A character's role, ethos, alignment, cabal, race and experiences all provide the foundation for how a character will act and the choices they will make throughout their lives. It seems like, of all these factors, cabal weighs the heaviest.

I find this interesting. There are four cabals where goods and evils co-exist Tribunal, Herald, Battle, and Outlander. Of the four of these Outlander seems to be the only one that draws a distinction between the roles of different alignments in the group.

I'm curious what other players think about how a character's alignment manifests itself within their cabal. For example - what is different about a good aligned rager vs. an evil rager? Herald? Tribunal? Is it a question of motivations and goals? Is it a common end with a different means?

What does, say, good aligned Tribunal do when good aligned Outlander is raiding for their item? Or what does a storm giant Rager do when fire giant Rager is getting tag teamed by good aligned paladin/invoker team? What does good aligned rager do when fire giant rager is about to wax the elf thief buddy you've ranked 100 hours with?

It's a question that exists in reality as well... like when is a WWII Nazi soldier (who is "good aligned") supposed to starting thinking in terms of his morality (alignment) and not in terms of his orders (cabal dogma)?

What do you think?

>I'm curious what other players think about how a character's
>alignment manifests itself within their cabal. For example -
>what is different about a good aligned rager vs. an evil
>rager? Herald? Tribunal? Is it a question of motivations and
>goals? Is it a common end with a different means?

I think there is the least distinction in Battle - I (somewhat sadly) see good and evil ragers raiding Nexus together with really no visible evidence that they are alignment-based-enemies. Evil Heralds are pretty rare, and have to have some form of RP that explains why they are evil yet aligned with such a not-really-at-all-evil organization.

>What does, say, good aligned Tribunal do when good aligned
>Outlander is raiding for their item? Or what does a storm
>giant Rager do when fire giant Rager is getting tag teamed by
>good aligned paladin/invoker team? What does good aligned
>rager do when fire giant rager is about to wax the elf thief
>buddy you've ranked 100 hours with?

As Brom, when a good-aligned Outlander was coming for the Fetish, I generally tried to just heal the Captain and only strike them enough to blind them and make them flee.

As a storm giant rager I'd probably strike the invoker, if only to try to drive him off.

As a storm giant rager I'd probably rescue the elf from fire giant rager and then bash/bash/bash/flurry. Because that's all I know how to do.

It is a tough position to be in, which is a big reason, I think, that you see way more neutral/evil Tribs/Ragers/Outlanders than you do Good-aligned ones. Its pretty easy to justify helping a goodie cabalmate when you're an evil bastard - "It served my own ends to do so." Not so much the other way around.

Though my take may be different because I was commander.

To the one example about raiding, I'd often either solo-raid or tell the other ragers to group up and go outside the group myself when evil ragers were on. Raids are a dicier situation because you're "supposedly" fighting for your beliefs and the betterment of your "entire" cabal.

Another example being a goodie rager watching paladin/invoker beating on a Fire giant villager, happened to me often with Karkarrak when he'd fight the Fortress. Often, I'd attack the most protected character in the goodie gang and the moment the evil rager escaped, I'd flee and run away too.

It's a constant line-straddling that is honestly quite difficult. I think any good-aligned in Trib/Battle/Outlander should almost prepare for an align change at a certain point in time.

I'm also (maybe) never rolling a good align again. Too much of a hassle. They are so underpowered compared to neutral/evil counterparts.

Also probably not ever rolling a rager again, but that's neither here nor there.

It's been my experience that of the cabals with tri-partisan alignment, Outlander is generally the easiest to distinguish the goodies. This may be, in part, because each align has their own separate powers and leaders. Therefore, it's easier to stress the importance of walking the good walk when it comes from the same alignment.

I think it's harder to justify joining Tribunal as a paladin when the Provost is something like a duergar thief, except for the angle of wanting to clean up the law. The whole point of rager is that you're angry against magic. It's much, much harder to be subtle and live the distinction of magic is bad, but folk can be good, but I still need to destroy magic.

