Bounty system

To be honest, I feel like characters should have to apply for each bounty therefore the useless placed bounties will not go through. This would avert from the non-interactive bounties. Nothing is worse than being a passive character and getting bountied by a character for absolutely no reason other than just to bounty you. (It would also help to have Syndicate as a cabal than can have no alliance or pacts, Nexus just bounties people to bounty them so they can keep Syndicate in their pocket, so stupid)

4 hours ago, Fool_Hardy said:

So three neutrals hunting in the Everwild should be punished for being excessively evil?

4 hours ago, Fool_Hardy said:

The Watchers consistent raids on Val Miran, a hometown of only good and neutral people is an evil act as well?

Neutrality is also an alignment.  Some acts aren't good or evil, but instead they are neutral.  The above are neutral acts, which is why I said mass murder of good/neutral beings is *usually *evil, not always - intent and context in these cases keep them neutral.

4 hours ago, Fool_Hardy said:

We will have to agree that we disagree.

You nitpicked a tiny portion of the evidence I mentioned that alignments are real things in FL, not matters of opinion, and ignored the rest.  Tell me, if evil is an opinion in FL, how is it that a sword can be objectively evil or good?  How is it that a spell can tell me if something is evil or good?

Its a matter of opinion @Pali, and understanding.

Good and evil do exist to good and evil creatures, Neutrality is NOT the absence of either. While neutrals can be compassionate, they can also be sadistic. In FL, neutrals lack the morals required  to cast protection (hard coded). So why would we accept they can be judged as evil based on some rudimentary action that someone bases on morals? Its a double standard and I believe you know it.

54 minutes ago, Pali said:

 

Neutrality is also an alignment.  Some acts aren't good or evil, but instead they are neutral.  The above are neutral acts, which is why I said mass murder of good/neutral beings is *usually *evil, not always - intent and context in these cases keep them neutral.

 

You nitpicked a tiny portion of the evidence I mentioned that alignments are real things in FL, not matters of opinion, and ignored the rest.  Tell me, if evil is an opinion in FL, how is it that a sword can be objectively evil or good?  How is it that a spell can tell me if something is evil or good?

I agree with Pali on several points.  There are actions, objects and spells that are inherently good/evil or anti-good/evil.  Certain spells will not work if you are mechanically goodaligned.  It is a feature and not a matter of opinion.  However, how you define the reasoning for why the mechanics are there is up to your RP and therefore subject to your opinion.  Does a good get zapped when they pick up an evil object?  Yes.  Do they get damnation for killing another good?Yes.   Can the good RP that her/his God did not want them to have the weapon?  Yes.  Can they also RP that the evil Gods did not want them to touch their blade?  Yes!  The subjective part is in how we interpret the mechanics within our RP, not whether or not they exist.

I likewise agree with neutrals in Syndicate being somewhat of a bypass of the system.  No matter how I look at the reasoning, murdering someone for profit (whether it is for your profit or someone else's) will forever be an evil act.  To some degree, I have witnessed this enforced on the other side.  What if a good decided that ANYONE who is not good by the spell 'detect good' was a threat to them and their family and therefore has to be murdered on sight.  Does the good have a reason?  Yes, because neutrals can choose to kill them at will or perhaps join syndicate.  Would we argue that the good had the RP to back it up?  Probably not .

5 minutes ago, Fool_Hardy said:

Its a matter of opinion @Pali, and understanding.

Good and evil do exist to good and evil creatures, Neutrality is NOT the absence of either. While neutrals can be compassionate, they can also be sadistic. In FL, neutrals lack the morals required  to cast protection (hard coded). So why would we accept they can be judged as evil based on some rudimentary action that someone bases on morals? Its a double standard and I believe you know it.

I would disagree on this as far as mechanics go.  Try picking up a good only or evil only weapon and watch yourself get zapped.  They might RP whatever they like about not caring about

morals but the mechanics will surely limit them.  In other words, they effects of Good or Evil apply to them regardless of how much they care or do not care about it.

I like what I've read and I find value in a lot of the opinions going on in this thread. At current, I have a few opinions.

1. To start with, I'm on board with the idea that Syndicate should almost always be evil. I have experienced some, though very few, examples of neutrals who felt properly portrayed as Syndicate hunters. Deykari played a character I believe who was neutral gnome of some sort being coerced into completing contracts to protect his family. I've seen other similar RP's along this vein, and I would support neutrals in Syndicate without a convincing reason to be slowly turned evil. (and all that implies) Just how certain combos interact (Like Avatars fighting good aligned Tribs) must be careful with their RP, so should a neutral Syndi.

2. At present, I have no problem with Syndicates encouraging (through coercion or good business) people to place bounties. I also have no problem with random nobodies being bountied for no other reason than to keep business booming. FL is an always should be thought of as a dangerous place to be. However, I ALSO believe that this kind of behavior makes Syndicate a bit of a stale PK cabal, and in believing so I think the problem is systemic. Current players shouldn't be punished, or even really chastised for acting in a way that Syndicate has been for as long as I can remember.

