Your Opinions on Neutral

[Manual Labour]

I was curious what you all think in general about what I found out the other day, as I did not fully understand this until it was explained to me by the staff.

If you play a neutral, you are forbidden to take any action against anyone unless they provoke you first. This rule changes once you join a clan, so for example:

A neutral nature religion character, whatever their class and rp, is forbidden from laying a finger on anyone without being attacked first. (even undead, demons, tribunals)

If they join the sacred oak they can now do whatever they want to any enemy of watcher. (most enemies are such because of the nature religion rp)

A neutral greed religion character, whatever their class and rp, is forbidden from laying a finger on anyone without being attacked first. (even stealing gold out of greed)

If they join cartel they can now do whatever they want to enemies of Syndicate, or any bountied character. (actions which are mostly motivated by greed anyway)

This goes on and on for every possible religion/class/cabal combo and it makes me wonder what neutrality actually is in FL?

My understanding now is that neutrality is like handcuffs, and the key to unlock the cuffs is any feeder clan.

So my question is what's the point of choosing a religion, or ethos as a neutral if it cannot define your behavior until after you join a clan?

And if neutral is supposed to be between good an evil, maybe a bit of both, why is the staff so quick to outcast to evil when the neutral does something "bad" but is not so quick to outcast to good for neutrals who do too many "good" things?

If we want to preserve the meaning of religion and ethos we should either let chaotic neutrals actually be that, or re-write the help file so it reflects what you expect in terms of behavior. Right now it is a very misleading scroll.

So I guess the question I am putting out there to everyone is do you think FL handles neutrality well? If yes, why, and if not what would you do to change it?

[Anume]

Short version: A neutral needs a good reason to attack anyone. 

Will stay that way.

[Manual Labour]

Then you need to define good reason. Right now good reason = join a clan.

[mya]

3 hours ago, Manual Labour said:

religion and ethos we should either let chaotic neutrals actually be

Neutral chaotic =/= evil chaotic, just roll an evil char.
Also as you know in FL CHAOS/ORDER is just follow laws vs not follow laws.

['tarako]

Neutrals = neutral. You don't get aggressive without provocation. Neutrals have alot of built in pk bonuses, so I believe they are policed fairly closely. Also a watcher can't just be crazy aggressive because they are watcher. They have guidelines to follow as well. Same with a syndi, you collect bounties but you can't just go ape someone without a bounty.

[Manual Labour]

I don't KNOW that Mya. I get info from what i read, and help neutral, neutral neutral, lawful neutral, and chaotic neutral are very different by definition.

['tarako]

1 minute ago, Manual Labour said:

I don't KNOW that Mya. I get info from what i read, and help neutral, neutral neutral, lawful neutral, and chaotic neutral are very different 

Honestly I'd be asking imms about help file interpretation. Alot of them are pretty vague, and leave much to be lost in translation.

[Twinblades713]

I think neutral is easy to police in a limited environment like a DnD setting, where the DM can weigh the deeds of a character because he only has 4-6 players to judge in total. In FL, even with many moderators it is simply too difficult to measure every individual character on the entirety of their deeds. Because of this, I do think the way neutral is treated in FL is appropriate. I agree with Anume that they should need a good reason to attack someone, but I agree with ML that getting your clan/cabal is generally enough to be your reason. Otherwise we would need to introduce some measurable variable for align shifting which is altogether too much work for everyone. It's best that neutrals be limited to their actual purpose in FL (Lawful neutrals will go for Trib and arrest bad guys, chaotic neutrals will have to follow their cabal's directives for reason to PK, etc). There is a difference for sure between FL neutral and DnD neutral but I think it works for FL, as cabals flesh out purpose pretty well.

[Mali]

I agree with ML. Clans defining and justifying neutral pk is backwards. The correct order is ethos > religion > clan. The ethos and religion  of a toon are more direct and plausible reasons for aggression than the clan directives.

The best example of this is neutral neutral. This is a balance keeper alignment that should fight for good when evil is paramount, and should fight for evil when good is in the lands. They are also a natural fit for mixing up matches when any one cabal is enjoying it's reign.

