Goods and difficulty of roleplay

[Mudder]

This thread makes me want to roll a goodie with crazy original RP. Hehe.

[myrek]

You will get outcasted for attacking (not emote slab but really attacking, even if you do not mean to kill) other goods (exception: challenge).

RP reason: 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.

Wow! This sounds exactly like my argument against good Justices...

You will get outcasted for killing other goods' date=' even if it is an accident. (You can rp out of that pretty easily, but recently no such outcast ever bothered.)[/quote']

Is this automatic? I've seen a goodie suicide on another goodie where there was truly nothing the "killer" could do to stop it. That really isn't the spirit of the rule.

[Questioner]

It is interesting. Evils, being evil cannot be persuaded to not be evil. Goods on the other hand can be corrupted or accused of not being a good aligned person.

[Twinblades713]

It is interesting. Evils' date=' being evil cannot be persuaded to not be evil. Goods on the other hand can be corrupted or accused of not being a good aligned person.[/quote']

Good point.

[Mudder]

It is interesting. Evils' date=' being evil cannot be persuaded to not be evil. Goods on the other hand can be corrupted or accused of not being a good aligned person.[/quote']

I disagree. I believe anyone would and should be able to be "corrupted" either way. It all depends on the individual RP and why they are good/evil

[Malchaeius]

Interesting topic. Extended response forthcoming.

[Nekky]

I don't know how many people have seen the Hellsing series, but there's a character in it named Alexander Anderson who is super bad-arse and basically tears up everything, and is still within the archetype of 'good'.

I've often wanted to RP someone like him, he's sort of a rogue avatar with a super critical idea of what is good or not.

[Kyzarius]

It is interesting. Evils' date=' being evil cannot be persuaded to not be evil. Goods on the other hand can be corrupted or accused of not being a good aligned person.[/quote']

ive seen evils outcasted for not being evil enough.

[Pali]

Pali... Wtf? Lol. Mentally ill = evil? No way. Mentally ill has no alignmemt. You could me mentally ill evil (obvious crazy bastard)' date=' just insane and eccentric (possibly neutral), or a righteous man who thinks something nuts and wants to kill all evils.[/quote']

Any sociopathic or violently delusional character will end up being outcasted to evil for their actions, so they may as well just start out that way. I've played insane characters that believed themselves to be righteous (likewise, a priest of Death could easily think his actions morally justified), but I created those characters as evils because that's how their actions would be judged by the world as a whole.

[Pali]

Wow! This sounds exactly like my argument against good Justices...

If you ask me, good Justices should be allowed to pull a Jim Gordon and let the Batmans of FL do their thing.

[f0xx]

I don't know how many people have seen the Hellsing series, but there's a character in it named Alexander Anderson who is super bad-arse and basically tears up everything, and is still within the archetype of 'good'.

I've often wanted to RP someone like him, he's sort of a rogue avatar with a super critical idea of what is good or not.

And what about hellboy? He ruins everything for the "greater" good.

[WagesofSin]

Personally, I think evils just need to get outcasted and turned neutral more for being too nice to each other.

I'll also agree with this, evils just get the green light to behave however they want without repercussions. And yes English lad, they should be held up to the same standards.

It is interesting. Evils, being evil cannot be persuaded to not be evil. Goods on the other hand can be corrupted or accused of not being a good aligned person.

Heh, well said. Even though Mudder disagrees by saying:

I disagree. I believe anyone would and should be able to be "corrupted" either way. It all depends on the individual RP and why they are good/evil

The thing is, even in real life, the perception of good is a lot easier tarnished than ruining the perception of being neutral or evil. I think our conundrum comes from trying to fit our relativistic morality onto this objective viewpoint. In real life, good and evil are really the exeptions to the rule, most of us would prolly fill the "neutral" category.

Was Hitler evil before he became dictator? I'm sure at the dinner table he acted well mannered and civilized, and he had a love for his dog(i.e. evils capable of love? Ms. Braun anyone?) up until the last days of his life. In real life, situations heavily influence the way we will act, while in FL it's mostly a black and white thing thrown onto us from the code.

Looking at our help files on goods, (including with the Chaotic,neutral, good subcategories) they don't really offer any real differenced in Roleplay between each other. They all practically add up to the same thing, since it's perfectly possible for a chaotic good to be satisfied with a good-led regime.

