Just a thought

[Mister E]

What happens if you are in a caba; that has no alignment restrictions and doesnt encourage fighting amongst its members. Could a neutral person lead a party with a good and an evil of the same cabal?

Or does align always come before affiliation?!?

[Pali]

Last I asked on this topic, basic answer I got is that a good and an evil should NEVER be in a group together.

[myrek]

it's a rule thing

[Tantangel]

It's alignment before Cabal. If you're a Goodie and the Vendetta Cabal is a Goodie, you're not really supposed to fight them or anything. Suppose you could always take their standard and one of you could mercy the other but you really couldn't kill them.

[Tom]

If a Storm zerk barbarian combat worshiper kills a Fae invoker savant, that's grounds for outcast?

[Tantangel]

And possibly then some, depending on the Imm who pulls you up in the first place.

[myrek]

oh my god yeah!!! even if they are dumb enough to attack you, you must flee

[Magick]

Flee? Nah. Mercy them, then break out into lecture. Not like they can do anything but listen.

[myrek]

so you'd cripple them so your evil buddies can kill him. Yup, outacst

[Fiere]

Pfff, S' why I hate playing goods, I don't like being restricted like that.

[Raargant]

I've personally found it BS that if person A tries to kill person B, and instead person A himself dies, that person A gets off scotch free, generally, while B gets an outcast. You attack someone, try to kill them, and they have to do what they have to do, in order to stay alive.

But that's just me.

[Tantangel]

I'd have to agree with Raargant in this case. If a goodie attacks another goodie, then the first goodie has everything coming against him in the future. I think it should null and void the fact that he's a goodie in the future for said person, but that's just me.

[a-guitarist]

This is why I've never personally like alignments. I've thought they always hinder RP rather than help it. In my McMUD, there would be no aligns and no ethos. There would be only religions to pick from and follow. In my McMUD Utopia, there would be no trash killers, or killed players who cry "trash" when it wasn't so. Yes... I have a dream.... but hey, McMUD, it could happen!

a-g

[Ex-D&Der]

Disagree, because even if attacked, virtue would say you don't slay a good man.

[Warpnow]

which is why too many people roll a goodies when they should be rolling neutrals.

If you hate, despise or want to kill a goodie...you aren't a goodie. I am one of the people who always though Justice should be neutral only, though, but whaddever.

[Mister E]

No, cuz a goodie can put another goodie in jail for crimes witout killing them.

[myrek]

I am one of the people who always though Justice should be neutral only' date=' though, but whaddever.[/quote']

Yup

[Warpnow]

No' date=' cuz a goodie can put another goodie in jail for crimes witout killing them.[/quote']

Yes, but I would think they would not be able to do something which sent a good man to his death witout intervening.

I mean, if a man was willing to kill a good man, is he good? Is it still killing if you KNOW they are going to die? I think so.

[Warpnow]

Lets not all get banned for getting in an argument about a cabal which hasn't existed for a year, k?

[Acerbity]

In the past, as a Savant, I've had goodie monks attack my goodie savants. In one case, I died because of it, because the goodie monk triplocked me, while evil blademaster beat the living dogsnot out of me. You know what I did? I killed the monk, and sent a scroll explaining why I did it, and that I had killed another follower of the goodie path, and explained that I no longer saw goodie monk as good at all, but virtually an enemy who hid behind goodie affiliations to get further into the cabal.

..

..

I was never punished. :-)

[wolfeman]

That does sound like the way someone would actually do it, Acer.

As for beating the rotting corpse of Justice, I'd like to remind everyone that it is the criminal, not the judge who is responsible for the consequences of his actions.

[a-guitarist]

That does sound like the way someone would actually do it, Acer.

As for beating the rotting corpse of Justice, I'd like to remind everyone that it is the criminal, not the judge who is responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Well. That is one way of looking at it. But all in all, it is a good killing a good still, regardless of who brought it on. Because in this case, the executioner is still good aswell. I don't know. I guess this is just one of those things we'll have to chaulk up as an "Aabarhan Paradox" that happens along with Balinor PKing somebody, Elites RPing, Dale bragging, and Healers having tea with Martinus (did I spell that name right?).

a-g

[Warpnow]

If they had executed robin hood, would it have been his fault? It doesn't matter...it isn't who BROUGHT IT ON that matters, in fact...that is entirely irrelevent to the point of the argument.

If we have before us two GOOD men, of the same path, as well cannot assume they are diffferent paths, because then they would not both be members of the path of goodness, and would not be bound by the same rules of conduct such as not harming each other.

If we have these two men, even if they don't see eye to eye on something, wouldn't they be able to work it out?

Wouldn't two men who were both GOOD MEN of the SAME PATH be able to come to an agreement? And even if they couldn't, would two GOOD MEN of the SAME PATH attack and cause the death of the other one?

No, becaue they aren't a part of the SAME PATH. By allowing goodies in Justice, you split the path of GOODNESS into two parts which were at war with each other, and in my opinnion, should never have been split. If they are split and seperate paths, they should be allowed to kill each other.

If I am attacked and a lawful is attempting to take me in for punishment for an act I don't see as wrong...if they are participating in a system which I believe is corrupt, I don't see them as a good man. They are not the same path as me, and I have no trouble cutting their worthless head from their body. I am not going to dance and pretend I think this person agrees with me, or that I believe he is a good man. He is forfeit in my eyes to the path of good. A blasphemer, a traitor and a spy, and he should die.

For those of you who knew my RoyaL healer Elvondril...you know I carried this view alot, by aiding and abetting known criminals and outlaws who were lightwalkers. By hiding them and misleading the Justices, sendin the far from where their target was. And, at time, calling the Justices liars until wanted tags were removed...It was the best RP I have ever had...

[Mister E]

Good Chaotic and Good Lawful, they both follow the path of goodness, so what is the difference? A Chaotic will do anything he can whenever and wherever he can do follow his path, a Lawful will do anything he can to follow his path AND he is also bound by his lawful nature to not fight in the cities.

So as much as a good lawful would want to talk a good chaotic down and be friends, as long as said chaotic does not respect the law he will put him in jail. That is not at all the same as attacking and killing him. Even if the chaotic good gets sentenced to execution, it is still not the same as one good killing another. Why? Because the chaotic knows the laws and did what he did anyway, it was more like a calculated risk suicide. As long as one good does not hunt down and ruthlessly kill another good they can maintain proper rp by capturing and sentencing.

[Pali]

This was LONG ago decided: good Tribunals are perfectly able to and should hunt down good criminals. Good criminals should NOT kill good Tribunals. This is why I wish all good characters had the mercy command.