I've been bothered recently by the good-aligned fighting good-aligned with no limitation or hesitation or anything. I would like to suggest an automatic check to sort-of quell the whole thing.

A storm giant warrior Outlander wants to attack a good-aligned Tribunal, there's a chance to hesitate because they feel empathy towards another good-aligned person.

Similarly, a good-aligned ranger goes after a Fortress dwarf for being a defiler and they fight, but neither can land a mortal killing blow and sully their hands to that effect.

The Imms can't catch everyone and turn them neutral, so it would be great to see an update to this effect. Outlander goodies are the absolute worst about this. Why should a storm giant ranger attack a paladin unprovoked and without remorse? If you want to do that, go be neutral or evil.

>Why should a storm
>giant ranger attack a paladin unprovoked and without remorse?
>If you want to do that, go be neutral or evil.

You're making some underlying assumptions here. Namely, that a storm giant ranger should "care" about killing a paladin, while he needn't "care" about killing, say, a duergar warrior. Presumably because the duergar warrior is evil (i.e. has a red aura).

Does that make sense? Do you really define "good" as, "cares about killing people with a golden aura, but can slaughter red aura folks without remorse"?

If you do feel that way, then I have to ask: Why is "has a red aura" the only valid criterion for remorseless killing? Why not "is a defiler"? Or "uses magic"? Or "is a criminal"?

The reason "is a defiler" "uses magic" Or "is a criminal" are not the same as has a Red or Gold aura is that these last two are absolutes within the realm of CF. Every player and NPC should have an awareness of inherent alignments in such a world where priest and magic make such information readily available. Focusing on something other then alignment as a label to allow unfettered killing does not change the nature of the person you are killing. You can believe that magic is evil, but that does not change the fact that the storm giant village should have awareness that the elf mage at heart is a good being. And while he may agree with the duergar warriors views on magic being all buddy buddy at all times would seems counter to the nature of the beings and their inherent alignments.

The primary idea that comes to mind when I read these posts is that most people are espousing the idea that the ends justify the means, namely that a good character who has certain beliefs can kill other good characters with the opposite belief. The problem with this type of philopsophy is that it is inherently selfish and ignorant of the fact that in CF characters have defined alignments that are not questionable.

And as I stated in another post, playing such a character is fine, just realize you are not good, but are neutral or evil.

Apparently I didn't really get across the point I was trying to make. You point out that in CF there are well-defined alignments that are readily detectable. Okay. So you know someone, be it a player or non-player character, is "evil". Why does that make it okay to kill that person, as a good-aligned character? Did they do something to you? Did you see them do something to someone else? Why is "kills anything that's evil" or "kills anything with a red aura" acceptable role-play for a non-Maran goodie? Seems pretty jacked up to me. Except it's generally accepted as okay role-play.

Take arial prisoners. Here are some evil dudes. Except they've been apprehended and are serving their time, watched by guards. But does anybody have a problem with a bunch of foreigners waltz into town, enter the prison, and start slaughtering them? Nope. Nobody bats an eye.

Point being...if your argument is that it doesn't "make sense" for it to be considered "good" for a good-aligned rager to pop good-aligned mages...then my response is that neither does it make sense for non-Maran good-aligned folks to be killing random evils. We're already working within a system that's horribly inconsistent in the name of game-play.

Imho you're asking for a little too much hang-wringing from the ragers and outlanders of the world. Sure, a good-aligned rager is going to regret, on some level, the fact that he has to destroy an otherwise peaceful elf because the guy uses magic. But is he going to get all teary-eyed about it? No. Bottom line, the guy's using forbidden powers and has to be stopped.

First, I am not asking for a bunch of hand-wringing for anybody. Your basic assumption is that all conflict within CF must be decided at the point of a sword, I have no problem with goodies interacting with other goodies by using other means to get their point across. This is a RP game, not everything should boil down to PK.

But, my point is not that it doesn't 'make sense', it is that by doing so ignores one of the basic facts about the individuals within the CF world, that is that they are inherently good/evil etc. This is of the utmost importance to this debate. Being a rager does not charge this fact, a storm rager does not have a special alignment that allows him to see all mages as evil and thus allowing him to throw out the actual alignment of the mage.

If we take your approach as you state in your last paragraph then CF should in fact not use alignments at all, as it has no meaning. It has no meaning because your allowing individuals to craft RP angles that allow for them to ignore it, personally I think there should just be less freedom from a player stand point for this, there are plenty of race/class combo's that could be used instead in almost all cases that would allow you to take the tact that you state.

If you have a RP reason you want to play say a storm rager then play it but don't ignore the potential RP angle of working out conflict between goodie mages without killing. Or, at least without only taking that approach which while not restricted to ragers by any means seems to be the general way this type of conflict is resolved amongst all groups.

One last point in regards to non-maran goodies killing red aura beings without regard, within CF there is a basic conflict between good and evil, and while you certainly could RP a peace nik type goodie if you like, having the basic outlook that good and evil are at conflict with each other is perhaps the norm. I do not think there has been one post in this entire thread that has mentioned or stated the idea in a positive way that goodie = must try not to kill evil, certainly I have not.

I'm not saying alignments have no meaning. I'm saying they're affected by other beliefs a character might have, such as the belief that magic must be eradicated from the lands at all cost.

The imms have made it abundantly clear taht "gold aura" does not conflict with "believes magic should be eradicated from the lands at all cost." The question is how the two interact. What does "good" mean for a rager? Possibly something slightly different than it means for an Outlander, or a Maran, or a Herald.

The "good" rager is a guy who, if magic were suddenly purged from the lands, could sit around with a former mage and have a drink. His job would essentially be "over". He does not kill for cruel pleasure, but because it's necessary. Though, he might relish the defeat of a particularly thorny enemy. Essentially, I consider a good-aligned rager to be akin to a maran, but with "evil" and "magic" switched. Like the maran with evils, if a mage was "purged" of his magic then he'd be rager-friendly from that point on.

I can see your point on nonviolent means, but trust me when I say they wouldn't prove particularly fruitful. Rager tells you, "Send a note to the battle cabal and {insert battle imm} stating your desire to be purged of all magic". No? Okay then, you die. That's about the extent of it.

I think your suggestion is horrible. Being a goodie really isn't about not attacking other goodies. Its about conducting yourself in a way that follows a defined moral code that is not just about you. In the vast majority of cases attacking people who are like minded is bad mojo on the morality meter but there are those cases where two people might both be striving for good but thinking in different directions.

as a real life example take abortion. Some people think its evil to kill unborn children. Other people think its evil to bring children into thte world who are very likely going to end up suffering their entire life as a result of the circumstance of their birth. While I am not voicing my opinion on this matter you can see that both sides are trying to act in a matter that they see is for the greater good but their totally at odds with one another.

In cf this can translate to a village goodie showing zero remorse for slaying a goodie because by their code of ethics a mage could be the epitome of absolute evil. or they could feel bad for the mage being misguided but either way they are trying to accomplish something for the greater good and are more likely then not doing some self sacrificing of their own that you may or may not be aware of.

a neutral character is someone who acts sometimes in their own best interests and sometime in others best interest. While getting attacked by a goodie outlander, rager, or tribunal may feel bad on your side they sure as hell are not doing it just for the sake of doing it. If these same guys just start randomly hunting everyone or only attacking when its benifiting to them and holding off when its not then I can see the switch. As long as they are consistent and have a well defined set of morals thats outwardly focused though I see nothing wrong.

if you take this idea that as long as you follow a well defined moral code and 'believe' it is right than you are playing a goodie is that I can do the same thing and play a badass evil imperial. Goodies are not the only ones that 'believe' or can believe their moral codes are right and actualy follow them.

