Akomak

[Raargant]

Celerity's explanation is correct, and her reasoning with regards to why he wasn't punished IG is also correct.

What was described here sounds like neutral evil more than lawful evil.

This is neutral evil: Framing someone you don't like for a crime and executing them.

This is lawful evil: Using an extremely convoluted, out of context, but ultimately logical interpretation of an obscure law to arrest and execute someone you don't like.

This is neutral evil: Signing a contract to share treasure, then lying about having signed the contract and taking everything.

This is lawful evil: Signing a contract to share treasure, but put in a hidden clause in fine print that relieves you of your side of the bargain, while allowing you to keep the rewards.

There are MAJOR differences between neutral evil and lawful evil. Neutral evils obey the law when convenient, but abuse or twist it when there is no danger to themselves. Lawful evil uses the law itself as a weapon, without flouting the law. When a lawful evil 'games' the system or 'manipulates' the system, he is still operating under its framework, but using its flaws or loopholes, NOT ignoring it or 'doing whatever he wants'.

[Raargant]

Yeah' date=' it's just another example of sacrificing rp for mechanics. People need the system to work so it can't be majorly abused for raw power, but you don't see anyone picking on the chaotic evil dude for NOT rampaging over the guy that looked at him funny, when if we really wanted to keep players restricted to their ETHOS, that zerk should have just raged. This is where I try to keep my rp MOST specialized. People are too enveloped with winning, that they'd prefer to roll a chaotic evil character so they have the range to kill the crap out of anyone, but when mister toughguy comes along that can beat them, they all of a sudden get neutral evil and decide maybe this guy isn't the one I wanna fight. I've had characters talk crap straight to their death, even attack groups that told them to shove off. It goes with every other ethos. It's very rare that anyone truly plays to their very ethos, ALL the time. With the mechanics set in to regulate this more, the game is trying for a balance within itself, but it's making it hard.[/quote']

I think you do not quite understand how ethos works. Chaotic evil is personified by those prefer to use violence and murder to settle their disputes and get their way. It does NOT mean that they will suicidally attack those who are clearly stronger than them. It even says in the chaotic evil help file, "they will only obey those capable of crushing them".

[Mudder]

Right. But Bali didn't want to... his Fire Giant did.

Okay. "I didn't want to break the rules... My character did." - or even, "I didn't want to multi-kill the naked pre-pinned newbie 20 times in a row, but my character is a jerk." So the next time someone decides to multi or abuse OOC knowledge via AIM or other ways this will be the defense. See where this is going?

Well.... yeah' date=' if he felt like he was being stopped from his duties, it might be ruthless you flag someone for touching him. Hell, spit on a congressmen or police officer and watch the cuffs get slapped on. Touch one without asking permission and watch yourself get arrested for harrassment (damn liberals!) or say something offensive and watch you get fine (freaking conservatives!). So, he's in his rights.[/quote']

I love when people compare the current Tribunal rules with the real world. It's just bad logic and even better when inside your own analogy and using the faulty logic, it still doesn't work.

Spitting on a police officer IS against the law. Assaulting an officer IS against the law. However, these things are not against the Tribunal law. They used to be, when Martineius made them, but these were scaled back because of the massive complaints from players. Ruthlessness is not breaking your own laws that your sworn to protect and uphold. That is just bad RP. Similar to a Knight killing an innocent goodie character. It is against everything they stand for.

Okay. Unwad your panties' date=' sniff them and realize that you're a big boy and don't need the maxipad. You're really crying bloody murder here, and nothing "wrong" happened. If you wrote a note to the imms and they didnt' do anything then NOTHING AGAINST THE RULES HAPPENED. If he was caught and punished, well ****, he would have had to RP with that.[/quote']

I'm not quite sure what your saying here. If I multi and break other rules like PKing with a Healer, am I not actually breaking the rules if no IMM catches me and punishes me? Or to use your analogy, if I kill a cop and never get caught, did I actually murder someone? I am not wearing panties or saying anything off the wall. Follow the rules, is that really such a problem?

And I am not crying on the forums. I stated my thoughts of the character and my disappointments. Other people disagreed with me and I felt an obligation to point out why they are wrong. Chill out. Not everyone can be correct all the time.

EDIT: Looks like other people beat me to reply.

