Personal thoughts on the Wyrvardn

A revived Aetgardian order of warriors dedicated to making the lands safe once again.
Member
User avatar
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:34 pm

Personal thoughts on the Wyrvardn

Postby Teek » Mon May 16, 2016 9:50 am

I've played a Wyrvardn for a good bit now, and have come to a number of conclusions while playing it that make me feel that The Wyrvardn order is...well. I don't want to say useless, because the do provide a service. But, there is something missing. Keep in mind that following is viewed through the lens of my own bias, and ny own understanding of the lore.

I read on these forums that players should join guilds not for the mechanics, but the RP. The Wyrvardn are a great example of that in my mind. They don't really have unique skills, mechanically, but there is all kinds of RP involved. Protecting the lands and all. That being said, the Wyrvardn is lacking in anything resembling a warrior order, and I say this as a guy who did a stint in the army himself. There is no...unit cohesion. There is no real "Mission Objective". It's almost a chaotic free for all. "Want to protect the people of the Lost Lands? COME ON IN!". The problem with that is without any guidelines, players are apt to make their own, which end up vastly different from each other.

Protect the people can be interpreted in vastly different ways. Rias has offered some guidance of course, basically cementing the fact that they are mini-template without the restrictions. In effect, a warrior order. However, the face that the guidelines are left to player interpretation does not lead to interesting and rewarding RP. Instead it has been my experience that there is a number of ways for a Wyrvardn to very easily fighting against other Wyrvardn, all due to how they interpret "Protect the People". In short, that statement is simply to broad to be an effective guideline when you enter the tangled web of CLOK. I'll give a number of examples I can think of off the top of my head.

Say Wyrvardn Bon an Outrider in hunting down a Corvite that killed some folks in Shadgard. However, that Corvite is speaking with another Wyrvardn...We'll call him Wyrvardn Tom. Tom watches an Outrider come in, guns blazing, and Bob join in. Tom is supposed to protect people, so he raises his shield to protect the corvite who is suddenly getting blasted for seemingly no reason. What do we do?

Or, lets say Wyrvardn Joe got shot by Dunwyr, and thinks it's time make sure the Dunwyr don't get the idea they can just attack anyone Willy nilly. Wyrvardn Poe likes trees and land and all that jazz, and thinks that's a bad idea, and decides to protect the Dunwyr because hey, Dunwyr are technically people. What do we do?

Those are just 2 examples, and I could go on all day. Some people could say that those scenarios would never happen, but in the world of CLOK, they are more likely to happen then not, because every Wyrvardn believes they are right in their interpretation of protect the people. The problem with that kind of system is when everybody is right, nobody is wrong. And frankly, somebody has to be wrong.

This issues spawns another, and I feel even greater issue, which is when we disagree on a simple thing like protecting people, we end up in situations where Wyrvardn do not trust eachother, or choose not to get involved when there is trouble afoot. One example I can recall is a Wyrvardn being attacked by a Shar. Instead of it being a situation where the Wyrvardn stood together to protect one of their own, it became a "Yea...you should not have done the thing to have a Shar attack you". ...What? Where is the brotherhood? The feeling of being in a Warrior order who will stand beside you and face any threat?

Another example that was posted on the humor section: Dunwyr threatens to tear out Teeks heart, and the Wyrvardn speaking to the Dunwyr does nothing but say "Thanks for not doing that". Is this brotherhood? Is that what I'm supposed to expect when I join a warrior order who are supposed to protect the people? If I cannot trust them to have my back against my enemies...what kind of allies are they at all?

I'm sure an argument will be made that the players/characters need to hash this out themselves. Make their own guidelines, etc. Odds are, not all will be willing to compromise. What's worse, this who feel that the Wyrvardn do not in fact stand for what they believe in have no chance to join in another organization that may be better suited.

