads like this one, but felt I should say something as the AAMS is involved in the plot line that spawned this and is a 'neutral' guild. As mentioned, there are not many neutral guilds on the server.

Being in a 'neutral' group can actually be more limiting on one's roleplay, rather than permission to do whatever you wish. It is very difficult to avoid taking sides, and other characters will call you out if you mess up. If you don't take sides, you have neither enemies nor conflict, which means less RP. No conflict is boring!

However, if I let Derscha do whatever she wanted using 'neutral immunity' to avoid consequences and limitations, I wouldn't blame the server for deciding not to RP with me.

Furthermore, being an 'immune' character would no longer be a challenge. Half the fun of being Derscha is trying to find creative ways for her to solve problems and justify her 'neutral' stance.

I personally don't have a problem with characters questioning the AAMS, and really expected at least some difficulty because of the war. To me, it's another source of RP, as long as both sides are respectful OOC.

I do not use 'neutrality' as a way to escape law enforcement or consequences. Derscha has helped law enforcement before, and she has been under suspicion at least briefly (I actually wish there had been time to explore that plot thread). I respect Orwyn and the Watch a lot for the OOC hoops they jump through. I've never had a bad experience with them. They know that sometimes the 'rule of fun' overrides what would be strictly logical from a realistic IC viewpoint. I believe playing a law enforcement guild, which demands active action, is more difficult than a neutral group, as we can simply walk away.

Buldin and I had talked over this plot line in how it affects the AAMS before he issued the IFG's notice, and how we'd resolve the warrant for Derscha. He was willing to compromise on exerting IC authority versus our right to continue RPing in Ironforge, which is why the AAMS is operating under 'permit' rather than have all official AAMS activities outlawed. The IFG can try to investigate us and continue to be disapproving, while we get to find ways to work around that. As an RPer, I think that's a better situation than being outright banned from operating in a city, as it provides more opportunity for RP than if we simply packed up and stopped interacting. What is the fun in being law enforcement if there's no one to investigate?

There was a point made in one of the posts about how to be a good hero: you have to let the villain win. You cannot always have the good triumph, or else the story would end and there'd be nothing to do. People wouldn't be villains, because who wants to lose all the time? 100% victory means the end of RP, so you have to settle for half-victories or outright losses occasionally. That is the burden of a good-guy, lawful guild.

Compromise is hard. It can lead to a solution that works better than your original idea,but first it involves sacrificing the notion that your original idea was the best idea. Sometimes it leads to a solution that isn't perfect, but is better than nothing, and you have to accept that. And sometimes, a compromise can't be made, and you have to learn to give up and find something else to do, even if you really wanted to do your original idea.

I am willing to continue Derscha's role in this storyline, and am curious to see how Kyalin's involvement will lead. I hope we can at least finish up this particular plot line.

I am willing to continue Derscha's role in this storyline, and am curious to see how Kyalin's involvement will lead. I hope we can at least finish up this particular plot line.

Of course, and we should intend to finish it with as much mutual enjoyment for all parties involved as possible. That's why I'm keeping a relatively open door on this, and why I welcome OOC communication in-game to give us direction on where we're going.

Seems to me the root of the problem is more players trying to claim in-game authority over cities controlled by NPCs than it is "neutral" guilds.

As convenient as it would be to know Fordring's opinion of the AAMS, or Thrall's, or whoever's, they're very unlikely to ever descend from their pedestals and tell us. But we can generally assume that neutral guild members are at least tolerated in the cities of their faction-of-origin, where their race isn't shot on sight, since the guards don't attack.

When you get in-character guilds saying those neutrals should be thrown out, that's one thing. When you get in-character guilds claiming a mandate from a "government" that quite clearly doesn't have an opinion on the matter, well, that's another.

Eh, this has limits. Granted, I picked the somewhat easy route of playing a Warden, whose concept comes straight from Judge Dredd. Sure, I have lore based limitations, and I limit what the lore says that I can do quite heavily, but the lore does give me some latitude.

The Lore also makes some very clear declarations from which we may draw mandates. For example: "The Alliance and the Horde are at war", "Night Elves have a standing embargo against the Horde", and "Garrosh doesn't tolerate the use of Fel Magic within the Horde*" just to name a few. From those mandates we can reasonably estimate what a law enforcement regime would prosecute. However, as has been brought up, OOC cooperation and communication between the law and those who walk outside of it is still critical.

While "Garrosh doesn't tolerate the use of Fel Magic within the Horde" was true for all of Cata, come MoP it seems he's taken a lot less of a restrictive stance on it. Anything to aid in the war, so to speak. (A policy the alliance also seem to adopt in 5.1, with the warlock class quest and all)

((Just a minor correction on that, the rest is spot on :P))

While "Garrosh doesn't tolerate the use of Fel Magic within the Horde" was true for all of Cata, come MoP it seems he's taken a lot less of a restrictive stance on it. Anything to aid in the war, so to speak. (A policy the alliance also seem to adopt in 5.1, with the warlock class quest and all)

((Just a minor correction on that, the rest is spot on :P))

Well, I had the asterisk for a reason.

Ethillian's got the Ironforge Guard now and plans on doing what he can to advance the storyline.

Well, I hate to see this, but I hope the Ironforge Guard does continue. I'll try to get a post up on the other thread about how Pia was involved/included in the workings of the Guard.

If you will pass on my thanks to those who have left. I always enjoyed rping with all of you. The deal with naked Anwell at the clinic was pure gold. It was fun watching you all.

*salute*