I agree completely with Wildgirl that there is not enough checks put on alignment, yeah, some people try and RP out remorse for their actions but being sorry that you did something because you knew it was wrong does not sound like good 'goodie' rp to me.

I think most people playing a goodie and attacking another goodie for 'rp' reasons are doing it because there are few if any real consequence for it. Sometimes it even gets mentioned in PBF's as bad rp but no evil flags etc.

CF has precedence for this in regards to other RP defined ways of thinking that are not intutive. Look for posts in regards to paladins becoming outlanders it is very similar. That is, a player cannot redefine the paladin code to suit his need and make statement that natural laws are superior to trib laws for the sake of getting into outlanders. Why can a goodie village, tribunal, outlander, fortress, or un-cabaled for that matter attack other goodies with little to no consequence, in this case I think a hard coded rule could be used to balance something that should have consequence no matter how many times you RP that you are sorry for your actions.

I will finally add admitting your sorry seems a lot like realizing your actions have some fault to them, and would be a reason for negative actions towards the character not reason to let them off the hook.

And even one more thing, as a player it doesn't bother me that much, I just kill them or die and say **** it they attacked me.

if you take this idea that as long as you follow a well defined moral code and 'believe' it is right than you are playing a goodie is that I can do the same thing and play a badass evil imperial. Goodies are not the only ones that 'believe' or can believe their moral codes are right and actualy follow them.

Obviously you have never read help empire but I will help you out with this one. Part of being an imperial is willing to do anything within imperial law to advance your cause. Those who are empire greater good oriented actually make lousy imperials because in doing so they often ignore the responsibility to advance the cause of their own sect. The motivation of most imperials (or good ones anyway) should almost always be, a world of order is good, especially a world of order in which I am king. No imperial makes it his goal to be a faceless soldier. My definition of good was adhering to a set of morals that are based around the furtherment of a greater good. Any imperial role should at its core involve some level of desire to get personal gain from the advancement of the empire so their true desires should be substantialy inward focused.


I agree completely with Wildgirl that there is not enough checks put on alignment, yeah, some people try and RP out remorse for their actions but being sorry that you did something because you knew it was wrong does not sound like good 'goodie' rp to me.

I am going to beat people with a bat over the head because the modern definition of GOODie is synominous (sp?) with pansy. Because I am striving for a greater good does not in any way mean I have to be nice, care about every single individual, or even care particularly much about the way in which you are trying to bring betterment to thera. Think of a drill seargent in boot camp. The definition of an asshole. But in the army he is one of the best players for good because while he might be riding you like an animal he is doing so in order to give you the skills that you will need to survive. Life isn't always easy and especially in a world like cf that is torn by so much war and violence I would expect more tough nosed goodie roles and less hippie saps.

Remember you have to keep the definition of alignments fairly broad in order to allow a variety of roles. Not everyone is going to play goodie like an elf healer acolyte. And just because they don't fit that mold doesn't mean they are any less good.


I think most people playing a goodie and attacking another goodie for 'rp' reasons are doing it because there are few if any real consequence for it. Sometimes it even gets mentioned in PBF's as bad rp but no evil flags etc.

This is a put yourself in their shoes situation. Jut because my philosophy does not exactly = yours in its execution does not mean its striving towards a similar goal. And goals are more important than actions because the meaning of actions is defined through the why's of how you did it. Otherwise we would have to neutralize every goodie that got wanted and attacked constantly by goodie guard mobs and the whitecloak encampment would have to go away.


I will finally add admitting your sorry seems a lot like realizing your actions have some fault to them, and would be a reason for negative actions towards the character not reason to let them off the hook.

My goodies I don't show remorse because I agree it shows weakness in their cause. Other people might show remorse, I mean if your starving and have to steal to eat your gonna feel bad for doing it even though you knew it was that or starve.

And even one more thing, as a player it doesn't bother me that much, I just kill them or die and say **** it they attacked me.

>Obviously you have never read help empire but I will help you
>out with this one. Part of being an imperial is willing to do
>anything within imperial law to advance your cause. Those who
>are empire greater good oriented actually make lousy imperials
>because in doing so they often ignore the responsibility to
>advance the cause of their own sect. The motivation of most
>imperials (or good ones anyway) should almost always be, a
>world of order is good, especially a world of order in which I
>am king. No imperial makes it his goal to be a faceless
>soldier. My definition of good was adhering to a set of
>morals that are based around the furtherment of a greater
>good. Any imperial role should at its core involve some level
>of desire to get personal gain from the advancement of the
>empire so their true desires should be substantialy inward
>focused.

First, I have read the helpfiles, thanks for being an ass.

Secondly, it is easy to create a well defined moral code that at its center is the idea that strict obedience to order is good for all people. Furthering this, it can be expanded that your sect within the empire is most capable to maintain this order and thus has the best claim to lead the empire (still sticking to our moral code here). Finally it holds that only you have the true vision of what the perfect society will be and thus only you should rule the empire, for the good of all people (not breaking the role idea, or the idea that I was expanding on).

But, this is not really my point, my point is that using the idea of a well defined moral code and believing in its infallibility is not a good rule to use to judge goodness, sorry for using a CF analogy if that confused you, yes I too can be an ass.

>I am going to beat people with a bat over the head because the
>modern definition of GOODie is synominous (sp?) with pansy.
>Because I am striving for a greater good does not in any way
>mean I have to be nice, care about every single individual, or
>even care particularly much about the way in which you are
>trying to bring betterment to thera. Think of a drill
>seargent in boot camp. The definition of an asshole. But in
>the army he is one of the best players for good because while
>he might be riding you like an animal he is doing so in order
>to give you the skills that you will need to survive. Life
>isn't always easy and especially in a world like cf that is
>torn by so much war and violence I would expect more tough
>nosed goodie roles and less hippie saps.

Why do you use RL examples to explain things in a fantasy world, CF is not real life, in RL that drill sergeant is not ‘good’ by the same definition that an elf is good in CF, nor should he be, he is a RL person not a fantasy world creation.

The idea of a greater good is exactly the problem, the idea that as a player you can define your way into any idea is ridicules. There should not even be a stated character alignment if all I need to do is come up with some semi-plausible reason why my goodie would kill other goodies. Thinking about this is terms of RL conflicts is a problem, people are not good or evil in raw terms in RL, we should stop clouding the issue with what we see around ourselves and try thinking in a world in which people have god given natures that dictate morality.

>Remember you have to keep the definition of alignments fairly
>broad in order to allow a variety of roles. Not everyone is
>going to play goodie like an elf healer acolyte. And just
>because they don't fit that mold doesn't mean they are any
>less good.

Shades of gray are fine, be neutral. Does this limit choice in some cases, yes. But, if we accept the ideas of good/evil/neutral as defining characteristics of CF then lets use them and not redefine them into nothingness.

