OK. I finished the Academy and henceforward will be exploring like mad. My character is Chaotic Good. I have been reading this "Good killing neutral" thread found here:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=4174&mesg_id=4174&page=

I don't see my character attacking sentients unless they're evil. This is by no means a judgment on anyone else's RP. I'm just talking about my own. Lund exists in my head as someone who only kills sentients in self-defense, which in CF includes the concept of killing evils on sight, but certainly doesn't include killing neutrals who are minding their own business.

However, with regard to non-sentients, I would see my character attacking anything, up to and including Bambi and Thumper who smile sweetly. They're prey and Lund is an Arial. It just makes sense to me that he would hunt any beast.

Legimitate?

Also, I would see Lund eating legs and hearts. He's an Arial. To me this means he would eat what he kills, provided it's a non-sentient.

Legimitate?

I don't see my character attacking sentients unless they're evil.

Valid role, I've done it before. It makes it more difficult to regear at times, as there's a lot of nice gear on neutral sentient mobs that can be used by goodies. Just keep that in mind - you're taking a more difficult path here.

However, with regard to non-sentients, I would see my character attacking anything, up to and including Bambi and Thumper who smile sweetly. They're prey and Lund is an Arial. It just makes sense to me that he would hunt any beast.

Legimitate?

Totally. Few pointers that might help out here. Some areas (older ones in particular) might have non-sentient mobs that are coded as having an alignement. In other words, you might find some spiders who are 'evil' or deer and elk who are 'good'. To avoid the XP penalty of good-on-good violence, use consider beforehand just to make sure you're not going up against these types of mobs.

That being said, you should have absolutely no trouble finding plenty of evil sentients to rank on, crusade against, get gear from or fight for other RP reasons.

Also, I would see Lund eating legs and hearts. He's an Arial. To me this means he would eat what he kills, provided it's a non-sentient.

Legimitate?

Totally.

Kastellyn the Devourer of Magic, Lord of Legends

Totally. Few pointers that might help out here. Some areas (older ones in particular) might have non-sentient mobs that are coded as having an alignement. In other words, you might find some spiders who are 'evil' or deer and elk who are 'good'.

If you see this sort of thing without a compelling backstory reason (cursed forest, limited sentience, monstrous variant of ordinary animal, etc.), feel free to report it via "typo", and we'll happily neutral-fy the rogue squirrel or whatever.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

>I don't see my character attacking sentients unless
>they're evil.
>
>Valid role, I've done it before. It makes it more difficult
>to regear at times, as there's a lot of nice gear on neutral
>sentient mobs that can be used by goodies. Just keep that in
>mind - you're taking a more difficult path here.


Thank you very much for the guidance. I appreciate the time that you and others are willing to take in responding to my musings.

What I'm coming to grasp is pretty simple, I guess, but I think it's important.

Self-imposed limits are the heart and soul of RP.

What about a Lightwalker who went after people he perceived as evil because they, I don't know, targeted innocent people in their "holy crusade" or whatever, even if they have a golden aura. This would apply to both PCs and NPCs, but a good example would be the Paladins north of Udgaard or any NPC that targets anything that isn't specifically Light. If it were well justified, could the person remain Light, or no?

How, objectively, correct is this person in their beliefs and actions?

CF isn't really a relative morality world in terms of alignment. Some of my favorite evil characters from over the years were firmly convinced that they were good.

That is what I was ultimately asking, I suppose. A character that won't kill something just for gear would be difficult if that character also couldn't request. I'm not saying it wouldn't make sense, as I'm sure word would spread eventually that there was a character claiming to be of the light who went around killing lightwalkers because he thought they were evil, but on the other hand, how can any lightwalker who kills people -just- because they're neutral (as some mobs do) remain light? If they can justify that and get away with it, I would think a character like I've proposed could, too. I don't know if I would make a character like this, but it's still something I'm wondering about.

