Akomak

[Raargant]

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.

Exactly. As Sirant once put it, "In the real world, it's hard to know if a person is good or evil, but in Aabahran, it isn't, because the Gods stamp your *** with a big f***ing rubber stamp at 7700."

[Guest emp_newb]

Raargant, you need to whip out the red marker of doom

[Mudder]

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.

...

This discussion ends here.

I've missed you. Come back?

[Twinblades713]

This discussion ends here.

lol. I guess that settles it.

[Evangelion]

This discussion ends here.

That's a terrible, terrible attitude.

I don't know what your current status is, but as a former/current IMM, your goal should be to redirect the conversation so that it takes a turn from being argumentative, and allow it to be a constructive, and healthy debate on the way that different people feel about their contributions to this game. Everyone here has something to contribute, and no matter how much you disagree with it, if you censor that contribution then you are cutting out a piece of this community and this game.

I don't care how much money you're shelling out to host this MUD. All gratitude aside, the minute I feel like this place is actually being run with that attitude is the day that I leave for good.

Red marker me if you want, but I hope you at least consider these words before you do.

[Malchaeius]

I have always been a proponent of the rogue enforcer of the law, as long as they accept that they will be caught, punished, and rightfully branded as neutral/chaotic depending upon the magnitude of the infraction.

On that note, this thread really went six pages?

[Raargant]

That's a terrible, terrible attitude.

I don't know what your current status is, but as a former/current IMM, your goal should be to redirect the conversation so that it takes a turn from being argumentative, and allow it to be a constructive, and healthy debate on the way that different people feel about their contributions to this game. Everyone here has something to contribute, and no matter how much you disagree with it, if you censor that contribution then you are cutting out a piece of this community and this game.

I don't care how much money you're shelling out to host this MUD. All gratitude aside, the minute I feel like this place is actually being run with that attitude is the day that I leave for good.

Red marker me if you want, but I hope you at least consider these words before you do.

There is nothing to debate. Lawful evil has a set definition of parameters. From what I am reading here, you broke them. The only reason you were not punished was because your cabal IMM went AWOL, and from what I am told, an IMM who DID intend to speak to you regarding the situation (Anume) was not able to catch your character IG. I do NOT want to see any more people following in those footsteps and subsequently be punished out of some misguided idea that what you did was 'right' or that there is something 'arguable' here.

So let me summarize for you what happened:

1) Based upon statements you have made, you apparently habitually breached ethos,

2) You were not caught, cabal-booted, and outcasted by your cabal IMM because said IMM went AWOL on us,

3) You take the lack of punishment as evidence that what you did was acceptable,

4) This seems to have lead some people to think that your actions are correct and condoned by the staff, and created a 'debate' where there is nothing to debate,

5) I shut down the 'debate' because I don't want people to be misled into thinking there is.

To summarize again: Lawful evil is not about doing 'whatever you want' so long as you do not get caught. The only thing this 'debate' can possibly result in is people being misled into thinking what you claim to have done is acceptable, doing the same, then be punished for it while they go 'wtf'. I have no intentions of allowing that to happen.

[Twinblades713]

I think that's ridiculously restrictive. Seems that should be the whole point. It's kind of pointless when you have evil tribs and good tribs agreeing on things. There should always be a struggle there, and with lawful evil tribs just ... chillin. It's hardly even being evil. It's just being a manipulative neutral (align). Lawful good tribs should be wanting to actively seek the lawful evil tribs breaking laws, and being EVIL. I guess, basically I'm with Malch. The Lawful Evil should be trying to get away with what he can, and hell if he's caught you bet he's outta there, as you watch the lawful good and lawful neutral in the cabal knock that crap off. But that's what being cunning is all about.

[English lad]

He can try and get away with what he can - in line with his Ethos.

The thing to remember is - being lawful evil doesn't mean the character is evil - and pretends to be lawful - it is that, whilst being evil he still remains lawful.

If he starts breaking laws it makes him non-lawful. Now that doesn't mean its not good RP, it just means you should be outcasted and cabal booted. Still a perfectly good RP, once you are outcasted, lose skills, abilities etc...

Personal pet peeve of mine is when people don't like the consequences of their own actions. Make a lawful character if you want, and break laws with it - thats fine, its your choice - just recognise that when the IMMs slap you down with a hardcore outcast - that its not the IMMS doing it to you, its you doing it to yourself by choosing the RP line you did.

