Absolute rules for Good vs Evil

[Tynian]

I heard a couple of people express the opinion that self-described alignment isn't working for the game, and that you would prefer there be more "absolute" rules about Good/Evil interactions. Let us put aside the Neutral alignment from this discussion.

What should Good aligned characters be allowed to do? Or not to do? What about Evil characters? Or are you of the opinion that self-described alignment is just fine?

What are your thoughts?

[Solaron]

Well, some of this is intertwined in the neutrality issue, but I'll do my best to avoid those areas! ::whistle::

There are certain "concrete" Good/Evil interactions we could limit, but they would have all of the PKers up in arms in about 10 seconds. These include removing the ability to group between Good and Evil and removing the ability to group with someone that has you flagged or that your god has flagged as an enemy.

Interactions should be watched - goods working with evils, breaking all character separation boundries or working purely for their own gain (not exactly good) should not be allowed. But the problem is, we have few incentives. There's not really any Good aside from Thor. And why be good? Evil mages and shamans get more benefits than good mages and shamans. Used to be, rangers could only be good. Now they can be evil. What separates them, anymore, aside from SAYING "I'm Good" or "I'm Evil"?

Add in some new skills maybe? I don't know. Haven't given this issue a lot of thought. Just wanted to get the ball rolling. We'll see what strikes me!

[jaerith]

Sol makes an interesting point and I'm not even sure he was trying to hit on it, particularly. Rangers. Why, oh why, would a nature-loving tracker class that has always been inherently good be allowed to fall from "grace" and chose an evil alignment? Whenever I see an evil ranger, my hackles(yes, hackles!) stand on end. I'm not entirely certain why it bugs me beyond the fact that when I look at the issue, it screams "THEY'RE INHERENTLY GOOD" and I can't help but agree with that sometimes crazy voice.

On another issue, Ordained Mortals..These chosen few should be few and far between and yet all I seem to see when I hit a "who" on a busy evening is titled mortals these days..and even more annoying is when I see someone with an Ordained class but no title (means they're inactive, right?) Why do these players continue to have the class if they cannot play it?

[wish]

I have to disagree with Jaerith on this one. I see no problem with having evil rangers, just as I see no problem with an evil druid, or a good thief. It is an occupation, after all, not something ingrained in one's soul.

Now, as to the question at hand, I can see why an implementor (this means you, Tynian!) would prefer the system of "self perceived" alignments that we have now. I am sure it cuts down on a lot of administrative nightmares and disputes between FLI's who may feel another FLI isn't acting "good enough" or "evil enough". Let's face it, it is a pain in the ass to watch every followings "interactions".

The answer here may lie in the PK system itself. To explain:

Detailed PK statistics are currently being kept for every person and every following. Why not implement a system by which a following (and individuals) become more evil depending on the number and type of attacks and kills they make? For example, evils would become more evil for unjustified attacks, wheares justified attacks, or attacks against other evils would mean no net change in alignment or a movement towards "good". For goods, by contrast justified attacks and kills against evils would enhance a good followings "goodness". Unjustified attacks agains evil would decrease it, and unjustified attacks against other goods would really decrease it.

Something like this would remain "code" driven. There would need to be no policing of alignments by the administrative staff. A FLI could choose his or her alignment through enforcement of following level pk policy. Under this model, they could even remain neutral by not engaging in pk at all, or by countering a justified attack with a justified attack.

This is just coming off of the top of my head, so don't take this idea too seriously. My point here is that we need to make sure that whatever solution is implemented, it does not bog down the Imps (Tynian) with refereeing disputes all the time.

Wish, Foul Sepiod of the Black Conclave

[Tynian]

I have to disagree with Jaerith on this one. I see no problem with having evil rangers, just as I see no problem with an evil druid, or a good thief. It is an occupation, after all, not something ingrained in one's soul.

I agree. I also allow for the idea that a class (or race) is predominently considered a certain alignment, which is why if you do violate class or race stereotype (e.g. evil ranger or good ogre), you'll be a tempting (PK) target, due to permanent justifies.

Now, as to the question at hand, I can see why an implementor (this means you, Tynian!) would prefer the system of "self perceived" alignments that we have now. I am sure it cuts down on a lot of administrative nightmares and disputes between FLI's who may feel another FLI isn't acting "good enough" or "evil enough". Let's face it, it is a pain in the ass to watch every followings "interactions".

Preach on! The problem with the alignment enforcement that you outline is that everyone perceives that someone else is getting a better deal. Part of my problem also stems from what to "enforce." Let's suppose for example:


Evil can attack anyone.
Evil can help (or trick) anyone for their own selfish reasons.
Goods may not help evils.
Goods may try to show evil the error of its ways or lure followers away from evil followings.


#2 gives evil a free ride to do whatever they wish, since "selfish reasons" could include helping a good out to gain trust and then betray them later.

#3 & #4 conflict. Without #4, though, #2 is largely meaningless.

The answer here may lie in the PK system itself.

[...]
Under this model, they could even remain neutral by not engaging in pk at all, or by countering a justified attack with a justified attack.

Actually, your second example is evil, IMO -- I would interpret it as indiscriminate killing; sociopathic.

My point here is that we need to make sure that whatever solution is implemented, it does not bog down the Imps (Tynian) with refereeing disputes all the time.

I appreciate this focus. Anything that we can come up with that's meaningful yet doesn't require a lot of babysitting stand a better chance of working.

[Tynian]

Bump.

Any comments about what Wish outlined a few days ago?

[Solaron]

I have to disagree with Jaerith on this one. I see no problem with having evil rangers, just as I see no problem with an evil druid, or a good thief. It is an occupation, after all, not something ingrained in one's soul.

I kinda miss the limitations sometimes, but I feel that the way it is implemented currently is the best solution. Evil rangers and Good ogres have penalties to face of their own.



The answer here may lie in the PK system itself. To explain:

Detailed PK statistics are currently being kept for every person and every following. Why not implement a system by which a following (and individuals) become more evil depending on the number and type of attacks and kills they make? For example, evils would become more evil for unjustified attacks, wheares justified attacks, or attacks against other evils would mean no net change in alignment or a movement towards "good". For goods, by contrast justified attacks and kills against evils would enhance a good followings "goodness". Unjustified attacks agains evil would decrease it, and unjustified attacks against other goods would really decrease it.

Something like this would remain "code" driven. There would need to be no policing of alignments by the administrative staff. A FLI could choose his or her alignment through enforcement of following level pk policy. Under this model, they could even remain neutral by not engaging in pk at all, or by countering a justified attack with a justified attack.

This isn't a bad idea at all. Many muds have a similar alignment system where, depending on the alignment of the mobs you kill, your alignment will change. Thus, killing cityguards and beggars makes you evil. Killing demons makes you good. This works pretty well on these muds; it wouldn't work so well on TFC with the current FLI system, as that means the following is locked into an alignment. It's more of an individual thing.

For example, what if the Conclave ends up only finding evils to kill because of the lack of goods, or predominantly makes justified kills. Would they end up as a Good following?

Don't get me wrong. I think you're on to something here! How can we do it, though? Perhaps a following-wide alignment that each follower influences? If it tips too much towards one way, the God can nudge it back using his own mana? I don't know.

Also, I feel that there needs to be more of a separation than their currently is. Right now the only REAL separation between Good and Evil for almost all of the classes is the flag itself. A few classes get an extra spell for being evil; none for being good. Why don't we change that? Give some classes different abilities based on their alignment (Good or Evil, neutrals would receive neither) to really fuel the theorycraft and get people interested in trying something aside from evil.

[Thor]

Detailed PK statistics are currently being kept for every person and every following. Why not implement a system by which a following (and individuals) become more evil depending on the number and type of attacks and kills they make? For example, evils would become more evil for unjustified attacks, wheares justified attacks, or attacks against other evils would mean no net change in alignment or a movement towards "good". For goods, by contrast justified attacks and kills against evils would enhance a good followings "goodness". Unjustified attacks agains evil would decrease it, and unjustified attacks against other goods would really decrease it.


I like the general idea here, but not sure I'd agree with these specific 'rules.' I'd argue that goods unjustifibly killing evils doesn't make the goods evil. I'd mainly argue that because you'd be helping 'remove' (in a sense, I know the repop and re-eq) evil from the realm which should make you 'more good.' Likewise, evils killing goods, whether justified or not, 'removes' goodness from the realm and should make you more evil. I think where the justs would be important would be the killing of UAs and Neutrals. (Assuming neutral was still around.)

But I do like the idea of different level of good or evil.


Also, I feel that there needs to be more of a separation than their currently is. Right now the only REAL separation between Good and Evil for almost all of the classes is the flag itself. A few classes get an extra spell for being evil; none for being good. Why don't we change that? Give some classes different abilities based on their alignment (Good or Evil, neutrals would receive neither) to really fuel the theorycraft and get people interested in trying something aside from evil.

I agree with this completely. The only real difference between my following and an evil following is that I don't attack UAs and some of the neutrals. As far as code goes and the overall game aspect the other difference is that one little word. I really would love to see some major differences between the alignments on a TFC level. (Not talking about, 'it's ok for us to lie because we're evil'.)

While I would love to see some major differences, I don't currently have any in mind. But, that's just as well probably because it should be another thread probably.

[Tynian]

I'm not getting all I need. So I'll try again.


Evil can attack anyone.
Evil can help (or trick) anyone for their own selfish reasons.
Goods may not help evils.
Goods may try to show evil the error of its ways or lure followers away from evil followings.



For the sake of argument, let's say what get rid of Neutral.

We have Good and we have Evil. Since no one gave me suggestions on alignment "rules", we'll go with the 4 general ideas I listed above. On paper, it looks like Evil is the way to go. They get to do anything they want!

So, uh, how do we avoid that?

[Nicademus]

Ok- This post was originall on another thread. The reason I am reproducing it here, is I think we need to be careful about how many restrictions we put on alignment, ESPECIALLY if we are getting rid of neutral at some point in the future. I think that good and evil both allow for some flexability. Self defined alignments are fine, as long as they fit within certain perameters. What those are I need to ponder. Tomorrow after I have thought about specifics Ill post some ideas regarding code restrictions, but the following is how I view good (and the variations) and why I think ridgid restrictions may be problematic. (please feel free to ignore)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The great thing about your question, is that it directly relates to the other string regarding neutrality. The fact that we can sit here and have a debate over what defines good and evil: 1) illustrates the point that we only need two alignments; and 2) exemplifies the problem with neutrality (i.e. you should not be able to interpret neutrality, it just is--neutral). (see the post I will add to neutrality string)

Good can be many different things to many different people. For example, your ("Thor") following seems to follow the Tiger/Ward school of thought on good. I think these are the lawful goods. Those who are good for the sake of choosing a side over evil and seek to stamp out evil from the realm. These are the those goods who fight dragons and vanquish evil because they are good and the others are evil. I dont know enough about Thor's following to be certain, but this is what I have seen. Indeed, they can often be perceived as being evil, just with a different purpose, but this is a misinformed point of view. In reality, they are the counterbalance to evil.

Another type of good is the way I ran my following. While I percieved myself as a counterbalnce to evil to some extent, my primary purpose was the defense of the realm. Regardless of alignment, I believe goods should defend those in need and those who require assistanace, even if that would serve your enemy. In my mind a true good judges others based on actions not alignment. A good should not foresake an individual as a result of the whole of his alignment. Indeed, being good should be difficult, as you have assumed the burden of protecting the realm, even those who do not seek it.

Finally, there is the pacifist good. Those who strive for the "theoretical good" or the "ideal good". Those individuals let their morality guide their every action and seek to be the balance in the universe. They are a counterbalance to evil, not by killing or destroying evil, but by bringing goodness and morality to the realm they counteract the evil nature of man.
This good is closer to the neutral we have today (Rhina's following).

Ok I was just screamed at for my other post so I will end this now and talk more about good and add stuff about evil later.

-Nic

[Tynian]

.... but does what you copied and pasted from the other thread answer my question? You outlined your views on types of good followings. I'm asking, if you want the flexibility to help or hurt anyone you choose, why not go evil? Maximum flexibility, after all.

[jaerith]

The idea behind going good is to play the role of the Hero. To be the man or woman others might one day look up to and idolize, and generally this is a mildly selfish thing. There have only been a few "Good" players I can think of from memory who played their characters genuinely good. (interested in bettering the realm, and proving that against all Odds they could hold to their convictions and bring light to the realm)

So essentially what i'm saying is that while it may be easier to go evil (and they do, so help me, by the masses) There will still be those who wish to fight on the side of the good and the righteous..for selfish reasons, or altruistic..

I think you might underestimate Ego a little, in this equation..it plays a really big part. Just think of all the members of the Court and the Abrasive..heheh.

[Solaron]

.... but does what you copied and pasted from the other thread answer my question? You outlined your views on types of good followings. I'm asking, if you want the flexibility to help or hurt anyone you choose, why not go evil? Maximum flexibility, after all.

I've said it in another thread: Lack of limitations shouldn't make something more appealing. Why not add in special skills and spells for classes of different alignments? And not cookie-cutter skills like 'Dispel Good' for Evils and then 'Dispel Evil' for Goods.

You could give Goods bonus XP while killing Evil, lower prices with shoppies, much smaller debt for attacking evils regardless of PK status, as well. Things like this would provide some form of balance to the otherwise Evil-heavy alignment issue.

[Tynian]

Yes, you do raise a good point, that Good will need something above and beyond what Evils get in order to lure people to the alignment. And yes, there are some that want to be Good so that they can be the hero, and thus would not join an evil following.

Let me ask this: Do we care about 'blue' Evils? Followings that are evil in name, but are in practice pacifist, or downright helpful, followings?

[Solaron]

We'd probably want to ask what makes them evil, then. For example, Mystaya's "Insanity" following would not necessarily have to be evil just because of the 'Insanity' theme.

If they help newbie AND attack unjustifiably or have some large RP reason for being evil, then that's their own choice. They'll probably get new members from the newbies they help, anyway.

[Tylin]

Let me ask this: Do we care about 'blue' Evils? Followings that are evil in name, but are in practice pacifist, or downright helpful, followings?


For the 'pacifist/bloo' evil. You are who you hang with. You indirectly help the true evils by spells, information, etc. You decide to hang around the 'sinners' as Maimer so lovingly called them, you die like one. That's my thought.

If the whole following is evil but pacifist. Then that's their RP style, it'd be up to the flis to decide on whether or not their following will fight with them. I would imagine that some bloos would be like. Okay, while you're evil, you are actually benefitting society, so we will leave you alone, while others will be like for the greater good, your existance here is foul and you deserve to die!

My thoughts!

Tylin

[Nicademus]

I think it all boils down to motivation. I am not sure what the motivation would be for an evil following to be pacifist, but I assume we are talking about what would likely be a neutral evil following. As long as the decision to be pacifist is not based on a moral pre-text, but rather is rooted in some self interest, I do not think it would be a problem at all. As Tylin said, it comes down to role play style. It would not make sense for an evil following to justify being pacifist because it doesnt believe in harming others, as that type of rationale seems too far towards the good. However, I could envision an evil following being pacifist for many other reasons, including but not limited to: (1) self preservation; (2) complete indifference; (3) ingratiating itself with other followings/individuals for the followings' personal gaint. There have been what I will call parasitic neutral followings that act as a support for the more aggressive evil pk followings by providing spells and other assistance. Such a following would clearly be evil and could also be pacifist.

-Nic

[wish]

I guess I should pipe in again, since much of this thread is revolving around some off the cuff suggestions I made regarding how to deal with alignments.

Let me start with Tynian's proposed 4 rules:

Evil can attack anyone.
Evil can help (or trick) anyone for their own selfish reasons.
Goods may not help evils.
Goods may try to show evil the error of its ways or lure followers away from evil followings.


First, remove rules 2, 3, and 4, because "helping" or "tricking" or "luring" is really subjective and you can't code to that. The goal here is to code so that objective actions that are undertaken by an individual (and hence a following, since individual actions should reflect on the following) are evaluated for their "evilness" or "goodness". At this point, the only objective thing I can see that would work is to use the PK stats.

Next, what I think we should be striving for here is a reduction of grey areas and an increase in the Evil vs. Good battle. That means Evil and Good in and of themselves are independent forces that gain or lose based on actions that mortals are taking in the world. In my system, evils only get more evil (and hence more powerful) by attacking and killing goods. Goods only get more good (and hence more powerful) by attacking and killing evils. If an evil kills another evil, that is actually an act that helps 'GOOD', just as if a good kills another good, that is an act that help 'EVIL'. Indiscriminate killing, while it may seem sociopathic, could be either. For example, if a serial killer kills a a child on Friday, and then on Saturday kills another serial killer who was about to kill a bus load of children on Sunday, that would equate to a netgain for the forces of Good, even if unintentional.

So, rule 1 would change to:
Evils and Goods can attack anyone at anytime. (exluding newbies)


Next, you put in incentives for goods to become more good, and evil to become more evil. These can be both individual incentives, and following level incentives. For example, as you grow more evil, you gain access to spells and/or skills that you might otherwise not have access to. Same for the good side. Following incentives might be access to additional ordains, or the FLI gains some abilities, such as a stronger mortal invis, etc.

I am not saying that skills one gains through leveling would go away. I am saying that certain skills and spells should be a combination of both your level and your alignment.

Now, for the issue of penalties. There should be no penalties. Goods who attack and kill other goods will reduce their individual power and the power of their following, plain and simple. The same thing will happen to evils.

So, what will happen here (I think) is that you will have a real conflict between good and evil, with each side seeking out battle with the other in order to become more powerful. Conflict will occur. There will be no middle ground, and essentially everyone will have 50% of the mud available to PK at all times.

All of this, simply by using the pk stats and by reserving certain powers based on alignment criteria (which can be made an objective number).

'nuff said, let the flames begin :> :>

Wish Foul Sepiod of the Black Conclave

[Solaron]

I support Wish's idea (which fits in well with my earlier input, as well, which in turn was based off of his, etc.)

[Tynian]

So, with your proposal, we wouldn't worry about who steals from whom, or who spells up whom, or corpse looting, or anything else?

(And I hoped I'd lure you back in :>)

[Solaron]

I guess you really wouldn't have to worry about who does that; if a Good steals from a Good, it will affect their "Goodness" (rock on, English!). Perhaps some of the "goods corpse retrieving for evils" might go unpunished, since you can't really restrict that... but that would be going on anyway.

Let god+ add or remove points towards Good or Evil as they see fit, depending on FLI decisions or in the case that a Good backstabs another Good but doesn't get him killed, etc. That could get fun!

[Tynian]

Let god+ add or remove points towards Good or Evil as they see fit, depending on FLI decisions or in the case that a Good backstabs another Good but doesn't get him killed, etc. That could get fun!

Though I would indeed like the ability to add or subtract points for special recognition or situation, god+ having to monitor for things that fall outside of the code defeats the purpose of Wish's scheme, which is a system-monitored objective solution.

[wish]

Tynian said:
So, with your proposal, we wouldn't worry about who steals from whom, or who spells up whom, or corpse looting, or anything else?


Steals could be coded for, since it is a basic boolean function.

As for spelling up or corpse looting, no I don't think we should be worrying about that from a code perspective. In my opinion, actions such as looting a corpse (which technically is ownerless) or spelling up somone, are not inherently evil or good acts. Corpse looting and "spelling up" could be handled the same way it is now - by the FLI. With my proposed system there would be no real advantage to spell up the other side, or to loot from ones own side, i.e. a good of another follower.

This system will encourage more team work amongst similarly aligned followings. There will always remain variances, since some FLI's may not want to be "as good" or "as evil" as others. Oh well, the sacrifice they make with this decision is to be less powerful and therefore more vulnerable. Some may be fine with that.

I do not think we should be thinking in relativistic terms here, where everyone has the same opportunity to be powerful no matter what their choices. The game should be rewarding those who stay committed to strong goals and objectives and those that execute towards those goals most effectively. In other words, the more committed you are to evil or good, and the more you act upon that commitment, the more powerful you should be able to become.