To mix it up even more, should a neutral that acts too good be "outcasted" into good? Also, why shouldn't neutrals attack evils on sight as well? You guys make it out to seem that only goods would do this. Evil people, especially evil races, are a threat to everyone as well as themselves. No reason why neutrals couldn't form an organization hunting down evils. Then, i'd feel justified in torturing/being cruel to evils/ Undead/demons. But I still find it questionable for a good to do this.

Heck, I found it always strange that neutrals would, without hesitation, group with evil races, demons, undead, liches and treat them as their buddy next door. At least roleplay some fear, unrest, or animosity!

Hell boy? According to the above, I'd put him into the neutral category who just happens to fight evil because it threatens us all. Though I'm no expert on Hell boy so forgive me if I don't get it

[Lexi]

The thing is, there is not 'really' a perception of good and evil in this game. You ARE good, or you ARE neutral or you ARE evil. There are spells that can detect this also.

[Cephirus]

To be honest, I would love FL to have a karma based system for alignment. Perhaps based on your personality type, you would already start as evil/neutral/good, just not completely at that end of the spectrum. Then based upon your actions, it will determine the direction your character is going in. Hence, slaying innocents and stealing, would cause you to loose karma, bringing you closer to evil. On the other side of the spectrum, if you are saving peoples lives, and helping the poor/sick and what have you, you will gain karma. None of the mobs in the world would need to change, however, once you change from your initial creation's alignment, you would instantly become outcasted and things would progress from there.

[Nightmare_from_hell]

So pretty much everyone would be outcasted since at somepoint in time or another you would gain/loose too much. Hunting those neutral mobs too often? OUTCAST! Decide that to spawn your chaos you need subjects to corrupt so you decide to save some lives to further your future plans of chaos and destruction? OUTCAST! Your an evil and spare the lives of all goodies you destroy in the hopes they will see the utter power you wield and join you? OUTCAST!

When people are outcasted they don't just get an align change and the pretty flag next to their name, usually. More oft then not, you will lose skills or something that will punish you for crossing your own deity. If this were to be automatic, it would defeat the purpose of outcasting, imho.

I think the imms do a damn fine job of keeping it in check, so I don't think it would benefit anyone to have it automatically outcast you, since you may have rp reason which the code can't discern.

Maybe have a system where it could inform the imms, similar to the notes sent about excessive pk at low ranks and goodies slaying goodies. *shrugs*

[Mudder]

Maybe have a system where it could inform the imms' date=' similar to the notes sent about excessive pk at low ranks and goodies slaying goodies. *shrugs*[/quote']

I'm pretty sure this already exists.

I like the "karma" based system. Killing neutral mobs? That wouldn't change anything. Goods can kill neut mobs, evils can kill neut mobs. Doesn't make you more good or more evil.

And it would not be a quick process to turn from good to evil. I think with time, everyone, through inaction, should slowly gravitate toward neutral in this system.

Think of reputations. You have to basically begin a genocide of a certain race to make them hate you and attack you on sight.

[Twinblades713]

Also, there's already a policy about excessive pk at low ranks. You can kill everyone in your range once, if they attack you after that, you can kill them again. Each time, they have to initiate but after that, you can kill them. ONce you're both level 40+ there are no multikilling rules.

[Malchaeius]

I will begin this by stating an obvious truth: Forsaken Lands is a delicate mix of gameplay mechanics as well as roleplay. My job as an administrator is to always attempt to keep that mix balanced, fair, and fun. In an attempt to create a good gaming atmosphere, there are times where one must infringe slightly upon the other. For example, the gameplay mechanic of grouping to get experience infringes slightly upon the roleplay of fighting honorably and not being a mass murderer. Another example of gameplay mechanics infringing upon Roleplay is in the repeated killing of important "named" Mobs. How many times have you killed Mahn-Tor in the past, only to come back a few hours later to find him sitting in his chair like nothing happened? An example of where mechanics must infringe upon roleplay is that we do not force or penalize your characters for not following the sleeping cycles of your race – while this would make sense for your roleplay, the game mechanics would be entirely too cumbersome and simply put – not fun. Furthermore, how about the fact that some characters drink a strict diet of milk, and do not contract scurvy and die? It is this balance that we take for granted, but must be maintained.

I state this as plainly as possible, because we must be clear about the role of ethos and alignment in FL. Not only is it a tool of roleplay, but by its very nature, it is intertwined with the mechanics of gameplay. An alignment system makes a leveling system like we have in Aabahran work. Our alignment system also allows for conflict, which I will cover soon.

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.

