Advocating the removal of neutrality

[Isolas]

While I am most certainly against it, I've read multiple people giving support for the removal of the neutral alignment. I'd like to know people's justifications for it, as perhaps my views are clouded by remembering backwards and not looking forward.


Arguments?

[Isolas]

As they've commented already, I've posted this from another thread:




Originally Posted by wish
I believe that TFC is essentially a game of conflict, and that conflict is actually reduced when you create grey areas for people to play in. When there is a clear demarcation between alignments and followings, it fosters better game play and more interesting stories because of the inherent conflict that it creates. This is a line I have argued before, and I know there are those out there that disagree with me. However, I believe that the creation of distinct groups with competing values (even artificially) is the engine that keeps this mud running. The more you water that down, the more you can expect boredom to be a big problem. There is a reason why the greatest stories have traditionally been those with clear antagonists and protagonists playing the major roles. Atriedes vs. Harkonnen, Frodo vs. Sauron, Cain vs. Abel. The list goes on and on.

Originally Posted by Solaron
I agree. Neutrality is more of a hindrance than it is a help. It needs to be removed.

While their arguments are valid as well, I was posting this in hopes that others would respond too.

[Tay]

I like neutrility, it is part of the game now, you just cant take it out.and im not sure i understand your views Solaron, i know your neutral, you dont like neutrals, i think your neutral to prove a point, im not sure if others are getting it :p

[Thor]

I'll be the first to admit. I'm somewhat surprised to see Solaron being one of the most outspoken voices for removal of the neutral alignment.

That being said, I agree with what he's saying. Neutrals on TFC is one of my biggest soap boxes, one which I won't get on here. I believe in the two sided struggle as well. For the most part, NOT ALL, I see people joining neutral followings just as a way out. It's like, "Well, because I'm neutral and can chose to actually be evil or be good, whatever give me the advantage at that particular second." But I suppose this all leads back to the "self-perceived" alignment. In my opinion, and that's just what it is, Solaron and Isolas have done an excellent job being truely being what I'd consider neutral. Although Solaron is more evil, at least he's evil to everyone equally now. That's almost neutral. :)

In short, I just think TFC would be better off with two sides. There would be less accusations of being neutral just to have anti-good and anti-evil spells, etc...

[Katrana]

This is the same topic, but I'd like to see the reverse question answered to those who do want it, why keep it? All I see is, "it's part of the game," and "I am against it." I have the same beliefs Solaron does, but we've talked about it for hours on end. Yes, we're geeks.

But honestly, for those who want to keep it, why do you want to keep it? From a game perspective, why should we keep it, and why are you against the removal of them from the game? I'm not asking to be smartaleck, I truly want to know your views as well. Sol and I tried to argue for and against this same point a few months ago, and it always ended up, we could not. I want to see if there is something we've missed! :D

[wish]

Do I believe that the creation of neutrality is the root of all of TFC's problems? Certainly not. What I do believe is that if what you want to do is foster conflict, create interesting stories, and strong relationships, neutrality does not help. By its very nature, neutrality operates to reduce conflict. I just don't see that fostering exciting game play.

Now, I know Cordir might say "In what way does the existence of my following prevent other followings from engaging in conflict?" or "My followers have created some of the most interesting characters, and work hard to create interesting stories."

Well, on an individual basis, I can't disagree with her. She has run her following about as well as I can imagine a neutral following could be run.

As a group, however, neutral followings stay out of the larger conflicts. There are no epic battles between neutrals and others of differing philosophies. They defend themselves, and that is pretty much it. They do not engage in a concerted effort to promote their view point, they simply wish to be left alone. They certainly do not try to "convert".

In my opinion, multiplayer role playing games work best when there is a larger conflict to engage in. Without this conflict, the game degenerates into simply hack-and-slash. With a limited player base, neutral followings dilute the number of participants engaging in the larger conflict. Perhaps once TFC had a big enough player base to afford having players stand on the sidelines. I do not believe it has it anymore.

Wish, Foul Sepiod of the Black Conclave

[jaerith]

Indeed, the invertebrate has a beautiful point. Two tentacles up.

[boromir]

Greetings::D
Having read all the postings for and aganist neutrality, it has once again become a topic of some importance.

I would like to offer a differing opinion, not quite for neutrality and not quite aganist it. (truly a centered appoach - almost neutral ::cool:: ).
Rather than remove the neutral alignment all together, modify the attributes of the classes when neutral aligned.
Some examples would be: (note: any other character would be good, evil OR UA) (these changes affect the neutral character unless othrewise stated)
1) only defensive spells when engaged in a fight with another non-mob char (aside from the Ordained Neutral Mortal) for both pking and sparring
1a) shield cloak armor sanct woud be enabled
1b) no dispel, rift, magic missile or any any other offensive spells
1c) protection evil and protection good would be enabled

2) no alliances with neutral followings by good or evil followings

3) all guards attack any neutral aligned character period.

4) charisma is reduced by 50% when neutral characters are dealing with shoppies

5) For defensive spells, the spell effectiveness would be boosted 25% when engaged in a fight with a non-mob char.

6) When xpin, all offensive spells would be enabled, if learned

7) if attacked while xpin, NO offensive spells of any type

8) Good and Evil followings would have protection neutral and dispel neutral

9) leaving a neutral following after effective level 15 imposes a 5 effective level ban on attacking other characters of any alignment or lack of an alignemnt like UA.

