Why I'm mad at Child of the Soul

[Tarquinus]

Well, actually, I'm not. Tarq is, because CotS betrayed his trust. But Tarq is just a character. As nearly as I can tell, and Tarq's flak at him notwithstanding, CotS seems like a pretty nice guy. I've told CotS OOC as much twice: once during his giveaway, and once at his joining the Treasure Keepers. Tarq may be judgmental and grudge bearing as all hell, but let me emphasize - [i]I am not Tarquinus,[/i] and Tarq is not I.

Now, I confess I'm annoyed that CotS's attempt to help the CoE didn't succeed, but as the leader (now in exile) of the CoE, I have to bear responsibility for that failure. I do know how to take an alliance and I know what went wrong, but the blame for the failure of internal communication among my group has to lie with me.

There's one other thing - it's been said that the (now exiled) CoE's comments in CotS's PL have been vicious and judgmental, e.g., "[i]Traitor - not to be trusted.[/i]" I'm sorry if that comment offends, but it happens to be true. CotS seems like nice guy, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but he [u]is[/u] a traitor, twice over (he betrayed Lord Pip by inviting Neno). It does also annoy me to be condemned, along with my crew, for stating obvious truths. We can all be courteous OOC and have a good time in MD, and there's no good reason not to. I don't see anyone having the moral high ground here.

[duxie]

[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]everything's cool, but i'd just like to note one thing: you can't betray someone you've never pledged your loyalty to.[/font][/size]
[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]i'm not sure about the whole situation, but i guess CotS was tricked by Pip, bribed physically or mentally, but that doesn't mean CotS offered his loyalty to Pip.[/font][/size]
[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]so, i wouldn't count this as a double treachery. on other hand, if CotS tried to help you to take CoE back, that would mean he's still loyal to you, or what?[/font][/size]

[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]but then again, as i said - i'm not sure about the whole situation, sorry if i've missed something.[/font][/size]

[Tal]

CotS needed to swear fealty according to the info posted here [url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/6619-children-of-the-eclipse-information-update/"]http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/6619-children-of-the-eclipse-information-update/[/url]
So he did betray the eclipse.
Further, if someone asks you to join an alliance and send him an invitation, you know something more is going on.
He might not know what would happen after the invitation was send, but he can't claim to be innocent.

[Esmaralda]

Tal is right. Furthermore, there was a directive given out that no invitations should be made without the specific approval of Tarquinus. That directive was broken in this case.

Also, it doesn't matter how one gets coerced into doing a treasonous act (bridbe, sweet talk, threaten, etc), it's the fact that the person does the act that gives the label of traitor.

In real life, treason is one of the acts that gets the highest punishment possible, throughout history, in every country. It really is bad to be a traitor and people very seldom forget an act like this. In fact, even the person that you are doing the act for will likely treat you with mistrust.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Esmaralda

[duxie]

[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]all i want to say: it's wrong to call CotS as "[color=#282828]a traitor twice over".[/color] you don't know if CotS [color=#282828]pledged his loyalty to Pip (which i really doubt), or do you?[/color][/font][/size]
[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif][color=#282828]as for the second part, if he was or was not loyal to CoE - not for me to decide, that's why i do not state this as a fact, i'm just questioning.[/color][/font][/size]
[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif][color=#282828]thanks to Tal and Esmaralda for explanation concerning the second part.[/color][/font][/size]

[Tarquinus]

I follow your logic, duxie. I'll have to think about it. My reasoning is this: CotS invited Neno without Lord Pip's permission, and Lord Pip kicked him for it. This seems to indicate to me that Lord Pip didn't expect CotS's action. Moreover, I don't know that one must have pledged loyalty to someone in order to betray him. Joining an alliance implicitly (in my mind, at least) declares one's allegiance to that alliance. Working against that alliance is therefore treachery to my way of thinking. CotS seemed to know that what he was doing was treacherous, and Lord Pip certainly seemed to realize that CotS was a liability if he stayed in the CoE. The two of them remain on good terms in-game, and I applaud them for that (really!). But that doesn't mean CotS didn't betray his former "master". It just means the betrayal wasn't all that hurtful.

But that comes back to my point - we can call CotS a traitor without necessarily being spiteful. We all have our reputations in the game, and most of us have earned them.

[Seigheart]

Yes, some of the things I found in CotS's PL are kind of disturbing...

For instance, being called a "Loser"? Like WTF.

As far as being a Traitor, Child is no such thing.

From what I have heard, he was TOLD by Pip to join the CoE. And to hand over the alliance to him.

He, from the very beginning, had no intention on being loyal to the CoE.

[Chewett]

[quote name='Seigheart' timestamp='1328804712' post='103889']
As far as being a Traitor, Child is no such thing.
[/quote]

If you are indeed claiming he was loyal to Pip and not CoE, then logically he was a traitor when he tried to invite neno into the alliance and help CoE. The whole reason why Pip kicked him.

[duxie]

[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]hehe, well... unless he was some sort of a slave to Pip, so you can't really blame him for that treachery... but that's already a speculation *giggles*[/font][/size]
[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]i guess i will need to agree with Tarquinus, though it's somehow pity to see such a massive demoralization of a person, heh[/font][/size]

[Seigheart]

Or maybe he completed his end of the bargain, felt bad for the CoE, and tried to return the coE to them

[dst]

Have one of you ever thought that maybe what CotS did (inviting neno ) was a set up? Lord Pip canceled the invitation and kicked CotS 30 minutes after the second one (CotS)sent the invite. Who on earth keeps an eye on the invites page? What if CotS did it so he could say: "I tried to help you but I failed because Lord Pip saw it and bla bla" aka trying to regain his lost reputation with Loreroot while still being friends with Pip?

