I would like to renew the discussion on good killing neutral.

This is from Oltrambel's post, where 5 times paladin made some very pertinent points, all of which I agree with.

Essentially, his point is

1. It's been historical thing and accepted for a long time
2. Playability (Tarus bracers)
3. Visiting chessmasters and elsewhere (if any)
4. Unfair advantage (If Good can't kill neutral for eq, then all things considered, Evil has more access to more equipment. Also because Evil can kill Evil for equipment, and are not bound by the request-within-same-level-region barrier)

On the same topic, why aren't the imms bearing down more on svirfs who act for all intents and purposes, like mass murderers? Why is it you hardly ever see neutrals being made evil, for acting evil?

I disagree with Phaelim's point "If you want that piece of eq on the neutral mob, get i off an evil's corpse". That's very good in theory, but not entirely practical. Firstly, equipment is important to remain competitive. Secondly, all things considered, good classes are at a disadvantage in terms of lethality as opposed to evil classes, and finally, have you seen the hero range lately?

>1. It's been historical thing and accepted for a long time
>2. Playability (Tarus bracers)

Playability is a non-issue, as is historical precedent. This isn't a court room. If it's bad role-play then it shouldn't matter that such bad role-play was deemed acceptable at various times in the past.

>3. Visiting chessmasters and elsewhere (if any)

This is a perfect example of why "goods killing neutrals" should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Look at the butler. He's a golem. Golems are magical constructs that aren't sentient.

>4. Unfair advantage (If Good can't kill neutral for eq, then
>all things considered, Evil has more access to more equipment.

This is just a more specific phrasing of #2 above (playability). As such it's a non-issue. Goods have request, as well as arguably more badass good-specific gear. Amathylar, Defiance, Bal'talon, prayer beads, helm of brilliance...

>I disagree with Phaelim's point "If you want that piece of eq
>on the neutral mob, get i off an evil's corpse". That's very
>good in theory, but not entirely practical. Firstly, equipment
>is important to remain competitive.

What gear do you need in order to be competitive that absolutely requires you to kill a sentient neutral mob who isn't involved in some evil activity? I can't think of any.

Okay I'm dumb. Didn't realize this thread was so incredibly old.

evil has waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more cool proging gear options. Just because they are not seen as often doesn't change that fact.

and anyways the only people who care about goods killing neutrals are neutral noobs who do stupid #### and end up dead to the goodie noobs.

imo neutrals have killed many people so that is a crime which is punishable by death & those who are righteous can deal out the punishment

It isn't a matter of killin neutral mobs. It is the frequency and reasoning. A long time ago shokai said killing mobs was a balance thing. However, paladins need little/no armor and shouldn't be so gear concerned. If you want gear badly, good align in general is a poor choice, paladin an abyssmal one.

If I'm playing a good aligned character, and I just can't live without whatever it is that neutral mob has, I ask them for it. Naturally this initiates combat, and frees me up from any obligation to not kill them because, hey, all I did was asked the guy for his bracer/cape/random item, and he attacked me. Do I know beforehand this will happen? As a player, sure. My character on the other hand, doesn't see anything wrong with seeing something I'd like, and asking the person for it. RP is satisfied, and I get what I need. It's really not that hard a thing to do, and it DOES piss me off to see people just walking up to harmless neutral mobs and attacking them outright.

s

nt

sd

You think if some idiot walks up to me and asks me for my car, I'm not going to haul off amd smack him for being a moron? You're applying modern day ethics to a RP enviornment. Dudes handing out their equipment in a setting like this is a HUGE deal. You ask a dwarven warmaster for his personal and highly valued posessions, that he's using in a time of war, and he may take it as you being a minion of the enemy, sent to weakn him by making off with his axe/helm/ring etc etc. Makes perfect sense to me that he'd try and cut your nuts off.

sd

If every elite dwarf guard you ever asked for his helm got mad and attacked you, wouldn't your paladin notice a pattern and think the next one might do the same?

nt

Sometimes it's ok, sometimes it is bad.

Paladins have a generally larger grouping of 'bad' than your
average Joe Elf, but they still have plenty of 'ok'. It's not
a common thing for Paladins to spend enough time in the 'bad'
for it to alter them, but it happens every now and then. It
is, as it has been for a long time, a recoverable condition.
Stick to the roleplay of your alignment/ethos/role and this
is something you'll just never deal with.