In contrast, where a chaotic evil may kill for pleasure or a psychopathic urge towards sadism, a chaotic neutral is more like a carjacker that may or may not kill impulsively based on resistance. Or they may help you because it makes them feel good. You don't want to be around them because you can't tell if they are going to kiss the maiden or gut you. There's no Robinhood here.

The issue with clan and cabal serving as justification for behavior has led to way too many neutral  syndicates who are essentially evil but get in the door based on some hack story about why they have to behead you. This is ever so much worse RP than my other examples.

I disagree that neutrals should have their hands tied because they are as in the mix as anyone. Whether in a cabal or out of it, their behavior should be internally consistent if they want to avoid being outcasted.

 

[f0xx]

On 6/1/2019 at 4:57 PM, Manual Labour said:

A neutral greed religion character, whatever their class and rp, is forbidden from laying a finger on anyone without being attacked first. (even stealing gold out of greed)

The first part seems fine, but if one is a thief of neutral religion, he is not allowed to blackjack peeps and steal from them?

[Twinblades713]

3 minutes ago, f0xx said:

The first part seems fine, but if one is a thief of neutral religion, he is not allowed to blackjack peeps and steal from them?

I cannot speak to what would happen today, but more than once in the past have I been warned about blackjacking and robbing people as a neutral, that I would be outcast to evil if I continued. It is seen as an attack and indistinguishable from murder.

['tarako]

Again I think some confusion stems from the helpfile. It says equal parts charity and malice, but no matter how charitable you are, you can't be malicious.

[Manual Labour]

13 minutes ago, f0xx said:

The first part seems fine, but if one is a thief of neutral religion, he is not allowed to blackjack peeps and steal from them?

Not without a valid reason, they would have to be a cabal or clan enemy, or someone who has attacked you first.

[Trick]

Neutral is one of those paths that is truly "how the governing IMM feels". I've seen IMMs, past and present, differ considerably on what is considered neutral - despite help files. Help neutrality, for instance, is one that is completely different than what Anume says it is. 

If you want clarification on what neutral is, ask the IMP in charge as it will probably change day to day, character to character, situation to situation. 

[Celerity]

You can argue the merits of the rule, but the consistency has been there since at least 2010. The helpfiles are wrong and you are expected to know from 'experience' on how to conduct yourself.

The rule is simple though:

Neutrals can't attack anyone without a reason. A reason is defined as a cabal/clan fight or being attacked first. Attack is defined as anything aggressive, including study, blackjack, steal, whatever.

So, a neutral shouldn't ever aggress another neutral that isn't a cabal enemy, since neither can initiate. Goods and evils can choose which neutrals they want to fight, since the neutral can't aggress them.

-

The reason cited is that neutral have an advantage in PK, so it is a balancing rule.

Because it based on balance, any argument that refutes it on RP reasons doesn't work. So religion, thief, or any of those arguments aren't going to change things.

I disagree with the premise that neutrals are superior in PK, however.

-

Funnily, the rule makes neutrals very similar to goods and usually a better 'good' in terms of RP.

The rule has all sorts of problems, most infamously Syndicate/bounties. It also disrupts the PK balance it tries to preserve since those characters most susceptible to neutrals can simply choose not to engage their banes.

-

Enforcement, communication, and the premise behind the rule are questionable, but the rule itself has been consistent for years.

[Manual Labour]

I guess I am still hung up on the "Reason"

It looks to me like you are allowed to roll a neutral but you have to play it as a good, until you join a cabal, then you are expected to play as an evil.

The whole thing is weaksauce imo.

[f0xx]

10 hours ago, Celerity said:

Because it based on (PK) balance....

It's not based on PK balance.

Neutrals don't have anything on evil/goods.

People will argue that they deal more damage, because you can't use protection evil/good against them, but neutrals also have no access to protection, so it's even - they deal more damage, and take more damage (unless watcher).