[Esmaralda]

Seig, either way you slice it, whether he was playing CoE from the beginning (and thus was a successful infiltrator) or was turned at a later time by Pip, he was a traitor to CoE. It's the act that defines you, not your motivation.

He betrayed the CoE alliance, thus he is a traitor and will always be a labled as such. That's it. There's really no other way you can look at this.

[Seigheart]

Is a betrayer a traitor though?

I dunno, I see a difference in the two.

[Esmaralda]

You betray someone, thus you are a traitor to that someone. Betrayal is the action that lands you the title of traitor.

It's all relative. He may be a hero and champion to Pip, but a traitor to CoE.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Esmaralda

[Liberty4life]

oke so we know he was told by pip to enter coe and then to hand it over, thats fact #1 which furthermore leads to conclusion that his pledging of fealty to coe never was true for him, ie he didnt mean wut he was sayin, so thats fact #2 which also means he cant be betrayer of somethin he never put his true loyalties in, ie he cant be betrayer of coe

now we have assumption, that inviting neno was just a setup planned to fail in order to show back some good will towards loreroot, if that is true then he aint betrayer to pip, meanin he aint betrayer to anyone, he is just a spy that did well on his mission, but if this assumption aint true then he is only betrayer to pip and only an hostile agent to coe

[Tarquinus]

[quote name='Liberty4life' timestamp='1328816876' post='103907']
oke so we know he was told by pip to enter coe and then to hand it over, thats fact #1 which furthermore leads to conclusion that his pledging of fealty to coe never was true for him, ie he didnt mean wut he was sayin, so thats fact #2 which also means he cant be betrayer of somethin he never put his true loyalties in, ie he cant be betrayer of coe[/quote]
You're splitting hairs, Lib. Okay: so if your logic holds, he's not a traitor, he's a liar. The point stands that people in the CoE have a right to describe him in negative terms - traitor, liar, take your pick. It's instructive to me that he wrote in his own PL, "sometimes you have to break a promise to keep another." It's clear that the word we use to describe it doesn't really matter.

[quote]now we have assumption, that inviting neno was just a setup planned to fail in order to show back some good will towards loreroot, if that is true then he aint betrayer to pip, meanin he aint betrayer to anyone, he is just a spy that did well on his mission, but if this assumption aint true then he is only betrayer to pip and only an hostile agent to coe
[/quote]
I think this explanation is highly probable. But assuming it's true, he is doubly a liar who played us for fools (which we clearly were) twice. Why should we let anyone forget that? Why should we let someone say we are being judgmental and vindictive for pointing out what is plainly true?

[Kyphis the Bard]

I disagree vehemently with Libs definition.

If someone in the real world joined an organization with the intent to destroy it, it doesn't matter how long it takes. They could wait 10 days and then make their move, and they would have betrayed the trust of the organization for letting them in. Or, they could wait ten years, building the organization up, helping it to succeed, before finally betraying them.

Their actions and intents, the time they spent there, what they where planning all along, they are all immaterial to the argument. If trust was placed in you, and you betrayed that trust, then you are a traitor (or responsibility, faith, etc, whatever you want to call it. It is all still betrayal).

The facts are simple: Cots Joined an alliance. Joining an alliance is a matter of trust. He sabotaged the alliance, whether intentionaly or not it doesn't really matter, it is still clear it was his doing, and thus he betrayed that trust. Thus, traitor.

If he lied about his reasons for joining, and lied when making his oaths, so what? He is still a traitor, he betrayed their trust that he was being honest.
If he was doing it because he is loyal to Pip, and not to Loreroot, so what? He is still a traitor, he betrayed Loreroot and the trust it placed in him.
If he was doing it because he didn't know what Pip was planning, and tried to make things right, so what? He is still a traitor, he betrayed Pip, and the faith that he put in him.

Cut a slice of bread any way you want, it is still bread.

Now personally, I don't care too much. I find this to be a pretty good roleplay event, and like what has happened (even if some language does need to be kept in check). But don't split hairs like that, its just stupid and makes you look stupid.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Kyphis the Bard

[ChildOfTheSoul]

I feel that the first thing I should note is that Pipstickz created the forum topic "The Fate of CotE" of his own volition. I did not goad him into responding to my Public log entries. That aside, I appreciate him standing up for me.

I am aware of the fact that the members of CotE speak in character, most notably Tarquinus, Phantom Orchid, and Amoran K Kol. I am not angry at the labels that they have given me, I am also fine with whatever thoughts or opinions the general public might have of me.

As Esmaralda said, it's the actions that define a person, and my actions spoke when I decided to hand over CotE to Pipstickz despite making an oath to protect and defend it. The second most important fact is that I failed to give CotE back, despite promising to follow through with that action as well. I deserve whatever label those affected feel the need to give me, and maybe someday I will change their minds.

That is all I have to say on the subject.

[Liberty4life]

just like tarq said, yup he would be lair, and me has no problems if ya wanna stick some labels on him, me just thinks traitor is kinda inappropriate from mine point of view

and no kyphis, for me traitor is someone who becomes part of somethin with intention of helpin it build up and be part of it, and then changes his intention to destroy it, thats what i call traitor

but joinin organization with intention to destroy it from start, i call that enemy in disguise who is tryin to deceive, in other words spy

although both cases lead to same result if successful, imo they still cant be labeled the same

or maybe mine english still sucks a lot so actual word for case1 would be turncoat while for case2 would be traitor, sry if it came down to this sort of misunderstandin

Edited February 10, 2012 by Liberty4life