James wrote:

QUOTE:
Deaglan Artavasdus wrote:

QUOTE:
Macarias and all NPCs are independent people with independent will.

Allow me to contradict you: a NPC of yours will do what you want him to do. He don't exist outside of your imagination. You put the words in his mouth and you put him in action in the way you want.

Neither my PC nor any of my NPCs exist outside of my imagination.

I that way, they are the same.

The difference is in the game support - only a PC has game support, and so whilst both PCs and NPCs are characters, only PCs are characters "at the game".

QUOTE:



I don't think he will grab the pen and change the phrases you write down in RP because "he disagree".
You dictate the way he interact with the other characters (real or imaginary) in the game.

There are no real characters in the game, only imaginary ones, both PCs and NPCs.

In the past, you have correctly observed that your PC is a very different character to yourself in RL; part of that is that your PC is imaginary, whilst you yourself (of course) are real.

QUOTE:


Since there is one will, yours as player, it doesn't make sense to play more than one character, who act according to your will.

Suppose the same player were to play RH as well as KH, would it then the case that the one will of the player results in a single player character that somehow straddles the two world?

Of course not! In this case there is: one player and two PCs for that player and equivalently one creative will (of the player) and two created wills (of the PCs). It is clear that single creative will can given rise to more than one created will, and there is no problem if there are three created wills rather than two.

QUOTE:


Archbishop of Westminster vs. Archbishop of Canterbury.

One was a NPC (St. Thomas Bennett) saying everything what James / Gregory wanted to say, a NPC helper in the entourage of my knight.

The other was my knight playing role (my knight title). I did not conveniently hide behind a NPC "acting" instead of my knight, pretending there is no connection between James (my knight) and the Archbishop of Canterbury (a possible NPC).
I did not say: hey, it's wasn't James doing all that crimes, James is innocent like a baby, it was my NPC, the Archbishop of Canterbury. You want him for a trial? Alright!
My NPC used like that against the rules would become a PC instead, he will be delivered to the trial location and conveniently die in front of the gates.
Well, a NPC is no character at the game and this it will be like cheating.

Consider following text (the complete text is at http://knights-honor.com/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,181/func,view/id,56243/catid,5/limit,10/limitstart,10/):

Gregory I wrote:

QUOTE:
St. Thomas Bennett, Archbishop of Westminster receive Abel Syarco letter from Gregory, being a matter of Church it is for the Church and not for the King to decide.

Note: I am not saying that the player is doing anything wrong.

However - this example clearly demonstrates that PC Gregory I and NPC St. Thomas Bennett each have their own separate powers of decision and wills.

If there were only one (created) will there would be no sense in Gregory handing the matter to Thomas for his decision, since the decision of Gregory and the decision of Thomas would be exactly the same (if there was only one will).

However, the decision is handed over (quite properly), demonstrating that there are in fact two created wills.

QUOTE:


About the difference..

QUOTE:
Viceregent of God on earth and Vicegerent of God on earth practically means the same.

Well actually they don't.

Allow me to contradict you: in both cases, the authority is delegated to a deputy.

I agree that in both cases, the authority is delegated to a deputy.

However, in the vice-regent case, the authority is further delegated from the deputy, to the deputy's deputy.

One could say, for example, that the "Vice-Regent of God" is the "Vicegerent of the Vicegerent of God"

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
Viceregent in this case is a misspelling of vicegerent, which is the correct term.

Why don't you tell that to the thousands or more references on the internet?
Viceregent (or vice-regent) word actually exist? Why a monarch cannot pretend to be God's viceregent upon the earth?
You simply state the quotes are wrong and in all the cases it must be corrected by replacing vice-regent with vicegerent.
Do you have any arguments or it's only your guess?
I'm start thinking that you're the only one person on earth knowing the meaning of the words, seeing all those thousands or more relevant quotes are all wrong. Well, I'm not an expert linguist (are you one?), so I will not contradict you in that point.

The Oxford English Dictionary is the world's largest (22,000 pages, 600,000 definitions) and is considered to be premier authority on English. It gives the definition as follows:

QUOTE:

vice-regent, n. One who acts in place of a regent. In some early instances perh. an error for vice-gerent.