I alluded to this in my recent Announcement, but I wanted to explain it here to avoid cluttering that forum.

An ongoing concern I (and others, particularly people that have overseen or played Fortress/etc. for long periods) have is how alignment plays out in practice. Specifically, my opinion is that having a Good alignment is a handicap, even if you neglect Evil's systemic advantages (a wider array of race/class options, etc.).

Specifically, Good PCs could be busted down for looting random Goods, maliciously lying to other Goods, screwing over a groupmate, murdering Good NPCs for gear/convenience/XP, etc. The playerbase justifiably demands that Good PCs be held to that standard-- otherwise it erodes any distinction between the alignments.

In theory, Evil PCs would have a disadvantage to offset their greater freedom-- they would backstab one another as opportunities present themselves and generally find it hard to work in teams. In practice, however, you very rarely see this from skilled players-- Team Evil is the norm. Even in allegedly unforgiving cabals, demotions or uninductions outductions are extremely rare. We see Evil PCs with roles that amount to "I do what's best for me, lying/cheating/stealing included." That's a viable Evil role-- but it's also one with the fewest disadvantages.

In practice, Good PCs thus acquire restrictions for few gains. Request is one example of a meaningful gain, though it's inferior to "I can just murder anyone I want.", and it comes with its own RP restrictions. Random Evil won't get smacked for acquiring Limited Weapon #6 by his (murderous) method, but Random Good can/should take heat for Requesting one. And if Other Random Good has a unique/maxed item, you don't have any coercive way to acquire it.

In the real-world scenario, evil comes with much stronger disadvantages-- specifically, society will act against you unless you can forcibly restrain them or keep your self-serving actions disguised. In CF, that's less true-- maybe some neutral PCs shun you, but most don't, and nearly all NPCs don't react you being a homicidal psychopath.

So, what I plan to work on:
1) Good PCs should be held to "Good" behavior, and we should help flesh out what that means.
2) Good characters should profit from shouldering these restrictions, and suffer for ignoring them. (Conversely, Evil characters should profit less from acting as Team Evil.)

For one example, take a concept where Good PCs can occasionally ask for no-strings-attached aid from good-aligned NPCs (town healers, NPC bards, etc.). They'd feel guilt about asking for favors too often (i.e. a re-use timer proportional to the aid received), but society would treat them as "heroes" to some extent.

For another example, take a concept where Good PCs take lasting penalties (e.g., lowered morale) for causing the deaths of other Good PCs or NPCs. I don't want to put a Draconian stop on that kind of killing (i.e., the code just turns you neutral) because there could be extreme situations. (For example, an invoker accidentally kills someone he couldn't see with an area spell, or a warrior accidentally kills a groupmate while trying to wake them.) However, it's sensible that a Good person would feel bad for having caused that death, and the code should encourage that RP by applying mechanical pressure.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

So what ever happened with this?

But he's still on orcs.

#### doesn't always get done overnight. I wish I still had dozens of hours of CF coding time a week.

I know it doesn't was just hoping that there might have been an update. I see way more Evil's running about than good, and was thinking it might be the pendulum deal swinging, but also wondering if there might be a bit more for us serial goodies coming down the pipe.

I remember being a chaotic evil char and having all guard mobs autoassist against me.

Now maybe not that extreme but how about having more mobs that are going to defend goodies through autoassist. This would give them a huge tactical tool.

Also it might not be a horrible idea to look at xp penalties, if you drop storm and elf xp penalties by 200 and paladin xp penalty by 200 all of a sudden you give goodies a leg up in pk again. Not only in the mid ranks does it ease their lop sided range but at hero it gives you a larger pool of foes, I mean a storm paladin really doesn't see many lower then level 46-47 chars in pk range at 51. The only evil char that comes close to that is a fire/drow a-p.

I know this has come up in the past and been shot down, but I thought I would throw it out there again.

In light of this post, has there been any consideration to changing the way Fort powers are set up? You currently join as a Squire or Scribe and get virtually no power at all, coupled with all the obligation to defend and raid. Heck, Squire powers exactly mirror powers that Paladins and Shamans already have.

Meanwhile, Imperials join with no powers, but will rapidly have significant powers within what, a few days? Particularly if you have OOC friends above you in the cabal. Scion certainly takes much longer and much more effort to get into, but you gain the obligation to defend/raid at the same time you gain full powers. The majority of people in the Fort end up obligated to defend against Elite Imperials and whatnot with nothing but protection evil and detect evil, surrounded by allies who have basically the same powers.

I would advocate for a three-tiered system. Squire/Acolyte as they are, with mortal-driven promotions to a middle level that grants most cabal powers, followed by a full imm-promoted Maran/Acolyte (or Elite or whatever you want to call it) that gets one or two last powers that are withheld from the main group.

I think this might address some of the good vs evil balance issues as a whole.

Aarn

Edit: Even more than the actual gain in power that many in the Fort would experience, the major benefit here would be the increased incentive for skilled players to play Fort characters.

>Heck,
>Squire powers exactly mirror powers that Paladins and Shamans
>already have.

This is almost true, but I would have thought that you of all people would have a better handle on the nuances of this! :)

>>Heck,
>>Squire powers exactly mirror powers that Paladins and
>Shamans
>>already have.
>
>This is almost true, but I would have thought that you
>of all people would have a better handle on the nuances of
>this! :)

Crap, really? Well, if there is a difference I don't know what it is. Maybe I used to be aware of it, but if that's the case I don't even remember that I forgot. :P

Can I blame old age yet? I'm not sure, but I think I will anyway!

Doesn't change the point of my post though.

Aarn

Wish you hadn't broke out and smoked dat pipe o'rage.

I would love for Aarn to rise up and slaughter Baerinika for her spear and then make Fortress his bitch again.

I figure I might as well get it started ;)

Somehow stop cabals linking to raid.

Ramp up the anti-gang code.

Reason being, whilst I know all cabals gang, over the last 2 years, I've seen more of it from fort than any of the others. If you are going to ramp up powers, I think the ganking (on all sides) needs to get slapped down somehow.

I don't see how you could easily stop cabals linking to raid, for the simple reason that Empire is opposed to them all, and takes all their items.

I assume the cabals in question here are Battle, Outlander and Fortress. The real question is whether the characters involved are compromising their roles to do it, i.e. tolerating an evil/dwarf/conjurer/mage/paladin. It seems like this can be pretty easily governed the same way all roleplay is.

If there isn't an issue with opposing characters, what possible reason do they have not to raid at the same time, even if they're not coordinating? A flat-out ban on doing it wouldn't make sense from an IC-standpoint in most of those cabals, and would lead to awkward situations where they would still show up to raid at the same time (such as after powerful Imperials start logging out), and then do what, stand around and wait turns?

The only ways to stop joint raiding of Empire, I think, is to either make Empire stop taking all their items, or somehow change Battle, Outlander and Fort to be diametrically opposed to each other no matter who the member is, and that seems both unlikely and undesirable.

Aarn

Ergo, Battle needs to kill Fortress and Outlander for the same reason it kills Empire.

Evil Battle starts murdering Fort and Outlander and telling them to get rid of their animist rangers and transmuters and invokers before they'll stop.

Fort cannot stop due to Battle being evil. They also now have license to attack neutral Battle because Battle houses evil.

Outlander has license to attack all of Battle for housing duergar, minotaur, dwarves and the like.

There, instant three-way break. Just Imm-enforce it.

Bard Repertoire Clarifications:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=

>There, instant three-way break. Just Imm-enforce it.

I'm going to go with 'No' on that one.

This way everyone is on even footing again, which is obviously the last thing you want, so...

Hey, it's your giant inconsistent house of cards. That particular solution stated above has been staring everyone in the face for years and doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it's both balanced and justified.

Bard Repertoire Clarifications:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=

You're entitled to your opinion; I don't agree with it, nor the assumptions on which it's based.

Yes, I agree, Aye

Is that by your logic every cabal should be at war with every other. Every cabal has mages, so battle has to fight every cabal. Every cabal has evil, so fortress has to fight every cabal. Every cabal can have dwarves, so outlander has to fight every cabal. Etc, etc. Nexus already does sort of fight every other cabal, but not constantly. That said, everyone (except maybe tribunal) should always be at war with Nexus because they are directly opposed to everyone else's stated goals.

So then we have no intra-cabal dynamics we basically just have 5 flavors of "kill everyone"

Yeah, seems like a bad idea to me too. The goal isn't strictly even footing. If it were, we should just put everyone on two teams and make them fight.

The nuance of cabal members being pulled in different directions is cool. Not only is it not a problem, it seems like a GOOD thing to me that you could have a dwarf warrior in the Fort who pals around with neutral and good Ragers, a mage in the Fort that is friends with Nexans, some Outlanders that hunt Fort paladins, some Outlanders that group with Fort, etc.

The "solutions" to three-cabals-vs-Empire are to either have Empire not raid some of them, or set up another cabal to be aligned with Empire more easily so they can counter it. I'm not judging whether those are better options than the status quo, but they seem to be the only viable alternatives to me. Assuming you even believe there's a problem that needs to be addressed. It seems like when it does happen it makes sensational forum headlines, but these Battle-Fort-Outlander teams don't actually happen very often at all, and when they do they're not usually coordinated.

