>One, someone mentioned that there are few places for evils
>to rank, so let them have some city guards
>
>I'm not a big player of evil characters, but I would have to
>say that this is just plain untrue.

I haven't played an evil in years, so maybe I should've made it clear that this one was based entirely on what others said. It doesn't surprise me that they were wrong.

>Let them get wanted flags for it too, because this leads
>into the second reason not to change it.
>
>Since when do you get wanted for slaying mobs in a protected city?
>Unless there's some change recently that I never once saw during
>Ulthur's 650 hours, this is untrue also. EDIT: Aside from guildguards.

Again, something I haven't done in years. Well before Tribunal, some of the law types would flag people for killing guards. I guess the flags weren't even as common as I thought back then, if they're virtually non-existent now.

>If you're good and get attacked by good guards, you should
>run to make sure you don't kill them.
>
>I disagree here again. As Ulthur when I was wanted, I used to
>shout at the guards to get away from me. When they didn't, I
>killed them. I think it depends enitrely on your characters
>roleplay. After all, they're trying to stop me from killing
>an evil guy, so they must be evil too.

For me, doing what you did would be bad roleplay, so I overlooked the fact that it works fine for some others. I'd think that by taking the life of something good, you're slowly slipping towards evil. And of course, you're free to disagree.

>They're guards, they care more about defending the city than about
>morals, so to them if you've broken the laws, you're evil and deserve
>to die.
>
>So... they're neutral/orderly, is what you're saying.

My interpretation of their alignment was a little loose there, and could just as easily be seen as neutral. I was only trying to say that from an RP angle it doesn't automatically make them neutral any more than your allowing them to die fighting you makes you evil. Protecting your homeland and fellow citizens can be a greater good than killing a good aligned wanted person. Also, very strict good/orderly could see a lawbreaker as automatically evil regardless of what others might think. It's all RP from different viewpoints.

>Basically, your RP angle is voided by the fact that Arbiter/Tribunal
>have almost always been represented by a good and an evil God, and
>divided into good and evil members. The Tribunal Cabal makes a point
>of demonstrating that alignment is not related to the laws. The
>cityguards do not reflect this. I don't give two ####s about Graatch
>or his obsessive-compulsive desire for immortal attention. I think
>adjusting cityguard alignments is a good idea.

Why should the cityguards reflect the cabal in the slightest? They've been around to see three very different law based cabals, and while they've worked alongside each other, they're different groups. It's like saying that the FBI and the local PD should be one. Your point there isn't much more solid than mine were, at least as I see it.

So my briefly considered points were flimsy and don't well support keeping the guards the same. Is there really all that solid a reason for changing them? The reason I ask is that regardless of my poorly phrased arguments, things tend to stay the same when there's no clear reason to change them.