>...how can any lightwalker who kills
>people -just- because they're neutral (as some mobs do) remain
>light? If they can justify that and get away with it, I would
>think a character like I've proposed could, too. I don't know
>if I would make a character like this, but it's still
>something I'm wondering about.


Take this with a grain of salt as I'm so new to the game, but what would you think if, after a good player slew a sufficient number of neutral sentients, this fact became somehow visible to any neutral adventurer who "considered" him/her? Presumably the neutral adventurer wouldn't be happy. Legitimate PK could result. Or the attempt, at least.

I'm thinking some neutral-leaning Immortal could establish this new ability for neutral adventurers.

Might be crazy. Like I said, I'm new. Don't kill me. LOL

The whole definition of a neutral character is that alignment doesn't play a role in his actions. I don't see why a neutral would care about the alignment of the sentients the goodie had slain.

People can't currently see the alignment of a PC. They can't even recognize that the other guy is a goodie without detect good spell/commune.

>The whole definition of a neutral character is that alignment
>doesn't play a role in his actions. I don't see why a neutral
>would care about the alignment of the sentients the goodie had
>slain.


Maybe it's valid to think of it like this:

The good and the evil are at war. The neutrals are, well, neutral in that war, but they would at least be aware the war is being fought, wouldn't they? I'm not thinking about it in terms of alignment and game mechanics, nor am I thinking of it in terms of religion, but merely the plain fact that two factions are at war and a third faction is consciously staying out of that war.

During our real life World War 2, if the Allies had bombed Switzerland, the Swiss would have been angry, right?

It's equally true that if the *Axis* had bombed Switzerland, the Swiss would have been just as angry.

The key difference, I guess, is that the Swiss perceive themselves as a collective. The neutrals don't, I guess.

The worst thing that could ever happen to both the good and the evil would be if the neutrals, like a sleeping colossus, suddenly awakened...

Maybe there's a *story* in that.


>People can't currently see the alignment of a PC. They can't
>even recognize that the other guy is a goodie without detect
>good spell/commune.


PC's are a different kettle of fish, I think. If a good PC attacks a neutral PC, we would assume there's an understandable reason for doing so. There's a story behind it. PK is RP in our game.

But some good and plenty of evil PC's attack neutral (sentient) NPC's with abandon, right? It's almost a feeding frenzy, isn't it? There's almost never any RP behind it, right?

I could see a neutral character saying, "You know, if these two factions want to slaughter each other, fine, let them, who cares? But they're slaughtering the rest of us, too. I, for one, have had enough."

This would turn the feeding frenzy into a *story* - it would bring RP into the killing of neutral (sentient) NPC's. Because the angry neutral adventurer might start to PK - and PK is RP in our game.

And by the way, this would bring shades of gray into "goodness" - we would have the good who don't kill neutral (sentient) NPC's and the good who do. The good who do would surely rationalize it. "There's a war on and these damn non-combatants need to pick a side. If they don't, and they get in the way, well, collateral damage is acceptable for the sake of victory. Serves them right for not picking a side."

We might even see conflict erupt between the good who don't kill neutral (sentient) NPC's and the good who do.

All of this would weave itself into a story...

Real life is a good example of neutral factions, as there are very few good or evil factions involved. Real world also doesn't have the same fixed good-evil morality that CF world has. As for your WW2 example, allies(neutral faction, the attacker was Soviet Union) did attack Finland(neutral faction), so we had to ally with the Germans(neutral faction) to fight them. Both allied and German troops committed horrible atrocities in that war. Neither faction was mean for the sake of being mean, they just worked for what they thought was the better world.

As for neutral itself, it is not one team, but rather, many teams. It's true that like Nep(Nepenthe aka Drokalanatym aka Daevryn. Yes Nep, you are so complicated that I felt that I have to explain you :P) said, some neutrals are concerned about alignment, but this is not the case with all neutrals.