Aarn

I would prefer the notion that most cabals are not friends or enemies towards one another outside of the obvious foes. Other cabals, as I see it, are to be used to achieve your own cabal's ends, nothing more. If peace allows you to focus on other enemies fine, but if say you're an outlander and you have the codex and scepter and scales, no good pk threats are around, should you not go for the dwarf pally in fortress? Maybe not if you are good, but if you're neutral, maybe you should, and if evil I'd say certainly go for it.

Players just go for scion /empire if they want to play a kill everyone mentality, nobody likes scions and most everyone hates imperials and both are generally always at war with everyone with the rare exception of nexus, and well, tribunal if you want to bother counting them though their activity in cabalwars is far less impactful from what I can see.

In most of what I see, everyone who wants it to be basically kill everyone will play evil and if not, they will justify it in different ways, hence the role command. Rp is fun but lots of people enjoy the pk aspects and sometimes will, lets say stretch, their roles to justify a chance for a fight. I guess it is up to an imms to say if their role is a poor excuse that deserves to be smacked down or not.

I kind of feel like if you rank and PKill at the same rate as the Empire guy who gets "early" Elite then you'll also get "early" Maran. Empire guy gets into the cabal (as an Oath) earlier than the Squire, but he gets no powers whatsoever.

I want to say I ran some numbers on this at one point, and the "time to Elite" wasn't that much shorter than "time to Maran".

Personally, I kind of like having protection in a can. That is, if I'm playing a class that doesn't get it as a built-in supplication. Obviously much less useful for paladins and shamans.

... But I've had 1 warmaster and 3-4 elites I think. Quickest elite was 70 hours. The rest has been in the 100-160 hours span.

That sounds highly improbable to me. Anyway, it's easy enough to find this out without going on feelings.

Can the imms release data on this sort of thing in table format? Or does someone have an automated way to collect it from the PBFs? Although one problem with collecting it form the PBFs is that "Fortress" doesn't appear to be divided up into Maran and Acolyte anywhere. I suppose if that's the only thing missing it could be filled in manually. Running a few regressions on CF stuff would be a fun diversion.

Actually CF data on anything in table format could make for some interesting analysis.

Aarn

I dug up the post where I researched it last time:

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=23859&mesg_id=23859&listing_type=search#23922

Based on the characters in that data set, I decided "9 to 21 days" was reasonable to wait as a Squire before getting Maran, and "10 to 30 days" was reasonable to wait in Empire before getting Elite.

The thing to remember about this is that most of the people making maran probably aren't as good at PK as the guys getting Elite in Empire. So if you took a player who was "as good" as the guys getting Elite in Empire, then stuck him in Fortress, he probably makes Maran in faster-than-average time.

(Unless his name is Iltanthal, in which case he waits extra long just to avoid the appearance of impropriety.)

w

Interesting. A couple thoughts:

Is that a random sampling of people? And over what time period? Since Maran promotions are imm-only, they're naturally going to wax when a Fort imm is super active and wane when they're not, and similarly for activity of high-ranked mortals in Empire, so it needs to be over a pretty long period of time to even out structural cycles in time-series data like this.

I guess I don't remember Empire cabal powers all that clearly. Is everything below Elite, in every sect, loosely equivalent to a Squire or Scribe in power? If it is then we can use the Elite vs Maran comparison; if not we need to include more nuance.

If the data you used is just from PBFs, then underlying this is the assumption that similar levels of characters from Empire and Fort pay for them. If this IS from PBFs, it doesn't seem unreasonable to predict that there could be a whole bunch more Fort people that never got Maran who didn't even bother to buy PBFs, and thus aren't part of the data set. This seems like a reasonable source of bias here - successful characters are probably the ones who get PBFs more frequently no matter the cabal. Of course we don't actually know what direction the bias would skew; it's possible its the reverse of what I'm predicting. The problem is we can't tell. We could maybe use the half-measure of comparing PBFs with the regular battlefield to get the reporting rate for each cabal, but we still wont have promotion data on those people.

It would also be interesting to include pk success in with this data, to see where successful characters tend to fall in each cabal.

If I were going to have an ideal data set to analyze, I would want it to include these fields for all characters that got above level 30: Cabal (none/Maran/Acolyte/Empire/Scion/Battle/etc), hours at induction, hours at promotion to "elite", hours at deletion, hours at being granted, pk wins at induction, pk wins at promotion, pk wins at deletion, pk losses at induction, pk losses at promotion, pk losses at deletion, days played at induction, days played at promotion, days played at deletion, race, class, religion followed, tattooed?, amount of imm xp, amount of explore xp, number of times wanted, gank-o-meter, experience from skill improvements, hours to hero, days to hero.

Maybe even a few more things as I think about it, like "number of pbf comments", "number of role entries", "custom title (Y/N)", what level/how many hours the various defensive skills were perfected at, etc. You could quantitatively answer all sorts of interesting questions with a data set like this! The key is it can't just be from PBF data. It has to be from the whole player base to avoid sampling bias.

For example, you could turn a lot of those into dummy variables, then answer questions like "What is the effect of perfecting defenses before level 30 on pk wins before hero?", "What is the average affect of being in a given cabal on the average gank-o-meter?" or "What is the effect of time to hero on amount of imm xp?", along with basics like which cabal takes longest to get Elite in or which cabal has the best pk counts.

Rather than being a source of meta-gaming, I would think it would be a good tool to find areas of trouble that should be addressed, and identifying supposed "problems" that are in actuality just myths. If some imm can put together a big spreadsheet for me, I've got the software and know-how to run all the appropriate regressions. :) I suppose that's a long shot, but it would be fun!

Aarn

>Is that a random sampling of people? And over what time
>period?

I think I took "everybody I could find" who fit the criteria (made maran or made elite) over a certain time period prior to that post.

> Is everything below Elite, in every sect, loosely equivalent
>to a Squire or Scribe in power?

That's debatable. From a rarity point of view, "elite and above" probably averages about the same number of folks as "total number of maran". I'm trying to remember who gets what when. I want to say divines get "black shroud" at elite, shadows get "imperial spies", blades get "imperial training" and blacks get "black circle". Some of those could be wrong.

I feel like "any council member's powers" >> "maran powers". Also, "elite divine" > "maran powers".

I'd say Elite Blade powers are better than Maran on a bard, but maybe not on a warrior.

For Black Sect it's hard to compare, since there are no necros or APs in fortress, but I'd say a Necro/AP is "juiced" more by having black circle (et. al.) than a fort summoner (paladin/shaman) is from having Maran powers.

When it comes to the Shadow Sect, I actually prefer Maran powers unless we're talking about the Shadow Lord.

>If the data you used is just from PBFs, then underlying this
>is the assumption that similar levels of characters from
>Empire and Fort pay for them.

It is from PBFs. I think its fair to say that "most" notable characters get their PBF picked up. What I was trying to get at is this: "If you're someone whose character's PK/RP quality is such that he will eventually make Elite or Maran, how long will he have to wait to get there?"

Another way to go about it would be to look only at "standout" characters from each cabal. Captain/Marshall from Fort and "Council + Emperor" from Empire. Then look at how long it took these characters to get from Squire-to-Maran or Oath-to-Elite.

One other problem with looking at times like this: just looking at "time spent sub-Elite/sub-Maran" doesn't factor in people who may be intentionally lengthening their wait time by level sitting. I think Baerinika doesn't like to Maran people below a certain rank threshold. So if you have a character who's racking up the kills, but he's sitting at level 30, then he shouldn't really expect to get Maran until he ranks up a bit. Such a character might show up as having spent an unnaturally long time as a Squire, when really it was his own choice.


>It would also be interesting to include pk success in with
>this data, to see where successful characters tend to fall in
>each cabal.

True. In the case of Empire, I don't think you get Elite unless you're at least moderately successful on the PK front. Unless we're talking about a healer getting Elite in the Divine Sect. For Fortress, if you at least "participate" in PK (even if you're not that successful) and you have longevity and RP on your side, you'll eventually get made Maran. At least that's how it seems to pan out. So some of the folks who get Maran really aren't all that PK-successful.

It isn't that I don't like to Maran people at lower ranks, but I'm more likely to Maran a low ranked char that REALLY stands out (30-40+ pks at mid ranks) as opposed to a hero who clearly mixes it up in pk. To me, it's an uncommon reward, rather than something I dislike to do.

*edited to add

Also when I say 30-40+ pks at mid ranks, I mean varied, well RP'd and evil pk's. Killing the same poor nexus gomer over and over won't get you very far with Baer.

...It's a lot more tedious to be a badass goodie than it is to be a badass evil, even if it's the same player. A lot of it isn't mechanics, but is because of the hand-holding that goes with being good.

Want to spread that burden a bit? Make neutrals far less common. In reality I imagine true neutrality is something of a myth, or is at least very rare.

