Morkin definition

[Shendemiar]

Currently we are a bunch of MMU players who has an alliance. I think it should be outlined more precise.

What are our goals, methods? Currently it is more "lets have fun" than to "win the game". I'd prefer the earlier, but i could commit more to the game if it were the latter.

Our "moral" seems to be rather "lawful good", if you know the D&D terms... and that fine too for me. But, i could play along even if we were "Chaotic evil".

Anyway, the lack of definition who we are, is causing a fraction here. We dont know where we stand.

After determining our line, we also need to definine a level of commitment. For some of us this is obviously more important than for others. Those who do not take the game or the alliance too seriously, must consider, that a press of a button could spoil alot for those who have had great effort playing this game.

But the best in this all for me is the interaction... Lets keep that ;D

[SkulkrinBait]

I am not sure if I want to go out in the suicide strike or carry on playing now as I have enjoyed the last few weeks quite a bit.

If everyone wants to go out in a bang then I will go with that, but if people want to try to be a top20 alliance etc etc then we can try that too.

A compromise would be to attack increasingly strong people/alliances as we get stronger.

How long do you think until we could take down original_eyes (assuming VI could be persuaded to stay out)?

[ashimar]

about original_eyes, it's hard to say but most players with islands tend to have a few well defended mains and some feeble ones. Take away the feeble ones and then hide behind strong walls and let him deplete himself in the counterstrike would be my strategy.

Btw, I consider myself chaotic good or chaotic neutral. I couldn't abide under lawful ;D It's stiffling.

[soiram]

I'm NG I think.

I will be playing just to see Morkin grow even more and when we decide to hit, I 'm in big time.

As per other attacks, I still carry on my previous stance, ie try diplomacy first and if it fails hit.

[Perun]

I was always true neutral myself.

As for playing indefinitely - it's not my goal at all. There are no more islands to colonize without fighting. I can do that, for sure, but since we have to pursue that "morality" thing, I feel I won't bother...

[Starshatter]

I am neutral I guess. I am not playing indefinitely, thats why I signed up for the solstice. Diplomacy then war. I guess I edge to the good side of neutral; I am not comfortable using multi accounts (although I recognise the benefits they can bring!), and also when actions impact on Real Life. Other than those two (!), anything goes for me!

[Shendemiar]

As alliance definition:

I would prefer: Alliance seeking to triumph by any means nessessary (Yes, even dirty. I mean betrayal, spying, doublecross, lying, anything "legal". But nothing against the game rules. like multi) In real life i have strick moral code, and i find wargames area where i allow myself to do stuff like that.
I would prefer also: A loose group just having fun.
I would accept: Anything, as long as we dont get suicidal. (on as last resort i would accept it too)

What comes to my commitment:

My commitment level: In the game, im willing to do what ever needed, for the alliance. But, im not playing very active, and cant bother much outside the game, eg. Messages, intelligence and so on... I could commit more if we had definite goals.

I hope all of you would write something alike about yourselfs, so we could get a picture. After that, everyone could paste a copy of their own message to their personal threads, so it would be easy to check each members stand and commitment.

[Arminius]

I think I'd rate myself as lawful/neutral. Too much evil around, but what's supposed to be 'good' in this game? Is Xalthorn LG? Raul?

'lawful', because I think that's what distinguishes the STs from us. We're all a bunch of middle-aged blokes (and a blokess ), so we know how to behave in respectful interactions with other people. Well, most of us...

I like to think we're 'better' than those 'oi m8 i dunt gt w@ ur seying' types. And I'd like to see us be successful without breaking rules and without being bullies. So far we have done that. I don't know how far we would get with that stance, but I see it as a bit educational for those spotty types.

[Natmus]

I think I would like to see myself as Neutral Good in this game, with strong Lawful leanings.

Why I'm not simply LG, well, sometimes I can accept a little breach of the rules in a limited way, for the right purpose (like the Colm thing) but mainly I would like everyone to play with the rules, written and unwritten.

[Ringthane]

I'm Chaotic Good, right, you people?

[Arminius]

ringthane said:

I'm Chaotic Good, right, you people?

Why am I not surprised?

[Ringthane]

arminius said:

ringthane said:

I'm Chaotic Good, right, you people?

Why am I not surprised?

I can't answer that ;D

[guinevere]

I just love the gossip and don't take the game anywhere as seriously as the rest of you. I wouldn't get outraged at someone being a multi. It adds to the complexity and gives multihunters the chance to attack someone legitimately. If I was attacked and lost everything, I would just start again. I'll follow whatever policy is decided. Attack whoever I'm told to attack. If we carry on with the aim of climbing the greasy pole, we'll have to get ruthless. If we want to take revenge on the bad guys, we'll have to go out with a bang.

[Perun]

Guinevere, I love you!

[Arminius]

Sorry, what did you say, Lancelot? I didn't quite catch that...