sdfvad

Neutrals are not evil and their behaviour isn't generally evil, although. Thus, Fortress should not actively hunt them. If they do something evil, Fort should smack them down at the time, but not when they're not doing evil stuff. Fortress should not actively hunt neutrals forever over one mistake. Fort is not a tribunal and a neutral who does one evil deed isn't going to become WANTED by Fortress. Fort should make the evil activity cease, but not hunt neutrals or hold grudge over old fouls done by neutrals.

As for dealing with Nexus, it is quite simple. They are a potential ally when the darkness holds sway and a potential enemy (but not to the point of an all-out war) when Light holds sway. It is that simple and Fort should just follow the Nexus stance towards them in their actions.

You see a fire giant and a gnome ranking on elves. You cut them down.

If you later saw them both in the Inn having a sing along and you join in because clearly they are only evil part of the time?

As soon as the gnome killed the once child for personal gain, he's forever evil and should have his aura changed.

I don't think so.

Are you saying the Gnome in your scenario SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be changed to evil?

dfbdfb

When my POV is accepted by all the Imms on this thread. Best to just ignore it, and everyone who agrees with me, isn't it?


For some reason, this thread reminds me of when I had to deny induction to that invoker of yours.
You just refuse to accept that someone else might have a different perspective than yourself.

.

Please keep me and Pro seperate (if I am correct). Though since I've played MARAN now since that invoker, I can't say what you did was wrong. If I were playing a Maran leader I might have reacted the same way you did. But at the time that was my first goodie and between you giving me grief for sitting in my guild and the rest of the Fort just ignoring me, I realized to pretty much say '#### the Fort'.

But I more than made up for it when your assassin loved my Storm warrior Take that! You thought I should have been leader! Mwuahahahahah!

Sorry if it gave you a bad taste in your mouth, but as a leader (especially at a high point in the cabal), you need to focus on the people that will contribute to the goals. And OOC, I know I probably just kept seeing you at bad times. But IC, I couldn't really justify it at that point.

Pretty sure I never denied you though.. just told you to get off your ass a bit.

Pro was an annoying invoker that only spoke through the "whispering winds" spell, and just.. didn't understand the cabal dogma at all.


Who was your storm warrior, though? And which of my assassins? I play them almost as often as pallys.

asf

In the real world, yes, if you kill one orphan for fun, you are an evil person (actually you're probably insane, but we'll ignore that). In CF Neutral allows killing roughly equal amounts of good and evil. That's just how it's defined. And it's not realistic that way, but it is more fun than having just good and evil and no real grey area.

There's nothing in Neutrality that says you can kill equal amounts.

Here's the help file.

NEUTRAL

Perhaps the most difficult alignment to define, neutrality can vary
dramatically from one character to another. While some possess ideals
that might even be called noble, others live their lives guided by little
more than survival or apathy. While neutral characters may possess certain
values, they are unconcerned with moral consequences, and whether those
values serve to the benefit or detriment of others is of no concern to
them. True neutrality is perhaps the most difficult alignment to uphold,
and while some neutral characters tend to display either good or evil
tendencies, they never let their actions be too strongly swayed by either
morality or depravity. An ability to regard the world with true moral
indifference is the hallmark of neutrality.

#####################################################################

I'd say slaughtering innocent children fall under the "Sway to strongly toward Evil" part of the equation.

A CF neutral probably doesn't kill an orphan for fun, but they might kill an orphan.

>A CF neutral probably doesn't kill an orphan for fun, but
>they might kill an orphan.

Well to me if you're ranking on orphans you're killing them for fun. But yeah I was being a bit hyperbolic. There is a fine line between killing orphans for sweet EXP and killing them simply to kill them.

I would say good/neutral/evil looks like this:

Good:
Almost won't kill a good character at all (some leeway given for cabal goals) and has to "emote feels very sad." afterwards if they do. Kills neutrals for extenuating RP reasons without the emote, and can kill evil for any reason.

Neutral:
Can kill any good or neutral but only in moderation if there's no reason for it. If there's any RP excuse they can go hog wild, and they never have to emote feeling sorry. Can kill evil any time.

Evil:
Kills whoever they want whenever they want and never feels bad about it.

The ambiguous part is what "in moderation" means. There's the archetypal air/off gnome that can rampantly murder the world.

Note there's also a double-standard here. Neutrals can rank on goodie mobs exclusively if they want, but if they kill goodie PCs they'll get turned evil.

>
>Note there's also a double-standard here. Neutrals can rank on
>goodie mobs exclusively if they want, but if they kill goodie
>PCs they'll get turned evil.

I don't think that's completely true -- certainly a neutral character who kills EVERYone has a good chance of ending up evil, but a neutral who's only interested in a subset of characters probably won't.

>You see a fire giant and a gnome ranking on elves. You cut
>them down.

That's right. If they are doing evil things, they should be cut down. No hard feelings towards the gnome, just protecting the Light. Tell this to the gnome afterwards and suggest that he chooses his company better in the future.

>If you later saw them both in the Inn having a sing along and
>you join in because clearly they are only evil part of the
>time?

The fire giant is not only part time evil. Thus, your whole scenario is flawed. However, the gnome is not evil and can be an asset to the Light in a right company. Rank up with the gnome and he's not killing orphans instead.

>As soon as the gnome killed the once child for personal gain,
>he's forever evil and should have his aura changed.

This is false.

Nexus cannot function without doing evil.


Am I wrong?

In any practical sense, can any other cabal that isn't Fort?

I mean, if evil is winning forever, sure, Nexus can get along just fine without doing evil, just as Battle can get along fine without doing evil as long as, for some reason, there are no good mages.

Yeah, but the point being that it's written into their mission statement, more or less, that they must aid/do evil things when it is deemed necessary.

As a Maran, how would you take that?

I think it would be different for evil-slanted cabals, because if I were evil I'd look less at the fact that nexus must also do good deeds and battle evil when needed, and more at the fact that I could use them when the time was right. But Maran are hardcore, right?

Because really, it's the same thing.

Fortress does NOT hunt people down aggressively, just because they are misguided or might occasionally get in their way.

Acolytes should probably try to show them (or anyone else that isn't good) the error of their ways, to bring them to the light or something along those lines.*

For the Maran, it would depend on the situation. If the Nexuns (or really, anyone else) are actively fighting AGAINST them, then by all means, kill 'em. If the Nexuns (or anyone else) are sitting around doing nothing, then.. ignore them. And if the Nexuns (or anyone else) are offering to help destroy evil (even temporarily), then you should at least strongly consider them as a valuable ally.*

The point is, Nexuns are NOT evil. True, they are not good either. But that doesn't matter. The fact that they are NOT evil means they are not inherently an enemy of the Fortress.

And just as a Maran won't hunt down a cloud giant berserker (who might potentially one day kill an Elven mage), he can't hunt down all Nexuns based purely on the POTENTIAL that they might one day turn evil.


(*) Obviously, individual characters will make their own decisions. But in general, that would probably be the expected "correct" action.

I agree with this.

And I think it's largely indicative of the current staff's opinion, and also something that Shokai would approve of.

More importantly for readers, it's roughly how they should expect alignment to be enforced.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

He was all about waxing neutrals who got caught red handed doing wrong with no timer on when to stop.

At any rate. I'm standing by my opinion that Nexun as it stands, isn't good philosophy, Fortress isn't being true to the people of Thera by letting them live, and it's generally not all that great for the game.

My opinion.

This was an issue when I was last leading the Fortress. When asked, he said they should be treated like lost children. That if they are actively straying, to bring them in line. If they are not - then lead them home to the Light. Even help them, and protect them (lead by example)

Maybe you don't agree with the way the Fortress does it's thing - maybe you have a problem with their method of trying to vanquish evil and bring about the Light. But that's what makes them different from the Evil they fight - that they won't cross the line just to win. They will win their way, and no other. With minimum bloodshed and a lot of kindness and understanding.