>So, what I plan to work on:
>1) Good PCs should be held to "Good" behavior, and we should
>help flesh out what that means.
>2) Good characters should profit from shouldering these
>restrictions, and suffer for ignoring them. (Conversely, Evil
>characters should profit less from acting as Team Evil.)

1) Good behavior is I think fairly well fleshed out. Do not harm good unless you have a good reason. Do not wantonly slay neutral unless you have a good reason. Tribunal dynamics are an example of the former. RPing the maxim "if you're not with me you're against me" is an example of the latter. I guess maybe I'm in the don't fix it if it ain't broke camp? Do people really think this is so askew?

2) Don't they? Comfortable allies, a large segment of the PC populace who will simply not bug you and is likely to help you. And request. As to Team Evil, the big issue I see is the fun stick. Not sure how a self-serving bastard can really get too far in CF. You need some allies which begets familiarity which begets Team Evil. Wouldn't a simple corrective be a hidden effect that nerfs skills the longer you are grouped work? This is simplistic yes, but all of the abuses I can think of would be well served by it...

For the record I like a nuanced take of NPC guards on criminals. It should cut that way for evils too. And I remember a discussion about edges based on time being wanted too. I see some intriguing possibilities in tandem with the bounty system.

> Do
>people really think this is so askew?

Eh. I play good sometimes, but only because I'm looking for a challenge. Never because I think it's actually the toughest or even a competitive way to be whatever I'm playing.

Try to find the mechanically skilled/good players, and you basically won't find one that doesn't prefer to play evil over good, expressed in how much time they spend playing those alignments. Even the ones that bitch constantly about how disadvantaged evil is keep picking it.

>2) Don't they? Comfortable allies, a large segment of the PC
>populace who will simply not bug you and is likely to help
>you.

In theory, yes. In practice, I also get those things playing evil.

>And request.

Is sometimes better than what it replaces, but in a lot of cases isn't. Overall I'd feel a little generous to call it a wash.

>For the record I like a nuanced take of NPC guards on
>criminals. It should cut that way for evils too.

Evil lawmen not attacking evil criminals because they're evil? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Try to find the mechanically skilled/good players, and you basically won't find one that doesn't prefer to play evil over good, expressed in how much time they spend playing those alignments. Even the ones that bitch constantly about how disadvantaged evil is keep picking it.

For example, the Zulgh-o-meter only starts tracking "top PK" people after a certain threshold, and only 12 people have reached it in the Fifth Age.

Nine are evil, three are neutral, zero are good. All are running better than 3:1 kill:death, and most are over 5:1. If I start looking for tough good-aligned characters, the one character within spitting distance of that list has more losses than wins. I didn't find a good-aligned character with a significant number of fights running higher than 3:1. Of the cabals that accept any moral alignment, they all skew evil.

This isn't remotely uncommon-- good-aligned PCs have a sharply reduced list of people they can kill, even though Thera skews significantly evil. Neutral PCs often feel justified attacking them, whereas good-aligned are generally discouraged from seeking out neutral targets. And you're much more likely to eat a death trying to bail out some incompetent doofus as a good-aligned character.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Just to augment your stats. Of characters created since 1-1-2008 here are the guys with more than 100 PKs. I'm including Ahtieli because I think he was rolled after 2008, and I'm taking his claim of 600 PKs at face value. I'll include Dupmasione as well, since he probably got over 100 PKs. The grand total:

Good: 6
Neutral: 12
Evil: 29

One thing to note: evil's numbers are obviously inflated just by virtue of their having more targets. A given good-aligned guy may actually be more "fearsome" to his enemies than a given evil guy, but still end up with fewer kills. Just because his evil twin has more targets. The "scarier" guy doesn't always look the most impressive when he's only "scary" to half as many people.


And now in descending order (except for Dumpasione):

G: (Dupmasione)
E: Ahtieli
E: Kjrorh
G: Humbert
N: Woldrun
E: Gzurweeg
E: Alzinghul
E: Sulye
E: Waris
N: Susubienko
E: Eleia
N: Ruhktanshi
N: Bartis
E: Shalsad
E: Lirad
E: Lezra
N: Quas
N: Kyaltaru
E: Kornuel
G: Arrna
E: Bambizlo
N: Quird
N: Ghrummin
E: Kharnial
G: Malthalia
E: Aunkdunell
N: Kassibaz
E: Khratetch
E: Dhaath
N: Cyrn
G: Jeqo (but might as well have been neutral)
E: Ikbe
E: Opoj
E: Lornis
N: Gulkra
E: Durrwan
E: Klurak
G: Mizfara
E: Tameron
E: Zuktharg
E: Droghnund
E: Deas
N: Charunycain
E: Dolce
E: Ikanu
E: Jil
E: Soidel

Mean ole Valg.

Also, to be technicality nazi, he's talking about the current era: the Fifth Age.

I wont ding Humbert for anything, though it did seem he'd log off (from what I observed when he was at hero, so purely anecdotal) rather quickly if there weren't evils to kill. Which you can't blame him for, and speaks to Valg/Daev's assertion that a limited range is one of the worst handicaps for good-align characters.

I'm rather flattered I'm remembered actually :)

Yeah it's true I would log off if there was no one in range to kill - mostly because of boredom, not because I was intentionally trying to minimise my hours and maximise my PK rate. After all, when you log on (without first checking the range) and find nothing to do, the most you can do is fill up that 2 aura 2 shield X stoneskin quota and log off :P

Guilty as charged! It doesn't help I live in GMT+8.

I've been doing evils, and I'm starting to find that it's really become much easier to do evil now that I'm getting used to the fluidity of alliances with other people and where to get evil gear.

I daresay a Humbert clone - fire giant sword Greeting (preferably Empire, at least Elite Blade) - would rack up kills way beyond Humbert, if he lived 720 hours over 1-2 years. Not that my PK skills are any good (I have 250 ms latency) but because bash bash bash flurry is pretty retarded :)

I'm probably one of those who you describe.

However, I handicap myself when I play good aligns (by choice). The general mechanics don't do it much.

For example, when I died to evils as a paladin, they gave my gear to a neutral mob. Another paladin who also died to them had his gear given to a neutral mob.

He promptly ran and killed the mob, and got his gear back. I turned my back on that gear.

My gripe with good aligns is that they basically don't act good. You'll note I've never objected to being killed by the likes of Humbert. I object to the characters like the paladin who wore a cloak that caused them to leave their groupmates to die to me all the time. And I had, if a I recall, a 3-0 record against that paladin. My objection, however, was that that paladin left their companions to certain death a number of times when they were not in danger. i.e. It wasn't about my benefit. I would have benefitted less if they actually acted good.

Also, if you betray as an evil, it's almost certainly going to cost you, not benefit you. Example... Nererial. But you could also give as an example almost any evil who doesn't have ooc buddies to fall back on after they antagonise the people they need to rank with (by reputation if not by deed), etc.

The reason most evils don't do it is because the freedom to do it isn't worth the cost. As someone who has actually paid that cost (without being a jerk to other players), it feels to me as if you are overstating the benefits of that flexibility.

It is my disillusionment with good aligns that stop me playing them. Am I saying I could get more pk's as a good than an evil? No. But here's the real reason why:

Good only character... paladin. A character not known so much for lethality as the ability to bulldoze through to accomplishing a goal by driving the evils away. Lethal if willing to gang. Many choose to observe the paladin code in such a way as to not gang. Not all.

Evil only characters... ap + necro.

Both good at killing, but more easily killed (allegedly... personally I find necros are not fragile, but that's just me). However, at hero necros don't really do so well because (a) people have more cures, (b) people are not quite as vulnerable to maladictions (given the relationships between saves & gear-assisted hp, and maladiction damage with level), (c) more people are around to rescue that slept character.

The only thing I'd do to balance evil and good is to (a) be more watchful for cheating, given the greater potential reward for cheating, and (b) make undead die at 1200 hours, leader or not.

When you compare paladin to AP/necro you're doing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be to look at builds that are essentially identical (except for available gear and cabal choices) between good and evil. Warriors, thieves, rangers, etc.

The reason goods get less PKs are twofold, as I see them:

1. Fewer targets. (Evils get evils, neutrals and goods. Goods typically only get evils.)

2. Better targets. They "easy pickings" type players tend to play good-aligned characters instead of evil. The "badass vet" type players tend to skew evil. So if you're playing a good-aligned character you're going to be up against more of the latter and less of the former, meaning you get fewer kills.

>Try to find the mechanically skilled/good players, and you
>basically won't find one that doesn't prefer to play evil over
>good, expressed in how much time they spend playing those
>alignments. Even the ones that bitch constantly about how
>disadvantaged evil is keep picking it.

This is the rub maybe. I would consider this PK imbalance the expected outcome. Goodies can not run about slaying all that moves. Put another way, the only overall imbalance I see in goodies vs. evils is Team Evil. The rest seems fine. That's where the idea to have a hidden affect lessening overall skill effectiveness across the board based on a timer of how long evils are grouped came from. Would that not work against Team Evil? If your drow warrior finds she can not parry/dodge worth beans after being grouped with Team Evil for x hours/days?

>Evil lawmen not attacking evil criminals because they're evil?
> That doesn't make any sense at all.