>This is a put yourself in their shoes situation. Jut because
>my philosophy does not exactly = yours in its execution does
>not mean its striving towards a similar goal. And goals are
>more important than actions because the meaning of actions is
>defined through the why's of how you did it. Otherwise we
>would have to neutralize every goodie that got wanted and
>attacked constantly by goodie guard mobs and the whitecloak
>encampment would have to go away.

Again, saying that because I did x because I believe y, and I happen to have a gold aura does not equal good. Why is it that imperials are evil in their striving for their ends but a goodie villager who kills an elf mage is just rping out his hatred of magic and is not evil, is his end not selfish, is it not his hate that he is quelling? Your idea works in a world in which actions are not judge against the quality of the inflicted. Since both the perpetrator and victim have defined moral qualities this definition does not work, unless you play ignorance which does not work in a world such as CF where these realities exist.

And finally I didn’t mean for my original post to be aimed at you personally, I apologize if you felt it was, just you made the point I disagreed with.

Being a goodie really isn't about not attacking other goodies. Its about conducting yourself in a way that follows a defined moral code that is not just about you.

This isn't really true. There most certainly are Moral Absolutes in the world of CF. Slaughtering orphans is always going to be evil, even if your eloquent role describes why your character thinks orphans are the epitome of evil.

If you're playing a goodie and want to kill another goodie, you absolutely have to be cognisant of the fact that you're both good. If I can't watch your actions and tell very clearly that you're good instead of evil or neutral, expect problems. And I don't mean just roleplaying remorse through a few emotes, I mean there has to be actual tangible indications that you're good, i.e. warning another goodie before you attack them, not attacking them at all, holding a long discussion before you attack them, etc.

Take a goodie Rager for example. While you might believe that magic is the root of all evil, and therefore decide that you need to kill goodies... under the Moral Absolute code you've decided that magic is what's important and good isn't, and therefore you're neutral.

I think we as a staff tend to be too lenient on goodies killing goodies if it fits within their cabal dogma. Battle, Tribunal and Outlander are particularly susceptible to this. If you're a goodie Outlander that makes a living out of slaughtering paladins, you should expect to be turned neutral pretty quickly - because you've chosen to disregard alignment for a different moral compass. I would put forth that you need to find an alternative method of dealing with good-aligned cabal enemies that doesn't involving killing them. That's why you're good, not neutral. Then in cabal raid situations and the like when you're forced in to fighting them, is the time to roleplay all that remorse.

Just look at it this way: If you're planning on fighting people of your own alignment regularly, even if you plan on roleplaying remorse, you should just be neutral instead.

All that said, I too am against a hard-coded solution to a moral quandry. If we could hard-code a solution that would be appropriate in all concievable situations, it wouldn't really be a moral quandry, would it?

I tend to agree with everythng you wrote, except I think a hard coded response would be appropriate. The reason for this is that a hard coded response ensures that actions are not going unnoticed. I would not like to see a sliding scale that slowly turns someone evil or neutral or anything of that nature, but something that causes the individual to wiegh the consequences of the actions. I am not sure what a response would look like but it would have to be small and temporary but be noticable at the same time.

As for not being able to respond to all situations like this in the same manner, I think if it only trigged when a goodie landed the killing blow on another goodie it would work as desired 99.9% of the time. There are few non-intentional kills of goodie vs goodie that happen but I wouldn't have a problem with a small temp response to these as well.

The benefit of this is that the characters involved have some immediate response to the good vs good killing, this causes a RP oppurtunity for both players. And, as long as the response is both strong enough to cause pause, and not strong enough to completely inhibit goodie vs goodie action were individual RP would in some cases lead to violence at least part of the time, this would be a plus and not a negative for the game.

>I would put forth that you
>need to find an alternative method of dealing with
>good-aligned cabal enemies that doesn't involving killing
>them. That's why you're good, not neutral. Then in cabal
>raid situations and the like when you're forced in to fighting
>them, is the time to roleplay all that remorse.

Are you serious? If I'm a goodie outlander and I make an offer for an elf tribunal conjurer to lay down his art and live in harmony with Thar-Eris, he refuses, then shows up at my cabal with a gang to take our item...I'm going to punk him and not feel sorry about it.

I have no problem with goodie ragers punking goodie mages. And not because they're wearing "rager glasses" wherein those mages appear evil. The goodie rager recognizes that said mages are "good", but that they're "deceived" and are playing with something forbidden and dangerous to the entire world. They must be convinced to cease their dangerous/forbidden activity (possibly through being killed alot) or else destroyed.

The difference between the good and evil rager, then, is which outcome is their preference. The good rager would prefer that goodie mages be purged of their magic and live happily ever after. The evil rager enjoys killing them, and would really rather just destroy them all. He may relish the killing as an end unto itself, not just a means of dissuading people from magic use.

Obviously I'm not an imm and as such can't set role-play "policy", but that's always the way I've looked at it.

...he refuses, then shows up at my cabal with a gang to take our item...I'm going to punk him and not feel sorry about it.

I specifically mentioned this situation, where you're forced to fight, in my above post.

I stand by exactly what I said. There has to be some tangible difference between a goodie Rager/Outalnder/Tribunal and a neutral Rager/Outlander/Tribunal. If you roleplay the occasional bit of remorse, or write it in to your role, but behave for all intents and purposes exactly the same as a neutral, expect yourself to be turned neutral. Because, um, you're acting exactly like a neutral. It doesn't seem too far-fetched to me, and this standard has been relatively consistently enforced by the staff over time.

Role-playing remorse isn't "behaving for all intents and purposes exactly the same as a neutral". It's role-playing remorse, while the neutral or evil character wouldn't role-play remorese (and might actually role-play glee).

I honestly don't see why this is different than the situation for Marans. Maran's are all about destroying red-aura'd people, even if they're not doing anybody any harm. You could have an old, sick, paraplegic bed-ridden duergar, and if he had a red aura, Team Maran would destroy him in a heartbeat. And without remorse. Does that seem like the action/attitude of a "good" person to you?

The rubric I tried to use when interviewing potential marans was to see whether they really "got" that the whole "destroy evil" thing was only temporary, and was a means to an end (lack of evil and, hence, peace). I tried to make sure they were in it for the end instead of the means (i.e. doing lots of killing). Practically speaking, a Maran who was in it for the "means" would look about the same as a Maran who was in it for the "end", at least with regard to who they PK. The difference would be in how they role-play it with other people. Is that a "tangible" difference? I think so.

Grurk and I were just talking about this, and I came up with another small point I wanted to throw out there.

Playing a goodie Rager is HARD. The cabal just doesn't lend itself to being good. The current makeup of the Battle cabal: 20+ neutral and evils for every 1 goodie. If you're going to play a goodie Rager that isn't in danger of skirting the "neutral" line, there should probably be some major inner conflict going on, and some very hard choices to be made.

Keep in mind I'm not a Battle imm, so I'm viewing this as a goodie god not a Battle god. Maybe Kasty will chime in more.

For more examples, Outlander is currently a 1-to-10 ratio for goodies-vs-non-goodies. Of the alignment-blind cabals, only Tribunal is currently running a roughly even 1-3 ratio between goodies and non-goodies. A lot of the roles that people come up with for these cabals ARE alignment-blind, and hence they should be, at best, neutral.