And I disagree that the Fortress is about kindness and compassion.

That wasn't Shokai's focal point. His was about kicking ass in all lower case. Period (even though he never used them.)

That's not to say that fortress can't show compassion and what not but if they are going to be a military body behind castle walls, then their M.O. is peace through superior fire power.

Even Maran doctrine is that Killing is Evil.

You're basically wrong about everything. You just won't listen. Enjoy.

And noticing that you are Yhorian.

No Pro for you either.

which of course is understandable since we've hashed this out IC a few times. Killing neutral should never be the "priority" but if they're in a situation where they're actively being evil (attacking the fort, ranking on good mobs, etc) it's free game. You should generally target evils first when you can but obviously sometimes you need to get that Nexus healer out of the way so you can kill the baddies. Holding a grudge against Nexus though starts to look like vengeance, which Baer feels is generally an evil emotion. Yes, sorry for being too lazy to change my log in.

It's clearly a biological response toward another entity that has impinged on the survival of yourself or a close friend/familiy the later of which itself is a negative influence on your survival or chances of reproduction.

Taking into consideration higher thought processes has nothing to do with the morality of that emotion any more than the morality of a mother loving her serial killer son.

You don't gust wake up wanting revenge, something has happened to you or yours.

Even the word vengeful, with out the prefix "Re" means to act toward revenge or avenging someone. So even being vengeful is in reaction to something. I think you are confusing Vengeful with malicious.

Revenge is both nature and societies minus side. (A male lion defends his pride/This town ain’t big enough for the both of us.)

I'm not Christian but in the bible vengeance is talked about and moderated with the classic saying, "An eye for an eye". This meaning is two fold. One it shows a universal truth that equal retribution is not only just, it's expected. And two it's unjust to take away twice your loss."

Just because Nexus attacks the Fortress "Sometimes" doesn't mean that over the course of a Fortress character's life this occasional event is any less severe.

But in terms of an eye for an eye, if Nexun continued to stick to it's ideology, then the Fortress knows that atrocities will be committed again in the future and must act.

I've read some commentary about well there's acolytes.

Fine. Send out your acolyts to role play peace keepers and try to prevent Nexus from attacking, if they refuse, wipee them out.

The Balance swaying is an OOC mechnism based on player count anyway. We may leave the character, but IC'ly they are in Thera somewhere so presumably their affect on the veil is felt only when they are somehow "Active" in their roles. Acolytes could promise to stay in the Fortress until the swell of floofy goodness passed.

This idea that alignments is fixed and set is silly. They have been changed in the passed based on how players play their characters. If you're going to play an alignment, play it. But killing a clear and present danger doesn't mean you're bad, even if the danger to you consisted of non-evils.

Survival in response to an attack or threat of an attack is okay.


There has never been an evil character turned good who has slaughtered good mobs in mass, but there have been good characters turned neutral for things like stealing ad killing certain sentients.
I dare say an Nexun could become Evil, but if he ranked in Darsylon he'll never be good.

I don't know. I can easily distinguish between IC mechanics and OOC mechanics and apply logic to either, but this Fortress thing is whacked.

At the end of the day I suppose it’s in context. A Storm giant wanting to Kill ALL mages because some dark-elf burned down his village isn’t being good. (Honestly wouldn’t it be better to hate all drow if we’re going to say Alignments are absolute ?)

That same giant could (And maintain his goodliness) to destroy a neighboring country because historically the people of that particular country have raided and killed and plundered his lands.

Anyway. Nexus = Chaotic Evil because it’s simply based on killing certain people based upon something so random as log in by players.

Even Tribunals shun them after a time due to criminal hardening and they aren't sworn to protect Thera at large.

I'm set in this view and haven't read or seen anything since they have been around that can logically justify Fortresses stand against them.

Baerinika's view on vengeance really takes too much off the table for the Fortress, especially for a Maran.

...think about it for a moment Pro.

Someone kills your dad. You swear revenge. 20 years later, you find an old, broken-down man playing with his grandkids. You shoot him dead.

Is that a good thing?

Justice is even a neutral(leaning) emotion. Even Justice (which is revenge without the violence) is not a good emotion.

Yes it does make sense. That was 20 years of life my father lost. 20 years I lost with him and it just means he was a murderer who was good at hiding.

Justice has no expiration.

Emotions to no fall into moral categories. Actions do.

...with a character of mine. I choose orderly evil (because I <3 Fire Giants).

It's also what that paladin who got turned evil played out (he was awesome btw). It's a very valid role that doesn't get done enough, but it's not a goodie role. It's not even neutral hardly.

If you read through this thread you'll see where I am talking an eye for an eye.

Just because a mage burned down my village doesn't mean I hate all mages but I'm justified in hunting down that one.

The fact that I feel vengful doesn't have any bearing on the matter other than it's the biological response that motivates me.

Is Fortress a bunch of people who just work against evil or are they a bunch of people whose goal is to eliminate all evil (through various means)? Or are they more like groups that seek to eliminate malaria (that is they will attack outbreaks, but the real goal is to erradicate it forever)?

If they're just firefighters, then I absolutely agree. Nexus isn't evil in CF terms, so they wouldn't be hunted by people who only care about stopping evil in progress. If they're the anti-malarial-ists, then the Nexus is mosquitos, who aren't the problem themselves but who will continue to keep the problem going forever if not addressed directly. In other words, the Fortress cannot succeed if the Nexus exists.

This isn't the world's best analogy ever, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at.

For me, it's not about the fact that Nexus is guaranteed to do evil at some point in the future. It's about the fact that their very basic goals are antithetical to the fortress worldview. It's not about the specific wrongs they will do, but about the fact that as long as the Nexus exists the work of the Fortress is not done, because there is a force devoted to promoting evil in the world (and good too, I realize). I would say that's different from groups that are devoted to something which causes them to incidentally commit evil.

But again, if you view Maran as being essentially short-sighted, or evil as more like fire than malaria, then the Fortress absolutely should not want to attack the Nexus. Personally I see evil as more malaria-like than fire-like, but I can understand the opposing view.

That the Fortress = the Maran.

You're missing the whole other side of the coin, the Acolytes.

I absolutely agree that the Fortress should not be "okay" with the mission of the Nexus.

Nexus's goals ARE antithetical to the Fortress world view. But so is nearly ever other cabal (obviously, Fort is not okay with good mages being hunted and killed, or good town guards being slaughtered en masse either).

It's the job of the Fortress (primarily Acolytes), not to just destroy the evil in Thera, but to spread the Light. And part of that is by showing the Nexuns (and others) the errors of their ways.

Again, the Fortress would never want Nexus to exist, and definitely doesn't want them to continue to do what they do. But wholesale slaughter is not the only answer to someone you disagree with.

It seems like you (as well as Pro) are trying to say that the evil acts of the Nexuns damn them. But if that's the case, should they not be considered "evil", in-game? Should the Nexuns not have a red aura, just the same?

But they don't. Good and evil are concrete terms in CF. And Nexuns are NOT evil. Just misguided and in need of enlightenment, not slaughter.


And again.. individuals in Fortress can and do have different beliefs as it pertains to Nexus. Some of my own characters included. But those beliefs would differ from the cabal "norms" (at least, how I understand them.. and I think I understand pretty well).

Good and evil are set in CF and that is what makes many of the acts goodie's do permissable. You want to rationalize why the Fort should take actions against nexus because they hold different views and seek a different goal, you better make that same rationalization against all the goodies too. So Fortress better go all Whitecloak and just kill everything that is not them, cause hell, that's the only way to ensure only their ideals are met.

Rationalized or justified on any basis, the taking of another's life for whatever reason is hard to see as anything but technically an evil act, no matter the reason for doing it. So any goodie who kills anything sentient/living should be turned neutral because they are killing things, taking lives that might be brought to the light by the acolytes.

