From freehold decree post

This is an open discussion form for all things related to Wanton Wicked 5.

This is an out of character forum. For in character discussions, check out the The City: Portland, OR category!

Moderators: WW6 Storymasters, WW6 Administrators

User avatar
LarryG
Storymaster
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:27 pm

From freehold decree post

Post by LarryG » Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:14 pm

Mephi wrote this in the other thread, which was a little counter productive. I moved it here so that people could discuss out of character what they are thinking, and work towards what they would like to see in character.

Please keep postings to IC forums as in character as possible, and if you need to clarify, or wish to discuss, make a thread in an appropriate place, and link it in your original post. Thank you.
((OOC info dump time:

We have no freehold Oath. Its nowhere on the wiki. The Court Oaths were specifically designed with the intent on not having a traditional monarchy style system. As well, the Oaths are carefully worded so that, while Beruit may have to walk with side by side with their brothers and sisters, it doesn't suggest anything resembling the need for pirates to have to listen to orders.

Gristle's Oath is to watch each other's backs, be strong, and to follow their pride. The term "Old Guard" implies a semi-military outlook as well as being old fashioned, which may include a monarchy in this one Court.

Beruit, however? "I forge my own path" and " I now dedicate myself to her freedom." This clearly does not suggest anything at all about listening to orders; pretty much the opposite. The theme is "pirates." Hang the Code.

Forteans are called the Lunatic Fringe. Their job, if you want to call it that, is to go around "the edge to find what needs to be done no matter how blind I wish to be to it." It talks about not turning aside, no matter what. Orders have the potential to clash and make someone turn aside.

Its been said before, but Mantle is not Status. You get social bonuses, sure, but not a position of authority. The Crowns in 2e are designed to get people to listen to them through the use of the Charmed Condition, which just lasts a few hours; more info here. And even that? You can't give direct orders even when under the Charmed Condition, just ask favors of a friend. Everything is set up so that you have to convince people through regular social rolls or doing small favors under Charmed. The above letter goes beyond what Charmed can do.

And, yes, some changelings do have breaking points and frailties related to following orders. At least there were before some PCs started dropping.))
GrayEyedDevil2154
6.0 Architect
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:12 pm
My Vampire: Josef Turner
My Werewolf: Roberto Luna

Post by GrayEyedDevil2154 » Sun Jun 04, 2017 3:46 pm

So, I guess the question I have is this.

If there is no Oath binding the changelings together as a Freehold, then they really aren't a freehold. That is what my assumption was. I suppose I could be wrong though.
User avatar
kawaiiwolf
Player
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:00 pm

Post by kawaiiwolf » Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:24 pm

Even the Fortean court isn't bound to anything more than an ideal. As obviously demonstrated in the past they're under no obligation to help us or one another. Which means they have no authority to tell us whom we may or may not interact with. I have oaths to protect the people shamelessly targeted by this egregious decree so the "freehold" can, in the politest terms possible, go <four letter word starting with f> itself.
randomim
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:13 am
My Changeling: Jennifer Silver
My Vampire: Gigglefitz the Clown

Post by randomim » Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:40 pm

I feel like the takeaway here is that various npcs (in at least the changeling and werewolf venues) are forcing an idea of a level of forbidding intersplat relationships. This feels toxic and backwards to me, and largely shouldn't be their business once known it wasn't forced on her in any way. I think its a large step back from player autonomy and crossover friendliness. What exact secrets do changelings have to protect against other splat spies anyway? Their enemy is the gentry, first and foremost, especially with the war long over. I would like to have had a scene like we as the players requested to discuss the exchange without this sort of kneejerk reaction
Player of Isabella Qilin Gracia and Pamela Salam
User avatar
LarryG
Storymaster
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:27 pm

Post by LarryG » Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:53 pm

randomim wrote:I feel like the takeaway here is that various npcs (in at least the changeling and werewolf venues) are forcing an idea of a level of forbidding intersplat relationships. This feels toxic and backwards to me, and largely shouldn't be their business once known it wasn't forced on her in any way. I think its a large step back from player autonomy and crossover friendliness. What exact secrets do changelings have to protect against other splat spies anyway? Their enemy is the gentry, first and foremost, especially with the war long over. I would like to have had a scene like we as the players requested to discuss the exchange without this sort of kneejerk reaction
I can understand your point there, however:

The game is based on a setting that has forced cross-over, but not necessarily forced friendliness. The war is the basis of the game, for the most part. And some of the NPCs, even among the lings, are from a period when the war was going on. As to wanting a scene to discuss these things: The NPCs aren't always going to say "I wonder what others think about this". Especially established authoritative figures. Whether you believe that they have the right to say what they said or not, or whether it is something that should be followed, is an IC issue, not an out of character issue. The Monarchs can -say- whatever they'd like. Whether it is followed by people or not is a completely different issue.