Across the alignments (nearly equally from what I have seen),
characters can encounter an adjustment brought on by their
actions and have the opportunity to face up to it.

It sounds like you are perceiving some kind of change when
there really isn't one.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure "goods killing neutrals" is necessarily frowned upon *in general*.

There are facets of some neutral mobs (i.e. some you mentioned) that could make it "alright" for a good character to kill them. For instance, neutral mobs that are non-sentient. Neutral mobs that are engaged in some "evil act" that's bad enough for a good-aligned character to not have qualms about killing them. Neutral (or good) mage-mobs being killed by ragers. Etc. etc.

In practice, many good-aligned characters take this too far and end up killing mobs they have *no business* killing. Dwarves killing Mortorn guards comes to mind. Aldevari nobles. Etc.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

supposing you were ever gone?

Ehh.

Sure, in the past maybe goodies were given more leeway as far as killing neutrals is concerned, but does that mean that the imms can't decide as a group to change their mind?

In the past you could summon elite dwarven guards into your cabal and rank on them, but the imms changed their mind and made summoned mobs worth less.

In the past you could quaff a potion and have sanctuary, but the imms changed their mind and nixed them.

In the past you could pick damn near any lock without having a set of lock picks, but the imms changed their mind and made picks necessary and made locks have a difficulty level.

In the past you blackjack people while dual wielding a pair of daggers, but the imms changed their mind and now blackjacks are necessary.

In the past battleragers could wear Tarus' bracers, but the imms changed their minds and nixed that practice.

Just because goods used to be able to kill neutral mobs without prejudice doesn't mean that tomorrow the practice won't lead to -15 exp.

>Sure, in the past maybe goodies were given more leeway as far
>as killing neutrals is concerned, but does that mean that the
>imms can't decide as a group to change their mind?


Not at all. But have they changed their minds as a group or is it just one guy's viewpoint?

I'm just questioning that viewpoint because it flies in the face of what we've been allowed to do for so long and because of playability issues.

The IMMS can do almost anything they want in the mud. But this is a forum, and forum is about discussion, and about doing things which make sense and is best for the player base or opinion. My point about precedent is that the reason it's been done for so long, is largely because of playability and the immortals have closed an eye on it and if they are going to start revamping things in a major way, then coding alternatives should be placed to make it possible for good to get neutral gear before imposing the kind of RP penalties that Phaelim talked about.

You've mentioned playability in terms of Chessmaster's Tower and Tarus' bracers. I can easily play 5 characters at 400 hours a pop and never come up with a reason to enter Chessmaster's Tower. Anything worth getting there has probably already been gotten and the ranking there sucks so bad for goods that I'd rather fight angnos at 1 exp a pop.

As far as the bracers are concerned there are plenty of better alternatives. The only place I can see it being a problem is the Elven Vaults. To solve that problem I'd like to see paladins get the calm supplication. Beyond that I can easily see a paladin still going into the vaults and just roleplaying extreme remorse the whole time.

You'll have to come up with a better argument that playability is adversely affected.

>You've mentioned playability in terms of Chessmaster's Tower
>and Tarus' bracers. I can easily play 5 characters at 400
>hours a pop and never come up with a reason to enter
>Chessmaster's Tower. Anything worth getting there has probably
>already been gotten and the ranking there sucks so bad for
>goods that I'd rather fight angnos at 1 exp a pop.

You can do lots of extreme things, from levelling to 51 solo on undead and non-humanoid monsters if you're a real zealot. Chessmaster's used to be the place for levelling because it was relatively safe. Just because it sucks for you doesn't mean it sucks for someone else with a different personality. I can do the same thing that you can do. But I'm talking about balance, playability, and the ultimate objective of making the game for all people, whether they want to play good, neutral or evil.

If you go on to tell me you play lots of good characters, and don't kill neutrals for equipment, then fine. But as someone who plays good characters almost 95% of the time, I'm saying that this kind of RP imposition limits my fun. it's a valid opinion, and if you don't share it or concur with it because you generally play evil characters, that's your choice. But one thing, games that stop being fun will stop being played and I might not be the only person who feels this way.