I don't believe any good aligned player ranks exclusively on non-sentient mobs and refuses to fight others outside of situations where they are left with literally no other choice but to kill someone who attacked them. And even then if they were truly peace loving light blessed goodies who truly held to the principles of the light they'd just let themselves be killed rather than bring harm to another knowing that their body would soon reform and they could resume their work and preach their values by actually living according to them. I have yet to ever see any goodie do that, and go Martin Luther King/Ghandi on people. I have seen some acolytes come close to that, but those are rare and usually exceptionally well rp'd characters and even they probably have 1 pk in there somewhere.

Instead we all accept that good and evil are just different opposed sides with neutral in the middle as just one dynamic of this game world. You don't like how fortress is expected to leave Nexus be most of the time, don't play a fortress char. Or make your own RP entirely consistent with how you think it should be, and try to do it, and see how long you last in the fort.

Saying the fort should destroy nexus is just a rather incorrest and somewhat ignorant approach to really being a goodie. Fort should want to make it so nexus has no need to exist because the very idea of evil ceases to exist. As one acolyte told a char of mine, I envision a world where the notion of any evil act simply ceases to ever cross anyone's mind. Make it so the only possible way of life is in the light, so that there is nothing to balance being good against because there is no more opposite to it, and there, you've just eliminated the nexans wihtout killing any of them, because you've slain their idea, not the people who believe it.

>That the Fortress = the Maran.

To some extent I'm conflating them, it's true. But acolyte alone wouldn't be at war with anyone. So there's nothing to talk about there. They do want to eradicate evil, but they wouldn't attack anyone. So they should be as much "at war" with Nexus as anyone who isn't a huggy bear.

>Nexus's goals ARE antithetical to the Fortress world view. But
>so is nearly ever other cabal (obviously, Fort is not okay
>with good mages being hunted and killed, or good town guards
>being slaughtered en masse either).

I disagree with this. There could be no magic, no dwarves, no cities, and no evil, and Fortress, Outlander and Battle would all be perfectly happy. Yes, in the process of pursuing their goals Outlander and Battle might kill goodies, but their philosophical goals are completely compatible with those of the Fortress (both sides). That's the difference. Tribunal's goals are also compatible with the Fortress's even if the acts may not be.

>It seems like you (as well as Pro) are trying to say that the
>evil acts of the Nexuns damn them.

No that's absolutely not what I'm saying. I don't agree with Pro's views of neutrality, though I do agree with him about fort v nexus. The evil acts of the Nexus have nothing to do with my point. For me it's all about the evil goals of the Nexus, which you've agreed are antithetical to the goals of the fortress.

>I disagree with this. There could be no magic, no dwarves, no
>cities, and no evil, and Fortress, Outlander and Battle would
>all be perfectly happy. Yes, in the process of pursuing their
>goals Outlander and Battle might kill goodies, but their
>philosophical goals are completely compatible with
>those of the Fortress (both sides). That's the difference.
>Tribunal's goals are also compatible with the Fortress's even
>if the acts may not be.

I have two responses to this:

1) What you're saying is simultaneously theoretically true and from any remotely realistic/pragmatic perspective untrue.

Fortress isn't okay with the genocide of all dwarves, good conjurers, paladins, angels, etc. in Thera. You can say "But once all of those things are irrevocably dead, Fort and Outlander can hug all day long!" but frankly that's at least as contrived a scenario as "Fort eradicates all true evil, and now Nexus must be stopped."

Similar arguments for Battle/Tribunal.

2) You again gloss over the fact that if goodness were nearly eradicated from Thera, Nexus would be fighting tooth and nail to restore it -- something Battle, Outlander, and Tribunal would not do.

Nexus is simultaneously pro-Fort-goals and anti-Fort-goals. IC you're free to focus on the latter and ignore the former, but that doesn't mean it's true in a grander sense.

One question, in case you decide the rest isn't worth responding to: If the Fortress has the Scepter and the Codex, and the Nexus is against them, should they take the Key?

>1) What you're saying is simultaneously theoretically true
>and from any remotely realistic/pragmatic perspective untrue.

That's true. While Fortress might agree with Outlander that point B is an acceptable state of things (There being no paladins, etc in Thera) they won't agree on how to get from point A to point B. But the Nexus won't ever agree on point B.

Now alignment is done by fiat, but I always thought cabal interactions just flowed logically from the conflicts created by their ideals. OOC we know that nothing will ever change between the cabals. You'll never convince outlanders to stop killing paladins. But IC you'd have to be playing some kind of dummy to not notice the difference between trying to change someone who just doesn't care and trying to change someone who is opposed to what you believe. Is it not completely self-evidence that it's much more realistic to convince people not do terrible things in pursuit of their goals than it is to convince people that their whole worldview is wrong? That's a reality you have to acknowledge IC unless

To make a real world example, corporations exist to make money. If you believe making money is wrong you will never be able to get along with them. However, if what you care about is reducing pollution, then you might be able to get them to change, since the corporations don't specifically enjoy polluting, they just don't care. The Nexus actively likes polluting, and the Fortress is trying to fight pollution. The Outlanders, however just don't mind polluting while making their money. This analogy is awesome because in it Outlanders want money.

>Nexus is simultaneously pro-Fort-goals and anti-Fort-goals.
>IC you're free to focus on the latter and ignore the former,
>but that doesn't mean it's true in a grander sense.

I strongly disagree. Nexus doesn't have the goal of "help goodness" or "hurt evil" as a goal, what it has is "keep good and evil equal." Sometimes that might take the form of "help goodness" actions and sometimes it might take the form of "hurt evil" actions but it will never, ever have the Fortress's goal. Am I wrong in thinking that the Fortress's goal is to see evil eliminated? And that the "help goodness" and "hurt evil" aspects are just two approaches to the ultimate goals?

Alternatively, are you saying that it's okay if the Fortress sacrifices principle for convenience? That because they know Nexus will be an ally sometimes, it's okay to just ignore the fact that they have Thera's most explicitly evil worldview (edit: yes I realize they also have Thera's second-most explicitly good worldview)? If they can accept help from the Nexus, who have an evil end-goal, when it happens that the Nexus is aligned with them, then why can't they accept help from the Empire? After all, the Empire wants to beat up the Scions, and they both agree on that, right.

From our OCC perspective the Nexus has a goal that is as CF-good as it is CF-evil. But from the perspective of your Fort character, how is that goal anything but evil? IC I would recognize that as individuals they are all neutral, and that there's hope for them, etc. But as a leader of that cabal how do you resolve the fact that this other cabal has a goal that is directly opposed to yours, and that you know you're never going to convince them to change their ways?

This is exactly how I feel about the matter.

>One question, in case you decide the rest isn't worth
>responding to: If the Fortress has the Scepter and the Codex,
>and the Nexus is against them, should they take the Key?

I think that's a question for Fort leadership; that being said, I think taking the Key is probably more justifiable than taking the Scales/Head/Fetish because you know a good-aligned Nexun is never going to get their ass beat trying to retrieve.

>To make a real world example, corporations exist to make
>money. If you believe making money is wrong you will never be
>able to get along with them. However, if what you care about
>is reducing pollution, then you might be able to get them to
>change, since the corporations don't specifically enjoy
>polluting, they just don't care. The Nexus actively likes
>polluting, and the Fortress is trying to fight pollution. The
>Outlanders, however just don't mind polluting while making
>their money. This analogy is awesome because in it Outlanders
>want money.

That analogy doesn't hold up for me. ####, having an evil leader and evil Ancients is enshrined in Outlander dogma. Additionally, it doesn't work the other way; Outlander can't convince Fort that no one should be paladins or dwarves should stop being dwarves.