Something of this nature would seperate the people who really want to be neutral as opposed to those who see it as an easy way to keep their stuff and not choose a side.
Why the lack of offense?
neutrality isnt not supposed to be an offensive force per se.
Why the boosted defense?
neutrality should have the ability to defend themselves long enough to get away or at least given a good chance :>

Your considered opinions and thoughts?::up::

[Belsambar]

Why not just make it so, in order to become neutral, period, they have to quest as immortal, mortals, and following. They have to above and beyond the 'call of duty' to prove they're neutral....Cordir has done this for years just the way she runs her following. Otherwise....other immortals aren't so stringent on making sure their minions don't sway to one side, or another, too heavily, or constantly.

No, I'm not quite sure what I mean right now. What do you expect, I'm half asleep. But the fact remains, if you want to be neutral, you should PROVE you WANT to be neutral for a REASON....and not just because, as was so aptly put, it protects your pretties. Or whatever silly reason that some people do anything similar.

I'll be happy to clarify as soon as I remember where I was going with this. G'night!::woot:: ::huh::

[Hiro]

<snipped>

As a group, however, neutral followings stay out of the larger conflicts. There are no epic battles between neutrals and others of differing philosophies. They defend themselves, and that is pretty much it. They do not engage in a concerted effort to promote their view point, they simply wish to be left alone. They certainly do not try to "convert".

<snipped>

And this is a problem why exactly? For me, PK and conflict are not a large part of the game - what I enjoy is the wheeling and dealing that comes from randoming and trading/selling equipment.

Personally I think we need neutrality as a middle ground - not all of us are wrapped up in the PK aspect of this game.

Hiro
MagiMart Manager

[Hiro]

[QUOTE=Solaron] <el snippo>
That's why there's UA. TFC is a PK mud - I don't think anyone can deny that. That's not a fact that's going to change.
<el snippo>
QUOTE]

Yes TFC is a PK mud. But I think the point you are missing is that PK isnt the whole show or reason for TFC to exist. And pardon my ignorance, but how exactly does the existence of neutrality as a following option cause PK to suffer?

As for neutrality being a crutch and/or protection, as a member of neutral followings Ive been attacked by both the good and evil aligned. None of them would have bought the 'Im neutral, dont attack me' arguement.

Hiro

[Katrana]

As for neutrality being a crutch and/or protection, as a member of neutral followings Ive been attacked by both the good and evil aligned. None of them would have bought the 'Im neutral, dont attack me' arguement.


They would have if you weren't Nashite. Most goods don't like Nashites. Anyone who is not Nashite typically doesn't like Nashites. Followers of Isolas were left alone by goods until he went Nashite. No one can deny that fact. Now bloos hunt Magi. It's known. I can promise you that if you didn't follow Nashite immortals, you're existance would be alot more peaceful. Bloos do not 90%-95% of the time attack neutrals. Thus why that conflict is lacking. Most people who are neutral and pacifist, would have been good. Those that are neutral and aggressive, are either or depending on who they attack more. Therefore, now with neutrality in the mix, it's little battles and struggles, but no more epic. The last 'epic' battle I can remember is one that happened because an ally backstabbed the other. Now, if other flis are up to that, then rock on that conflict would be back! But it has to be forced as most of the time people fight small minor battles with people here or there.

As side note: And if you really want to wheel and deal, you'd probably get alot more offers and bargains and such if you were UA. As some are not allowed to buy from Nashites.

As I asked before. In a game standpoint, why should neutrality exist? I really would like to know and no one to this point has answered. Statistics, facts, and past events can prove the others points, but as I've said before no one has argued the other end from that perspective, only asked others to state why.

[Tynian]

I think we can examine TFC pre-Neutrality and post-Neutrality and say that PK has suffered. Is Neutrality the sole reason? Of course not, that's silly. But it IS a factor in the decline.

Apples and oranges. Of course PK has suffered. We went from having online counts in the 50s to 20s during busy times.

[Tynian]

Agreed - that's why I made sure to say that I wasn't blaming neutrality as the sole factor.

I would go as far as to say it's a negligible factor. ::whistle::

[Gaul]

Greetings. I've read everyone's posts with interest and thought I'd give my thoughts for what they're worth as I have had pretty extensive experience as a Neutral.

First, a little personal history. Gaul was Nalya's second paladin (Lorna being the first). Nalya was "good" at the time but pacifist, and generally Trying to RP as Neutral. I remember how much strife that caused sometimes with other good followings. Nalya advocated aiding evils with corpse retrievals, xping, etc. but not pking. We were primarily focused on newbie helping and general RP, exploring etc. We didn't PK. I don't know what happened at the immortal level but I remember Nalya being the first Neutral FLI, as a test case. The goods and evils at the extreme ends of the spectrum both hunted us as each saw us as aiders of their respective enemies. This is as it should be.

Nalya retired and most of PBS scattered or joined Rhina's new Neutral following, Nature. For the most part it was exactly the same. I eventually became Rhina's OM and had a blast for years.

Now, my thoughts on Neutrality based on my experience.

Neutrality, as we saw it, was sort of like the UN in RL. We saw that there was a conflict between good and evil and generally could see the world from both POVs. We didn't expect to be passed over on PKs by evils. Indeed, we were attacked frequently as we weren't seen as threats, easy pickings. Sheep. To be perfectly honest, I loved that. I got excitement from being hunted and from the challenge of surviving.

