> There's a few things here I'm going to comment on.
>
>Item 1 - Goods killing neutrals.
>
> Personally, I don't see it as some huge horrible sin...as
>long as it's not a constant thing. It should also not be a
>thoughtless act IC. By this I mean, if I ever see a good
>whacking neutral mob after neutral mob just for...oh, I dunno,
>let's say copper...I'm going to intervene. Additionally, if I
>see a good who kills a ton of neutral mobs (or pc's) with no
>remorse at all...it's not a good thing. Steer this over to
>paladins and the edge becomes even more fine. A lot of people
>have commented on how horridly overpowered paladins
>are...welcome to the catch. Paladins are pretty highly
>scrutinized and pretty much every imm keeps an eye on them.
>Sure there have been some crappy ones here and there, but the
>ones who really stand out as powerful...well, they've earned
>the power. Not only is the code enforced, but we expect them
>to be pinacles of good...so there are some things that other
>goods can get away with that a paladin probably can't.


I agree with this way of thinking.

>
>Item 2 - Gnomish serial killers.
>
> There have been a good handful of neutrals who have found
>themselves suddenly evil through their actions. However,
>neutrals, by sheer definition of neutrality, have a far
>broader scope of things they can do within their rp than
>goods. (For those of you keeping score, neutral is exactly
>that...neutral. It's not someone who is both evil and good at
>times, nor is it someone who waffles back and forth...it's
>someone who is neither.) Additionally, Thera is not our
>reality, it's a hideously violent place. So anytime you start
>holding Theran neutrals to 'real world' morality...you've got
>a problem, since even the most noble of noble paladins would
>be locked away and given the lethal injection were they to
>exist in our world.

Are there? Alright then.

I do however feel that neutral players who murder the goods player base for equipment, is simply that, evil. Take a bandit who has a neutral alignment. He's neutral I'm asumming, because he generally does something bad (robbing and stealing and banditry), but isn't evil because he has some other redeeming quality. (he does it with great remorse, or, he doesn't do much murdering, but lets all his foes go after depriving them of valuables). But gnome invokers who make a beeline for the fortress for avalanche? cloud giant warriors sitting in the bar, attacking a human neutral warrior with non magical equipment for nothing? Or svirf thieves who spend hours killing orphans, then help their dark elf antipaladin buddy kill a storm warrior they see on the road?



>
>Item 3 - Hero range lately.
>
> I can't quite express exactly how annoying it is to
>constantly have to hear people complain that the 'other side'
>is 'winning' because hero range is swamped with
> good/evil/neutral/ragers/mages/imperials/maran/rabid man-apes
>with pink tutus) whatever the opposition tends to be. The
>balance is in constant flux, it always will be. I'm not so
>much pointing at you here, but anyone who feels the need to
>post that as an arguement, before you post...check histories
>and archives, see how many times people have complained about
>your side being in power. I assure you, the side that is up
>has been down, and the side that is down has been up. So
>spaketh the Floofi.
>
>
I agree with this. I personally play whatever I want to play at the time, odds be damned. I notice the trend as well, lots of goods, lots of evils. I wasn't saying that Good aligns should be allowed to kill neutrals because the imperials are in power. I was commenting on the specific point of phaelim "get it from his corpse" that while evils have the option of "get it from his corpse" and "get it from the mob's corpse", the goods have only "get it from evil's corpse", and right about now, the evil hero range right now pretty much means "try not to be a corpse" so even that's not an option. But yes, I know, this whole good evil thing swings to and fro.