remove protection from good/evil

(and replace it with something that helps against everything).

Atm, nobody chooses good/evil classes that do not have this spell. They pick neutral for more damage and less wicked spells against them. I think a lot of the 'neutrals' out there are nowhere near neutral. Maybe FL got its own definition?

But neutral syndicate - i cant see it happen. Killing people for money is not being neutral - its plain evil.

There is almost only neutrals in warmaster. Kanthe and Scholin being the exception.

Because of these protection from good, evil and damage against spells, we will have clerics dying to fight people of the opposite align, refusing (fleing lands) when fighting neutrals - who will be more than happy to fight exactly these people.

I think that it would make the game balance better without these spells, and people would choose an align more in the line with their characters path. (I believe way too few are outcasted too, I have only seen a outcast bard).

I'm afraid your definition of the neutral alignments (chaotic/True) are a bit...skewered. And extremely boxed. Take the word of a tenured DM well versed in Forgotten Realms, Planescape, and ESPECIALLY Ravenloft...god, I've never seen alignment matter as much as in Ravenloft.

Neutrals in Warmasters are meant to be...PK learning characters. Both as general PK and as Cabal PK.

But neutral syndicate - i cant see it happen. Killing people for money is not being neutral - its plain evil.

I believe this is wrong, I could follow the 'greed' religion and have a perfect reason for killing for cash.

I could follow the ORDER religion and have a perfect reason for killing for cash.

Or combat, or anything...

Protection evens out some what.

I have played primarily evils and I can definately say that I've never thought of having a real advantage over any evil character.

Actually, the cash for MOST Syndicate characters that are non-Greed religion, should be a "benefit".

I always thought Neutral Syndicate was a bit odd too.. but then, I've seen some awesomely RP'd neutrals in that cabal.

Regardless.. I still don't think neutrals should be in Syndicate.

But back on topic....

Protect good/protect evil are there for many, many reasons. Not only do they make hard mobs even harder to kill (lots of mobs are noalign and have prot good & prot evil) but they also level the playing field for many different types of classes.

A neutral should never, ever, ever ever kill someone without a definite, good reason. Those reasons could be:

a) evil/good/neutral attacked you. They're game now.

evil/good/neutral is in a cabal that is at war with you. They're game.

c) evil/good/neutral are being ridiculous pricks and continue help others kill you. They're game.

d) evil/good/neutral loot your corpse and you see it happen. They're game.

I don't think ANY neutral should ever start a fight in any regard, except for the cabal/enemy cabal antics. And I'm sure the Immortals agree with this.. if I can get some lovin agreein here

see i dont agree with that. you're nuetrality doesnt make you a pacifist or a reactive character. it simply means that you have no moral bias. you wouldnt go killing somebody because they are good or evil. your reasons have to be more defined, but that by no means should equate to not being able to start a fight. perhaps you started as a brawler at the bar, fighting just to fight, or when somebody does something minor that just pisses you off. you still throw the first punch. does that make you evil? no. you just had a bad day and a quick temper.

I agree. There are MANY ways to justify almost anything you want to do that does follow FL's guide to ethos and align.

I however, think neutrals get more limited IG then is realistic. Technically, a neutral can do many of the things an evil can do and be neutral, based on the reason. But that isn't a tangible, measurable reason so they just can go ape****. A berserker alone doesn't have to be evil to destroy a whole city. He could just be considerably blind, even good and feel remorse to the point of suicide. Point is, in my eyes such is a legitimate reason to assault anyone. However I'm not proposing it's ok for all neutrals to do this since it's so hard to measure and quite honestly, easy to make up crap reasons to do mindless pk.

re MCD:

Neutrals almost need religion specific RP to just go and PK. Whether they're for the Balance (Mercenaries of Fate, I call them) or just fervent Combat worshipers, they have INCREDIBLY motivated beliefs. These things don't make them evil. Fighting to a stun doesn't make them evil.