We should make a distinction between Neutral and Pacifist for the purposes of this discussion, perhaps. Neutrality, in my view, works best when coupled with pacifism. It's not easy. When our followers got larger they got antsy in most cases. They'd start to act aggressively, react with frustration when attacked, join in fights at a friend's request, etc. The lines got smudged, reputations tarnished. As an individual I believe I always remained true neutral and pacifist but Nature was perceived as "good". Also, as Solaron has demonstrated, to be "neutral" by agressively attacking everyone regardless of aura is far more evil than good. So my opinion is that only by being pacifist can you remain Neutral as it was originally intended.

Another problem that occurred was the one of characters using Neutrality, either consciously, or unconsciously as a "nursery" to level up in relative peace, only to go through rapid personality change at level 30+. We've all seen it happen and it added further skepticism and mistrust of neutrality.

I'm drifting into a ramble so I'll get to my point. Neutrality, as a concept, is great and could be a great benefit for TFC as it was for me for years. As has been stated, it allows those characters who do not wish to take part in the overall conflict -actively- and destructively, conscientious objectors, a choice beyond remaining unaligned. It's generally much more fun to be in a following.

I do agree with the detractors that it Neutrality should not be a safe haven from PK, however. If a character chooses Neutrality, they should be willing to accept the consequences. I believe those consequences should include being seen as an enemy by the extremes of Both alignments and a friend to the "moderates" of both. They should have no inherent protections from being PKed. If anything, they should be fairly crippled in aggressive PK potential.

If setting it up this way makes it so that nobody wants to be Neutral, than we have our answer as to whether Neutrality is wanted or needed. If, on the other hand, a following or two manages to eek out an existence, rigidly adhering to solid principles as PBS and Nature tried to do, than I think they should be allowed.

For my part Gaul never felt comfortable wearing Blue.


For any who read this whole brain fart of a post, my apologies for the length.


Gaul Stone.

[Tamar]

I think that TFC should have a place for fence-sitters, and that that place should be called unaligned.

[wish]

I fully agree with Tamar on this. Unaligned perfectly suffices for neutrality.

To me, neutrality and the idea that FLI's can "self perceive" their alignments are closely related. In my opinion, both run counter to the idea that TFC has a larger theme that players can involve themselves with.

In game play, I believe that creating clear definitions, clear rules, and clear objectives enhances game play and player enjoyment. Neutral followings create grey areas that only serve to dilute those definitions, rules, and objectives.

Wish, Foul Sepiod

[Tynian]

For the first several years of TFC, I resisted the entire notion of Neutral followings. If you were in a following, you were Good or Evil.

This changed for version 3, when I introduced the alignment as the "pacifist" alignment. I don't remember the specifics of the implementation, as it changed over time. The basic idea, though, is that Neutral followers were restricted (by code) as to who they could attack; they were "neutral" in terms of the PK part of the game. In return, they enjoyed more protection. The PK range was limited for the Neutral-aligned, so fewer people could attack them.

At one point, I detached the concept of 'pacifist' from the neutral alignment, and emphasis was on the FLI's own interpretation of the alignment. These were "PK models," of which I implemented 2 of the 4 that were planned: Sword and Sentry (Thanks, Solaron). Sword was not PK-restricted, the other was. Cordir was the last holdout, but even she converted to Sword eventually, in part because I indicated the non-Sword option would go away, and in part because she was tired of her followers being everyone's pin cushion.

So, I guess the real question is where Neutral fits in today. When it was introdoced, it was for non-PKers, and was enforced by code. This is why to this day, the clerical spells tend to be more defensive, and also explains why there is no "protection neutral" -- when it was introduced, you weren't going to be attacked by Neutral.

It seems people want hard and fast rules on alignment. I cannot come up with a distinct set of "neutral" rules that make sense. I could possibly make them non-PK again, but I gotta tell you, it was never a popular choice. Even Cordir had enough of her following being the designated sheep, and picked up the Sword.

[Tynian]

I seem to remember a third PK model you had introduced but only used by one following. I think it was Sword, Sentry and Hearth. Am I remembering correctly?

Sentry was what I was looking for in previous post. Thanks.

I implemented only two. The 4 (now that I check the code) were:



#define MODEL_SHIELD /* Justify Hunt following */
#define MODEL_SENTRY /* Following justify */
#define MODEL_HUNT /* Retribution justify */
#define MODEL_SWORD /* Unjustified allowed */


By the way, one of the above models was called 'Hearth' -- I remember that much -- I renamed it pretty early on.

And a little historical perspective:


date: 2002-09-29
Neutral, as an alignment, was not set up with PK aggressiveness in
mind. It originally started out as an alignment that could not initiate
unjust attacks, much like the Sentry PK model. In the original sense,
'Neutral' was neutrality from the PK wars between and amongst the two
main alignments (good and evil). Now that this version of neutrality is
not explicitly the case, followings have arisen to take advantage of the
flexibility of alliances and enemies, without a corresponding downside
that the other alignments have -- although, in a sense, alliances and
neutrality is an interesting contradiction. In the short term,
penalties will be introduced for aggressive neutral followers, to bring
the penalties more in line with the other alignments. In the longer
term, neutral may be phased out as a following-selectable alignment. In
many cases, it overlaps with good (passive folks *tend* to lean good)
and evil (the "can kill anyone" group). Any Neutral Following-Level
Immortals that wish to change to either Good or Evil may do so without
penalty for a limited time, given the clarification in focus.

[Dauthi]

I feel that neutral should be removed. If not, have it put back so they can't attack unless they are justified. Or maybe limit the number of neutral followings. But i say boo to neutrals, they are just UA's with an ftell.

