mmajunkie Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 This is still a rule in effect is it not? Neutrals shouldn't be going around killing other neutrals for no better of a reason than "I thought you were studying me" or "I wanted your eq" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaruil Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 Neutrals -always- need a pretty strong reason to kill someone. Though, if you're a ninja and even seem to be stalking someone, plan on getting attacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 As Amaruil said, neutrals need a good reason to kill anyone. Not just neutrals and goods. Good can use the "zealot of purity" excuse at least, while neutrals cant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tassinvegeta Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 It also doesn't help if the ninja follows other player across four areas and opens a door they purposely close on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmajunkie Posted April 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 I can think of plenty of other excuses I could make too as a neutral then as well. What if that ninja was coming to RP? What if it yelled out that it wanted to talk? If it stood in a firestorm for 2 ticks trying to say Hey Im here to RP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 As Amaruil said' date=' neutrals need a good reason to kill anyone. Not just neutrals and goods.[/quote'] i would go as far and say that there are no ethos for neutral. everyone should be treated the same. attacking a evil pc because he is a genocidical murderer is incorrect. you attack him because there a gain. bounty or its your cabal duty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jibber Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 Several people who play this mud play neutral only for the gains. Can't tell you how many times I've run into that halfling so and so who was genocide and unwilling to RP a change that before, forced the halfling to PK someone else because of his/her actions in the first place. Case in point: neutral raiding val miran while a knight is on, isn't at war with said knight, and tribunal is not online. The imms do their beat to crack down on behavior like this but they can't catch everything. And players will keep trying to do it every chance they get. Prayer forum FTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 outcasts to evil should flow more often Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmajunkie Posted April 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 Its just kinda dumb that you cant walk past someone to go grab eq or to go RP without being attacked because they think you're trying to kill them. C'est la vie I suppose. Don't get mad, get even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 Ninjas suck. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 Several people who play this mud play neutral only for the gains. Can't tell you how many times I've run into that halfling so and so who was genocide and unwilling to RP a change that before, forced the halfling to PK someone else because of his/her actions in the first place. Case in point: neutral raiding val miran while a knight is on, isn't at war with said knight, and tribunal is not online. The imms do their beat to crack down on behavior like this but they can't catch everything. And players will keep trying to do it every chance they get. Prayer forum FTW. Why couldn't a neutral be genocidal? What's wrong with a Watcher attacking Val Miran, regardless of a Trib's presence? What, the cities are only bad if a Tribunal official happens to be present in one at the time? If you ask me, it makes perfect sense for a Watcher to kill time while no Tribs are around by walking around Val Miran killing citizens at random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 Case in point: neutral raiding val miran while a knight is on' date=' isn't at war with said knight, and tribunal is not online.[/quote'] Eh, wtf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 Anyone remember when the Know Alignment spell actually gave the alignment? I propose changing it back and making chaotic neutrals subject to things like dispel evil, + dmg vs. evil, etc...and lawful neutral subject to dispel good, +dmg vs. good, etc... I propose this, because while these alignments are neutral, they lend themselves to ideals that do not promote balance. I also propose that True Neutrals not be allowed to join whatever branch of Watcher it is that raids the cities/hates the cities, etc....they should be more concerned with the true crimes against nature, the abominations like avatars, undead, and demons. Chaotic Neutral should be the zealots that hate the cities for being a pox created by the Tribunals and the people who live there. Surely a True Neutral (mainly referring to humans/werebeasts with decent int/wis) wouldn't want to kill every living creature in the city (even children) for being there. There must be some kind of conscience to balance between good and evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tassinvegeta Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 Its just kinda dumb that you cant walk past someone to go grab eq or to go RP without being attacked because they think you're trying to kill them. C'est la vie I suppose. Don't get mad' date=' get even.