[Raargant]

I think that's ridiculously restrictive. Seems that should be the whole point. It's kind of pointless when you have evil tribs and good tribs agreeing on things. There should always be a struggle there' date=' and with lawful evil tribs just ... chillin. It's hardly even being evil. It's just being a manipulative neutral (align). Lawful good tribs should be wanting to actively seek the lawful evil tribs breaking laws, and being EVIL. I guess, basically I'm with Malch. The Lawful Evil should be trying to get away with what he can, and hell if he's caught you bet he's outta there, as you watch the lawful good and lawful neutral in the cabal knock that crap off. But that's what being cunning is all about.[/quote']

What you described is NEUTRAL evil. NOT lawful evil.

Here's how it is. 'Lawful', as an ethos is not what you are pretending to be. Lawful is what you actually ARE. A person being 'cunning' and 'pretending' to be lawful, great. Go for it. But a person whose ethos is lawful is actually lawful. In the FL context, that means, 'does not actively breach the laws, regardless of whether or not he will be caught'. It's right there in the help file. It's the definition.

The reason why you can't have 'evil Tribunals who are only pretending to be lawful' is the same reason why you can't have 'evil Knights who are only pretending to be good'. In FL, there are actual gods who exist, and who can, at a glance, tell if you are lawful or not. If you are only 'pretending' to be lawful, the gods would know, and you would never, ever, have the chance to enter Tribunal. But, obviously, the staff is not composed of actual gods, and we do not know everything. We, the staff, have to trust that when you select 'lawful' as your ethos, that your ethos is actually lawful. When you set your ethos as lawful, but act in non-lawful ways when IMM's aren't around, what you are fundamentally doing is deceiving the staff on an OOC level, not just the pbase. And that is why, as Malch said and I think you misinterpreted, when caught, it is the staff which will hand down OOC punishments, up to and including outcasting, slays, ethos changes, and other punishments.

Now, I would be happy to discuss with you ideas for how lawful evil should be RP'd, possible conflict between lawful good and lawful evil that don't involve OOC breaches of ethos, and the like, but first I want to make sure you clearly understand why 'pretending to be lawful' is NEUTRAL evil, and NOT lawful evil.

[Pali]

I guess' date=' basically I'm with Malch. The Lawful Evil should be trying to get away with what he can, and hell if he's caught you bet he's outta there, as you watch the lawful good and lawful neutral in the cabal knock that crap off. But that's what being cunning is all about.[/quote']

You misunderstood Malch's post, or at least missed the most important part of it relative to your post: "rightfully branded as neutral/chaotic depending upon the magnitude of the infraction." What Malch is saying is that an evil who breaks the law is not lawful. He is neutral or chaotic. Whether his score sheet currently says lawful or not is irrelevant... his actions are fitting those of a neutral/chaotic char and when they are noticed his score sheet will be changed accordingly. A lawful character who is being properly roleplayed to reflect the ethos on his score sheet simply will not break laws. Period. Now, if you're having an RP development where you want that ethos changed, fine, start breaking laws and you'll get it changed.

You have to remember that in FL alignment and ethos are different things than they are in real life. They are labels given to every being by the gods as a judgement of their character. A good can be a mass murderer provided he's killing those that the gods of Light view as evil (we call these Avatars). An evil can be as peaceful and nonviolent as a healer, provided that in the end his actions always remain pleasing to the dark gods. An evil lawful may use the law as a tool to place himself above and to control others, but breaking ANY law is an unlawful act and as lawful is a judgement of your character by the gods they will change that judgement to reflect your new character.

Simply put: align/ethos is not defined by your character, it is defined by the gods. How THEY see your character is what gives your character such labels. In real life we may see an insane person who is committing horrible acts as a good man twisted by disease and without fault of his own, but in FL that man is evil regardless of his internal motivations because that is what the gods call him. If you ask me, Hitler's score sheet when viewed this way is rather easy to predict: lawful evil. The man committed horrible acts that caused the deaths and torture of millions, which the gods would label evil regardless of his own (possible) belief that he was doing the right thing. He also did not seek upheaval but rather reformation of government (he was voted into office), and then he changed the laws to be what he wanted them to be - behavior I think the gods would judge as lawful (I'm discounting here his short time in prison).

[Twinblades713]

You guys are bringing all sorts of other things to me that have no relevance quite to what I'm saying. I simply disagree with that meaning of lawful evil, because it doesn't make sense. If you're on top, and making the laws, of course you'll find them fit to follow. But if you're not on top, either you're following the laws because you're a wimpy evil, and don't want to be punished, (which is perfectly legit). But being corrupt comes with breaking laws if you can't change them. Otherwise you're just a grumbler. Not every lawful evil is a council... that can rule the world like marti.

