cabals and goods

1. I still don't see the point of Tribs in the new system. They are for law and order. Their law, their order. Their goal is world domination with Tribs in charge. Warmaster's goal is world domination with the Warlord of War and Warring Stuff in charge. Knights want world domination with their king in charge. etc etc.

Suggestion: Give Tribs a different angle/rp/goal. Then give every cabal the ability to want people in their areas. And then lastly make them police it. Every cabal wants to be EMPIRE.

1. I still think goods fighting goods is totally stupid, but neccessary. I think that Tribs having an advantage there is bad form.

Suggestion: Since this is war, start POW camps. All cabals "kills" could be switched to captures/arrests. they lose their gear, they're locked up for awhile, but they ain't dead.

Look at apprehension as a cabal skill. If you're mad that you can't play a chaotic good without getting your *** kicked, play something else. Right now, the Tribunals are powerful. That's all there is to it.

Not worried about getting my *** kicked.

Worried about getting outcast for not getting my *** kicked and playing the game effectively.

I posted on this in the other thread and won't repeat myself, but Tribunal and Knight are the only real "Empire" cabals, with Nexus sort of partially in the mix.

The rest would be happy enough just being left to themselves, but are forced by economic pressure to own a certain amount of land.

I posted on this in the other thread and won't repeat myself, but Tribunal and Knight are the only real "Empire" cabals, with Nexus sort of partially in the mix.

The rest would be happy enough just being left to themselves, but are forced by economic pressure to own a certain amount of land.

Umm... in that case, wouldn't a Knight feel completely justified in killing a Tribunal who's trying to catch (so he can be executed, and both sides know it perfectly well) him for (likely) attacking an evil in town?

Umm... in that case' date=' wouldn't a Knight feel completely justified in killing a Tribunal who's trying to catch (so he can be executed, and both sides know it perfectly well) him for (likely) attacking an evil in town?[/quote']

Certainly. It's a "with us or against us" mentality. If the Tribunal is a good, it complicates matters somewhat.

It seems that the Tribunal way of doing things - absolute power - is directly opposed to the good/chaotic alignment, and thus the Knights as a whole.

Back in 1.0 when evils were still around and the Chaos just finished getting pounded back into nothing, a wee faerie was inducted into knight and Sirant asked me what we now opposed, at first I thought the 'clave being evil icky stuff and all, but then with a slight hint I gave the correct answer that sirant, good deity, was looking for Justice is now the enemy of the Knights as the one true law is the law of the crown...So as it stands, im pretty sure in the empire sense that Behrens spoke of a Knight kicking a Tribunals arse is expected

Back in 1.0 when evils were still around and the Chaos just finished getting pounded back into nothing' date=' a wee faerie was inducted into knight and Sirant asked me what we now opposed, at first I thought the 'clave being evil icky stuff and all, but then with a slight hint I gave the correct answer that sirant, good deity, was looking for Justice is now the enemy of the Knights as the one true law is the law of the crown...So as it stands, im pretty sure in the empire sense that Behrens spoke of a Knight kicking a Tribunals arse is expected[/quote']

I agree. A Knight should be allowed to beat the life out of a Tribunal.

But they can't.

They can.

Just expect to get outcasted and damnation.

There's no penalty for tribunal goods to take the life of another good (indirectly since the other good is executed, but it's hard to make the discrepancy in this case). There's a penatly for another good to take the life of a tribunal good.

That about summarizes the problem?

Tribunal goods are required to pursue all criminals.

Non-Tribunal goods are NOT required to kill Tribunal goods. If you'd rather kill them than run away, go ahead. Expect there to be consequences.

They can.

Just expect to get outcasted and damnation.

That's what I mean. A good Trib captures a good KNOWING that it'll lead to the good's death. Yeah, the good decided to break the law, so he should reap his just rewards, right? Well, I'm a chaotic good. You're stopping me from destroying evil. That marks you as evil to me. I should be able to make you reap your just rewards, but, hey, I can't. I get punished by the gods because my killing of a good isn't justified by "he broke the law first", it's justified by something far more good (alignment speaking) which is "he's keeping evil alive". But your causing my death isn't seen as not good by the gods. My causing your death is. To be frank, there's NO logic in there that I can see.