That's not quite what I meant. The idea was differential response of guards to outlaws based on align (and throw ethos/race and maybe class in there too). For the record, I think there may be a situation or two where some evil NPC guard would like to see the law being flouted (evidenced by a warrant from a crime in city x) and who would gladly turn a blind eye.

I'd also like to say hey to everyone, just rolled up a guy a couple days ago after a couple year hiatus.

It seems to me that there are a lot of neutral mobs that were made neutral in an era before it was seen as unsavory for a good to be killing a neutral. Examples would be lots of the dwarves in Mortorn. I don't think that, for example, the writer of Mortorn intended for it to be impossible for any good dwarf to go and get Ludan's gear, it was just not something that was an issue back then.

Another example would be the jeweled broadsword in the Ruined Keep. Back when that area it was first in, it was not really seen as bad form for a good char to do a quest to get an item, then wax the sergeant for his sword. While this would by no means close the good/evil gap, I think it would certainly make it less frustrating if NPC's were either made good or evil, where it wouldn't hurt anything if they were. For example, make Ludan good, make the sergeant evil, make the guy with the amulet in Moudrillar's Monastery good. If there is a neutral wood elf or some other creature where it wouldn't make sense to change it, then leave it alone. These changes would not hurt the rp of the realms, but they would make it less frustrating to play good and also close the gap a bit.

Why not just turn Dern evil? Say that his mind is lost from being tortured and his mind is now a twisted, evil form of what it once was. Most of this could be put in his description.

Why not make the dwarf guard to Castle Akan good? As it stands now, no well-played good character can go into that area. Also, I know there was some discussion when I was an Imm about a racial request for neutrals. As it is now, a LOT of neutral dwarves and no good dwarves should be able to enter the castle, but if he was made good, and there was a racial request, that would fix this.

Tarus... why not just make him good? It would still be a bit harder for a good character to get the bracer, particularly two, but it would now be possible to do it without killing him.

This is just the list that I've come up with after 2 years out of the loop, but I'm sure there are lots more.

Finally, a little thing from the other side of the fence. This addresses the fact that there is no betrayal among Team Evil. Currently, people don't backstab each other not because there is nothing to gain, but because there is too much potential for loss. For example, Imperial Blade pisses off Imperial Priest, priest sees him hurting and can finish him. The priest doesn't hold off his attack because he doesn't want to kill the Blade, he holds off his attack because he doesn't want to get demoted/uninducted just so he can backstab Blade.

There is actually a really good way to deal with this situation that the immstaff used long ago. In lots of books, evil turns on itself because people are forced to do so by their gods. This was a LONG time ago, but we can remember when Zorszaul and Palin were both simultaneously asked by their gods to kill each other.

Want to be play the role of a bloodthirsty killer who kills anything that walks? Expect to be forced by the Dark Gods to kill your allies. I think that this both closes the Good -Neutral/Evil gap and could stimulate some interesting roleplay among evil towards making them what they 'should' be. Heck, even Palin, (Maybe wrong name, this was a long time ago) wasn't too mad when his lost his uber AP axe in this way. Also, it would be a really good way to even out the pendelum swings if evil is really running all over everyone for a long time.

Is mostly just based on a need to actually have things go smoothly.

Inherently, while I tend to play my evils as truly evil bastards (except for the occasional fire giant bodyguard type), were I to truly play the character they way I want I'd condie in 75 hrs. And that isn't fun to me.

The problem with this is people take it too far. They become comfortable with the fact that this evil prick they've used to go to Trothon three times isn't going to betray them because they both know they need each other.

Then that turns into needing each other/ganking partner.

Next thing you know, you got a group of five evil, self-serving bastards not being evil and self-serving.

And voila, Team Evil.

Like seriously, no one can look at my current and accuse me of Team Evil.

Can we make it so that:

Good v good pk doesn't yield edge points (because I'm pretty sure that some people would view negative morale as the price for pk'ing other good aligns, and do it on purpose).

Also, isn't half the advantage of good that:
- people make more effort to come help you (e.g. if you are ko'd)
- you don't have to worry about your allies turning on you

The ability to betray is a double-edged sword, because not every betrayal is as simple as an attack on you. It could be lying and not coming to support you.

>Can we make it so that:
>
>Good v good pk doesn't yield edge points (because I'm pretty
>sure that some people would view negative morale as the price
>for pk'ing other good aligns, and do it on purpose).

Edge from PK accrues slowly enough that I'm not that concerned about this. There's basically no way to powergame killing other goods because gaining some fraction of an edge point just isn't worth the decent risk of, for example, losing all of your spells forever.

>Also, isn't half the advantage of good that:
>- people make more effort to come help you (e.g. if you are
>ko'd)
>- you don't have to worry about your allies turning on you

In practice, being able to kill anyone is about a hundred times better than this. (My opinion, and I play evil a lot more than I play good.)

>In practice, being able to kill anyone is about a hundred times better than this. (My opinion, and I play evil a lot more than I play good.)


The thing is, that's probably because you, the individual, want to pk someone and take their nice shiny. Then you, the individual, get to whomp people with it. But from your enemy (align-wise) point of view, they still face the same number of enemies and the same uber-pieces of gear. So you not being able to kill your fellow evil for the uber-gear doesn't really affect the light/dark balance so much.

If you push for an agenda of betrayal amongst evils, what you are going to see is ooc groups than never betray each other but betray individual players around them. It'll be made worse by the fact that they can safely plot with their ooc friends without risk of the plot being exposed. So you'll essentially be handing all decent evil gear to those willing to cheat for it. One of the good things about good aligned cabals is that this just isn't possible.

>The thing is, that's probably because you, the individual,
>want to pk someone and take their nice shiny.

I think that really oversimplifies the breadth of the advantage that it is.

Sure, I can kill someone to upgrade my gear if I'm evil that I couldn't if we were both good. That is true.

What if I'm in a ranking group and there's a random guy in our PK who just won't leave the area?

Or someone in our PK who's been hanging out nearby, maybe looking to pick one or more of us off at an opportune time?

Or someone on Eastern Road with me that I think is an enemy (e.g., maybe I'm an Outlander and I think he's a Tribunal app), but I'm not 100% sure? Especially if one or both of our characters gains an advantage from striking first? Or if he's already beat up and I'm not?

In all of those cases, and more, with an evil character I'm putting the other guy down and with a good I'm either having to take my chances or try to escape, possibly burning the potions I'll need in a more dire situation later to do it.

Admittedly, this advantage tends to decline near/at hero when almost everyone has a pretty clear idea of who almost everyone else in their range is. But from 11-40something? Man, that's a big advantage, not just in improving your gear and scoring PKs, but especially at killing the other guy before he can kill you. You could make being evil cost a 500 XP penalty and my evil characters would still outPK (kill more AND die less) than my good characters ten times out of ten.

I would still argue that that dude in your area that you can kill for gear only if you are evil would probably be using that same gear against your enemies even if you didn't kill him.

What your proposal does is polarise the strength of evil more. So you have more weak evil characters and more strong ones. The strong ones kill more, and the weak ones less. You are looking at yourself but you are only one end of the spectrum. The end that benefits from being evil.

I don't see being a goodie as that bad, really. I never had any problems gearing to a decent level from request, plus so much stuff is good-only that it hardly ever gets looted. You also generally have cabal allies at hero that are happy to show you stuff or deck you out without compromising their RP.

But the main advantage of being good aligned (which you don't mention) is as simple as the possibility for cooperation - even if it's something as simple as not getting attacked. For me that's massive (especially for gear-dependent classes like warriors), because it means you are much less likely to log into bad ranges and thus keep your set. Yes Empire has nice powers and more freedom. But they also have every other cabal apart from Trib trying to kill them.

My personal feeling is that you are looking at Empire's rising dominance and numbers without looking at how the boot was solidly on the other foot a few weeks ago.

My personal feeling is that you are looking at Empire's rising dominance and numbers without looking at how the boot was solidly on the other foot a few weeks ago.

I was posting internally about this before my hiatus, and I've had longer discussions along these lines with Arvam and Shokai, so no.

With the better tracking we had in, say, 2007-2008, there was never a time when I looked and saw that a reasonable fraction of the toughest characters in the game were Good. Before that it's more anecdotal, but if you make a list of characters that were really feared, the vast majority were evil.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Gropu? Pemra?

;)

Glad to see you still got teh humor Valg.

1. I would like good aligned guards not to autoattack good aligned criminals.

If that means changing all the good aligned guards in towns like Voralia to neutral, that's fine IMO. If that means Voralia is a place where the guards let the good aligned criminals get a free pass, that's fine, too, IMO. Either way, I think it's inconsistent with CF's roleplaying world that Darsylon elves and Voralian guards freely murder good aligned PCs.

2. I would like imperial powers to tie into inter-sect competition.

Empire has IMO the best cabal powers and the fewest restrictions (i.e., they have one - they can't attack a PC first in town). I think intersect competition can be encouraged by tying the imperial powers into which sect has the most "power" that week (this can be established by handing over a cabal item, getting the killing blow to retrieve the codex, donations, PK killing blows, etc.). When you say "Team Evil," what I'm really thinking in my head is "Team Empire."