Member
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:08 am

Re: Personal thoughts on the Wyrvardn

Postby Vitello » Mon May 16, 2016 10:05 am

In some tabletop games factions/guilds/groups are further broken down into smaller camps. Each camp has it's own thoughts/agenda and methods of reaching their goals. I feel forming your own camp of like minded Wyrvardin would be better than imposing upon the entire group.
Vitello - Ton - Shirinya - Alwaren

Member
User avatar
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:34 pm

Re: Personal thoughts on the Wyrvardn

Postby Teek » Mon May 16, 2016 10:16 am

Vitello wrote:In some tabletop games factions/guilds/groups are further broken down into smaller camps. Each camp has it's own thoughts/agenda and methods of reaching their goals. I feel forming your own camp of like minded Wyrvardin would be better than imposing upon the entire group.


That would work...if there were more then a handful of us. With the Western Coalition, you could have mercenaries fight against each other, but with the understanding that it's just business. Wyrvardn are driven by an ideology, one that is apart of each character. I'm not saying that the character is wrong for having that ideology...but, in my mind, when you join a Warrior order with the goal of protecting the land, in essence a military organization, you do have to sacrifice a bit of free will in order to accomplish the objectives of the greater whole. The problem is, the greater whole is too big. The methods of going about it too numerous. And sadly, none of us warrior types are charismatic enough to pull it all together, for the greater good :/

CLOK Patron
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:34 pm
Location: Rancho Cordova CA.

Re: Personal thoughts on the Wyrvardn

Postby preiman » Mon May 16, 2016 1:48 pm

It is my understanding that you are more a knightly order than a modern military organization. Yes you have ideals, no you're not all always going to agree on how to best demonstrate those ideals. I don't see that as a bad thing. Yes it means you might end up facing each other across the battlefield, but you are hardly unique in that, and I've even come close to it with other templar. You sight a few examples, but don't provide the context for those situations. as to the dunwyr, it is possible your fellow was attempting to avoid any bloodshed if they can. with the shar, I would agree that is a problem, and one it might be worth either dealing with in character with that member, or failing that, trying to reach your groups leadership. If a member of your order is siding with assassins, that's probably something they need to know about. I think for most things though you are looking for a clear right and wrong, black in white, in a world and particularly in a game that lends itself to shades of gray, it's going to be rare to find a situation where there is as clear a right and wrong as you'd like. the best you can usually hope for is doing the best you can in the situation you've got, and hope those siding with you, and against you are doing the same. the point of your order is to be more flexable in how you fight evil and protect the lands, I only see a problem with someones actions when they are refusing to do that, and I point out, it is not always going to be your definitions of protecting and fighting against evil that count.
you use the idea of the modern military as an example, but it doesn't map, because weather people wish to admit it or not, the military's goal isn't to fight against evil, or protect people, though those may be components of a mission, they are not your point, which is to serve the country you belong too, and follow its orders, so long as those orders are legal, and even then often it's not the man on the ground that makes that call.
I guess what I'm saying is much like what I said to you earlier, if you feel like you need to draw lines in the sand, do it, but you can't be upset if others don't think the lines should be in the same place.
"I don't think we're ever going to find out what is going on with these canim, where are they coming from?!"
Kent arrives from the southeast.
Kent hugs you.
say um
You say, "Um."
a Mistral Lake sentry arrives from the east, armor clanking.
Kent heads north.

Member
User avatar
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:34 pm

Re: Personal thoughts on the Wyrvardn

Postby Teek » Mon May 16, 2016 2:13 pm

I find that a bit disheartening honestly. That is like joining a team, or a sports club, and saying "But don't get mad if they decide to score against you."

We should be on the same team, pursuing the same goals. Yes, there can be many different ways to accomplish that goal..but there should be one goal, and that is to protect the people. Before anyone even mentions that "Oh, he just wants people to do what he wants", no, that is not what I want. I want a Clear, concise, defined Order of how to accomplish our goals. The world is grey, the Wyrvardn should not be.

Otherwise, it becomes a cluster of people who kinda have the goal of helping people...sorta. In different ways. Even Templars have a way of telling what they are doing might not be a proper way forward as a Templar, their Inner Light. Is it so wrong for me to expect similar from a Warrior Order, bent on protecting the people (Wyrvardn are more warriors, from Rias wrote)?

Should a Wyrvardn attack a fellow logging, because the logger is hurting the Gaea? Or because the Dunwyr might attack, and thus preemptively protect the people?

Everyone will have a different answer. When you join an Order, you figure there is only one answer, not 3-4.