>I strongly disagree. Nexus doesn't have the goal of "help
>goodness" or "hurt evil" as a goal, what it has is "keep good
>and evil equal."

Technically, the goal is more like: keep goodness and evil in balance.

There's always perspective here -- when Nexus thinks magic is where it should be, objectively, it's actually stronger than normal.

> Sometimes that might take the form of "help
>goodness" actions and sometimes it might take the form of
>"hurt evil" actions but it will never, ever have the
>Fortress's goal. Am I wrong in thinking that the Fortress's
>goal is to see evil eliminated? And that the "help goodness"
>and "hurt evil" aspects are just two approaches to the
>ultimate goals?

I think so, yes. That's probably a fair characterization of Maran's goals, but I think it oversimplifies Acolyte to the point of being incorrect.

>Alternatively, are you saying that it's okay if the Fortress
>sacrifices principle for convenience? That because they know
>Nexus will be an ally sometimes, it's okay to just ignore the
>fact that they have Thera's most explicitly evil worldview
> edit: yes I realize they also have Thera's second-most
>explicitly good worldview)?

I don't agree that it's the most explicitly evil worldview, but we can agree to disagree about that.

I wouldn't expect Fortress to ever be comfortable with Nexus, just as ideally I think Fortress should never be comfortable with, say, neutral Battle who murder good mages (but depending on the Fortguy and leader that isn't always the case).

They're not allies, and yet they aren't the true enemy of the Fortress either. They're a neutral group whose members and goals are sometimes helpful to Fort and sometimes a great detriment to Fort. Again, just like the other neutral cabals.

>From our OCC perspective the Nexus has a goal that is as
>CF-good as it is CF-evil. But from the perspective of your
>Fort character, how is that goal anything but evil? IC I would
>recognize that as individuals they are all neutral, and that
>there's hope for them, etc. But as a leader of that cabal how
>do you resolve the fact that this other cabal has a goal that
>is directly opposed to yours, and that you know you're never
>going to convince them to change their ways?

I think it's fine to think of Nexus as being next door to evil as a Fort character, but unless they have an unfair bias, they probably should view neutral characters in other cabals that way too.

You said: I think it's fine to think of Nexus as being next door to evil as a Fort character, but unless they have an unfair bias, they probably should view neutral characters in other cabals that way too.

And pretty much I think we've all said the same thing. However, with Nexuns, you KNOW they are going whipe the floor with some Flyto/murder goodie action.

That's not the case with my ON Cloud warrior Trib.

If anyone in Fort is wanted it sure is.

If no one in Fort will get wanted, then evil definitely can't be destroyed.

The law of Thera is commit the crime suffer the consequences.

Coincidently I have played Tribs, Kyn, a Storm Paladin, who would sit down and talk with Criminals outside of city limits and never raise a finger against them. The law applies within the city and no Magistrate is obligated to execute a criminal. It's just accepted and expected they will.

I submit to you that you're giving Tribunal a free pass because you have a real-life bias towards the correctness of law enforcement.

Let's say you're playing a Fort mage and there's a neutral Battle out there, then.

With the exception of Goodly Battleragers who do not hunt good mages.

I would submit to you my bias comes from a life of seeing good people get ####ed up by good people for just reasons.

gr

>That analogy doesn't hold up for me. ####, having an evil
>leader and evil Ancients is enshrined in Outlander dogma.

Fair enough. I don't know that much about the Outlanders beyond the "f the system" and "don't hurt the earth" bits.

>Additionally, it doesn't work the other way; Outlander can't
>convince Fort that no one should be paladins or dwarves should
>stop being dwarves.

I'm not so sure about that. There's nothing in in Fortress philosophy that says there has to be paladins and dwarves. There is something in the philosphy that says there should be no evil. If the only people left in the world were Outlanders and Fortressites, I would expect the Outlanders could agree to not be evil (barring whatever I'm missing about evil ancients) and Fortress could agree to disband the Paladin guild. Dwarves are harder since there's no painless path to having no dwarves. But if all dwarves magically disappeared from Thera, the Fortress could agree not to bring them back, for example.

It's possible that outlander is inherently evil enough to be incompatible with the fortress. That's not something I ever thought about. It would, if true, mean the fortress should be at war with them. Still I would say that even if there's an impasse about how the dwarf problem can be solved, there's no specific love for dwarves in Fortress philosophy.

>There's always perspective here -- when Nexus thinks magic is
>where it should be, objectively, it's actually stronger than
>normal.

Okay... well if "balanced" good and evil in Nexus terms is the same thing as "goodness rules" in Fortress terms there's no problem. But even "twice as much good as evil" is more evil than the Fortress can tolerate.

>I think so, yes. That's probably a fair characterization of
>Maran's goals, but I think it oversimplifies Acolyte to the
>point of being incorrect.

Well Acolyte does some other things that aren't included in "help goodness" they also have "convert evil to good" (Maran does that some too). Also "help the unfortunate", "support the maran" and "keep the maran true" which are all important. Certainly I simplified the Acolytes' purpose, but I think ultimately seeing evil removed from the world is the big one. They have many other aspects, but most are irrelevant to this discussion because the Nexus doesn't care about those. Having ways in which the Nexus is not your enemy doesn't make their evil goal acceptable. Similarly, the Scions like strong magic, but the Fortress doesn't care one way or the other about that.

>I don't agree that it's the most explicitly evil worldview,
>but we can agree to disagree about that.

Okay. I'm not sure I'd want to defend that in a court of law anyway, but fortunately it's not really crucial to my point.

>They're not allies, and yet they aren't the true enemy of the
>Fortress either. They're a neutral group whose members and
>goals are sometimes helpful to Fort and sometimes a great
>detriment to Fort. Again, just like the other neutral
>cabals.
> ...
>I think it's fine to think of Nexus as being next door to evil
>as a Fort character, but unless they have an unfair bias, they
>probably should view neutral characters in other cabals that
>way too.

See I think this still misses the important distinction between individuals or groups who have a goal the fortress doesn't mind (neutral battle, as you gave) but who do bad things. Those guys I think the Fortress should scowl at furiously but leave alone, because their goal is not opposed. But the Nexus isn't like that. They actually want there to be evil in the world, and they work hard to keep it that way.

Also just to be clear, this isn't rooted in me personally hating Nexus. I liked being in the cabal, I like its presence in the game. A+++ would pledge again. I like Fortress too, I just can't reconcile the logic of being opposed to the existence of evil and tolerating people who willfully promote evil.

I'm not sure I've made any new points in this post, so we may be at a dead end until I can be more clear, but it does seem to me there's a very significant difference between someone who does some evil and someone who knowingly supports evil. Maybe the problem is that I don't see cabals as persons. I can understand the Fortress seeing Tribunal or Battle as a neutral cabal, despite doing evil. But I just can't understand how, from the perspective of a fort character, Nexus isn't an enemy, even if the people inside it are all neutral and its goal is

Maybe the only new thing I have to add is this: It's not that fortress thinks the Nexus is an evil cabal, it thinks it's a neutral cabal with a fundamentally incompatible goal.

But okay I think I just became convinced that it's okay for Fortress not to want to war with Nexus. The reason being that Fortress is too pure of heart to make war on what *really* *really* should be an enemy, if only it weren't neutral by definition. This is still a very subtle distinction it seems to me. A Fortress should be very frustrated at not being able to war with Nexus. Sort of the way that it's kind of a justifiable frustration for police that profiling is effective, but morally wrong. Nexus, however, can't be expected to go away, and can never be converted, and wants to do something horrible and evil, but they are, by definition, neutral, so we leave them alone not because we want to, but because we have to. We have to put up with their incompatible, and yes, evil goal because we're the good guys.

As an aside, I generally dislike nexans and the cabal, but that does not mean they need to be removed.