It is an RP rule, because people will choose who to fight and who to avoid not based on RP, but on PK prowess, which is OOC. In order to avoid this RP conflict, IMMs have decided that neutrals should be played as good, until cabal, and from then on, their cabal should be "good enough reason" for aggression, which is, as you eloquently defined -  study, blackjack, steal, whatever.

It's been, as you said, a pretty consistent rule.

I was surprised to see that "steal" is classified as aggression, but if you think about it, it is.

It makes sense though.

In real life, actions are what define your alignment. In the game, your alignment should define your actions. But people are assholes and try to twist their RP however suits them best, based on the balance of powers. This is entirely OOC, but very hard to catch, so thus, rules like this one exist. It's the same as avatars avoiding to fight evils. That is why they too are enforced to be bloodthirsty toward the opposite align.

 

[Pali]

I agree with everything @f0xx said.  It's a pretty consistent rule, and makes a lot of sense from a gameplay perspective.  Here's the problem:

On 6/5/2019 at 6:08 AM, f0xx said:

In real life, actions are what define your alignment. In the game, your alignment should define your actions.

This breaks character immersion, at least to some degree, and will consistently do so in any game that uses an alignment system of any sort, because in real life people don't actually have alignments.  We have tendencies, we have behavioral norms, we have philosophy of ethics and moral and legal codes... but no one is consistently, 100% of the time, a "good" or "evil" person (yes, there are religious, political, and other ideologies that would argue otherwise, and I say those ideologies are stupid, so there).  And - at least for me personally, and I suspect for many others - it's much more natural for me to play someone who follows the real-life rules in terms of determining their behavior, someone who isn't black and white, who isn't 100% consistent in their behavior, because this makes the character feel more real, more alive than they otherwise would; it grants depth that simply following an alignment system under strict game-defined rules doesn't.

 

And while nearly everything about FL is immersion-breaking to some degree - you're looking at text on a screen, interacting through pushing buttons on a board, using magic in another world that bears only a slight resemblance to our own - almost none of it matters, because the characters tend to NOT be immersion-breaking since most people don't simply play 1-dimensional roles but instead create complex characters with depth and growth over time... and so long as the characters feel real, the setting doesn't matter.  The MCU, Star Trek/Wars, Lord of the Rings, any successful sci-fi/fantasy franchise is successful largely because it presents us with characters that feel real, even if the world they're interacting with doesn't.  But characters that are designed to fit the world don't feel real; they break the immersion in a way that altering the rules of reality never will.  This is a problem with any alignment system in any RPG, FL included: alignment requires the character be designed to fit the world, yet the best characters in any medium are designed as real people who simply live in that world rather than our own.

 

Other than scrapping alignment altogether, I think we have only one choice: accept that it places restrictions on RP, some of which contradict lore, and learn to get over it.  I will still argue that neutrals shouldn't be allowed to be bounty hunters, but the baseline rule that neutrals can't simply choose to attack people for personal gain?  I don't know that there's really a better way to handle it.  It's like the old joke of democracy being the worst form of government possible, except for everything else we've tried.  I can't think of any solution that maintains alignment yet doesn't introduce an even broader set of gameplay problems to fix.

 

P.S. "I will still argue that neutrals shouldn't be allowed to be bounty hunters, but the baseline rule that neutrals can't simply choose to attack people for personal gain?" - We do see the inherent contradiction here, right?  Okay, cool, just checking. 😋

[Imoutgoodbye]

Meh...I can see it and I can't see it. 

CAN'T, i.e., grey area

Neutrals are not supposed to simply attack people for personal gain.

Syndicate kills people to fulfill contracts.

Contracts are for the mutual benefit of all parties, except the target.

The neutral works for Syndicate and Syndicate receives the most benefit.

Therefore only Syndicate and the contractor, not the neutral, are the true benefactors.

 

CAN:

Neutrals are not supposed to simply attack people for personal gain.

Syndicate kills people to fulfill contracts.

The neutral IS Syndicate (it's loaded, but whatever, I'm not typing all day)

Syndicate Leader is evil. (yes, Leader should be a HUGE factor)

Therefore all attacks by said neutral are for the benefit of said neutral.

