Aldredon

[Aulian]

Tibunal thats giving me the most trouble.. A serious blow to their cabal.. I could lie and say you'd be missed, but you already know you scare the bejesus out of me and im happy to see you go

Well played, a terror, even against a staff wielding ranger when you were dual wielding.. Im glad that you gone and sad that we didnt get to interact more.

Props.

[Warmongrel]

Yup, sucks to have you gone. Gonna miss you around....Tribunal needs some help people, someone get to work.

[Anume]

No Good should ever kill or loot another good. (Worse if the good is a qclass/race).

If an Avatar kills a good, he'll have a hard time to explain why he should not be denied. (Avatars are not outcasted but flat out denied if they fail their align.)

As for looting, punishment will be case to case here. Such things are handled in game.

[Anume]

Re Aldredon: A trib should almost never return an outlaws bag, no matter their align. You can get into serious trouble for that.

[Zrothum]

Yep. My Crusader got donkey raped for killing a goodie in a WM challenge.

Should make another......

[Grishnak]

I asked the imms a while back, when thinking about playing an avatar thief, a bit about this and was told that it would be a breach of align to steal or hinder another goodie. That is the stance, and I accept it, but I disagree.

I really think we have limited the concept of what can be a good align to your healers and bubbly types. An avatar should be an extremist, a blood-thirsty, had enough of the crap kind of guy. I agree with Dey's actions whole-heartedly, but, as I said before, the IMMs have historically taken a different stance.

It does bother me that Tribunal goodies DO break that code in all sorts of ways. It's like we don't want to handle the tough concepts RP-wise, or aren't mature enough, so we ignore them and let some obvious "plot holes" for lack of a better word exist. This debate, which has been a good debate overall, is a prime example. People are so afraid of flaming, or setting someone off (with reason, mind you!) that we can't have an open, ongoing debate.

[Hegemon]

This is why I never play a Goodie. Sooner or later, I'd kill some #$@%ing punk who has the bling bling I want, because sooner or later we all revert to type.

Not a very GOOD thing to do, is it?

But, if you are evil (read:Enlightened), you don't have to deal with that sort of nonsense, and are free to walk the lands as sinister as you desire, so long as you have the POWER to back up your actions.

As it should be.

[f0xx]

This is why I never play a Goodie.

Ditto.

[Mudder]

Does anyone remember that when goodie Tribs try to apprehend goodie criminals they are NOT allowed to assist their guard?

They just have to run around leading their guard to the goodie criminal..

When did this change?

[Tantangel]

I honestly believe that too many people have thought of goodies as being inside the box too often than what their real potentials could be. Yeah, they're safe from all other Goods, but that might not be 1/3rd of the pbase, it could be 1/500th because at that time no one plays goods. Same could be said about neutrals though, a neutral can't really PK for his own benefits, kill a person too many times just to try and gain one item that for some reason or another you couldn't get at the first time you killed him? You're dropped to Evil and then you have no restrictions. I think it takes more skill to play a Good than it does an Evil usually anyways. Whatever you do as an Evil you'll be considered to not have any boundaries really until you start adding Cabals to it. And even when you do that, you could just be loosening any restrictions you had to begin with.

Goods can't PK other Goods. Have to have a good reason to kill a neutral other than, "Hey, I wanted their EQ". Yeah, you can request for armor, but if you're in the PK range of 8 other evils, all of which could easily find you if you do start requesting, would you really do it if you weren't sure you were going to end up dead? Some of those rare items that are hard to request at 50 will sit you there for 6 ticks or better. Hell, that's longer than tracks for Rangers (I tested it out recently and tracks don't last 6 ticks at all, 4 is the best it's been and nothing more), if you catch the person at the end of that request, well they're sitting there at less than half HP and if they had no protections up, even better. That means a couple rounds of combat and they're done.

Neutrals are even more so restricted, as they can't really be bloodthirsty. Yeah, there's a fine line of it as you have neutral ninjas/thieves, but outside of those two you can't really just go all out and wreak havoc on someone over and over again as you could as a Good vs. Evil fight or an Evil vs. anything fight. Stray too far from your Neutral RP and you'll be Outcast just for saying the wrong thing.

