FinalHavenLarp.com

Aurora wrote: Chris the only way I could even express Erik's view on this, look at it from his side, is if you called a Witch-Hunter what they call them in Castle Age: Origins...Templars. Does this bother you on some level? If the Witch-Hunter class were called Templars instead would you still be making the same argument?

If Witch Hunter was instead called Templar, I probably would of never even looked at the skill set, since I am against everything the real Templars stood for... that is, killing people and saying that it is god's work to do so.

While I don't mind people ignoring me whan I am being silly, I find it interesting that "we" have glossed over any of my points that I think make complete sense. (That and this whole discussion seems cyclical (as religion threads are wont to become))

In a group as small as ours, there is no need to restrict what people can roleplay- it's quite simple to figure out who is going to be bothered by something, and adjust your playstyle accordingly.

I am going to keep on playing Rhul as a nature worshipping druid (and maybe even step up the roleplaying on that front, as it seems to fit my idea of him), but I have never played that aspect to the fullest around Chris, in particular- out of the simple respect that he would probably have a problem with it, and i don;t feel the need to alienate him, simple as that.

And if anyone else in our group had a problem with it in a particular scene, I would expect them to quietly tell me so, and I will do the same thing with them. But I'm not going to be stopped from doing it even when such people aren't even present, as if they omnipotently "know" I'm doing it.

We don't ever need to make rules to restrict roleplaying- and this is the one thing I will absolutely not be bossed around on. It stifles the fantasy and creativity of a LARP. Just use common courtesy one (one side of the argument), and remember this is a game (for the other side).

Or, I reiterate that if we truly feel the 'need' to idealize some sort of a rule on this sort of thing, once again, simply say that no one can ever get a material in-game benefit from a religion, real or fictional. Nor can they affect another player's character on such a religious basis, whether real or fictional. And, if such a situation is made blatantly obvious, can result in a GM overturning it.

Otherwise, as in every Game-On meeting, if you find a scene uncomfortable, call Apple, Orange, or just leave the scene quietly and respectfully if you can.

What the chimp said.

there are alot of times when PCs complain, and it would have been better to call an apple at the time. Its way easier for you to do that then come talk to us about it.

Just because someone doesn't directly respond to something you say doesn't mean it got glossed over. I can't speak for the GM staff directly, but I know that they value everyone's opinion and don't gloss over anyone's. And I always at least read everyone posts.

ok, i think this discussion has degenerated from a debate to a plain old argument. tensions are high and people are(from what i can sense) getting a bit aggrevated with each other.

can we please just say this:
"Haven and it's staff does not endorse, deny or support (through plots, roleplay or otherwise) the existence of any deities or religions in the Phantera setting. There are no large groups of organized religion on Phantera. We do not discourage your character from having personal faiths and beliefs, but because it can be a problem/sensitive subject, we do ask that you keep it a subtle part of your roleplaying, at best."

and aside from that use safety calls and address issues as they come ingame please? anything done besides that is merely somantic(such as changing the name of witch hunter to something else) and speculative because we arnt actually in game dealing with it. if someone comes up to the gms at the game in person and discusses how they are offended then the gms should deal with it, but until that happens lets stop arguing and get back to having fun.

I don't think any one is really arguing right now.

At any rate, the quote is fine, however, it does not need to be in a rule book. It's an FAQ item if I've ever seen one.

Reason being, is someone could take the FH rules and have a world where there is a religon. The rules wouldn't care and the worlds would still fine. Perhaps if the group was too agressive with the religon, there would be no portal between it and other chapters.

To Rhul and anyone else who may feel the same.

Anything discused here means next to nothing in terms of policy change or shift.

Have you everbeen talken to on how you RP your ccharacter? No.

The cullmination of this post is we will keep on doing what we are doing so please keep on doing what you are doing and if a problem comes up then we will discuss it then.

Oh and incase people thinks this means I endorse all types of RP you would be wrong. If you came dressed in serenity geat proclaiming to me you have the "right" to RP how evr you want I would tell you that you are right, but not at FH>

Oh, I know that, Chris. I don't have any anger or animosity toward anyone here over what's been said, I hope it's not read that way (I hate how it's so tough to read someone's emotions or intent on the stupid internet).

Like I said, I think there's no reason to do anything, because what's being done right now works. You respect a player's out of game beliefs, and in turn they shouldn't try to tell you what you can and can't do if they aren't around. That's the easiest way to make everyone happy with just a little compromise to either side.

Which is why I personally find it mystifying why anyone would even attempt to make the hypothetical policy change that has led to this discussion. It can spiral downwards quick, it would be hypocritical in the worst fashion, and frankly, it would lead to the largest dang rulebook rewrite ever (Druids mimicking totem, mentions of Dwarven rune-casters in the Arcane ability example, me having been on a plot to the Hall of Heroes etc.)

Have you ever been talked to on how you RP your character? No.

No, (and thanks to everyone for that), but I am free to truthfully say what would happen if that hypothetical situation were to happen,which is pretty much what anyone in this thread is doing. Technically, someone could even tell me "You can't have a familiar, because the rules/fiction don't give a basis for it", either. And I highly doubt Temple's seen a 'black person hunter' in the game either, we're all just making a statement of opinion if the situation were to arise. It's all semantics anyway, so why not?

As for Serenity, eh, let em. They can't make a compatible damage call that hurts us anyway. And they only have about 8 soak if they try. Rhul would eat Jonas for breakfast, and burp out a monkey wrench. Which is a surprisingly large pun, I realize as I type this.