[Tay]

i agree, i wouldnt mind seein it go, make ppl chose sides or stay UA ::surprise::

[Jashon]

As much as I like neutral--I would not be crushed to see it go.

But I do think, neutrals shouls only be allowed to attack when justified.

Along these lines I do not think there should be a dispel neutral or protection neutral.

Along the same lines, I do not believe there should be coded protection for neutrals--debt gained should be equal or almost equal. Then neutral is not as effective as a safe way to level to 30+ then reform.

UA and neutral should not be the same thing. Neutral should not be able to ally or have enemies. (But I suppose other neutrals would be ok--but still a stretch in my mind)

[Tynian]

But I do think, neutrals shouls only be allowed to attack when justified.


Making it so that Neutrals can only attack when just would be pretty easy to do.

As for allies and enemies, attempting to manage this would be pointless. Yes, I could take away the option for Neutrals to set allies or enemies, but that wouldn't stop a Neutral following from being more friendly with some followings than others.

[Tay]

thats what neutral should be about, helping, not in the pk aspect, because thats where most of these posts are going, neutrals should help evils as well as goods, in quests, cr's, and other various tasks. what we do need are more player, with more goods and more evils...but we're stalling somewhere :(

[Katerina]

The definition of neutral is not taking sides, right? So when neutrals are taking sides - being Nashites, naming other followings as enemies, grouping with good/evil, helping some but not others, etc. - they aren't neutral. I personally IGNORE neutral vs. good vs. evil most of the time because those titles are useless. I just go with who's out to get me or not...

[orpik]

I agree with Katrana that neutrality should go and that it has hurt blue followings the most.

Right now there is almost no advantage to being blue versus neutral. Part of this is a code problem that could be solved. I would like to get rid of neutrality all together as I do not believe it has helped the game and do think it has hurt, however, we could make some changes to lessen its problems.

1) neutrality has all the strengths of being blue but none of the weaknesses.

Neutral's get protection evil, bless, heal (usable on others as well), can use weapons and simple rings enchanted by blues and by evils, neutral rangers get permanate just on evil rangers (which means no dmg cap, no debt)

As to the disadvantages lacking, Neutrals cannot be protected against with protection evil or good, they get no debt for hitting rangers, they can hit both goods and evils with an edge in combat from the protection spells. In sum, there is really no offensive inhibition from being neutral. True neutral clerics don't get dispel good or evil but these spells are rarely useful in combat these days (most clerics who have them do not use them) and your prey not having protection against you while you have it against them is far more of an advantage offensively than dispel is. Combined with the perm justs on rangers this means neutrals cannot be protected against nor will pacifist status protect you from them.

I understand that blues have disadvantages which should entitle them to some advantages, however neutrals have no disadvantages now, and should not get any protections, nor any bonuses against evils (or goods).

Evil and good enchants should be anti-neutral. There is no reason that neutrals s hould be able to use everyone elses enchants while no one else can use neutrals. People pretend neutrals are defensive, having others not be able to use their simples is defensive. Their being able to use everyone elses simples is certainly not defensive.

Steps should be taken to ensure neutrals are not just picking that alignment to benefit from all of the pk advantages. (yes it happens, look at solaron who does not think the alignment should exist but would be stupid to not have been that align due to all its advantages).

Example: Neutrals should have a damage cap that is unaffected by justification. How would this work? Neutrals should not be able to benefit from more than 30 dmg (or the current amts which vary) even against sociopaths. Neutrals are supposed to be defensive, this would not harm them in this endeavor. Perhaps neutrals with one way justs could still benefit from more dmg than the cap, but only those with one way just. If it is a 2 way just, the neutral has been an agressor and is not just defending himself, therefore drop his dmg. I see no reason why neutrals should swing harder against a blue who fights lots of evils and becomes a sociopath than a blue who does not hit those evils. If anyone can explain that, please do.

[Maeron]

Steps should be taken to ensure neutrals are not just picking that alignment to benefit from all of the pk advantages. (yes it happens, look at solaron who does not think the alignment should exist but would be stupid to not have been that align due to all its advantages).

Exactly, remove neutral. So many people are neutral for their own benefit, why code or police the situation. Neutral doesn't add anything to the game when Unaligned is an option.

[wylin]

Why would we want to pick a side of the fence when obviously our characters would be able to grow larger and stronger by feeding off whoever would help? I mean.. might as well get to level 50 before we quit to join a pk following right?

[Katrana]

TFC prior to neutrality was typically in a cycle, blue would be dominant for so long, then reds, then they'd be even. Those epic battles we reminisce of occurred when the power struggles were starting to tip, or when the one was trying to over throw the other. Now it's stalling, it has for a long time, a very long time. Alliances of neutrality or unspoken alliances, favored on the strong red-neutral side I believed helped cause this. When you're weighing in a 2 on 1 favor that other side is going to lose. The loses to the blues, by players following neutral or evil immortals because of the benefits, flis losing interest because they feel they can never win, seeing their alignment/following crumble due to being the weaker alignment vs numbers and losing their key players to reds or rl issues, the bloo alignment as we know it is dying. I'll be the first to admit it if no one else can... In all honesty, 'why be good?!' other than from a RP standpoint. Which if you can RP the other alignments just as well, then psh. And anyone who can RP well, can 'transform' their character very easily into another alignment - or make it so their actions fit their alignment.

