[The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

[Mergor]

Lore rules were thrown out the window when two of the tribunal gods were killed, and the whole war in Morrowind became pretty anti-lore, after I immedietally tried to give concessions and listen to the houses, but I was refused because you already split all my lands between you. I agree, what I do is not lore friendly, but to single me out after everything happened there is not fair. You yourself played with the idea that you'll attack Blackmarsh with Empire because you want to help your other faction. I am not claiming it was the main and only reason, but it was a reason.

[Jadli]

Forebars subbed, Redoran up! https://www.mediafire.com/file/to4s2...an_48.sav/file

Fort Roseguard taken (Crowns FL and FH slained), Rihad under siege PIC

Hopefully we get a new player soon (EDIT Ural might be taking the factions...)

Lore rules were thrown out the window when two of the tribunal gods were killed, and the whole war in Morrowind became pretty anti-lore, after I immedietally tried to give concessions and listen to the houses, but I was refused because you already split all my lands between you. I agree, what I do is not lore friendly, but to single me out after everything happened there is not fair. You yourself played with the idea that you'll attack Blackmarsh with Empire because you want to help your other faction. I am not claiming it was the main and only reason, but it was a reason.

That you possibly didnt like how was the Morrowind issue resolved by the admin/other players and that it may have turned out not entirely lore friendly, doesnt mean the lore rules cease to exist. They still apply and you are intentionally breaking them.

The rules make it abundantly clear that you are supposed to play from factions' lore perspective, ie doing whats the best for the faction, not whats the best for you. And in addition to that, in your case faction rules of Veiled Heritance pretty much 100% prohibit you from what you did. It simply makes zero sense from Veiled Heritance perspective, why would they ever send an army to the other side of the map to help a random faction (why would any faction do that)... When you claimed you are sending them to take Blackmarsh rebel settlements for Blackmarsh, that was already weird, but this is another level. Also, in the beginning of the HS it was made clear that you have to play your factions separately, when the HS was started.

You should stop whatever are you doing, and get your factions back in order. You are not the only one helping the other factions, afaik one of them Skyrim players was also sending money to his other factions, and so on... This all should finally stop. I have been trying to talk to several players about this for the entirety of the HS, but some people simply cant help themselves and will pursue every possible angle to get an advantage, or dont care.

Please people, play this HS for whats it supposed to be, instead of the usual competitive style that 95% of other hotseats have.

[BerryKnight]

Mergor, please utilize your army for what its original intent.
The lore rules may have broken down a bit, but sending military might to aid your other faction is against both the lore, and using both faction to help each other.
Now, I might not be able to catch the laundering of money from one faction to another, but this one is a bit more obvious.
Please turn your army around, or I will teleport it back to your lands. You have been through enough strife in this hotseat, and I can tell you are angry.
Therefore I will not punish you with a fine this time.
That being said, after this, I will fine/punish any who blatantly do what has been done here. Let this be a warning to all of you. I will enforce the rules, as is my duty.


On another note, a new player has been found who is willing to take Redoran, and Forebears. I've sent them a cleared save for both, and there turn time starts now.
If he's a no show, the original idea is for Jadli to sub Forebears, and potato to sub Redoran as was the original plan.

[Librarian]

Lore rules were thrown out the window when two of the tribunal gods were killed,

It was literally in the first post that "if the three gods are killed, the dunmer houses are free..." etc

How can that justify throwing out the whole rp rules? Because you didn't read the objectives and rules hard enough?

[Mergor]

I can announce in advance that I'll accept the final admin decision and that if everything else fails, I'll let you teleport my army and navy back to my homeland.
That doesn't mean I won't try to argue now, because I do feel like I am getting singled out. So I do demand a longer decision making process than one side writing to the admin and the admin making the decision right off the bat.