People sure do love this morally flexible stuff. I'm not a fan myself. Even if I'm doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, I don't candy it up by morally justifying it. I'm still doing the wrong thing.

I can see why people play Morally grey characters though. They can do whatever they want, and no one expects anything else out of them. I expect more from a Wyrvardn. I expect Teek to be a character that protects people, even if he hates them, and would rather stab them in the eye. Order in the midst of Chaos. Effort when no one else will. THAT is what I think being a Wyrvardn is all about.

Being a fan of generalized skills is just a bonus.

CLOK Patron
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:34 pm
Location: Rancho Cordova CA.

Re: Personal thoughts on the Wyrvardn

Postby preiman » Mon May 16, 2016 3:08 pm

I am not making an argument for or against moral relativism, and yes in your order you really should not be too flexible on some things, that some of you are is a big reason some members of the church don't reach out, beyond general calls to arms. What I'm saying is that things are rarely as clear cut as I think you'd like them to be. Perspective matters.
Let's use your Corvite example, when you ride up and attack, why should your ally jump into the attack against someone they were just chatting with. They don't know what's going on, from their perspective, you just attacked someone out of the blue. In this situation you are both following the edict to protect the people.
Maybe you think your reputation should be enough to show them you'r actions are in the right, but you don't get to make that call for people. You have to be able to see perspectives other than your own, otherwise it's a very short jump from protecting people to forcing what you think is best on them.
"I don't think we're ever going to find out what is going on with these canim, where are they coming from?!"
Kent arrives from the southeast.
Kent hugs you.
say um
You say, "Um."
a Mistral Lake sentry arrives from the east, armor clanking.
Kent heads north.

Member
User avatar
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:34 pm

Re: Personal thoughts on the Wyrvardn

Postby Teek » Mon May 16, 2016 3:50 pm

Apparently the ambiguity is a feature! While I'm not a fan of it, I guess it's something that is just part of the world. Because that's all a paranoid character needs...to be more Paranoid :/

Member
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:08 am

Re: Personal thoughts on the Wyrvardn

Postby Vitello » Mon May 16, 2016 4:34 pm

This is Lassyn's domain and I don't envy the task of sorting this out.

I think Wyr should focus on the mass and apparent threats while avoiding personal quarrels. Protecting the weak from evil and oppression. The Gaia I'd categorize under 'personal'.

I think Teek is looking for more structure to apply himself to and find a better fit to achieve the camaraderie he is hoping for.
Vitello - Ton - Shirinya - Alwaren

Lore Hermit
User avatar
Posts: 6038
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Personal thoughts on the Wyrvardn

Postby Rias » Mon May 16, 2016 5:22 pm

Vitello wrote:I think Wyr should


(Dramatic Lore Nitpicker entry!)

"Wyr" is just the Faewyr word for "people". Faewyr, Dunwyr, Dwaedn Wyr, Wyrvardn, and so many more. When you shorten it to just "Wyr" it's easy to confuse with any of the other cases. I know there's obvious context in this case, but still: Resist the temptation to fall into an abbreviation habit!

(Dramatic Lore Nitpicker exit, complete with cape swish!)
The lore compels me!

Member
User avatar
Posts: 710
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:06 pm
Location: Eastern U.S.

Re: Personal thoughts on the Wyrvardn

Postby Jaster » Mon May 16, 2016 7:20 pm

The obvious answer to being the most effective Wyrvardn is pacifism, meditation, and a general disinterest in current events.

If you're oblivious to anyone being hurt around you and you're not going to hurt anyone yourself, then you are clearly protecting people and doing your job correctly. Now, you can spend all of your time meditating on how awesome you think you are, and so it must be true.

Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 7:46 am

Re: Personal thoughts on the Wyrvardn

Postby Craig » Tue May 17, 2016 1:32 pm

Corvite situation:
In this situation Bob should do his best to communicate with Tom over the fighting about what happened, and should have held back joining in if possible to inform Tom. Ultimately the Outrider is the spark here and it's kinda their fault even though this would be very much conforming to their stereotype. Bob should have it out with the outrider later to point out he should have declared his intentions before attacking, especially when he saw the culprit wasn't alone. Not ideal but Clok isn't an ideal world so situations like this fit in.