Yes, in RL, sometimes the most powerful are the middle ground folks, the negotiators, and the mediators. By contrast, I would argue that for this type of game it is the fanatics and the zealots on either side who create excitement, conflict, loyalty, adversity, etc. etc.

Wish, Foul Sepiod of the Black Conclave

[Nicademus]

Although I fear this is all becoming a huge waste of time, I figured I would comment on your idea Wish.

While many of your suggestions have merit, the ignore the importance of followings such as those of Nalya or Rhina. Under the system you suggest, followings who do not follow your definition of good or evil (ie aggressive) would suffer significantly. This would be a huge disservice to the mud, as there is a place for followings who practice good or evil in their own way. For example, if neutrality were eliminated, Cordir would choose between good or evil, but in reality would likely continue to run her following in the manner which she runs it now. Should her followers be punished because they do not believe in the blind aggression required to reap the benefits from the code you suggest?

I know this would be harder, but perhaps the code could be tweaked to rely more on the pacifist/sword thing we had before. That a following (regardless of good or evil) who is not aggressive gets stronger and better protective spells. When they violate that status (ie pacifist) they run the risk of losing the protective spells, etc. In contrast, aggressive followings would benefit from stronger and better attack spells based on their aggressiveness. If they fail to maintain that level, they similarly would lose some of their abilities designed to aid aggression.

Just some thoughts on your well thought out idea wish.

-Nic

[Tamar]

I haven't read the other replies so ignore if I'm repeating. Here are my suggestions for absolute rules for good vs. evil:

Good
Does not lie in words or actions.

Evil
Does whatever the heck they want within the TFC rules. (Although personally I prefer the old version of evil a la the Conclave years ago where people were honestly evil -- "I'm going to kill you!" "Yes I'll hold your stuff for you now & give it back safely but if I get you alone one day I'm going to kill you!")

[Solaron]

I haven't read the other replies so ignore if I'm repeating. Here are my suggestions for absolute rules for good vs. evil:

Good
Does not lie in words or actions.

Evil
Does whatever the heck they want within the TFC rules. (Although personally I prefer the old version of evil a la the Conclave years ago where people were honestly evil -- "I'm going to kill you!" "Yes I'll hold your stuff for you now & give it back safely but if I get you alone one day I'm going to kill you!")

Agreed in theory. Hard to enforce in reality. That's why we need some hard-coded incentives for each side, in my opinion.

[Tynian]

I do not think we should be thinking in relativistic terms here, where everyone has the same opportunity to be powerful no matter what their choices. The game should be rewarding those who stay committed to strong goals and objectives and those that execute towards those goals most effectively. In other words, the more committed you are to evil or good, and the more you act upon that commitment, the more powerful you should be able to become.

My primary concern is the narrow scope. To just base it on PKs seems too narrow to me.

[Tynian]

I know this would be harder, but perhaps the code could be tweaked to rely more on the pacifist/sword thing we had before. That a following (regardless of good or evil) who is not aggressive gets stronger and better protective spells. When they violate that status (ie pacifist) they run the risk of losing the protective spells, etc.

Interesting point. Sounds a lot like a following that is neutral, in regards to PK...

[Maeron]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't check up on these things too often. don't we have chaotic evils and Lawful evils, and likewise for Goods?

Let's not look at it like Evils get free reign of the realm, and goods are boxxed in to defined rules.

I'm not sure it should be ok for lawful evils to trick people or do whatever they please. I'm pretty sure Molo does not allow that to happen in his following. Chaotic Evils on the other hand should probably be allowed to do pretty much whatever they please.

On the opposite side, Lawful Goods should be the example of honor and virtue, stamping out evil in an honorable way. Chaotic Goods may have a different point of view, that it is ok to do something evil to better the realm.

I would give goods an incentive to be Good, nothitng comes to mind at the moment. Also, there is a fair amount of halfway decent limiteds that are AG, I'd say reomve the AG ones, or add some more AE ones.

[Pol]

Aligment is a tool, not a straightjacket. It's supposed to help one define how they play and what they do.

The game should provide benefits/consequences in a balanced way such that both sides have incentives/disincentives to play a particular alignment.

On that note, what can really be enforced by code?

1. Access to spells
2. Debt and Justs - PK and Stealing
3. Grouping
4. XP based on mob alignment
5. Usage of certain aligned items/equipment
6. Access to certain areas (vis Shrines)
7. Spell-casting
8. Damage adjustments
9. Interaction with mobs.

I'm sure there are more potentials, but just using this list, consider these code fesatures:

1. Shoppies are aligned and will *not* sell to opposing alignments.
2. XP bonuses are granted when killing a mob of opposed alignment.
3. Heal is *good only*. Evils get Cure Crit (or perhaps only Cure Serious and Neutrals get Cure Crit, but no Heal).
4. Beneficial Cleric spells cannot be cast on chars of opposing alignment.
5. Racist guards continue to be aggro against characters at higher levels of opposed alignment.
6. Aligned "safe" rooms. An evil casually resting in "The Temple of Ultimate Goodness" would be most unwelcome there by the powers that be and most certainly not afforded the same protections.
7. Increasing the frequency of anti-aligned randoms.
8. Sentinal mobs assist same aligned/attack opposing aligned characters.

The majority of common mobs are neutral. For animals and non-sentient mobs, this makes sense. For sentient mobs, however, it doesn't. Why do towns full of blue aura'ed citizens have non-aligned guards and shoppies?

Some towns are blue-aligned, others are red-aligned, and a few (Midgard, Aaran, Half-Elf Camp, perhaps?) are truly tolerant of either alignment.

In short, to support greater differences in alignment of characters, the world itself needs to display greater differences in alignmentl.

My $.02 for the day :)

Pol O'Song,
Imp of Fate
Mist Slayer
Borean Court Mage
Last of Sinclair
Holder of Tel's Light
Co-Founder, Damage Inc.
Danger Mouse.

[Nicademus]

Interesting point. Sounds a lot like a following that is neutral, in regards to PK...

My point is that making a ridgid code would take out all flexability in how you run a following. I beg to differ however on your assessment. There would be no code protection for non-aggressive evil or good followings. They can still function as evil or good. However, they would be making the decision on whether they want to be offensive or defensive. If they choose to go defensive, they need to practice what they preach, but get the benefit of better defensive spells. Again, the opposite would work for the aggressive followings. I was merely suggesting this as a counterbalance to Wish's concept which would in effect require everyone to be aggressive.

Correct me if I am wrong Tynian, but you added neutral, to some extent because some people (not sure what you thought because its often hard to decipher) that pking was too rampant. Following Wish's concept would simply result in constant killing and conflict leaving no room for followings like Rhina, Nalyla and to some extent Cordir. If that is your ultimate goal that is fine, but a code only rewarding aggression seems silly without some benefit to those who dont wish to be aggressive. Again, there is no real advantage to either side, because one side would only get better aggressive skills and the other get better defensive.