On taking the key:
Taking the key does not remove evil in any shape or form, it lessons the ability of those who at the moment support evil. But to take the key means killing the Inners of Nexus which are neutral, and never go out and do anything to a fort char who does not go in there first. By all accounts they are innocent of any transgressions against the fort, so now you're just rationalizing the killing of an innocent to suit your own needs and make your life easier. I have no problem killing the nexans who come for you, but I'd say raiding for the key is borderline evil.

Nexans don't care that paladins exist because that has no bearing on balance. Not every class has an anti-class, so that's not something balance can be brought to (balance can be brought to that which ceases to exist so if paladins and anti-paladins cease to exist- that is something fort/outlander/nexus all would not necessarily mind). The nexan would say so long as there is balance between good/evil & chaos/order it does not matter what form it takes.

On the Nexus goals:
Perhaps instead of seeing Nexus as having its own goal (which I admit it does), look at it as having the goal of all the cabals at the same time, not just one of them. Perhaps Nexus are more altruistic than the fort because they ensure no side ever succeeds. They help all cabals. Fort may not be there to counteract scion, so Nexus does it for them. But when the fort is there to do it Nexus does nothing. So they act as the fort would when the fort is not able, and the fort is fine with that, but takes issue with it when they do it for anyone who is not them?.

They simply treat everyone in the same fashion, as equals. (Which I see being far better in a general sense than fanatical zealotry that accompanies being on either pole of opposed forces) It has the goal of them all because the goals are all opposed to each other, and needs to make sure all sides are actively pursuing those goals so as to maintain balance between them. They only act because those who would are not present or perhaps not able to do so.

It seems like you want to say neutral is the combination of good and evil when it is not. Its the absence of either one of those things, and so you can't say evil (or good) exists in them because they do something you may consider as evil or good depending on time of day. To the neutral the act is simply the act without judgment of the act, where as goods and evils might judge it. If your fort leader wants to kill Nexans for impeding his own goals because he knows they will not change, how is he any different from an imperial or anything else that is allegedly evil? I'd say the crux of being a goodie is that they don't use all available means to achieve their goals where as an evil does anything necessary to fulfill their ambition.

There has to be someway to distinguish good vs. evil besides the words themself, otherwise we may as well call them Team A vs. Team B vs. Team C or anything else, it would not really matter cause really they'd all just be the same, three sides trying to win by eliminating the other. Good, neutral and evil carry conotations of how those on each side are supposed to behave as those words are generally understood. Yes they all try to achieve an end, but they all do it through different means, and if Team A acts as Team C would towards Team B, I'd say they are not really different than Team C.

As an aside, I generally dislike nexans and the cabal, but that does not mean they need to be removed.

>>>On taking the key:
Taking the key does not remove evil in any shape or form, it lessons the ability of those who at the moment support evil. But to take the key means killing the Inners of Nexus which are neutral, and never go out and do anything to a fort char who does not go in there first. By all accounts they are innocent of any transgressions against the fort, so now you're just rationalizing the killing of an innocent to suit your own needs and make your life easier. I have no problem killing the nexans who come for you, but I'd say raiding for the key is borderline evil.<<<

Presumably the Inner Guardian isn’t a slave and kept their against his will. His views share the cabal ideologies just as much as any Outer or Inner Guardian’s would. More specifically, they could be construed to be the idea cabal example as I have been inducted by Outer Guardians before, they are not mindless innocents even though we the players know they are mobs. There is no border line evil here.
************************************************************************
>>>Nexans don't care that paladins exist because that has no bearing on balance. Not every class has an anti-class, so that's not something balance can be brought to (balance can be brought to that which ceases to exist so if paladins and anti-paladins cease to exist- that is something fort/outlander/nexus all would not necessarily mind). The nexan would say so long as there is balance between good/evil & chaos/order it does not matter what form it takes. <<<

Which automatically puts them at odds with the Fortress. So long as there is evil we’re good. Sorry, that’s just crazy.

>>>On the Nexus goals:
Perhaps instead of seeing Nexus as having its own goal (which I admit it does), look at it as having the goal of all the cabals at the same time, not just one of them. Perhaps Nexus are more altruistic than the fort because they ensure no side ever succeeds. They help all cabals. Fort may not be there to counteract scion, so Nexus does it for them. But when the fort is there to do it Nexus does nothing. So they act as the fort would when the fort is not able, and the fort is fine with that, but takes issue with it when they do it for anyone who is not them?.<<<

The only part of Nexus that has any bearing to me is that while they may have a set goal, it results in chaos and discord for anyone not a Nexun.

What would be a more realistic dogma for the Cabal would be that they keep the Cabals on an even playing field so that the good people of Thera aren’t eradicated in massive eldritch wars. Presumably a Nexun should be able to go level Darsylon and bring the Balance back to even but instead they go after other player characters/ It would be an easy adjustment and make the cabal somewhat tolerable


As it stands now, Daevryn’s assertion to the contrary, they commit unforgivable attrocities for gain. As a sworn protector of Good, that won’t stand with me.

And let’s define good. Were protecting the good people of Thera here.
************************************************************************
>>>They simply treat everyone in the same fashion, as equals. (Which I see being far better in a general sense than fanatical zealotry that accompanies being on either pole of opposed forces) It has the goal of them all because the goals are all opposed to each other, and needs to make sure all sides are actively pursuing those goals so as to maintain balance between them. They only act because those who would are not present or perhaps not able to do so. <<<

Again. I don’t care about their goals. Only their actions.

>>>It seems like you want to say neutral is the combination of good and evil when it is not. Its the absence of either one of those things, and so you can't say evil (or good) exists in them because they do something you may consider as evil or good depending on time of day. To the neutral the act is simply the act without judgment of the act, where as goods and evils might judge it. If your fort leader wants to kill Nexans for impeding his own goals because he knows they will not change, how is he any different from an imperial or anything else that is allegedly evil? I'd say the crux of being a goodie is that they don't use all available means to achieve their goals where as an evil does anything necessary to fulfill their ambition. <<<

I’m saying no such thing. I am saying it’s neither. But you can cross the line. Way back in the day the old Monster Manual’s used to show something like this. Alignment: Chaotic Neutral (evil) meaning while this was basically a neutral MOB as a whole the population tended to have a crueler bent than say a Chaotic Neutral (good). Neither are good or evil, but they do have unique outlooks on life and within a population certainly many are Chaotic Evil.

>>>There has to be someway to distinguish good vs. evil besides the words themself, otherwise we may as well call them Team A vs. Team B vs. Team C or anything else, it would not really matter cause really they'd all just be the same, three sides trying to win by eliminating the other. Good, neutral and evil carry conotations of how those on each side are supposed to behave as those words are generally understood. Yes they all try to achieve an end, but they all do it through different means, and if Team A acts as Team C would towards Team B, I'd say they are not really different than Team C.<<

There is. It’s called behavior. My Empoweree’s don’t even use the Detect good/evil, know alignment spells. They judge you on your actions. Hell, my goodies don’t even attack Drow for being Drow.

I could argue the fort does nothing but cause chaos and dischord for anyone not of the light just as easily, cause they do.

You're protecting the "good" people of Thera. What makes them good? The Imms labled everything good evil or neutral for points of reference. They may as well just be yellow red and blue. Good is subjective, and not everyone will share your views of what it is to be good neutral or evil. Because they may not coincide with your own does not make them wrong. The alignment is set up, and what it means to be that alignment is set up in the game. You don't like it fine, play them as you see it, which is how it is designed to be played. There are not hard and fast rules, everything has degrees of flexibility that allow the game to be dynamic and entertaining.

You play your chars as you want (and I believe you should as that is the point of the game), but if you really are holding to that all the time when you play an empoweree I don't know how you don't get turned evil. Cause you have no way to truly know anything except by sight, so how can you judge an atrocity except by the nature of the act itself, which makes all of us murderous bastards.

