Alright, this is going to be a long one. I think that I may need to restate my position in more words, so that people understand what my thought process is in regards to this.
First off, I don't want to sound like I'm saying that others are doing it wrong. On the other hand, any expressed viewpoint has the implicit claim within it that those who do not agree are, in some sense, doing it wrong. So when it comes to someone making claims you don't agree with, it can be difficult to speak in clear terms without also being insulting or dictatorial - and I really am trying to avoid giving that impression. Nonetheless, if, for example, someone says something like "oh, I'm a Blood Raider, but I don't drink blood or follow Omir Sarikusa", one needs to find a way to gently point out that the Prime Fiction definition of a Blood Raider differs in a few particular respects from the one that just proceeded from the offending RPer. Of course, the Prime Fiction itself is read through one's own interpretive lens, something which lends itself to the difficulty in coming to a firm decision on what is inarguable.
Let us then consider something which we all (and here I generalize) seem to agree on: our characters are all pod pilots, which means that we pilot ships using a mental connection from inside a metal eggshell, which also transmits our brain-states at the moment of death to a waiting clone, where we are essentially downloaded into a new body. In general, a new RPer who insists that he or she is not in a pod rapidly runs afoul of the RP community in general, who happily point out to the hapless player that CCP, PF, and the RP community in general do not countenance such special exceptions. The player who decides to forge ahead with her or his narrative of non-podded-ness quickly finds that other characters treat the claimant as either insane or a liar, and the character is often ostracized IC, and sometimes OOC.
The above is not a recommendation, it is a description of what I have seen happen. My point is not to hold this up as a good standard, but to point out that there is, at some level, a collective standard or bar to which all characters must measure in order to receive certain responses from other characters. In other words, you may RP however you wish, but you do not have the right to make others accept your RP.
As such, this creates a social pressure to conform to certain norms and tropes. Indeed, the edges of these norms - the gray areas, if I may - are typically a major source for OOC conflicts. I remember a certain brouhaha regarding "child characters" getting on the Summit or IGS, something which I personally think is rather cute and entertaining, but other people find to be...otherwise. These areas, unsurprisingly, are different for every RPer. I remember when I and Petra Bealer, along with another RPer, conspired to plan and execute an RP event involving Petra (as usual, with great insanity) detonating a torpedo warhead in a city, and then it being reported on the IGS. This resulted in a general outcry (on the IGS) of "yeah,
right", an outburst that, at the time, mildly surprised me, but now finds my sympathy. To wit, why did I think that I had the right to tell everyone else - without recourse to actual game mechanics - that we'd just blown up a city of a particular empire?
I do think that it seems a bit unfair to do such things without recourse to game mechanics. What's to stop Vikarion from announcing that he's destroyed the Crystal Boulevard on Gallente Prime, after all, unless he has the burden of proof regarding the above - and by means of game mechanics, so that others can interact with it? If RP that would affect others or would affect in-game factions is not reflected by actions in game, it bears thinking on what our RP actually has to do with Eve besides the setting. After all, if I need not act on what I say, then I can well claim that Vikarion alone has recently defeated every capsuleer alliance and taken their space, and then, when challenged on this, simply point out that he's making this claim in an RP sense, not in any real in-game sense, which is separated from RP.
To save myself from the whimsy of the above, I, and perhaps others, tie our RP to in-game events. In other words, if CCP has the Gallente retake Caldari Prime, I'll fume, but I won't say that it didn't happen. Conversely, if Caldari take all FW systems, I'll be somewhat miffed if others claim that the Gallente hold Black Rise. I think that most RPers operate in a similar way.
Hopefully, the above is a reasonable and not-offensive exposition on the necessity for a common basis of RP that is developed from the in-game events and Prime Fiction of Eve. I also hope that I've managed to do it without making anyone feel that I'm telling them that they are doing it wrong.
Now, to the particulars of the current case. I don't necessarily say that participating directly in a militia is the only way to show loyalty to a faction, so let's take that off the table. What I am saying is a bit more broad in scope, and I think that I need to come at it from a general standpoint first, and then narrow it down.
We presumably RP characters with human emotions and drives. To be loyal to a faction, to be a patriot for that faction, implies certain human qualities that we've come to recognize. For example, we might expect someone loyal to the United States to fight for it, or to support it financially. We would have difficulty ascribing loyalty to the United States to someone who fled the nation during World War 2, and cheated on his taxes. I am not making a political argument here, you may substitute any war and any country you prefer. My point is in the definition: loyalty implies certain actions and lack of other actions, and we have developed a common understanding of the word.
One of the attributes of loyalty and patriotism is that it also implies taking actions that we don't necessarily want to. For example, if you are a patriot, and you live in Australia (or California, or Japan, or whatnot), and there's been a massive tsunami (fire, flood, earthquake, death ray beam from Saturn), your patriotism might well require you to give up time and money to help your fellow citizens. If you did not, you might well have your patriotism questioned by others, and with good reason - because loyalty and patriotism imply certain self-sacrificial actions in certain cases. We need not get into whether patriotism and loyalty are
good things, as long as we agree that they
are things - that as abstract concepts, they exist and we agree on them to a large extent.
Now for the narrowing down: if we are RPing with a common basis for definitions, and with the understanding that in-game actions function as a control on what claims we may make in our RP, then it seems to me that a character claiming to be loyal to a particular faction is required to take certain in-game actions to live up to the definition of loyalty.
Ah, bask in the breath of the firestorm, Vikarion.
After all, if I were to claim that I took Fountain, many people would want to see evidence of my actions in game. If I were to claim that I destroyed fifteen pod-flown Vindicators, people would want kill mails. It is rather strange, then, that if I claim I am loyal to the State, no more evidence of my allegiance is necessary. It seems doubly strange that no evidence is required, even though there is a means for demonstrating it, explicitly put there in game for that very purpose. Am I alone in thinking so?
Perhaps I am. Again, let me prepare first with the caveat that these are all my impressions and opinions. Yet, it does seem that a great deal of reluctance on this point is evidenced by a great many RPers, and primarily because they do not want to either contribute to or involve themselves in FW. Well, alright. Personally speaking, I want to both be loyal to my country, and not pay any taxes, and I'd really like it if I could use a bazooka on people driving fifteen miles below the speed limit on one-lane roads (that's a joke...don't ask about nerf guns). However, I can't have both. Loyalty implies certain things, one of which is that I mail off a check to the IRS every year while gritting my teeth and whining about how the money will be used.
I think I'm being perfectly fair to Vikarion (and to the characters of others) when I examine their claims ICly in this light. I personally think that a loyal citizen, seeing their country in a state of war, would seek to provide for the soldiers, or become a soldier. I think that immortal pod pilot loyalists, rather than having their obligations reduced, would rather have them increased, if for no other reason than that they have, ultimately, much less to lose. And - this is controversial - I don't think that other activities in EvE help the factions all that much. Null-sec enriches CONCORD and capsuleers, while Incursions are aimed at capsuleers, rather than planetary populations. Mining and industry also benefit CONCORD and the SCC, but don't seem to aid the empires much. The only PvE activity that does seem to have much of a claim here is mission-running, but how much do the empires really need another mission runner?
On the other hand, FW does seem to influence the storyline, and CCP has referenced it as being the primary way in which capsuleers can influence the empires. As such, it seems to me that a loyalist who wishes to be taken seriously as such must be obligated to seriously consider FW as a means for expressing their loyalty in-game. And if they don't wish to do so, then I think that other characters have the right to express skepticism regarding their convictions and loyalties.
Author
Topic: Militia Service and Loyalty (Read 11712 times)