First of all, I feel like it is unfair to prohibit and reverse something I spent a lot of turns, but completely ignore all other, similar issues and let them pass. Either let this pass and enforce from now on, or investigate and reverse any other lorebreaks that might have happened. That is:
- Investigate what was the wargoal (what was roleplayed) of the Morrowind rebellion and what happened after. Because I clearly remember the whole story was not about killing the Gods. That and how when it turned out that the whole reason the rebellion happened was a lie, some players shrugged and said "oh well, we already agreed on the partition".
- Investigate if Potatoto used his factions to help Telvanni, because he did hint at it. (I have nothing against this or you Potatoto, please don't assume that I am annoyed at you for that, because I think it was a logical move, but it is a double standard now)
- Or investigate how the entire skyrim war was a boring stealmate for up to 30 turns, and when I finally did something to change things up as a subber, it was hinted in some conversations that I selfishly used the faction for my own good.
- Or investigate if there are any lore rulebreaks now which I don't know about but could have happened.

As you said Berry, lore rules have broken down, and I only continued degrading it. I am happy to reverse this tendency in the future, but you are making an example out of me and giving a pass to everyone else.

Second of all, let's investigate the rules:
- The rules say that I am supposed to play my factions differently in terms of diplomacy, for as long as possible. This is ambigious. Is warring against a faction that is an enemy for my other faction a rulebreak? I did that and it seems to be wrong, but I could have done that if I attack Empire too. Would that have been a rulebreak? Whats the difference? The range? How is that determined? What does as long as possible mean? This is not nitpicking, I am not trying to claim that somehow my move is completely okay and fair, but what is this based on? A personal decision of a player based on what he feels like at the time? I have nothing against you Jadli either, you know the lore better than anyone, but it is an incredibely big issue that decisions are made this way. And I have the best example. One of my gods were spared and teleported away, two werent. The decisions were not uniformed and were up to chance basically. When I wanted to teleport Vivec away, PeaMan claimed "you can't do that, it's not in the rules!" Well I could claim that too....
- It is written in a rule that I can't make an alliance with other races. I did not do that.
- And again, what would and what wouldn't my faction do? I could very well claim that Altmers sent an expedition so Telvanni doesn't become a superpower and win the hotseat. Veiled feels they are superior = Veiled doesnt want to lose = Veiled goes to correct things on the other side of the map. In an alternative universe where I control Khajiit land and I am gunning for world supremcy, could I do this? Why then? Whats it up to?

My point is: How lore rules are interpreted are entirely up to chance, personal opinions and if players just happen to care at the time. This is not a good system. Should we fix it? Yes. Should we punish one player and make an example out of him while ignoring everything else? NO. The mistakes of those who made and admined the HS shouldn't be used to punish players when they decide that things are not right anymore.
Since you are a new admin Berry, you obviously are at no fault here, but I ask that these issues are not solved this way. At least investigate more.

[Jadli]

The point is, you are supposed to follow the factional lore rules, and especially play your factions separately (until possible, ie until the factions are bordering each other, then obviously they cant ignore each other, and something would have to be figured out), otherwise its not all factions HS, but 13 players HS... But you are not trying at all. Your other faction needs help = you send help.

Lot of things are ambigious, because the rules cant possibly cover ever possible situation between two different factions. Afaik, its enough for most people, the baselines cover how is your factions supposed to behave in a basic manner, and people are encouraged to expand on it, but not break it. Its definitely not difficult to at least not break what the factional rules say, even if you are not exactly eager to follow them.

This is not about the lore anyway, but simply about you helping your other faction. For any couple of factions in such position, helping each other like this goes agains the spirit of the HS, nobody should be doing that, when there is no obvious joint interest of the factions.

[PeaMan]

When I wanted to teleport Vivec away, PeaMan claimed "you can't do that, it's not in the rules!" Well I could claim that too....

I said “There is nothing in the rules in regards to killing the tribunal gods” In fact they needed to die for us to become free, not once did I state you can’t do that. If we’re talking about fairness it wasn’t fair that you wanted your best generals to be teleported to safety after their failed campaigns, your army was ravaging my lands and your general shouldn’t of gotten a freebie after being defeated.

Furthermore didn’t you threaten me saying that if I didn’t concede to your god being teleported away to safety that I would be kicked from the hot seat by Jadli?

[BerryKnight]

It was literally in the first post that "if the three gods are killed, the dunmer houses are free..." etc

How can that justify throwing out the whole rp rules? Because you didn't read the objectives and rules hard enough?

I don't mean to justify it, or even suggest we do away with RP rules. I never stated that. I said they have broken down a bit. You misinterpreted my meaning.
I'm simply saying, that RP hotseats breakdown a bit, one way or another. People don't RP, or go off the rails of what their faction 'should' do.

[Jadli]

I said “There is nothing in the rules in regards to killing the tribunal gods” In fact they needed to die for us to become free, not once did I state you can’t do that. If we’re talking about fairness it wasn’t fair that you wanted your best generals to be teleported to safety after their failed campaigns, your army was ravaging my lands and your general shouldn’t of gotten a freebie after being defeated.

Furthermore didn’t you threaten me saying that if I didn’t concede to your god being teleported away to safety that I would be kicked from the hot seat by Jadli?

Well, I believe Ramble the Admin at that time ruled that you guys are not allowed to kill the gods, but that they would be teleported away (and would be allowed be used again only after the war is won) ... but you went ahead and killed them anyway afaik (2 of them), so whatever happened there, wasnt fully what admin wanted, so Mergor is right to not be happy about it.

(btw, I cant kick anyone, I assume you meant to say Ramble)

[Mergor]

PeaMan:
"not once did I state you can’t do that" --> I was talking about the fact that I wanted them to get teleported away, and you told me that should not be done, because there is no rule saying that they must live and get teleported away.
And the fact that I got a "freebie" once but not the other times just shows how ambigious things were.
"Furthermore didn’t you threaten me saying that if I didn’t concede to your god being teleported away to safety that I would be kicked from the hot seat by Jadli?" --> Say what? I am sorry, but did you just pull that out of your a**? I dare you to find such a statement from me if you make accusations like this. It was more like "You have to do it whether you like it or not if Jadli & admin side with me".
"In fact they needed to die for us to become free" --> But you didn't want to be free, that was not the RP reason for the attack. In fact, the real reason was a lie, which, after our talks, became obvious to you too.

Jadli:
" you are supposed to follow the factional lore rules" --> I did the ones that were clear and written down
"Lot of things are ambigious, because the rules cant possibly cover ever possible situation between two different factions" That is no excuse, rules can always be more clear and consise, if they are not, thats the fault of those who have written it.
"obviously" --> Obviously to you. Nothing is clear. Precedents are made, than broken, issues are ignored than brought up based on if players just happen to care as I've said.
"you helping your other faction. For any couple of factions in such position, helping each other like this goes agains the spirit of the HS" What counts as helping? Is Empire going to war with Blackmarsh (Again, if you read this Potatoto, I am not claiming that war is anti-lore, I am claiming that all this is is ambigious)? What is it based on?
Also, again, I could claim that since Veiled wants supeority, and Telvanni is the closest to take it away, Veiled makes an expedition to change the tide of the battle for selfish reasons. In theory, any superpower could play world policeman.

Berry:
Librarian said that to me, not to you.
Also, my point stands to you and to all: Let's fix things, but you don't start with singling out someone. Either everyone gets a pass, or noone.

[PeaMan]

Well, I believe Ramble the Admin at that time ruled that you guys are not allowed to kill the gods, but that they would be teleported away (and would be allowed be used again only after the war is won) ... but you went ahead and killed them anyway afaik (2 of them), so whatever happened there, wasnt fully what admin wanted, so Mergor is right to not be happy about it.

(btw, I cant kick anyone, I assume you meant to say Ramble)

The admin ruled it out about killing them after Mergor complained to him. So were we (the dunmer) suppose to be happy about Tribunal making rules up as he liked? His gods were taking settlements of us but when he was eventually defeated and was about to be killed of he cited he shouldn't die due to RP reasons, so yes I conceded and the god was teleported away.

Secondly he had his other god stationed in a settlement that he knew very well I would be taking within a number of turns, he waited until I besieged it then wanted to delay me a couple of turns so he could get the god teleported away, he had more than enough time to move him yet waited until my siege which he knew was coming, I wonder why this was..

So Tribunal isn't the only one who had reasons to be unhappy with some of the decisions that were taken, there is also the situation with subbing Skyrim which was all but conformed by W Skyrim.

No I mean you, he said you would chase me out. Here's a screenshot - https://gyazo.com/7fba5bbed65228ba698260262268dc63

[PeaMan]

PeaMan:
"not once did I state you can’t do that" --> I was talking about the fact that I wanted them to get teleported away, and you told me that should not be done, because there is no rule saying that they must live and get teleported away.
And the fact that I got a "freebie" once but not the other times just shows how ambigious things were.
"Furthermore didn’t you threaten me saying that if I didn’t concede to your god being teleported away to safety that I would be kicked from the hot seat by Jadli?" --> Say what? I am sorry, but did you just pull that out of your a**? I dare you to find such a statement from me if you make accusations like this. It was more like "You have to do it whether you like it or not if Jadli & admin side with me".
"In fact they needed to die for us to become free" --> But you didn't want to be free, that was not the RP reason for the attack. In fact, the real reason was a lie, which, after our talks, became obvious to you too.

Jadli:
" you are supposed to follow the factional lore rules" --> I did the ones that were clear and written down
"Lot of things are ambigious, because the rules cant possibly cover ever possible situation between two different factions" That is no excuse, rules can always be more clear and consise, if they are not, thats the fault of those who have written it.
"obviously" --> Obviously to you. Nothing is clear. Precedents are made, than broken, issues are ignored than brought up based on if players just happen to care as I've said.
"you helping your other faction. For any couple of factions in such position, helping each other like this goes agains the spirit of the HS" What counts as helping? Is Empire going to war with Blackmarsh (Again, if you read this Potatoto, I am not claiming that war is anti-lore, I am claiming that all this is is ambigious)? What is it based on?
Also, again, I could claim that since Veiled wants supeority, and Telvanni is the closest to take it away, Veiled makes an expedition to change the tide of the battle for selfish reasons. In theory, any superpower could play world policeman.

Berry:
Librarian said that to me, not to you.
Also, my point stands to you and to all: Let's fix things, but you don't start with singling out someone. Either everyone gets a pass, or noone.

Yes you more or less hinted that Jadli would kick me because I didn't agree with your delusional views. The facts are simple, you seem to have been abusing the other factions your playing/subbing in favour of Tribunal in addition to getting freebies when you complain about stuff that aren't even in the rules.

[Mergor]

I told you that you ought to tell me 2 turns before you siege Vivec, so I can take him out and you are not delayed either. I can search this back and take a screenshot.

As for that screenshot, even blind people could see a mile away the you twisted the context out. I was making a reference to the Soul drama, hence "Jackass of TWC". I wasn't implying that you'd get kicked out. I can also search back for that conversation, but it would be a huge derailing.

I have already made my claim on the W. Skyrim situation. I'll gladly let people investigate me any day of the week.

But even we can agree on something PeaMan, and that is that decisions were made on a whim without use of clear rules or precedents.

[PeaMan]

I told you that you ought to tell me 2 turns before you siege Vivec, so I can take him out and you are not delayed either. I can search this back and take a screenshot.

I can't remember ever agreeing to such thing, got a screenshot of me saying that? It seems you wanted to take advantage of the situation and delay us as much as possible, out of spite or whatever reason.

As for that screenshot, even blind people could see a mile away the you twisted the context out. I was making a reference to the Soul drama, hence "Jackass of TWC". I wasn't implying that you'd get kicked out. I can also search back for that conversation, but it would be a huge derailing.

I'm sorry but that's a load of rubbish, it is clear that you were implying I would be chased out aka kicked. By all means feel free to post screenshots of our conversations I don't mind.

Anyways I'm not here to cause trouble, I simply got involved in the debate as you mentioned my name although briefly I felt compelled to share my views.

[Ural]

Hello there, i'm the new Forebear/Redor. I would enjoy extension to figure out all rules and diplomacy. If you got any diplomatic offer write to me on discord (Ural #6449). Greetings

[Potatoto]

"Lore rules were thrown out the window when two of the tribunal gods were killed, and the whole war in Morrowind became pretty anti-lore"

I do not know the lore my self at all so I suggest myself with the faction rules and there are stated that atacking Tribunal is not only not forbidden, but even is placed as main objective for Talvani House.

"That you possibly didnt like how was the Morrowind issue resolved by the admin/other players and that it may have turned out not entirely lore friendly, doesnt mean the lore rules cease to exist. They still apply and you are intentionally breaking them.