If you don't care about good/evil, but actions, I have hard time believing you'd find any character's actions ever acceptable. You see a drow attack a high elf, what would you do? Maybe it is a turned drow and the other a fallen high elf. Without detect (which includes consider as a form of detection) you would not know, indeed can not know for sure. Or do you just always attack the aggressor as he is the one committing the act? It seems a hard line to follow.

Basically I get the sense that you want the fort to be filled with those who only want people to act in a manner that they allow (i.e. good behavior), and everyone who does anything contrary should be encouraged to change, or forced to if they cross too far a line. Which is fine, but when I think of goodie I see more of a turn the other cheek/non violent sort who resorts to violence last.

And you should re-read what you wrote.

I don't agree with most of it, especial your notion that my actions would merit an align change.

I don't recall saying maran, just goodie. You don't start a maran, or in the fort. You start good, or become good in rare instances I suppose. Maran do a difficult job because it needs doing, and it comes at a cost to them, that they are doing it only because it needs to be done. So they surrender a bit of their humanity to do it, where as most other goodies are more turn the other cheek types.

I say the neutrality thing because if you're doing exactly what you say you do all the time in an good aligned empowered char's life it would have to lead to becoming neutral because you would be acting upon imcomplete information in every situation. If the thing you just killed was technically good and you only did it because the act it committed was evil, you still killed something that was good. Should that be a basis for an align change? Probably not. Is it? Probably yes, if you consistently do it, because you're showing no concern for whether things are good, evil or neutral. You just care about their acts. Sounds pretty neutral to me. A perfect judge in fact. You don't care who it is doing it, you only care what is being done and that is your basis for the determination of good/evil.

Not that what I say matters, I usually like your chars and have fun with them and besides, I'm not an Imm, so my opinions mean jack squat. I'll leave it at that. I like that you bring a good twist on things to the game with your chars, and having strong beliefs is never a bad thing.

I've had my fun now posting arguments for the hell of it, so I'm done.

I don't care if you are talking about what you percieve good to be.

I am talking about Maran specifically, and Fort in general.

>For me, it's not about the fact that Nexus is guaranteed to do
>evil at some point in the future.

So is a neutral Tribunal. (If you think hunting down a good-aligned criminal is "evil"). So is a neutral Outlander. (If you think hunting down a good-aligned dwarf/conjurer is "evil".) So is a neutral Battlerager. (If you think hunting down a good-aligned mage is "evil".)

Should maran pre-emptively seek to destroy all neutral members of those cabals?

If Fortress ever got close to its "end game", that is the eradication of evil, then it would be in CONSTANT conflict with Nexus, and would probably decide at some point that the cabal would need to be destroyed.

Fortress has never been "close" to its "end game". (And never will.)

>>For me, it's not about the fact that Nexus is guaranteed to
>do
>>evil at some point in the future.

I'm not sure how what you're saying makes sense against what I said.

Actually, yes, I did miss that word. Heh.

But to reply to the rest of what you said- yes, Nexus's end game directly conflicts with Fortress's. At the point when direct conflict becomes necessary, I would expect Fortress have need to destroy Nexus. We're not to that point.

In the here and now, Fortress's priority should be on killing people who are *actually* evil, and/or weakening cabals that are actively, permanently bent on destroying Fortress (e.g. Empire & Scion).

When Empire and Scion are destroyed, the drow, fire giants and duegar eradicated, and all evil PCs destroyed, then Fort will turn to dealing with Nexus. In other words, never.

>When Empire and Scion are destroyed, the drow, fire giants and
>duegar eradicated, and all evil PCs destroyed, then Fort will
>turn to dealing with Nexus. In other words, never.

But you could apply that argument to the scions vs empire, since scion is clearly more evil than the empire. And you could apply that to evil half-elves since drow are clearly more evil than evil half-elves. Making a list of enemies and deciding "okay we fight down to this point on the list" doesn't make that much sense. More importantly if the Fortress has the Codex and the Scepter and there aren't really any imperials or scions around to hunt, then it would make sense for them to go down to the next enemy on the list: the Nexus.

But with the caveat, I wouldn't pass up the chance to take down a nexun if I came across him.

Who said Scion is more evil than Empire? Or an evil Drow is more evil than a Half-Drow?

Those are all obviously untrue.


But it is most definately NOT untrue that the above are all more evil than Nexuns.


Because... Nexuns aren't evil.

If Fort starts winning, and Nexus essentially becomes a PART of that "evil force", then you might have a point. Because then, Nexus might finally cross the point to where they are truly evil.

But that hasn't happened IC yet, on a cabal-wide scale.

>But you could apply that argument to the scions vs empire,
>since scion is clearly more evil than the empire.

See, I'd dispute that. Red aura = red aura.

Priority wise, Fortress expends its efforts against evil PCs because they're more "dangerous" and "significant" than, say, a kobold, but that doesn't mean they're "more evil".

That's a big reason why I wouldn't slaughter the little guys.

I like them visually.

One would even argue in a lot of ways Empire is MORE evil, since they are seen by the public at large much more often.

Continuing with that, Empire probably raids/kills goodies much more often than the Scion cabal as a whole (Scions in general are probably more efficient killers, but it takes a bit of luck to see them dominant the cabal wars to the extent Empire has in the past).

Not to mention the whole Enslavement/Subjagation/etc as opposed to allowing other-planar creatures a foothold on this world (PS I always will love Scion because of the fact that it allows for all sorts of evil roles, much moreso than Empire).

In truth, I don't see how anyone can make a broad generalization about which cabal is "more" evil.

...I thought 90% of the nexuns I ever came across were toolbags as players. There were some stand-outs, but they were by far the exception. I'm sure everyone has their own take on it, but I don't like a cabal that seems to attract sycophantic behavior even more than the Fortress.

>...I thought 90% of the nexuns I ever came across were toolbags as players.

Since thats seems to be popular opinion I'd like to know whats wrong about Nexus players. I never had much issue against them - just another cabal, that is all.

Other than following the cabal dogma enough to not get booted, most tend to have #### roleplay, do #### things, gank the #### out of anyone who isn't a complete pushover, all while talking ####. And they tend to horde the #### out of lots of good gear.

This is just my experience. I think neutral roleplay for most is about as bland and flimsy as a cardboard house. I've always thought it would be more fun to have neutrals be very much in the minority, because forcing the players into having to choose sides makes for a more dynamic game. Imho, every other cabal has every right, and almost an obligation, to hate the Nexuns fanatically, as they can and do betray everyone.

Like I said elsewhere, I could totally see the Nexuns being a very small group of elite players who work autonomously from any other faction to ensure their ideal of balance via manipulation, force, advising, etc. I'd even be attracted to playing such a role, and could do a really good job with it. But, I hate the idea of an army of "balance seekers" whose numbers can and do overwhelm other cabals. It just seems stupid to me. I would think only a very small group could have the tact, impartiality, and skill to pull off being a manipulative mastermind who can put "the big picture" before anyone and everyone.

I kinda liken the whole good and evil must exist to the dragonlance books. If you've read them, then I think you can make a decent case for Nexus (think astinus, but actually doing something). You see what happens if either side wins in the next series of books. good wins = rampant corruption and strict dogma; evil wins = everything dies.

is when there are so many Nexans that whomever they ally with can effectively outnumber the group "in power" by a sizable margin.

In a world of relative balance such as exists right now in Thera, the Nexus is not doing much, that is they are helping good/evil, order/chaos probably reasonably equally and ultimately not doing “much” evil thus should be a very low priority compared to wholly evil groups such as Scion and Empire and other random evil people. Essentially only hunted when actively helping evil.