Dunwar:
The guy who got shot by the Dunwar effectively wants revenge, his actions do little to protect anyone. In this context I'd have said the first would have effectively gone rogue and the second would be perfectly entitled to join the Dunwar as a matter of the order's honour. If he were hunting the specific Dunwar it could have been argued of course but here his actions are clearly aimed at punishing the Dunwar as a whole.

I'm not saying there aren't issues in this guild, I'm just saying they're of a different nature. Lack of unity when faced with outsiders certainly does qualify.

Event Staff
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:32 pm

Re: Personal thoughts on the Wyrvardn

Postby Lassyn » Wed May 18, 2016 7:56 am

I knew my Guru senses were tingling.
Look at the formation of the Wyrvardn (wiki or help Wyrvardn will get you there). It's a formation of five very different people with different goals all intent on the protection of the lands by the destruction of those doing evil. There's a lot of ambiguity there, and that's absolutely something I'm happy with. I didn't make the guild, but as guru I kind of see it not dissimilar from Marvel's Avengers. They all want to help make the world a better place, presumably because they have the talent or the drive to do so. They're going to disagree with one another, and that's awesome, because it makes for amazing rp and interesting plot opportunities (#teamStark).
I absolutely understand the push for agreement and unity. It makes sense. And I kind of see it as there being a responsibility for people to get over their problems and work together when evil strikes. But other than an actual pitched battle for existence, yeah, you're going to disagree with people. That's kind of the point, and it's what has made the Wyrvardn such a dynamic guild. Frankly when people started disagreeing over the best way to keep the land "safe" or to protect the interests of "good" or to defeat "evil," I got all happy. I put those in quotation marks because they have different definitions to different people, as they should. Some see it as the total elimination of anything bad and angry and scary. Some see it themselves as diplomats. Some don't wish to engage with big bad factions because of the risk to innocent lives; some think the risk is outweighed by the potential good. It makes for great stories and, as your guru, it gives me the opportunity to put plots into place that get the entire playerbase both engaged and thinking about what is the "right" thing to do. Is it action? Is it inaction? What is an appropriate level of risk?
Now I absolutely understand that, to some, the pvp is a bit rough. Not just the combat, but the actual ingame and ic argument. I get it, and that's fine. I have played D&D before where the entire party was at cross purposes, and it sucked, because I wanted to play with my friends, not argue with them. So I see where some people are being frustrated. But there are a few things to keep in mind:
- I haven't seen any evidence that the CVC has turned into PVP. I don't think people are ooc trying to hurt other people ooc. If you feel differently, send me a report or an e-mail or a bbs message and we'll talk about it.
- If everyone agreed with one another, it would be a really boring game.
- If you are playing a good character, and neutral or evil characters are disagreeing with/arguing with/aggressive towards you... you're probably doing something right. If your super good honorable character is biffles with an Aranas priestess, I'm going to roll my eyes a bit.
- IC anyone and everyone is entitled to their opinion of what a Wyrvardn is/should do/shouldn't do. That's their IC opinion, and while it can be a little annoying, that's them expressing their IC opinion. You are fully allowed to come back and say "nuh-uh." That's people ic debating something ic, which is both awesome and amusing. The search for identity and purpose is important and integral to growth. Determine yourself and your understanding of your guilds! But...
- OOC it's my decision on what those things are. You're entitled to your opinion on what the Wyrvardn are ooc, but I kind of get the trump card. If I think someone isn't playing their Wyrvardn right, I'm going to let them know. But I haven't seen that yet, and I probably won't unless Wyrvardn start sacrificing babies to the blood god or start indiscriminately slaughtering healers or something.

Guilds are made vague on purpose because we want people making their own decisions. If I had a way I wanted every Wyrvardn to act, I wouldn't open it for players. It would be all NPCs and that would be that. You guys are playing in the world. You're making it something interesting. And I want you to keep doing that. If it's too much, or not the style you originally wanted, completely understandable. But rp games are made for people to make characters, invest in them, and roleplay through them. And well-made and invested characters are going to disagree. Not a bug, it's a feature, and it's a feature that I hope people enjoy.

Return to Wyrvardn

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests