The Trend of RP Abuse:

[Volgathras]

Dear Players.

What I'm about to address is not a new issue, but one that has been handled by a case-by-case basis in the past. However, it would appear its on the upswing, and so will be given more attention. That issue is tailoring RP in order to get around the game rules.

We all know RP is an integral part of the game. Somewhere along the line some clever soul thought to hide their less than honorable intentions behind a thin vinear of RP 'ligitimacy'. We hear these excuses a lot lately, wherein the culprit says something along the lines of 'well, if I DIDN'T full loot the underleveled newb as my neutral I'd be breaking RP". This isn't RP, this is abuse of the system, and it will no longer be tolerated.

To be clear, we are not curttailing RP or avenues thereof. What we are doing is punishing RP we deem only serves to further some ulterior motive. Some examples:

1.) My neutral thief is angry with the world for (contrived reason), so I kill everyone equally and take their stuff. [Abuse of the neutral aggression rule]

2.) Since I'm the only one around/effective I HAVE to kill everyone because cabal RP demands it [To get arround (particularly) pandemonius and sigil limited aggression rule].

3.) My new character just happens to have the exact opposite motives of an enemy on my last character, so they HAVE to fight! Coincidence! [Transfering OOC grudges and motives].

4.) I RP a silent killer, so I kill silently. "Why would I talk to/give advantages to my prey?" [silent PK/the No-RP RP].

5.) I have nothing to live for/ I serve death so me dying is a good thing [ignoring 'death to be avoided' rule].

I can go on and on. There are examples for every rule. NONE are acceptable. So, I will be issuing ONE warning to offending parties. They must then make the necessary adjustments. If the behavior continues, they will be slain. A third offense will result in a ban.

This post (and the future one on Divine Mandates) are your warning. "I didn't know" will NOT be a valid excuse.

To help, I will provide a simple chart detailing where your focus in terms of behavior should lie, and which directives take precedence. It goes from most immediate and important (top) to final considerations (bottom). They are ALL important and to be considered, but not all are created equal. Chart follows:

Direct Immortal Command

Divine Mandates

General Game Rules (avoid death, neutral aggression etc)

Cabal Requirements *

Race/Align/Ethos Requirements *

Personal RP

*This will be a little different for each cabal. When in doubt ask your imm BEFORE undergoing the RP.

Note all the things above personal RP. We will no longer accept "well that's my RP" as a reason to break rules or ignore immortal directives. Nor will we accept "my cabal tells me to" to break ethos/align unless specifically directed by an imm. This is to ensure fairness, adhere to the rules, and maintain a good game environment for everyone because we're a community, and this isn't single player.

We thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

FL Staff

[Iyorvin]

Not sure if this is locked but will try posting anyway.

1. Are you drunk? Or angry? Tons of typo's.

2. More importantly, some players, like myself numerous times, don't play the game and use the forum. Is there any way that divine mandates could be perma set in the game. If in a help file, a tome in the library, or never removed from the news list?

3. Great post buddy. Besides the drunken rage typo's of course.

[Volgathras]

Typing on my phone. I'll clean it up.

I'll add a helpfile for divine mandates.

[Trick]

I like this.

[The-Nameless]

I have always been foggy o. Aggressive neutrals. They can be syndicate or watcher but cannot be aggressive for their own rp reasoning ( like being neutral and aggressive to keep a balanced realm by attacking the strongesr chars/cabals)

[Pali]

My take on neutrals is that you can certainly be aggressive for your own RP reasoning, but it can't simply be a blanket pardon for attacking anyone whenever it happens to be convenient for you - to use your example, a True Neutral believer who honestly does aim very specifically at whoever is dominant at the moment isn't attacking people at will, he's attacking specific targets due to specific criteria that they fit at that time (it's also hard to accuse someone of abusing something when they're always picking the hardest fights around ). A minotaur who is easily taunted into a fight would likely also be fine - because he's reacting to RP provocation, not just picking fights as he chooses.

Thieves make things slightly trickier, but I'd argue that a thief should be able to steal about as much as they want but not kill anywhere near so cavalierly.

[f0xx]

Aggression needs to have a reason, even when you are an evil. Evil people in real life just don't go around slaying people (although comparing real life with FL is stupid, I agree). Sick people do. Evil people do stuff for their own selfish reason. But a decked evil won't even bother with an almost naked level 42, unless of course the lowbie annoys him in some way, but that's a whole different subject.

We as players should take it as our responsibility to try to improve our environment. In my years of playing I've seen two different states of characters:

1) The "symbiosys" state: those are the type of characters that connect with FL's environment and everything they do feels natural and when you interact witch such a character you feel that it is not "played" but simply exists.

2) The "parasite" state: those are the type of characters who suck the life force out of FL for their own benefit.

I think we've all been guilty of state 2 multiple times. The important thing is to understand it and try to improve.

[Pali]

Didn't mean to imply evils don't need reasons - as you said, theirs just tend to be more selfishly-oriented than a neutral's.

[f0xx]

Also one thing that bothers me greatly is when characters bend their RP to justify their actions.

For example, I was recently playing a very untraditional evil warrior combo, was rank 37 and had just gotten my riposte and was heading to train all my defences. This goodie BLM who was something like level 40, pops out of nowhere and starts wooping my sorry a$s. Of course, I run like the wind all over Aabahran and simply do my best to avoid him. I strike a conversation, trying to learn more about him and his reasons, explaining that I am obviously very week and of no threat to anyone, but he pulls out the "Zealous avatar guy" that would stop before nothing to kill me.

Eventually he logs out, I train myself nicely, go to rank 43-44 and get nice wares. Some time later he logs in again and goes straight to engage me again. This time though, I am fully prepared and with rank advantage, so the result is ugly for him. The guy runs away, and I start looking for him to get vengeance. I find him sitting at the knight castle. When I try to taunt him out, he says there are more important things for him right now.

The moral of the story? You can be a zealous avatar when there is a weak evil in the lands, but then there are always more important things to do once there is a strong opponent.

This is the kind of RP abuse that gets to me the most.

[ledgerbay]

thought it was Velknar for a moment, but nope I didnt do it!

[Trick]

True Neutral believer who honestly does aim very specifically at whoever is dominant at the moment isn't attacking people at will' date=' he's attacking specific targets due to specific criteria that they fit at that time (it's also hard to accuse someone of abusing something when they're always picking the hardest fights around ). [/quote']

I have argued this point across two characters that both attempted to emulate the True Neutral religion. I was told by the Staff, specifically Anume, that this is not the correct way to RP that align/ethos. Attacking who is in control to balance the scales is not what True Neutrality is despite the help file stating this nearly verbatim.

The way it was explained to me is you can help the enemy of the dominate person get equipment so that they can fight, but you can NOT fight the dominate force yourself. Again, I am paraphrasing what was told to me several times and I still don't fully understand it...So, hopefully Anume will be able to make this specific example a bit more understandable than I can.

[Pali]

Was that essentially a matter of interfering in cabal combat, though? Or is a True Neutral overall supposed to be a fairly passive force when it comes to directly influencing the world? I'd love clarification here as well, because if a True Neutral isn't allowed to directly fight the dominant force in the world... that RP is almost never going to exist, because then they effectively have no reason to ever attack anyone, and that's a boring way to play the game for many. If it's just a matter of not getting directly involved in Knight vs. Nexus while you have both on and going at it, but you'd be considered justified in attacking the Nexus once the Knights leave after getting pounded... you still have things to do then.

[Trick]

I will copy/paste the examples from the Prayer Forum thread.

example 1: personal help

Nexus is dominating, a single Knight gets his arse handed to them.

You log on.

Now you go and aid the Knight get armor, thus helping the underdog.

example 2: political means

Savant has all the land, Savant is dominated by evils (situation right now), WM is close to being extinguished. You play a cabal that would profit greatly from an alliance with savant. This is not what a follower of true neutrality would aim at however, you'd aim at helping WM back on their feet. So a pact with WM would be more what you aim for.

Correcting the balance is in no way just attainable via killing people. As a neutral you ALWAYS need a very strong motive for killing ANYONE. A cabal war qualifies, people attacking you qualify. So in the example above your non-pk oriented behavior may certainly eventually LEAD to you fighting the stronger side (as they attack you or declare a war on you), however that is not where you should start from.

Maybe it got clearer this time?

These are the two examples I was given when I was attempting to RP a true neutral and how to go about it. I read the help file and took it literally.

When the balance swings too far to one side, it is your job to correct it and weigh them a bit more in favor of the underdog, for when one side tips the scales beyond aid, it will end all that is known. You are a servant of the scales, aiding those who are outnumbered.

But one thing is consistent, while you walk the lands, the balance shall be maintained, and if need be, defended.

Should any extreme begin to gain ground over the other, neutrality steps in, and rights the numbers, maintaining the balance between the two.

To me this reads, the followers of neutrality will do everything they can to maintain balance in the universe. To include PK, if and when required. According to Anume, this is not correct. A follower of the Neutrality religion will NOT fight unless they have a very good reason. Faith dictating this conflict in the belief that the world will end should good or evil gain significant ground over the other is NOT reason enough to get involved on a PK-level. Other reasons such as they attacked you or you are in a cabal warfare with them is. I see the former as being far, FAR greater than the latter in "reasons to get involved via PK ".

Again, I am not trying to put words in her mouth and I am sure she will post and clarify this.

EDIT: To prevent it from appearing as though I've copy/pasted certain things and left out others, I've copied the entire thread and put it on pastebin here: http://pastebin.com/YsrXg09D

[mya]

1.) My neutral thief is angry with the world for (contrived reason)' date=' so I kill everyone equally and take their stuff. [Abuse of the neutral aggression rule']

This is the worst. Most players chose Neutrals because it avoids protection.

Then they make some RP reason to justify their mass murdering ways.

Part of this happen because if I rolled Stone Cleric and joined Tribunal and said I that meelers are a plage on the world, and stated killing goodie warrior/crussaders I never meet before and without provocation, i would be allowed.

2.) Since I'm the only one around/effective I HAVE to kill everyone because cabal RP demands it [To get arround (particularly) pandemonius and sigil limited aggression rule].

This is easy to fix. Get rid of Sigil/Pandi limited aggression rule. It makes no sense and only creates complaining.

3.) My new character just happens to have the exact opposite motives of an enemy on my last character' date=' so they HAVE to fight! Coincidence! [Transfering OOC grudges and motives'].

I have no problem with this as long as they wait to be in opposed cabal before PKing.

Or is good vs evil.

[Pali]

I don't think I'm ever going to understand why cabal affiliation justifies mass (or at least indiscriminate) murder but personal beliefs do not - at least, from a non-gameplay perspective. RP-wise it just does not make sense to me. A True Neutral I'd expect not to join a cabal at all... are they really limited to helping equip underdogs and sending notes in what are very likely to be vain attempts to influence diplomacy between cabals they are not part of, or is there a point at which they'd be allowed to take more direct action? Because from a gameplay perspective... that kind of removes a lot of incentive to play one.

[Dead Voodoo Doll]

fluctuating ethos on a grand scale

other things:

Val Miran shouldn't sell to "evils" and Miruvhor shouldn't sell to "goods"

Elves, Stormies, etc shouldn't be able to buy dusty scrolls, white pills, or anything in Xymerria or energy things in the Hive, and so on and so forth.

If a "Good" does something hardcoded as "Evil" and they happen to be in Knight then the castle mobs should refuse them service until their "score" trends back up to the light and vice versa.

[The Professor]

DEAD VOODOO DOLL "other things:

Val Miran shouldn't sell to "evils" and Miruvhor shouldn't sell to "goods"

Elves, Stormies, etc shouldn't be able to buy dusty scrolls, white pills, or anything in Xymerria or energy things in the Hive, and so on and so forth."

realistically this might apply to some shopkeepers, but certainly not the entirety of them... profit is the bottom line after all, so personal opinion tends to take a backseat. as most successful Merchants could attest. with that being said, there is a certain amount of realism that can't be implemented because it would subtract from the overall game. aside from all the items that would have to be moved around and provided by other shops (for fairness) it would add even more to the considerable learning curve for newer players.

of course, that doesn't mean the shopkeepers wouldn't make snide remarks or be harder to haggle with...

[Imoutgoodbye]

of course, that doesn't mean the shopkeepers wouldn't make snide remarks or be harder to haggle with...

I made a shopkeeper like that once a long time ago. Used to say things like "**** you and the horse that rode you in". Funny stuff.

[Kyzarius]

I thought, from the subject line, that this was going to be about folks whose rp seems to be to tell everyone they suck.