In CF land, you have to act good in order to be good. It's not enough to just decide that you're good, then go off and kill goodies. Go back to the test Drok likes to bring up: "If a well-roleplayed paladin should want to wrath your ass, you should probably be evil." You can apply a similar logic to neutrality.

In CF land, you have to act good in order to be good. It's not enough to just decide that you're good, then go off and kill goodies.

Okay, this sort of gets to the heart of our disagreement. On the one hand, we have Odrirg's example of the guy who thinks its "good" to euthanize cripples and orphans. Clearly that guy isn't "good", regardless of how he views his actions. But why is that the case? Because he's killing powerless goodies in order to possibly achieve a small benefit for everyone else.

But is it always "evil" to kill goodies? Clearly not. Consider the paladin who intervenes on behalf of an elf invoker when the elf is attacked by a storm rager, then ends up killing the rager. Is that "evil"? After all, he was defending the invoker, who was attacked without provocation. It's not evil, then, because of the paladin's motivation. He intervened, and subsequently killed another good-aligned individual, but he did so in order to protect an "innocent" third party.

Now let's shift it around. Say we have two goodies. One is very prideful. He has a powerful magic item and is about to invoke it, thinking he can manipulate its power. In truth the item was crafted by various dark gods, and its invocation will usher in the era of Eternal Night. The second goodie knows this truth beyond a shadow of a doubt. Maybe it was revealed to him by his good-aligned deity. He's already tried reasoning with the prideful guy, but he refuses to change his mind. So the second guy faces a tough choice. Either he takes the prideful guy out, thus preventing him from invoking the item, or he lives with the consequences of not doing so.

Tough choice indeed, but if he decides to take out the prideful guy, nobody is likely to call him "evil" or "neutral" for doing so. Why? For the same reason the paladin's intervention above wasn't considered "evil". Namely, motivation. He did it in order to protect Thera from the terrible consequences that would result from his failure to act.

In my opinion, that is the exact situation in which good-aligned ragers find themselves. They "know" magic is bad. They "know" it's forbidden. They "know" it's dangerous, and that it has a significant negative effect on Thera and its inhabitants. They don't want to kill good-aligned mages, per se, but they are compelled to do so precisely because they (the rager) are good-aligned. They know magic is bad for Thera, and they feel "called" to do what it takes to ensure Thera's safety.

The question, then, is how are such ragers different from the cripple-killing guy Odrirg described? A few ways off the top of my head:

1. The cripple-killing guy has a lower level of certainty in the "positive effect" of his questionable actions. Ragers "know" bad things will happen if magic is allowed to continue; the cripple-killer just has a vague notion that things might be "better" if he saved money by eliminating undesirables.

2. The "postive effect" is much greater in the rager's case, since he's "saving the world". The cripple-killer is just raising some extra cash.

3. In the rager's case, the "victims" of the questionable activity (i.e. good-aligned mages) can choose to modify their behavior so that the questionable activity is no longer necessary. In that sense, the victims are willing participants in the violence that ensues, since they refuse to modify their actions. Not so for the cripple-killer. Cripples and orphans cannot "choose" not to be crippled or orphaned.

To quote Kastellyn's post, which was quoting my own post:

"I would put forth that you need to find an alternative method of dealing with good-aligned cabal enemies that doesn't involving killing them. That's why you're good, not neutral. Then in cabal raid situations and the like when you're forced in to fighting them, is the time to roleplay all that remorse."

The two situations you described are exactly why I'm against a hard-coded solution to goodie vs goodie violence. Sometimes, you may have to fight. But a Rager also knows that every time a mage takes a breath, he's not imminently destroying the world.

Because he's good, he needs to have some other method beyond just wantonly slaughtering every goodie he comes across. Maybe he sees non-good mages as willing acomplices to the magic-conspiracy, so they die on sight. Goodies he believes are being duped or decieved, or are acting through ignorance, or maybe they're charmed. Take your pick. One way or another, he needs to be approaching these goodie mages, in his actions, differently then a non-goodie Rager would. Sometimes, there wont even be a clearly right answer. That's why being a well-played goodie Rager should be hard to pull off.

can you asnwer these questions for me please.

What is the universal rule that I as a player can apply to all my actions to verify that they are good.


as a former philosophy major everytime I see people complain about how people fit into the various alignments I cringe because so few who play this game understand the basics of what compromises an ethical code. We must as a player group remember that in order to seperate the three alignments we must have simple defining rules and to be honest not attacking people of your same alignment is a very poor rule even among lightwalker.

The reason this rule is poor is because you can't even begin to universalize it to all goodies. There are so many situations where it has to be ok and so many others where it really should be encouraged that its obvious the no good v good rule is bad. Now the whole you should be truly remorseful thing... different roles should allow for different levels of remorse but its all going to come down to how this interacts with that one defining rule for what it means to be good.

My rules by the way are

GOODIE

always act with the intention of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

basically intent is basis of judgement for if an action was good or bad since people can't always predict the future and make mistakes. Your goal though is always to make life better for the most people you can and you always act in such a manner even if its not necesarily benificial to you the individual.

Evil

always act with the intention of creating the greatest possible good for yourself.

again intent is the key because sometimes you cannot accuratly predict results and making a mistake doesn't make someone good or evil. The basic driving force behind evil people is that they place their own values ahead of everyone around them. While they may not betray everyone they make decisions always thinking of what is going to benifit me the most.

NEUTRAL

Its hard to make a universal statement for neutral because it falls in between but the basic jist is sometimes you are self sacrificing and sometimes you are not. You might take one for the team one day and the next you may not feel that its neccesary and save your own tail. The key of course here is that you do a little for the team and a little for yourself because otherwise your playing a goodie or evil in neutral clothing.

about your rules.

Intentions are not, and should not be, enough. Not in a world where good and evils are more than just concepts.


In your system...this character would be a goodie.


A human raised by a rich seantryn imperial-related familly. Over his life, he has seen too many empire resources going to feeding the poor and orphanages. Without those resources, the empire could afford to spread, and carry civilization and peace and prosperity to the suffering uncivilized barbarians.

In order to bring good civilization to the suffering masses, the poor and orphans of the world need to die.

The greatest number of people will get the greatest amount of good, by murdering all drains on society.


This person might *THINK* he was a lightwalker. But he isn't. In a world where good and evil are more than just nebulous ideas, but actually concrete and tangible "good intentions" aren't enough to make you "good".

"I cringe because so few who play this game understand the basics of what compromises an ethical code"

Except that CF *has* an ethical code, laid out by the gods that enforce it. You're applying too much real-life thought to a fantasy game. A fantasy game that has black-and-white truths that don't exist in the real world.

"There are so many situations where it has to be ok"

Yes, this is why I - and others - have stated that we're against a hard-coded solution for it.

"and so many others where it really should be encouraged"

This is not true.

"always act with the intention of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people."

Intentions are wonderful, and certainly play a big part in defining your character, but in the end they're almost worthless for gauging your characters alignment on a consistent basis. Odrig gave some good examples in his reply to your post.

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.

I would put forth that you need to find an alternative method of dealing with good-aligned cabal enemies that doesn't involving killing them. That's why you're good, not neutral. Then in cabal raid situations and the like when you're forced in to fighting them, is the time to roleplay all that remorse.

