friday night in the forsaken lands

[Aulian]

I think I know exactly woh Tassin is now.

And now Im not happy

[Guest emp_newb]

I think I do have finished this paint by numbers. Had I started with the color of "bodies" I would have known weeks ago

[Zhokril]

Let's all take a moment and relax. If this thread turns anything but constructive, it will be closed.

[Twinblades713]

I think evil is the only align where you don't need rp to kill someone and still maintain the rp you "signed up" for at creation. That said, I think it's very important that they do at least try. I play nearly strictly evils-There is a way past, "you exist." Even if it's elaborating on this theory. (You exist. You are alive, therefore you feel pain. Pain excites me. Fear excites me more, be that excitement in my life. You should be honored.)

I think the pk restrictions on neutrals are too tight though. I think as long as the reason is thought out and well rped, it shouldn't be restricted. I almost got outcasted for assassinating people at random, because my character thought it was fun. My character was as a child, unaware of good and evil. My align was chaotic neutral. My kill count was almost perfectly distributed among the aligns. The difference between killing among goods, neutrals and evils, is a very fine line.

I am aware this may be slightly tangential to the central dispute, but I think it may shed a tiny bit of light on it.

[Deptore]

I never understood many of the PK rules fixed on Goods, Neutrals, and Evils. If a good follows greed can he kill for equipment and gold? After all he is following his god. A Neutral Chaotic, why can't they kill as long as they're not taking sides in the war on good and evil. I always saw a Neutral as someone who can be good one moment and evil the next as long as they didn't lean too strongly to one side. Kill this guy, then take his gold and give it to someone else. That sort of thing. Evils are the... well they just piss me off. People take Evils and no offense guys, they pick what they want out of it and leave the rest. Yeah an Evil can run around and be a sociopath who kills someone because they exist. By why not kill their own cabal members, they exist do they not? Their souls will feed a blade just as well as another's. I remember seeing Nexus wannabe's fighting each other on command as an Elder watched and laughed. Giving a few gold and an applause to the victor.

This may just be my opinion, but I'd think Evils should strive for power. They should step on anyone in their path. Evils shouldn't have true alliance with each other because at any moment one might kill the other to get ahead. Yes whordes of ghosts and undeads in fantasy books and movies work together to kill those are the weaklings. But look at the leaders and generals, they're always behind each other's backs trying to finish off that one in front of him. Yes I AM saying that I think Nexus and Syndicate alike should be able to kill the one in front of them. If you're ready for cabal promotion if you kill the one above you then you should take his place. Set him back a rank and have him have to wait the time limit to get promoted.

That was a bit off topic I know, but it's been on my mind for a while.

[a-guitarist]

Basic Rule of Thumb for Internet Games: If you're not angry, having a bad time, and questioning ever playing the game again within 10 minutes of logging in, you're not having fun.

a-g

[Pali]

Oldskooler, you seem to have a rather selective memory... I hardly remember early 1.0 as a time where pre-pinns weren't constantly preyed upon by 50s. In fact, I recall being stomped numerous times by cabal leader qraces without a word of explanation even if I tried to talk to them. I think Hersnaie killed Pali half a dozen times before he finally said something to me (I also thought then and still think now that this made perfect sense and was perfectly played on his part - he started speaking to me once I earned that level of respect from him, until then I was just meat that might at some point become dangerous)... Kentry's first interaction with Asniar was to look at me, pound me flat, smirk when I came back ghosted, and leave without a word (again, still exactly the right behavior for the character)... all of this before 50. In fact, I can't recall a single char I had back in 1.0 that didn't die at least four or five times to various level 50s, most of them more than once to the same guy, almost none of them with any level of interaction beyond the fight... except one very memorable fight against Flamus that I won led to a short but very sweet conversation that is still one of the best moments I've ever had on FL.

Hell, that's one of my favorite things about the danger pinns provide pre-pinns... yeah, you get pounded on a lot, but that rare time you take one on and WIN? Effin' A, man, that is the greatest feeling in video gaming. No boss fight in any game I've played comes close to that sense of accomplishment.

But back to the talk about the old days... when I really sit and try to think about it without the glow of "the good old days"... for the most part, I think the general quality (and quantity per capita) of RP these days is leaps and bounds ahead of what it was back then.