Evils are the least restricted of all I have seen. Someone pisses you off, you can kill them, unlike some classes *cough*Healer*cough*. You want their armor? Hell, kill them for it. With each kill it brings more knowledge to you? Kill 'em again if you have to. You could even go the pacifist and decide not to harm a soul, but rather protect all of those whom you hold dear to yourself. Add Cabals and you can add in a wider array of things you can do. The only thing I see stopping an Evil from being absolutely horrible is their ethos. Lawful? Can't do cities at all. Neutral? Well, just hope that Tribunal isn't about. Chaotic? Well ****, roll out the bloody carpet because heads are rolling.

As for Avatars, they're a different breed of Goods altogether. They cannot by any means break a very strict line of Avatar RP. If they do, they're screwed. The only time I could see them not being absolutely screwed for killing a Goodie would be if it were by some freak accident due to either a bug or it happening because of a spam. Even then though they'd be watched like a hawk just to see that it doesn't happen again, and if it does, well then sucks for the person playing the Avatar. Yeah, if a Good attacks an Avatar and tries to kill them, I believe the Avatar by rights should be allowed to at the very least stun them. If they die by other means, well it's not their fault, the Good threw themselves at them to begin with. If the Avatar took some things from the corpse afterwards because of it, well I see it as the Goodie attacking the Avatar and the Avatar should try to at least hinder them in some way so as to not hinder their Cause to their God. Does this mean that it should happen all the time though? Most likely not, just depends on the situation as mentioned before.

The reason why people play Evils though I believe is because they have no restrictions whatsoever. That's why I believe people who play Goods have a lot more RP values than those who play Evils. And even more so for people who RP a perfect Neutral. Daemian was probably the best Neutral I'd seen RP'd to some extent. I think the best to ever RP Goods was a mix between Sirant and then Bryntryst, Bryntryst for his fantastic blind Healer and Sirant for his many Goods as well as Imm played characters that were capable of RPing such great possibilities right to the very grave. Now how many could you mention that were fantastic that played Evils without saying Despiser or Virigoth? Yeah, there were a small group of them that were fantastically well done, but how many people can say they've gone to those levels lately with people like Miscreant?

I believe it's fine to enjoy playing Evils, but I think people enjoy them for the wrong reasons. It's nice to have those 'freedoms' that the other two alignments don't, but to some extent I believe you lose things as far as RP goes. Yeah, Despiser was fantastic with his RP and PK assuming people didn't bitch about him nonstop with just about any of his characters after middle of 2.0 I believe. It's the Evils who can RP AND PK at the same time that usually get the recognition though. Any Evil can PK, but it takes someone truly good to actually be able to RP it as well.

I'll tip my head at Hegemon there with Galvatar, being he's one of the VERY few Evil Clerics to have ever RP'd AND PK'd and could still make it interesting. I've never seen any other Evil Cleric be able to do that. Messalantha was so fantastic at what she did it was ridiculous. She'd kill you and talk, or talk and then kill or even talk to you WHILE she was hot on your ***. Cariousus was great simply because he had that simple fear every time he logged on. You do a who and see him on and think, "****, I might log in a moment..." only to have him kill you and talk to you afterwards, or drop you down to stun and chew you out for doing what you did and then kill you.

What I hate is that you have people who use emote talks and just throw that in and say they're RPing. To be honest I seriously hate those things and think they should be nixed for Ogres altogether. If you can't understand yourself, don't play the damned race. It's more of what you say altogether that makes your RP blossom. To be honest I think that some Evil classes should have more PK restrictions than to just be all out and available to do whatever they please. The way I see it though anymore is people who can't deal with the restrictions of Goods/Neutrals play Evils because they can get away with so much more. I believe that Goods/Neutrals have to RP way more than an Evil because Evils can very well just go off and be the silent PK type and be fine. They could do just about anything.