Spot on. Though I would add that you're never forced into fighting anyone, unless they catch you unawares with a big ass gang and don't give you a chance to flee.

I have no problem with goodie ragers punking goodie mages. And not because they're wearing "rager glasses" wherein those mages appear evil. The goodie rager recognizes that said mages are "good", but that they're "deceived" and are playing with something forbidden and dangerous to the entire world. They must be convinced to cease their dangerous/forbidden activity (possibly through being killed alot) or else destroyed.

My initial thought when I read this paragraph was, "So you're going to throw alignment out the window to kill a dude whose only crime is that he has a different world view than you? How is that the action of a good person?"

The key point here (that both you and Aarn bring up) is the fact that you have to find alternative ways to deal with good aligned mages that don't necessarily involve killing them. But they have to find alternative ways to deal with you - it's a two way street.

If your good-aligned Villager's initial reaction upon stumbling upon a goodie mage somewhere (and I say stumbling because the current Cabal wars setup doesn't present you with any real reasons to raid another Cabal that might have a goodie mage in it) is to try to punk them, that's not acting in accordance with your alignment. And alignment is pretty much Ground Zero in CF as far as RP goes. If you succeeded, would I as a Battle Imm applaud you for killing that mage? You betcha. Would I as a CF Imm slide your alignment towards neutral regardless of any remorse you showed? Almost guaranteed. Conversely, if you engaged in heated conversation with said mage concerning the conflict between your philosophy and his, and didn't kill him, would I as an Evil-aligned Battle Imm applaud you for your restraint and loyalty to the Light? Hell no. Would the Commander be justified in booting your sorry ass? Maybe, depends on his RP. Would I as a CF Imm give you some XP or other type of reward? Almost guaranteed.

Does this conflict between alignment and Cabal goals make playing a good aligned Villager difficult? Hell yes. Does it make it more fun? I'll let you be the judge of that, but if you're at all into RP, I'd say the answer to that is obvious.

Let me edit your last paragraph:

The difference between the good, neutral and evil rager, then, is which outcome is their preference. The good rager would do everything in his power to convince goodie mages that their use of magic is wrong, without resorting to evil acts of his own to convince them of the fact. The neutral rager would probably prefer that goodie mages be purged of their magic and live happily ever after. The evil rager enjoys killing them, and would really rather just destroy them all. He may relish the killing as an end unto itself, not just a means of dissuading people from magic use.

The bottom line to me is, you can convince yourself that magic/orphans/puppies/nature is/are evil all you want, and that's fine. You're what I call 'misguided'. Once you start doing evil things to these groups/concepts/people based on these misguided principles, you're not good anymore.

Obviously I'm not an imm and as such can't set role-play "policy", but that's always the way I've looked at it.

Actually, this is a great discussion thread. Lots here for players and Imms to think about and chew on.

Kastellyn the Devourer of Magic, Lord of Legends

>My initial thought when I read this paragraph was, "So you're
>going to throw alignment out the window to kill a dude whose
>only crime is that he has a different world view than you?
>How is that the action of a good person?"

Of course I don't think you throw alignment out the window. On the contrary, you may be compelled to kill the guy because you're good-aligned. See my reply to Aarn.

And I don't consider the mage to simply "have a different worldview". Maybe some people play their ragers as relativists, but my characters believe in absolute truth. For a rager, one absolute truth is that magic is forbidden and dangerous, not only to the wielder but also to Thera as a whole. That's a foundational truth. It has to be, otherwise I would agree with you that it's bogus role-play for a good-aligned rager to kill a good-aligned mage in an attempt to motivate him not to be magic. If your rager is thinking to himself, "Well, I happen to think magic is forbidden and dangerous, but this guy has his own equally valid worldview, so maybe I should just leave him alone," then you're right- he shouldn't be killing mages.

>If your good-aligned Villager's initial reaction upon
>stumbling upon a goodie mage somewhere (and I say stumbling
>because the current Cabal wars setup doesn't present you with
>any real reasons to raid another Cabal that might have a
>goodie mage in it) is to try to punk them, that's not acting
>in accordance with your alignment.

I agree. You should plead with them to quit their magic voluntarily. If they refuse, you state very plainly (and without malice) what the consequences of that refusal will be, i.e. that you'll be forced to do everything in your power to destroy them. Maybe you give them a one-time "get out of jail free" card and let them word/teleport before starting to hunt them.

>The bottom line to me is, you can convince yourself that
>magic/orphans/puppies/nature is/are evil all you want, and
>that's fine. You're what I call 'misguided'. Once you start
>doing evil things to these groups/concepts/people based on
>these misguided principles, you're not good anymore.

So, here we have it, from a Battle Imm's mouth. Ragers are misguided. Magic is, in fact, not forbidden or dangerous to Thera. Moreover, the level of a certainty a goodie rager can have in the "correctness" of his worldview (i.e. that magic is forbidden and dangerous) is not sufficient to justify killing another goodie.

Personally, if my goodie character really "believed" the Rager worldview then I would feel compelled to kill goodie mages should they refuse to be purged of their magic. Imho it would be questionable goodie role-play not to.

"So, here we have it, from a Battle Imm's mouth. Ragers are misguided. Magic is, in fact, not forbidden or dangerous to Thera."

Okay, now you're being silly. Of course in-character Kastellyn believes Ragers are right and everyone should kill all mages. Kastellyn the Character wont give two ####s about your alignment or the mages alignment. In fact I seem to remember him stating clearly that he would be applauding a goodie Rager killing a goodie mage, at the same time he was sliding his alignment toward neutral.

To paraphrase myself again: Rager mentality doesn't lend itself very well to being good.

In CF land, there are multiple "right" paths. Every cabal thinks they're right. Being "good" is one of those "right" paths. So is killing mages, enforcing the laws, burning down cities, and more. Forum Kasty - and all the rest of us - can easily admit that our cabal's path isn't the one single truth.

>To paraphrase myself again: Rager mentality doesn't lend
>itself very well to being good.

And I still don't understand why this is the case. If a rager can be "certain" (in character) that his worldview is "correct", then part of role-playing his "good" alignment should be to act altruistically on behalf of Thera and Therans. That may require him to hunt good-aligned mages who aren't convinced by more peaceful means of persuasion.

>And I still don't understand why this is the case. If a rager
>can be "certain" (in character) that his worldview is
>"correct", then part of role-playing his "good" alignment
>should be to act altruistically on behalf of Thera and
>Therans.

The thing is, that's absolutely a valid character to play. It's just not necessarily a good character.

Only B-movie villians think they're doing the wrong thing. Just about everyone else, implicitly or explicitly, believes they're doing the right thing. (Or at least, not the wrong thing; they're doing what anyone in their situation would do.)

There are a lot of great roles out there for neutral or even evil characters who fervently believe they're the good guys and doing the right thing, but wouldn't necessarily fit into our "good" alignment.

Here, look at it another way. Going back to what was said earlier, CF has absolute right and wrongs. There are, however, several different absolute right and wrongs. For example, the standard goodie-help-everyone-kill-evil version, the Battle-kill-all-mages version, the Outlander-treehugger version, the Tribunal-order-society version, and so on.

As Kasty pointed out earlier, the good vs evil one is possibly the most prevelant in CF. The goodie one is also possibly the most restrictive of all the paths to take. Certainly more restrictive then the evil path.

