Spell-casting, Alignment & IC Reactions

[Edens_Fall]

As someone who ICly fights against people using -slaadi- summons (as well as animations, fiends, unseelie), because it is morally wrong, I can understand where you're coming from. However, as others have said, King Ed A-Okayed much of the worst people and we can't OOCly or ICly go against King Ed, it's hard for anyone to charge them with a crime for it.

That said, is it really worse to use necromancy to stop someones heart over setting them on fire for 5 minutes? There are a lot of spells that you could easily classify as evil, or just morally wrong, that aren't just some of the new evil ones. My character will never use any of the evil spells and blood magic like curse storm or redbolt, but even if he did he'd -definitely- never use soul scour which is about as evil (in his opinion) as they come.

Curiously we had an IC meeting discussing these recently in a mage guild. You could always try to push for change IC!

It's not really that people just ignore it, it's that some characters don't understand it well enough to know that they -should- take issues. Spending 10 minutes talking about the chaos phage is often enough to get a lot of people to stop using slaadi, but they're the neutral summon and neutral people with PC don't even get a choice. So sometimes convenience probably does win out for people, doesn't mean that you can't try to teach people ethics IC.

The trick is you find that sweet legal loop hole (such as Cordor uses) to enforce its laws on individuals whom commit actions outside of a settlement's lands.

An example would be you hear a report of John Doe using said "evil magics or summons" in the deserts of Sibayad. BAM! Try them with Cordor law and Pariah them from Cordor lands. There are many ways players can still accomplish what they want within the rules.

In regards to OOC META of spells and alignment, the one I hate most is the Red Blade Effect. "Oh your blade is red and your are not geared as a ranger. Thus you are evil and must die." People do use this mentality IC and it drives me nuts everytime.

(Edit for spelling)

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I honestly don't think someone should be pariah'd from a settlement just because one person says they saw them summoning undead anywhere, let alone somewhere as geographically far away as Sibayad is, and I would not be surprised to find out that doing that sort of thing lead to the ooc decision to have the king change the laws ic.

It's one thing if it's a known necromancer that has played the villain role elsewhere around the island even if they never actually hurt Cordor, then it's totally justified. But anything short of that is exactly what folks mean when they say, "Evil is getting suffocated on the surface before they can even get started."

[Amateur Hour]

I honestly don't think someone should be pariah'd from a settlement just because one person says they saw them summoning undead anywhere, let alone somewhere as geographically far away as Sibayad is, and I would not be surprised to find out that doing that sort of thing lead to the ooc decision to have the king change the laws ic.

Just speaking personally, I think this could be largely mitigated if there were a culture in law enforcement of just not believing things outright just because someone reported it.

Say Perry Paladin sees Alvin Animator in Sibayad, undead out. Perry Paladin runs back to Cordor to report Alvin as an animator. It would be a very reasonable thing for the guards to be skeptical; after all, there's a lot of places on Arelith where undead just so happen to be, so being seen near undead isn't immediately alarming. If Perry has an elaborate experience of Alvin calling up the dead to threaten Perry, from which Perry barely escaped alive to report it, that should likely carry more weight and at least an investigation.

[MischeviousMeerkat]

If duergar, obvious evil guys, etc are obviously allowed to walk about then it's clear the message on an OOC level is just to be more apathetic about this stuff.

Never go against king ed, never go against the guldorand council. The nuance stops there because things will contort itself until it starts working.

You basically have two options:

1. Hope your character can find a wilderness quarter/shop/etc and ignore it, eventually becoming an exile yourself.
2. Accept the status quo because you'll just lose everything.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Just speaking personally, I think this could be largely mitigated if there were a culture in law enforcement of just not believing things outright just because someone reported it.

I think this bit is right on point. You could even take it a step further in the case of the reporter being someone your character would icly trust.

"We have enough problems policing Cordor, let alone what happens on some desert island leagues away from us. We will keep an eye on him when he is in the city, but it's going to be hard to justify the king's justice on one person's word about what happened all the way in Sibayad, ect"

I mean, I love fanatical characters. I love playing them, I love watching them, and I think they are important to the overall story. Fanatical players however? Not so much. So, while your character may want to snuff out evil at every chance he gets, you the player should want to let baby evil grow into monstrous evil so when you bring them down it makes you a hero, instead of the clown that dunked on a level 17 with your fully geared thirty. Sometimes that dunk is unavoidable, because the person is doing it right in front of your face, but most times you can just be chill.