I've already conceded that FL has it's own version of this and that I agreed with Mudder who started the main argument. Everyone seemed perfectly fine to flair up though and ignore key points of what I said. I just don't believe it is true lawful evil, and I think it's only fair you accept that. Nobody is going to agree, we've boiled it down pretty far, you've done nicely there. It was a discussion that quickly turned into an argument with people jockeying to win and be right. yay. Win if you want. I'm not mounting a defense. It was originally, at least for my part a collaboration. I looked up many other versions of lawful evil, some saying as you say, many, many others saying as I do. Different.

Pali, I did not miss what Malch said, but thanks. I'm pretty sure I understand his statement, and still agree with it. Under the current circumstances of FL, I think it would be fun to play how I see a Lawful Evil, though it doesn't fit the mold of one in FL, so it'd be how I find pleasure in the game. Trying not to get booted, but if I do, w00t. It was a waste of my time. Uh oh, you guys said not to. It's a game. Worst case scenario, char gets banned, we all live on. No need in getting huffy over a disagreement. The terms were laid out, bam. There it is. Proceed with repeated ramblings if necessary. I'm done here. I think you can't even tell what the once-horse was it's so beaten into the ground.

[Raargant]

Under the current circumstances of FL, I think it would be fun to play how I see a Lawful Evil, though it doesn't fit the mold of one in FL, so it'd be how I find pleasure in the game. Trying not to get booted, but if I do, w00t. It was a waste of my time. Uh oh, you guys said not to. It's a game. Worst case scenario, char gets banned, we all live on.

This is the only part I am going to address right now, as Pali explained the rest (see below) sufficiently well. It's not just your time you are wasting. It would be the staff's. Malch's, Anume's, your cabal IMM's, whoever. Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but what I am reading here is, "I know you guys say that this isn't what I should do [create a non-lawful character that only 'pretends' to be lawful despite having lawful set as his ethos], but I'm going to do it anyways and see how long I can get away with it."

Don't you think the staff has better things to do than be worried about whether or not random players are RP'ing properly in accordance with their ethos as is defined in help files for this game?

[Pali]

If you're on top' date=' and making the laws, of course you'll find them fit to follow. But if you're not on top, either you're following the laws because you're a wimpy evil, and don't want to be punished, (which is perfectly legit). But being corrupt comes with breaking laws if you can't change them.[/quote']

If you're not on top and you're lawful evil, you're working the system to get yourself on top (or as close to it as you can) without regard to who gets stepped on as you ascend - you're not violating the system, you're molding it to what you want it to be. If you're violating the system when it benefits you, you're neutral/chaotic evil. It is this simple. You have to remember that in FL being evil does not require one to be corrupt or to violate rules (social or divine) whenever it you think it suits you. A lawful evil can be someone who recognizes that it is to his benefit for an orderly and secure society to exist and who doesn't care what means are required for the enforcement of such - hell, he doesn't even need to care whether he's in charge or not, only that how things turn out are to his benefit regardless of the impacts on others (edit: and he accepts the limitations those laws place on him because he judges that he is gaining more than he is losing - freedom for security he judges an acceptable trade). Align and ethos are different choices for this reason - to make it so that things are not black and white, to allow a far wider range of ideals and motivations as character backing. If align and ethos were the same thing... frankly, that'd just suck.

Now, if you want to make an argument that neutral evils should be allowed in Trib, and therefore the kind of corrupt behavior you're talking about could happen... that's a different story.

P.S. Kind of a tangent here, but... is there any reason why lawful goods/evils can't pick Order as a religion? I really think they should be able to.

[Raargant]

If you're not on top and you're lawful evil, you're working the system to get yourself on top (or as close to it as you can) without regard to who gets stepped on as you ascend - you're not violating the system, you're molding it to what you want it to be. If you're violating the system when it benefits you, you're neutral/chaotic evil. It is this simple. You have to remember that in FL being evil does not require one to be corrupt or to violate rules (social or divine) whenever it you think it suits you. A lawful evil can be someone who recognizes that it is to his benefit for an orderly and secure society to exist and who doesn't care what means are required for the enforcement of such - hell, he doesn't even need to care whether he's in charge or not, only that how things turn out are to his benefit regardless of the impacts on others. Align and ethos are different choices for this reason - to make it so that things are not black and white, to allow a far wider range of ideals and motivations as character backing. If align and ethos were the same thing... frankly, that'd just suck.

Now, if you want to make an argument that neutral evils should be allowed in Trib, and therefore the kind of corrupt behavior you're talking about could happen... that's a different story.

Yes, let me expand on this briefly. Alignment determines what the nature of what a character wants. A person of evil alignment has desires which are fundamentally self-centered, selfish, and often harmful/malicious in some way. Ethos determines how they go about achieving what they want. Alignment determines the 'why'. Ethos determines the 'how'.