3. I think gold has become much easier to come by and so I think raising the prices of bounties as has been done recently by Erelei is a step in the right direction but I still think it is too cheap. I like some concepts Celerity introduced regarding formulating bounty values in order to address this.

4. I absolutely agree that nobody should even be able to have a hard coded Alliance with Syndicate. Only individual characters should be able to gain favor through individual acts/deals/business arrangements, and that should not be hardcoded either, but rather achieved through RP.

edit: I realize much of the thread digressed to an align debate, but my post is directed almost exclusively towards the subject of bounties and Syndicate in general.

Killing strictly for profit is an evil act. I don't see how you can justify it as a neutral act. A neutral act would be executing a criminal, or killing someone during cabal warfare. Ending lives with 0 motivation besides personal profit is an inherently evil act. If a non syndicate, non cartel, runs around collecting bounties, and killing, as a neutral they would be outcast. 

Help neutral pretty clearly defines neutrality, and repeated aggression without a good cause (gold and cp are not a good cause). Someone rping blackmail is a neat spin, and I can see neutrality being viable in this situation. Though from what I have seen the rp is typically "Just work, dont get mad"

1 hour ago, Fool_Hardy said:

Its a matter of opinion @Pali, and understanding.

Good and evil do exist to good and evil creatures, Neutrality is NOT the absence of either. While neutrals can be compassionate, they can also be sadistic. In FL, neutrals lack the morals required  to cast protection (hard coded). So why would we accept they can be judged as evil based on some rudimentary action that someone bases on morals? Its a double standard and I believe you know it.

Good, evil, and neutrality also exist beyond creatures, in both objects and magic.  I agree neutrality isn't the absence of either - it is something both between and distinct from the two.  These are metaphysical attributes of entities that can be objectively measured the same way that an entity's weight can be measured.  Neutrals don't lack the morality required to cast protection, they lack sufficient goodness or evilness to protect them from good or evil sources of damage.  Good and evil in FL (or traditional D&D for that matter) have nothing to do with morality or ethics (except in how they generally line up with RL conceptions), but instead are attributes of entities in the same way that strength or weight are.  edit: An evil character may think he's doing good, but he is still objectively evil - his belief that he's doing good is either *wrong, *or his objectively good acts will eventually turn him neutral or good in the same way that exercise will eventually cause you to lose weight.

In the same way I can say that a diamond is incredibly hard, in FL I can say that the axe Inferno is evil and there is no disputing that assessment - the axe will interact with the world based on it having the attribute of being evil, and good beings literally are incapable of touching it without it harming them.  How do you square this with the idea that evil is a moral judgment by creatures?

59 minutes ago, Archbishop Monk said:

There are actions, objects and spells that are inherently good/evil or anti-good/evil.  Certain spells will not work if you are mechanically goodaligned.  It is a feature and not a matter of opinion.  However, how you define the reasoning for why the mechanics are there is up to your RP and therefore subject to your opinion.  Does a good get zapped when they pick up an evil object?  Yes.  Do they get damnation for killing another good?Yes.   Can the good RP that her/his God did not want them to have the weapon?  Yes.  Can they also RP that the evil Gods did not want them to touch their blade?  Yes!  The subjective part is in how we interpret the mechanics within our RP, not whether or not they exist.

Exactly this.  Character beliefs regarding good or evil are irrelevant - good, neutrality and evil within FL exist on their own terms, and their rules are metaphysical laws just as much as gravity is a physical law.

I suppose the difference would be the glaring reality that a neutral ITEM does not join the Syndicate, but a neutral person might. You are comparing apples to oranges. We are discussing if a neutral hunting people is an evil act. Yet you keep bringing up items, as if the item itself runs around killing people. I still say it is not by itself an evil act to hunt characters for the purpose of serving the characters cabal. If your good character kills something in town my good tribunal will still hang you for it. It is the product of a players conception of their characters RP, and said RP can be rewarded or punished in our current system. Arguing that no neutral should be a syndicate because killing other Characters is Evil, is likely based in player frustrations, not in game facts.  And that is my point.

Minor sentience in the weapon for starters.  Having bathed myself in WH40k lore, weapons that just don't like you is a super common thing.   I absolutely agree it is the darkest grey area... but I also believe there is amazing roleplay to be had.  E.g a neutral criminal associating with syndicate out of necessity.  Syndi controls all the fresh water or something.  Syndi dosed the village and its get his daily antidote to maintain a dose in his system or become a raving, bulbous tentacle monster that eats his newborn children.  He has to deal or die/worse.  Survival can frequently be regret.  Eating a pet would be horrific, except if you were planecrashed on top of a mountain and it was Fluffy or you.    I thoroughly agree it should be watched with the utmost scrutiny... but it seems silly to ban what could be productive with moderation.