[Twinblades713]

I think you do not quite understand how ethos works. Chaotic evil is personified by those prefer to use violence and murder to settle their disputes and get their way. It does NOT mean that they will suicidally attack those who are clearly stronger than them. It even says in the chaotic evil help file' date=' "they will only obey those capable of crushing them".[/quote']

But not for long. I do not say everyone is wrong, never did I. I just said it seems rare that ethos is truly paid attention to. I think it's far more important to heed than your align. It's easy to figure out evil, neutral, and good. To sit down and understand your ethos is something I see much rarer IG. I think it's very fun. And I don't judge others, or say they're wrong, heck no, but I see it every day. Playing by your IG intelligence. What if the FG doesn't know that the guy is capable of crushing him? I doubt many would still attack him, because the player has a higher intelligence than his character. This is the level of rp I dream of seeing.

[a-guitarist]

Look. I didnt' see what he did, only read what was said. But, if people did things he felt were "against the law", according to help files he's got every right to flag them. I remember all the hell back when Tribbies came out of people be flagged for small stuff. So, if you back talked a trib then you got flagged, as they were Emperors of the Cities, and all the wealths they held.

a-g

[Mudder]

Look. I didnt' see what he did' date=' only read what was said. But, if people did things he felt were "against the law", according to help files he's got every right to flag them. I remember all the hell back when Tribbies came out of people be flagged for small stuff. So, if you back talked a trib then you got flagged, as they were Emperors of the Cities, and all the wealths they held.

a-g

No one is disagreeing with that. If you read my posts, he flagged people that never committed a crime.

Also, back when Tribs came out, talking back etc. That sort of thing was against the law. The ability to make an infinite number of laws was changed and severely limited. Due to popular demand, by the way.

[a-guitarist]

Okay. "I didn't want to break the rules... My character did." - or even' date=' "I didn't want to multi-kill the naked pre-pinned newbie 20 times in a row, but my character is a jerk." So the next time someone decides to multi or abuse OOC knowledge via AIM or other ways this will be the defense. See where this is going?[/quote']

Yeah, I do. You don't. If your character would do something, do it. If he wouldn't, don't. If you can't figure out the difference between being a douche bag for the sake of it, and being a douche bag because it propels the game- go read some Bernstien Bears books again. They've got a plot you can follow.

I love when people compare the current Tribunal rules with the real world. It's just bad logic and even better when inside your own analogy and using the faulty logic, it still doesn't work.

Spitting on a police officer IS against the law. Assaulting an officer IS against the law. However, these things are not against the Tribunal law. They used to be, when Martineius made them, but these were scaled back because of the massive complaints from players. Ruthlessness is not breaking your own laws that your sworn to protect and uphold. That is just bad RP. Similar to a Knight killing an innocent goodie character. It is against everything they stand for.

If the Tribby feels you are standing against their authority, the help file says they will respond with force. So, flagging you is force? Eh? But, my own real world one doesn't work? It happens all the time. We won't debate that, but... if the game has changed, then when people like myself who took breaks still base things on help files (as they're there to keep the game rules open and available), and the help files haven't changed... we follow what we've known and what's available.

I'm not quite sure what your saying here. If I multi and break other rules like PKing with a Healer, am I not actually breaking the rules if no IMM catches me and punishes me? Or to use your analogy, if I kill a cop and never get caught, did I actually murder someone? I am not wearing panties or saying anything off the wall. Follow the rules, is that really such a problem?

Yes, you did break the rules. Yes you did murder someone. Thinking you didn't, or implying that I don't, means you're an idiot. But... I don't think you're inferring that or feel that. What I think is you aren't reading fully. I'm saying, he wasn't breaking rules. If he was, he would have been punished. Because people wrote notes to Tribs about him.... and you must have written notes to the imms if he broke the rules between your interactions with him. Right? Because, if you didn't, you've got place to bitch. And, no, following rules isn't a problem... but demanding everyone follow your ideas of blurred rules that aren't clearly defined is.

And I am not crying on the forums. I stated my thoughts of the character and my disappointments. Other people disagreed with me and I felt an obligation to point out why they are wrong. Chill out. Not everyone can be correct all the time.

You obviously haven't met me. I'm right 100% of the time, just at other times I'm less completely right than I thought but still 100% right.

But he never said anything malicious or negative about anyone... so why bring it to him. He gave props, explained his character. You don't have to like the character, and if you don't, don't post anything.

a-g

[Raargant]

No one is disagreeing with that. If you read my posts, he flagged people that never committed a crime.

Also, back when Tribs came out, talking back etc. That sort of thing was against the law. The ability to make an infinite number of laws was changed and severely limited. Due to popular demand, by the way.

Not quite right. Wathok was the Tribunal IMM at the time, and the change was made because 1) He felt Martineius' laws were so complete that future Councilors didn't have much to do, and 2) Post-Martineius Tribunals were not proving themselves capable of handling the responsibility of wielding power on as broad a scale as those laws allowed for.

