To take a line from Batman Begins "it's not who we are on the inside, but what we do that defines us"

If you are good, and not neutral, people should be able to tell WITHOUT having to look into your role.



I think I might be an example of someone who played a goodie shaman about as close to the line of neutrality as you can get without getting shoved over and align changed.

To be honest, there were a few times, after a few things that Odrirg did earlier in his career, that I was surprised I *DIDN'T* get align changed.


How did I handle it? Well, for one, Odrirg started the ruined city fund...somewhat unconsciously to help balance out the lightwalkers he had to fight by helping the innocents suffering in the ruined city.

Also, I developed an intricate (and internally consistent) philosophy on why chaos pretty much = helping evil (To this day, I am proud of that developed philosophy, and a huge thank you goes out to velk, wherever he is today, for having a religion that spurred me on to design such a philosophy) And, given the slightest opportunity, I would subject any and all listeners to instruction on this philosophy, ESPECIALLY wanted and sylvan(later outlander) lightwalkers.

And then, as vindicator, I had the ability to choose to not fight lightwalkers once they weren't criminals. I would hunt down and kill lightwalker criminals, then try to be their friend and teach them the error of chaos while they weren't criminals....even so far as to helping them in raids of scion and empire (as long as they weren't chaotic).



As an aside, I do think it much easier to play a lightwalker tribunal than a lightwalker outlander or rager.

I would say it's a valid tribunal role to look at Criminals as the only enemy of the Spire. Sure outlanders often become criminals, but the Spire is about Criminals. This allows tribunals to only be forced into lightwalker/lightwalker fights if there is a lightwalker criminal actively attacking their city or the Spire.

On the other hand goodie Outlanders, it seems, don't have a similar valid "laid back" role. (at least I have never seen anyone do it, I might have missed it though). In such a role, maybe they'd only be worried about fighting lightwalker tribunals while they were actively on duty, and leave them alone if they weren't on duty. But, most of the lightwalkers I've interacted with in Outlander (both as a tribunal and an evil outlander) seem to be just as gung-ho about dashing into galadon and the spire and killing any and all law pcs and npcs as the most bloodthirsty evil outlander.

And on the gripping hand, a rager's enemy just can't "step off duty" and stop being a mage temporarily, during which time a rager wouldn't be mad at him. A rager's philosophy demands he kill them.



Personally, if I were designing the cabal system on this game, I would make outlanders and ragers only N/E, while tribunal would only be G/N (E orderly chars could go empire).

But, I'm not in charge (wait for the collective sigh of relief from so many of you). heh.


ANYWAY, when it comes down to brass tacks, I wholely support Aarn's post. rp'ing some regret just shouldn't cut it.

To take a line from Batman Begins "it's not who we are on the inside, but what we do that defines us"

If you are good, and not neutral, people should be able to tell WITHOUT having to look into your role.