James wrote:

QUOTE:

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.
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.
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.

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.

Well, about the first I underlined I would rather disagree.

Alrik II "exists", but he is only one of my NPC so far... and who says he has always same mind as his mother? For sure, he maybe a "motherbaby", but thats quite boring at all.

About same we may have a NPC Pope, it is not necessary that he and the char need to have the same point of view. Or to say it clear, even a nordic or muslim char may have a NPC to become Pope (even this would certainly be avoided in the end, a good RP-player is able to deal with it).

So if your NPC is a character it is in your own decission, thats the vantage in having one (or even two^^)

James wrote:

QUOTE:
Of course a NPC can be a high religious rank, he can be anything, he can be God himself ...

It is alright as long as he stays NPC, because Hoern state: It has to be clear that the NPC is no character at the game - it is a third person.
As long as you don't use this NPC as your PC (Playing Character) instead of your knight or distinct, as a double personality, I am very happy to have Macarias and the other very good defined NPC's in the game.

This philosophising is making my head hurt.

We had NPCs kill their knights a number of times in RP, nameless one's in Denis de Fecamp's case, I remember some very detailed murder plots of knights who wanted to die prematurely from RH.

Some children of knights lead very active RP lives on RH and occasionally are written to have much differing opinions and personalities from their parents. They were sent off as guests or hostages to other nations and those other nations wrote RP including the children and interacting with those children, too.

So where exactly do you draw the line James, where a non-player character becames a false player character in your view? Is it interaction with other players - or what is it? I have not quite grasped your definition yet.

Exactly, Bella, it's the level of interaction. When your NPC's in entourage of the knight interact with characters of other players, your knight should be held responsible for their actions.

Your NPC insulting the king and when the king ask explanations to your knight, you cannot say:
Sire, I don't know this NPC of mine. He have a will of it's own, I cannot be held responsible for his actions. I love you, Sire, only he hate you and wants to kick your royal arse. Imprison him (if you can)... oh I forgot you cannot do that since he is not to be seen on the map.

It is the player who create his PC (playing character) the knight and all the NPC (non playing characters) in his entourage. Every player is entitled to have one knight, one PC (playing character) and this character is held responsible for his actions and the actions of the NPC's in his entourage.

In less words, a player's NPC's represent the knight, the PC (playing character).

I got what you're saying now.

How do you implement it? If indeed a NPC is a high ranking priest, the only realistic way a knight can exert influence over a church member I can think of, is out of love. A knight can't order about a cleric obviously - that would be blasphemous. The only way to put it, I could see, is the knight saying to the cleric: don't offend xy or you'll get me into trouble. And the cleric complying out of love for the cousin, niece, nephew, etc.

Or how would you suggest doing it?

Interestingly I think that the problem is better solved by NPCs having more personality, not less. It would clearly be an abuse if an NPC popped up from time to time, at random locations on the map, hurling abuse at whoever with impunity.

But that is not the case with persistent NPCs like Macarias, who are real persons who move around the map, and who have some sort of reputation to protect.

I would agree that there is another type of NPC - without personality, who can pop up and who should be subject to some constraints (I'm not quite sure about being in the entourage of the player*)

My character Smelgar has insulted people within RP. My NPC Macarias has criticised some people, including Pope Gregory I, but his criticisms have always (as far as I can recall) been civilised and within the bounds of a Church discourse.

I would also be happy to agree that church NPCs are not permitted to issue insults (not very realistic that they stoop to that level anyway), but are permitted to issue excommunications etc.

Whilst rival Church leaders might very well issue excommunications and even anathemas against each other, it is very unlikely that they would imprison one another, so it also seems fine to me that Church NPCs are not permitted to exercise responsibility for imprisonment, and that instead the civil authority (King, Count) is responsible and can't "blame" it on Church leaders.


*Even NPCs in the entourage can act independently, for example by making a snide remark or insult about some player character. The PC of the player responsible for the NPC can disclaim responsibility for the NPCs action, and perhaps have the NPC flogged or even executed, but the insult still stands.

Bella wrote:

QUOTE:
I got what you're saying now.

How do you implement it? If indeed a NPC is a high ranking priest, the only realistic way a knight can exert influence over a church member I can think of, is out of love. A knight can't order about a cleric obviously - that would be blasphemous. The only way to put it, I could see, is the knight saying to the cleric: don't offend xy or you'll get me into trouble. And the cleric complying out of love for the cousin, niece, nephew, etc.