"The Tribunal system is in place and grants a large portion of trust on the level of maturity to the player. To, basically not abuse the ability of "want."" This was a very, very good statement you made, and it basically explains why the system is as it is now.

[Twinblades713]

Which is why I think the opness of cabals is relevant here. Of course, we all freaking know Ototh can rock the world without a cabal, but you tell me he wouldn't have been a destructively mad wrecking machine in warmaster. I think trib shouldn't be nearly as strong as it is, blood guards and whatnot, and that this WANT command shouldn't be SUCH a tool. It should be an rp device but it's turned into a huge pk advantage. The mud should be rp and pk, but the power of such skills bends it to the will of pk over rp, imo.

[Mudder]

Yeah' date=' I do. You don't. If your character would do something, do it. If he wouldn't, don't. If you can't figure out the difference between being a douche bag for the sake of it, and being a douche bag because it propels the game- go read some Bernstien Bears books again. They've got a plot you can follow.[/quote']

Apparently you can't determine the difference between a player breaking the rules and a character playing the game.

if the game has changed' date=' then when people like myself who took breaks still base things on help files (as they're there to keep the game rules open and available), and the help files haven't changed... we follow what we've known and what's available.[/quote']

You obviously have not read the files other than "Help Tribunal" or played a Tribunal. It is made abundantly clear what is acceptable and what is not.

I'm saying' date=' he wasn't breaking rules. If he was, he would have been punished. Because people wrote notes to Tribs about him...[/quote']

Because our IMMS have all the time in the world to snoop players that break the rules? Sometimes criminals escape. He did break the rules. Believe it or not.

And' date=' no, following rules isn't a problem... but demanding everyone follow your ideas of blurred rules that aren't clearly defined is.[/quote']

Really? Following my ideas of blurred rules? I am quite certain not a single help file says that lawful evils can break laws. In fact, these rules like I said above, are glaringly obvious.

But he never said anything malicious or negative about anyone... so why bring it to him. He gave props' date=' explained his character. You don't have to like the character, and if you don't, don't post anything.[/quote']

His character was fine, aside from his abuse of his cabal. I wrote what I did because it was obvious that he broke the rules, he knew he broke the rules, then seemed completely proud that he did break the rules and wasn't removed from the cabal.

[Twinblades713]

Anybody who disagrees with anybody in the history of the universe is wrong.

*Points menacing finger at all of you*

[Nekky]

As has been mentioned already, the help file on lawful evils says that they do not conveniently break the law when they think they won't get caught, for fear of appearing blasphemous to the gods of Order.

I agree with Twinblades when he says not enough people take their ethos seriously enough and that it is at least as important, maybe more, than your alignment.

It also says lawful evils use the law as a shield when it suits them. So if a lawful evil wanted to be a prick, rather than breaking laws, I see them going out and making some really harsh and unfair laws that benefited them greatly. Then doing whatever they could to enforce them, and screw the inherent unfairness.

But as you have to be (E) to make any laws, that might be kind of hard.

[Mudder]

Nope. Trusted Council members can make laws. They can, however, make more laws as they climb the ranks.

I think that Leader Adjudicators should be allowed to make one law aswell.

[HBwillie]

I'm actually with Mudder on this one (as much as it pains me to say =p) You see, my character happened to be in Thalos when a Watcher went to attack for the Trib standard. I followed him into the Citadel, curious, and noticed that Akomak was in his home. I walked up to the cabal guard to get a look at the Watcher and he fled, which turned the cabal guard's attention to me. I was marked a criminal shortly thereafter. I sent Akomak a tell saying something to the effect of "I was only near your home to drive away the Watcher!" Not two hours later, my WANTED flag was removed.

[f0xx]

But' date=' if people did things he [b']felt were "against the law", according to help files he's got every right to flag them.

This is what the helpfile actually says:

They will not break laws.

So, if you are lawful you don't break laws no matter of your align. Marking someone for pissing on you isn't against the law (unless you create such a law) and with that action you DO break the law. This should have resulted in not only removing from the Tribunal cabal but with outcasting as well (changing your ethos to neutral).

If we follow your logic you might even mark people for entering the city at first place because you "feel" that is wrong. That is exacly what Mudder means by saying "The Tribunal system is in place and grants a large portion of trust on the level of maturity to the player. To, basically not abuse the ability of "want.""