[/quote'] Or you could do what I do and try to get to know the person first so they understand your intentions. Theirs nothing wrong with asking permission to speak or rp with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 I propose this' date=' because while these alignments are neutral, they lend themselves to ideals that do not promote balance.[/quote'] Good align does not equal lawful ethos. Neutral align does not equal Neutrality religion. Evil align does not equal chaotic ethos. Your premises are flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tassinvegeta Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 Good align does not equal lawful ethos. Neutral align does not equal Neutrality religion. Evil align does not equal chaotic ethos. Your premises are flawed. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 I also propose that True Neutrals not be allowed to join whatever branch of Watcher it is that raids the cities/hates the cities' date=' etc....they should be more concerned with the true crimes against nature, the abominations like avatars, undead, and demons. Chaotic Neutral should be the zealots that hate the cities for being a pox created by the Tribunals and the people who live there. Surely a True Neutral (mainly referring to humans/werebeasts with decent int/wis) wouldn't want to kill every living creature in the city (even children) for being there. There must be some kind of conscience to balance between good and evil.[/quote'] Didn't really read this part before... Neutral neutral characters are not necessarily followers of the Neutrality religion - they are simply characters whose ethical natures fall within the neutral alignment and neutral ethos; again, two separate things. There may be an argument that an N/N Neutrality-religion character should not join Watcher, or any other cabal for that matter... but simply being N/N is not enough to make that argument. The religion and the alignment and the ethos of a character are all different parts of that character's makeup (edit: this line of thinking is a large part of why I've come to support the choosing of religion at char creation - most people have some beliefs by the time they are adults. I would, however, like to see more conversions... with gods that actually can show up and be pissed off at apostates, that'd be some fun RP ). I can imagine situations in which a neutral would be okay with torching an entire city because he thinks that it is a justified action. He may regret the loss of innocents, but he is okay with their deaths because of the greater goal being serviced - a good character either wouldn't be okay with it and would fight to save these innocents or should be feeling an incredible amount of remorse for such a steep price being paid, and an evil character wouldn't even consider their suffering in the first place (or he may do so because he enjoys said suffering). The neutral doesn't kill them mindlessly, but he's also not overly concerned with their welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jekyllvhyde Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 All I know is it sucks making a friggin Druid and I can only fight like 1 or 2 people or wait for evils to attack me. Also WATCHERS USED TO BE ANTI-KNIGHT! What happened to that? The crown is as much about land control as the Tirbunals are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 WATCHERS USED TO BE ANTI-KNIGHT! since when? if anything is knights anti raiding butchring watchers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 Every cabal is, to some extent, intent on controlling all of Aabahran. Sometimes they ignore each other, sometimes they're friendly with each other... but in the end, none of them is ever truly on the same side as another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 Moderated. First: Watchers are not anti knight. Watchers are anti-tribunal and anti unnatural (avatar) and since knights often defend cities or have avatars in their ranks it's not unseen watchers to attack knights because knights attack their treants/have unnatural beings in their rows. But attacking knights just like that is not accepted and if someone complains you will receive harsh punishments for attacking knights for nothing. Secondly: Knights are not anti-watcher and even (especially) avatars are not anti-watcher. You can defend cities/allies from watcher raids/attacks but you can attack a watcher only if he has attacked you first. Attack watchers just like that will get you in trouble sooner or later. Watcher and knight are like two friends who love the same girl. They don't hate each other, but they will always end up fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfrosto Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 Watcher and knight are like two friends who love the same girl. They don't hate each other, but they will always end up fighting. Great metaphor, Foxx. But back on topic; Neutrals fighting neutrals is always going to happen. Whether it's a werebeast ranger, who has gnomes as their enemy, or just someone having a bad day goin off on someone. It's inevitable...but it shouldn't be uncalled for. My neutral characters always had an IG reason for attacking another neutral. May not always have been a good one, I.e. You stole my kill