3. This point is less concise, but I also agree with Aarn that there should not be blanket prohibitions on good aligns from killing neutral mobs for gear. In addition to what Aarn said (which I agree with), I would like to add:

Good align = "innocent." Neutral != "innocent." From what I've seen, "neutral," as played out, means either "Amoral" or "Does some evil acts, does some good acts." From an aggressive good aligned's POV, at best these guys are potentially dangerous wild cards and at worst they're untrustworthy betrayers without a moment's notice. But with few exceptions they are not "innocents" any more than a dark elf healer that never killed/stolefrom/scared/was-mean-to a good PC is "innocent." If we're going to call neutrals "innocents" that should never be harmed, then we should just eliminate the alignment and force every sentient being to choose between good and evil.

Obviously there are certain lines a good aligned PC can't cross - for example, he should keep focus on the truly evil PCs/NPCs, and shouldn't egregiously be laying waste to harmless neutral NPCs - but if a neutral NPC is in the aggressive good aligned PC's way, or has something the good aligned PC needs to defeat an evil doer, I don't think it's a breach of good aligned roleplay to kill the dangerous wild card who's in the way.

Anything else IMO is waaaaaaaaay too restrictive on good aligned PCs.

I can definitely see galadon guards being changed to all neutral, as it is a neutral town, but voralian guards? no.

And honestly, it doesnt make IC sense for darsylon guards to NOT attack wanted goodies on sight. First point being they dont actually know if you're "good" or not. They aren't omnipotent.

Also, guards are there to keep order in the city. Ever seen a chaotic guard in a city? Yeah, me neither. You're wanted for a reason, and that reason is you caused chaos in another city. The reason they attack isnt because you're evil and they're good, or vice versa. It's because you caused chaos and they dont want the same thing to happen in their city.

To be honest, goodie guards not autoattacking sounds like a #### way / finding an easy way out of not wanting to have to deal with the consequences of attacking in town as a goodie.

Nah, you have me wrong, sleepy! I'm not motivated by trying to "find an easy way out of not wanting to have to deal with the consequences of attacking in town as a goodie."

Rather, I am proposing an idea that makes the game more consistent with "good align" roleplay as discussed in this post by Daev, where he says, "I think a good-aligned Battle who regularly kills good-aligned mages is on a fast-track to becoming neutral Battle."

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=4&topic_id=88805&mesg_id=88824&page=

Basically, if a good rager is going to be turned neutral for regularly killing good mages, and a good outlander is going to be turned neutral for regularly killing good tribunals (and so on), then I don't think it makes sense to have good aligned guards in Voralian/Darsylon/etc. murdering good aligned PCs. It's not consistent, and it's not encouraging quality "good align" roleplay. And in reality, the only "consequence" to autoattacking guards is you just accidentally killed a good-align NPC.

Anyway, the rest of my response is along that train of thought:

You:
>And honestly, it doesnt make IC sense for darsylon guards to
>NOT attack wanted goodies on sight. First point being they
>dont actually know if you're "good" or not. They aren't
>omnipotent.
>


Me:
Help Consider. :)


You:
>Also, guards are there to keep order in the city. Ever seen a
>chaotic guard in a city? Yeah, me neither. You're wanted for a
>reason, and that reason is you caused chaos in another city.
>The reason they attack isnt because you're evil and they're
>good, or vice versa. It's because you caused chaos and they
>dont want the same thing to happen in their city.
>

Me:
And good aligned ragers might attack good align mages because they use magic, not because they're good or vice versa. And good aligned tribunal might attack good align outlanders because they spread chaos, and vice versa. And so on. As discussed, it seems like we've reached some sort of consensus that this kind of approach to "good align" will take you on the road to "neutrality."

Just tossing out a couple ideas based on alignment from a functional perspective.

The whole premise of Maran/MARAN is the idea that you are willing to forgo your own innocence and get your hands bloody. You are a good person for the sacrifice you make, not necessarily for the murder you commit, just in what you give up by doing what has to be done.

But I failed in my execution mostly.

If you look at it, In order to join the Maran you have to go out and pretty much kill as many evils as you can. In a way that is alright and in a way that is not. Sure you can look at it as, Ohh they are evil so they must always be thinking evil thoughts or doing evil actions so they must die to stop those evil actions and thoughts. How ever what if it is some char who is made evil just because his obsession with killing another evil group has lead him to evil?

The premise of Maran is not that you forgo your own "innocence", if by "innocence" you mean "purity and goodness".

I think Malakhi used the word to mean "not guilty or deserving of punishment" instead of "naive and lacking in experiences".

The point of Maran is that you intentionally expose yourself to all manner of unsavory things. So you can combat them. So, in that sense you lose your "experiential" innocence.

The danger for the Maran is that this loss of experiential innocence has the potential to lead to a loss of innocence in the "purity and goodness" sense.

>1. I would like good aligned guards not to autoattack good
>aligned criminals.

I agree with this, but have a different idea. I think the guards in places like Voralian City and Darsylon should remain good, and I agree they shouldn't be aggro to good-aligned criminals. But I think they should still do something to good-aligned criminals. At the very least they should still notify any upper-tier Tribunal PCs just like they would if they'd actually attacked.

I could see giving them some sort of non-combat-initiating spell/skill that they'd use on good-aligned criminals who pass by. Maybe they scold you ("What would your mother say if she knew what you'd done?!?") for a morale-reducing effect. Maybe they slap on some sort of mini-manacles that subtracts movement. Etc.

The upshot of making them not auto-attack is that Fort leadership now has absolutely no justification for prohibiting Marans from getting warrants. Which is probably a good thing.

>Empire has IMO the best cabal powers and the fewest
>restrictions (i.e., they have one - they can't attack a PC
>first in town).

That's a pretty big restriction. And I'd point out that Scion has even fewer restrictions than Empire. Heck, even evil outlander might have fewer restrictions. Sure, you can't use coins and bought stuff, but there are plentiful replacements.

>I think intersect competition can be
>encouraged by tying the imperial powers into which sect has
>the most "power" that week (this can be established by handing
>over a cabal item, getting the killing blow to retrieve the
>codex, donations, PK killing blows, etc.).

In general I think this is a bad idea. Mostly because I don't think its possible to fairly allocate "sect power points" in an automated way.

Say I'm a healer and help a Blade to retrieve the Codex. 99.9% of the time he's landing the last blow, but clearly sanc and healing played a huge part in the retrieval.

There's also the matter of the Blade sect being more populous than the others by design (4 elite spots vs. 2). You'd have to account for that somehow.

Maybe you could just have "handing an enemy cabal item to your member of the council" automatically deposit some cash into the hander-over's donations account? So if a group of them raids then whichever characters do not hand over the item have some expectation of being "paid back" by the guy who was given the privilege of doing so.

>aggressive good aligned's POV, at best these guys are
>potentially dangerous wild cards and at worst they're
>untrustworthy betrayers without a moment's notice. But with

Eh. Some neutrals are neutral because they have an over-arching belief that supercedes alignment. This type of neutral won't actually exhibit any of the "bad" traits commonly seen among evils, despite being quite willing to kill good-aligned foes. He won't necessarily be cruel, bloodthirsty, deceptive, disloyal, selfish, arrogant, profane, etc. Think Woldrun, or some gnome Provost Magistrate.

In NPC land, which is more relevant to your argument, I just have a hard time imagining a good-aligned character killing Ludan. Or the Queen of Evermoon. Certain neutral NPCs are more "war like", so you can kind of rationalize it from the POV that "hey, they might attack me given the chance, and they're clearly no stranger to combat." But that doesn't work for certain others like the Queen of Evermoon or the Traveler in the Weald.

I used to pose the question to Fort applicants of whether they would kill a neutral guild guard to get at an evil PC who was inside the guild. My feeling was that they shouldn't. But, I can see the other side of that argument.

Perhaps good aligned guards could attack good aligned outlanders (self defence), and fine other good aligned characters instead of attacking them (maybe 10% of coins).

And I have arrested good people. I dare say I would kill a good person if he tried to kill me.

Don't see why it should be any different in game. Playing a goodie Outlander is a bitch in someways but a breeze in others.

>I think it's inconsistent with CF's roleplaying world that
>Darsylon elves and Voralian guards freely murder good aligned
>PCs.

Technically, Darsylon guards have a unique set of rules of what they won't attack, which is a little more interesting than you might think... ;)

sdbvsd

I think it would be neat if you hardcoded a psuedo alignment change. Like a timer that was accrued each time you killed a goodie that gave you all the effects of suddenly becoming neutral but only temporary. This would result in relieveing yourself of weapon specs, communes, and spells for a time period. That would quickly nip that in the bud. It could scale on level too. A level 11 would get an hour or two, a level 51 would get 24 hours. I wouldn't have killing PCs count in this as that could be an avenue for abuse if a guy forced you to kill him (storm villager vs elf transmuter).