[Guest emp_newb]

Look. The way I am seeing it Lawful Evils would obey the law. That is not something that should be questioned. I think the major thing here is, in Akomaks mind, he WAS the law. Why would he not do as he sees fit? Why would he not mark someone for looking at them? I have logs of old goodie tribs marking me for saying the room smelled of sweat and ale. Why would an evil feel the need to be nice and coddling? If he says someone is breaking the law, they broke the law. Tribs are ruthless, narrow minded, and exact. They are not Justice, and never will be. Tribs want the Empire to flourish, if that means they take out any chance of revolt, or citizens who would one day overthrow them, then they are gonna do it.

On another note, it is EXTREMELY unfair to pigeon hole people's rp. "Your lawful you have to do this!" or "Thats just abusive of skills." I will tell you that most characters have reasons they act the way they do. To tell someone how they should play seems a bit over the top for me. The best part of FL is the huge range you can have with RP.

Phaige- An undead blm who only wanted a peaceful world. So I have to be a worshipper of Compassion? Or Tranquility? No, I worshipped death because a graveyard is always peaceful, the dead have no wars, or famine, or plague. So my goal was, in my characters RP, to bring peace to the entire world.

Fistilantus- Machine who joined reaver. Why? Not because he was bent on destruction and death to all. But because HIS best chance of surviving was to be with them. He had his own reasons for joining the Cabal, but still served the cabals ideology very well.

Pamiyn- Night elf. Pompous, overbearing, utterly ruthless paladin? Not really your typical pally. He did it very well, showed promising RP points that made his character an actual person, not just a text based killer. Pamiyn was as ruthless and cut throat as Cariousus or Narnokles where, but his RP made him a different killer.

Now, if you break each of those chars down to their align and ethos, you would have forced them to play somewhat differently. You would have forced them to lose the RP that made them what they where. Each character had unique goals, and angles. Pigeon holing chars to just their align and ethos would cause all undead scourge followers to be renamed versions of the same char. The same goes for avatars, demons etc etc. This is a free world, not a dictatorship (But L-A is still the head dick )

Emp

[Guest emp_newb]

This is what the helpfile actually says:

So, if you are lawful you don't break laws no matter of your align. Marking someone for pissing on you isn't against the law (unless you create such a law) and with that action you DO break the law. This should have resulted in not only removing from the Tribunal cabal but with outcasting as well (changing your ethos to neutral).

If we follow your logic you might even mark people for entering the city at first place because you "feel" that is wrong. That is exacly what Mudder means by saying "The Tribunal system is in place and grants a large portion of trust on the level of maturity to the player. To, basically not abuse the ability of "want.""

Disrespecting a tribunal official is against the law. Read the maxim

[Nightmare_from_hell]

Like was previously said, it was the mere fact that imms had not caught him -yet-. If he'd actually been around a bit longer he would have been caught eventually, booted, and then most likely outcasted to neut ethos.

It's not a matter of that he wasn't punished so it was right in the first place. It was only the fact that he was never caught so that he could be punished.

Either way, I never had any personal interaction with Akomak cuz he never gave me any crap, so I only heard what I heard, and always stated that it was the rumor of the towns that you were a bit corrupt, though I had no way of corroborating it.

I'd have liked to see you keep going cuz you were rising in captures quicker than any of the other Tribbies at the moment.

[Nightmare_from_hell]

Disrespecting a tribunal official is against the law. Read the maxim

Actually, Emp, it no longer does. Read the above posts about the fact that it was removed.

[Celerity]

Nobody is pigeon-holing any RP. You are totally free to be an abusive char who thinks he is the law and changes it as he whims.

All you have to do is follow that RP and select neutral or chaotic as your ethos.

I can be a very 'good' dark-knight or necromancer. My char can truly believe that they are doing good for the world. Their souls are much safer with me than in the dangerous wild. Does that make my chars actually good? Not at all. I should still select evil as my align.

The main point here is that ethos and align are NOT relative. They are hard and objective. Any RP you can think of can fit into one of the combinations of align and ethos. Just select the matching ones...

[Guest emp_newb]

Nobody is pigeon-holing any RP. You are totally free to be an abusive char who thinks he is the law and changes it as he whims.

All you have to do is follow that RP and select neutral or chaotic as your ethos.

I can be a very 'good' dark-knight or necromancer. My char can truly believe that they are doing good for the world. Their souls are much safer with me than in the dangerous wild. Does that make my chars actually good? Not at all. I should still select evil as my align.

The main point here is that ethos and align are NOT relative. They are hard and objective. Any RP you can think of can fit into one of the combinations of align and ethos. Just select the matching ones...

Ok.

The Pope. An extremely Pious holy man. Most likely Neutral Good right?

The Sheriff. Most likely Lawful Neutral.

