I didn't necessarily want it, but I have rolled with it, because sometimes that's what happens in a large game.
I'm trying to understand where the difference is between 'rigged/corrupt' and 'inconsistent/individual-to-unfair'. Rigged by who, or against who, and why? It's not like the characters who graduate at "I'm going to be more careful about collateral damage" because they're never going to be pacifists vs the characters who graduate at "for my arc to be meaning to be meaningfully complete, I need to renounce violence as a solution in general" are like...a class that is more 'on the admiral's side' or privileged or is bribing him or something.
And if you're not proposing a one-size-fits-all solution, I'm not sure how 'sometimes graduation is in a different moral place for one character than another,' is ever going to come across as 'fair', because from a broad comparative viewpoint, it isn't - the Admiral's goal is significance of the change for the individual inmates, and getting them into a place where they can use their second chance at life well, rather than being 'fair' or applying a specific ethical rubric.
If it's any comfort, 'divine' runs counter to a lot of how the admiral has been played, both by us and previous mod teams. There's a long, long history of inmates and wardens alike hating his decisions, yelling at him, or just finding them inscrutable. Characters don't have to be blind - they can be super mad at the system! Many, many characters have been, on both sides of the divide, and many inmates have graduated by learning to value other people while still hating the Admiral's guts and thinking he's a petty tyrant. There's tons of precedent for characters who do very much think the system is bullshit - or even a lie covering for something actively malevolent - nevertheless having amazing CR/plots/arcs and being fantastic parts of the game. If you don't want to play that out you don't have to - maybe you set up your character to talk with a veteran who has a positive perspective on the admiral and can reassure them, maybe you reach out to us and we plan a thread with the admiral where your character manages to get a small answer or an apology (it's happened! occasionally!) but doubts and resistance have always been as much a part of the game as characters who wholeheartedly believe in the admiral and his mission.
Ultimately the Admiral is just Some Guy with a boat and a lot of power who earnestly wants to give people last chances and do some good, but he's definitely not a paragon of anything, and nobody has to trust him and lots of people don't. We're sorry if we've given that impression that treating him as one is the only way to engage with the setting.
no subject
I'm trying to understand where the difference is between 'rigged/corrupt' and 'inconsistent/individual-to-unfair'. Rigged by who, or against who, and why? It's not like the characters who graduate at "I'm going to be more careful about collateral damage" because they're never going to be pacifists vs the characters who graduate at "for my arc to be meaning to be meaningfully complete, I need to renounce violence as a solution in general" are like...a class that is more 'on the admiral's side' or privileged or is bribing him or something.
And if you're not proposing a one-size-fits-all solution, I'm not sure how 'sometimes graduation is in a different moral place for one character than another,' is ever going to come across as 'fair', because from a broad comparative viewpoint, it isn't - the Admiral's goal is significance of the change for the individual inmates, and getting them into a place where they can use their second chance at life well, rather than being 'fair' or applying a specific ethical rubric.
If it's any comfort, 'divine' runs counter to a lot of how the admiral has been played, both by us and previous mod teams. There's a long, long history of inmates and wardens alike hating his decisions, yelling at him, or just finding them inscrutable. Characters don't have to be blind - they can be super mad at the system! Many, many characters have been, on both sides of the divide, and many inmates have graduated by learning to value other people while still hating the Admiral's guts and thinking he's a petty tyrant. There's tons of precedent for characters who do very much think the system is bullshit - or even a lie covering for something actively malevolent - nevertheless having amazing CR/plots/arcs and being fantastic parts of the game. If you don't want to play that out you don't have to - maybe you set up your character to talk with a veteran who has a positive perspective on the admiral and can reassure them, maybe you reach out to us and we plan a thread with the admiral where your character manages to get a small answer or an apology (it's happened! occasionally!) but doubts and resistance have always been as much a part of the game as characters who wholeheartedly believe in the admiral and his mission.
Ultimately the Admiral is just Some Guy with a boat and a lot of power who earnestly wants to give people last chances and do some good, but he's definitely not a paragon of anything, and nobody has to trust him and lots of people don't. We're sorry if we've given that impression that treating him as one is the only way to engage with the setting.