The problem you run in to with a goodie Rager, is that you're mixing two right answers, in the CF morality sense. That means you have to reconcile two correct world views that don't necessarily agree with each other. That's why it's much easier - and much more common - to play neutral Outlander/Battle/Trib, because you can more or less shed the alignment part and focus on the cabal part, or play goodie in the Fort, because then you focus only on the alignment side.

That doesn't mean it can't be done, and done well. It's just harder, and you run the risk of being put in situations where the two primary "moralities" are conflicting. If we made any one morality right or wrong, or allowed one to win, there wouldn't be much of a game to play.

Okay, maybe here's a good way to state our disagreement:

If a good-aligned character becomes "reasonably" convinced of a certain worldview, then acts in a manner befitting a good-aligned character vis-a-vis that worldview, must that character still be considered good-aligned?

If it were reasonable for my character to believe that every time a mage casts "detect invis" that a thousand elven babies die horrible deaths, I might not kill all mages outright, but I'd strongly consider it should they refuse to stop casting "detect invis". That's the "good-aligned" thing to do, given that particular belief system.

There are evil acts done by people who consider themselves "good", but in truth aren't. Then there are evil acts done by people who really are good, but are just horribly misguided. Take the mother who kills one of her children because she hallucinated that he was trying to kill the rest of her children. Is she "neutral" or "evil"? Or is she just a delusional goodie?

Or how about this. You have Joe Maran. He's a diligent guy, and destroys lots of really evil people. Unbeknownst to him, a group of Scions casts a powerful spell on him such that Orcs look like Elves and vice versa. Joe Maran then proceeds to kill lots of "orcs", which are actually elves. This was an evil act, in that he killed a slew of goodies. But he thought he was doing good, and had no way of knowing that wasn't the case. Should Joe Maran be turned evil (or neutral) in response to his heinous crimes?

>Okay, maybe here's a good way to state our disagreement:
>
>If a good-aligned character becomes "reasonably" convinced of
>a certain worldview, then acts in a manner befitting a
>good-aligned character vis-a-vis that worldview, must that
>character still be considered good-aligned?

No, it is not given that the character is still good-aligned. CF has fixed morality when alignment is involved. Neutrals are free to kill all they perceive as evil(unless they are so utterly delusional that they perceive everything evil, in this case, they are evil themselves). The alignment is defined by how others perceive your character, not how he perceives himself.

>If it were reasonable for my character to believe that every
>time a mage casts "detect invis" that a thousand elven babies
>die horrible deaths, I might not kill all mages outright, but
>I'd strongly consider it should they refuse to stop casting
>"detect invis". That's the "good-aligned" thing to do, given
>that particular belief system.

In CF world, casting detect invis does not kill elven babies. You will have to map your character's belief system to the fixed good-neutral-evil belief system of CF, that doesn't depend on how your character views things, in order to decide your character's alignment. Don't become delusional yourself with the alignment and think about how others would see this character as. Your character isn't good because he does what he sees as the "good" thing to do. He is good-aligned because what he perceives as good is same as what is defined as good in the fixed CF-morality system that does not depend on your character's views. You have the most freedom if you choose your alignment by how others would see a person with your character's worldview and actions as and this way, you'll have the best leeway to play your character's worldviews without conflicting with your alignment.


>Take the mother who kills one of her children
>because she hallucinated that he was trying to kill the rest
>of her children. Is she "neutral" or "evil"? Or is she just
>a delusional goodie?

Neutral if she keeps having such delusions. If she has such strong murderous delusions about most of the people she is evil. Goodie if she understands her error and has remorse over her actions(redemption is a possibility for a neutral), but if she does such things again, then she is neutral.

>Or how about this. You have Joe Maran. He's a diligent guy,
>and destroys lots of really evil people. Unbeknownst to him,
>a group of Scions casts a powerful spell on him such that Orcs
>look like Elves and vice versa. Joe Maran then proceeds to
>kill lots of "orcs", which are actually elves. This was an
>evil act, in that he killed a slew of goodies. But he
>thought he was doing good, and had no way of knowing
>that wasn't the case. Should Joe Maran be turned evil (or
>neutral) in response to his heinous crimes?

Joe Maran was evil at the time of his crime(due to the mass nature of the event, though the perception thing may scewer it to neutral, but definitely not a goodie). If a Fort Imm saw it, it might result to Joe Maran getting booted and turned neutral. Because of the Scion involvement, Joe Maran would have a chance to redeem his act to return to Light. However, the Imm's can't spectate Joe 24/7, so it might be so that Joe is forgiven, as it could happen that the Imm responsible would never see Joe again.

>Joe Maran was evil at the time of his crime(due to the mass
>nature of the event, though the perception thing may scewer it
>to neutral, but definitely not a goodie). If a Fort Imm saw
>it, it might result to Joe Maran getting booted and turned
>neutral. Because of the Scion involvement, Joe Maran would
>have a chance to redeem his act to return to Light. However,
>the Imm's can't spectate Joe 24/7, so it might be so that Joe
>is forgiven, as it could happen that the Imm responsible would
>never see Joe again.

Then we just fundamentally disagree on how alignment should work. I consider Joe to be unquestionably "good-aligned" throughout the whole ordeal. He never wavered from acting as a "good-aligned" person should, given his perception of reality (which was altered). You can't be "accidentally" evil.

"The alignment is defined by how others perceive your character, not how he perceives himself."

This is a pretty good quote, and the simplest way I've seen to break it down yet.

I think we're out of other ways to explain it! Isildur, I'm afraid you're just going to have to accept the fact that we're right. You've now heard it from a high-ranking good god, a high-ranking battle god, an implementor, and some other players. It's time to accept and move on.

Good discussion though, thanks.

Aarn?

>I think we're out of other ways to explain it! Isildur, I'm
>afraid you're just going to have to accept the fact that we're
>right. You've now heard it from a high-ranking good god, a
>high-ranking battle god, an implementor, and some other
>players. It's time to accept and move on.

I accept that you guys make policy, and that your concept of alignments is "the way it is". I just disagree on whether that's the way it "should" be.

What I think would be great is if there was consistency. Right now, good align guards don't look for alternative ways to handle good aligned wanted PCs. Even if you walk into Darsylon after having killed a drow in Galadon, those elvish guards try to kill you without a moment's thought.

If you want the players to follow your take on good align, why not adjust game mechanics to encourage it and teach it? Why not have the elvish guards scold good aligned criminals rather than murder them? Why not have the good align merchants refuse to deal with criminals rather than attack them? Why not pursue your and Kastellyn's arguments to their logical conclusions inre to game mechanics? I read what you both say here, and then I run past those goodie guards in the Weald, and it doesn't add up.

Can you reconcile the behavior of guards with your responses to Isildur? Because I don't see how you can. Any justification you provide for guard's actions could just as easily apply to Outlanders/Ragers/et al.

FWIW.

You can't think you are serving the greater good, you actually have to be serving the greater good. Goodie killing someone about to unleash ultimate evil actually is a good act. Goodie rager killing a goodie mage isn't. Ahah, you say who gets to decide what is good and what is not? Again, a simple answer - the imms.