But since the Fortresses goal is to remove ALL evil. Theoretically, if a time came where the Fortress essentially won, Nexus would have to also be destroyed. This is because as the Fortress begins to succeed the Nexus will work harder and harder in opposition, that is they will do more evil to restore the balance. At this point in theory when all other evil is destroyed, the Nexus essentially would have to be committing evil 100% of the time and would be in direct conflict with the Fortress as they attempt to remove the last evil from Thera.

Now, it would be possible for the Fortress not to hunt the Nexus even in this case, but as they are the guardians of good so to speak it would seem likely that in this case they would be in constant battle regardless until Nexus was destroyed.

As an aside, my general difficulty with interacting with Nexus is that the balance shifts far to often. The whole friend today, enemy tomorrow, friend again next week thing doesn't sit well with me because the betrayal aspect is not easy to over come.

Just my thoughts anyway.

The reason being that they do both good things and evil things.

If you make the argument that killing people is an evil thing in and of itself then maran should be evil.

A lot of people make the leap that the reason you do things is either part of all of how you seperate good from evil. If nexuns are killing in the name of protecting people then that is pretty closely aligned with the dogma of the fortress, that also is pretty much the cookie cutter nexus role btw.

I am not saying the fort has any reason to be happy go lucky with the island, in fact nobody should feel totally secure in that. But just like you don't hunt down all tribs because they kill lightwalker criminals, or hunt down all outlanders because they hunt paladins, or all villagers because they kill goodie mages.

My Evil Tribunal does both good and evil things. That doesn't make him neutral.

Why? The problem is that if you take the stance of "any person that defends evil" must be killed means that Fortress needs to destroy:

Tribunal: Since not only can it be lead by an evil, but the Tribunal also protects "evils" in their city from people who try to kill them in cities. Not to mention they will hunt wanted Fortress members, usually.

Herald: They kick out people who attack in the Inn. Therefore, it limits the ability for the Fortress to attack evils in the Inn, giving them a safe haven. This is bad.

Random neutral PCs. If neutral people group with evils, then they are helping them grow. If they are helping them grow, they are helping evil grow in Thera. This is bad. Destroy all neutrals.

And, you can't argue that Tribunal: protects lightwalkers too as well. Or Herald are pacifists. They don't want any violence. Or neutrals are neutrals, not evil. Because Nexuns also protect lightwalkers at times too, yeah?

>Why? The problem is that if you take the stance of "any
>person that defends evil" must be killed means that Fortress
>needs to destroy:

The examples you give are of people who sometimes will defend evil. The Nexus very explicitly has the goal of helping evil. They will *always* seek to keep evil as strong as the light. It is part of their basic philosophy. In this way, the Nexus is actually the most opposite cabal of the fortress, philosophically. The empire and scions are evil, but generally they don't really care about creating evil as a priority. They happen to be evil, and want to do evil things, but they actually aren't generally interested in promoting evilness itself.

Nexus is actually the only cabal that really, 100% of the time tries to keep a substantial amount of evil in the world as a primary goal.

Edit: The chasm, depending on how you construe their goals may also be interested in creating evil on purpose, but I would still argue they mostly just want a very evil thing to happen, but usually don't cherish the evilness of it per se.

>>Why? The problem is that if you take the stance of "any
>>person that defends evil" must be killed means that Fortress
>>needs to destroy:
>
>The examples you give are of people who sometimes will defend
>evil. The Nexus very explicitly has the goal of helping evil.
> They will *always* seek to keep evil as strong as the light.
>It is part of their basic philosophy. In this way, the Nexus
>is actually the most opposite cabal of the fortress,
>philosophically. The empire and scions are evil, but
>generally they don't really care about creating evil as
>a priority. They happen to be evil, and want to do evil
>things, but they actually aren't generally interested in
>promoting evilness itself.

But you're completely glossing over the fact that you can repeat that whole paragraph, replacing 'good' with 'evil'.

Therefore Nexus is the most congruent cabal of the Fortress because they (using your terminology) have an explict goal of helping good.

If you want to argue that killing evil is more important than helping good in the eyes of Fortress, I'll see your Maran and raise you Acolyte.

>Edit: The chasm, depending on how you construe their goals
>may also be interested in creating evil on purpose, but I
>would still argue they mostly just want a very evil thing to
>happen, but usually don't cherish the evilness of it per se.

I think you have a narrow, kind of odd, and not necessarily correct view of Scion but that's off on a tangent.

Today I will give out free icecream because yesterday I killed everyone at Baskin Robbins for eating too much.

There's no logical, ethical or moral standing here. It was an inherently evil act and no amount of free ice cream will make up for that.

>But you're completely glossing over the fact that you can
>repeat that whole paragraph, replacing 'good' with 'evil'.

Not quite. When I say that the goal of nexus is to help evil, I mean that from the Fortress perspective the goal of Nexus is to help evil up from where the Fortress wants it to be, and to bring goodness down from where they want it to be. There is no way to s/evil/good and make that statement remain true. What I think it comes down to is that both sides of the Fortress want to see goodness permanently at 100% and Nexus wants to see goodness permanently at 50%. These goals are simple incompatible. Both Acolyte and Maran are interested in seeing only good exist. I would argue that Acolyte also wants to eliminate evil, they just want to kill it with kindness. To the extent that they don't care about that, it's basically just a "help goodness" activity, which, sure, the Nexus doesn't fundamentally oppose, in principle.

So yes, sometimes the two cabals current goals will overlap, but half of the Fortress (Maran) are utterly opposed to the fundamental goals of Nexus, and the other half of the Fortress is, at best, ambivalent towards the essential goals the Nexus.

To put it another way, if a genie were granting wishes, the Fortress would have to war with the Nexus, because the wish the Nexus would get is a terrible thing to the Fortress. That is not true of Tribunal, Outlander or Battle. All of those cabals sometimes do evil things, but don't have an ultimate goal that is anathema to the fortress the way the Nexus's goal is.


>I think you have a narrow, kind of odd, and not necessarily
>correct view of Scion but that's off on a tangent.

Maybe! Though I don't know how I keep ending up in leadership positions in these cabals I don't understand. Nexus, Scions, Acolyte... apparently I'll be a potion-using commander any day now. But seriously, that was not my full analysis of Scion. Scion is the most evil of the evil cabals because creating evil and darkness is a basic part of what they do. However, they only do *that* because they're greedy and want power. The creating evil and darkness, for most, isn't about pure love of wrongdoing, it's about the prophecy and the mechanisms by which it can be fulfilled. Means to an end.

If the Scions could seize unlimited power by petting fluffy bunnies, then you'd see a lot of very content bunnies hopping around the chasm.

I agree that Nexus's overall goal conflicts with Fortress's overall goal. That said, they're not evil, and that means something. It means that their motivations for achieving this goal are not the motivations of evil people.

Also, in seeking to achieve their goal, sometimes their actions coincide with those of Fortress. Other times they conflict.

I could *maybe* see Fort potentially treating Nexus with complete hostility (i.e. hunting and killing them without provocation) but only when good actually tips the balance. That is to say, when Nexus is actively opposed to "good" and is acting as a force for "evil" in the world.

At the end of the day, though, they're not evil, and that counts for something. It means that whatever they're actually *doing*, somehow they're doing it for reasons that aren't *evil*. This is unlike the Empire guy who thinks he's doing a "good thing" by bringing the rest of the world under Imperial rule. However he may consciously view his actions, the red aura doesn't lie.

The cabal engages in activity that specificly results in attrocities.

As a Nexun ranks up he will slaughter villages when good leads.

This is evil behavior, their is no changing this fact. The only reason they don't have a red aura is because that's an OOC rule to what is, in my opinion, a poorly concieved concept.

I don't care that some code ina computer program says they are neutral. They aren't they've murdered, vandalized, and destroyed good people on their way up, not in defense of some noble cause, but with a belief that there needs to be just this amount of that and that amount of this.

It's wrong.

