Ok, from what I am seeing alot of people tend to think that if you play a good character there has to be some sort of "ask first, shoot later" mentality inherent to the experience. That every single good character out there is, on some level, willing to sit down and listen to your story or your RP or your lies or whatever the case may be; before the begin any sort of battle with you. I've read people arguing it on the boards, seen it in game, and realized that after awhile I was curious about how good aligned characters are percieved and are 'supposed' to act in the CF environment.

Here's some of the things that I have read: Good characters, apparently, are not supposed to be bloodthirsty, they cannot enjoy killing, aren't supposed to be overtly violent towards the opposition, and generally have this 'hug me first while you stab me in the back before I fight back' mentality unless the opposition is blatantly against them. (EX: Paladin to Anti-Paladin). Is this really the case? Should we be forcing people to conform to that idea? Do people think that characters are forced into this sort of scenario either by the IMMS or other players?

The reason that I ask this, aside from my mentioning above about reading it alot, is that when you read sci-fi/fantasy books and take a look at the good characters; some of them are just as bloodthirsty and violent as their evil counterparts. They fight just as hard, they like killing just as much (especially if it is evil) and generally are considered to be the good guys in those realms. No one ever wonders if they are "good aligned" and take for granted the fact that this hero is doing something that will, hopefully, be for the greater good.

In my opinion, (And I know that we can take this with a grain of salt really since I just heroed my first character after ten years. Go Jhunok! Woo!) it seems to be as though all of the good characters in CF are now required to have this knight or paladin mentality. "I have to save you first before I smite you down." Which to me, really limits the number of roles and stagnation that we see in the backstories of CF.

So, again, am I the only one seeing this as just pointless floofying of the good aligned characters that we have in CF because we can't get past this idea that they could give just as little of a #### about if their hands are stained with blood or not? Or am I waaay out in left field?

Thanks.

News flash, everybody on this ####ing MUD wants to be Rambo. We should have called it RamboMUD. ~Daevryn~

From the help file, good characters "avoid causing harm to innocent bystanders, instead focusing their aggression on those who oppose their moral ideals." You can't live up to that without first ascertaining whether or not your target actually does oppose your moral ideals. Someone born with an evil disposition isn't necessarily opposing your moral ideals in practice, though they may be most likely to do so. So it seems to me that there are limits to just how bloodthirsty a good character can be, even on a strictly good vs. evil front. On the other hand, if you already know or have on good faith that a particular character is in fact opposing X moral ideal in Y manner, then you are justified in going on the offensive without first talking through it or even announcing your intention. In short, good characters get to be police and judge and executioner, and they may prefer the last role over the first -- but they should still follow due process.

Furthermore, I think Seantryn Modan must be destroyed.

Um. I think every goodie I make is different, or I at least try to.

Some of them are very, gungho, kill first, ask questions later types.

Others are the opposite, looking to save everyone

Just as my evils and neutral try to be.

I think there are many perspectives on good/evil
I've never had any immortal tell me that I wasn't conforming to some standard or other. Though I did have a neut that almost got turned evil (I was extremely aggressive. and probably deserved it a week before it even came up)

Generally I don't think anyone tries to even force a certain view down your throat cabal imm/ or cabal belief wise.

Certainly some player leaders might take different skews on this view based on their own beliefs, but these views are temporary and even flexible should you you know, try and RP with the leader about it.

I believe that goodie characters should have a wide array of roles
and personalities available to them, including the option of being
a bloodthirsty bastard who wants all evil eradicated.

Some of these roles, certainly, will include killing neutrals who
aid or abet evils or who engage in questionable activities. And
yes, I would agree that the Village genocide is certainly
questionable.

But, I also think it's important to consider Tolkien's lasting
impressions on modern fantasy. Elves are pretty clearly set up to be
"good" in a way that other races are not. Based on this, and in my
opinion, the majority of elves should see themselves as the "adults"
of the world while the other races are more like children.

Perhaps Dwarves are greedy and some of that greed leads to evil in
the world. I could see a zealous goodie using that as justification
to attack Dwarves, but can you see Elrond finding such an action
justified?