>As far as the bracers are concerned there are plenty of better
>alternatives. The only place I can see it being a problem is
>the Elven Vaults. To solve that problem I'd like to see
>paladins get the calm supplication. Beyond that I can easily
>see a paladin still going into the vaults and just roleplaying
>extreme remorse the whole time.
>
>You'll have to come up with a better argument that playability
>is adversely affected.

I may have to come up with better examples, but the general argument is fine. Trouble with examples is alternatives can always be pointed out and this shouldn't go into a bout of example v example.

For the record, are you saying that good aligned classes who are suddenly not able to kill neutrals for equipment, are not disadvantaged in terms of equipment against the neutral and evil player counterparts?

"For the record, are you saying that good aligned classes who are suddenly not able to kill neutrals for equipment, are not disadvantaged in terms of equipment against the neutral and evil player counterparts?"

In reality, and has been pointed out numerous times in this thread already, there are relatively few instances of good killing neutral mobs that's going to get you into trouble. Adding to this, it's mainly paladins that are limited, but that's not to say that a storm giant warrior should go rampaging through Hillcrest.

You want a blood soaked cape? How about a sandy-brown cloak instead...you can request it. You want a runed iron bracer? How about a serpent-scale bracer, braided silver bracer, braided silver bracelet, green wrist guard, or topaz encrusted bracelet, or bracelet of golden chain instead?

I could do this for every wear slot. You don't have to have 50/50 hit/dam and +200 hp/mana for your regear. There is plenty of evil fodder out there to kill for gear...hell, bust into the Palace or Chasm and raid the pits.

The "I can't possibly find a bracer!" argument gets impressively weak when you consider area rotations over the last couple years. A new area that comes in typically has 50-75 distinct objects, maybe 2/3 of which have some "use" (can be taken, worn for some benefit, etc.). Some have more (~120 in a very recent example).

How many objects are in the areas that are being pulled? Often less than 10. Name all the objects from Moria, or In The Air. There's probably 2 between them that anyone used. Azuremain and Ruins of Delar-Tol, which came in around when those were pulled, have dozens of useful objects, some of which are already becoming quite popular among our less lazy explorers.

Also, while the number of areas is remaining constant or slightly declining (one of my management goals with respect to letting you find people), it's often because I'm merging small roads and such into larger areas, then adding whole new places written by our talented batch o' authors. The number of areas remains the same, but the number of people, places, and things goes way up.

Then, on top of that, we're dumping new stuff into old areas. I routinely sneak batches of ten objects into older, neglected areas. I've also been pushing for small area expansions (Goblin Village, Lumberyard, Udgaard Plains, etc.) aimed at low-level adventurers, and designed to help fill "gear gaps". Zulghinlour, Sevarecan, myself, and others did big batches of items for shops over the last year, and the amount of useful gear you can buy or barter for has skyrocketed.

Claiming that you "need" one specific item for a character to be viable is not just wrong, it's embarrassing.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

The following posts have me worried a little:

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=4&topic_id=25702&mesg_id=25709&page=

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=4&topic_id=25702&mesg_id=25711&page=

I’m aware that the paladin in question asked for unempowerment, but his views on neutral mobs concerns me and goes against what’s been allowed for years now. I just wonder if this is how it’s supposed to be now.

Now if we were playing D&D and Phaelim was my DM, I’d be behind him 100%. But because this is a MUD, I think certain allowances should be made because of playability.

First of all CF is a world where you interaction with a Mob is limited to either killing it, requesting and item from it, emoting at it (Always hated that, like talking/playing to a wall), doing a specific quest, or the 1% of the time getting real interaction when an IMM takes it over.

According the Phaelim, if I kill the butler to get the key to the chess master’s tower, I’m in the wrong, and should be forced to kill an evil PC for the key.

How many people have killed the butler and been punished for it?

Would it really make the game better to hamstring light walkers this badly?

Think about it:

If we're playing D+D, I'm a paladin, and I want the key from him because I need to get in the tower I can:

Ask him.
Plead with him.
Bribe him.
Demand it as a member of the church/government.
Use guilt.
Have the 17 CHR female flirt with him or the 17 CHR guy pal around with him.
Have the bard gamble for it.
Pick the lock and avoid him altogether.
Have the dwarven warrior bash the damn door down.

And on and on and on because I've got a D.M. right then and there who can make it realistic.