If anything, the blurrier the lines, the more opportunity for characters to really shine. Anyone can play a Fortlander with minimal effort. I think it takes a lot of gumption to play the empathetic storm rager trying to convince his Battle brethren to leave the elf invoker alone while there are other enemies to hunt.

>It's been my experience that of the cabals with tri-partisan
>alignment, Outlander is generally the easiest to distinguish
>the goodies. This may be, in part, because each align has
>their own separate powers and leaders. Therefore, it's easier
>to stress the importance of walking the good walk when it
>comes from the same alignment.

Agreed. Outlander really is almost like thee separate cabals and certainly the most tolerant of inner cabal PKing.

>
>I think it's harder to justify joining Tribunal as a paladin
>when the Provost is something like a duergar thief, except for
>the angle of wanting to clean up the law.

The tricky part there is the part of the Code that prohibits association with the taint of evil. I could see lots of reasons why a paladin would enforce the law beyond just "cleaning it up". In a lot of ways he's insulated from association with the evils because his cabal binds him only to follow and enforce the law - which pretty much stops at the gates of protected cities. I think the trickier area comes in when the trib paladin becomes provost and fire AP wants to join up. On one hand there is no law against evils joining Tribunal - but I can't imagine a lot of solid RP ground where it's cool for a paladin to judge an AP worthy of association and induct him. Nor can I find a lot of good RP ground where a paladin fights a wanted Maran who is attacking evils in a protected city.

As an aside - what might be interesting is breaking Tribunal into 3 branches the way Outlander is. Goods could protect Voralian, Evils could protect Hamsah, and Neutrals could protect Galadon. There could be a leader for each branch similar to outlander and they could all defend the Spire collectively. If anyone else thinks that's a good idea it might be worth breaking into a separate thread.



The whole point of
>rager is that you're angry against magic. It's much, much
>harder to be subtle and live the distinction of magic is bad,
>but folk can be good, but I still need to destroy magic.

There's a scripture in the Bible that says "Hate not the sinner but hate the sin." This seems like the attitude for the goodie rager, doesn't it? There are more ways to fight in Thera (and in real life) than with violence. The pen is sometimes mightier than the sword, truly. So it stands to reason that a good aligned Rager might use means other than PK to fight the magic in another good aligned character.

Another example of this might be the U.S's fight against terrorism. Just because some leaders have an aversion to torture doesn't mean they lack resolve for the war on terror. It just means that they want to fight the war without compromising their values (or alignment).


>
>If anything, the blurrier the lines, the more opportunity for
>characters to really shine. Anyone can play a Fortlander with
>minimal effort. I think it takes a lot of gumption to play the
>empathetic storm rager trying to convince his Battle brethren
>to leave the elf invoker alone while there are other enemies
>to hunt.

I agree with this 100 and 10%. The hard part of doing this is making other players and the immortals understand the character's motivations for certain actions. It's easy to assume that a player is being abusive of their powers and/or alignment and overlook the attention and thought that player has given to their choices.

>As an aside - what might be interesting is breaking Tribunal
>into 3 branches the way Outlander is. Goods could protect
>Voralian, Evils could protect Hamsah, and Neutrals could
>protect Galadon. There could be a leader for each branch
>similar to outlander and they could all defend the Spire
>collectively. If anyone else thinks that's a good idea it
>might be worth breaking into a separate thread.

This also would make the provincial spot a lot more interesting from an RP perspective.

>I agree with this 100 and 10%. The hard part of doing this is
>making other players and the immortals understand the
>character's motivations for certain actions. It's easy to
>assume that a player is being abusive of their powers and/or
>alignment and overlook the attention and thought that player
>has given to their choices.
>

There's a role command that is useful shortly before or after these kinds of conversations. If you need to directly draw attention to it, this isn't terribly difficult by a note either to the imm(s) or to cabal. This won't excuse you ICly but it will set them up to do things like reward you with imm XP even if they have to boot you from the cabal.