With this in mind, I'd argue that a bloodthirsty goodie who sees
anything not of the light as being responsible for the darkness is
perfectly viable, but would imagine that any elf would see himself
far above such a childish way of looking at the workings of the
world.

In my sociology class I couldn't stop trying to iron out the same issue your presenting.. I suppose my nerdiness knows no bounds..

but, the way I see it..

the duality between in-game good and evil is not the same as our concept as good vs bad.. i think that is where a lot of people get confused. I would peg it as good being a character who puts the concerns of others (though not necessarily everyone) above his/her own.. and evil being someone who puts their concerns above all else. (even if its masked as something like "for the good of the empire, project of magical research, etc... when it is evident that said empire, project, whatever benefits the character (through power, prestige, etc. ..such scenarios are similar to anyold work-a-holic)

I think theres an interesting loophole to the whole issue of alignment, which is mirrored in real-world psychology/sociology. Basically, you can play any action, race, class, character, etc., as any alignment.. some are just easier than others for us, having been raised in our cultures, to rationalize.

What i mean is that, following the example of "good-aligned" and PK, a goodie can most certainly enjoy killing someone. The issue of death is neither here nor there in regards to alignment, but more so *why* your killing. If its to destroy or hinder something that opposes what your character deems as "good", then the character is within reason.

similar things could be said for lawful vs chaotic

and I think the most important thing to remember is that in order to have a complex, and therefore interesting game environment, there must be complexity in alignment. In a true world, nobody is just "neutral good", or whatever.. people behave differently depending on the context. An elf healer might be a total ###-bag to a human, even if the human is also good.. depending on how that elf was raised to interact with humans or other races all together. Or a dark-elf might try to poison everyone else, but might be more supportive of his/her family (though likely under the guise of .. 'dont make us look weak, or i'll disown/kill you')

Then theres the neutral folk, to whom alignment is just a state of mind.. which, I believe, is a more accurate, though less passionate, way of looking at the game-world. The entire concept of alignment, like the real-world concept of social norms, is entirely relative.

Whether this game's leadership agrees with this is a whole other matter.. as there are many genres of fantasy role-playing.. i just happen to be a fan of realism.

sorry i like to write a lot

Wherein every evil you meet tends to fall into either the various forms of psychotic "thug" archetype or the "Indeed, I am quite the intellectual, sophisticated villain. Rather amusing, wouldn't you say?" archetype. Which also happens to be psychotic.

It is my opinion that a hard-core goodie makes much more sense in the context of CF than a floofy, happy one. If you kill an evil guy's cabalmate, he might be able to shrug it off and ignore it cause he doesn't really care. But if you kill a goodie's cabalmate, that goodie should haunt you for all eternity, and do his best to kill you whenever he gets a chance - I don't see how he could justify doing anything else.

I've played both hard-core and happy-go-lucky goodies, and I gotta say the happy go lucky ones were a bit more fun to play, though.

>every single good character out there is, on some level,
>willing to sit down and listen to your story or your RP or
>your lies or whatever the case may be

I don't think this is true. Its perfectly acceptable for a good-aligned character to kill a drow just because he's a drow. The Darsylon guards do, for instance.

>apparently, are not supposed to be bloodthirsty, they cannot
>enjoy killing,

Good-aligned characters probably shouldn't enjoy killing for killing's sake. They definitely can enjoy the "thrill of battle" though, the "price of vanquishing an enemy", or the peace of mind that they've dispatched a murderous evildoer.

That's not the same as getting off on stabbing someone repeatedly.

>aren't supposed to be overtly violent towards the opposition,

Marans are pretty violent towards the opposition.

>and generally have this 'hug me first while
>you stab me in the back before I fight back' mentality unless
>the opposition is blatantly against them.

If you're an uncaballed storm warrior and you're waltzing down eastern road, nobody's going to fault you if you jump a random orc who happens to get on the road with you.

>They fight just as hard, they like killing just as much
> especially if it is evil) and generally are considered to be
>the good guys in those realms.

Only person who comes to mind like that is Conan. And he seems more neutral to me than good.

But I'd say that the "combat for combat's sake" type of good-aligned role-play is probably par for the course among good-aligned ragers. Less so for Fortress, but I don't think it's impossible to go that route, depending on how anal the current mortal leaders are.