you dirty dirty neutral jerk!, but there was a reason. I don't think anyone should get away with No-RP PK. Good, neutral or evil. The game is RP enforced for a reason, and it's sad to see people randomly attacking each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted April 16, 2011 Report Share Posted April 16, 2011 Didn't really read this part before... Neutral neutral characters are not necessarily followers of the Neutrality religion - they are simply characters whose ethical natures fall within the neutral alignment and neutral ethos; again, two separate things. There may be an argument that an N/N Neutrality-religion character should not join Watcher, or any other cabal for that matter... but simply being N/N is not enough to make that argument. The religion and the alignment and the ethos of a character are all different parts of that character's makeup (edit: this line of thinking is a large part of why I've come to support the choosing of religion at char creation - most people have some beliefs by the time they are adults. I would, however, like to see more conversions... with gods that actually can show up and be pissed off at apostates, that'd be some fun RP ). I can imagine situations in which a neutral would be okay with torching an entire city because he thinks that it is a justified action. He may regret the loss of innocents, but he is okay with their deaths because of the greater goal being serviced - a good character either wouldn't be okay with it and would fight to save these innocents or should be feeling an incredible amount of remorse for such a steep price being paid, and an evil character wouldn't even consider their suffering in the first place (or he may do so because he enjoys said suffering). The neutral doesn't kill them mindlessly, but he's also not overly concerned with their welfare. I was actually thinking something more along the lines of like this: Chaotic Good - Individualistic. Leans towards the "darker" side of good. Neutral Good - Works towards the Good of the Majority, the Greater Good. Lawful Good- Upholds laws, tries to find leniency in them, but still obeys the laws. Chaotic Evil - Worst of the Evils Neutral Evil - The "Hidden" Evil. Lawful Evil - Idealistic, Twisted Honor, but the "least" of all evils. Can be worked with. Chaotic Neutral - Minotaurs. Enough said there. Lawful Neutral - Zealots come to mind. Neutral Neutral - The halfling getting his smoke on and chatting with the Wizard. I'm just saying Chaotic ethos lends itself closer to a "darker" morality which creates the individuality/loner attitude in classic chaotic characters. Those of a Lawful ethos are mostly followers, have some kind of honor system, but ultimately fall directly into their alignment and stay closer to a "fairness" based on good, evil, or neutrality. Those of the Neutral ethos tend to sway in larger areas, but look at everything as a whole. Neutral Goods want to appease everyone, Neutral Evil is looking to appease themselves while attracting the least amount of attention, and Neutral Neutral generally requires a good deal of motivation. Religion, as you state, should have a HUGE impact on the ethos, since ethos is moral character and most people take their moral cues from their beliefs. What's all this rambling? Maybe nothing. I was mainly trying to bring in some extra weaponry vs. neutrals who are more affected by ethos than most of the other alignments. Yes, I know my thinking is incredibly wayward on this subject, but it is an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 16, 2011 Report Share Posted April 16, 2011 I think you're confusing how people tend to play their align/ethos combination with the actual definition of that combination. Chaotic good is in no way "darker" than any other good combo - hell, arguably G/C Avatar is the absolute embodiment of good as it is defined in the world of FL, a being that is beholden ONLY to the rules of Light and no mortal laws. G/N and G/L I think you get mostly right, but I think your analysis of the evils is flawed as well. Which is the worse evil? The guy who will kill dozens or hundreds personally because he enjoys slaughter, or the guy who will rise to power by slaughtering millions through his minions? A chaotic evil may be more random and, well, chaotic... but it's no more evil than a lawful evil should be (assuming both are properly RPing according to their align/ethos). I don't see the chaotic ethos as reflecting any sort of darker personality - far from it, as I said, I think a chaotic good has greater potential to actually be good as it is defined in FL than any other good. Your ethos reflects, largely, how much your character cares to abide by societal rules and norms - a chaotic character simply doesn't give a damn about them, a neutral won't bother violating them without a good reason, and a lawful will always follow them. It's pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted April 16, 2011 Report Share Posted April 16, 2011 I think you're confusing how people tend to play their align/ethos This is true, this is true. I find it interesting how much influence a cabal gets over how the align/ethos is played sometimes. Notice how characters who bring their religion to the front and place cabal behind it as a priority are often more applauded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.