29 minutes ago, 'tarako said:

Though from what I have seen the rp is typically "Just work, dont get mad"

This is not acceptable RP for a Syndicate.

That being said... If you are not engaging with them... Then they aren't going to expand on their rp either. Think of a hitman, he probably has quite a story to tell but he isn't going to phone you and say "Your wife wants you dead and so she hired me. I like basketball and whiskey on the rocks. I also have a fascination for art deco architecture and hurt my back in a skiing accident."

Just because you don't see their RP, or ENGAGE with their RP doesn't mean they don't have it. Kotrag is a great example. He had nearly 1000 rp points. But we didn't chat much when he was ripping my head off - but I'm fairly confident after 1000 rp points something was going on there ;)

3x edits - working and foruming is a bad idea :P

I bring up items to show that good, neutral, and evil are not matters of opinion in FL - they are matters of metaphysics.  Re KRins: Very few FL items have any innate sentience, so that appeal doesn't apply here.

The issue regarding neutrals in Syndicate is a matter of inconsistency in applying otherwise established rules: 1) that align trumps cabal and 2) that a neutral killing solely for profit is an evil act.  With neutrals in Syndicate, at least one of these two rules is being violated, and thus I think the inconsistency needs to be fixed.  Either killing for profit is not an evil act, in which case non-Syndi neutrals should be allowed to do it, or killing for profit is an evil act but Syndi neutrals can do it because cabal trumps align, in which case good Warmasters should be able to kill good Savants.  I don't really care which way things are decided, I care about the inconsistency.

This thread has been a very good read so far.

There are two ingame definitions that *seem * to conflict each other.

A neutral must not kill for profit, yet neutrals are allowed to join Syndicate (which is a cabal that does anything as long as it brings profit, including killing peeps).

So people make the natural assumption that everyone who joins the syndicate does so for profit. Which is a very linear view to have. 

What you do with your actions brings profit to the organization. It does also bring profit to you, but that does not mean this is the sole reason for doing it. It's just something which you must do in order to stay in said organization. It does not mean you enjoy it, nor you do it for profit.

Killing for profit is evil indeed (by FL standards).

Killing itself is not though. It can actually be an act of goodness.

So saying that neutrals in Syndicate should not be allowed is just assuming that every syndicate is there because of the profit. You ASSUME the reason the opposite character has, to be in the said cabal. Which is bad RP in itself. If you want to learn his reason for being in a cabal that kills for profit, while being Neutral, then try to learn it. He might, or might not, decide to share it with you. He might not even be honest with you, and lie. That still doesn't mean that he kills sololy for the profit of it.

Not every Warmaster is such because he strives to destroy magic. Fighting Savant is something you accept doing for the organization in return for the benefits of being a Warmaster. You might strive for physical perfection. Assuming that every Warmaster is such because he wants to destroy all magic is a linear way to look at Warmaster's RP, just like assuming that every character in Syndicate is there because they only care about the profit.

Syndicate (the organization) cares about the profit. You, as a character, don't have to. Syndicate (the organization) does not care whether you do, or don't, as long as you do your part in gaining profit for it.

I hope I managed to express my thoughts clearly enough with my limited command of English.

If there has to be a TL;DR for my post, it would go something like this: Just because someone is a Syndicate does not mean he kills for profit (which is defined as an evil act).

Is something up with this thread?  I can see my last and Foxx's last posts in the sidebar on the forum main page, but no matter how many times I reload this thread (or what device I access it on) the last post I see is KRins's that begins by mentioning minor sentience.  Until now, nevermind.

test... for some reason I cannot see any replies after the last one from KRins...so weird. I see in the main page that Ulms, Pali, and Foxx and more all replied and yet I do not see any of their posts...

edit: same thing happened to me Pali... so strange but now I see everything.

When your logic so good it breaks the thread.

Yeah, I'm back to not being able to see responses. edit: Until I post, it seems.  Yet even then it reverts to stopping at KRins's last post.

I do like the point you made, Foxx.  In essence, you seem to be arguing that while the Syndicate organization may well be evil, there may be valid non-evil reasons to join, and one simply sees one's cabal duties as the price paid for doing so.  While this is certainly reasonable from an RP and lore standpoint, I'm not sure how well I like it as a matter of gameplay - after all, shouldn't a neutral then be able to join Nexus or Knight for similar reasons?  "Sure, I'm killing or saving people to fulfill my duties and keep the cabal happy, but I'm really doing it for X reasons instead."

The sad part being I PK threads wayyyyyyyy better than in game.

it's blocked again. I have to reply everytime I want to see the new posts

I suspect that all our new posts after KRins's are supposed to be page 3 for the thread, but some bug reared its head - page 1 had 25 posts, page 2 has KRins's post starting with "Minor sentience" being the 25th post, and all since that haven't been showing.