Posts from 🎀 Wisteria 🎀 Auto-translated

What if we considered selling the figurines as a business? But then it would be a shame to sell them...

The church has a monopoly on selling figurines, so it won't work.

And you (I, Lok, Alex) provided a detailed answer.

You and Alex didn't participate in the discussion at all.))))

And yes, even if we skip that, I don't understand why you don't like the answer "everything suits you," "do whoever you want."

I've already explained why. It's the lack of details, and I've provided a perfectly valid reason for why those details are necessary.

If you think you can't justify the presence of a particular character in the group due to their motivations, worldview, and bad colleagues (all of this has been discussed a million times), then don't include them, that's all.

Did you even read my post? If you did, you should have understood that the purpose of finding out these factors was to define the character's concept.

— Hey guys, can you give me more details about the organization?
— We're neutral. You can create anyone.
— But you can't create just anyone; not every character fits everywhere. Still, can you give me more details to avoid pitfalls when choosing a character?
— If you don't like it, then create a different character.))))

You and Alex didn't participate in the discussion at all.

Hmm, I see.

But you can't just take anyone, considering some of the characters. Still, could you provide more details to avoid any hidden pitfalls when choosing a character?

lol
- We're neutral, we accept anyone we want, we eat cake and drink tea, and we can take your paladin.
- But you have a slave owner/demonologist and so on...
- Well, if you think you won't fit in with the friendly team, create a different character.

There isn't any particularly strict ideology. Base your choice on the beliefs of our characters, and that's it. It seems like it couldn't be explained in more detail.

Alright, Pless, stop trolling. Promote whoever you want. We're all friends here, and we won't judge your character if it has some quirks, as long as it behaves appropriately.

Hmm, I see.

Then, quote what you and Alex wrote during your conversation with Locke. Because what you wrote afterward was no longer part of the discussion.

- We are neutral, we accept anyone we want, we eat cake with tea, and we can take your paladin.
- B-but you have a slave owner/demonologist and so on...
- Well, if you think you won't fit into our friendly team, create another character.

I see that you still haven't understood anything.

Base your decisions on the beliefs of our characters, and that's it. It seems that I can't explain it any more clearly.

I don't know how much more clearly I need to explain it for you to understand the essence of the discussion. I needed information about the beliefs of your characters. You gave your answer before the discussion with Locken. You are not the only leader. Locken didn't give this answer in the discussion at all. It was given later, when even Alex said that he didn't know anything about one of the leaders, and this information would affect the final image of the organization. And this is the very information that I was trying to get, explaining the uselessness of the saying "we can accept anyone."

Then quote what you and Alex wrote during your conversation with Locke.

I answered you right away, even before the pointless discussion. It's strange that you're focusing on it as something important and meaningful.

Locken didn't have that answer in the discussion at all.

You had a dialogue about business, from which even I understood the obvious answer.

You just need to avoid unnecessary fluff and focus on specifics, and there won't be these kinds of problems and misunderstandings.
But if you've received your answers and the issue is closed, then that's great, and we can end it here.

Guys, don't argue.
Basically, Ples's complaint is simple. Arterian is a rather strict religion in terms of worldview, as we understood it. It's not just for show that the description mentions the righteous path. Your beliefs clearly tell you that many things in this world are unacceptable.
Imagine a real-life situation. You're a specialist in a certain field and want to work for a company. You have a choice, and many companies are willing to hire you. You could even emigrate and look for a job in another country. And then you make a choice. But you've heard that the president of one company has been involved in some financial schemes. In another, the director is being investigated for pedophilia. Yes, formally, none of this concerns you, but it will make you think about choosing a third option, right?
Imagine another situation, also in real life: there's some kind of music scene, and a person is a fan of that kind of music, but he knows for sure that at this gathering, people will be actively smoking [stuff]. And he's a staunch Republican, doesn't like [stuff], doesn't respect it, and looks at the fans as if they're strange (even if he doesn't necessarily argue that all of this should be banned, it's just unpleasant to him based on his beliefs). Will he go to this gathering? Probably, at most, he'll order the album on a disc, but he won't participate personally.
It's the same here. Arteria clearly states that slavery is always wrong and unacceptable. In my understanding (maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, but that's the feeling), this should be deeply ingrained in the subconscious of all its righteous followers (and the unrighteous don't get bonuses). Therefore, they won't join an organization where one of the leaders practices this, even if he's a decent guy, doesn't mistreat the slaves, etc. It just won't happen.
Accordingly, the organization should somehow justify this. For example, by concealing the presence of such a person in its ranks, which is the most obvious solution. Then, even if it's revealed later, you can play the "Well, it's unpleasant, of course, but it's too late to change things now." Or, the Arterian is already someone's slave (at worst, a servant) and doesn't have much choice. Or come up with something else...
Or, you shouldn't make an Arterian at all.
And Ples just wanted to know how to proceed in this situation because he initially wanted an Arterian. Because the thesis "it doesn't matter who you are, you'll fit in here" is generally incorrect, for the reasons described above.
But, as I understand it, an Arterian isn't that important to him; he just needs to clarify these nuances, and that's it.

