Goods and difficulty of roleplay

[tassinvegeta]

I'm in agreement with Myrek regarding how the system of Tribunal is makes it even more unfair towards goods whom already have it bad enough. There is no check or balance stopping a good Tribunal from going after another good. They can just keep trying to capture them with no reprocussions. Yes the Good has the choice to break the law or not but they are not Tribunals and thus do not hold their ideologies. Sometimes they must do what they must even if it means breaking man-made laws which, to them, should be secondary, maybe even non-existant to Gods laws. Malchaeius you make good points and it truly relects the great rp potential Tribunal has added to FL. Yet it fails to provide a solution to a problem that seems to have become big enough to warrant such controversy. Additionally I've become increasingly concerned with the playerbases disinterest in playing goods now compared to years before.

[J.Twendrist]

I could probably name half a dozen movies off the top of my head where the main character is a hero (or a goodie) and must get around the police (the Tribunal), who may or may not be good cops. You hear about that kind of story in all kinds of books and movies, ect. Why not in FL? If someone in Tribunal is good and a good breaks the laws it is their job to uphold said laws. If they don't wish to do this (because of RP which is perfectly fine) then they need to be ready to accept the consequences by turning a blind eye to the good criminal or resigning their position.

[Twinblades713]

Makes me think of Javert, from Les Miserables.

[Pali]

I could probably name half a dozen movies off the top of my head where the main character is a hero (or a goodie) and must get around the police (the Tribunal)' date=' who may or may not be good cops. You hear about that kind of story in all kinds of books and movies, ect. Why not in FL?[/quote']

Yes, and we all know Batman doesn't kill cops and goes out of his way to protect them as much as he can too.

The problem is that this isn't FUN. This is a game, which means it lives on whether it is fun or not, and when things aren't fun they cause serious problems. Sure, the RP between you and the Trib may be a lot of fun, but when it comes down to the PK aspect you are handicapped from doing ANYTHING to this guy while he's free to attack you at will.

If you ask me, the flip side to the coin of the good outlaw accepting the consequences of his actions (meaning Tribs will come for him) should be that good Tribs have to accept the consequences of THEIR actions (meaning that they are risking their lives in attempting to apprehend). All goods should be given the ability to mercy a good Trib, so that they themselves still don't have to kill. Isn't that the reason good Tribs are allowed to hunt other goods without damnation, that they don't actually perform the kill themselves? Wouldn't leaving someone mercied be pretty much the same thing, except that their probability of death is actually a lot lower?

[myrek]

I could probably name half a dozen movies off the top of my head where the main character is a hero (or a goodie) and must get around the police (the Tribunal)' date=' who may or may not be good cops. You hear about that kind of story in all kinds of books and movies, ect. Why not in FL? [/quote']

Apples and oranges.

TV: The cops show up, they talk for 10 minutes, the hero runs, no one dies.

-OR-

They get in a fist fight and no one faces any real threat of death.

FL: The cops show up, they immediately try to KILL the good criminal, and the good criminal can not lift a finger to defend himself.

RE: Pali

That's what I'm talking about: balance.

[spiegel06]

I dont know why people are saying they cannot defend themselves. Defending against one is not the same as killing them. When I played Raniku I went after all criminals and regardless of align. That did not mean I had an easy time to capture them at all. I had some that just fled, some that fought back, some that just toyed with me, also had a few that tried to bargain with me and yes I mean goods not neutrals or evils. Here is an example of one and what he did http://forum.theforsakenlands.org/showthread.php?t=792

remember as long as the good does not kill the tribunal then that is fine, but if you are so worried about PK with them then just do something about it. In some way or form.

[myrek]

"Goods should not attack other goods to "teach them a lesson" or similar as that weakens the other good, now imagine an evil comes allong and kills the stunned / weakened good. The other goods fault entirely."

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. But that sounds like "Thou shalt not beat up other goodies for any reason (other than challenges)." Not all goods have mercy. It is win-win-win for a good Tribbie to attack a good criminal. If the Tribbie wins, the good criminal gets punished by the law. If the Tribbie dies, the good criminal gets punished by their god and is therefore easier to capture next time. If the Tribbies keeps dying, the good criminal might get outcast.