Or how would you suggest doing it?

I don't suggest anything. It's in the rules and Hoern statement was very clear:
But if you take a look to the rules:
It has to be clear that the NPC is no character at the game - it is a third person.

A NPC should stay at the level of interaction in the game a NPC is allowed, as entourage of your knight, who is responsible for his actions. If a NPC of yours offend another character, your knight should give satisfaction to the offended (punishing the NPC or any other way considered satisfactory).
Pretending that your NPC act independently and he have no connection with your knight is cheating. It was you, the player, who put the NPC in action and you hold responsibility within the game with your PC knight.

You can have as many NPC's in the entourage of your knight, they can be anything except kings, chancellors and counts, but you are entitled to play one character, your PC knight.
You want to be a champion, a king, a high religious rank.. you'll have to play with your PC knight, the only one entitled to be character in the game.

Since high religious ranks cannot be subordinated to mundane powers, I suggested to be PC knights and not NPC's. They can be also NPC's, in the way my NPC St. Thomas Bennett, Archbishop of Westminster was, a NPC in the entourage of my knight (confessor, adviser, tutor).
When a different level of interaction was intended, I played the same Archbishop rank with my PC knight.
It would be unfair and even cheating to accuse kings and papal candidate of conspiracy and plot to take over Vatican, to conduct an investigation and talk with kings using a NPC who don't hold any responsibility for his actions, who conveniently could do in-game actions my knight as real character cannot do and can be dropped any time.

A NPC can be everything, I even had God as my NPC, but the NPC God I created did not interact with other characters playing the game, but stay as intended, a NPC in entourage of my knight.
Of course if people insist in playing with NPC's instead of their knights, against the rules, I'm thinking to activate my NPC God and play with him.

I'm sorry, Deaglan Artavasdus, but you keep ignoring the rules of the game, so I will do the same with you.
There is no point to discuss with somebody who ignore your arguments, Hoern statements, the game rules and the evidence.

James wrote:

QUOTE:
...

A NPC can be everything, I even had God as my NPC, but the NPC God I created did not interact with other characters playing the game, but stay as intended, a NPC in entourage of my knight.

...

James - if you say that God is part of your Knight's entourage then clearly we have very different ideas of what the entourage is. Perhaps that is part of the reason why we cannot agree.

Note however that I am not saying that one cannot have God as your NPC.

I think one can have God as one's NPC. Furthermore, both you and I (and any other player) can have God as one of our NPCs.

We shall have to learn to share however, since God is part of the environment of both our Knights, not one or the other exclusively.

And perhaps that is part of the problem: by asserting that my NPC is Patriarch of Antioch I deny all others access...

I have always said it would be better if the Patriarch of Antioch were a PC, but that would require someone willing to play him, and the evidence so far is that (with the exception of the Pope) there is almost no interest amongst players to pursue religious leadership... The result of preventing (independent) religious leader NPCs would be to stop even the small amount of religious RP that is now occurring.

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.

Deaglan Artavasdus wrote:

QUOTE:

I have always said it would be better if the Patriarch of Antioch were a PC, but that would require someone willing to play him, and the evidence so far is that (with the exception of the Pope) there is almost no interest amongst players to pursue religious leadership... The result of preventing (independent) religious leader NPCs would be to stop even the small amount of religious RP that is now occurring.

How a NPC could be independent? I didn't read everything, because I think that the debate is losing of interest going too much in details, but it's not the will of the player who dictate what the NPC will do?

I think that Hoern statement is very clear about this:

QUOTE:
But if you take a look to the rules:
It has to be clear that the NPC is no character at the game - it is a third person.

I don't know why you insist, Deaglan Artavasdus; you are entitled to play one character by the game rules and the NPC's you create should stay as intended in the entourage of your playing character.

That's the way I see things: NPC's represent your PC (playing character) within the game and in any case you could not pretend those NPC's have a will of their own interacting with other players characters, since it's one will, the will of the player behind all the characters you create.

Of course you could pretend in RP that one (or more) NPC's of yours being in disagreement with your PC, in the same way James pretend that he speaks with God, but this is only for the sake of RP, not to use named NPC's against other players characters.
I don't want to see an inflation of God NPC's playing the game instead of your knights.