Akomak

[Twinblades713]

You thought I had left,

You thought all was well!

But kiss my green ***,

I shall see you in hell! (Simpsons)

I wanted to clear up a couple of things. Again. Again. Again. I see what lawful evil is in the definition. But for god's sake, open your mind a bit. I'd already conceded that FL has it's own definition for things, and characters will respect that and follow it or suffer consequences. Point I want to make is what I was making Lawful Evil out to be, which you can't seem to accept a differing opinion that isn't just a whimsical disagreement for no reason other than to bother you. What I see this is made a whole stink about is what Mudder just said, mechanics. Trib is dang strong and has lots of capabilities. Earlier I said that itself was rather imbalancing, as it's been noted that caballed characters are much stronger than non caballed ones. You wouldn't be picking on these characters so much if they didn't have that at stake.

Take a lawful good who finds gold on the ground. Does he turn it in? It'd be lawful to, but if he didn't no one will ding him. If he takes the gold to help a sick mother, that's neutral good or even chaotic good. The Lawful good citizen would turn the gold in, knowing it's not rightfully his, until it's been processed and claimed by no owner. A thief could have cut someone's purse and caused that lawful citizen to take food out of the mouths of children. What you're proposing is that that makes this citizen no longer lawful, if even no longer good, because he's willing to take that risk that he's hurting other goods by keeping money of whom he does not know it belongs. What I'm proposing is that sure, the lawful good could take the gold and remain lawful because he still believes in the law and thinks it's for the best interest of everyone. I don't think lawful is (should be) a rule of attitude a person, but a mentality. There shouldn't be some invisible wall that stops him from picking up the gold. This is not a tangential argument, it's perfectly comparable.

Now back to my lawful evil. As I said, I think it's a mentality that if the lawful evil can USE the law to his benefit, it's much safer to do so and so he will. If there is benefit to be gained from -omfg here it is- breaking the law, then sure. He doesn't SEEK to break the law, that IS chaotic, yes. Likening this mentality to a neutral evil is far from logical. Neutral evils have no relevance to the law, yes? They will use it, or not use it depending on what is easiest. What I'm proposing is the Lawful Evils WILL ALWAYS use the law to their advantage, even if it's using it dishonestly.

What I picture when you describe lawful evils is a manipulative lawful neutral. Since neutral characters have no bias based on alignment, they WOULD be that epitome of upholding the law to every extent. They have no reason to think anything but the law is correct, whereas both lawful good and lawful evil have ulterior motives, with law being the tools with which they enforce them.

I also don't want to hear the "Ethos is not what you pretend to be, it's what you are" because what I am saying is that imo, a guy who does the things I've described as Lawful Evil IS lawful evil. Not pretending. If he was neutral evil pretending to be lawful evil, he'd be a very different person.

I mentioned it in posts before, at the beginning of this post, and I'm saying again here. I hear ya there that it's in the definition of FL, and since I clearly made known I disagree with that definition I've also accepted it and realize and recognize what Lawful Evil is in FL. I want to make clear those things, before I'm written off as some guy who wants to wreck the system is all. The opposition to be just got extremely combative for some reason, and I wanted to deflate those things with my experience and explanation of my views, whether you like them or not. I'm going to say agree to disagree, but I doubt I'll have such luck with a couple of you.

[f0xx]

Twinblades713, those restrictions need to be there for balance purposes.

With your example about the lawful good taking that gold, you are taking RP a bit to the extreme. In real life we pee and take a poo, we cut our nails and hair, we take showers and so on. Do we have to do all those ingame?

[KRins]

We don't have to do all those mundane things, but it is perfectly acceptable if we did have to ingame. Now I am against any and all measures to restrict RP, but Raar has a point. If you are going to be a Tribby, in my opinion, the law is more important than good/neutral/evil. Just as being good is more important to being a Knight, then how they neutrally or chaotically go about it. You have essentially painted a giant target on your chest for anyone who disagrees with the law and order. I don't think Watchers care if you are good, neutral, or evil flavored Tribby...you are the physical manifestation of the Law. Act like it one time...just because your cabal IMM isn't active doesn't mean you shouldn't RP as though said IMM is constantly watching you. With great power, comes great responsibility. Just cause I can do, doesn't mean I should...ya dig?

[Nightmare_from_hell]

Anyone else finding this thread humerous, cuz I surely am!

If you forget about align and focus simply on ethos for a second:

A lawful person follows the laws to a 'T'. They will sheath upon entering a city, always pay for what they get (in a town, aka not stealing it), and never ever disobey the maxim.