Just food for thought.

[Dr. B]

Just a reminder folks:

There's an entire spectrum of interaction between being BFFs and corpsebashing. If your Paladin doesn't like what the Blood Mage does, you can roleplay it by acting coolly towards them, by denouncing them, by refusing to associate or be friendly. Shunning someone doesn't commit you to PvP with them. I think a lot of people find themselves averse to conflict because they forget this (and I'm not claiming that the OP has).

It's less an issue of Paladins tolerating the Blood Mage than it is an issue of Paladins hanging out in front of the Nomad and cracking jokes with the Blood Mage.

[-XXX-]

The paladin kit doesn't straight up counter the entirety of a hemomancer's gimmick, so maybe that's why they might be so eager to look the other way.

[Hobojoe]

The paladin kit doesn't straight up counter the entirety of a hemomancer's gimmick, so maybe that's why they might be so eager to look the other way.

I've only played on Skal recently, so it might not reflect the wider server, but I look the other way because at this point people are so flagrantly evil in such a casual manner that I'd need to dedicate the majority of my playtime to enforcing even just a reasonable level of status quo.

The integrity of the setting needs to be enforced by both sides, if people are casually strolling about the shops with a summoned micro satan etc then it eventually becomes a chore to deal with OOC.

[Paint]

I'm gonna try to say this in as few words as possible, but I can get being apathetic towards certain varieties of magic and spells with the 'evil' descriptor being thrown around that aren't necessarily creating big rotten undead.

I get a bit of setting fatigue with Arelith sometimes, because it feels like the setting wants to encourage conflict, but people who try to stoke the flames of conflict are often shut down pretty hard by established factions, or worse, by DM intervention for, 'breaking the cohesion of the setting,' because you decide to trounce someone in the street at the wrong time and authority from on high says you can't make x or y practice illegal. This is both a good and evil problem. I've seen people just trying to generate RP burned for it because they were pushing too hard.

It gets exhausting, and I've started playing characters that don't go against the grain because it's easier to just play a character that never has to deal with being punished, hunted, and ostracized for acting within their role.

It makes passive paladins, anyways. You can't change Cordor's government. There's no reliable avenue for players to get an audience with King Edward and say, "Hey. This problem is a problem." So by deciding to fight ne'er do wells that frequent settlements, you essentially ostracize yourself. Makes a better fight for Liberators, who might not care so much, but not for PCs, who would like to be able to RP and have fun.

So yeah, reactions towards evil are becoming more passive because the setting is changing to make that a thing. Is it good? Is it bad? I don't know. It's a little of both. People get burnt when they can't exist without getting mauled. It sucks to be an evil character that was caught using eldritch blast once or something and having your ribs kicked in for the rest of your life for it. Similarly, it's pretty terrible to risk being punted out of every agreeable settlement because you're a law-breaking renegade who goes after evildoers no matter where they are.

You want more active good guys? Make settlements that don't like bad guys, so they don't risk screwing themselves out of every avenue of social RP if they kill the wrong baddie at the wrong time. Does that come with its own bundle of -- Benwick -- consequences? Yeah.

TL;DR -- Arelith's setting is moving away from highs and lows and those sorts of conflicts by making settlements more inclusive, and the net result is good characters being more passive about evil-doers than they probably ought to be, and that's not a problem we as players can fix.

[Spriggan Bride]

I think there's different varieties of conflict. Conflict that arises from something like strong personalities butting heads is very interesting to me. Especially if both think they are right.

Conflict that comes from built-in enemies with a dynamic that will never change (surface vs underdark, paladin vs necro, drow vs elf etc) are necessary for the integrity of the setting but aren't often interesting because you're just following a pre-written script and can't really deviate that much. I know it's necessary it just can't be the only story.

Conflict that comes from gotchas- like technically, a low level spell like Predator is necromancy but there's nothing about it more "evil" than dozens of other spells- is just annoying and usually feels like someone just trying to exclude you from a group or settlement if they make a huge deal over it. I mean comment and discuss, please, but from a making the game playable standpoint we need to choose our battles and ask if we're really making a compelling story or just being pedantic or worse, exclusionary.

[Kuma]

TL;DR -- Arelith's setting is moving away from highs and lows and those sorts of conflicts by making settlements more inclusive, and the net result is good characters being more passive about evil-doers than they probably ought to be, and that's not a problem we as players can fix.