[Tynian]

I beg to differ however on your assessment. There would be no code protection for non-aggressive evil or good followings.

I didn't mean to suggest that there necessarily would be, only that it might suggest a third option aside from the two that sides that are are theoretically devoting their lives to killing one other.

Correct me if I am wrong Tynian, but you added neutral, to some extent because some people (not sure what you thought because its often hard to decipher) that pking was too rampant.

I added it because to officially acknowledge that there are players that are not interested in PKing, and perhaps steer FLIs away from running passive Good followings that violated alignment by helping Evils, and passive Evil alignments that weren't "really evil" in their critics' view.

This is why I am trying to clarify the rules that Good and Evil play under (regardless of whether or not there's a Neutral alignment). If self-perceived alignment is "bad" (and that's certainly what I'm hearing), and we'd rather have firm alignment 'rules', I need to know what those rules are.

As Wish has mentioned, rules that can be programmed into the game have a much better chance of being enforced, and enforced consistantly. That can, of course, be a good or bad thing.

[wish]

Tynian said:
My primary concern is the narrow scope. To just base it on PKs seems too narrow to me.

If there was a way to code for more subjective actions such as corpse loots, or helping someone equip, I would be all for including those types of criteria in the code. However, I believe that games work best when they have clear-cut, objective criteria. Yes, it may be narrow in scope to rely solely on PK's and steals, but I am not sure I see a problem with that. There is simply no way to accommodate all the variations in actions and morality that exist in RL, and when you try to do so in a gaming environment, you only serve to dilute the gaming experience for all.

Nicademus said:
While many of your suggestions have merit, the ignore the importance of followings such as those of Nalya or Rhina. Under the system you suggest, followings who do not follow your definition of good or evil (ie aggressive) would suffer significantly.

Again, we get into trying to make accommodations for everyone no matter what their choices, and I am against this. In my opinion, relativism has no place in the gaming experience, for reasons I have already stated. Let's take any game...Monopoly for example. You roll the dice, you move your piece, you buy property, you charge rent, you try to put everyone else out of business. No one is forcing you to buy property. If you want, you can choose not to, and just pay rent. You won't win the game, and in fact you will probably be the first person out. Oh well, it was your choice. I don't think many people will be sending letters to Milton Bradley asking them to change the game so that rentors only can win.

The same goes for TFC, or any game, in my opinion. Followings that choose to sit on the sidelines do so at their own peril. If they can find a way to last and enjoy the game within the parameters, fine. If not, well, it was nice knowing you.

Wish, Foul Sepiod of the Black Conclave

[Nicademus]

I get what you are saying Wish, but do we risk alienating a significant portion of the playerbase by making this a mud that only provides incentives to pkers?

What is your opposition to having clear cut rules for people that want to be in an aggressive following and for people that want to be in a more passive following? The code would not be protecting their behavior, but it would allow them to act as they want to act and still provide rules that are coded and must be followed.

I also find your comment about accomodating everyone interesting. What you are saying, is that the type of mud you want should be accomodated regardless of what other people want?

I see no reason why the coding you suggest could not be implemented for aggressive followings and an alternative code be put in for less aggressive. Again, this does not mean pacifist and it does not mean neutral. It just means that a following that doesnt want to focus on killing will get more defensive skills/spells and have to follow a different set of rules. Your ideas would all be applicable to the aggressive followings. From an alternative perspective, those in the defensive followings dedicate their time and efforts to honing defensive skills while the aggressives work on developing different ways to kill people.

[wish]

Nic said:
I get what you are saying Wish, but do we risk alienating a significant portion of the playerbase by making this a mud that only provides incentives to pkers?


Yes.

Nic said:
What is your opposition to having clear cut rules for people that want to be in an aggressive following and for people that want to be in a more passive following? The code would not be protecting their behavior, but it would allow them to act as they want to act and still provide rules that are coded and must be followed.


My only opposition to it is purely from a game experience stand point, as I want to get as many people involved in a larger conflict experience as possible. If you can find a way to code that promotes passive followings to act as more than just innocent bystanders, I am all for it

Nic said:
What you are saying, is that the type of mud you want should be accomodated regardless of what other people want?

Yes, I thought that was the point of the forums, to express our personal opinions, likes and dislikes, and to argue one's point of view. Let me be crystal clear: I am arguing for a specific type of gaming experience, and I should hope others would argue strenuously for their own preferences.


Wish, Foul Sepiod of the Black Conclave

[Solaron]

I'm in agreement with Wish on this aspect: We need to get all of the players involved in the conflict as much as possible. Give them a vested interest in it.

That said, followings like Rhina's or Cordir's would be able to retrieve evil corpses, help newbies and be pacifist; they would just miss out on some of the abilities available to the more 'zealous' (to quote Wish) of the Goods.

In my mind (note, this is my opinion) being fence-sitters or uninvolved or passive should not be rewarded. Sure, you can do it. And you'll deal with your lackluster rewards, when compared to those who get involved, make a stand and live (or die!) for it.

[Nicademus]

Solaron,

My concern is that one of the problems we have now is balance. Wish's idea, taken in its purest form, would widen the gap between the players. We really cannot afford to alienate a large population of people.

However, I agree that conflict is extremely important. I was just talking to wish and thought of an idea. Goods and evils get experience for pking someone of the opposite alignment. When I say xp, I envision significant xp, something along the lines of 100 xp per level (just a suggestion). Therefore if you kill a level 50, you would get 5000 xp for the kill. I think this would provide significant incentive, as you could in theory level solely based on playerkills.

Id be interested on thoughts about this. The huge concern would be abuse. However, I think that this is the kind of thing that could easily be monitored as pks do not happen to that great an extent.

-Nic

[Solaron]

Solaron,

My concern is that one of the problems we have now is balance. Wish's idea, taken in its purest form, would widen the gap between the players. We really cannot afford to alienate a large population of people.

However, I agree that conflict is extremely important. I was just talking to wish and thought of an idea. Goods and evils get experience for pking someone of the opposite alignment. When I say xp, I envision significant xp, something along the lines of 100 xp per level (just a suggestion). Therefore if you kill a level 50, you would get 5000 xp for the kill. I think this would provide significant incentive, as you could in theory level solely based on playerkills.

Id be interested on thoughts about this. The huge concern would be abuse. However, I think that this is the kind of thing that could easily be monitored as pks do not happen to that great an extent.

-Nic

They may not currently, but that hasn't always been the case.

Perhaps Wish's idea shouldn't be taken in its purest form, but modified to fit everyone.... although I do feel that Goods and Evils in PK following have their own consequences they face, and passive followings should face their own consequences, which they would under a system similar to Wish's.

[Nicademus]

They may not currently, but that hasn't always been the case.