So, here we have it, from a Battle Imm's mouth. Ragers are misguided. Magic is, in fact, not forbidden or dangerous to Thera. Moreover, the level of a certainty a goodie rager can have in the "correctness" of his worldview (i.e. that magic is forbidden and dangerous) is not sufficient to justify killing another goodie.

Not exactly what I meant. As a good-aligned rager, you can convince yourself that magic is evil (Red Aura), those who wield it are evil (Red Aura), and therefore you are completely justified in killing magic users regardless of alignment. Just because your character believes this is an adequate justification does not make it so. In my opinion, any good-aligned character that uses arguments like this to justify doing evil things is 'misguided' in regards to their alignment.

Kastellyn's stance, as an evil half-elf BattleRager, is that all mages deserve to die as punishment for the ages old betrayal of the Village by others of their ilk. Magic may be dangerous to Thera - but that's not why I want them all dead. Your character could have dozens of reasons for wanting to kill mages or see the destruction of magic, including the belief that magic is dangerous to all of Thera (an altruistic world view I would expect more from a good-aligned Villager than an evil-aligned Villager) or revenge on the mages that wiped out your village leaving you as the sole survivor. There's no one correct reason to hate magic.

As an aside, I would think that the vast majority of Therans view Villagers as 'misguided'. I'm fine with that.

My whole point on this thread is that if your character does evil things, they are not good, regardless of whatever mental gymnastics they do to justify it. An example: you could easily write a role for a storm giant that said, in essence, 'Orphans are the root of all evil in this world because they will eventually rise up and kill everyone that has never donated to the orphanage.' If you then went out and killed all the orphans you came across, including the good-aligned ones, I think (hope) we'd both agree that you're not good-aligned, regardless of how much your character believed they were looking out for the best interests of everyone in Thera.

Now substitute 'mages' for 'orphans' and 'destroy Thera through their manipulation of forbidden magic' for 'rise up and kill everyone that has never donated to the orphanage'.

Personally, if my goodie character really "believed" the Rager worldview then I would feel compelled to kill goodie mages should they refuse to be purged of their magic. Imho it would be questionable goodie role-play not to.

That's fine. But those would be the actions of a neutral-aligned individual, not a good-aligned individual. FWIW, wholesale slaughter of mages is the realm of evil-aligned individuals.

The last thing I'll add is that your good-aligned Villager should also be looking at the alignment of mages as sort of a yardstick of their potential to do whatever it is you hate mages for. In other words, if your character thinks that mages will eventually destroy the world through their manipulation of magic, you have to ask yourself if this is a goal that a good-aligned mage would work towards - one that would involve the wholesale slaughter of a lot of innocents? Would a good-aligned mage ride a flaming demon steed through a remote storm giant Village and kill everyone there, sparing only one child? If revenge for an act like this is your justification for killing mages (maybe you hope you find and kill the ones who did it), is that elf transmuter a good target?

If you're a neutral or evil Villager, a lot of these types of questions won't even occur to you - nor should they. If you're a good Villager, and your mage enemy is neutral or evil, a lot of these types of questions won't matter to you - nor should they.

Again, great points and great discussion!

Kastellyn the Devourer of Magic, Lord of Legends

>Not exactly what I meant. As a good-aligned rager, you can
>convince yourself that magic is evil (Red Aura), those who
>wield it are evil (Red Aura), and therefore you are completely
>justified in killing magic users regardless of alignment.
>Just because your character believes this is an
>adequate justification does not make it so.

I absolutely, positively agree with this statement. The good-aligned rager who justifies his killing of good-aligned mages with the argument that "they're evil" is not being honest with himself, and has convinced himself of these mages' evilness in clear opposition to the truth. The average goodie mage doesn't act evil. So I would consider it highly questionable for a goodie rager to regard them as such. But you don't have to regard mages as "evil" to be compelled to kill them.

>My whole point on this thread is that if your character does
>evil things, they are not good, regardless of whatever mental
>gymnastics they do to justify it. An example: you could
>easily write a role for a storm giant that said, in essence,
>'Orphans are the root of all evil in this world because they
>will eventually rise up and kill everyone that has never
>donated to the orphanage.'

The difference here is that it's not reasonable to believe that all orphans would act in that way, or even some significant number. Given that unreasonability, the person who believes this is either 1) delusional, or 2) really doesn't believe it, and is just using it as an excuse to kill orphans. The other issue is that this storm giant is killing all orphans, including some who may not grow up to kill non-donors. That's questionable, but it doesn't apply to goodie ragers since they target willfull mages who are currently engaging in dangerous, destructive activity.

If it's sufficiently "reasonable" for a goodie rager to believe that goodie mages are highly dangerous and destructive, then his altruistic, compassionate, unselfish nature (i.e. his gold-aura-ness) should compel him to take appropriate action, which may involve destroying such goodie mages. That doesn't mean he thinks they're evil, just that they're ignorant as to the true nature of their craft, dangerous, and a threat to all Therans.

>Personally, if my goodie character really "believed" the
>Rager worldview then I would feel compelled to kill
>goodie mages should they refuse to be purged of their magic.
>Imho it would be questionable goodie role-play not
>to.
>
>That's fine. But those would be the actions of a
>neutral-aligned individual, not a good-aligned individual.

Really? Sure sounds like the actions of a good-aligned individual to me, since they're motivated by altruism, self-sacrifice, compassion, etc. Not traits associated with a neutral. I'd imagine that your average neutral individual, when confronted with the information that magic was forbidden and dangerous, might just say, "Oh well, that's somebody else's problem." Or maybe, "Well, if the world's going to hell in a handbasket, I might as well enjoy myself in the meantime." They wouldn't be compelled by their altruistic nature to commit violence against mages who, deep down, they really don't want to hurt. (Because they view killing goodies to be a bad, bad thing.)

>In other words, if your character thinks that
>mages will eventually destroy the world through their
>manipulation of magic, you have to ask yourself if this is a
>goal that a good-aligned mage would work towards - one that
>would involve the wholesale slaughter of a lot of innocents?

Agree 100%. Clearly, some mages (Scions) have as their stated goal the destruction of the world. They would obviously take priority over some random elf. The goodie rager assume that the elf isn't aware that his magic is having a negative effect on the world. He knows elves are categorically "good", and this is never a goal that an elf would work towards. But, it is nevertheless true (in his mind) that the elf's magic is bringing Thera that much closer to destruction, whether the elf realizes it or not.

>I absolutely, positively agree with this statement. The
>good-aligned rager who justifies his killing of good-aligned
>mages with the argument that "they're evil" is not being
>honest with himself, and has convinced himself of these mages'
>evilness in clear opposition to the truth. The average
>goodie mage doesn't act evil. So I would consider it
>highly questionable for a goodie rager to regard them as such.
> But you don't have to regard mages as "evil" to be compelled
>to kill them.

Wait, wait, what? Are you talking about 1st choice of action? I think that as a good, you DO have to regard somebody as evil, or at least exhaust (all?) other avenues of dealing with your target first.

>...it doesn't apply
>to goodie ragers since they target willfull mages who are
>currently engaging in dangerous, destructive activity.
>
>If it's sufficiently "reasonable" for a goodie rager to
>believe that goodie mages are highly dangerous and
>destructive, then his altruistic, compassionate, unselfish
>nature (i.e. his gold-aura-ness) should compel him to take
>appropriate action, which may involve destroying such goodie
>mages. That doesn't mean he thinks they're evil, just that
>they're ignorant as to the true nature of their craft,
>dangerous, and a threat to all Therans.