[Pali]

3 hours ago, Valek said:

The neutral works for Syndicate and Syndicate receives the most benefit.

Therefore only Syndicate and the contractor, not the neutral, are the true benefactors.

Just because your boss makes more than you doesn't mean you aren't getting paid to do a job.  Syndis are paid to kill people.

[Imoutgoodbye]

12 hours ago, Pali said:

Just because your boss makes more than you doesn't mean you aren't getting paid to do a job.  Syndis are paid to kill people.

It's a little more than just the pay.  The individual disappears in place of the organization.  I'm aware there are multiple arguments against that (no one made you join the organization, each individual is still a cog in the machine, etc...) yet I do like to point out that the ultimate goal of an organization is the standard set by the higher ups.  A low ranking Syndicate might have other plans, but not the power to wield the organization itself.  The business is certainly set upon killing (with the exception of Merchant who are more passive in what they do).  It's just necessary to point out there are RP reasons and even systemic reasons why a neutral is not directly killing for personal gain.

[Pali]

17 hours ago, Valek said:

a neutral is not directly killing for personal gain.

They have to collect bounties - or at least try to - before they even join it.  They are attempting to join it for personal reasons.  They are killing for personal gain before they are even part of it, and they continue to be rewarded personally for their kills after joining.

 

17 hours ago, Valek said:

The individual disappears in place of the organization.

No, they don't.  I don't disappear into my job, and "it's my job" doesn't absolve me of personal responsibility for my actions on behalf of my job.  If my job is to kill people, then I'm being personally rewarded for killing people, no matter how indirectly that payment arrives.  Working for Contract Killers Inc. rather than freelancing doesn't change that at all.

[Fool_Hardy]

Narrow RP.

Someone could Join the Family for reasons other than material gains. Such as to even the playing field between cabals. Neutral would be a viable choice for such a character as whether Knight or Nexus is in power they can remain the fist of balance.

Everyone complains about the evils of murder when its syndicate, and defends RP when its Watcher.

Its not broken. Nothing needs fixed.

[Pali]

45 minutes ago, Fool_Hardy said:

Such as to even the playing field between cabals

Except that an uncaballed neutral isn't allowed to attack people for this purpose.

 

My argument isn't that it is inherently evil to murder people - my argument is that there's a contradiction between how an uncaballed neutral is allowed to kill and how a caballed neutral is allowed to kill.  I think they should both be able to kill for the same reasons - if a caballed neutral can kill to maintain the balance, or kill for personal gain, then uncaballed ones should be able to as well.

 

I didn't intend to start a debate here, more just poke a little fun at a long-standing peeve of mine.  For the sake of gameplay, I long ago learned to live with it.  Do I think it should be changed?  Sure.  But at a certain point you just accept the DM or IMM ruling and move on.

[Manual Labour]

3 hours ago, Fool_Hardy said:

Someone could Join the Family for reasons other than material gains. Such as to even the playing field between cabals. Neutral would be a viable choice for such a character as whether Knight or Nexus is in power they can remain the fist of balance.

This is a naive assumption that you can pick and choose your bounties. Go ahead and roll a neutral syndicate who is only motivated by evening the odds. You won't get far because that is not the job of syndicate, you are there to indiscriminately collect heads. An uncaballed neutral who wants to even the odds should be a great RP angle, but there is no clan or cabal that has this as a goal and therefore it is not be allowed.

2 hours ago, Pali said:

My argument isn't that it is inherently evil to murder people - my argument is that there's a contradiction between how an uncaballed neutral is allowed to kill and how a caballed neutral is allowed to kill.  I think they should both be able to kill for the same reasons - if a caballed neutral can kill to maintain the balance, or kill for personal gain, then uncaballed ones should be able to as well.

^ This is why I brought this topic up in the first place. Essentially tons of potential neutral RP (that involves PK) is prevented in advance by this rule. If you want to PK as a neutral you have to choose a clan/cabal first and none of them give the flexibility to RP someone who wants to "level the playing field" for example, you would be outcast to evil in very short order if you tried that.