Perhaps Wish's idea shouldn't be taken in its purest form, but modified to fit everyone.... although I do feel that Goods and Evils in PK following have their own consequences they face, and passive followings should face their own consequences, which they would under a system similar to Wish's.

1) I think my suggestion was to do something similar to what Wish suggested, but to add a similar code for more passive followings, with both options have advantages and consequences;

2) I really would like to hear your comments about the xp for pk idea...

-Nic

[Tynian]

My concern is that one of the problems we have now is balance. Wish's idea, taken in its purest form, would widen the gap between the players. We really cannot afford to alienate a large population of people.

However, I agree that conflict is extremely important.

My off the cuff reaction is this: Taking Wish's idea, in its purest form, would sink us.

Some people like to PK. PK is all some like to do. Some people like to dabble in PK. Some people don't like to PK at all, but enjoy the challenge of avoiding the 'baddies'. Still others would be just as happy if there weren't any PKers.

But Wish's proposed change because we need more 'conflict' does not compute. Those that like to PK will continue to PK. Those that don't, won't.

Joe Killer may see even less action under the proposed model. After all, if he's evil, killing a fellow evil would be scored as a good act, and hurt the following. That is, unless almost all of the other followings are Good.

Regardless, we aren't going to turn non-PKers into PKers by changing the system. What will likely happen if we put the squeeze on them is that they'll disappear. Thus, less targets. Less targets mean less interest for the hard core PKer, who as a result is also more likely to move on.

That doesn't sound like a winning combination to me. What am I missing?

[Solaron]

I think the XP idea is good - I had a similar one in a separate thread about rewards for PK in the form of trophies. Many of our best PKers are level 50, and care little about XP. A trophy/reward system PK is definitely a great idea however, I agree.

In the system I envision from Wish's input... let me give an example. We've got, oh, the Conclave, we've got Cordir, we've got Thor, we've got Mystaya and we've got Solanthas.

On a scale of 10 to -10, 10 being "zealously good" and -10 being 'zealously evil':

Solanthas: 10
Thor: 6
Cordir: 2
Mystaya: -3
Molo: -10

My numbers may be a little off, so I don't want to hear any 'Solaron, I'm not that bad' or 'I'm way worse than that.'. It's an example!

So, Solanthas; followers, being Good to the point of being TOO good (read: Istar from Dragonlance) are limited to casting beneficial spells on their fellow followers ONLY, perhaps they get a 'righteous fury' spell that does increased damage to evils, they do more melee damage to evils, perhaps their bless is improved, maybe they can't be cast on beneficially by non-members, who knows. Evil mobs give them a high amount of XP. Maybe Solanthas receives a mana boost. Maybe at this point they can ONLY attack evils unless justified.

Thor's members receive standard XP. They do get the better bless along with increase damage vs. evils. Their cost to buy things from good merchants is 75% of normal.

Cordir's members receive standard and XP, spells, damage and pricing.

Mystaya's members do not have heal but their harm spell costs only half the standard mana cost. They have standard XP, spells and damage. Evil vendors give them a small discount, making them pay 90% of normal. Perhaps they can mask their aura.

Molo's members receive the link spell. Their debt increases at twice the normal pace. They have increased damage vs. any sociopath or good. Molo receives bonus mana. Guards occasionally announce their presence when they walk by.



That's how I envision the system. That could be -totally- off what others are thinking, but I think that would be pretty fun. By the way, the penalties and benefits were off the top of my head in about 2 minutes, I'm sure much better ones would be used.

[Thor]

On paper, I like Wish's idea. However, I do have some objections to it. I know you didn't say disallow completely evils attacking other evils. But, the fact remains that there are way more active evil PCs than good ones. And if neutral were removed, I have a feeling that the majority, if not all, of the currently neutral followings would go evil. Now, if the majority of the player online at a given time are evil and the evils reduce their power by attacking other evils then the currently bored eff 50s, etc... will be even more bored. And if evils stop attacking other evils because that would almost make all evil followings allies. The same thing would happen with all good followings. The real world example of the serial killer doesn't really work, although it was a good one, I think, because in the real world the other serial killer just dies. On TFC the evils that kill another evil get his/her eq. This eq will either be spread throught that evil following, used to upgrade the killer's eq set, or sold/traded. I see this as producing very little net gain in favor of the goods. Sure, one evil died but, one or more evils got stronger and the evil that died will soon re-eq.

I do like the idea of having such clear cut sides, but I'm not sure how well it would work with multiple followings like we have now.

Now, in regards to the xp for a pk...I don't think it would provide any more incentive, espcially at the higher levels. If I'm eff 50, I really couldn't care less about gaining 5000 xp.

[Nicademus]

My off the cuff reaction is this: Taking Wish's idea, in its purest form, would sink us.

Regardless, we aren't going to turn non-PKers into PKers by changing the system. What will likely happen if we put the squeeze on them is that they'll disappear. Thus, less targets. Less targets mean less interest for the hard core PKer, who as a result is also more likely to move on.


I agree completely. As I mentioned to Wish, I think we could easily lose 50% of our playerbase implementing these pure ideas. Again, I think there might be a way to increase the "conflict", but this cannot be turned into a mud where the only people who thrive are the pkers (even under the current system think about who are the most powerful players...).

However, we can easily construct a system that rewards people separately and distinctly based on the way they want to play. I disagree that we need to choose one type of player over the other. The overriding theme here should be to increase the playerbase and that means bringing in people who want various different things. My guess is that there are plenty of muds you can find where you just go around killing people. In fact, most of those people probably are playing the more graphical muds which are cutting into TFC(s) playerbase.

-Nic

[Nicademus]

Now, in regards to the xp for a pk...I don't think it would provide any more incentive, espcially at the higher levels. If I'm eff 50, I really couldn't care less about gaining 5000 xp.

1) Most people arent level 50;
2) Ive often wondered what incentive level 50(s) have to do anything, or even retired immortals for that matter (let them start new characters).
3) Level 50(s) should have their own incentives to get involved (following pride, ego, etc).
4) And I think people have in the past suggested that there should be something for level 50(s) to do outside of this discussion.

You state that you dont think it would provide incentive at higher levels? We all know what a pain the xp is at those high levels? Seems to me that a pk for 4000-5000 xp would be a nice way to get those final levels (isnt that part of the logic behind mobmaster?).

I think nixing this idea based on the fact that level 50(s) dont need xp is a little shortsighted.

[Nicademus]

I think the XP idea is good - I had a similar one in a separate thread about rewards for PK in the form of trophies. Many of our best PKers are level 50, and care little about XP. A trophy/reward system PK is definitely a great idea however, I agree.

In the system I envision from Wish's input... let me give an example. We've got, oh, the Conclave, we've got Cordir, we've got Thor, we've got Mystaya and we've got Solanthas.

