Look at its desc. It specifically says it's a construct.

It's time to lobby for something else. Like the draconian archmages in elemental temple being turned evil.

Like the High Lord's Keep. That key is held by a neutral mob, right? And, umm.. I'm sure there's others.

It did take me forever to realize that butler was a construct though. I think it was sometime after I chewed Kernagor out for killing it, that I actually read the description. Oops.

Maybe Twist recently changed the description in the last couple years to be a construct instead of a sentient being, just so he could win these arguments...

... and if not, I can still spread that conspiracy theory =P

EXB

ps. I still like my little quest progs =P

There's more than one key, and all the doors can be passed through. I guarantee you that my hardcore elf battlerager could get into the keep just as easily as your gnome shifter nexun.

Although if there are ways in for (example) a lone elf battlerager (non-thief?) I couldn't tell you what it is, without killing a neutral mob.

There are other situations in the game, for not just areas, but certain rooms/chests/etc. I like the idea, but maybe make it only work for mobs significantly lower lvl than you, or something?

jesus I still think whoever put out the idea that it should be standard practice for goods to treat neutral mobs as goodies should be shot.

There is nothing wrong with killing neutrals as a goodie you can make an argument for paladins to act this way but it still shouldn't be default paladin behavior for all paladins.


I mean whitecloaks are still goodies, outlander goodies kill paladins, goodie tribunals kill goodies without remorse, goodie villagers kill goodies without remorse. I think we need to loosen the whole who goodies can fight restrictions it would be interesting and way more cool to see inter goodie rivalries get fleshed out. I mean in most fantasy settings elves kill everyone who is not elf who enters their land without remorse.

If you're killing innocent people for weapons, armor, keys, etc then you aren't being "good". Period.

Good/Evil/Neutral aren't merely three different teams. Good people shold act "good" all the time, not just when interacting with other good people.

Now, if you have a reason for killing another good person besides greed (ie, a goodie villager), then that's fine. But you would still be expected to RP in a "good" way (which would probably involve hesitation, regret and/or depression over the act).

Sure we could "loosen the restrictions" on their behavior, but in that case instead of calling things good/neutral/evil we should just call them team gold/team gray/team red. But that seems like a pretty lame game, if you ask me.

If you're killing innocent people for weapons, armor, keys, etc then you aren't being "good". Period.

If they are neutral then they are not innocent... period. Should you go ranking on them prolly not but taking their sword or key so you can go smite darkness is certainly fine.

Good/Evil/Neutral aren't merely three different teams. Good people shold act "good" all the time, not just when interacting with other good people.

Yeah well on each of these "teams" there is a sliding scale. Not all goods are equally flooy and not all evils are equally ####heads and you seem to be of the opinion that the average goodie should be far far far to the floofy side of the spectrum. I am saying that your taking too extreme of a view on your average goodie. Think of it like vegetarians, the average one doesn't eat meat, an extreme one won't use anything made from animals your trying to say all goodies should be the extreme.

Now, if you have a reason for killing another good person besides greed (ie, a goodie villager), then that's fine. But you would still be expected to RP in a "good" way (which would probably involve hesitation, regret and/or depression over the act).

Why does there need to be regret? Good people can't be sure that what they are doing is right. With such a strong stance on morality I would expect these hard core players to have already distinguished right and wrong and if they didn't feel that line had been drawn then they wouldn't act. Your trying to support this whole team goodie concept whereas I think its perfectly acceptable for subgroups in the goodie team to just despise and hate each other because they have slightly different views of the common good. That said you still have to act like a goodie in that you base your reasons in sound moral ground but it doesn't have to be a moral question every single time.

Sure we could "loosen the restrictions" on their behavior, but in that case instead of calling things good/neutral/evil we should just call them team gold/team gray/team red. But that seems like a pretty lame game, if you ask me.

Yes lets keep pigionholing goodie rp and make it as one dimensional as possible. Just because it is based on fixed morals doesn't mean we have to say this is the ideal way to do it. We don't say this is the ideal way to play neutral or evil which gives them more flexibility and funness. Killing neutral mobs will not unhinge all that is good but placing all these extra caveats to push goodies toward the extra fluffy end of what a goodie is doesn't really help to create a dynamic and interesting enviornment.


So moral of this long rant. Lets loosen up the reigns and allow for a wider variety of interpertations of what it means to be a goodie. Or lets start restricting what we consider evil or neutral roleplay.

You can play (to take your example) a Rager who will kill good mages without hesitation, regret, or a second thought...

... but that character isn't good aligned, or won't be for long.

can't make that statement with a huge example to the contrary existing in game its just pointless to say this is what goodies are and have a whole area of goodie agro on everything mobs who not only kill goodies but then hang their corpses up for all to admire.

But thats not a big deal and if they all got turned neutral I would be fine with yout argument.

What I was really trying to get at is that it should not be a default assumption that goodies treat neutral mobs as if they were goodie mobs.

.

And therefore violate CF's policy not to use the intellectual property of book authors in the game. I think they'll revamp the whole thing eventually and hence won't bother to change the aligns.

Sadly, that project has killed many a new imm.

...Gut the fricken place.


Can I get a show of hands (not imms) of people who think that area (even with a new paint job) is worth keeping?

n/t

Always shoot first and then call whatever you hit the target.

I think some of the mobs should be made neutral, some good. And I don't see what is so hard about changing a few names and item descs, even if the area still resembles subject matter from the books.

I would expect it to be live in a month or two.


There will be no white flag above my door. - Dido

in the short run it solves the flaw in cf moral logic and takes less time then doing the whole revamp. I mean we have been expecting the revamp for the better part of a decade so I doubt it is exactly high priority so how about someone take an hour and flop over the aligns.

If something in the game is necessary for me to do X, and it's a very small thing, (ie killing a neutral out of the way mob for a key> I'm going to do it, even as a goody. I blame the immortals for not considering the alignment of the mob, and pretend it never happened.

>If something in the game is necessary for me to do X, and
>it's a very small thing, (ie killing a neutral out of the way
>mob for a key> I'm going to do it, even as a goody. I blame
>the immortals for not considering the alignment of the mob,
>and pretend it never happened.

Then you're roleplaying wrong. The solution isn't to do the very small thing, it's to not do X. If you don't like that restriction, don't play a goodie. There are things goodies can't do because they are goodies. If you don't like it, then stick to neutral or evil.

Because there's a few areas where you're forced to kill neutral mobs to get keys to certain areas. It's frustrating having to make the choice between breaking role, and completely forgoing these places.