Neutrals have heal, they have this, that and the other, evils have energy drain, and vampiric touch, all sorts of other goodies...blues have uhhh nothing that neutrals or evils can get except that one cleric spell what is it, righteous assault or something like that, that I hardly see used, and uhh.....oh no wait neutrals get that....oh they can dispel evil! But wait, mages and bards can memo and do that too, wands will allow for that as well. So yes, I've posted with a sarcastic tone. But everything I stated is fact. So once again, since no one has posted yet who has voted that they should stay: I ask the question again to those who say neutral should stay...why?!

(Or perhaps the neutral coming in and the alignment of blue dying was just a pure coincidence, and I'm just linking together unrelated items. Which could happen very easily, go theorists! LOL)

EDIT: Fixed typo

[Nicademus]

I have already expressed my opinions to various people here and those of you who have spoken to me know that I am in favor of getting rid of neutral alignment.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the neutral alignment is that there is no definition of neutral that is applied accross the board. Some people equate neutral with pacifist, some with isolationist, but each following has interperted it in different ways. In my opinion very few of the current neutral followings are in fact- neutral.

Webster's defines neutral as:

"assisting or siding with neither of two opposing sides in a war, dispute, controversy, etc." (and yes I actually used a book)

Using this definition, how can a neutral following with enemies and allies in fact be neutral? By having an ally or an enemy you are implicitly taking sides. Now, obviously, if another group attacks you and kills your followers I think even a neutral following could declare an enemy. Some other examples bother me however.

I often see members of Fate assisting with pks either actual involvement or simply with spells and location assistance. This is not neutral.
Similarly, (and I have discussed this with him and it is not personal), I have a problem with a neutral Nashite following based on the above definition. Members of Isolas's following assist and aid the Conclave --which they should as they commonly share Lord Nash. However, in doing so, they are violating the principle of neutrality.

In fact, the following that is pointed at as being the most "evil" or "non-neutral" of them all, Mafia, is perhaps more neutral than many of the others. Mafia does not take a side in a battle, but rather is neutral to all sides-utter indifference.

Do I think the above is right? Not really. My point is, we need a consistent definition of neutral as we are clearly not adhering to the actual definition of the term. If the intent (as has been suggested) was for neutral to really be pacifist, then lets change it. Personally I believe neutrality is something that should be removed from the game. As a member of Nature, I much preferred being "good" yet acting pacifist. It was a real struggle to be non-aggressive and good, but we exercised a choice and stuck with it. Adding neutrality somehow took away from that consciece choice and lumped us with others who only wanted the easy path. It is ironic that we went from being one of the hardest followings to be in, to one gaining the protection of neutrality code. I was against it back then and am against it now. Then again, I am old fashioned. I think goods should act good (not just evil with a blue tint), evil should be evil and everyone else fend for themselves.

Ok- I know I said I didnt have much to add, but there it is.

-Nicademus, (self proclaimed) King of the Aarakocrans

[Nicademus]

Based on comments I have heard, I want to clarify that I do not intend to state that Fate(s) are out there killing others in cold blood, but rather that they assist and associate with pkers, often taking actions which ultimately assist with a player kill. Again, as I thought was sufficiently clear in my initial post, I agree that neutrals should be able to kill others who seek to kill them. My real problem is where neutrals take sides. Even a cursory review of some of the neutral immortals' finfo(s) reveals that some have any number of enemies and allies, which in my mind goes against the definition of neutrality. Indeed, it has been suggested that it is ok for a neutral following to balance its allies with some good, some evil, some neutral. Again, that appears to be inconsistent with neutrality, because at some level sides are being taken.

As I stated on another post, the essential issue to me, is that neutral is not truly the center between good and evil, but rather could be subsumed within either of those alignments. Neutral is a political posture, not the basis for an alignment.

Illustrative of the problem, is that neutrality is easily defined, as I have done in my previous post. Good and evil on the other hand are not. Since neutrality is so easily defined, I find arguments of some that different immortals practice neutrality in different ways unavailing. An immortal may practice their own brand of good or evil and it is wholly defensable. However, if you take the fundamental proposition that neutrality means not taking a side, there can be no explanation for the diverse range of activities that the current neutral followings practice.

-Nic

[orpik]

Neutrals should also not benefit from floating damage as that can only serve their offense not defense.

(I think floating damage needs to be removed entirely but, I will save that for another thread)

[boromir]

Greetings!

This is probably one of the better discussions I have seen concerning neutrality .. or not in quite awhile. :D

I think that this topic can be narrowed down to 2 basic questions and answering no to the first eliminates the second.
Should neutrality be allowed as a seperate entity from UA?
Assuming the answer to be yes for purposes of this post ;)
The next question is:
What attributes should a neutral mortal have access to?
Currently the majority of the skills availble to a neutral mortal are from the 'good' (bloo for you red types ::whistle:: ) side of the menu (as it were)
Perhaps a redistribution of availible skills should be done. i.e. removing some of the good (bloo) skills and replacing them with evil style skills.
OOC: I have always had the opinion that neutral should be similar in attitdue and such to countries like switzerland where they dont attack but can the defend the holy crap out of an attacker.end of OOC:
Neutral does not mean weak or lacking in power, tis the controlled application of that power which provides the difference between good and evil and neutral.

Remove Neutral? Perhaps this is an idea to be considered. I am not really in favor of it .. *gee I wonder why ::cool:: * but perhaps that is a piece of the solution to this question. As mentioned by Katrana (and I para-phrase) we have no conflict, just people hanging out.