Now then, I can live with the idea of their being a cap on them, maybe 6, and it really DOES become an elite cabal with it's memebers closely watched.

Do you think neutral Tribunal/Outlanders/Battle don't do all of those things? You're kidding yourself if so.

I treat them as murderous thugs from the moment I witness it or hear of it from a reliable scource.

Furthermore, I don't play neutrals as a person who is sometimes good, sometimes bad. I play them as a person who more or less lives in accourdance with every day solid principles, but is likely to turn the other cheek when he see's something "Bad" happening.

My newts may fight sentient goodly mobs, but they are almost always soldierly types.

Admitedly some cross the line and I don't begrudge Goodies that come after me for it. Wouldn't even cross my mind to hold it against an OG storm warrior that has a vendetta against one of My Outie-woodies (Is that legal to say?) who's ambushed his dwarven companion in the past.

I think we lose so very much in terms of RP if we let neutrals get away with what ever behavior they wish. I personally believe they have the hardest time being true to alignment.

>I don't care that some code ina computer program says they
>are neutral.

You do understand that characters are expected to behave according to their alignment, right? That means that the code in a computer program defines their nature. If they aren't evil, performing evil acts is not the norm for them. You should care about the code, since alignment exists in CF and people act by it. Neutral is not evil. I don't expect you to agree, though, since, according to my memory, you've never really grasped the difference of neutral and evil alignments that well.

This if a gnome kills a family or child for gain his aura should be shifted.

Neutral doesn't mean sometimes good, sometimes bad. It's how you look at the world. A newt might not kill that family, but he might stand by while others do and look the other way.

IMO, Yes. Fortress' goal is to destroy evil, Nexus' explicit goal is to prevent that from happening.

Though I'd rather support this idea, I dont see any RP reasons

That right there should be justification enough for Maran to hate them. Furthermore, Nexuns have to engage in some heinously evil activities in the name of the Balance, such as killing goods.

To my mind, I don't see any Maran accepting help from Nexus regardless of how the balance is tilted. More so if they happen to be a sphere purity Baerinika follower.

Further more, its pretty much against the maran creed to hunt any neutral.

They hunt people with the (Red Aura) flag, thats it. They might smack down nexus if they happen to be helping empire/scion at some given moment, but they should never hunt nexus/take the key.

Ever.

This is one of those things about CF that you just have to accept and get over.

Realistically, it definitely makes sense for Fortress to want to eliminate Nexus because they've been assisting the evil cabals, slaughtering good-aligned PCs, and taking the Fortress' cabal item for thousands of years. Their collective deeds have definitely pushed them over the live, I would think. Fortress sort of takes the position of, "Well, we understand your dogma and we know you help us too, so just try to be good and we'll get along because the gods haven't given you red auras yet". That kind of thinking wouldn't fly in our "OOC" perspective of right and wrong.

Unfortunately, it's been made clear that behavior and actions aren't necessarily a precedent for being evil. A Fortress member cannot actively hunt and kill neutral PCs simply for having seen them do "bad stuff". Likewise, a precedent of basically being just as evil as they are good, so to speak, since day one doesn't factor into the equation at all with regards to Fortress' relationship with Nexus, both in terms of whether they should be enemies but also whether Fortress should ever accept their help.

IMHO, it's kind of lame for Fortress folks to ever do something that basically says for them, "Oh, you killed me yesterday and I just saw you healing Imperials while they butchered elves and stuff, but because you're not aggressive to me now, sure I'll let you help me get gear."

That's just how it is though.

The way alignment works just doesn't jive with me at all, but I've finally just given up and said, "This is how it works in Thera, and that's how I'll play it out."

d

He was very clear about it.

When you interview for Fortress, you're likely to be asked to define evil and/or who your enemy is, why you're different (aka better) than them, etc.

The simple (or mechanical) answer is: (Red Aura)

Of course most people don't get away with, or even try, to make it that simple IC. We usually hear jibber jabber about all the wicked deeds evil people do and ramble off a list of their vices, etc. These are the tangible, observable things that you can see to "prove to yourself" they are evil.

The problem is that Nexuns, while not (Red Aura), do all the same things, usually to the same observable degree, that real, honest to god (RA) people do. The difference between a Nexus warrior and an Empire warrior, in terms of who they are willing to kill, steal, from, aid, etc., is essentially nothing. The Imperial has different motives and may spend a somewhat larger percentage of their life doing the bad stuff, but that's about it.

In my (wrong) opinion, most good aligned characters should probably consider good and evil to be very large groups and neutral to be a very tiny group that is incredibly difficult to maintain an existence in. To put it simply, I like how alignment is a scale (say, 1000 through -1000), but I think the position on that scale moves WAY too slowly.

Regardless of whether or not alignment (morality, etc.) is relative or not, a just don't see how a Fortress person should be willing go associate with someone just because they're willing to offer help, despite the fact that said person displays all of the same behavior and negative qualities they themselves use to define their opponents as "evil".

>Regardless of whether or not alignment (morality, etc.) is
>relative or not, a just don't see how a Fortress person should
>be willing go associate with someone just because they're
>willing to offer help, despite the fact that said person
>displays all of the same behavior and negative qualities they
>themselves use to define their opponents as "evil".

I would argue that if this is true, either your definition of evil is ####ty, the Nexus character you're observing is ####ty, or both.

Unless you consider all the neutral cabals to be evil, in which case see option 1.

I guess my idea of evil is *kinda* ####ty AND there are quite a few ####ty Nexuns.

That said, the rhetoric, if you will, that I hear out of MOST Fortress characters suggests that their definition of evil is ####ty then too, though that's just their words and perhaps those words are nothing more than a "let me into the cabal" speech and not a true representation of their characters beliefs, thoughts, etc.

I happened to have recently just re-read your post about RP, and about no matter who your character is, he's going to feel HE'S the good guy, and everyone else is a bad guy.

OOCly? Yeah, I can see Nexus being Neutral, and Empire being evil, but I can also see where ICly, this random Nexus guy who's attacked the Fortress 400 times helping Empire get back to power might not be on top of my list "good guys".

While I certainly think SOME neutral/evil characters would think they're the "good guys", so to speak, I don't think that's the case all the time.

I've played, and played with, evil characters who were completely self-aware of the fact that their actions were despicable and that that they were essentially heading for the Inferno (or whatever) when they died. Just like sociopaths in real life, a character in CF can realize that what they're doing is wrong as far as "society" (whatever that means in CF) is concerned, but they just don't care and are willing to do "the wrong things" as long as they get things out of it.

Similarly, I've played evil characters who were basically "ends justify the means" kinds of guys who thought, despite being terrible people, that they were helping mankind (again, whatever that translates to in Thera).

Just because you think you're the good guy, you might not be.

It's also possible for two good people to be mortally at odds with each other and even like or love each other. (Civil wars for example)

It's not possible for Nexuns to be truely neutral in 99% of the cases as their behavior is both chaotic and evil.

In fact the more good their is in the world, the more destructive they become.

Thumbs down to them.

n/t

>It's not possible for Nexuns to be truely neutral in 99% of
>the cases as their behavior is both chaotic and evil.

You continue to say that, but I'll continue to say you're wrong.

>>It's not possible for Nexuns to be truely neutral in 99% of
>>the cases as their behavior is both chaotic and evil.
>
>You continue to say that, but I'll continue to say you're
>wrong.

I personally keep wanting to argue the fact that they're entirely Orderly rather than Neutral ethos, because their actions are VERY predictable. Just because I can't see and judge what they're basing their actions on, but the entire concept is based on responding to cues (Good v Evil/Law v Chaos/Magic in a very predictable manner).

I also would say the BASIS of the cabal is a very neutral, non-biased situation, but given the nature of CF and players, you're going to have more bloodthirsty (Maran-esque) members than you are peaceable-helping Acolyte-ish Nexus people.