KILLING and TORTURING are what will separate neutrals and evils.

So, no, you don't have to be a pacifist, but your hands are bound more than others. This is the one time I can think of at this moment where RP/PK restriction is rewarded with the ignoring of align based spells/protections.

EDIT: I added Pk onto RP restrictions....I'm thinking hard, but tired, and can't discern between the two in this instance.

the thing is that goods kill too. the only thing that offers distinction is the reason. if they are killing and torturung because they can and they enjoy the feeling, they are likely not nuetral. but if there is a legitimate reason, i see no issue with nuetrals killing. to use my prior example, perhaps you got too wound up in the brawl and kill instead of stun. does that make you evil? the answer is no.

as to needing a relgious reason to kill.. not quite. the only ones that need a religious reason to kill would be..religious nuetrals. nuetrals have a lot of freedom in their reasoning. i'd even say they are really only limitted by the extremeties and your imagination. meaning that so long as you dont go too far down one path, you can do pretty much whatever you have reason too

the thing is that goods kill too.

Mostly towards evils, often dictated by religion/beliefs.

but if there is a legitimate reason' date=' i see no issue with nuetrals killing. to use my prior example, perhaps you got too wound up in the brawl and kill instead of stun. does that make you evil? the answer is no. [/quote']

You can RP this. However, I will compare this "brawling" as being akin to a Knight killing a good-aligned Tribunal in the heat of the moment. Doesn't make it right even if it was an accident.

as to needing a relgious reason to kill.. not quite. the only ones that need a religious reason to kill would be..religious nuetrals. nuetrals have a lot of freedom in their reasoning. i'd even say they are really only limitted by the extremeties and your imagination. meaning that so long as you dont go too far down one path' date=' you can do pretty much whatever you have reason too[/quote']

As long as you choose something like Atheist or Agnostic, no, you don't have to have "religious" reasons to kill. I use the word religion rather loosely as I often consider a religion to be a set of beliefs, whether they be of one or a group. Limitations are as to your imagination or until an IMM slaps someone up and sets the precedent.

You can RP this. However' date=' I will compare this "brawling" as being akin to a Knight killing a good-aligned Tribunal in the heat of the moment. Doesn't make it right even if it was an accident.[/quote']

But it doesn't make you a different alignment. You can "**** up" but still be your align in your mind. A good who accidentally kills another good is not neutral or evil. He is a clumsy or uncareful good who's in trouble. Still good though. If he purposefully let himself be careless, or felt no remorse then he might be neutral/evil.

Edit: In FL that character would be outcasted, but should not have his religion changed. Except in the instance where he is proven doing things that are obviously not his alignment. Such as obviously killing multiple good mobs or players.

But it doesn't make you a different alignment. You can "**** up" but still be your align in your mind. A good who accidentally kills another good is not neutral or evil. He is a clumsy or uncareful good who's in trouble. Still good though. If he purposefully let himself be careless' date=' or felt no remorse then he might be neutral/evil.[/quote']

Indeed. However, said Good would have fallen under damnation and has a long ways to go towards proving himself in the eyes of all others.

What happens to a Neutral? Just an "oopsy"? Which brings us back around to the original point of the thread. Neutrals are expected to behave in a less than bloodthirsty manner (killing often) because of the perks they receive from being neutral, with exceptions based on FL specific Religions/Cabals/etc....

EDIT: Mobs only count towards goods.

Remember, alignment is what the imms and other players see you as, not what you see yourself as.

With that in mind, a good who is disliked by the gods/other goods (for being careless/stupid...regardless of the motive) is now neutral.

A drow who is very polite, kind, and even a pacifist, is still going to be evil because the world labels that drow as evil, not due to the drow's personal actions/motives. Actions/motives matter only in changing what the IMMs/players think of you. If you have very evil motives (genocide) you can still be a good as long as it fits in with what 'goods' want.