As for team evil, I dunno. My current role doesn't fit well into "team evil", but he feels like a neutral with a red aura. And I'm not exactly playing him as well as I should outside of PK. It all goes back to that stuff that Twist posted back when. I can't remember what it was about, except it mentioned using really cheap tactics on street fighter and that gamers are going to use tactics and strategies that lead them to win and you can either deal with it and adapt or continue to lose.

So if you want them to backstab each other, then you really need to have lasting rewards for doing it. If you end up squatting yourself out of one of the only two other people that you can rank with, then you haven't done much to help your overall character. In the end, the Imms don't give any direct feedback for that sort of thing (especially not right now with everyone in Immland doing something productive behind the scenes) and what you end up doing is making it hard on yourself.

The first incarnation of my role did that sort of thing, but this time around I literally never got the opportunity to stab someone in the back. I even had to travel with goodies just to make a full group from time to time. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting. But my team evil is rocking along just fine. Chaotic evil is about leadership of the fittest. Lawful evil is about a pre-ordained set of rules that decide leadership. So I could easily see the outlanders fighting one another for the Nightreaver spot. But that doesn't happen. I've never been a scion. I guess I'm not elite enough for that, even though the scion cabal was formed when Trewyn was leader of the village. I think I missed some stuff about the forming of the current incarnation of scions and my lack of that knowledge never gets me in. But EVERY single scion I've ever had on semi-amiable terms was much more interested in an ally that didn't hunt them than making yet another enemy.

Right now I get more props from immland for killing people than I do acting out a role. I write a few role updates to get some imm exp for an edge or two I want and I go back to the killing fields cause that's what gets me that all mighty last name I want! In the end, no matter how you slice it, it's the PK that I enjoy the most. The RP is good when it's good, but usually it's not. At the small hours in the morning it's REALLY bad. So if you really want this sort evil vs evil to happen, again, you need to make the rewards visible and there. Because right now there is simply nothing from Immland to support this type of behavior.

How would you deal with say a Good Paladin trib killing say a wanted elf?

I see nothing wrong with it. There's no need to hardcode anything for it. There should be some justifiable role play involving remorse, appologies, maybe the returning of all the gear, or even helping the guy you just killed get some clothing/better clothing.

Remember, Trewyn was an elf and became neutral for declaring war on the Warlocks who happened to be hiding in the fortress which meant we had to bust in and kill the whole lot of them just to kill the mages. Shokai came down and busted my ass, but there was nothing to be done about it. Trewyn was certain they were opening the door to darkness and he wasn't going to set a precedent by showing them mercy. So I lost my specs and proceeded to get my ass kicked and con died about nine days later.

And I don't see any need to appologise to people who I apprehend in the course of my work. I don't see why my Tribs wood.

On Team Evil:

To an extent. Consider that there are two evil cabals who are enemies. Also, both those cabals (Empire and Scion) are enemies of both Battle and Outlander, both of which have evil members.

So even if your evil isn't screwing over his cabalmates and/or random uncaballed evils, he's still seeing more "evil on evil" friction than the average good-aligned character sees "good on good".

Just a thought.

I agree there will always be more evil on evil action than good on good. As an evil I was pk'd all the time, and most always it was by other evils, because they don't bother checking to see if I am good or evil or not. As an evil I have, though rarely, pulled pure betrayals and had them on me. In ranking as an evil I was killed for being too slow and not knowing enough a few times while I was learning the game. I think there is a team evil sometimes out of necessity and utility, were as team good is by design.

I always thought and to some extent saw it in scion, that even in scion and empire there is in-fighting as well, it's rarely team evil outside of ranking or cabalmates in raids. My char was a rare exception to most scions that travelled alone by choice, not that they would mind a song or two for them if I offered.

Imperials all want to be top dog, and if they have to knock down another elite to take their spot, so be it. At the same time, they have to not piss off so many people and get screwed over, so it is a tightrope they walk, and really I see it as a failing of the council if team evil exists within imperials, but then again, why shouldn't the leaders use their pawns to do their work? My first ever char got booted by the shadow lord for failing to retrieve when I logged in. Of course I didn't care since I did not even know where the fort was, but I saw it as the strong removing the weak. He could have just told me where it was and I could have retrieved, but he anath'd me instead. Other imperials did help my char though, but think about it as building their own allies for their own schemes and it becomes less team evil and more evil backstabbery stuff. It's all in the perspective you take.

In scion I saw pretty much direct threats made, and if actions were not followed there were consequences. Difference was in scion really there are two leaders, and everyone else is pretty much equal where as empire has more of a hierarchy. So in scion there were more schemes and plots, but execution is not always easy is all.

Ignoring the fact that the differences between the meaning of morality and good vs. evil are huge between real life and CF, the most important difference in my mind is the fact that in CF, there really is no hiding it.

Probably one third of evils in CF are a race, class, or cabal that gives away their alignment right away. Beyond that, detection through communes and powers is fairly common. It stands to reason that NPCs have (or should have) all the same methods in place to determine someone's alignment that PCs do, including race, class, cabal, detection foo, and simple observation. Hell, if I can determine an NPCs alignment by "considering" it, it should be able to do the same. In real life, it's not hard to hide the fact that you're a psychopath if that's your inclination.

I think it would be nice (and logical) if more NPCs took not just alignment and ethos into consideration when interacting with PCs, but possibly other factors as well, like cabal, morale, recent actions, etc.

I also like the idea of putting more emphasis on good aligned characters actually being good. It seems way too common to observe good aligned characters killing neutral mobs for things like keys, preps, and good gear. While I can understand certain roles justifying putting down a neutral guard to pursue a bad guy or save a dying fellow good aligned character who is trapped in a pit behind the locked door, almost all of the instances where good aligned characters do kill neutral mobs, it's entirely for the benefit of the killer, making it very selfish. Seeing morale penalties and actual automated alignment changes (even miniscule ones) would quickly change this behavior, especially if it were noticeable to PCs.

Request is a great tool to have as a good aligned character, but it does tend to get overused, IMHO. This scenario seems pretty common and, to me, a little selfish: Good aligned guy dies and loses all his equipment to a full loot. He then proceeds to run through a few choice areas as a ghost and collect a handful of things using request, often times leaving a mob with 2-3 (or more) pieces of equipment completely naked. This continues until said good character has 3/4 of a full suit. I guess from the standpoint of a player trying to play a character who is good aligned, selfless, respectful, and kind, I would have a hard time asking a half dozen (or more) so odd mobs for everything they have. What makes this worse in my mind is that most of this stuff is generally going to be replaced quickly and likely abandoned in a pit or something like that, never being returned to its rightful owner. I'm likely being too picky here, but when I ask myself the WWJD question, that's the dilemma I come up with.

On Team Evil: Looking back, you see all these evil characters whose roles describe them as absolutely despicable, untrustworthy, downright evil individuals who are clearly psychopaths and whatnot. People depict their characters as individuals who have, would, and/or will lie, cheat, steal, murder, torture, etc., to get their way, yet most tend to follow a pretty predictable pattern of cooperation, relatively polite mannerisms, and an over all regard for the consequences of their actions. The player will say after the fact or through their role that they character was “manipulative” and was merely using the neutral he would have otherwise slaughtered, but nine times out of ten there is no manipulation, only friendly cooperation. There is no real penalty for talking the talk and not walking the walk. If you get to level 51 by killing good aligned NPCs instead of evil aligned NPCs, you're the equivalent of Ted Bundy, apparently. Perhaps this is just the choices and reasoning of the player bleeding through the character, which isn't to fault the player, as the game kind of encourages this.

I think every evil cabal, and even some of the others to an extent, should feel a little more like Empire, meaning people should be afraid of making mistakes, saying the wrong thing to the wrong person, disrespecting the chain of command, etc. I remember talking to the player of a Marshall of Fortress once who said something to the effect of, “Soandso keeps doing and saying things that are just awful good RP. I really should have kicked him out twice now, but I don't have the heart, even if he isn't a newbie.” Despite the fact that this guy was apparently about the worst squire imaginable, he didn't get booted because the leader at the time knew that it would make the player upset and didn't want to do that. It seems like way too much emphasis is placed on keeping players happy these days. When it's things like looting, killing, sacrificing things, ganking, etc., sportsmanship has to be taken into consideration, but at some point you simply have to say, “Hey, in this world, in this setting, this is what these characters really would/should do” and get over the fact that at the end of the day, feeling might get hurt.

Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff seems like it falls into one of two categories, or both. Either it's difficult to deal with automatically and mechanically and instead requires Immortals to simply be vigilant and deal with it as best they can; and/or enforcing whatever the “proper behavior” is just ruins the fun factor too much.

I brought this up a bit on the battlefield, but I think you need to be very careful going down this route with goodies vs neutral mobs. Throughout the game, mobs are held to a different standard than PCs. Mobs aren't protected by the laws. A pacifist Acolyte healer will happily murder them in droves all the way up to hero. Dwarves kill Dern, felar kill the bandit chief. Everyone kills Tarus. They return just as they were a few hours after you kill them.

If you want to start strictly enforcing RP behavior against mobs, you'll either end up with pretty large inconsistencies that aren't justified in a roleplay sense, or you'll end up with far-reaching externalities.