Now, we can further delve into the specifics of different religions, races, classes, guilds, cabals – as they have restrictions of their own that can conflict with the roleplay of the player. Exempli Gratis, a Paladin should be chivalrous, generous, honorable, et cetera. Failure to carry that through will result in outcasting.

Which brings up the next issue, what exactly is meant by outcast? Outcasting can happen due to lack of RP – punishment outcasting – and it can also come about through role-play – role-play outcasting. Punishment outcasting is what would be done to a bloodthirsty (read: PK heavy / silent PK heavy) gnome – obviously there was a failure on the player’s part to read and comprehend Gnomish and/or Neutral role-play. Role-play outcasting would be what would happen to a good-aligned who decided that they disagreed with their God’s definition / view of morality, and they would take the fight into their own hands. Mayhaps an evil, through a long life of causing pain followed by certain life-altering events (such as having a child?), has an epiphany about what it means to give, and thus renounces their life of villainy.

The difference between these two is not arbitrary, though it may seem like it. Punishment outcasting implies Out Of Character motives (desire to pad ones PlayerKill record with a ‘strong’ combination); Role-play outcasting implies forethought and actions motivated by in game events. Certain situations, much as is the case with most things in life, will fall somewhere inbetween. There will be situations in which your character will question their dedication to their alignment – conflict is bound to arise.

Conflict is not a bad thing however; on the contrary, it is a good thing. The reason that we have set up Goods and Evils is to make available that very conflict! It is a good gameplay mechanic, as well as a potential device of Role-play. Any story without conflict is boring, and not worth reading. If you want to read something that has no conflict, pick up a phone book. Now, note how I say ‘conflict’ and not necessarily ‘hatred’, as they are clearly two different things. One can have conflict with a member of the same alignment, but violence does not have to be the result. A good-aligned Atheist should have conflicts with a good-aligned zealot of Purity. A good-aligned thief of Greed should have a conflict with a healer of Compassion.

The issue is in the resolution – that is, by their very definition, they cannot resort to violence. They may or may not hate each other, they may opt to never speak to one another and that is fine. They cannot, however, carry out violence against each other, or be involved in an action that will lead to the immediat death of the other good aligned character (bounty, keeping doors closed to prevent them from fleeing from a losing battle, leading them to an ambush).

Some of you will cry “What about Tribunals?!”, and I respond thusly: It is a fair criticism – albeit an incomplete and misleading criticism. A Good Tribunal will never have need to capture a Good Criminal if they do not put themselves in the situation to break the Law. Furthermore, as a matter of game mechanics, we cannot allow a Good Tribunal the Privilege of remaining apathetic to a criminal simply because they are the same alignment. Finally, there is the age-old response: The Good Tribunal does not kill the Good Criminal. The Good Tribunal simply brings the Good Outlaw to stand to trial for the crime they committed. The Good Tribunal does not even carry the Good Outlaw to jail, a group of guards come and escort the Outlaw away – where if the sentence is execution, it is carried out not by the Good Tribunal, but by an executioner. Someone mentioned Jim Gordon. I have no problem with a Jim Gordon Tribunal – but the moment that it can be proven that Jim Gordon is in collusion with the Batman, he will be summarily relieved of all duties. For those who saw The Dark Knight, you know what Jim Gordon was forced to do at the end of the movie. In the same manner, a Jim Gordon Tribunal is caught by their Immortal, they will have hell to pay; if they are a follower of the Religion Order, expect an immediate outcasting.

Now, some interesting role play ideas for good aligns:

A lecherous Purity Monk with a serious drinking problem

Guile Thief who is good natured, but enjoys some mischief; the consummate prankster

Paladin who is Racist/Sexist/Chauvinist/Feminist/Ageist and shows more paternalism/condescension than ‘true’ mercy.

The Mystic Scientist / Inventor who is looking to create things to enrich the lives of the entire world

I will not get into the case of Aithon, largely because I was not there when it occurred, though I did receive and read the report I have had many other important things to do and have forgotten the details, but I will say this. Some players have the propensity to open their mouths to comment on situations that they only know from hearsay. Then the story mutates as fact falls victim to perception and rumor. There is a reason we do not discuss player punishment on the public forum – even when we could clearly humiliate people. Not only is it unprofessional, but it solves and changes nothing. Some will respond sympathetically, others will be hostile and it will become a divisive issue. The downside to this is that by not responding to some of these ludicrous allegations, some believe that it somehow validates their claims – otherwise known as the Negative Proof Fallacy. Do not allow yourself to fall victim to such poor logic.