[MadCowDisease]

I never understood many of the PK rules fixed on Goods, Neutrals, and Evils. If a good follows greed can he kill for equipment and gold? After all he is following his god. A Neutral Chaotic, why can't they kill as long as they're not taking sides in the war on good and evil. I always saw a Neutral as someone who can be good one moment and evil the next as long as they didn't lean too strongly to one side. Kill this guy, then take his gold and give it to someone else. That sort of thing. Evils are the... well they just piss me off. People take Evils and no offense guys, they pick what they want out of it and leave the rest. Yeah an Evil can run around and be a sociopath who kills someone because they exist. By why not kill their own cabal members, they exist do they not? Their souls will feed a blade just as well as another's. I remember seeing Nexus wannabe's fighting each other on command as an Elder watched and laughed. Giving a few gold and an applause to the victor.

This may just be my opinion, but I'd think Evils should strive for power. They should step on anyone in their path. Evils shouldn't have true alliance with each other because at any moment one might kill the other to get ahead. Yes whordes of ghosts and undeads in fantasy books and movies work together to kill those are the weaklings. But look at the leaders and generals, they're always behind each other's backs trying to finish off that one in front of him. Yes I AM saying that I think Nexus and Syndicate alike should be able to kill the one in front of them. If you're ready for cabal promotion if you kill the one above you then you should take his place. Set him back a rank and have him have to wait the time limit to get promoted.

That was a bit off topic I know, but it's been on my mind for a while.

awesome post. for a lot of evils, this is perfect. but then there are the lawful evils. they tend to stick to their allegiances and their word a little more (not to say they all do/should have to).

[mya]

"If a good follows greed can he kill for equipment and gold?"

If you kill someone for equipment or gold you are committing an evil act.

It's not, i can kill for gold and eq, because i follow greed.

But, I am good because i do not kill for eq and gold. Even tho i follow greed.

If i did, i would be evil, or perhaps neutral.

[TheNewGuy]

"If a good follows greed can he kill for equipment and gold?"

If you kill someone for equipment or gold you are committing an evil act.

It's not, i can kill for gold and eq, because i follow greed.

But, I am good because i do not kill for eq and gold. Even tho i follow greed.

If i did, i would be evil, or perhaps neutral.

Wow, for once you said something that makes sense. I was about to write something like that.

Good follower of greed is quite hard to rp, since greed tends to make you do evil things. Killing for money and equimpent is evil every day of the week.

[khaede]

I could see an argument that Robin hood would be a character like this. A greedy, Rougish good who did it all for the money (the good part, of course, being what he did witht he $$). You can pretty much have any combination of aligns/ethos one way or another.

[f0xx]

I could see an argument that Robin hood would be a character like this. A greedy' date=' Rougish good who did it all for the money (the good part, of course, being what he did witht he $$). You can pretty much have any combination of aligns/ethos one way or another.[/quote']

Robin Hood greedy? I think you are mistaken.

[TheNewGuy]

If the money is meant for someone else, then I wouldn't call you greedy, really...

[Deptore]

I think I should've worded that different. My point was this, shouldn't your religion also be considered as a factor in your rp just as much as Neutral or Chaotic? If a good thief blackjacks and robs a neutral blind is it wrong?

Remember I consider mobs the be people too, so if it is wrong for a good/chaotic greed character to kill others for eq/gold why are they allowed to kill mobs for it? I seem to remember a healer greed character way back that charged gold for his heals, is it wrong for him to stand there with his palm out while another good is curled into a ball with pussing sores and crapping himself? After all, the town healers do it.

[MadCowDisease]

If the money is meant for someone else' date=' then I wouldn't call you greedy, really...[/quote']

umm he kept money for himself too..

[Pali]

A good Greed follower is basically a capitalist: he thinks that if everyone worked primarily for their own self-interest (though without malicious actions taken towards others), that everyone's needs would be best served and everyone would be better off. He could steal from bad people, or from not-so-bad people out of necessity for a greater goal, but he wouldn't have to steal.

[MadCowDisease]

i do agree for the most part. but a robin hoodesque character as a CG wouldnt be too hard. steal from evils (evil tribunals especially) and pass out money to random other players, and keep some for itself.

[Twinblades713]

I like Pali's example. I don't think a good greed following person would likely seek to steal often, unless of course thievery was his profession. A person that just wants to make an honest buck, but do it well and outsell his competitors would seem to fit this mold.

[Pali]

Exactly. An honest businessman (doesn't cheat his customers/competitors, just works hard and enjoys his success) would be a perfect example of a good Greed follower.

[MadCowDisease]

true. but i was merely saying there is more than one way to be a follower of greed and be a good.

