I agree with the comment about ignorance as an invalid excuse, definitely. As for the current CPK rule, I'm pretty happy with where it stands. If we drop the rule, new players and players who maybe don't have the big huge friends to protect them will have a very difficult time not only getting to POA, for example, but also simply with trusting other players and possibly enjoying the game. I think if someone agrees to lead you through CPK, you should be able to trust them to not be leading you to your own demise just because you maybe don't know people so well, or you think that you can trust them. Honestly, I think if we removed the rule, we'd have to listen to so much more bitching because so and so will have led this person or another to CPK only to kill them. (Seriously, can you imagine the whining and bickering?) With the player base not being huge, sometimes it's hard to find a person you can trust enough (and is big enough) to take you through a dangerous area, and not everyone can sneak through unnoticed. With the rule there, it helps to ensure a bit of trust that I would hate to see lost. On the other hand, it's not like even if the rule stands there is total safety; I can think of a number of times where even with escorts people have died, or other people have baited others to CPK, etc. If CPK was an optional thing, it would be less of an issue, but it really is necessary for everyone to go to POA at some point, unless they have slaves to do their souling for multis for them.. :D Anyway, ignoring the rambling, I would have to say I support keeping the rule as it is instead of deleting it. It's an asshole thing for people to do to newbies (and can deter them from returning to the game, which is something we definitely don't want right now), and even more experienced players benefit from the small strand of trust in that rule. I would hate to see a newbie, or anyone else really, get screwed over like that. It's just my opinion, but I wouldn't like to see that rule removed.

Kraphin, I certainly agree with you on having some additional unique race/class equipment. It would be a nice little touch, and I can't imagine it would be that difficult or time consuming to do. It would be a great addition to the newbie area, giving a bit more variety than the standard little sword or dagger that everyone carries around.

I definitely support the idea of having at least a few rooms that are race-specific. This could add a bit of story background as well, as a "why are we here, and what makes us different than the rest of the races?" sort of thing. As it stands now, races are basically just used to determine stats and vulnerabilities/resistances, and don't have much of an explanation or anything behind them. This isn't totally necessary, but it would be nice if we could just have a bit of an introduction to the significance of this race in the world of Sentience, just to get people to identify more with what they've made their character to be. Additionally, it would help for new players to learn the innate racial skills they may possess, rather than having to read a helpfile just to figure out what their racial choice is capable of doing. I mean, if we have rooms that teach people how to talk and read their spells lists, we should probably have rooms that teach people how to use their own race's abilities and explain their weaknesses. An entirely different area for each race would be a neat touch, but it would also be rather time consuming to create. I would say to stick with the idea of a few racial rooms for now, just so that we have the area complete and out there, and then if people are still interested in the future, work on it while an entirely functional newbie area is still in place. I like racial/align/etc specific additions to the game, since it adds a bit more significance to the choices each person makes in character creation, but something like that probably shouldn't delay the release of a good, solid newbie area.

Qal, you want to complain about building houses? Did you ever see Xavis' "map"? Dear god.. :P

Well, as much as I hate seeing people take over others' churches and dumping them, it's really the founder's own fault for promoting a person they don't really know/trust to leader. The only thing I would say is maybe just to -remind- people by way of a prompt on promotion or some sort of thing that unless they are at Church status, promoting anyone to leader runs the risk of a church takeover. I mean, if you're stupid enough to allow someone to do that, fully aware that the command exists, it's your own fault; however, if it's an issue of ignorance of the takeover command, we should probably do something about a prompt or prominent church helpfile or something.. If they don't read it, it's their own issue :P Personally, I like the takeover command as is; if a founder is stupid enough to promote someone they don't know and have no reason to trust to leader, they generally deserve what's coming to them. Despite the hard work to create and upgrade a church, if you don't have the sense to think through your membership and ranks, then you're not doing your job as an effective church leader anyway. My vote is to just leave it, but make sure founders know about takeover and the risk they run by promoting members to leader status.