I will end for now by saying that I personally think the hardest alignment to play is the true neutral.

[delfytheelfy]

EDIT: I'll just take it to another topic

[myrek]

While that is mostly a great post, it still managed to really piss me off. I'm already working on one of those characters! Quit giving out my ideas!

1. A question: Can a character deliberately change religions/aligns and not suffer for it? I understand that there are initial punishments. There should be. But do the penalties last forever? I'm just thinking that less painful conversions = conversions become more likely = more of a reason to try to get a conversion = less conversations starting with "cast hellstream".

2. Conflict is drama.

3. Mal, that is a great post. It really is. But the argument you have in favor of good Tribbies is the same argument that we've heard a thousand times. And it doesn't cover a few of the big points.

• The good Tribbie is still doing things "that weakens the other good, now imagine an evil comes allong and kills the stunned / weakened good. The other goods fault entirely." (from E's post)
  
• Even though the good Tribbie does not swing the blade during the execution, they are still directly responsible for the death. It is the same as the last point.
  
• When a good Tribbie attacks a good criminal, the system puts the criminal at a huge, unfair advantage. The Tribbie can totally ignore the good on good violence ban, but the criminal is held to it. Every character should have the inherent right to defend their own life. If good Tribbies can fight goods over ethos, all goods should be able to (at least in self-defense).
  
• While there are RP explanations for a good Tribbie, I think they need to be watched much closer than they are. I can't say that I've seen a good Tribbie that manages to keep it align then ethos. I think many of us would be more comfortable if we thought that the IMMs would outcast any good Tribbies who slip into ethos then align.
  
• Even if you write off the last point, it is still the law of god (don't steal candy from babies) vs the law of man (don't steal candy from babies in town).
  
• I know the game needs Tribbies. I just don't know that I'm comfortable with the way I've seen goods play them. (Obviously I haven't seen them all.)
  

4. True neutral might not be the hardest to play. It might actually be impossible without a random number generator.

A side note: the surest way to make the immortals change something that you think is broken, is to make one and show everyone how broken it is.

[English lad]

Great response Malch - but the one area I don't think it really looks at isn't good RP, and subsequent outcasting, but rather Evil RP.

In your example above you talk about how goods only have one rule 'don't kill each other.' Evils in this area don't seem to have any rules. If you read 'help evil' in game you get this.

Heedless of the well-being of others, evils selfishly and shamelessly

live to exploit others for their own advancement and power. Some who

are truly wicked even venture forth to spread suffering unto others

for their own amusement, or in service to their merciless gods. Evils

will lend aid to others only in proportion to what is received in

return, for the helping of others in growing stronger weakens oneself

in comparison. No matter how much they attempt to manipulate or control

others, true evils strive to become powerful in their own right and shun

displaying or admitting weakness, for this only invites aggression from

their brethren.

With this in mind would their not be scope for outcasting Evils?

I could, and probably will go into this further as regarding Chaotic Evils - and certain classes, but I'm a bit strapped for time now.

[Mudder]

4. True neutral might not be the hardest to play. It might actually be impossible without a random number generator.

I feel like your talking about a neutral chaotic.

[myrek]

I understand your interpretation. I was referring to the fact that they have to change their position with the wind.

[Pali]

Someone mentioned Jim Gordon. I have no problem with a Jim Gordon Tribunal – but the moment that it can be proven that Jim Gordon is in collusion with the Batman' date=' he will be summarily relieved of all duties. For those who saw The Dark Knight, you know what Jim Gordon was forced to do at the end of the movie. In the same manner, a Jim Gordon Tribunal is caught by their Immortal, they will have hell to pay; if they are a follower of the Religion Order, expect an immediate outcasting.[/quote']

Then I say it should be up to other mortal members of Trib to prove this, or the IMM in non-wizinvis and physically present form (so the person can know they're there), else this type of RP (which I think would be fantastic) is impossible to even consider (because else you WILL get caught and booted from Trib fairly quickly, which makes all the work of getting into Trib pointless and will simply annoy the player).

[Mali]

A question: Can a character deliberately change religions/aligns and not suffer for it

A character can change either without punishment but it is rare. For example, you can change from any religion to church and worship 'the one god' without punishment or outcasting. Similarly, a character involved in an RP plot that was once evil and becomes good may not suffer. It really is done on an individual basis here.