[Pali]

Oh, I agree. I was just providing an example that a lot of people seemed to be missing, as everyone was stuck around the idea that Greed followers have to be thieves, or that Greed followers have to maliciously harm others to be greedy.

[Deptore]

I'm not saying they have to, I'm saying should it be accepted? And not just for a CG Greed. Fine I'll give another example, a Neutral Chaotic Stone Ranger who follows combat is going about beating the pulp out of Goods and Evils. Now he's fighting purely for the love of battle and he's not taking sides, he's attacking both sides equally. From some things I've read here for a Neutral to actively PK goes against the Neutrality of the character. Should a person's religion be taken into account in the RP rules towards an alignment?

I just don't think that there should be such strict rules in how to play a G/N/E. An Evil who follows one religion isn't going to RP like another. Wouldn't it be interresting for this, if instead having a permanent G/N/E on your score it varied due to actions. If you play a Drow who suddenly decides to help a lowbie suddenly from no where you gain +10 good points. If you get so many because you are a Drow, you get outcasted. Fall back into the Evil align again and the outcast will gain a time limit before it goes away. I know this can't be done but it would be interresting and instead of the alignment you choose at the start restricting the rp of your character under threat of outcastment or other forms of punishment your alignment would reflect the choices your character had made in his life.

[Twinblades713]

Exactly Deptore. Religion should be heeded more. If your character isn't fighting to kill people, and see them in pain... he isn't evil. He might be seen as evil by goods, but they see anyone who kills for any reason other than exterminating evil, as evil. A CN stone ranger that kills for the love of battle and honors that battle and all revolving around it is neutral. He has no inclination one way or another so he has no method to his madness and is chaotic. Whereas an evil person could do all these exact same things and be evil, it'd be because he likes to battle, but also wants to hurt, wants to see pain, etc.

[Pali]

Fine I'll give another example' date=' a Neutral Chaotic Stone Ranger who follows combat is going about beating the pulp out of Goods and Evils. Now he's fighting purely for the love of battle and he's not taking sides, he's attacking both sides equally. From some things I've read here for a Neutral to actively PK goes against the Neutrality of the character. Should a person's religion be taken into account in the RP rules towards an alignment?[/quote']

It would be taken into account, along with the totality of his actions. For instance, we do have the challenge system, so not all fighting and combat has to be to the death... a neutral who always kills at the end of a fight would need a good reason for that beyond "I enjoy the fight", considering you can enjoy the fight without taking the person's life.

[oldskooler]

So if I were to go and attack the evil pinns and kill them with my neutral char it would be wrong?

I normally do play goods, and ive had many tribunals because I am all about justice in life too it seems. Maybe cuz im a libra I don't know.

This time I chose a neutral and I have tried to be friends with evil and good, but it seems that when you become neutral that just seems to mean the goods dont attack you, so you can be friends with them and some neutrals, but every evil seems to just want to run up and attack me when I have never spoken to them with no rp first, but I only attack to kill people who have attacked me.

LIKE I SAID, I FOUGHT MEPHISOLEER WHEN HE FOUGHT ME, I FOUGHT ZAULAEL WITH RANKS ON ME WITH NO HESITATION, DIED TWICE.

It's just frustrating when once every evil seems to get to 50 they no longer need a group so they just attack everyone because of, like I said, the thought; "I'm MEAN I hate everyone, because someone stepped on my kitten" with no provokation.

Most times I will let them come be around me, just like I still went to my guild after I had saw him. I want to see if they are automatically foe or not. I will need people to go to gear with.

Also, I will be 50 and you can bet I will be fighting these people who do this to me now, but I won't be going and killing level 43's when i need none of their crap equipment, like when people attack naked people. Or when they have never done anything to me ever, if they attack me or at least interact with me and say things to challenge me than that is different.

TASSINVEGETA: I NEVER SPOKE OOC. I SAID THAT I HAVE NEVER MET YOU BEFORE, SO WHY IS IT YOU HUNT ME. IM ASKING YOUR CHARACTER NOT YOU. TAKE LONGER THAN TWO SECONDS TO THINK UP SOMETHING PLEASE AT LEAST FOR A NEUTRAL, A GOOD IT'S JUST ABOUT UNSPOKEN. PERHAPS ONE DAY INSTEAD OF TRYING TO KILL LOWBIES TO RAISE YOUR MALFORM WE COULD ACTUALLY GO GET GEAR TOGETHER. A MINOTAUR BERSERKER COULD BE OF SOME SERVICE I IMAGINE WHEN IM AT 50. WHICH I WILL BE.