What I am seeing that is bothersome, is that IC things are being taken as out of character attacks, and that is not the case at all. As far as I know, from looking at the request queues, there has not been anything akin to that requested scene. I don't know when this all happened, and really, that's a non-issue. It was brought up, the STMs and staff members discussed a response that they were thinking of sending as the Monarchs, and it was agreed upon.

Before we get to the out of character bashing of the ideas, I would remind you all that this is a roleplaying game. When you see things that don't necessarily make sense, there are avenues for discussion with the staff, just like this forum, and when the staff then says, "This is an IC thing." It is not the staff being toxic, it is a plot point that can be explored, that can be affected by players, that can be shaped.
randomim
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:13 am
My Changeling: Jennifer Silver
My Vampire: Gigglefitz the Clown

Post by randomim » Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:02 pm

There was a scene request, it was returned to us asking for a time to be scheduled, and then we got the notice decreeing something without it happening. Im not sure if this was a miscommunication or a note that failed to be discussed potentially, i know these things happen
Player of Isabella Qilin Gracia and Pamela Salam
GrayEyedDevil2154
6.0 Architect
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:12 pm
My Vampire: Josef Turner
My Werewolf: Roberto Luna

Post by GrayEyedDevil2154 » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:06 pm

randomim wrote:I feel like the takeaway here is that various npcs (in at least the changeling and werewolf venues) are forcing an idea of a level of forbidding intersplat relationships. This feels toxic and backwards to me, and largely shouldn't be their business once known it wasn't forced on her in any way. I think its a large step back from player autonomy and crossover friendliness. What exact secrets do changelings have to protect against other splat spies anyway? Their enemy is the gentry, first and foremost, especially with the war long over. I would like to have had a scene like we as the players requested to discuss the exchange without this sort of kneejerk reaction
I mean, there is crossover, and there is Blood Binding. No one is saying you can't hang out and be friends with other splats. They are just saying, 'Hey, we don't like the idea of someone who would willingly enslave themselves.' Which, makes sense in my opinion.
User avatar
NeevaV
Integral Player
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 5:33 pm

Post by NeevaV » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:51 pm

okay quick rundown of the letter to bring some understanding and clarification.

They are not stopping others from interacting with them they told the others who do to be wary.

They said they will not offer aid other than what is deserved as if they were members of the pact and accord which by all accounts is ALOT

The lack of attending Changeling only functions and having a voice in any decisions made for the protection of everyone is only lasting for three months (A seasons turn) It's not a full on shunning and removal from Changeling life.

They are decreeing this only to ensure that A. They Can make certain that the blood bonded are truly themselves and are capable of continuing to look after other changelings despite taking on new yokes. and B. To ensure that every changeling thinks about possible consequences before doing things.

As to the scene. The scene CAN continue on and The elders May be convinced to allow an exception. Also others who have done this in the past are already considered to have served their season from the functions.

This is more of a forward thinking decree so others have a solid idea of what to expect.
"Laziness is the Mother of Invention."
User avatar
Mephi
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:27 pm

Post by Mephi » Mon Jun 05, 2017 7:50 am

NeevaV wrote:They are not stopping others from interacting with them they told the others who do to be wary.
To quote the original post containing the letter from the Crowns.

"No more shall any who drink the blood of vampires be of court, or kith, or kin for they now serve the vampire they bonded with."

This is basically saying that if you drink vampire blood, you are kicked out of Court. No longer to be considered kin / family. Not only is this something that's impossible for a monarch to do given the nature of Oaths, its also dictating to changelings that, if someone drinks vampire blood, you're basically not family. No one gets to tell trauma survivers who to trust, or who to be family with.

This is not, as you say, telling others to be wary. The language is denouncing and judgemental. Its drawing a line, not telling people to be cautious.
They said they will not offer aid other than what is deserved as if they were members of the pact and accord which by all accounts is ALOT
But they said that they would not be considered part of the Court. Which is, in theory, a lot. Well, in practice, its nothing because I've heard from multiple players is that Courts don't matter beyond a few mechanical benefits. But that's more of a function of the lack interactions and scenes within the Courts.