𝔫𝔬𝔱 𝔴𝔦𝔱𝔥 𝔱𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔦𝔱𝔳𝔡𝔢

[In Sorrow We Trust]

a lack of overall inclusiveness and excluding possibilities of roleplay from happening at all by just exiling people the moment they are accused was an extreme that Arelith did have for a while, and I'm pretty sure was the reason for Eddie's decree in the first place.

[Deep Fried Thinking Emoji]

Evil characters can prosper in the surface, they just have to put a minimum effort towards hiding their evil goals from the public instead of opening flaunt them.

Dastardly Whiplash villains should be hanging out in Andunor, not whining about being unwelcome in Cordor until the staff forces a change to the setting that doesn't make any sense at all.

[The GrumpyCat]

Just a reminder folks:

There's an entire spectrum of interaction between being BFFs and corpsebashing. If your Paladin doesn't like what the Blood Mage does, you can roleplay it by acting coolly towards them, by denouncing them, by refusing to associate or be friendly. Shunning someone doesn't commit you to PvP with them. I think a lot of people find themselves averse to conflict because they forget this (and I'm not claiming that the OP has).

It's less an issue of Paladins tolerating the Blood Mage than it is an issue of Paladins hanging out in front of the Nomad and cracking jokes with the Blood Mage.

This is something I've been saying for ages and something I wish more people would take to heart.

I may be incorrect, it's been a while - but from memory Edward's intervention came in due to the team wanting to make sure certain classes/fp faiths were not completely cut off from roleplay within one of the centeral starting settlments of the city.

Whilst setting coheision is important it's also good to remember
a) That other places in the setting do allow for different faiths - E.g. Temples of Bane and what not.
and mostly c) That 'Setting Cohesion' has to always take a back seat to enjoyment and basic playability.

Also, I'd contend that good and interesting roleplay... some of the BEST roleplay comes from when people who intrinsically don't agree, none the less have to tolerate each others presence, even work together. This can create some really fun, jucy roleplay moments if you want to give it a try, some really juicy character moments.

We don't want to see Paladins going out adventuring wuith summoned undead/demons/devils ect - we' re probably a bit leery about the sigh of paladins passionatly and eagerly snogging necromancers in the street and declairing that Bane is Best Boi Ever.

But there's a LOT of differnt sorts and shades of interactions to go through before you get to that stage.

[Dreams]

when players cannot change the law, and the justice system of Cordor is now expected to extend laws to protect the pacted.

That whole shift made things quite confusing for those involved in writing/enforcing Cordorian law, in how far perscution of particular magic-styles or pacts we can go IC, before an OOC ruling is enforced.

??????????????

[Morgy]

Just a reminder folks:

There's an entire spectrum of interaction between being BFFs and corpsebashing. If your Paladin doesn't like what the Blood Mage does, you can roleplay it by acting coolly towards them, by denouncing them, by refusing to associate or be friendly. Shunning someone doesn't commit you to PvP with them. I think a lot of people find themselves averse to conflict because they forget this (and I'm not claiming that the OP has).

It's less an issue of Paladins tolerating the Blood Mage than it is an issue of Paladins hanging out in front of the Nomad and cracking jokes with the Blood Mage.

This is something I've been saying for ages and something I wish more people would take to heart.

I may be incorrect, it's been a while - but from memory Edward's intervention came in due to the team wanting to make sure certain classes/fp faiths were not completely cut off from roleplay within one of the centeral starting settlments of the city.

Whilst setting coheision is important it's also good to remember
a) That other places in the setting do allow for different faiths - E.g. Temples of Bane and what not.
and mostly c) That 'Setting Cohesion' has to always take a back seat to enjoyment and basic playability.

Also, I'd contend that good and interesting roleplay... some of the BEST roleplay comes from when people who intrinsically don't agree, none the less have to tolerate each others presence, even work together. This can create some really fun, jucy roleplay moments if you want to give it a try, some really juicy character moments.

We don't want to see Paladins going out adventuring wuith summoned undead/demons/devils ect - we' re probably a bit leery about the sigh of paladins passionatly and eagerly snogging necromancers in the street and declairing that Bane is Best Boi Ever.

But there's a LOT of differnt sorts and shades of interactions to go through before you get to that stage.

Alientating or stomping out bad faiths is never going to result in long-term satisfying stories, as villains often get squished before they can rise into something more spectacular.