On CF, I can.

Kill him.
Request it and have to kill him when he attacks me.
Kill an evil PC for it, if I can find one. (That could arguably be unnecessary Pking, killing for a key?)


Yeah, a Paladin should get hosed for killing fields of wood elves, but because this is a MUD, I can't see them getting ganked for killing the butler for the key or killing a few mobs to re-eq because our options are so limited.

Maybe the Danes that made the original code where neutrals attack you if you request had this in mind, so goodies could not be totally cut out of certain areas/eq but didn’t have to dish-out the first blow for RP purposes?

You must make some allowances because of the fact that this is a MUD, and I think the whole request from neutral, they attack you thing is one of the most basic ones programmed into so many MUDs.

Also, think about this:

I’m a paladin.

I see a necromancer killing members of the city guards, whom I command and am a part of.

I go kill the necromancer.

In D&D, I’m a hero.

In CF, I’ll get booted from Tribunal because I’m a criminal, if the necromancer is a PC, and might loose my empowerment because I violated the code????

He thinks that if we use game mechanics to do basic, non-greedy stuff for necessary playability issues it “is extremely cheap in my eyes” but if game mechanics enable the law to protect cop-killers because of necessary playability issues, this isn’t as cheap?

I mean, I steal a piece of bread off of a PC, I’m WANTED but if I kill the children or beggar mobs in the city, nothing happens to me?

Now about weapons. In D+D there’s not a huge difference between a long sword and a +2 long sword. But if CF some weapons are easily double or triple the effectiveness of others.

I am not saying we should be allowed to wack goodies so when they re-pop we can request stuff off of them, but not letting us get stuff off of neutral mobs hamstrings lights unfairly because of how important EQ can be for basic survival.

Evil-stuff from all mobs, even the stuff they can’t use
Neutral-stuff from all mobs, even stuff they can’t sue
Goodies-NOTHING from neutral mobs at all.

I mean, according to Phaelim, I can’t even get a jeweled broadsword.

Finally, think about the time involved in re-equipping. Is it really fair to make light walkers “consider the goodness of the world” for everything, or be forced to use evil stuff, which for non-paladins, isn’t as much of an option since they don’t have remove taint.

How does wasting time and dying stupidly make you a better Cfer?

I’m for a balanced approach that seems to have been allowed thus far.

Killing tarus, sir bilkon, and elite’s is ok for necessary re-gearing and shouldn’t be punished because of playability issues (and since I’ve seen so many paragons of the light to it), but egregiously poor RP or greed demonstrated by unnecessarily killing neutral mobs (necessary being defined as for playability and RP) should be punished.

Am I wrong?

Should the next hero paladin I have never summon and kill another elite dwarven guard again? Should I never kill the SGT for a jeweled broadsword?

Not flaming, just trying to wrap my head around this.

I played a hero paladin a few years back who refused to kill (sentient) neutrals. In other words, he wouldn't have a problem with killing a deer, but he wouldn't kill a neutral person for any reason -- even, for example, certain aggressive neutral mobs that would attack him for entering their home. So, yes, much of the gear you mentioned was right out.

It's definitely a challenge, especially if you're used to being lazier about your choices. I know I was. It's also still very workable, and has gotten moreso since then.

the spirit knights blade. Killing the mob isn't exactly acceptable.

I'm thinking it's the same d00d?

Given it by another PC, if it was that character, but I don't think it was.

I've played at least half a dozen hero-range paladins over the years.

Is it impossible for an Imm to mention even the existence of a past character without someone spouting negative BS?

>Is it impossible for an Imm to mention even the existence of
>a past character without someone spouting negative BS?

Flaming the poster isn't a good thing.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Eh, I'm flame retardant. I feel cheated out of getting to see what it was he had to say:P

>I played a hero paladin a few years back who refused to kill
>(sentient) neutrals. In other words, he wouldn't have a
>problem with killing a deer, but he wouldn't kill a neutral
>person for any reason -- even, for example, certain aggressive
>neutral mobs that would attack him for entering their home.
>So, yes, much of the gear you mentioned was right out.


OK. You and Valg seems to agree on this point, but I can still see killing some neutral mobs that activly help evil mobs or do evil things like raiders, ect.