The rules make it abundantly clear that you are supposed to play from factions' lore perspective, ie doing whats the best for the faction, not whats the best for you. And in addition to that, in your case faction rules of Veiled Heritance pretty much 100% prohibit you from what you did. It simply makes zero sense from Veiled Heritance perspective, why would they ever send an army to the other side of the map to help a random faction (why would any faction do that)... When you claimed you are sending them to take Blackmarsh rebel settlements for Blackmarsh, that was already weird, but this is another level. Also, in the beginning of the HS it was made clear that you have to play your factions separately, when the HS was started.

You should stop whatever are you doing, and get your factions back in order. You are not the only one helping the other factions, afaik one of them Skyrim players was also sending money to his other factions, and so on... This all should finally stop. I have been trying to talk to several players about this for the entirety of the HS, but some people simply cant help themselves and will pursue every possible angle to get an advantage, or dont care.

Please people, play this HS for whats it supposed to be, instead of the usual competitive style that 95% of other hotseats have."

I fully agree with that statement. I hope direct rule of not sending money between played factions will be implemented in this one as well as in such hot seats in the future.

"It was literally in the first post that "if the three gods are killed, the dunmer houses are free..." etc"

Indeed

"- Investigate if Potatoto used his factions to help Telvanni, because he did hint at it. (I have nothing against this or you Potatoto, please don't assume that I am annoyed at you for that, because I think it was a logical move, but it is a double standard now)"

1. The Empire has a righfull claims for Nibenays.
2. The Empire has wishes of revenge on BM for plundering, steeling and occupation of those righfull belonging to the Empire lands.
3. Moreover I knew those lands will be poorly protected due to participation of BM in Morrowind home war.

On top of that I have offered BM that if he gives me those 3 settlements which he has stolen peacefully back I will not go with the Empire's forces into BM's lands in search for revenge for BM's war crimes on the people of Nibenays, offer that has been refused by Black Marsh. If that is not enough justification on Empire's atack on Nibenay then I have no idea what the hell could be enough.

"- Or investigate how the entire skyrim war was a boring stealmate for up to 30 turns, and when I finally did something to change things up as a subber, it was hinted in some conversations that I selfishly used the faction for my own good."

1. That war wasn't for even anythink close to 30 turns as Western Skyrim mostly was fighting undead and later on Empire while Estern Skyrim after his failed atack on Redoran was doing nothink untill Wester Skyrim decided to began homewar.
2. As a person subbing faction for like 2 turns or so you should not have such crucial diplomatic decision and you bassicly reversed Western Skyrim's diplomacy head down.
3. It is stated in lore rules that Skyrims can not make any deals with each others
4. On the end I left by far main issue with this: You made that decision for the interest of Tribunal Temple and not in the interest of Western Skyrim, possibly even against Western Skyrim's interests.

"- It is written in a rule that I can't make an alliance with other races. I did not do that."

You gave settlement(s?) to Black Marsh and you sent an army to help Tribunal. That you do not name it alliance doesn't mean it is not alliance.

"- And again, what would and what wouldn't my faction do? I could very well claim that Altmers sent an expedition so Telvanni doesn't become a superpower and win the hotseat. Veiled feels they are superior = Veiled doesnt want to lose = Veiled goes to correct things on the other side of the map. In an alternative universe where I control Khajiit land and I am gunning for world supremcy, could I do this? Why then? Whats it up to?"
"Also, again, I could claim that since Veiled wants supeority, and Telvanni is the closest to take it away, Veiled makes an expedition to change the tide of the battle for selfish reasons. In theory, any superpower could play world policeman."

Sorry, but this is just dumb excuse and doesn't make any sense. VH is about subjugating other races, not about helping other faction (Tribunal) to subjugating other factions. Giving any lands to BM as well seems to be against lore rules.

"Well, I believe Ramble the Admin at that time ruled that you guys are not allowed to kill the gods, but that they would be teleported away (and would be allowed be used again only after the war is won) ... but you went ahead and killed them anyway afaik (2 of them), so whatever happened there, wasnt fully what admin wanted, so Mergor is right to not be happy about it."

I do not know from who on the beggining that rule about saving gods came from, but it wasn't from Ramble. Ramble seemed to be confused when I message him to teleport Sotha Sil. After a lot of time waste and awkwardness in trying to save the god as Ramble could not teleport Sotha Sil due to his no movement points and he was blocking my forces from taking settlement, Ramble messaged me that he actually doesn't see anythink in the rules which prohibits killing gods so I just killed Sotha Sil. Later on Ramble messaged me that he actually was mistaken and gods should be saved (after I presume Mergor or Jadli talked with him), but the turn order already moved forewards. Later on Almelexia has been teleported and I do not know myself details of Redoran's killing Vivec.