That said, I do think blocking a character elected government from banning cyric preachers or worshippers from their streets is harmful to exploring conflict/strife. There's now a tolerance to such faiths, because the answer to IC'ly questioning how they can be permitted by the government, is often 'the palace has instructed us it must be so' - which isn't a very satisfying answer and leads a player to assume there's not much that can be done about it, as it's largely regarded as an admin ruling and no player gets regularly interaction with the palace. A group that tries to push out a bunch of Cyricists/Sharrans/etc, will ultimately be stopped by the law that not even the player-led government can change.

^ I may be wrong in that it's unchangeable - but it's certainly a widespread belief and your comment 'Edward's intervention came in due to the team wanting to make sure certain classes/fp faiths were not completely cut off from roleplay within one of the centeral starting settlments of the city' kind of re-affirms as players there's not much our characters can do to change what has been decided. As such, I think this ruling actually reduced RP more than it helped it. Witch-hunting new PCs isn't nice, but this is too far the other way.

[The GrumpyCat]

That said, I do think blocking a character elected government from banning cyric preachers or worshippers from their streets is harmful to exploring conflict/strife. There's now a tolerance to such faiths, because the answer to IC'ly questioning how they can be permitted by the government, is often 'the palace has instructed us it must be so' - which isn't a very satisfying answer and leads a player to assume there's not much that can be done about it, as it's largely regarded as an admin ruling and no player gets regularly interaction with the palace. A group that tries to push out a bunch of Cyricists/Sharrans/etc, will ultimately be stopped by the law that not even the player-led government can change.

I firmly dissagree.

Conflict is not forcing someone to never be in your presence. If you can't be /near/ someone ever, how can you have any meaningful conflict?

Conflict is also not just murdering people. It can be a part of it, sure. It's generally a greal great end to a good conflict story. But a beginning? No.

The Palace ruling is simply about banning, it's not about being nice.

Truthfully I see exactly the same argument coming from underdark players about letting 'surfacers in the hub.'

'Please don't kill these people/exile these people for merely existing' is not 'banning conflict.' It's banning super quick resolution of conflict that is dull, unsatisfying and unfair.

You can still
*argue
*disparage
*prank
*insult
*taunt
*trick
*lie to
*infiltrate
*spy
*debate
*dissuade

And a thousand other colours of interesting interaction that come to my mind within mere seconds, that are FAR more interesting than simply either a) pvp murder or b) blanket exile/parah.

[Morgy]

That said, I do think blocking a character elected government from banning cyric preachers or worshippers from their streets is harmful to exploring conflict/strife. There's now a tolerance to such faiths, because the answer to IC'ly questioning how they can be permitted by the government, is often 'the palace has instructed us it must be so' - which isn't a very satisfying answer and leads a player to assume there's not much that can be done about it, as it's largely regarded as an admin ruling and no player gets regularly interaction with the palace. A group that tries to push out a bunch of Cyricists/Sharrans/etc, will ultimately be stopped by the law that not even the player-led government can change.

I firmly dissagree.

Conflict is not forcing someone to never be in your presence. If you can't be /near/ someone ever, how can you have any meaningful conflict?

Conflict is also not just murdering people. It can be a part of it, sure. It's generally a greal great end to a good conflict story. But a beginning? No.

The Palace ruling is simply about banning, it's not about being nice.

Truthfully I see exactly the same argument coming from underdark players about letting 'surfacers in the hub.'

'Please don't kill these people/exile these people for merely existing' is not 'banning conflict.' It's banning super quick resolution of conflict that is dull, unsatisfying and unfair.

You can still
*argue
*disparage
*prank
*insult
*taunt
*trick
*lie to
*infiltrate
*spy
*debate
*dissuade

And a thousand other colours of interesting interaction that come to my mind within mere seconds, that are FAR more interesting than simply either a) pvp murder or b) blanket exile/parah.

I didn't say anything about simply exiling/murdering people for these things. I'm not sure why that's the main point of your response here. There's a million miles of RP to be done for governments making steps to perscuting a faith or group in-character.. propaganda, evidence gathering, public speaking events, etc-etc.. My point is, if the end result is you will /never/ be able to outlaw these people, if you were say, a Banite Chancellor who wants it publicly known Cyric-lovers are unwelcome(!), it makes the situation feel quite OOC-directed. In character there's not really a logical answer I can provide to people who ask why it's tolerated.

[Ork]

Are we're talking about my banite preacher and the letter from the King in not restricting their preaching?