Are you saying to make a role entry for questionable activities and then send a note to the appropriate immortals before or after you engage in said activities?

If you're being intellectually honest about your RP, yes, in fact it should be the first thought that comes to mind.

Not all roles need to be a string of long chapters. It's not like the role command will break from you using it as a cliffnotes for your RP unless you're an aspiring novelist. (and looking at some pbfs, some folks are)

Granted none of the short entries will be taken into account for a role contest, but they won't hurt your chances either.

I can't count the number of times where I, as the character, have had to make the questionably wrong choice because of RP, counter-intuitive to my instincts as a player. This can come off as being recklessly stupid to whomever is watching. Unless my choices are specifically spelled out in my role, a brilliant RP choice may just seem like a noob move.

I agree that sometimes brilliant RP choices appear to be noob moves.

*I have, over the years, had a character whose patron immortal and cabal immortals understood my unusual character and it's unusual choices and were supportive of them only to have some other higher level (like 57/56ish) witness an event, not read the role and lay the smack down. Then when I go to my patron immortals and ask about it they tell you "OOC Immortal X laid the smack down on you and because Immortal X is higher level they can't do anything about it. An IMP will have to take care of it."

*Or when I played Cinndaria (my female minotaur) Enilith gave me some grapes restrung to look like a super-cool-rewardy potion. He either entered it in A) the role xp command or B) the immortal comment section (apparently they are viewed in separate places by the imms?) and it wasn't apparent to other imms. So other imms just thought my very RP intense minotaur had gone and picked up some grapes and ate them and were like... THAT'S LAME.

I don't fault anyone in the above circumstances. I don't expect every immortal to read every line of every role and every comment in the history. I also don't expect them to sit idly by when they see potential wrongdoing just because they haven't. The point is that roles that are acceptable, unique, exceptional but out of the box can often get... unnecessarily complicated.

I say all that just to say: I don't know if the proposed idea would keep you 100% safe - and I suspect that if I were an immortal receiving a bunch of notes referencing short role additions would get irritating.



*For any little isolated misunderstandings like this over my 15 or so years with this game there are literally scores of very positive experiences dealing with CF staff in the game.

Obviously if you put it in the role and it is later admitted by the immortal in question either privately to your patron imm or the imps, the quality of the immortal for not being aware should be called into question, not your roleplay. This goes right along with things like, oh, say, Enlilth being aware my Empire High Priestess was promoting people outside my sect (but whose sects had no sect leader and the Empire had no emperor, and primarily only to get them out of bloodoath) on merit (i.e. the cost of my Gold which was both Enlilth's and the Empire's gold) but Gurgthock not pulling me aside sooner. Same deal, it's the imm's responsibility to be aware before acting, and if the information doesn't exist, query the character in question to the extent RP allows before acting. If, for instance, Twist was not also playing Dupmasione during all the exact moments this was going on, and/or was annoyed by various short role updates I may or may not have written in regards to those promotions, he could easily have noted to Enlilth to pull my ass aside and discuss it.

'I say all that just to say: I don't know if the proposed idea would keep you 100% safe - and I suspect that if I were an immortal receiving a bunch of notes referencing short role additions would get irritating.'

If you are going to RP as an Imm you have certain responsibilities to respect the tools available to the players if they are actually used (within reason). Prolific short role entries with sufficient context are within reason. If you are annoyed for any reason by that, it's not like you don't have the option to simply not interact with a given player on that day, gag that character in your client, or even comment passively on the imm channels about it so another imm may or may not have the opportunity to glance over it who finds it less annoying and therefore may judge more impartially.

There's a scripture in the Bible that says "Hate not the sinner but hate the sin."

Is that right next to "God helps those who help themselves"?