>I also like the idea of putting more emphasis on good aligned
>characters actually being good. It seems way too common to
>observe good aligned characters killing neutral mobs for
>things like keys, preps, and good gear. While I can understand
>certain roles justifying putting down a neutral guard to
>pursue a bad guy or save a dying fellow good aligned character
>who is trapped in a pit behind the locked door, almost all of
>the instances where good aligned characters do kill neutral
>mobs, it's entirely for the benefit of the killer, making it
>very selfish. Seeing morale penalties and actual automated
>alignment changes (even miniscule ones) would quickly change
>this behavior, especially if it were noticeable to PCs.

Well, aside from whatever precedents may or may not exist, my personal opinion isn't that good aligned characters should never kill neutral mobs, it's that most good aligned characters (mainly Fortress) shouldn't kill neutral mobs for equipment, gold, preps, etc.

That's an opinion that I know has been supported by Immortals of varying good-align only cabals in the past, and that I *think* most still do.

Heck, taken from the helpfile: "In doing so, these individuals will also try to avoid causing harm to innocent bystanders, instead focusing their aggression on those who oppose their moral ideals."

While that certainly doesn't read as "no killing neutrals" to me, it does seem to suggest that good aligned characters shouldn't be cutting down neutral NPCs for wealth, equipment, etc.

Back to my own personal opinion. While I agree that there definitely is an inherent separation between PC and NPC when it comes to certain rules, the (Tribunal) laws, etc., I very much dislike it. The idea doesn't seem to hold water anyway, since good aligned characters seem to be able to get away with attacking neutral NPCs on occasion, but they almost NEVER get away with attacking GOOD aligned PCs. If it's okay to kill a wood-elf for a key because it's an NPC, it stands to reason the same goes for an elf. It's thin reasoning at best, and it rips me out of character every time I hear someone offer up a weak way of saying, "... but it's a mob, shut up."

I can't say with any certainty or authority what is acceptable and what isn't, but I can say that IF killing Tarus just for a bracer is crappy RP for a character, then "Everyone else is doing it" IS a weak excuse.

While I understand treating NPCs closer to the way PCs are treated would cause some problems -right now-, there is nothing stopping the Immortals from taking the game in a direction, both mechanically and otherwise, that would make doing so more fair, balanced, and most importantly, fun.

But that is the greater crux at what Valg is getting at, if I'm not mistaken.

It's not that you should punish the people killing neutral mobs for gear, it's that you should be rewarding the people who aren't.

Because, let's face it, CF is a game. It's not real. There is no rational explanation (and trust me, I've heard almost all of them) why I can kill Tarus, leave the docks for three hours, then return and he's back like nothing ever happened.

Like you said, thats the crux of the discussion. Game mechanics might allow it right now, but game mechanics are what we're here to discuss.

CF is a game. It's not real. It is an RP-enforced fantasy setting where you're required to "do as your character would" so to speak. How exactly to do that and where to draw the line when it comes to how NPCs work is something that is obviously part subjective and clearly not well defined.

Obviously the views of the playerbase and the staff shift from person to person and then even more so over time. I'm sure the same questions would have just as many different answers five years ago as they do now. I don't think there is a correct answer.

My family is starving so I rob a bank.

I'm playing my role but there's still consequences.

It's no diff for the game, be it a non-persistant environment or not.

I think you are just throwing them a bone when you say there isn't a right answer, there clearly is.

Hell, my characters will damn near hero with fine leather gear and moonstone armor because I won't kill for gear, I don't need to request a lot for ranking, and I tend not to loot other peoples kills.

It's a peeve of mine to see goodies rewarded when they clearly aren't being good.

Maybe.

For what it's worth, I think the good aligned characters you play pretty well represent how I think it should be done, and do a good job of sticking to a lot of the principals that I think make sense for a good aligned character, regardless of whether or not they are inconvenient and/or make you less mechanically effective.

I even break my own rules quite frequently after a while because quite literally everyone else is, at which point I lose interest in the character and delete. Which again, isn't to say I'm doing it right and other people are doing it wrong, merely than the environment that exists to play out a good aligned role as I think it should be makes doing so not a lot of fun for me, so I avoid it more now than I used to.

If you want to start strictly enforcing RP behavior against mobs, you'll either end up with pretty large inconsistencies that aren't justified in a roleplay sense, or you'll end up with far-reaching externalities.

1) I tend to agree in general that a blanket restriction on killing neutral NPCs would excessively handcuff good-aligned characters.

2) I think it's important to distinguish between four categories of neutrals here:

A) Random (non-blessed/cursed/undead/etc.) animals, unthinking automata, and other non-sentient creatures are flagged neutral because they don't have any moral opinion, and I don't think anyone gets concerned about good-aligned characters killing them.

B) In the case of aggressive sentient neutrals (i.e. angry wood-elf protecting his territory), I think characters could claim self-defense and move on. Yeah, you could stay the heck out of their way, but this starts to really hinder your ability to explore.

C) I'd also separate out neutrals with extenuating circumstances, such as random magi if you're a Battlerager, town guards or shopkeepers if you're a neutral Outlander, maybe thieves if your character has some sort of code of honor concerning that sort of thing, neutral NPC 'grouped' or working with evil NPCs, etc. I don't think anyone gets concerned here, unlike the good-on-good case.

D) Random sentient bystanders are probably the only category where there's any real conflict. The few people I've seen cracked on here were people pursuing unusually selfish motives when there were clearly better ways to get to the same goal. For example, there was a particularly awful Acolyte healer who was mowing down an entire village of wood-elves. One of the wood-elves confronted him about the slaughter, and he said he needed the money. There, I think a responsible good-aligned character should have thought "You know, I should be mowing down evil creatures for money, instead of random wood-elf children.", and I was fine with that dude getting hammered for it.

Regarding staff expectations, my opinion of the consensus (as of a year ago, at least) is generally that killing Category D guy is not ideal but generally excusable outside of egregious cases. For example, I'd avoid ranking on Category D neutrals (not that it's efficient), practicing skills on them, etc. because there will always be superior alternatives.

Killing Tarus to put his bracer to better use? Meh. I think we have much bigger roleplay fish to fry before we ever made that a priority.

The only thing I'd consider here is something akin to the Antihero edge, where you basically self-flag your character as being so super-pure that killing sentient neutrals must be avoided. There would either be significant incentives attached (extra XP from evils, evil-specific communes like Wrath work better, etc.), or it would be framed as a painful Flaw.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>The only thing I'd consider here is something akin to the
>Antihero edge, where you basically self-flag your
>character as being so super-pure that killing sentient
>neutrals must be avoided. There would either be significant
>incentives attached (extra XP from evils, evil-specific
>communes like Wrath work better, etc.), or it would be
>framed as a painful Flaw.

Sweet. My goodies almost operate like this already, with no real incentive to do so.

The only neutrals I've recently felt the need to kill are:

1. Tarus.
2. Wood-elf guard outside midnight dragon.
3. Elemental Bishops.
4. Felar Bandit Chief.
5. Felar Shaman.

In the case of the wood-elf guard and elemental bishops, I rationalized it by way of the mob's close association with evil. The guard is protecting an evil being that should be "put down". The bishops have a whole flock of evil beings worshiping them, and they're apparently okay with that.

Tarus I usually skip killing, just because it's possible to get similar gear without much more trouble.

Bandit chief and Shaman are harder, since there's no comparable gear. Any goodie Tribunal should be okay with whacking them, since one's a bandit chief and the other's basically a bandit "healer", and bandits are by definition working outside the law. It gets dicier, from a role-play perspective, for a non-Tribunal good-aligned felar.

> bandits are by definition working outside the law.

Not on CF so much. The law only applies in cities and banditry can take place outside those. If the bandits are raiding tabershaws or the eastern road, then they're not breaking any laws.

Sure, but if I'm a Tribunal guy, I'm sure going to look askance at any sort of "bandit". And I might not feel to bad, as a good-aligned Tribunal, about whacking a neutral "bandit".

I take issue with good aligns mowing down sentient neutrals. Partiularly fortress members. And the example for me is Pwent/Dern. Dwarves, especially good aligned dwarves, just shouldn't be killing him. Say what you want it's bad rp. It's the player wanting the eq. Neutral is not evil. Sounds simple yet it's important. Neutral is not evil. Good aligns, especially fortress, shouldn't be killing people who aren't evil. And dwarves - barring the contrived role about hating your own people that someone surely plays - shouldn't be killing dwarves. Obviously there are execptions, but the standard should be not killing sentient neutrals, particularly dwarves if you're a dwarf, given the "kin" asepct both in helpfiles and in practice for virtually all dwarf players.

Dern is mad. Insane. I.e. sick. He's not, as you say, in the way of exploring something. He's not someone who you have to get through to get somewhere else. In fact, as is obvious because people say "I want to go to Dern", they *know* what they are doing, they *know* who he is and more importantly they know *what* he is. They're deliberately going to kill a a dwarf, for his eq. A dwarf they know is sick, not evil. No good aligned char should really be doing that, particularly fortress, particularly dwarf.