I seriously think that a good with a Wanted flag should be able to slay a good Tribunal without getting damned/outcasted for it. Either that, or pull in something like that cripple command that was suggested... make it so that a chaotic good can at least make a good Trib PAY for coming after him.

Also, I freely admit that this is a very old argument. I've had this opinion the entire time I've played here. I just never understood why good Justices/Tribunals can put ethos before alignment when nobody else can.

Here's a simple answer to that.

Irumeru tells you that knifing the Tribunal is a bad thing.

Irumeru feels differently about a Tribunal capturing your *** in order to preserve the greater good.

A chaotic good isn't SUPPOSED to be able to make a good Tribunal 'pay'. It's one of the defining hallmarks, the struggle between good and good, in almost any fantasy setting; what some (Iru, amongst others), have described as the 'tragic RP' of Knights/Avatars, in being forced to be attacked and flee their own brethren.

In other words, it comes with the turf.

That sounds so noble ... the good chaotic Knight avatar having to suck it up and die to the good aligned Tribunal, putting up only a trivial struggle ... realizing that it is his brothers doing this to him, but unable to stop them. Realizing that it's just their misguided notions of "law" and "society" that are forcing them to turn on their own kind.

"Forgive them, Lord, they know not what they do."

sniffle

Here's a simple answer to that.

Irumeru tells you that knifing the Tribunal is a bad thing.

Irumeru feels differently about a Tribunal capturing your *** in order to preserve the greater good.

A chaotic good isn't SUPPOSED to be able to make a good Tribunal 'pay'. It's one of the defining hallmarks, the struggle between good and good, in almost any fantasy setting; what some (Iru, amongst others), have described as the 'tragic RP' of Knights/Avatars, in being forced to be attacked and flee their own brethren.

In other words, it comes with the turf.

Well, here's my personal opinion (and last word on the topic unless somebody annoys me ): I don't like that. I personally feel that Irumeru, as the god of Purity who wishes all evil erased from the land, should see someone going for that and casting mortal laws aside as someone who's more "good" than someone who is trying to stop that person. But that's just me. Won't be the first time I've disagreed with the IMMs. I can deal.

And heres the summery of what all the Imms are saying. Don't like it? Don't play a good. Want to bitch about it? Drive through.

Harsh, but that is the way things are. I'll accept it, I dont' have to like it, but I'll move on. I just won't play goodies. I said that after Tymox I'll never play another goodie.(ended up having to delete just before condeath because I forgot mercy and capped a justice sader. Would of meant outcasting and loss of avatar and maybe loss or change of title. I didn't want to go out that way.)

Irumeru probably does. But Irumeru also sees knifing another good, in order to achieve that goal, as something which he does NOT approve of.

Simply put, your choices are to run away, or fight/kill. If you are unwilling to just keep running away (more for ego than anything else, really) and would rather kill someone else you KNOW is good, then yes, Iru will be very annoyed with you.

I also want to point out followers of purity follow an ideal, not a deity. If the deity was all that mattered, then how can he lead the various religions? Wouldn't they have the same ideal?

Oh and warpnow Your sig, hell no!

Well' date=' here's my personal opinion (and last word on the topic unless somebody annoys me ): I don't like that. I personally feel that Irumeru, as the god of Purity who wishes all evil erased from the land, should see someone going for that and casting mortal laws aside as someone who's more "good" than someone who is trying to stop that person. But that's just me. Won't be the first time I've disagreed with the IMMs. I can deal. [/quote']

You are very correct, Pali. Irumeru, as Irumeru, would want you to ignore the laws to kill evil. In fact, I think a Purity Tribunal has to look very carefully as his RP, because I think the two are in too much conflict. But not every good is Purity. Compassion, Tranquility, etc, all have very valid RP reasons to prefer law and peace to absolute destruction of evil.

The one thing Irumeru (again, as Irumeru) will not stand is a good killing another good. As I've said before, the tragic sacrifice is a defining aspect of Knights and Avatars, and I'm glad it was brought up here.