I am struggling to understand how this is supposed to be clear to the players.

Do you define orderly as following tribunal laws? Do you define it as following imperial law?

I understand the imperial law allows for exception to tribunal law, but if your ethos is orderly and tribunal law is a tool of order how do you reconcile ethos being subjugated to a cabal dogma? It is written in game that a supreme orderly act is bringing a criminal to justice. If this is accurate, how is this in line with saying you think an imperial should be flagged more often? If an imperial is orderly how in gods name are they breaking imperial law (even under the pseudo-shadow exception of if you don't get caught, wink wink)
Oh and when their Emperor makes a "mistake" and attacks unprovoked in a city, it isn't a big deal because well he's the emperor and tribunal law means nothing to him and making mistakes of ethos, psh no big deal. (see Kraldinor assumes a paladin attacked him and breaks tribunal law by striking him in hamsah, woopsie no repercussions because? emperor!)

Shouldn't ORDER dictate that the player follows the codified instructions of the cabal? You give out character breaking beat downs for breaking imperial law, for violating alignment, but not for violating the players ethos. How are players supposed to know which of the character defining choices they make apply and in what order?


Isnt this exactly what Aael was punished for? Subjugating the inherent properties of the character (good) for roleplay and cabal concerns? Didn't want to look weak in front of reavers, killed good aligned creatures violating alignment.

As I see it now alignment is static and any infraction of it is a BIG ####ing deal. Acting good requires effort and doesn't get you ####, it is what you are supposed to do. Acting evil means doing whatever you feel like, whenever you feel like it so long as you don't appear to be gaming the system - Oh noes, an orc killed an orc for an ingame advantage? uhhh why is that bad because did it for game mechanics advantage!(or not)


Ethos is completely #### and might as well not exist other than for tribs, some paladins, and certainly sphere purity/baer paladins - Even if the Tribunal says something is not against the law, we are somehow supposed to know it will show up on the immortal "law break" channel ( See Baer's comments on Hrilifaxi death thread.) Outlanders certainly do not generally act chaotic - Lets take the codex and camp the refuge for another 420304 hours. That is soooo disorganized, they behave identically in almost every strategic way to other players. Mechanically they don't use coins, but otherwise yeah! prep and fight only in the woods, that'll show them! Only engage when odds favor you, because you know planning and forethought. Lets get organized here and camp the centaur to uniformly oppose all invaders like good soldiers do! (While saying things about trees and nature.)



This came off as a bit of a rant here but I hope the point is made. We cannot tell from situation to situation what point of behavior is going to be enforced. Certainly players who just play the game and read the help files have zero chance of knowing what they can and cannot do, or what order of priorities you all will punish or reward them for following.