But no more Tarus bracers or dwarf elite guards. Got it.


>It's definitely a challenge, especially if you're used to
>being lazier about your choices. I know I was. It's also
>still very workable, and has gotten moreso since then.


Yeah, I am a bit lazy, but I'd rather play the game then spend so much time re-gearing. :P

OK, how do y'all feel about this part of my post:


"Maybe the Danes that made the original code where neutrals attack you if you request had this in mind, so goodies could not be totally cut out of certain areas/eq but didn’t have to dish-out the first blow for RP purposes?

You must make some allowances because of the fact that this is a MUD, and I think the whole request from neutral, they attack you thing is one of the most basic ones programmed into so many MUDs."


Admittidly I've used this alot as an RP workaround. If you guy's don't like it, why not change the code where if you request from a neutral, he just tells you no?

For the character I'm referring to, provoking a fight with request would have been unacceptable.

My personal opinion, in general, is that it's ####ty. If your character is willing to kill the mob, just kill it. If your character isn't, don't request and pick a fight that way.

Maybe we will, in fact, change it. By we I mean someone else, since I recently lost my whole hard drive and I haven't had the time to get set up to code or even really MUD again yet.

....I needed to hear, thanks.

So when are the Perpetuim comming back? We still need someone to be nice to all those newbie communers and lazy old-timers. :D

1. It's been historical thing and accepted for a long time

No, it hasn't. Egregious cases have been dealt with for a long time. We obviously don't turn everyone evil the first time they kill a neutral mob, and it's not at the top of the list of bad roleplay, but it's not a trivial problem either.

2. Playability (Tarus bracers)

Plenty of alternatives. If I see a strong example (dwarf paladin killing Tarus for gear, etc), I'll happily thump the person in question. In most cases, I'll just be unimpressed and maybe make a note.

3. Visiting chessmasters and elsewhere (if any)

You've obviously never read that butler's description.

4. Unfair advantage (If Good can't kill neutral for eq, then all things considered, Evil has more access to more equipment. Also because Evil can kill Evil for equipment, and are not bound by the request-within-same-level-region barrier)

- Request is a pretty nice balance. It's much more useful that being able to kill things of your own alignment in a general sense.
- You'll generally have a role reason to kill certain neutrals. A Tribunal would probably feel justified taking the fight to neutral bandits, etc.
- There's a difference between "neutral because of no beliefs" (e.g., a squirrel, a golem) and "neutral because of beliefs" (e.g. that squirrel's protector druid, a wood-elf).

On the same topic, why aren't the imms bearing down more on svirfs who act for all intents and purposes, like mass murderers?

We also regularly turn neutral characters into betrayers if they ignore enough warnings. We've also turned some neutrals good (against their will) for toadying to the Fortress constantly and basically acting "good". You might not see it much because they tend to delete.

It's definitely not the kind of roleplay that gets you noticed or rewarded.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Request is a pretty nice balance. It's much more useful that being able to kill things of your own alignment in a general sense.

But I heard...maybe I'm mistaken...that request has it's limits. Let's say this paladin is regearing, if he just requests everything from X mob, it will be frowned upon since this guy will be not left bare and will no longer be able to protect himself.

How do the IMMs in general feel about all the elite dwarven guards summoned by hero paladins for their ruined bracers, bloody cloaks, ect.?

I mean, this has gone on for a looooong time and I've never seen anyone get thumped for it.

>How do the IMMs in general feel about all the elite dwarven
>guards summoned by hero paladins for their ruined bracers,
>bloody cloaks, ect.?
>
>I mean, this has gone on for a looooong time and I've never
>seen anyone get thumped for it.


I'll answer it. The fact is, they've accepted it. The fact is, they've probably done it. And if someone raises the problem about how dwarven paladins will get thumped for doing it, that isn't a good killing neutral reason, it's dwarf good killing dwarf neutral reason.

Actually, I thumped a paladin for this a few days ago. I sent an echo about guilt, which he didn't respond to. He didn't summon more guards, but he sure didn't stop wearing the gear.

I was mulling over what to do about him, when he multi-ed gear to his lowbie assassin. He got caught, and the situation "resolved itself".

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

If that's how y'all want it, alright. IC I can still see it being ok to kill some neutrals (bandits, non-sentients, even Lord Tabershaws guards and goons who defend a mad, evil lord) but tarus and elites are right out.