"But you didn't want to be free, that was not the RP reason for the attack. In fact, the real reason was a lie, which, after our talks, became obvious to you too."

Didn't want to be free? What a absurd is that. Obviously we want to be free. That it wasn't the reason that caused the Morrowind home war is a different story.

"The admin ruled it out about killing them after Mergor complained to him. So were we (the dunmer) suppose to be happy about Tribunal making rules up as he liked? His gods were taking settlements of us but when he was eventually defeated and was about to be killed of he cited he shouldn't die due to RP reasons, so yes I conceded and the god was teleported away."

Indeed

[Mergor]

Just a few corrections, then we can end this debate, because after talking with Berry, I did accept my forces being teleported back to their heartland.

- I sent screenshots to PeaMan as proof that I did indeed let him know, that he ought to tell me 2 turns before he sieges Vivec, so he can be teleported away and he isn't delaying either. As for you thinking that you'd be kicked just because I didn't like something... If you believe such a thing, there is nothing I can tell you which will change your mind.
- The anti-lore part wasn't about you Potatoto, you were doing everything correctly. The anti-lore part was when the other houses RP-d that they were trying to "save" the Three Gods from misinformation that other Tribunal figures have been feeding them. Neither the wargoal, nor the cassus belli was about any independence. It's not that you couldn't have started a war for independence (you were already free anyway Potatoto) but you guys sure as hell didn't communicate that way. Thats where the "kill the Gods?" argument came from in the first place. With that cassus-belli, you couldn't have killed them.
- The fact that the Empire has other reason to attack Blackmarsh doesn't mean the decision wasn't influenced by the desire to help your other faction. You know as well as me that you hinted at it. I used this example to highlight the fact that the lines on this are not clear. What you did could be considered reasonable, but we don't know where reasonable starts and ends
- And please don't misinterpret me. I clearly said that "I could claim in theory", not that "I claim". It was an example.

[Isenbard]

I would just like to open my thoughts about my roleplay reasons for siding against the Tribunal and how the casus belli could have changed overtime.

Maybe the goal was not about independence at first place, since it was the demand of the other houses that the Ebonheart Pact would be dissolved and slavery allowed to continue. Obviously this did not happen, and the Tribunal announced the other Houses as traitors and mere worms before them. At some point in the prolonged war, it should become clear to the former, stout followers of The Tribunal Temple that the living Gods have not been ignorant or misled, but openly against the other houses and their ambitions. Maybe this was the intention of The Tribunal all along, or they were provoked into this by the capture of Davon's Watch and the siege of Almalexia, starting the civil war. Either way, the original promise of not harming the Gods quickly vanished after the many atrocities of the war.

I though believe that a consistent treatment of the Gods would have been better than what we have now. Either kill all of them or teleport all of them away. But after these Gods had done so much destruction, it would be easy to explain in RP why the other Houses were not so keen on saving them anymore. Tribunal roleplay clearly indicated that it was not some corrupted Indoril priests and statesmen pulling the strings, but the three Gods themselves.

The Ebonheart Pact was not to be broken. The Tribunal opposed the ultimatum given by the previous player of House Dres, and as promised, The Gods were to be overthrown.
This is the roleplay I was given when taking over House Dres. My reason of this war aligns with the previous player. I wanted to play to my faction's strength, which was to establish slavery again. I also believed this to be the more interesting one of my two choices (well three if you count neutrality)

The only reason I am in this hotseat in the first place was after the invitation of Mergor, so I could help him in a tough spot, which I agreed to do. Only after being informed by Jadli about my faction, looking into it myself and being contacted by House Hlaalu did I make the decision of siding against the Tribunal, which I believe made sense in the grand scheme of things.
Mergor of course told me that this was betrayal. The previous player had lied to him about siding with the Tribunal if needed.
Of course I wouldn't ever side with someone with the sole reason of helping in a hotseat without knowing the background first. That was my mistake then, and I won't make that again.
It is also very lore accurate of the Dunmer to still follow the old ways of the three Daedra: Boethiah, Azura and especially Mephala, which includes lies, treachery, assassination and conflict. Their teachings were what morphed Dunmer culture into what it is.