I can say that there were a thousand ways to resolve this stuff and I think you're getting a tad tunnelvisioned. Framing someone for a clear offense, investigating the person for more offenses that would stick, and hiring outsiders to harass the person are all ways to "get around" any legal rulings that might be in effect. Hell, even counter proselytizing could work to drive the evil preacher away.

I think the Edward post and others like it are put in place to slow down the direct, boring route of "oh you can't do that here, bye bye." exiled. And that's a good thing.

[Morgy]

Are we're talking about my banite preacher and the letter from the King in not restricting their preaching?

I can say that there were a thousand ways to resolve this stuff and I think you're getting a tad tunnelvisioned. Framing someone for a clear offense, investigating the person for more offenses that would stick, and hiring outsiders to harass the person are all ways to "get around" any legal rulings that might be in effect. Hell, even counter proselytizing could work to drive the evil preacher away.

I think the Edward post and others like it are put in place to slow down the direct, boring route of "oh you can't do that here, bye bye." exiled. And that's a good thing.

I don't know this case, so I can assure you it's not from my perspective. There's ways around the law to prosecute people sure, but then you're playing a PC who might be very lawful and is having to resort to those dubious methods (and not because that's the natural development of their character, but because it's the only way due to an OOC-influenced ruling). My main issue here is it doesn't seem at all explained well in game at the moment. Perhaps that can be addressed in the near future between players and palace.

I feel there's a better middle-ground is all.

[Old Lies Die Harder]

Ork makes a good point.

I think the Edward post and others like it are put in place to slow down the direct, boring route of "oh you can't do that here, bye bye." exiled. And that's a good thing.

This boring route was commonplace.

For many, many years, Cordor had a piece of legislation called the DAA, or Dark Agencies Act. This was also before Exile cost anything or had any limits.

Under this act, any time someone would show up on the Naughty Boy Faith List, they were usually immediately approached by a guard/official, informed of their exile, and yeeted.

This happened for years. Then the DAA Was removed by players ICly. Then it came back under another name.
For like half a decade, if you were playing an evil faith that is tolerated begrudgingly in the setting, you'd be immediately tossed out of Cordor on first suspicion, or after being put through a one-sided trial.

This resulted in a lot of lowbies and mid tier folks floating out in areas they couldn't handle progression wise because they'd had the rug yanked out from under them.

This improved slightly when administrations that removed these laws were in effect. It improved even more when a mechanical cost for the settlement associated with settlements became a thing. It got even better when Pariah was added. But still, the problem of minimal rp banishment from settlements was a problem.

So unfortunately, we might have needed the 'post' from Edward, because oftentimes we get caught up too much in what we think is 'realistic' for the setting to the detriment of the play environment actually working.

[Ork]

@morgy I think that's fair. We've had times were THIS IS HOW IT IS has been projected from on high and we're left trying to figure out how to respect the dev's desires while pursuing stories that interest us.

I don't think there's an easy answer here without removing aspects of player autonomy.

[The GrumpyCat]

That said, I do think blocking a character elected government from banning cyric preachers or worshippers from their streets is harmful to exploring conflict/strife. There's now a tolerance to such faiths, because the answer to IC'ly questioning how they can be permitted by the government, is often 'the palace has instructed us it must be so' - which isn't a very satisfying answer and leads a player to assume there's not much that can be done about it, as it's largely regarded as an admin ruling and no player gets regularly interaction with the palace. A group that tries to push out a bunch of Cyricists/Sharrans/etc, will ultimately be stopped by the law that not even the player-led government can change.

I firmly dissagree.

Conflict is not forcing someone to never be in your presence. If you can't be /near/ someone ever, how can you have any meaningful conflict?

Conflict is also not just murdering people. It can be a part of it, sure. It's generally a greal great end to a good conflict story. But a beginning? No.

The Palace ruling is simply about banning, it's not about being nice.

Truthfully I see exactly the same argument coming from underdark players about letting 'surfacers in the hub.'

'Please don't kill these people/exile these people for merely existing' is not 'banning conflict.' It's banning super quick resolution of conflict that is dull, unsatisfying and unfair.

You can still
*argue
*disparage
*prank
*insult
*taunt
*trick
*lie to
*infiltrate
*spy
*debate
*dissuade

And a thousand other colours of interesting interaction that come to my mind within mere seconds, that are FAR more interesting than simply either a) pvp murder or b) blanket exile/parah.