Gotcha.

Thing is, I've always felt that the reason the whole "request from neutral, neutral attacks you" thing was coded in waaaaaaaay back by the Danes who made the first MUD codes was an IC way around this very tricky issue.

I.E. The goddie IC is defending himself from an attack. Yeah, it's a stretch but it helps with playability by not shutting them totally our of certain types of EQ to help with survivability and reclothing quickly.

How do you feel about this? If you guys don't like it, why not change it so neutrals just say no?

They would just say 'I'm not giving you that' or whatever, but not attack. This would, at least, remove the 'I was just defending myself' excuse. Evils are more aggressive, and would still attack.

-Cassman-

>1. It's been historical thing and accepted for a long
>time
>
>No, it hasn't. Egregious cases have been dealt with for a
>long time. We obviously don't turn everyone evil the first
>time they kill a neutral mob, and it's not at the top of the
>list of bad roleplay, but it's not a trivial problem either.


Clearly the ratio of people who have been dealt with is disproportionate to what has gone on in the past. And I absolutely disagree with you when you say it hasn't been accepted. It has. General acceptance of it in the past is certainly dependent on the amount it has been done proportionate to the amount it has been penalised, notwithstanding that you may cite a handful of examples where its been frowned upon where there is overwhelming evidence that other good aligned characters who have been well rewarded by the heavens kill neutrals indiscriminantly.

>2. Playability (Tarus bracers)
>
>Plenty of alternatives. If I see a strong example (dwarf
>paladin killing Tarus for gear, etc), I'll happily thump the
>person in question. In most cases, I'll just be unimpressed
>and maybe make a note.

I can't think of any +1 hit +1 dam bracers that a good aligned can get at level 10 other than bracers. But this isn't about bracers. It's about playability and unbalanced issues if this particularly RP is enforced as rigidly as Phaelim appears to want it to be. The purpose of raising the tarus bracers is not to defend the bracers specifically, but to raise the argument that there is plenty of "standard" equipment out there that's on neutral mobs which good players need. Sure, I can wear engraved bracers or alternatives if need be. I can play a good that doesn't kill neutrals. I'll just be heavily disadvantaged gear wise.

>
>3. Visiting chessmasters and elsewhere (if any)
>
>You've obviously never read that butler's description.
>
I'm making a general point, not on the butler specifically.

>4. Unfair advantage (If Good can't kill neutral for eq,
>then all things considered, Evil has more access to more
>equipment. Also because Evil can kill Evil for equipment, and
>are not bound by the request-within-same-level-region
>barrier)
>
>- Request is a pretty nice balance. It's much more useful
>that being able to kill things of your own alignment in a
>general sense.
>- You'll generally have a role reason to kill certain
>neutrals. A Tribunal would probably feel justified taking the
>fight to neutral bandits, etc.
>- There's a difference between "neutral because of no beliefs"
>(e.g., a squirrel, a golem) and "neutral because of beliefs"
>(e.g. that squirrel's protector druid, a wood-elf).

I agree its useful. But the time lag, having to wait for reboot when things have been requested, helps to even up that balance. But the point is not whether it's more useful, it's about the amount of gear that's in circulation. I would say it's roughly equal all things considered, if neutrals can be killed for equipment.

Ultimatey, what's important in CF is how the player base interacts with each other. I can say that having played closed to 20 good heroes, I cannot remember a time when I hunted down a neutral player because he had good eq, and cooked up a reason like "You're neutral, I can kill you" or even an RP reason for it. We play CF for roleplay and interaction with other human beings.

Do I like the fact that as a paladin, to make my equipment competitive, I have to kill neutrals to do it? No I don't. But I do like playing CF, I do like playing paladins, I do like fighting players who play evil. To do all these things competitively, I have to kill neutral mobs to do it. I would love to see more equipment options open to good aligns to request or on evils, or to purchase, which are comparative alternatives. But I please deal with putting on more alternatives, or making more mobs evil, before you place this burden on people who enjoy good aligned classes.

>On the same topic, why aren't the imms bearing down more on
>svirfs who act for all intents and purposes, like mass
>murderers?
>
>We also regularly turn neutral characters into betrayers if
>they ignore enough warnings. We've also turned some neutrals
>good (against their will) for toadying to the Fortress
>constantly and basically acting "good". You might not see it
>much because they tend to delete.
>
>It's definitely not the kind of roleplay that gets you noticed
>or rewarded.