I'll just repost the message of the previous player of House Dres, posted by Jadli to support my thought process.

Letter from House Dres to other dunmer houses and The Tribunal:
"For long have we watched the injustice and greediness of the Tribunal. The Mortal Gods of The Tribunal, ignoring the will of dunmer people, formed wicked alliance Ebonheart Pact with the nords of Eastern Skyrim and argonians of Murkmire, Thornmarsh and Shadowfen. The Argonians have always had only one use, being slaves. They can never be any different. How could you want us to consider them equals and fight side by side with them? While you, in hunger of power, massacred peaceful and self-minding ashlanders and house Dagoth, and took most of their lands for yourself....

Thus we demand this:
Restoration of the slavery, and thus make all argonians slaves again. Therefore, allow dunmer houses to freely raid not just Murkmire, Thornmarsh or Shadowfen, but all of Blackmarsh. Which means The Ebonheart Pact should be dissolved... The Land that The Tribunal took from the ashlanders and House Dagoth to be justly distributed equally amongst the houses. And that all diplomacy with other nations is first discussed by The Mortal Gods with the houses. However, should The Tribunal reject these demands, the demands will have to be forced the harder war, and in such case the houses would make sure The Tribunal power is diminished for the future. We mean no direct harm to the mortal gods - Vivec, Almalexia and Sotha-Sil. As you gods rarely bother talking to us directly, we cant know if doing all this was your will, or your were blind to what were your greedy priests and House Indoril doing. If that would be the case, then its time for you to fix what they did. However, should you try to trully opppose, the houses shall elect a King, that would away the power from Tribunal"

[Mergor]

From a roleplay perspective, what Isenbard said makes sense. The whole issue for me (and still is) that the way the rebellion started was supposedly that House Hlaalu circulated between the houses that I was planning to use the Ebonheart pact to conquer them (And PeaMan, House Redoran only joined because of this). I cannot put into words how untrue this was, and the fact that I was overrun, because all my armies were in Cyrodiil was clear proof of this. Coincidentally, the only house I told my plans about how I'd invite the other houses in to the expedition, was house Hlaalu. And thus, I paid the price for unclear communication from my part, as the only one to know my intentions were house Hlaalu themselves.

The reason I am incredibely salty in this HS is that back then I was vilified as a player, not just as a faction, because how things have started out. It's not fun to hear that a: I wanted to do it away with all the houses and betray my allies b: Use Skyrim to my advantage (because in fact, paladinbob promised help regardless of the situation with the other skyrim) c: want to kick out a player because I don't agree with him; when all of these are untrue. But because I was vilified at the start, people were more prone to believe these.

One last thing: I did, among other things, propose peace to the Houses right after war broke out. The peace offer *from them was that I cede every settlement except Vivec and become a ceremonial faction with no powers. Would anyone accept that?

I do want to highlight that I made obvious mistakes with both communication and decisions and I am not the victim of the story, but I have every right to be unhappy about certain things.

[Librarian]

Right let me clear a few things up. Some of the impressions Mergor has been sharing seem to be things which were discussed but were not firmly chosen upon. I never said to everyone that Tribunal will conquer us because you made an ebonheart pact, I was speculating that could happen in future. It was a fear.

Potato playing House Telvanni did not need any convincing to join the plotting. He eagerly agreed to my plans and was a great help in directing the war effort, even though I told him mere turns before the war was about to happen.

I never concretely landed on the idea that the Tribunal was being controlled by wicked priests and administrators - the main motivation was the abolition of slavery and stopping of Dres and Hlaalu's southern war in black marsh. That was a hit to their pride. Considering the time between making the Ebonheart Pact and going to war was about like 10 turns, they already resented the time that slavery was outlawed, as well as the time they were forced to end a war.

The idea of wicked priests and administrators is a historical justification in these scenarios - thats how most revolts against the king was justified. If the king was killed in battle irl history, they just shrugged and got a new king. It combined avoiding dealing with going up against God and it fed in to conspiratorial thinking often implicitly justified by the hatred of minorities, such as Jews, which they thought had a bigger influence over the king than they did.