Guys, don't argue.

Otherwise, I'll send you to serve not the local empress, but the Lisliar slave traders.

I responded to you immediately, even before the pointless discussion. It's strange that you're focusing on it as something important and meaningful.

Context: Alex said that he was unaware of the concept of the character Lok. I replied that this was the whole point of the discussion with Lok, because there was no discussion between us at all. Just a question and an answer. That's it. You said that you and Alex gave me an answer. I told you that you didn't participate in my discussion with Lok at all. Is it clear now?

You had a dialogue about business, from which even I understood the obvious answer.

A dialogue about business is not the same as an answer about what one of the leaders is like and what the organization as a whole will be. It provides some information, but not all. A leader of such an organization can be either a principled businessman (who doesn't eat kittens, of course), or someone who donates money to orphanages. I'm exaggerating here, of course, but such traits can also serve as "pros" and "cons" for using one concept or another. For example, if a person does things that contradict your ideals, for one reason or another, you are unlikely to want to work with him when there is an alternative. Even if the work itself is something that you wouldn't mind taking on. But if a person works for a good cause, in your understanding, but uses ambiguous methods, you may turn a blind eye to these methods. And here, descriptive information is desirable, rather than evaluative "true neutral" (some people considered the Kalevrites to be good). I hope my position is clear here too?

Or come up with something else...

Actually, Alex's explanation about the incredible charisma of a "Heroist" is, perhaps, acceptable to me, as I already said. Or I'll become a slave to Lok, and then everything will definitely be fine.
Plesa might not like this, because he has an intelligence of 14+, and a large head provides resistance to charisma, as is well known...

Arteria clearly states that slavery is evil in any situation and should not be allowed.

By the way, since we've touched upon various philosophical aspects, I'll describe the divine perspective on these (not specifically slave-related, but generally) issues. The Goddess loves and pities everyone, so even towards a vile slave trader, she will feel sadness and pity that life has led him to such depths. This may, although not always, be reflected in the attitude of church members. Those who are more calm and wise will have a similar attitude (even if they are carrying out a sentence at that moment), while hot-tempered individuals and those who understand less about the divine path may rant about the villainy, etc.

Plesa might not be happy with this, because he's 14+, and a large head gives resistance to charisma, as is well known...

Yeah, that's right. Not stupid enough to be fooled. Not fanatical enough to follow a group and spout the same sermon over and over, hoping to re-educate the squad members. But the concept of being a slave doesn't quite suit him either. He would simply find another job that doesn't require compromising his conscience.

You basically have a choice.

The problem is, you don't. This whole "organization" is a scripted plot device invented by the GM so that players can simply start the game. And now, either you give up your own interesting ideas, or you continue playing a paladin among rogues, ignoring the fact that you're in a group, or you don't play at all.

it doesn't matter who you are, you'll fit in here.

Specifically, my leader will accept anyone who has a brain. The rest is in the paragraph above.

I told you that you weren't even participating in my discussion with Locke.

You brought up your discussion first, completely out of the blue and in a very accusatory context. Now I understand why; you need to be clearer in your statements.

I hope my position is clear here too?

That's right, but all you had to do was what Alex did: ask clearly and get a clear answer.

this is what one of the leaders is like

Okay. Although I've mentioned this here and there, I'll summarize it for clarity.
A creative person, a businessman, a man of aesthetics and heart. He won't burn down an orphanage. He won't lead slave-pride parades or beat up vanaras in the square. He won't bite a slave or servant, placing them on the curb and kicking them in the back of the head. He won't break the law if the chance of getting caught is high enough or the matter is too risky. He won't sacrifice the poor or do anything for free; he won't give in to guilt trips from the disadvantaged. He will treat servants and slaves as servants and slaves. Completely neutral. Is that okay? There will be a quest soon if needed, but you might not understand it without explanations.
Everything else about the company is OUR COLLECTIVE role-playing. In this paradigm, we three will lean towards making decisions about the plan of action and as a motivator for the group, but ultimately, it all depends on us, the players, and not on me, Heroist Alex, who leads you like puppets.

Added 9 minutes later
Ah yes. Of course, there will be sadism in the skills because experience needs to be gained somehow and because of the details of the environment in which he was raised. But within reasonable and mostly intimate limits.