Let's take the example of genocide. If I want to exterminate all elves in the world (undoubtedly an evil plot), there are, according to ethos, three 'types' of ways (and I am just using this as a brief explanation).

Chaotic evil: I murder elves every chance I get, and/or encourage others to murder elves.

Lawful evil: I pass laws which order that all elves be rounded up and thrown into death camps.

Neutral evil: I do whatever I think is the most expedient way to the most elves killed. My approach can be a blend of the above two, with a great deal of flexibility.

Three identical goals, three totally different approaches.

[Guest emp_newb]

all this makes me want to make a lawful evil.

[Evangelion]

I am a huge advocate for ever-increasing IMM interaction, so don't take this the wrong way.

But I wish the IMMs would butt out sometimes. And let me give you an example of why:

My character, Vesarius, was a drow cleric lawful evil. I played him with the RP of a lawful evil on the outside, with a marshmellow center of corruption. My intention was to get him into Tribunal, and then work as a double agent for Syndicate - feeding them information, working to achieve what Vesarius' actual goal was: to destroy Tribunal from the inside.

Everything was going swimmingly, but then an IMM stepped in. I was seen interacting with an outlaw on a less than hostile basis, and was informed that this behavior was unacceptable. I was removed from my clan, and I think my ethos may have been changed, but I can't remember.

The point is, my RP was negated in a situation that no other player would have ever seen, and no VISIBLE immortal saw, but by an IMM who was snooping me and decided from an OOC perspective that my RP was unacceptable.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been here 8 years, and the cookie cutters are getting really freaking boring. So if I can't spice up my RP and my playstyle, then I don't know what I've got left to do.

[Mudder]

Bali, this is less about a "cookie cutter RP" and more about balance and abuse of cabal abilities.

However, there are certain constants within RP. Goodies don't kill other goodies. Ever. Lawful ethos characters follow the law. Tribs uphold the law. Knights kill evil characters. Watchers kill Tribs. Etc.

These are incredibly basic. If you cannot happily create RP within these grounds then it is not because the game is overstepping bounds, it is because you are not creative. Many of us have been here for 8+ years and are RPing extraordinary different characters with no problem and we're doing it all within the existing system of rules.

[Evangelion]

No, it's PRECISELY about cookie cutter RP.

I don't play here because I want it to be a job. I don't play here because I want to do the same thing over and over again. I play here because there is flexibility in what can and can't be done. And I don't even know how you can say that those basics hold true, when one of your character's had the GOAL of changing one of those basics, and largely succeeded.

I don't know if you've ever played a Tribunal, but it is probably the least fun, least rewarding cabal I've ever played in. I've had three of them, and I can't figure out why I keep going back, because playing a Tribunal the way you are suggesting and the IMMstaff is enforcing it "HAS" to be played, logging in becomes not an enjoyable activity, but a TASK.

I would say "I'm sorry," but I'm not. I felt that the way I played that character was creative and different, and well within the realm of possibility and legitimacy. I understand that you, and apparently the vast majority of the staff disagree, but I will not apologize for my efforts to enjoy my creation, and hopefully help people see something other than the status quo.

I don't know why you're on this crusade against this character and his RP (although I have what I consider to be a damn good guess), but I'm not going to change my opinion on this, and I don't care how many outcasts/slays/denies/bans it costs me.

[Deykari]

The whole point is, you CAN have interesting, spiced-up roleplay. The fact is, however (and I'm just echoing what has already been said multiple times), that your align/ethos is NOT how you are perceived, or how you want to be perceived. Your align and ethos is what you ARE. If you select your ethos as 'lawful' and act unlawfully, then expect an ethos change.

A character who poses as lawful, with an ulterior motive to destroy the lawful empire from the inside, is NOT lawful.

If you were roleplaying that sort of character and then upon being found out, were removed from the clan and had an ethos change... how is your roleplay being criticised? It was in-game, in-character action taken against you by the Immortals to accurately reflect your character (ethos change) and in-game, in-character action taken against you by the Tribunal Imm or somebody acting on their behalf (removal from militia clan). Isn't that what you would EXPECT to happen? You have to remember that the Immortals, in-game, are to be seen as the all-seeing, all-knowing super-powers of Aabahran, and you were seen interacting with an outlaw in a manner which is not becoming of a lawful person, and so action was taken against you - in-game action, not an OOC punishment.