On a scale of 10 to -10, 10 being "zealously good" and -10 being 'zealously evil':

Solanthas: 10
Thor: 6
Cordir: 2
Mystaya: -3
Molo: -10

My numbers may be a little off, so I don't want to hear any 'Solaron, I'm not that bad' or 'I'm way worse than that.'. It's an example!

So, Solanthas; followers, being Good to the point of being TOO good (read: Istar from Dragonlance) are limited to casting beneficial spells on their fellow followers ONLY, perhaps they get a 'righteous fury' spell that does increased damage to evils, they do more melee damage to evils, perhaps their bless is improved, maybe they can't be cast on beneficially by non-members, who knows. Evil mobs give them a high amount of XP. Maybe Solanthas receives a mana boost. Maybe at this point they can ONLY attack evils unless justified.

Thor's members receive standard XP. They do get the better bless along with increase damage vs. evils. Their cost to buy things from good merchants is 75% of normal.

Cordir's members receive standard and XP, spells, damage and pricing.

Mystaya's members do not have heal but their harm spell costs only half the standard mana cost. They have standard XP, spells and damage. Evil vendors give them a small discount, making them pay 90% of normal. Perhaps they can mask their aura.

Molo's members receive the link spell. Their debt increases at twice the normal pace. They have increased damage vs. any sociopath or good. Molo receives bonus mana. Guards occasionally announce their presence when they walk by.



That's how I envision the system. That could be -totally- off what others are thinking, but I think that would be pretty fun. By the way, the penalties and benefits were off the top of my head in about 2 minutes, I'm sure much better ones would be used.

Interesting concepts- I would not want to code it... (although I have NO idea how hard it would be, it just sounds difficult)

[Solaron]

You're right, I'm sure. Idiocy on my part.

::doh::

[wish]

This will be my last post on this topic, as I risk repeating myself.

I agree, my ideas are probably too drastic for TFC to implement all at once, and would certainly drive away a segment of the population. With that said, however, I fear that TFC tries to cater to too many demographics and should instead try to focus on a single one. I have already said that I believe that demographic should be those folks who want to participate in a larger evil vs. good conflict, however you want to code that.

I believe that when you try to make the game fun for everyone, you water down the game as a whole and you also then have to downplay peoples achievements. Here is my last analogy.

Let's say there is a high school dance with an award for the best dancer. Now, a segment of the population doesn't like to dance and instead just wants to sit against the wall. Fine, that is their choice. Now, imagine a teacher says "Wait a second. Why shouldn't the wall flowers have as much fun as the dancers, and not only that, we should create an award for the best wallflower so that they can feel like they are just as welcome at the dance as everyone else."

That is what I feel TFC has become: a place where the wallflowers get rewarded just as much as the dancers, just so we can keep them coming to the dance.

Wish, Foul Sepiod of the Black Conclave

[Gomo]

on wish's proposal, doesn't that reduce the MUD to a pure PK MUD, if the sole coded determinant is killing? if goods MUST kill evils to become "more good," it seems the MUD becomes very narrowed in focus.

[Solaron]

on wish's proposal, doesn't that reduce the MUD to a pure PK MUD, if the sole coded determinant is killing? if goods MUST kill evils to become "more good," it seems the MUD becomes very narrowed in focus.

Sure, you have to kill evils to become more good IF you want the benefits of being more good. If not, then don't. You won't be the most fanatical 'good' out there, but who cares?

Re-read his post and see where he agreed that he's pushing for the MUD to focus on something instead of catering to everything.

[Gomo]

sorry. the last page of replies were posted before i actually responded, so i didn't see those to respond to, solaron.

i'm certainly in favor of the ideas advocating different skill set, xp rates, etc. based on the FLI alignment.

as far as pk initiative, perhaps a system akin to the mortal-run guilds system. it's an idea someone proposed somewhere else... based on a quantitative measurement of pks (so not how many lower levels can you knock off), give FLIs the ability to add to temples... add shoppie mobs... add WWP with small effects... give FLIs abilities to give followers rooms of their own, even. the temples, then become like large estates.

with this idea, of course, comes the rub of non-aggressive followings... so, the same rewards can be given for helping newbies (players can trigger a helper toggle which eliminates many functions of game play, but can officially log time for helping), for creating rooms (read: not necessarily zones) specifically for rp-experience, for running quests (mortals), for taking up occupations and performing necessary services (running around the realm to find ingredients to concoct brights to sell)... etc.

of course, this is very vague, and a major overhaul of the code. but speaking for myself, if i want to play a pk mud, i'd rather go play halo 2.

[Tynian]

Are there any other proposals on what rules Good followings and Evil followings must comply with, in order to be considered 'in compliance' with their alignment?

[Nicademus]

Are there any other proposals on what rules Good followings and Evil followings must comply with, in order to be considered 'in compliance' with their alignment?

Are you talking about general guidelines or coding issues?

[Tynian]

Things that a Good or Evil following can and cannot do, whether it involves coding or not.

[Nicademus]

ok- the problem is, this is not an issue as simple as what one can and cannot do, it also should consider the benefits and disadvantages. It sounds like you are looking for some absolute rules... the problem, in a vacum, is that evil will have far less rule (the nature of evil). To offset that, we need to give good some advantages. Do you want a discussion of that as well?

[Nicademus]

Things that a Good or Evil following can and cannot do, whether it involves coding or not.

Goods

Can PK any evil (for xp)
Can PK UA based on pk status (ie miscreant) (possible xp)
Limited PK range
Can loot evil corpses
Can loot UA corpses of UA(s) that have killed goods, with possible level limits pk status as above
Can group with any good
Cannot group with any evil or UA that has kills good.
Cannot cast beneficial spells on evils (should have spells that only work on goods)
Cannot cast beneficial spells on UAs that kill goods (also good id marks not viewable by evil/possible ability to make certain items good only)
Cannot trade/sell with evils or UA that kill goods

Evils

Can kill anyone (no xp)
Wide range of PK
Cannot have certain spells cast on them (bless, heal, etc)
Can group with other evil followings or UA but possible downside to such grouping (need to develop)
Can sell or deal with anyone
Can loot

These are some ideas. The problem is that in a vacum it makes good look horrible. That is why we also need to discuss the benefits each align will get in addition the coding cans and cannots.

[Tamar]

Do these ideas need to take into account the different "flavors" of good and evil too? While I see the benefit to being chaotic good myself (I can do nice things for people while rifting Schwartz, because isn't that for the greater good?) I think that maybe the splitting of good & evil into chaotic/neutral/lawful has somehow contributed to loss of epic good vs. evil stuff.

[Tynian]

Trying to code variations for Chaotic and Lawful would be way too much. I'd have enough trouble with just the Good and Evil 'sides'. I tend to regard the lawfuls and chaotics as window dressing. I'm not sure how anyone else (currently) feels.