So, if a neutral is aggressive/malicious enough to gain the attention of IMMs/players as being evil, that character might be turned evil---REGARDLESS of their motivation. However, a neutral will likely never turn good from doing actions that look/are good. This is because in good actions, motives are never clear to other players, and they assume that since you are neutral, your motive is probably selfish, not good. Evil motives are usually quite clear, which is why we can make the jump towards evil much easier.

While I would love Neutrals to actually be able to be RP'd in the 'Mercenaries of Fate' way, I don't think the immortals would ever approve. I always thought a new cabal idea would be based around the actions of keeping the world in balance. Too much Chaos? Kill them until the world is at balance. Too much Order? Kill them until the world is at balance. Too many evils, and one goodie? Kill the evils until there is only one evil, and one goodie. Too many goodies? .. You get the picture.

While I would love Neutrals to actually be able to be RP'd in the 'Mercenaries of Fate' way' date=' I don't think the immortals would ever approve. I always thought a new cabal idea would be based around the actions of keeping the world in balance. Too much Chaos? Kill them until the world is at balance. Too much Order? Kill them until the world is at balance. Too many evils, and one goodie? Kill the evils until there is only one evil, and one goodie. Too many goodies? .. You get the picture.[/quote']

"?" for info or [Q]uit.

Search for> neutrality

NEUTRALITY

Law, Order. Good, Evil. Extremes that when left unsupervised, wield

terrible power. When the balance swings too far to one side, it is your job

to correct it and weigh them a bit more in favor of the underdog, for when

one side tips the scales beyond aid, it will end all that is known. You are

a servant of the scales, aiding those who are outnumbered. Or perhaps you

just serve one thing, yourself. Regardless of your views, you favor neither

law nor chaos, light nor darkness. But one thing is consistent, while you

walk the lands, the balance shall be maintained, and if need be, defended.

While there are many who serve established moral factions, those who walk

the Way of Neutrality, serve everything that lay between them all. They

live in a gray world, ignoring the boundaries of white and black, casting a

protective eye into everything. Should any extreme begin to gain ground

over the other, neutrality steps in, and rights the numbers, maintaining the

balance between the two. But then again, there are simply some who do not

care about good or evil, order or discord. And to these, the way of

neutrality embraces them. Depending on their mood, their actions lead to

any of the extremes, but call none of them home.

SEE ALSO: RELIGION EQUILIBRIUM, ORDER, CHAOS

Straight from a religion help file. I love you all dearly.

valek, you get far too wrapped up in the religion of the game. it is not the only reason to kill. it is not the only excusable reason for a nuetral to kill. chatoic nuetral help file. you should read it and see what fits there. buncha whimsical nutjobs, those guys.

celerity, yes you are right. if a nuetral goes around killing all the goods, then you are seen as evil. but if you are killing other nuetrals? and evils? if you are balancing your aggression between the alignments, i see little ground to be deemed either extreme. of course this depends on each individual player. However, last i checked one individual player does not determine anything about another player on his/her own.

i think killing is not the act of a neutral. this is not about what the helpfiles read - but what they should read.

al capone would in fl be a neutral. I dont think that should be it. People hanging 'around' al capone, but not doing anything, still dont bothering with what he does should be neutrals, not al capone.

I agree almost 100% with MCD. Neutrals are widely seen incorrectly, I believe.

The biggest issue, I feel, that prevents people from correctly seeing neutrals as they "should" is the application of real life morality. And mostly, the addition of religion to our culture. Far too often we label people we disapprove of (In real life) as evil. Bush called Iran the axis of evil. This is most certainly untrue.

You killed someone. Does that make you evil? No. What makes you evil is the reasons you killed someone. You say Al Capone was evil. Why? Selling drugs. Is that evil? No. It's simply illegal. Killing rivals, no that isn't evil it is simply how business is handled in a very different world(the drug world, of course.) It only becomes evil when you begin killing innocent people just to hear them scream.