What it boils down to, is that from an IG perspective, you were trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Immortal (all-seeing) Leader of Tribunal masquerading as a lawful evil. OOC-ly, it's not feasible for the player of an Immortal to know everything that happens so if another Immortal spotted you doing something a lawful person shouldn't be doing, naturally they will let the Trib Imm know so they can deal with it accordingly. I mean no disrespect (you know me better than that) but honestly, I can't see how that's hard to understand, save for my inability to explain things clearly - but others have said pretty much the same thing.

If I ever have a character idea or idea for an existing character that is a little different and I'm not sure if it will work within the FL environment, I try and pitch it to the Imms first and get their input. I'm not speaking on behalf of the Immortals here, but perhaps if you had discussed it with them first they may (or may not) have helped facilitate the character idea you had in mind.

Ultimately, it could be considered a flaw in the system, to not allow more 'complex' roleplay such as the interesting ideas you have, but then changing the system as a whole to allow people to roleplay whatever they like (evil Knights, and all the rest) would be a bad move, IMO.

Dey

[Mindflayer]

I'm a little late on this thread, but here's what I wanted to add:

I likened Balinor's fire giant to a Sophist like Thrasymachus from Plato's "Republic"; Justice is the advantage of the stronger. Those whom are unjust while appearing to be just, receive the greatest rewards (money/power) in society.

[inscribed]

The fact is' date=' however (and I'm just echoing what has already been said multiple times), that your align/ethos is NOT how you are perceived, or how you want to be perceived. Your align and ethos is what you ARE. [/quote']

this.

to paraphrase an example used a long time ago, you might be be a dwarf who fights undead, saves damsels in distress, and funds orphanages on the side, but if you are convinced that elves are the root of all evil and must be killed at all costs, your dwarf is not a goodie, even though he sees himself as one.

[Zhokril]

My character, Vesarius, was a drow cleric lawful evil. I played him with the RP of a lawful evil on the outside, with a marshmellow center of corruption. My intention was to get him into Tribunal, and then work as a double agent for Syndicate - feeding them information, working to achieve what Vesarius' actual goal was: to destroy Tribunal from the inside.

Everything was going swimmingly, but then an IMM stepped in. I was seen interacting with an outlaw on a less than hostile basis, and was informed that this behavior was unacceptable. I was removed from my clan, and I think my ethos may have been changed, but I can't remember.

This is actually what should have happened to him, and what would have happened to Akomak had it become more apparent.

If your goal is to destroy Tribunal, you are not lawful. I imagine that repeating it again won't help much, but your ethos are what you actually are. If you ACTUALLY wanted to destroy Tribunal, you are NOT lawful. This would be the same as picking good align at creation and joining Nexus (the only difference being code can't read your mind and stop you in this case).

[Mudder]

I can only assume you refer to Kongol. Kongol succeeded due to many factors and it took a LOT of freaking work on my part. Not something I just RPed from day one. Some of those factors had nothing to do with me. Tribunals would typically do awful, due to having so many enemies, the head IMM Malchaeius' discontent with the current Syndi setup, the change was also not something that offsets BALANCE.

The main idea behind Tribunal is that they are strong. They can kill even people outside PK range. Why? Because they are easily avoidable. You can just follow the law. However when someone just decides to abuse the "want" ability at their whim, it unbalances the current system.

I did play a Tribunal. Which is why I began this discussion, because I know very well the abuse that can happen. Tribunal is one of my favorite cabals (aside from Syndicate).

You have to know, I am not speaking negative of your RP. It's fine, RP however you want. Be that Knight that kills Goodies. Be the Nexus that saves Elves from Demons. Yet when IN GAME consequences come around and affect your character, roll with them. That can be some of the most fun RP.

The problem however, is not that you were being "Outside the Box." The problem is that you were abusing the system and thus unbalancing an aspect of the game. Perhaps the Tribunal cabal just places too much trust within the player. Though I, for one, feel that trust is largely not misplaced but what you seem to not realize is that it is not an IN GAME issue as much as it is an OOC issue.

EDIT: I can't help but think I am just repeating myself so I am going to stop posting on this thread. I can't help but think this hijacked thread has lost all usefulness. Sorry for changing the topic from your deletion.

[f0xx]

The real problem here is that if the immortals do not shoot down such a RP (which is not a RP of a lawful character) there will be other people creating such characters and having similar RP with the only goal to abuse.

Do not take this as a personal slap, we all know that your intentions were not to abuse the system, but your character acted like a neutral evil, not like a lawful evil and the fact that you picked lawful evil just so you can join Tribunal can be done by someone else with the same "excuse"(read RP) whos intentions are not just to RP but to make a power combo.

Other than that I've had no interactions with Akomak and have nothing more to add.