I mentioned that idea to Jadli, who was acting upon the orders given to him by Arrowdaknee. The orders which were shown to me were essentially "Just follow what Hlaalu say, we're gearing up for a war" Jadli ran with the idea I gave him about the controlling of gods, and worked that justification in to his theatrical declaration of war.

But our main cassus belli was the wounded pride and slavery. - It's not anti-lore for a faction to dislike being dominated.

The other morrowind houses made it clear to Redoran they were going on the anti-Tribunal side, and House Redoran effectively said to me "Well, sure, why would I side against 3 other factions? lol, sounds good I'm up for it."
In this instance I did warn that we should move while we have the upper hand and shared fears of the Tribunal attacking us first because I wanted to make sure that he joined our side. But it did not seem to weigh heavily on his decision - he wanted to go the way the wind was blowing.

(Furthermore, it's not like lying in game is prohibited by the rules. And my faction absolutely has motive to lie about the Tribunal. They want war. If a lie is found out, my faction faces the consequences - but Redoran were joining anyway, whether or not I overstated your threat or not. (I sincerely do not remember how hard I pushed that, I don't think I pressed it too hard.). This expectation to be honest 100% of the time during roleplaying does not make sense to me. So in either case, this is justified.)

Immediately after we had met to divide up Tribunal's lands, you offered to peace out (for white peace, no gains no losses) instead. I spoke to the council and the other houses were eager to go ahead with the war. Lest we forget, Telvanni in lore are isolationist - they do not attend the tribunal and are fiercely pro-slavery. Them being resentful of Tribunal makes sense. It wasn't like our only reason for war was the slavery and fixing that would avoid the war - to these people the meer thought of the tribunal being sympathetic to Argonians at any point could be a cassus belli. Chattel slavery requires a pretty high degree of dehumanisation and those feelings run deep.

I was worried Redoran would leave our side when you said you were talking to him, but then the player assured me that Tribunal taking some of his settlements made him invested in the war - he wanted those elements back. He had become committed to the war.

We gave you an impossible ultimatum because our factions wanted the Tribunal to be humiliated for humilliating us. Usually wars do not happen for one reason but a multitude and to different people, different justifications are needed. To the regular citizens of our nations, just our Grandmaster's word could be enough for war, because we're playing a feudal society - most people aren't even being involved in the politics. If our nations were set on war, then we could find any kind of justification. I do not understand the mindset where our characters are like meant to be like... jigsaws instead of as complex as humans. Like just because we say the gods are being puppeted doesn't mean our reasons are not motivated by more than just that. Ire could have turned to the gods themselves instead of the priests, as Isenbard points out. Just because that's one of our reasons doesn't mean our characters's motivations for war disappear.

Even if only Hlaalu and Dres had been directly wronged. In real life revolts, multiple parties - whether motivated by greed or real grievances - tend to ally with others who are rising up if they think they can win - because in a war, staying put is a choice. Redoran and Telvanni don't need to be in-lore offended by the same things Dres and Hlaalu are, they just need to want to go to revolt and to see this as an opportunity to join with a larger movement. A war requires taking sides. That is entirely defensible in roleplay.

The Gods can be imposters/replaced/killed/teleported/puppeted whatever (accidental or otherwise.), I don't think there's much of a problem justifying the killing of The Gods. Even if they are in roleplay entirely killed and everybody knows this somehow, there are other religions our people can turn to if the mortal gods have turned their backs against our people. The Daedra, ancestral gods, godkings, etc. The Three Gods. are clearly not omnipotent like in Christianity.

re: Peaman - I personally don't read that as a threat, but a dig at jadli and us, but I do not know the full context, so I may be wrong.

For an example of something which could not be justified in lore, is perhaps something like the argonians going to war with the hist - they are integral and symbiotic -- that would make no sense. Or if I suddenly ceded my throne to a Breton. That wouldn't make sense. Wars, especially medieval wars, are very easy to justify in lore. It's not like these characters have to like the Tribunal and Gods all the time for it to be lore friendly. It is well evidenced these factions are not reliant on the tribunal entirely and do in fact have different geopolitical interests and work independantly. It does not require leaps of moon logic to say there would be a civil war in morrowind, and it's even allowed explicitly in the rules.