I agree with Tiatan that this has stopped to be newbie question. There was some discussion in Depoetsoende goodbye thread about what good align is, so this thread came in rather convenient moment and could have diverged to a larger one on Gameplay.

>I agree with Tiatan that this has stopped to be newbie
>question. There was some discussion in Depoetsoende goodbye
>thread about what good align is, so this thread came in rather
>convenient moment and could have diverged to a larger one on
>Gameplay.


I had dropped this thread due to the sense that it no longer was a Newbie thread, but an idea popped into my head and I figure what the heck, I'll state it and move on.

If a good PC kills a sufficient number of neutral, sentient NPC's, one of the wealthy, neutral NPC's could take a substantial bounty out on the good PC. It wouldn't have to be explained IC as having anything to do with morality. The wealthy, neutral NPC could simply reveal itself to be a very good friend of one of the neutral, sentient NPC's the good PC killed.

I like this because it establishes accountability for the good PC's in a credible manner that seems to me be pretty elegant. We can still go ahead and kill neutral sentient NPC's to our heart's content if that's how we perceive our RP. The game won't stop us. We can get our favorite gear. But we also know that eventually there will be consequences if we continue on this path. And the consequences are realistic. After all, neutral sentients could plausibly make friends and some of those friends could plausibly afford a bounty and be angry enough to take one out. I think this actually *adds* to the realism of the neutral sentient NPC's.

OK. Bye. LOL

>The whole definition of a neutral character is that alignment
>doesn't play a role in his actions.

I don't agree with that.

That accurately describes a kind of neutral character, yes.

I forgot the merry bunch of Nexites. :)

Hmm, I think this suddenly stopped being a newbie question. So, now I have to decide if I want to bring it to the gameplay section under alignment, or just try it out. This'll take some pondering. Anyways, thanks everyone.

>I don't see my character attacking sentients unless they're
>evil.

Personally I agree with exclusion to NPCs. Also, if neutral players are hanging around with evil players I call that guilty by association. Really, if you aid evil, at the foundation of the topic you are fighting good.

>However, with regard to non-sentients, I would see my
>character attacking anything, up to and including Bambi and
>Thumper who smile sweetly. They're prey and Lund is an Arial.
> It just makes sense to me that he would hunt any beast.
>
>Legimitate?

Unless they are inherently good, which is why you want to use the consider command alot. Arials are intelligent and conscious beings that can think beyond their instinctual predatory nature enough to recognize the weight of their actions. Of course anything else, I agree, should be fair game to that path of reasoning.

>Also, I would see Lund eating legs and hearts. He's an Arial.
> To me this means he would eat what he kills, provided it's a
>non-sentient.
>
>Legimitate?

Thoroughly. As you adventure around Thera, you will probably notice alot of steak made from corpses of this and that. It's commonplace to eat the meat of the fallen, or Carrion, if you will...
If I'm hungry enough, I will eat even sentient beings or their remains.

>>I don't see my character attacking sentients unless they're
>>evil.
>
>Personally I agree with exclusion to NPCs.


I've been thinking that with Lund I want to come down on the side of very strict in this regard, but I've learned something that has me scratching my head a bit. See below.


>Also, if neutral
>players are hanging around with evil players I call that
>guilty by association. Really, if you aid evil, at the
>foundation of the topic you are fighting good.


That certainly makes sense to me.


>>However, with regard to non-sentients, I would see my
>>character attacking anything, up to and including Bambi and
>>Thumper who smile sweetly. They're prey and Lund is an
>>Arial. It just makes sense to me that he would hunt any beast.
>>
>>Legimitate?
>
>Unless they are inherently good, which is why you want to use
>the consider command alot.


Yes. I discovered this text in the help doc about experience:

"You lose experience by:
- Killing good-aligned creatures if you are good-aligned"

Yikes. Not what I expected but OK - gotta adapt.

Are there many good non-sentients?