Your considered thoughts and opinions? ::up::

[Tay]

how about, when a neutral initiates an attack un-justly, all their spells are dropped, their heals are only 50 hps a piece, their offensive spells are half of normal, and they get more debt for attacks.when justified attackin, its just as it is now, nothing is decreased.i always wondered why neutral dont get "evilish" type spells as well, why not! bring on the animate dead!

[Tynian]

Thanks for all the great comments.

We are beginning to repeat ourselves, which is a sign that the thread may have run its course.

If you have a new or different perspective to add, I look forward to hearing it. I'd especially like to hear from the proponents of the Neutral alignment. Why does it continue to deserve a place? What is it's role, or what should it be?

Thanks again!

[Nicademus]

A few people, in fact both Boromir and Cordir, have raised the "Switzerland Argument." Again, I find this line of thinking uncompelling. I do not understand why Switzerland is the archetype for neutrality. I acknowledge that Switzerland is an example of a nation that generally holds the political posture of being neutral. However, we are again missing the point. A political posture is far different from a concept of morality or philosphical basis upon which a mortal guides her life.

Indeed, Cordir pointed out to me that Switzerland has taken sides in its history. This is an excellent illustration of my point. At those times where Switzerland deviated from its political posture of neutrality, the country or its leaders as a whole intentially sought to rely on its moral foundation (or some other basis) as opposed to its political foundation. When Switzerland assumed a side, it abandoned its neutrality in favor of taking a side. Thus, it was not neutral in that instance.

What allowed this, is that Switzerland as a country, in contrast to a religion (as the followings here essentially are) is always certainly permitted to alter its political thinking. Indeed, it need not be neutral in all cases (and it has not), because its politics do not necessarily guide its morality. Here however we are attempting to utilize neutrality as a foundation for a moral code. From a different perspective, a moral code should guide an individual in all of her decisions, whereas a person's political position is free to change based on circumstances. Thus, if a persons moral code demands that the individual be neutral there should be few circumstances where she is permitted to deviate from her moral center. In the event that she does, there should be significant negative implications. However, as politics are distinct from morality (although morality may guide them) based on circumstances ones political perespective may change or be overridden by other factors such as a person's religious or moral beliefs.

Examining this same argument utilizing the concepts of good and evil similarly reveals the flaws in this line of thinking. If you are trying to use a country or nation as your archetype, then which countries are you using as your archetype for good or evil? Despite what Mr. Bush says, you cannot allocate morality to nations, his best efforts notwithstanding. The fact is, as I have stated previously, neutrality simply is not the center of good and evil. Indeed, there is nothing prohibiting an evil or good aligned following from being neutral should it so desire.

This was not intended to be long so I will leave it at that.

Thanks for your time.

-Nic

[Rincewind]

I am totally indifferent and don't care either way, i just want to add that if you guys are going to be doing <snippet> that you should end the snippet with a </snippet> ok?

[Tynian]

However, we are again missing the point. A political posture is far different from a concept of morality or philosphical basis upon which a mortal guides her life.

This argument does nothing for me.

While I agree that morality and politics don't always coincide (::whistle::), this is a game we are talking about, not moral philosophy. What I care about is how it all works in the context of the game.

Aside from that, our followings function more like political entities than as moral agents. I think this is a good thing. A following is 'selling' to its followers its own tenets and policies. "We do not PK." Or "Kill anything that moves." Or "We will help Boromir's followers because they're nice to bunnies, but we'll ignore Thor's because they don't like goldfish." Or anything in between. Those are policy decisions, not moral edicts. And those policies can and oftimes will change, based on the circumstances.

Now, I've also heard a preference for having only two sides to a conflict. Well, okay. But that's why I'm asking in this thread (http://forums.finalchallenge.net/showthread.php?t=78) what that would look like -- for it seems that we're all too willing to step forward and declare Neutral is not neutral, but perhaps a little less forthcoming when it comes to the 'rules' for what is required for Good and Evil followings.

[Pol]

I see the subtext of this conversation as being not so much a discussion of Neutrality, but rather, a push from more aggressive players to have others play the game their way.

The comment "this is a PK mud" is both overused and misunderstood. Were this just a "PK mud", why then are there all these beautifully written custom areas, sub-games, tricks and traps and puzzles, AMMQ's, mobm's, location quests, mob hunts, gambling, etc.?

An extraordinary amount of effort has been put into things which have *nothing* to do with PvP combat and PK's. Yet, those that PK ignore these other aspects and focus on killing other players as their source of fun. "This is a PK mud" becomes "this is *only* a PK mud" to many, which is unfortunate.

Hiro nailed it, I think - he enjoys the game his way, and Neutrality allows him to stay out of the fray, so to speak. It doesn't afford any additional protection from anything. It's a place for characters who don't fit the Good vs. Evil scenario to play the game and, most importantly, have fun - the point of the freaking game.

Neutrality isn't new to TFC - at the start, it was implied in the culture - Tyn was Good, Maurice was Evil, and IvoryTiger was Neutral. The first Neutral immortal was Ath and, in truth, Neutrality fit the guy like a glove and would have been the only reasonable alignment for him to have taken given his character.

Katrana submitted the challenge for a definitive reason to keep Neutrality - but this is a flawed request. Neutrality is the status quo - the burden is upon those that detract from Neutrality to provide a definitive reason to remove it. Give a definitive reason to remove it.

Neutrals are fence-sitters? So what?

Neutrals are immune to PK's? They aren't.

Neutrals don't really play as Neutrals and choose sides? Again, so what? Many evils don't really play evil, many goods don't really play good.