I dunno man. I don't know how many times I have been attacked by gnome invokers, svirf thieves and cloud warriors for absolutely zero reason at all, and monitoring their titles and lives up to their graveyard, they look like they get more kudos than admonishment.If you're saying it's something you look at, then I think this is something you should focus a lot more on. Player to Player interactions deserve higher priority than player to mob interactions, especially where good-to-neutral is concerned.

>I can't think of any +1 hit +1 dam bracers that a good aligned
>can get at level 10 other than bracers.

Need the replacement be exactly the same? There are some bracers a first-level character can get that, if I remember correctly, are +2 hit. There are some that are +1str and 5hp. There are some just like charred that are often on the ground in one of the cities.

>The purpose of raising the tarus bracers is not
>to defend the bracers specifically, but to raise the argument
>that there is plenty of "standard" equipment out there that's
>on neutral mobs which good players need.

Let's see. Charred bracers. Elemental mantles and maces. Jewelled broadswords. Black steel gauntlets. Felar chief stuff. (He's a bandit - I could justify popping him.) Forest-colored cloak. Mantle of stars. Umm...cloak w/ patches? I could play a good-aligned character of any class, never use any of those, and not consider myself "heavily disadvantaged". It would only really be annoying if I were a felar.

>I'm making a general point, not on the butler specifically.

But so is he. *In general* it is not the case that neutral = "off limits for goodies".

>Do I like the fact that as a paladin, to make my equipment
>competitive, I have to kill neutrals to do it?

Uhh. What particular equipment does your paladin need *in order to be competitive* that's held by neutral mobs?

>But I please deal with putting on more
>alternatives, or making more mobs evil, before you place this
>burden on people who enjoy good aligned classes.

Here I can agree with you: there are some mobs that should probably be evil that currently aren't.

snip:

I disagree with Phaelim's point "If you want that piece of eq on the neutral mob, get i off an evil's corpse". That's very good in theory, but not entirely practical. Firstly, equipment is important to remain competitive. Secondly, all things considered, good classes are at a disadvantage in terms of lethality as opposed to evil classes, and finally, have you seen the hero range lately?

Taking each section in turn:

1) I disagree with Phaelim's point "If you want that piece of eq on the neutral mob, get i off an evil's corpse". That's very good in theory, but not entirely practical.

I'd say it is practical if you don't feel you -have- to have that piece of equipment so much you'd kill for it. Why do you need Tarus's stuff when you can go and request other bracers, or kill lowbie evils for other bracers? Ok, they may not give both +hit and +dam but they aren't useless either. You are basically saying "I want that +hit and +dam so much I will kill for it.". It just isn't -that- necessary to have that piece of gear instead of an alternative requestable piece or a piece on an evil. For example, a non-paladin could go and buy rothe-hide stuff in Udgaard (+dam, +hp). Going to a shop in an evil city and buying something to use to fight evil is a lot more justifiable than killing a neutral guy for it. Killing neutrals is just lazy and I don't agree that you need their gear that much.

2) Firstly, equipment is important to remain competitive.

Equipment helps, no denying that. However, the an extra 10 damroll should not make the difference between an unplayable character and a playable one. It isn't "required" to compete. One advantage evils have is more options when it comes to getting equipment. They have other disadvantages to compensate (like the fact your groupmate might kill you for it when you are weak).

Therefore I don't think that you should lose your rp for such a thing as gear. The fact that people quote Tarus as an example just shows how readily they are willing to do it. Tarus's gear adds about 10hp, 2 dam, and 3 hitroll if I recall (sleeves, 2 x charred). Even if you couldn't find -anything- for these slots you would only lose those stats. Easily available alternatives can add 2 dam, 10 hp, plus whatever you get from putting something on your arms. Most good-aligned people should be able to pk some enemies with only basic regear set that doesn't require the death of neutrals. Pk those enemies and work your way up. I don't think I've ever had a warrior break 35 with their damroll and yet I still do ok.

