>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.