But... where's the proof? If the mage isn't DOING evil, no matter what our goodie villager BELIEVES and KNOWS to be true, by killing a mage who is doing no evil, but in fact is doing good, he's ignoring what all his experience and senses are telling him. His/her inability to deviate from their "die mage scum (but I'm sorry!)" dogma is supplanting their conscience's ability to determine and identify good and evil, and is instead just doing whatever the hell he feels like. That it is driven by altruism is irrelevant, since if there's no evidence of damage, who exactly are you saving?

>Clearly, some mages (Scions) have as their
>stated goal the destruction of the world. They would
>obviously take priority over some random elf. The goodie
>rager assume that the elf isn't aware that his magic is having
>a negative effect on the world. He knows elves are
>categorically "good", and this is never a goal that an elf
>would work towards. But, it is nevertheless true (in his
>mind) that the elf's magic is bringing Thera that much closer
>to destruction, whether the elf realizes it or not.

If it's only true in his mind, then it's not really a definite anchor for a true goodie's moral compass. If he kills the elf because the elf's magic is evil, he's denying the elf a chance at redemption someday, even though the elf may not change immediately. He's become an inquisitor then, since the elf has not actually DONE any wrong. The question then is: does your intolerance of magic trump the good elf's right to live and do good, though his ways may be wrongheaded and (possibly, since our rager, nor can anybody? prove that magic in and of itself is actually destroying the world) dangerous?

Much love, Isildur, I see where you're coming from, but I you're pushing a relativist/subjective line of logic. And that's often very useful, when it's primal questions of alignment on CF, I don't think it works.

>Wait, wait, what? Are you talking about 1st choice of action?
>I think that as a good, you DO have to regard somebody as
>evil, or at least exhaust (all?) other avenues of dealing with
>your target first.

I'm assuming the goodie rager would exhaust other avenues first, because as a good-aligned guy he doesn't want to take innocent life without need. However, given what he (reasonably) believes to be true re: magic, there is "need".

>But... where's the proof? If the mage isn't DOING evil, no
>matter what our goodie villager BELIEVES and KNOWS to be true,
>by killing a mage who is doing no evil, but in fact is doing
>good, he's ignoring what all his experience and senses are
>telling him.

The mage doesn't have to be doing evil. He can ignorantly (yet innocently) be doing something that's dangerous and destructive.

To borrow from the Joe Maran analogy, let's say you're Bob Maran and you know Joe's been deceived, and that he's about to start hacking the heads off a gaggle of elves. Do you take Joe Out in order to save the elves? Sure you do, despite his gold-aura.

>That it is driven by altruism is irrelevant, since if there's no evidence
>of damage, who exactly are you saving?

The question is whether there's evidence of damage. If I worship a Battle deity and he tells me magic is destroying Thera, I'm going to take that as the "word of God" and accept it as truth. I guess it's still up for debate whether that's sufficient "evidence".

If your lightwalker finds that the answer to conflict is always to kill, you won't be playing a lightwalker all the time. This holds true regardless of class and cabal.

Weird situations arise that hardcoding cannot adequately handle. Prior to steroids being given to the inner guardians, my elf defended the Refuge from three Tribunals(paladin, an evil bard, and a neutral warrior), and a Scion. In a different context, a PALADIN (of all classes!) ought to be in conflict with the bard and jumping all over that Scion instead of the high elf defending his home from the four invaders, but I think the raid started as a retrieval for both the Tribunal and Scions, and although the Outer fell quickly, the Scion wasn't about to leave when there was the opportunity for fresh meat during the raid. The result was something that looked very much like bad class/alignment roleplay, but you have to look at the larger context, and only a human can do that. And if that situation had been judged as offcolor, if an immortal caught it, it might have been dealt with and I never heard about it, and that's their business.


My favorite quote from the scene, prior to the attack on the inner guardian:
Outlander: "You don't really want to kill a worshipper of Shokai, do you?"
Tribunal paladin: "No sweets, so why don't you leave?"


P.S. The Scion turned on the paladin when the raid went sour, so all was left right in the world.

Addendum: For my next Outlander, can Bioempathy last as long as a WANTED flag and Trepidation give Bloody Shackles damage? Muchos gracias!

>Addendum: For my next Outlander, can Bioempathy last as long
>as a WANTED flag and Trepidation give Bloody Shackles damage?

No, but you will have to catch a person attacking a nature mob in one of four protected nature areas in order to use those powers. Also, if you accidentally attack one of your enemies in the wrong area, you'll be thrown out of Outlander and given a demeaning title.

Actually, this is the first time that an imm has bothered, even in a backhanded way, to mention how much playing a Tribunal sucks. Yes, your powers hinder your enemies far more than their powers hinder you, but the rest of it completely blows.

Thanks for keeping things in perspective, Nep. Yer da balm.

Hey, I play everything. I've seen the good and the bad of all of it.

Ultimately, this would be a *bad* thing to hardcode since it would in effect neutralize a lot of valid roleplay angles. It's really up to the players in question to check their actions (or down the road suffer consequences for those actions)...and ultimately roleplay a certain amount of grief in the slaying of another lightwalker.


As an example, when I played Sharisalk (good-aligned rager assassin) I would take the time to march to my diety's shrine and pray for the 'lost souls...so they may find their way back to the Light"...cha cha cha...as a sort of atonement for the slaying of a good mage. Additionally I'd occasionally try to actually talk to the 'affected' lightwalker...in an attempt to turn them off of magic. (Obviously no invoker is going to give up magic..but still, roleplay) These are just little things that you can do with a goodie who assaults other goodies...these don't get you a free ticket out of the hotseat though. Any role where a goodie needs to assault another goodie is a tough one to play...and when chosing such a role you need to understand that you're walking a tightrope. It *can* be done, but it's pretty precarious and easy to slip up.

The problem I have with this, is that as I've read in post regarding alignment is tha CF alignment is a bit strict, people are born with good, evil, or neutral auras it is not a passing thing. To RP that you hope people find their way back to the light plays blind to this fact.

Example: Elf villager kills elf mage.

All elves except the rarest of the rare are good, less then 1 in a generation is evil, how could it be good RP for the villager to play it off that he is hoping that the other elf finds the light. The most common reason I read for this is that the villager in this case believes magic is evil and thus all magic users are evil (similar things can be said about all other cabal's allowing a mix of alignments). But this is just a redefinition of what good and evil is, it seems very silly to make any judgement calls (IE those made by IMM's) if there are already born in reason to allow players to redefine the basic structures around which the CF universe is crafted. We all know that no 1 IMM watches/knows everything about any 1 character. And thus, how can any judgements ever be made, perhaps it is the 10% of the time no one is watching that they attone for their sins, etc.

I think the IMM's are great, I love the game, and I understand everyone is doing the best they can and exactly what they feel they should. My point is that this seems like a thing that could have a hard coded negative responses, and I don't mean goodie attacks/kills goodie = alignment changed to evil, obviously that is too drastic but something that creates a reason for the player as well as the character to consider their actions carefully would not be a bad idea.

Carrot stick, that whole deal or so I'm told.