3) Secondly, all things considered, good classes are at a disadvantage in terms of lethality as opposed to evil classes

Evil classes are more lethal but in general, more fragile too. S suspect they kill more but are more easily killed. Plus, you have the perfect matchups like evil warrior vs good warrior where there is no real difference. Good shaman vs evil shaman. Good healer vs evil healer.

About the only difference is that evil has ap and necro and good has paladin. Sorry, but I don't see a great imbalance here. Paladins may be less deadly, but they offer a hell of a lot to the good-guys.

4) and finally, have you seen the hero range lately?

I'm in it. What do I see? I see hordes of imperials one moment and hordes of good-guys the next. By way of example I'd draw attention to the group of nine goodies who tooled a couple of imperials as a time when good are in ascendancy, coupled with the fact that they pointed out themselves that Empire had the numbers just beforehand. A short term swing, not a long-term one. I don't see why this should mean that goodies should be able to act more evil.

Summary:

The increase in gear power from being allowed to kill neutrals isn't that great. You can get comparable, if slightly worse, gear elsewhere without killing neutrals. Killing neutrals is generally a lazy way to avoid your rp. The alternative is a trip to Udgaard to buy some rothe-hide or the equivalent. Hardly that difficult. And if you are a paladin and can't go to Udgaard, then I think your class skills are good enough to make up for it (i.e. you can get to tougher places to request and you fight well even with poor gear).

There's a few things here I'm going to comment on.

Item 1 - Goods killing neutrals.

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

Item 2 - Gnomish serial killers.

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

Item 3 - Hero range lately.

I can't quite express exactly how annoying it is to constantly have to hear people complain that the 'other side' is 'winning' because hero range is swamped with (good/evil/neutral/ragers/mages/imperials/maran/rabid man-apes with pink tutus) whatever the opposition tends to be. The balance is in constant flux, it always will be. I'm not so much pointing at you here, but anyone who feels the need to post that as an arguement, before you post...check histories and archives, see how many times people have complained about your side being in power. I assure you, the side that is up has been down, and the side that is down has been up. So spaketh the Floofi.

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


I agree with this way of thinking.

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

Are there? Alright then.

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



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

It isnt as easy as you want it to sound. With all the backstabbing and betraying.

Among necromancers, and Two Fire Giant Hero APs, and a handful of 37-40 duergar APs, all of which have averaged at least 40 charges each and more, the backstabbing and betraying can be gotten around. Let's focus on game mechanics.

But listen. The imms themself say that it wont be as strickt for a non-paladin goodie. Paladins is an extremly strong class in the right hands, that make up for the lack of gear. If you feel that not killing neutrals lower your game enjoyment. Dont play a paladin. Easy as that.

plus, you try getting 40 charges with an ap. Good luck.

You think a neutral killing a good pc for gear is evil but not a good killing a neutral mob for gear, including dwarf guards?

If I'm a neutral dwarf, and I know you kill dwarf guards, I'm going to do my best to kill you. You may be good aligned, but your behavior against mobs still means you have an evil streak in you.

You seem to think that you need elite dwarf guard gear. There is loads of other stuff out there that you can use with only a little loss of power, if any. That you think a paladin needs that power so much makes me cringe. Paladins are built to fight with basic gear.

>(For those of you keeping score, neutral is exactly
>that...neutral. It's not someone who is both evil and good at
>times, nor is it someone who waffles back and forth...it's
>someone who is neither.)

This may constitute hijacking (of the thread) but I've always had a problem with how neutrality plays out in Carrion Fields. It seems not to correspond to anything in the "real world". Maybe that's fine, since Thera isn't reality, but in a few other areas there's been somewhat of a push for "realism".

Most neutrals do things that most normal people consider pretty damn evil. Killing orphans and little elf children. Killing "kind, peaceful" (i.e. good-aligned) player characters without provocation, purely out of greed. But it seems that as long as they balance out these evil acts with "good" acts they're in no danger of an alignment change. To my mind, neutral characters should *not* be attacking people unprovoked unless there's a specific reason in their RP. The same goes for good-aligned characters (yes, even with regard to evils) except that most goodies have an RP angle that permits (or demands) that they attack evils.

Anyway, that's my rant for the evening. Think I'll go pore over my overpowered script-enhanced spreadsheet in preparation for my fantasy baseball draft tomorrow. It's so tragic when one of your addictions starts to compete with the other.