Neutrality has a place here, and it should be kept.

Now, that being said, let me reiterate my standard position: PK is an integral part of the game. However, it should be in context of the larger conflict and I agree with Wish, et al, that the larger conflict is a large part of what makes TFC great. However, I do not believe that this is an either/or question. There's no mutual exclusivity between having combatants and non-combatants playing in the same game nor do I think it wise to force those who wish to be non-combative to be so.

Let Neutrality be the resting place for these players so that *everyone* can enjoy the game the way the choose to.

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.

[Katrana]

I see the subtext of this conversation as being not so much a discussion of Neutrality, but rather, a push from more aggressive players to have others play the game their way.

The comment "this is a PK mud" is both overused and misunderstood. Were this just a "PK mud", why then are there all these beautifully written custom areas, sub-games, tricks and traps and puzzles, AMMQ's, mobm's, location quests, mob hunts, gambling, etc.?

An extraordinary amount of effort has been put into things which have *nothing* to do with PvP combat and PK's. Yet, those that PK ignore these other aspects and focus on killing other players as their source of fun. "This is a PK mud" becomes "this is *only* a PK mud" to many, which is unfortunate.

This quote actually made me laugh, and laugh hard. As Solaron stated, several PK'ers have written areas, participated in quests, AMMQs, mm's, lqs, and the rest of your list above. If you look at the rankings, I can promise that half if not more on every top 10 list has pk'ed. And I've had my own people participate in RP situations. We all know Solaron and his ceremonies he's done. We know that today Huglak RPs, he's a bard who has pk'ed and who RPs. Sylarn has RP'ed, Ink.... Any Conclave member who has pk'ed RPs... You think they shout Hail Nash at home? (*snicker* Sarcastic I know, I couldn't pass it up!!) You need me to continue?! My following did all of those things, and I encouraged them to do so, and I know that Conclave (I dislike them, but I have to say) has participated and won SEVERAL quests. I can remember when Candlespyre went in and my crew was there for HOURS literally reading every room description trying to figure things out. And Coven, those darn pk'ers took Plantation when it came out and did the same thing we did to Candlespyre. I can't remember the number of times I saw someone say, well shoot I never knew this hinted at this in this zone. (KD has some very amusing references if you ever read it, and people who you probably think would never take the time to read it, actually told me that!) So yes, we are aggressive, yes we like to pk, but by golly (yes I said by golly) we actually respect the work that is done, and try hard in quests, and whatever else is laid before us. When avatar quests were going on, my boys were constantly trying and many times succeeding to improve our avatar. You can't deny that fact. So please, you can't tell me that pk'ers don't enjoy those things just as much and you can't honestly say that we ignore those things. To do so is so blatantly ignorant, and while I laughed, it does frustrate me very much. Why? Because I ran a PK following, and my husband now runs a PK following. My lovelies who still play, wherever they may be, Mafia, Conclave, Insane, Fate, wherever, they may be, PK. And I refuse to let them be classified as people who don't care about work that's put into something. In many cases, they are driven to succeed more in those things because it allows them access to better skills, it allows them to know an area, and what they can do in it to trick/summon/mislead/kill someone. Just because people are bloodthirsty doesn't mean they don't pay attention to the areas, or they don't participate in quests.


Hiro nailed it, I think - he enjoys the game his way, and Neutrality allows him to stay out of the fray, so to speak. It doesn't afford any additional protection from anything. It's a place for characters who don't fit the Good vs. Evil scenario to play the game and, most importantly, have fun - the point of the freaking game.

How is he neutral? He worships Nash, as I said before, some people can't trade with those who worship Nash. If you not everyone can't trade with them, they really aren't neutral as they have some tie to something.


Neutrality isn't new to TFC - at the start, it was implied in the culture - Tyn was Good, Maurice was Evil, and IvoryTiger was Neutral.

Ivorytiger was 'neutral', there was UA. Oh what do you know, he still is around!! When UA people in today's world sacrifice something it goes to Ivorytiger. When people who are neutral sac something it goes to Isolas, Solaron, Boromir, or Cordir.


Katrana submitted the challenge for a definitive reason to keep Neutrality - but this is a flawed request. Neutrality is the status quo - the burden is upon those that detract from Neutrality to provide a definitive reason to remove it. Give a definitive reason to remove it.

Several of us have given those reasons. Systematic reasons, logical reasons, other sorts of reasons. And how can it be flawed, it is merely a request? And in case you missed it, Tynian is asking as well...


I'd especially like to hear from the proponents of the Neutral alignment. Why does it continue to deserve a place? What is it's role, or what should it be?


Let Neutrality be the resting place for these players so that *everyone* can enjoy the game the way the choose to.

People enjoyed it before neutrality, when they were UA. Did they not?

Anyway, my thoughts for today.

Katrana, Retired Mistress of the Hunt

[Tynian]

This quote actually made me laugh, and laugh hard.

Was I the only one that read Pol's post as a plea to look at the game from a different lens than just PKing? I didn't read into his post an insinuation that those that have or do PK don't also enjoy other aspects of the game, rather that much of the discussion has focused on PK.

Hmm.

[Nicademus]

Was I the only one that read Pol's post as a plea to look at the game from a different lens than just PKing? I didn't read into his post an insinuation that those that have or do PK don't also enjoy other aspects of the game, rather that much of the discussion has focused on PK.

Hmm.


I think this is going to devolve into trial by combat.

[Maeron]

Yet, those that PK ignore these other aspects and focus on killing other players as their source of fun.