I think that's way overboard, handicapping a dwarf to not get the best armor for himself when he can easily explain he's easing the dwarfs pain is fine RP. Your view is equivelant to taking away the fun stick, and I'd rather not play in that type of CF.

I dislike the "putting him out of his misery" justification for a few reasons:

1) Dwarves are all about pride and, to some degree, combat. The guy might be sick, but at least he's fighting the good fight.

2) Fine, you're gonna end his suffering... by bashing his skull in. How come you do this only when you happen to need armor?

3) The act of going down and boning him for his equipment is rarely wrapped in any RP. Some dwarf paladins might toss up a "sigh" for good measure, but there is rarely any IC effort to actually help him, save him, etc., and no real remorse (that I ever saw) for having to slay another dwarf, again, only when it's convenient for the gear.

It isn't the justifications that bother me so much as it is the motivations. I think ALL justifications for a good aligned dwarf to kill for pwent are lame, but that fact aside, my underlying problem is that these justifications only come up when a person wants good gear and needs to kill a dwarf to get it. I've always summed the issue up as selfish.

Obviously how this works depends entirely on how you approach the concept of an NPC when in-character. "Ending his suffering" doesn't mean a whole lot when two hours later he's back there again suffering all over again. To me, this is where things just go bonkers and the game, like almost every non-persistent game (almost every MUD I've heard of), kind of falls apart.

Final note: Most people have a favorite justification for this, but in the end their argument can be summed up to essentially what you said, "He has the best dwarf eq. I want the eq. Not being allowed to kill him for it makes the game less fun for me, the player." In an RP-enforced fantasy setting, I just have a hard time with that kind of logic. I realize I'm a minority and I tend to take these kinds of things too literally and seriously, but if the argument stands that it should be allowed and even encouraged simply because the opposite isn't fun for the player, then we should all start mowing down storm giants with our Paladins for their haste potions.

(There is no storm giant with a haste potion.)

Fghgt

This is all my personal opinion, obviously:

At the end of the day, these mobs are Neutral, not Good. And they're Neutral for a reason, or they would be Good.

For me, that's all the justification I need unless there is a reason to think the mob does enough good/righteous things to raise it to a level where my character should treat it as though it were Good and not Neutral. Ludan is a good example of this. The guy is fighting off hordes of duergar/drow and trying to save his kingdom from being overrun by the forces of evil. Ludan might be Neutral, but he does so much "good" for Thera that my character might treat him as though he were Good. But then you take the barbarian in the wastelands - and that dude is running around with the f'ing massive Mahn Tor axe. That Neutral barbarian may hack apart an Evil felar bandit, but then he's just as likely to tear apart a Good trail ranger, as well! In fact, if that Neutral barbarian does the right thing, it's either (1) an unintended accident, or (2) something he'll "balance" by doing the wrong thing soon after. Think about that - if a Neutral guy does the right thing, it's either unintended, or intended knowing he'll do something just as wrong to "balance" it out. That's not Good.

Here's another way to look at it: Why is it OK for your good-align character to kill a mob that's "evil" who has an item you want when the mob is just sitting there like an innocent bystander? Has that mob done anything to harm you? Anything to harm anyone that you know of? Is it fair or righteous to slaughter that poor harmless mob just because he's evil and has the sword you want? Sure, you'd say, that's OK, because when I consider, it says the mob's alignment is "Evil" and that's enough reason.

Well, IMO, the mob's alignment being "Neutral" is enough justification to kill the mob if you have need to do it (with some arguable exceptions like Ludan). The only mobs you should never, ever, kill is "Good."

Maybe a good place to start is for you to explain why good align characters should treat sentient Neutral mobs as though they were Good.

I don't think a good aligned character should ever kill anyone for the sole purpose of aquiring wealth or equipment.

I'm going to go kill a goblin child to give it's drums to my little girl as a Baerinika'sskmas present seems kinda ####ty to me.


I was travelling through the silverwood when I came upon the secret village of the Silverwood Goblins! I had been attacked by them all night but in the light of day they were no match for me! The people of Galadon can breath easier for a while yet. These drums are for you baby girl, Merry Baerinika's'mas. (Sad look on my face as I remember accidently killing a goblin child in his hut with my Nova.)

Red aura means "this being is really cruel/selfish/etc. to an extent that it is cursed by the good-aligned deities of the land, and is a pox on Thera".

No red aura means "not the above stuff".

Gold aura means "this being is pure/kind/self-sacrificing/etc. to an extent that it is blessed by the good-aligned deities of the land, and is a boon to Thera."

You seem to be saying the "standard" for good-aligned characters is, "If it's not blessed by the Gods of Light, you can kill it in good conscience."

Other people are basically assuming the default for good-aligned characters should be "don't kill sentient beings". The exception to this default is red-aura'd beings, who are cursed by the Gods of Light and marked as a pox on Thera.

Back when chars had a sliding alignment, kill a goodie= minus align, kill a evil = positive align. If you think of it that way, that neutral char has to have committed enough evil acts to keep from shifting his alignment to good and preventing all his anti-good gear from zapping him and falling to the ground.

Maybe Ludan has multiple personality and kills good aligned Dwarves when they least expect it, keeping his neutral align?

How the hell do they know the where a single dwarf hundreds of miles underground is and what he's wearing. Bleh... At least they could incorporate him into their story line.

And on another note if I see them wearing it, I don't gasp gush and say oooooh "You got Dern!" My characters have no idea what you are wearing.

Alas, such personal restriction has never rendered notice or appreciation.

A powergamer will take the flaw (or rewards), and then just get someone else to kill the neutral mob. Therefore gaining a net benefit with minimal cost.

PS. I have played a few goodies that didn't kill neutrals for gear, and I didn't consider it a huge handicap. There was still plenty of good gear out there.

with Team evil, is that you effectively need imm permission BEFORE you can screw a cabalmate.

Otherwise you are fairly likely to get uninducted.

Out of curiousity, how much/seriously/successfully have you ever played good?

Reading this (as someone who's spent a lot of time playing every cabal/alignment), I really feel like the answer is 'not much' but I don't want to assume.

I play good quite a bit, and while I might not be incredibly "successful" with any particular character, it's never been indicated to me IC or OOC that I wasn't doing a good job of "being good".

While my good aligned characters don't do things like kill sentient neutral mobs for what I would consider selfish reasons, or any of the other things I mentioned in my post, it was supposed to be somewhat subjective and not an analysis of how good works.

Fun stick aside, I guess I just have a fundamental problem with sentient NPCs being treated differently than PCs simply because doing so would be inconvenient from a mechanical standpoint.

FWIW, when I refer to good I'm generally thinking Fortress, even though I realize I didn't say so everywhere. Other cabals are obviously the gray area, though.

Out of curiosity, what in particular about my post do you consider incorrect, naive, or whatever it is that makes you wonder if I ever play good?

I've even, as a goodie, saved mobs that were being attacked buy goodies for what you describe.

My goodies blacklist anyone who admits to killing mobs for gear or neutrals who commit henious acts such as ranking on elves, orphans, dockworkers, or admit they killed a mob for it's gear.

It's my opinion goodies should have the harder road ranking than the others simply because their moral compass should eliminate so many potential group mates.

I tend to reject other goodies who purposfully overlook attrocities they have seen or make excuses for travelling with what amounts to child killers and murderers.

Anyway, goodies should, if played right, have it the hardest.

>Out of curiosity, what in particular about my post do you
>consider incorrect, naive, or whatever it is that makes you
>wonder if I ever play good?

1) Goods not killing neutral mobs; while some of my good characters won't kill sentient neutrals (depending on their RP), I felt like you brushed off how enormously difficult this is, or maybe more accurately, how much more powerful the good-aligned character who will at least sometimes kill sentient neutrals is. There isn't a general flaw that you can pick for a character (possibly excepting Oblivious, which may be the worst of all flaws for a legitimately-played character) that's comparable or worse.

That's not to say that game design choices that encouraged less NPC-murderous goods would be a bad thing; I'm just saying, this is a really really big limitation and it didn't sound to me like you thought it was.

2) Similar point with the idea that running around requesting as a ghost to re-equip is an abuse of request. In my mind, this is pretty much exactly what request is for. If I was neutral or evil, I could more quickly/easily (generally... obviously there are some kinds of characters / level ranges in which a character has a hard time regearing themselves solo through combat but not request, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule) regear myself by killing NPCs.


I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you have to say, but in general your post made me feel like you had considered these choices in the abstract and hadn't spent a lot of time really suffering their consequences.

Gotcha.

I guess I never looked at these issues as choices with consequences that made things harder on me so much as I did tenants of playing a proper good aligned character. I get the feeling that my idea of "proper" is not congruent with the rest of the world, but either way, that's the way I've tried to approach good aligned characters (at least initially in their lives) and I want to say that comes from my early experiences with good characters in CF, but I couldn't cite examples if I tried.

I suppose I should play a good aligned character who doesn't make such a fuss about these things and see how it feels, however against the grain that might be.

I think that a lot of people in todays RL societies see, "Justifiable" as "Good".

Even to the point where I can't remember the last time I used the request skill and didn't give the mob a replacment weapon or piece of armor.