Ravenstrider Posted October 25, 2011 Report Posted October 25, 2011 a) I am still a citizen of Necrovion b) I tried to fight the things that lead to this situation in the first place... If you think that was treason, good for you... c) I wasn't a part of the first "rebellion"... I helped quench that one, if I remember correctly. Also: Necrovions downfall started long before the rebels... And in it's core was stagnation and inactivity... do your research before you jump to conclusions. Also: My role in both the realm and in Necrovion was one that required me to insult people... Should the fact that they have some kind of an official position spare them that? I don't think so. Dragual, Tarquinus, Watcher and 4 others 3 4 Quote
Granos Posted October 25, 2011 Report Posted October 25, 2011 For Necrovions downfall, Rebels made little to no real difference other than an initial push towards the fall, but it has been something a long time coming from even before Jester was king. As for Ravenstrider he is one of the few people left in the realm who could ever be considered a true Necrovion. Chewett, Watcher, xrieg and 2 others 3 2 Quote
Dragual Posted October 25, 2011 Report Posted October 25, 2011 [quote name='Ravenstrider' timestamp='1319567840' post='94621'] b) I tried to fight the things that lead to this situation in the first place... If you think that was treason, good for you... [/quote] I say treason because to rebel against your own land is just that. Jubaris and xrieg 2 Quote
Pipstickz Posted October 25, 2011 Report Posted October 25, 2011 When you rebel, you're not rebelling against the land (I hope), because that's what the other lands are for. You're rebelling against the leadership within the land. Rebelling is meant for people who care for their land, but not for their monarch. Jubaris, Chewett, Fyrd Argentus and 1 other 4 Quote
Dragual Posted October 25, 2011 Report Posted October 25, 2011 Which, is still considered treason. Because the king represents the land. xrieg, Jubaris, Chewett and 1 other 4 Quote
Pipstickz Posted October 25, 2011 Report Posted October 25, 2011 Treason against the king, yes. Not the land. Handy Pockets and Marind Bell are not the same thing, and the same is true for all monarchs. That's the whole reason the rebel system was introduced. Chewett and xrieg 2 Quote
Root Admin Chewett Posted October 26, 2011 Root Admin Report Posted October 26, 2011 [quote name='ColdSteel566' timestamp='1319584674' post='94634'] Which, is still considered treason. Because the king represents the land. [/quote] If you are rebelling against the king and not the land, you wouldnt consider the king to represent the land, hence why you are rebelling. It would seem stupid to join a land to then rebel against it. you can stand on the other side of the fence and call it treason, for he would say the king is committing treason against the land. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.