[Pol]

I don't think it reasonable to have a following like FoLK or Passion be subjected to the same expectations as WarDancers or even Unity as far as structured alignments go.

Good is good in its own way, based on the ethos and mission of the following.

The same is true of Evil. Mischief, Hunt, Conclave, etc. all did Evil their own way.

One can code to make Good, Neutral or Evil equally attractive choices for different reasons, I think. However, coding (or even mud-wide policies) to enforce playing one's alignment a particular way is unnecessarily restrictive at best or impossible at worst.

This follows rule #1 of Engineering - never implement a system solution to a people problem.

With that in mind, perhaps what's needed to enforce Evil and Good playing their respective alignments is to put human judgement into the mix.

Seems to me the directive should go to the FLI's to monitor their followings to make sure each member is working towards fulfilling the following's mission, be it good or evil.

If a Good refuses to do a CR for a newbie, the FLI should bust them. If an Evil returns a corpse intact, the FLI should bust them.

Barring that, perhaps another way of doing this is to have some sort of peer review/control. FLI's aren't always on, or if they are, they may not have the time or inclination to snoop all of their followers and see what they're doing and make sure they are playing in alignment.

I ran a NWN server for a couple of years and we had a peer review system for RP that worked pretty well. Players could give other players "RP Tokens". Any player could only give any other player 1 token per day and each player only received 2 tokens per level to give. Periodically (about twice a month), I'd do a token check and see who received tokens and from whom. If a player had a few RP tokens from multiple people, they'd receive some sort of arbitrary prize. We made sure the prizes were good enough to incent players to RP as much as possible, of course.

I could forsee a "voting" system, of sorts, on TFC. Subject to constraints of time and frequency, one could "vote" on how well another plays their alignment. Given enough votes, the player receives some sort of recognition or prize.

I know this spurred a lot of creativity in how our players played - they now had to impress their peers to get the goodies, and many of them went to great lengths to do so. "Good" players embarked on near suicidal rescue missions, "Evil" players dreamt up some *really* freakin' vile things to do to other players. We had Paladins standing their ground against angry mobs wanting the head of a captured Drow ensuring it got a fair trial. Assassins setting up marks in clever and convoluted plots. It was really great fun.

Part of what made it work, however, was the players' ability to step back from their character and appreciate the work of another character. Good characters would grant Evil characters tokens for evil and vice versa. I'm not so sure the culture here on TFC would support this, but I thought it worth mentioning.

At any rate, my recommendation would be to avoid things like XP for PK's or limits on how Goods/Evils can interact with each other directly and focus on the role of Good/Evil in the world in general (per my previous post on this thread) and introduce some cultural incentives to make RP more meaningful.

Just some ideers :)

Pol O'Song

[pitt]

I tend to think that one of the main reasons that TFC has had a large number of long-term players that don't pk is the fact that everyone is always at some kind of risk. The risk that somebody might jump out of nowhere and kill you in a heartbeat is always kind of exciting and definitely helps maintain interest.

I don't think that risk has to be _such_ a risk, though. If non-pkers only lost some inventory and maybe a worn item or two when pked, it seems to me that they'd be a little more willing to venture out of the guild and play sheep for the pkers. And for most pkers, surely it's the kill more than the loot that keeps them interested anyway? As long as they still get something, and the victim doesn't want it to happen, it'll still be fun for the killers.

Without such a devastating risk for the non-pkers, and with more sheep to hunt, wouldn't everybody be happier?



I suppose the problem is that the time limit for the pacifist/sociopath system is too flexible to be the basis for such a system. If someone was to make some good kills and gather a great set, then safesit until they were a pacifist again, they'd be kinda unassailable. For simplicity's sake, I'd think that making players opt for either the pk or non-pk path would be the simplest way to do it.

Edit: It's late and I need sleep. I don't think I posted this in the right thread. I've lost track.. maybe I'll figure it out in the morning :P

[jaeden]

There need not be different rules for chaotic/lawful. These are variations of the same alignment often explained in a particular god(dess)'s laws. Good is Good. Evil is Evil.

Anyone else feel like a box of chocolates?

As for the "sheep"..well, What about the stringent code put into place that makes it damn near impossible for a pk to happen without hideously high debt? With the amount of neutral followings currently in the realm, PK IS a strategic choice. "Will this guy's gear pay for my debt? Is he worth it?"

[eldric]

I've said it in another thread: Lack of limitations shouldn't make something more appealing. Why not add in special skills and spells for classes of different alignments? And not cookie-cutter skills like 'Dispel Good' for Evils and then 'Dispel Evil' for Goods.

You could give Goods bonus XP while killing Evil, lower prices with shoppies, much smaller debt for attacking evils regardless of PK status, as well. Things like this would provide some form of balance to the otherwise Evil-heavy alignment issue.

This seems to make sense for me, since I am a good OM I should get deep discounts from shoppies. Well really from the one that sells the pretty rings neat MoK. ::whistle::


Oh Eldric long time no see I have this fine simple ring on special for you today only 500k.

[Furnock]

Trying to code variations for Chaotic and Lawful would be way too much. I'd have enough trouble with just the Good and Evil 'sides'. I tend to regard the lawfuls and chaotics as window dressing. I'm not sure how anyone else (currently) feels.

Refer to my post in the Neutrality thread. The Final Challenge is the Stage, Struggle of Good Vs. Evil is the script. That script needs to be held to by the letter. How I perform my role is the spirit.

Take Good vs Evil out of it and make it primary colors. Bloo vs RED. Bloo and Red have different shade but they do not have different interpretations. Light Bloo is still Bloo and Dark Red is still Red.
And for the sake of argument, we'll throw in Yellow as UA or N. Those that get caught in the middle. I think armies call them collateral. They need to be included because we are not born with an alignment.
**Redundancy Warning*
Bloo
Cannot Kill other Bloo player or NPC
Can and is encouraged to kill all RED player or NPC
Can kill Yellow player or NPC but may not be encourged to.
Can Help Bloo or Yellow but not Red
Limitations on EQ based on Alignment. Cannot use Anti-Bloo.

RED
Can kill other RED player or NPC. May even be encouraged to.
Can and is encouraged to kill Bloo player or NPC
Can kill Yellow player or NPC
Can Help Red or Yellow but not Bloo
Limitations on EQ based on Alignment. Cannot use Anti-Red

Yellow
Cannot initiate against Red or Bloo but can retaliate. Wanna fight? Choose a side. However, if the fight is brought to you, pack a lunch.
Cannot initiate against Yellow
Can and is encouraged to join a following
*End Redundancy*

See the word encouraged above. That's where the Lawful vs Chaotic comes in. For Lawful, it wouldn't be encouraged it would be manditory. For Chaotic, encouraged would mean "Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't"

IMHO.