Charim (fire giant warrior warmaster leader) and Luorath (undead warrior) had a duel in front of Virigoth for the warrior hero spot.
Needless to say, Luorath got demolished:cool: and was made the warrior hero whereas Charim was made into the Warmaster hero (first and only cabal hero?).
Then again, Charim was a lawful neutral fire giant. 
And that's why I will never play a Tribunal again, Foxx.
We talk so much about broadening our horizons, about coming up with original RP, about utilizing new ideas and harnessing our creative powers. And then we say something stupidly concrete such as, "An evil is an evil is an evil," or "A criminal is a criminal is a criminal." When you make rigid, restrictive statements like this, you are limiting the RP potential of every person playing this game.
For example, none of you will remember Vesarius. Vesarius was a drow cleric who got to V in Militia and took the Entrance Exam, back when Prax was running things. I had an RP where I was a double agent, and I was in cahoots with a Syndicate at the time. My character's religion was Greed, and I was going to serve Malanith by helping the Syndicate overthrow the Tribunal from the inside. And so during one of my "secret" meetings with this Syndicate, I find myself accosted by an Immortal who had been snooping me - who just happens to be Prax. So my character, who was about to be allowed into Tribunal, instead was kicked out of the clan and Outcasted.
I think it's terrible that we have such a limiting view of the scope of RP. And I personally believe it speaks volumes of the limitations of our RP that three of my last four characters have (or would have been) Outcasted. Did I take actions that justified that punishment? Probably. Do I feel the RP behind those actions was a justification to not be punished? Yes. I think if someone has a good RP reason for doing something, we should reward them, not make their life more difficult.
When I deleted Precila, Eshaine asking me to play an ethos/alignment appropriately is really a signal to me that we have too limited of a view of RP. Which is depressing.
There is no such as limiting your RP Bali. What you have to realise is that you must pick the correct ethos/align for your RP. The situation which you described with the drow is simply not a lawful ethos.
If you wanted to filfil your RP, then pick an evil/chaotic and try to get in Tribunal with RP. If you are successful in that, then that is where people will see your RP as original. But not. You chose the easier way, the lawful ethos while your character WAS NOT lawful, therefore you knowingly broke the rules.
Lawful character means that he follows the law no matter if he is evil/neutral/good. He follows them, not just pretends to.
Same goes for Avatar. You eradicate evils. Not neutrals who you see as evil.
I would go as far to say that with something a little more complex, run it past the Immortals first and get their opinion/advice on how to run with it.
Dey
I disagree.
And I find it rude that you claim that me picking the align/ethos I thought best suited my RP was the "easy way out". I chose to play Vesarius as a Lawful Evil follower of Malanith. And I believe that the religion (what I think is the HEART of a character's RP) is more important than the align/ethos, and therefore by serving Malanith while being in Tribunal, I would have been perfectly within what I believe to be the scope of my RP. (You'll notice I use the words "I believe" a lot, because this is my opinion)
But hey, if you want to continue making your concrete, restrictive statements, go ahead. I'm still going to come up with what I believe to be original RP, and if I get Outcasted for it, oh freaking well.
Maybe I'll just ask for a perm-Outcast to be applied to my ISP, so I can just do whatever the heck I want.
I disagree.
And I find it rude that you claim that me picking the align/ethos I thought best suited my RP was the "easy way out". I chose to play Vesarius as a Lawful Evil follower of Malanith. And I believe that the religion (what I think is the HEART of a character's RP) is more important than the align/ethos, and therefore by serving Malanith while being in Tribunal, I would have been perfectly within what I believe to be the scope of my RP. (You'll notice I use the words "I believe" a lot, because this is my opinion)
But hey, if you want to continue making your concrete, restrictive statements, go ahead. I'm still going to come up with what I believe to be original RP, and if I get Outcasted for it, oh freaking well.
Maybe I'll just ask for a perm-Outcast to be applied to my ISP, so I can just do whatever the heck I want.
Hehe, I certainly did not want to offend you. But you have to understand that those restrictions are there for a purpose. That purpose is to prevent abuse.
If the immortals would let you get away with this, then there will be some other guy who comes after you, playing the lawful ethos the same way you did (wrong way) and when he gets booted he we use your case as an example. Then he will accuse you (or your character) publically of being an IMM favourite, just like what happened with Klemkin recently.
It has been said before I believe, I will simply repeat it.
First comes your align.
Second comes your ethos.
Third comes your religion.
Forth comes your cabal.
In your case you were going against your ethos. Not gonna mention Cabal even because you don't get outcasted for going against it.
Please find a way to explain to me how someone would "abuse" their RP. I'd love to hear this.
I remember Vesarius. I remember this entire conversation happening already about Vesarius too.
As was explained then, you were not playing Vesarius as an evil lawful character. You were playing Vesarius as an evil neutral character. Align/ethos are not what you are pretending to be or how you want others to see you, they are what you ARE. If you want Tribs to be able to break laws while remaining within RP, then start arguing for opening up Tribunal to neutrals. Don't try to argue that a lawful character will break laws when it suits them, because by DEFINITION lawfuls do not break laws - PERIOD. You could have stuck perfectly fine within evil lawful Greed by simply wanting to use your position within Tribunal for personal gain and power rather than some grand desire to protect the law, but once you started breaking laws you ceased to be playing a lawful character.
And you know what? You CAN make a good who sees lawlessness as evil. You CAN make a good who sees devotion to martial combat as an evil. But what you CAN'T do is make an AVATAR who sees those things as evil, because Avatars have a far more defined view of evil than a generic good does.
If your characters keep becoming outcasted, dude, it's because you're picking align/ethos choices that don't actually reflect the roleplay of your character. That isn't "creative RP", my friend, that is breaking character.
Quick example of abuse:
"Hey, I am a chaotic elf that follows Purity, but I believe that by putting bounties on the heads of other goods, I am making them be stronger. By looting them whenever they die, I am showing them tough love. By killing the weaker ones, I am strengthening the light. The stronger the light, the better for taking down evil. When I pretend to be their friends, and then set them up to get killed, I am only being chaotic."
Your alignment, ethos, and religion are meant to be synergistic. They are not meant to contradict each other. A Lawful follower of Greed would want to expand the empire, raise taxes, overcharge criminals in terms of fines, possess all the fine services and jewelry the empire has to offer, attempt to benefit from the law as much as possible - yet not betray it. Your score sheet, for all intents and purposes, is what you are secretly/deep down. If your character wanted to a spy, they should have been chaotic or neutral - contacted the involved IMMs about the plan - and then roleplayed it out. As Wathok had no prior knowledge of this plan Out Of Character, he reacted QUITE accordingly In Character. He found out about a spy, and publicly eliminated them from his domain. How would you have reacted if you were in his shoes?
EDIT: Damn it Pali, you beat me to the punch.
Time to roll that uncaballed neutral neutral follower of Neutrality who believes that all other alignment/ethos are a plague on the lands, and kill indiscriminately.
Yes. You do that.
It seems the original question was answered.
Also keep in mind NEUTRALS NEED A VERY GOOD REASON FOR EVERY KILL.
If you want to kill whomever, your align should be evil.