[Twinblades713]

As has been laid out, I agree. I think it's completely reasonable that all goods should be able to mercy each other. This would allow for good v good combat which is the thought of many chaotic good mentalities that can't currently be realized. It would allow goods to defeat other good tribbies in defense. Two goods can both think they're right, think differently, and both still remain good. It would still take observation to determine if what a good is doing is evil, or perhaps prayer forums for suggesting (with a log for proof) why a good should be outcast. I suggest making goods more versatile in this form, being able to walk the line of good and neutrality without getting screwed, but in return, make outcasting much worse penalty, and only applied when truly deserving. Face it, right now, any non communer can get outcasted without much of a problem. Make them suffer if they do, but the whole align will likely be much more popular when you -can- beat the crap out of that ******* good that deserves it, so long as you don't kill him.

EDIT: It also has to do with perception. Perception changes morality. Tribby perceives good char to still be good, but in err, and to uphold society, he must be caught to stop his erring. Unfortunately the officials may likely execute him. Outlaw goodie perceives good trib as corrupt because he stopped him from murdering an evil in town, and evil who has hurt and will continue to hurt. Tribbie perceives evil as maybe unsavory, but not worth letting goodie outlaw fighth im and maybe hurt civilians. Perception is key.

[Mudder]

I think that a goodie Trib capturing and executing another goodie is completely breach of RP and should warrant outcasting.

Obviously this is just my opinion and not many agree.

However I remember back in the day, correct me if I am wrong, but old goodie Justices weren't allowed to attack other goodies. Only their guard could fight and the Goodies weren't allowed to assist. Why don't we just bring this back?

[tassinvegeta]

I suggest making goods more versatile in this form, being able to walk the line of good and neutrality without getting screwed,

EDIT: It also has to do with perception. Perception changes morality. Tribby perceives good char to still be good, but in err, and to uphold society, he must be caught to stop his erring. Unfortunately the officials may likely execute him. Outlaw goodie perceives good trib as corrupt because he stopped him from murdering an evil in town, and evil who has hurt and will continue to hurt. Tribbie perceives evil as maybe unsavory, but not worth letting goodie outlaw fighth im and maybe hurt civilians. Perception is key.

Well said. The Tribunal system as it is now, restricts 'true' good rp even moreso. The perceptions you brought up can not fully be realized and expanded upon because the pk and the outcastings don't fully support this type of rp.

Perception changes morality (does not always include goods :confused: )

-Twinblades713

I remember the last time I played a good was around Martineius era. I saw a vampire fighting and executing my hope clan members and I felt I had to step in and stop the tyrant ignoring the laws and becoming an outlaw to do so. This is what any good would do right? Later on a Trib paladin kept attacking me. As a ninja their was no way I could outmelee him to get him off me I could only study which I knew the system would punish me if I went through with it. So instead I just tried to ignore him and hiding. After many failed engagements and because of his persistance and nothing there for him to check his aggression he eventually caught me, executed me and I got full looted by another good. I knew if I made him my top priority and went for him things would've been different. It was very difficult to play another good after that. What are your thoughts on this? Should I have done something different? Was my rp wrong? I felt I was doing what was truely righteous and good.

[Twinblades713]

Perception changes morality (does not always include goods :confused: )

-Twinblades713

Ahh, I like that you made it a real quote.

But yeah, I've gotten nothin much more to reiterate other than I really think this could/should be looked at, with serious consideration, if not just to see what happens.

[WagesofSin]

Thanks for the reply Malch, but I ultimately feel unsatisfied with such an answer.

While there are a few things I could onject to, let me focus on:

With that in mind, the box for the Good alignment is not as constricting as some appear to believe. Aabahran defines a good as someone who is recognized by the Gods of Light as a Good, and does not kill others who are defined by the Gods of Light as a Good. That is pretty much it. Good Gods see into your heart and declare you Good. You then do not kill others who the same Gods have declared to be Good. If you like, you can imagine yourself a part of a club that has only one rule - do not kill each other.

Alright, fair enough. Though with that view, I feel the "box", to use your words, is too large. It appears that you're trying to say that someone is good just because a god said so, but I think many things point to it being otherwise.

Firstly, what about Good atheists? I suppose we can put this into the "forsake mechanics in the sake of RP" category. Alright then, but what makes them good?

Secondly, It is my opinion that good should amount to more than just a "team color". Good should be ultimately a set of behaviors. If I take what you say to its logical conclusion, I could make a Good character that is a rapist, a sadistic torturer, greedy, petty, and cruel all in one as long as i direct the said behavior to non goods. I don't think it should be this way and I think most will agree with me when I say this isn't the way we do it here.

Furthermore I can add, why don't the other gods also frown on killing people of the same align? If align for goods is just a "team color" why arent the other aligns the same?

Note, I'm generally looking for some internal logical consistancy. I know we sacrifce RP of the sake of mechanics(a practice very detrimental to RP, in my opinion), but surely we can think of better explainations for alignement than what we have?