That's what makes this thread so very interesting though, because you'll have those people who are so hardcore in their own ways (basically the people who either rarely ever play Goods/never played an Avatar or those who play Evils only) throwing out their own ideas on what they believe to be the proper RP of a particular race/class combo despite having very limited knowledge of such race/class combo. Hell, if it were up to some of us, a lot of things wouldn't happen and the people who play those races/classes wouldn't be able to play them the way they want to anymore because of it. That's why there are rules though for the game and set RP and guidelines for such situations. It's so that IF something ever occurs in such situations that there's one set rule for each of those situations and no one is favored among any other. It isn't up to us, the average player, it is up to those who run the game and those whom they chose to help run it with them. Yeah, we can put in our own say to it, but in the end it isn't up to us.

This is why I respect those who keep this place running, despite what anyone else may say or think. It's also why I respect anyone who can play both a Good, an Evil and a Neutral and RP it so that it doesn't seem like they're completely one sided in any one category. And yes I rambled on for quite some time, but I think this post has a very interesting concept as to what can happen in certain situations.

[f0xx]

:eek:

Okay, you learned how to use paragraphs, now you need to learn to express yourself with less words.

j/k

[TheNewGuy]

Can someone write a summary of tantangels post? Please keep it short, maximum 3 pages.

Seriously. Nobody will read it.

[Raargant]

Summary of Tantangel's Post:

Goods require more skill to play than evils, especially RP-wise. Goods also have, generally speaking, better RP's than evils. This is because goods have more restrictions, and evils have nearly none.

He goes on to cite that there are many good/neutral-aligned characters that have been exceedingly well RP'd, but much fewer evil-aligned characters who could have the same said of them. There are the occasional players whom he gives mad props to such as Despiser or Virigoth, and characters including Miscreant, Galvatar, Messalantha. For the most part, though, evils tend to have poorer/less RP than goods, because they have the least restrictions; they don't have to have as good a reason/explanation to PK as goods or neutrals do, by virtue of being evil.

He concludes by saying that many of the players here who commented are hardcore evils/PK'ers who rarely if ever play goods (much less an Avatar), and yet seem to think that they know how goods/avatars should be RP'd, something which he thinks is laughable.

In short, I think he dislikes players of primarily evil characters casting judgement about how goods/avatars should be RP'd, especially because, in his opinion, the RP level of evils (with some notable exceptions) is, on the whole, inferior to the RP level of the average good.

End Summary

Tantagel, glad you've started using paragraph breaks. Now try to be concise.

[TheNewGuy]

Did you make that up, or did you actually READ the WHOLE post?!?!?! Phew! :eek:

[Raargant]

Did a quick-read and summarized. I'm pretty fast with that.

[Mudder]

Tant, I disagree with what you said.

Just because an evil is not forcing his RP on you as some goods might do, does not mean they aren't RPing. You should realize that evils as a whole are much less prone to giving their life story to a complete stranger.

They are much more guarded. They are nasty. There is a big barrier you need to get through before you can even meet the "real" person that is the evil character.

I have not met one character in a LONG time (I'm talking about all aligns) that would not RP with me once I initiated. Also, many of these characters have initiated with me. Just remember, evils are not going to initiate RP the same way a good would. They are not friendly.

(Of course, I am speaking about evils as a whole and on average)

[Tantangel]

Did you make that up' date=' or did you actually READ the WHOLE post?!?!?! Phew! :eek:[/quote']

Yes, that's pretty much the summary. I didn't think it was that long of a post, I've read much longer posts threads than that after they randomly popped up over night. Just read the rest of the forum and go back to it to finish it.

Tant, I disagree with what you said.

Just because an evil is not forcing his RP on you as some goods might do, does not mean they aren't RPing. You should realize that evils as a whole are much less prone to giving their life story to a complete stranger.

They are much more guarded. They are nasty. There is a big barrier you need to get through before you can even meet the "real" person that is the evil character.

I have not met one character in a LONG time (I'm talking about all aligns) that would not RP with me once I initiated. Also, many of these characters have initiated with me. Just remember, evils are not going to initiate RP the same way a good would. They are not friendly.

(Of course, I am speaking about evils as a whole and on average)

You may disagree with me on the topic itself, but the fact of the matter is that an Evil can get away with a whole lot more than a Good or Neutral trying to do the same thing. That was one of the points I brought up in my latest novel I wrote.

