Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraftwerk
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You're trying so adamantly to prove that your VD members were in the right, they're decisions were fine, but you're not letting yourself view this from another's standpoint and see the immorality in their acquisition of the camp.
|
Actually, to sum up most of my posts, I have been adamantly stating that the members of my guild acted in accordance with the server rules, and that it is
ridiculous to hold them (or any player on this server for that matter) to everyone else's standards of what is morally right and wrong since, in fact, those standards are subjective.
People trying to make a moral judgment on the scenario can do so all they want... its their opinion. But I am trying to show that it is unrealistic, when all opinions of what the "right" thing to do are so individualized and usually kept to oneself, to hold any one person or group of people on this server to what amounts to some stranger's own individual personal convictions.
Here is where I think you guys are going with this, and I completely understand this from an "Everquest is a virtual world/community" standpoint:
Even though we have laws in real life (i.e. similar to "server rules"), we still conform to societal standards just so we don't become outcasts (i.e. "get called douchebags on the P99 forums"). I totally get that, don't get me wrong. But that is only true for those who hold the "Everquest is a virtual world/community" viewpoint. For those of us who hold the "Everquest is a game" viewpoint to a greater degree, we're just playing the game by the rules set forth by the administrators of the game, dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraftwerk
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I think that despite your firm stance in every post you too believe a little bit that the actions weren't bulletproof or you wouldn't be defending them so vigorously.
|
I believe 100% that the actions were bulletproof, only because I'm not drawing emotion or morality into the equation. That is something people from the "EQ is a virtual world" viewpoint do. I am strictly reviewing the rules of the game and pointing out that the person who lost the highly-coveted AC camp, who was bound on another continent, by the way, lost claim to that camp when he died. This is a game. There are goals. There is competition because there is not enough loot to go around, and because you sacrifice personal time to farm or earn that loot.
Let me throw one more scenario out there for people to discuss, and I'm just gonna throw generic Player and Guild names in there to continue this discussion in a more generic/hypothetical manner so no one else is getting drug through the mud:
If this were a PVP server, and the members of Guild B ganked Player A at the AC camp because he was a member of an opposing guild, and then took over the AC camp that way... would we be having this same debate on whether that was morally right or wrong? Of course not... it's part of the game. And the enchanter has a chance to call upon his guild to do the same back. There would be no philosophical debate on whether Guild B did the morally right thing or not, because there is inherently more competition on a PVP server and this sort of situation is commonplace. It's a way of life. Might makes right. That is why you organize into guilds and compete for equipment.
So what's the difference? Because the server rules ALLOW for the PK'ing of Player A in that situation, and the server rules ALLOW for retribution, why are there suddenly no moral implications? Or are there?
Is it morally wrong on a PVP server to PK someone at the AC camp? Isn't it part of the game? Are those with stronger moral convictions at a disadvantage playing on a PVP server because they limit their own actions, whereas others do not and thus have more of an advantage?
I don't know, I've never played on a PVP server. Certainly there's some consequences to those actions (i.e. those Guild B members would stand a higher risk of getting ganked themselves at a camp, or simply on sight), but I don't think there's a "right or wrong" aspect to it. It's just how PVP is played.
Take the PVP rule set away and look back to our PVE server. Now suddenly some of us want to enforce a moral code on what is right and wrong, because we are unable to play judge, jury, and executioner in game to dispense with those whose actions we have judged immoral. All we can do is call each other out on this forum, and blacklist each other. So where did the aspect of morality now come from? Furthermore, Player A in the PVE situation has the
same opportunity to take back the AC camp from the Guild B members if they die. Granted, there is less of a chance of this happening because a) there is just more than 1 person there for AFK support, and b) they were much higher level. But that is not the fault of Guild B's members, so why should they be judged on that level?
Interesting debate...