It also creates a bit of conflict, since the third Mantle dot of all three courts imply shared resources. Gristle provides access to funds, beruit to Fixers, and Fortean to a library. If you ban someone with Mantle 3 from "Court," do they lose access to their mechanical advantages?
The lack of attending Changeling only functions and having a voice in any decisions made for the protection of everyone is only lasting for three months (A seasons turn) It's not a full on shunning and removal from Changeling life.
If they earn "mercy" and "redemption." Again, exact words from the original post. It came across as "do not engage in something you want or you're banned from changeling scenes." That's getting in the way of stories people want to engage in, and telling people to conform, or else you're kicked out of changeling society.

That's needlessly antagonistic, divisive and gets in the way of stories, not create them.
They are decreeing
They have no authority to make decrees or orders. Maybe in Gristle. Definitely not in Beruit or Fortean. As Poppet said, the monarchs don't get to tell the Lost what to do. The Crowns want to say that they don't trust the blood bound? That's their perogative. They don't get to ban people from advantages that should be theirs by right and by Oath. And they don't get to tell others how to feel about another Lost.

Maybe if we were using the Seasonal Courts, this kind of thing could pass muster. But it is not how Portland Courts are set up.
As to the scene. The scene CAN continue on and The elders May be convinced to allow an exception. Also others who have done this in the past are already considered to have served their season from the functions.
This is kind of lame. Writing the letter in responce to a scene request and telling someone they're effectively banned, but they will be given a chance of mercy, without even knowing that it was effectively a crime first? That's ex post facto law, and generally considered to be a symbol of tyranny.

This is the reality the ST team has set up. The Crowns are acting tyrannically.
User avatar
PapaSpit
Integral Player
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:28 pm
My Changeling: Ava Ravenway
My Mage: Erinn -Fawkes- Rayborn
My Wolf-Blooded: Chloe Stedman-dead-

Post by PapaSpit » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:12 am

Well..time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.....
Player of
Changeling: Mira looks
Mage:Jewel
Past characters
SpoilerShow
WW 4.0 Changeling: Samantha Hope St.Martin(deceased)
User avatar
PrettyNPink
Integral Player
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:44 pm
My Mage: Molly -Dice- Davenport
My Wolf-Blooded: Celene Cooper

Post by PrettyNPink » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:45 am

So what? The plot is saying the crowns a tyrant?

Huh I wonder what that's telling you all to go do! Investigate and rebel? *sings the hanging tree*
"Dance like nobody's watching, but write like it will be read out loud in court."
User avatar
kawaiiwolf
Player
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:00 pm

Post by kawaiiwolf » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:32 pm

Yeah, it doesn't work like that. What you get instead is players reading into it, not thinking anything of it and blindly adhering to ostracize and condemn the player to exclude them from any participation. You may have intended on it to be in character but that's not how it comes across, it's an attack on the player. Maybe choose your words more carefully or when encouraging harassment and exclusion, remind the players that read this is strictly in character and to please take the story in good fun. Because that decree ? Not in good fun, it's harassment.
praetor
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:15 am

Post by praetor » Mon Jun 05, 2017 7:06 pm

Unless the post and/pr the ST singles out, the player, then all posts ARE IC and directed to that effect.

Anyone who reads it as more than that, should have constant and verifiable proof of ST harassment.
Ebram
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:29 pm

Post by Ebram » Mon Jun 05, 2017 7:10 pm

It is not harassment. It is IC plot points. You can say that "no one gets to tell a trauma victim who to trust" but that's not actually how the world works. You are welcome to believe that it's wrong, but it doesn't change that it is what was said.

This is the world of darkness. Wear a helmet.

People will say things that you don't like, in character. You can argue out of character about them, or you can investigate why it was said in character, and maybe accomplish something. Saying, "Hey, that's not how this is supposed to work" is one thing, but then going on saying that it's abusive? That's ridiculous.
GrayEyedDevil2154
6.0 Architect
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:12 pm
My Vampire: Josef Turner
My Werewolf: Roberto Luna

Post by GrayEyedDevil2154 » Mon Jun 05, 2017 7:37 pm

I mean, go figure. Changelings dislike someone who willing enslaves themselves to other powers.
Post Reply