I'm scratching my head but, damn it, I really can't see Lund attacking neutral sentients who are minding their own business, or good sentients either of course, so that leaves me with evil sentients and either neutral or evil non-sentients.


>Arials are intelligent and
>conscious beings that can think beyond their instinctual
>predatory nature enough to recognize the weight of their
>actions. Of course anything else, I agree, should be fair
>game to that path of reasoning.


Point well taken.


>>Also, I would see Lund eating legs and hearts. He's an
>Arial.
>> To me this means he would eat what he kills, provided it's
>a
>>non-sentient.
>>
>>Legimitate?
>
>Thoroughly. As you adventure around Thera, you will probably
>notice alot of steak made from corpses of this and that. It's
>commonplace to eat the meat of the fallen, or Carrion, if you
>will...


I found steak in my guild hall once. Imagine my disappointment that it wasn't there regularly!!! LOL


>If I'm hungry enough, I will eat even sentient beings or their
>remains.


Is your character good?

Maybe eating the remains of evil sentients will help balance things out for me. I'm actually more concerned about food than experience points. Fast leveling isn't really a huge priority of mine. I mostly want to explore widely and avoid dying from starvation.

And then there's water - and a certain spell I didn't notice I had, and am now kicking myself for not practicing yet... LOL

>Yes. I discovered this text in the help doc about
>experience:
>
>"You lose experience by:
>- Killing good-aligned creatures if you are good-aligned"
>
>Yikes. Not what I expected but OK - gotta adapt.
>
>Are there many good non-sentients?
>
>I'm scratching my head but, damn it, I really can't see Lund
>attacking neutral sentients who are minding their own
>business, or good sentients either of course, so that leaves
>me with evil sentients and either neutral or evil
>non-sentients.

There is a variety of alignments for non-sentients but off the top of my head neutral would seem to make up the majority. I don't think this will be a major problem for you. You may also notice that killing evil aligned mobs will give you an exp boost if you are good aligned, so it is generally to your benefit to kill evils as a good pc.

>Is your character good?
>
>Maybe eating the remains of evil sentients will help balance
>things out for me. I'm actually more concerned about food
>than experience points. Fast leveling isn't really a huge
>priority of mine. I mostly want to explore widely and avoid
>dying from starvation.
>
>And then there's water - and a certain spell I didn't notice I
>had, and am now kicking myself for not practicing yet... LOL
>

I would avoid killing any npc, sentient or not, as a good aligned pc, it is not only negative exp, but it is generally excepted in CF under most circumstance to be evil. That is doing so purposefully is generally seen as the act of a non-good aligned character, not something you should be considering doing if you want to RP a good align.

That said, when it comes to remains and steaks for food purposes, I think the meat stops being good aligned at the moment it is chopped up and it should be fair game. Just don't be the person responsible for killing it :P

>There is a variety of alignments for non-sentients but off the
>top of my head neutral would seem to make up the majority. I
>don't think this will be a major problem for you.


Excellent! Thank you for the information. I've noticed already that at least one bunny was neutral. And it was specifically called "bunny" as opposed to rabbit so I would think if any non-sentient would be aligned good it would be a "bunny." I think my character has plenty of opportunities.


>You may
>also notice that killing evil aligned mobs will give you an
>exp boost if you are good aligned, so it is generally to your
>benefit to kill evils as a good pc.


More good news!


>I would avoid killing any npc, sentient or not, as a good
>aligned pc, it is not only negative exp, but it is generally
>excepted in CF under most circumstance to be evil.


I don't understand your statement above. You say "any npc" which I presume includes evil ones. I would have thought I could attack anything evil and remain properly in character. Did you omit the word "good" perhaps?


>That said, when it comes to remains and steaks for food
>purposes, I think the meat stops being good aligned at the
>moment it is chopped up and it should be fair game. Just
>don't be the person responsible for killing it :P


More good advice! Thank you.

Yes I did miss the word, good, in the above. The problem or writing a post at 4 AM I guess :P