(The latter is actually from Aesop's fables, but it seemed appropriate to pair it with another falsely-attributed quotation. :p)

Crazy.

Anyhow, thanks for pointing that out. While not a champion of Biblical Trivial Pursuit I did spend 9 years in Christian school and never caught that saying was not taken from the Bible. I forgot that you are/were a seminary student! What do you do nowadays?

Also as an aside, here are a few scriptures that, perhaps, better sum up the idea from a quick google search.

If anyone says, "I love God," but hates a Christian brother or sister, that person is a liar; for if we don't love people we can see, how can we love God, whom we have not seen?
--1 John 4:20

Why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying, `Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log from your own eyes; then perhaps you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.

EDITED TO ADD: Though the saying not being scriptural does not make it less enlightening to the discussion at hand.
--Matthew 7:3-5

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful and endures through every circumstance. Love will last forever ... (particularly the "demand it's own way")
--1 Corinthians 13:4-8

I would agree that loving sinners/hating sin a biblical concept, I'm just giving you a hard time for turning it into a direct quote.

I'm a year and some change from completing a PhD in Biblical Studies and for my dissertation I'm doing a codicological study of a 5th century Greek biblical manuscript. That is, I apparently have a great desire to ruin my eyes.

sd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfwNIKLHFCc&feature=related

If so you have gotten CRAZY good, man!

Someone has been listening to some Michael Hedges/Pierre Bensusan/Erik Mongrain...

nt

esse quam videri!

To make it If I had a million hit points? And if you did do you have an mp3?

Last Summer I was living in Paris and got roped into performing at a Fête Internationale--which was a lot of fun--but it's the exception rather than the rule.

I get preached to a lot because of what I am and people constantly misquote the Bible to me. Unfortunately for most of them, I've got a pretty good memory and I've read almost the whole thing. I'm glad there are other people who feel the need to correct misinfo.

I'd argue that Empire is probably the most tolerant of intra-cabal pk, through the Blood Reckoning.

I'd also argue that you're being a bit close-minded if you can't see why a paladin would fight a maran in the city.

A paladin may believe that more evil comes about in a lawless society than in a law-abiding one, and that dealing with lawbreakers, no matter how noble they consider their own goals to be, is necessary.

Simple real life example. Good policeman will still arrest good vigilantes who kill evil murderers/rapists outside of the law. Or are you saying that that makes the policeman evil?

>I'd argue that Empire is probably the most tolerant of
>intra-cabal pk, through the Blood Reckoning.

The Village also has the circle - but evil Outtie can just roll up on you and kill you without any precursor. (Which is not to say they can make a habit of it... but you know what I mean.)

>
>I'd also argue that you're being a bit close-minded if you
>can't see why a paladin would fight a maran in the city.
>

I'd like to take a moment to point out that I'm not arguing. :)

>A paladin may believe that more evil comes about in a lawless
>society than in a law-abiding one, and that dealing with
>lawbreakers, no matter how noble they consider their own goals
>to be, is necessary.
>
>Simple real life example. Good policeman will still arrest
>good vigilantes who kill evil murderers/rapists outside of the
>law. Or are you saying that that makes the policeman evil?

This is a good point. So then does our hypothetical paladin feel like evil is okay as long as it obeys the law? Who would he hunt first - fire giant AP or WANTED elf? Why? Would he fight fire giant AP at all if that fire giant were also a Tribunal? That doesn't seem very paladinly either - though as a real life example it's obviously something we're okay with in our society. But, we can't judge and police people's morality the way CF characters can.

Also, it goes back to what I was saying in the original post. It's a case of cabal trumping alignment in terms of strict fact. I understand that there is a role played justification why following Tribunal law is the best way to serve the Light but in terms of actual mechanics you are still a good aligned (gold aura) fighting a good aligned. Mind you - I'm not saying there's something incorrect or wrong with that. Just pointing it out for discussion.

About cabal seemingly trumping alignment in practice.