The thing is an Evil could kill mercilessly all the way to 50 without ever having a shred of RP and because when someone finally decides to RP at 50 with that Evil, it's automatically assumed that he had been RPing from the time he rolled until the time he hit 50. You can't go to say that every Evil does this, but you can't go to say that every Evil goes off to RP as spectacularly as some of the Goods that have come along.

It's not to say that every person who rolls an evil will go ahead and milk these benefits, but there are people who would abuse these benefits. Unlike a Good/Neutral where you'll have to prove you aren't just going out and senselessly killing people for the hell of it. As an Evil, if you do this, you wouldn't really be required to show a shred of RP to the person to make it legitimized.

It's not that hard to come up with RP right there on the spot and stick with it though if someone starts talking to you about your life endeavors and whatever else or even just come up with something else depending on the question. The reason why I believe these people that I stated before to be so great with RP as evils is the fact that they were very consistant with it and at the same time could 'hide' their true selves without giving much to bite on. It's not that their life should be an open book, but to show some kind of actual RP more than the old cliche of evil vs. good or the likes.

That's not to say that a Good couldn't do the same thing, it's just the fact that you could get away with it longer as an Evil than the other two alignments. And if you can't stay within certain boundaries as a Good, you get Outcast same as a Neutral, while the Evil only ever is really Outcast if they want to go from Evil to Neutral/Good.

[zionpsyfer]

I'm tempting fate by jumping in the middle of this, but waaaay back in 2003 I had a faerie justice. It was a fun character, but what a difficult one.

He believed that order must be cobbled from the chaos that existed in the world. The law was that order and should be upheld. Those who flagrantly disregarded the law were all the same in his eyes, a threat to order. The antithesis of Pamiyn in other words.

Good justices were a highly contested issue back then... just as Tribunals are now. Why are they still allowed then? Goods in mortal conflict with other goods? Of course it's supposed to happen. But there is an RP reason for it on both ends. BOTH parties have signed up for that. Yes, the Trib signed up to enforce the law. Yes, the outlawed crusader signed up to be chased by Tribs. Period.

That conflict can be a great platform for interesting RP that's different from other good + good interactions. That's why I believe they're still around and why they SHOULD be around.

Flame away. *ducks*

[Deykari]

You're exactly right, it can serve to create some brilliant roleplaying. There's no problem with good VS good stuff at all. I merely feel/felt that a good looting another good was perfectly fine and justifiable in some situations, though after speaking with the Imms both IG and here, I understand the opposing view to goods looting goods now. The case of me looting another good, as good, was what started all of this off.

Just like how I can see some very interesting roleplaying between myself and Byrsypherus starting to come forward at the minute, not just because of the good VS good angle, but because of what I want and what he rules.

Dey

[Calron]

In response maybe to zionpsyfer...

I disagree with that justification, because Good vs. Good conflict is not something you can 'sign up' for. Alignment always exceeds cabal duties when the situation is Good vs. Good.

[Grishnak]

I disagree with that justification, because Good vs. Good conflict is not something you can 'sign up' for. Alignment always exceeds cabal duties when the situation is Good vs. Good.

Why should it? In the whole history of the real world, have two GOOD men never come face to face and battled because of differing ideals? We have alignments in FL which define your characters inclinations, we have cabals and roleplay to define their ideals.

You can be a "good" alignment and hate others who are also "good" people trying to better the world in their way. I really think the restriction of goods killing goods should be removed in general (yeah, I'm going out on a limb with that idea). Think of it this way: You are a "good" warmaster who has dedicated his life to helping those around you better themselves physically, and you hold a distrust and disdain for the savants for spreading lies about the evil powers of magic. Two savants, a drow and a faerie, have both bested your "neutral" Warmaster buddy. In your eyes, what separates the faerie from the drow? If you seek to kill someone wholly for their opposing beliefs, why does their general disposition towards the world at hand matter?

[Raargant]

There are many RP justifications and reasons for goods to attack and kill other goods. That being said, goods are intended to be a newbie friendly alignment.

I do not se the no good v good PK rule ever being lifted, solely for that reason.