Neutrals PKing Neutrals

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Valek, I read a few of your views on align/ethos combinations and they are so wrong I don't know where to begin even.

I start to think that people shouldn't be able to choose them on char creation but they should be given to use by the immortals due to most of the PB heavily misunderstanding them, no matter whether this is intentional or not.

Just a small explanation:

Ethos has nothing to do with align. Align should be played as how people see you. Ethos is just how you behave in towns.

In a forest there should be no difference between lawful good and chaotic good. They are just the same.

foxx- you blatantly say valek is outright wrong and then say something as ridiculous as "ethos is how you act in towns". thats just plain ignorant. ethos is how you act towards other characters and your rp! a chaotic character isnt going to give a crap about things a lawful character would, it has nothing to do with location its all about personality and attitude.

ethos is how you act towards other characters and your rp!

You are partially correct. Ethos is how you behave in lawful areas i.e. do you obey the laws or not.

Other than that, there is NO OTHER DIFFERECE between lawful good and chaotic good.

Align is the major thing. Ethos is the minor.

Ethos IS how you act in town, but the bigger frame is defined by align. That is why I make my comparison using lawful good and chaotic good, not lawful good and chaotic evil.

It is like looking for a car:

First criteria is brand

Second criteria is color (for example).

What is the difference between a red BWM and green BMW? The color. You remove the color criteria though, and it's all BMW.

The same is with characters.

The point is that ethos matters only in towns.

Of course there are many other criterias but the one major is align. What is the difference between major criteria and minor one. The minor one affects characters only in certain circumstances, but the major one affects it always.

The only major criteria in aabahran is ALIGN. Then it is ethos, religion, cabal and lastly personal RP. All those minor criterias do not have to go out of the frame defined by align. If they do, this will result to your character being outcast.

Of course, there come some problems from this, but that is only because our game doesn't have a perfect system, and that is only because world is not perfect and perfect things don't exist

I.e. a lawful good is allowed to attack and execute wanted goodies. Which goes right against the major criteria that defines our characters and creates RP conflicts.

Valek, I read a few of your views on align/ethos combinations and they are so wrong I don't know where to begin even.

I start to think that people shouldn't be able to choose them on char creation but they should be given to use by the immortals due to most of the PB heavily misunderstanding them, no matter whether this is intentional or not.

Just a small explanation:

Ethos has nothing to do with align. Align should be played as how people see you. Ethos is just how you behave in towns.

In a forest there should be no difference between lawful good and chaotic good. They are just the same.

ROFLMAO! Ah, thanks, I needed a good laugh, mate.

I wouldn't say it like f0xx did, but he's on the right track. It seems many people are confused as to the proper understanding of align and ethos.

ROFLMAO! Ah' date=' thanks, I needed a good laugh, mate.[/quote']

Really Valek? You need a good laugh? Then you should go back and re-read YOUR OWN post.

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 have marked those that you got COMPLETELY wrong. I am not saying that your understanding of the others is completely true, because you still don't realize what ethos means, but your general understanding of them (those not marked in red) is ok...ish.

There is no such thing as darker side of good in FL. There is just good who obeys laws in lawful areas (lawful), such that doesn't care about laws (neutral), and such that simply ignores them (chaotic).

I will repeat it one last time in hope that you, and Efrosto understand it. The only difference between chaotic and lawful (no matter whether goods or evils) is their beahaviour in lawful areas. You can try to understand it or you can ignore/laugh, but that is how it is.

And while we are on the subject I think we need a better "help ethos" file. One that states in directly, "This determines how you act in lawful areas", so we don't have people like Valek who use the "darker side of good" metaphor...

Foxx is right. Ethos is, at it's simplest level, whether or not you will follow Tribunal laws. In general one can extrapolate certain character traits from their level of willingness to follow the law, and I think that it is superior RP to view ethos as reflecting a bit more about your character's level of concern for social rules in general than only Tribunal laws (does your char follow their own society's rules but not Trib's? Neutral ethos makes sense then. Does your char only follow their own personal code? Chaotic)... but going simply by literal definitions of terms, Foxx has it right.

chaos evil vs lawful evil is like jack the ripper vs hitler/palpatine. chaos is quality , order is quantity

And batman is chaotic good

I understand ethos. Your scope on it is simply too limited. Those are GENERAL examples from my point of view where I have it "wrong". And, no, we don't need new help files. Ethos at its most basic INVOLVES the law, but is not the end all be all of ethos. Ethos also includes religion, society, idealogies, etc...

You can turn it down to basics. I don't recommend that. That assuredly promotes cookie-cutter RP. Ethos creates the variety amongst alignments. Alignment is the ultimate factor, but ethos ALLOWS characters to tip the scales around a bit, gives them more freedom in their choices.