A neutral person doesn't care either way for the law. They will follow it when/if it suits them or would be better off if they did. Ex: only sheathing ur weapons if a tribbie tells you to, or attacking someone in the city when the benefits outweigh the chance of being caught

A chaotic person would be your everyday stereotypical criminal. They will do what they want, when they want, and no law will stop them from doing it.

Alignment has nothing to do with how lawful you are. I think that is where so many people are getting confused. Alignment and ethos are two completely different things which are only combined to further define your char's attitude as a whole.

Frankly I believe the same restrictions should be put on chaotics as they are for lawfuls as well. A chaotic person by definition does not even believe in the law so why would they obey a tribbie who's telling them to sheath? They only do because instead of sticking to their rp they chose at creation, they break it because oocly they do not want to be wanted because it's a hassle for the player. I've done this before and I'm sure every single one of you have done at one point or another.

More people truly rp a neutral(as far as lawfulness goes) because in reality, as a player it is MUCH easier to do that than actually maintain the restrictiveness either of the other choices require.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents on the ethos discussion. I look forward to more laughter with this post.

[Nightmare_from_hell]

P.s. Not saying that the restrictions aren't already there for chaotics. That wasn't my intention to make it come out that way. There are restrictions on it, but it's a lot easier for them to get away with following the law a few spare times than it is for a lawful to break the law a few times. Really, any chaotic person found actually obeying a law should/would be outcasted I belive if they were caught by an imm.

[Guest emp_newb]

Twinblades713, those restrictions need to be there for balance purposes.

With your example about the lawful good taking that gold, you are taking RP a bit to the extreme. In real life we pee and take a poo, we cut our nails and hair, we take showers and so on. Do we have to do all those ingame?

Some chars constantly groom themselves. And have you ever pooped and thrown it as a tracker

[Evangelion]

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).

Scene: I am Joe the Lawman. I spread the laws of the city and keep order and peace. However, I think the Tribunal is a twisted, corrupt empire. So while I serve them for the time being, my ultimate goal is to destroy them and start from the ground up with a new system of laws and a new order.[/scene]

Who the hell decided that Tribunal is the penultimate of the law, coming after only God himself? If I wanted to RP a Knight as lawful good, because he believes that the King's law supersedes the Maxim law, is that bad RP?

My final statement is that things need to be seen not from a big picture perspective, but from an individual perspective. The big picture is what produces the cookie cutters, where all the Knights have to do this, and all the Tribunals have to do this.

[Pali]

Who the hell decided that Tribunal is the penultimate of the law' date=' coming after only God himself?[/quote']

Um... gods.

[Crypticant]

Oh, like that makes it law.

Oh, wait...

[Raargant]

If I wanted to RP a Knight as lawful good' date=' because he believes that the King's law supersedes the Maxim law, is that bad RP?[/quote']

Great. Make a neutral good Knight who stringently follows the King's law.

The lawful ethos in FL, and the concept of law, is defined by Tribunal law (and Justice law before that). It's the definition, and there are mechanics-based reasons for that. You say you want to play a character who is 'lawful', and that's great, but by the FL definition of lawful, which is what we go by, the ethos you select should not be lawful, but neutral.

[Aulian]

I had a rough time with the 1000 torments around at the time' date=' so maybe my pk situation was very skewed. In fights with strong chars like Dumela, it wasn't really possible to know how well we could really do (which I remember as being down to the wire also).[/quote']

You're right Cel, I dont think we got a decent fight because I think we were both so bloody scared of dieing stupidly to some stupid Torment, I know I tried to avoid you quite a bit because of it.

(Any halfling that doesnt avoid a HUGE bashing warrior is an idiot anyway, torments made it doubly so..)

Hrmmm... Maybe next time.

[J.Twendrist]

See, I think the corrupt politician who bends and creates laws to his own whim would be a cool RP. Problem is, the Maxim doesn't allow that kind of Flexibility. The problem isn't Ethos of Lawful and Neutral, its gone there because the Maxim forbids players (at least councilors) from bending and twisting the law. Which on one hand is good, but on the other hand you simply can't have the RP of the corrupt politician, because he will get a maximum of 3 laws, all of which are difficult to attain, and as for the rest the Maxim clearly states what can and cannot be done as far as the basics go. I think if the Maxim was a little more lenient, or it was easier to get into council, or the players had more control over the law, you could have the super strong empire, you could have the corrupt and just clash within the cabal (good vs evil). With Martinieus's laws, you could have that kind of stuff, but not now. Tribunal needs to have power, especially the councilors because they are supposed to be in control of an Empire.

[Pali]

I say Council Leaders (and possibly Elders) should be allowed to make any law he wishes on the spot and it be instantly applicable without any approval. If you want to be a corrupt politician, you'd have your goal. If you want to be a benevolent ruler, you also have that as your goal.