I didn't say anything about simply exiling/murdering people for these things. I'm not sure why that's the main point of your response here. There's a million miles of RP to be done for governments making steps to perscuting a faith or group in-character.. propaganda, evidence gathering, public speaking events, etc-etc.. My point is, if the end result is you will /never/ be able to outlaw these people, if you were say, a Banite Chancellor who wants it publicly known Cyric-lovers are unwelcome(!), it makes the situation feel quite OOC-directed. In character there's not really a logical answer I can provide to people who ask why it's tolerated.

Two things

The dictate from the palace was not to just out and out 'ban' certain faiths. If certain faiths /do/ something bad, that can still be done. If a Sharran murders someone, the pc guard can exile them or whatever. It's just a case that it's frowned upon to go 'You're a xxx so you're gone/dead!' (with the exception of underdarkers)
Chancellors can still do all the above, they can still make life fairly miserable for those pc - but still bascially playable. And further more those things take far mroe effort than just exile/kill.

My point is, if the end result is you will /never/ be able to outlaw these people, if you were say, a Banite Chancellor who wants it publicly known Cyric-lovers are unwelcome(!), it makes the situation feel quite OOC-directed.

No matter how much I PvP a player I will never mechanically force them to delete. Ergo Any pvp is useless, because it won't succeed in ending it.

The same argument. Very similar reasons.

EDIT: Not being transparent enough in our reasons for things when using npcs like Edward is, honestly, fairly reasonable as a critisism. Though I think it's perhaps a little hard TO be transparent at times.
I will say that generally when we step in like this... or when we use NPCs like Edward/The Founders council ect, we're doing one of a few things.

a) Enforcing/giving flavour to the setting
b) Making Story
c) What we did here - which was preventing something that we felt was harmful the player base.

The last one is the rarest but I think we do /try/ to be relitivly hands off? I'll consider in future how/if we can be more transparent about such announcements ooc.

[Morgy]

@morgy I think that's fair. We've had times were THIS IS HOW IT IS has been projected from on high and we're left trying to figure out how to respect the dev's desires while pursuing stories that interest us.

I don't think there's an easy answer here without removing aspects of player autonomy.

I think this is really what I might be getting at as the core of my issue. I know people can be trigger-happy with the killing/exile system, which is stifling. I have always been an advocate of turning my eyes away from growing evil plots/PCs so they have time to flourish.. I regret the trust isn't strong enough now to perhaps allow the autonomy of past.

To Grumpy:
I'm afraid I don't really understand your second point just then. I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything, I'm talking about a character being able to win an election and go after their enemies to outlaw their faith, as faith wars are a huge part of this world (and I will just point out I don't mean war pvp, as pvp seems to keep coming up here).

Edit: To elaborate a bit further - I'm not talking about winning to just 'ban' people from places either. But it seems things like a chancellor putting up signs to diminish, belittle or publicly otherwise insult/challenge faiths they oppose is also not allowed by the ruling? I am under the impression the ruling means that faiths can't be /openly/ targetted in any kind of hostile manner by the regime - is this wrong then? Thanks.

[The GrumpyCat]

@morgy I think that's fair. We've had times were THIS IS HOW IT IS has been projected from on high and we're left trying to figure out how to respect the dev's desires while pursuing stories that interest us.

I don't think there's an easy answer here without removing aspects of player autonomy.

I think this is really what I might be getting at as the core of my issue. I know people can be trigger-happy with the killing/exile system, which is stifling. I have always been an advocate of turning my eyes away from growing evil plots/PCs so they have time to flourish.. I regret the trust isn't strong enough now to perhaps allow the autonomy of past.

To Grumpy:
I'm afraid I don't really understand your second point just then. I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything, I'm talking about a character being able to win an election and go after their enemies to outlaw their faith, as faith wars are a huge part of this world (and I will just point out I don't mean war pvp, as pvp seems to keep coming up here).

Edit: To elaborate a bit further - I'm not talking about winning to just 'ban' people from places either. But it seems things like a chancellor putting up signs to diminish, belittle or publicly otherwise insult/challenge faiths they oppose is also not allowed by the ruling? I am under the impression the ruling means that faiths can't be /openly/ targetted in any kind of hostile manner by the regime - is this wrong then? Thanks.

The spirit of the situation - is to try and make sure players /can/ still play openly as characters in that area. That they won't be immedatly threatend with death/pariahed/exiled/driven out. But some degree of predjudice/dislike is absolutly fine.