The Unibomber. Chaotic evil?

Each of these people knows what they are doing, and if it is right or wrong. Now what happens if you take someone like Hitler? In his mind he was Good, extremely good. He was saving a nation, and giving it a purpose, creating jobs, bringing trade into the country. Now his actions where evil, but his motives where good? How do you classify Him? Neutral evil? Chaotic Evil? Neutral Chaotic?

Sometimes you cannot just look at one spat of a person and decide they are not what they act like. Maybe there is alot more than what has been said. There is not a single person outside of Imms who knew 100% how my blm Phaige came to be. I was given props for RP, even though people barely knew what my reasons where. Some people just outright decided I was some ruthless hateful killer, without knowing who the char was.

[Celerity]

Align and ethos are very very very relative in RL, but not in FL.

It is a very difficult question to say who is good or evil in RL. Maybe unanswerable.

However, in FL it is very simple. The underlying RP of the char doesn't need to explained (although better if it is!) because we can literally see if you are good, evil, or neutral on your score sheet or via the consider command.

In the case of your blm, we know you are inherently evil not because of the effects of your RP (evil actions/motives can do good), but because of your fundamental choice during character generation. We trust that at some inner, perhaps hidden level, those motives/actions are based in evil, even if they appear to be doing good.

This align/ethos represents what you are at your core, not what you believe yourself to be.

If Hitler had an FL score sheet, it would be very easy to say if he was good, neutral, or evil.

[English lad]

My view point on align.

If you are evil - Yes your RP has to be evil. If your Chaotic, Yes your RP has to be chaotic..

Random forum handle, "STFU don't tell me how my RP has to work! Your stifling me..!!"

My response, I'm not telling you how your RP has to work, you already made that decision when you picked your align and ethos.

If your RP is to be a Crusading goody who will do anything to destroy evil - be chaotic. If your RP is to be an evil genius who wants to form a brotherhood of evil and take over the world - be lawful evil...Choose your align/ethos because of your RP - don't just pick it for mechanics purposes, and then RP something completely different.

[Twinblades713]

I notice the point digressing.

EDIT: So I will try again to clear up, not that I'm right but the general difference in beliefs. What I, Emp Newb, and Akomak (Bali) by actions, are saying is that Lawful Evil will use the law to their advantage, even breaking it, or as Emp Newb eluded to, "Becoming" the law and working it that way. The main disagreement I'm finding is that many believe lawful evils shouldn't break the law because this is not lawful. I think Lawful evils don't HAVE to break the law, but can and do when it suits them. This is where people will start to disagree, and that's simply what the argument is about. If you believe lawful evils can be manipulative enough to break the law when they don't get caught, you are likely in agreement with Akomak. If you do not believe lawful evils would ever break a law, you likely thought Akomak was wrong, poor playership, ooc abuse, etc. Akomak wanted to be a lawful evil tribunal. So for align he picked an evil race, and I believe his ethos was lawful. He played it well.

[Raargant]

I notice the point digressing.

EDIT: So I will try again to clear up, not that I'm right but the general difference in beliefs. What I, Emp Newb, and Akomak (Bali) by actions, are saying is that Lawful Evil will use the law to their advantage, even breaking it, or as Emp Newb eluded to, "Becoming" the law and working it that way. The main disagreement I'm finding is that many believe lawful evils shouldn't break the law because this is not lawful. I think Lawful evils don't HAVE to break the law, but can and do when it suits them. This is where people will start to disagree, and that's simply what the argument is about. If you believe lawful evils can be manipulative enough to break the law when they don't get caught, you are likely in agreement with Akomak. If you do not believe lawful evils would ever break a law, you likely thought Akomak was wrong, poor playership, ooc abuse, etc. Akomak wanted to be a lawful evil tribunal. So for align he picked an evil race, and I believe his ethos was lawful. He played it well.

Let me be clear. LAWFUL EVIL CAN NOT BREAK THE LAW. Breaking the law when it 'suits them' is the definition of NEUTRAL EVIL. Any lawful evil caught breaking the law on the basis of 'not getting caught' WILL be outcasted to neutral evil once they are found out by IMM's. Consider this a 'Word of God' pronouncement.

In summary: Chaotic = Achieve goals primarily by violence. Neutral = Achieve goals by the most expedient means possible, be it by legal or illegal means. Lawful = Achieve goals within the framework of the law. If a chaotic evil wants something from someone, he will take it by force. If a neutral evil wants something from someone, he will do whatever it takes, be it through breaking the law or using the law. If a lawful evil wants something from someone, he will use the law in an injust way, but will NOT break it.

This discussion ends here.