Watchers are an entirely neutral cabal. They call raids and slaughter entire cities of people. Man, woman, child. Though people assume that the Syndicate cabal is evil? A cabal that is not even required to have a war with the cities. It is not the duty of the Syndicate cabal to slaughter every man, woman, and child within a city. It is simply to kill those who have bounties.

An example? My Syndicate Warrior, Kongol. He was sort of a pirate/viking. He killed people who had bounties because he assumed that no one who was innocent had a bounty. That they had at the least pissed off the wrong people. He wouldn't kill without reason. He didn't really care to hear screams of agony. He didn't like to see suffering, though he seemed cold to it(he refused to show weakness). Sure, he would kill a man for gold. Any man. Though is killing for gold evil? No. It possibly could be, though that is all relative. What is the gold needed for? Family starving? Etc.

Basically what I am getting at is this. In FL, we tend to apply our current world views and impose them on FL. Take a step back and realize this world is not the current world. The world of FL, if compared to anything, should be compared to medieval Europe. Killing and death are common. The VAST MAJORITY of people are neutral in alignment. Very few are either good or evil. Examples of evil are those running around slaughtering people for mere pleasure. Examples of good are those who sacrifice their own lives to protect the innocent for no other reason than they are innocent(Though that would not necessarily make you good, it is the only example I could think of).

I know I ranted, and forgive me if I became repetitive or at times did not make sense.

EDIT: If animals had an alignment, they would all be neutral. Yet there are times when an animal would seem to have "attacked out of nowhere." Though we know that such is not the case. I like to think of neutrals as just men, neither good nor bad, just men(or women) seeking to live their life.

you are wrong here - we already have an institution telling society who is good and evil. you even choose 'evil' as alignment. Just like bush labels iran evil, fl labels Nexus as evil. so that argument does not hold.

the whole fl playerbase does.

i have been told an insane amount of times why people wont group with me "you are walking the dark path/shadows etc etc". Me following a specific god is seen as evil. Drows are seen as evil counterparts to elves. Not the opposite. Same with duergars and dwarves. The duergars are the 'evils'. So we already have a set of morals and ethics in fl judging people.

celerity, yes you are right. if a nuetral goes around killing all the goods, then you are seen as evil. but if you are killing other nuetrals? and evils? if you are balancing your aggression between the alignments, i see little ground to be deemed either extreme.

Somebody who kills one kind of person (good) then another opposite type (evil) to balance it out is not neutral, but more likely a chaotic evil homicidal sociopath...

The reason why neutrals do not look good when they kill evils is because, like I said, the motives are not clearly and blatantly good. Killing goods is clearly and blatantly evil (as judged by the gods of goodness), but the reverse, killing evils, is not necessarily good. It can be, but it can also be very evil.

If a neutral allied with all the goods, pledged to protect and save what good people want saved and kill what the goods want killed...they'd still be neutral. If that same neutral did all that for the same greater purpose that all goods share, which is "FL goodness", while at the same time severing any 'evil' connections they have, then yes, they might become a good..

Generally, neutrals who kill only evils do so not for some greater goodness, but for more practical/selfish reasons. There isn't an alignment point system in FL where you get +5 for killing an evil and -5 for killing a good and to be neutral you need to stay around 0. It is a lot more like you get +0 for killing an evil and -1000 for killing a good. This explains the natural shift of neutrals towards evil. I think that any long-lived, PKing neutral would likely become evil just by the sheer amount of pain/devastation/mass killing they have caused among good people. One major inconsistency that I've noticed that was just pointed out...Watchers burn Val Miran, which is the official bastion of Light---that alone should get them all outcasted to evil by any good---and is also a source of in game conflict (usually shown between Knight/Watcher)

Not concerning FL or this argument: Personally, I see all humans as some kind of neutral, the natural 'animal' survival/selfish state. Good/evil are reserved for supernatural/fantasy races.