I think this line is what made made his plea come off as an accusation.

It's just that you can enjoy an AMMQ or a well written zone as a Good or Evil. The problem is there are soooooo many people joining neutral followings, and so few making a stand for good or evil. Fence sitters, shouldn't be the norm, and there should be penalties for being undecided. Either you don't get a following, or make it much less attractive for aggressive players.

If I'm in an epic battle standing there helping both sides, I'm likely to become fodder in the struggle. I think it detracts from gameplay when half the mud or more is sitting on a fence.

[Tynian]

If I'm in an epic battle standing there helping both sides, I'm likely to become fodder in the struggle. I think it detracts from gameplay when half the mud or more is sitting on a fence.

Who's sitting on a fence? The way alignment currently stands, it's a game of 'us' against 'them', where the 'us' and 'them' vary based on following. It does not necessarily follow that getting rid of Neutral will result in more PKs. In fact, depending on how things are set up, it may result in less opportunities. (*) (http://forums.finalchallenge.net/showpost.php?p=555&postcount=40)

Let's face it, with the way things are now, PKers in a given following (regardlesss of its alignment) will target the followings their FLI says to target. Dropping neutral doesn't change the picture much. From my POV, it can just serve to limit the number of target followings.

[Pol]

Tyn rather effectively summed up the gist of what I mean - PK is a portion of the game and always has been, but it isn't the *whole* game and *never* has been. Some players choose not to be aggressive. Some players *enjoy* exploring, randoming, mobm'ing, lq's, etc., and *don't* enjoy PK at all and see it as a necessary evil to be tolerated, not embraced. Where do these characters go? They should stay UA and be bereft of the benefits of being in a following?

Are you suggesting every character should be aggressive, then? What of your own following, Sol? Have you taken the whip to Alito or Goon or Tylin and told them "go forth and kill people or else!"? If you want the entire mud in the fray, then practice what you preach. Otherwise, accept the fact that players get enjoyment from the game in ways that differ from you and they should be accommodated in some way.

The arguments opposing Neutrality apply equally to UA as well. In practice, they are equivalent. The only difference is that players of this ilk are easier pickings for aggressive followings - with no following of their own to provide support or protection, these characters would be far easier to farm.

Perhaps there's an alternate agenda at play here, Solaron?

I would submit, Sol, that you and Kat and Wish and a few others that support your position against retaining Neutrality are a very vocal minority. As the predominant alignment on the mud, I would say it's obvious that Neutral is what players want to play. Until and unless code is changed to make Good or Evil more attractive (or equally attractive, for that matter) options, it will stay this way.

Further, if you were opposed to Neutrality, then I must ask, why did you start a Neutral following? ::huh::

Incidently, I find it funny when a player with a 1.X immortal is told how things have *always* been. ::roll::

ETA: those that oppose the status quo have the burden of proof - that's Logic 101, Sol :P Tyn has already given the reasons Neutrality exists - it's a place for the more passive followings to be. Whatcha got to counter that idea? :)

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.

[Gaul]

Just rehashing what has been said more eloquently already by others. I'm trying to wrap my head around what the "real problem" is.

The conundrum as I see it is this.

1. Neutrality, as it is, has evolved into a bloated beast that many consider to be choking the vitality and fun out of the mud.

2. On the other hand, removing Neutrality as an option may well alienate and drive away some percentage of an already low and declining player base.

Where's the solution here? It seems to me that the solution is to not remove Neutrality, thus solving the second problem, but changing how it operates, helping to regain the balance sought by those advocating problem 1.

My own personal thoughts on changes fall in line with those already posted by others so I won't repeat them here. We could ask ourselves though, if at any given time 75% of characters online are Neutral, why is that? Why don't they choose to play good or evil? These are rhetorical questions but maybe offering incentives to pick sides might be solution rather than eradicating the middle.

On a side note, I think the mud would survive without Neutrality. We'd just have to be smart about it, easing folks into it somehow, make sure they find a home that they're comfortable with, etc. Personally the light blue, dark blue, light red, dark red scenario might work best. There's always been a spectrum of aggression anyway.

G.

[Katrana]

I think this line is what made made his plea come off as an accusation.

It's just that you can enjoy an AMMQ or a well written zone as a Good or Evil. The problem is there are soooooo many people joining neutral followings, and so few making a stand for good or evil. Fence sitters, shouldn't be the norm, and there should be penalties for being undecided. Either you don't get a following, or make it much less attractive for aggressive players.

If I'm in an epic battle standing there helping both sides, I'm likely to become fodder in the struggle. I think it detracts from gameplay when half the mud or more is sitting on a fence.

Quoted for Truth. And yes, it might be a plea, but it is highly accusatory toward those of us who DO PK, and who like to PK. We have just as much right to make a plea for PK as they do for pacifism.


Let's face it, with the way things are now, PKers in a given following (regardlesss of its alignment) will target the followings their FLI says to target. Dropping neutral doesn't change the picture much. From my POV, it can just serve to limit the number of target followings.

Are people saying they want more people to pk? Hell, if people want to attack whoever they want, they'd all go Mafia. I don't think that is the point the pk'ers are trying to raise by the discussion. Most pk'ers are referring to epic pks. Who knows what would happen in the opportunities, I could see where it could drop, I could also see where attacks would go up, when it comes down to it, it would increase the quality or the feel of the pk (and if you don't pk it's hard to understand, but for those who do, you understand completely), it would bring back the epic feel, the good vs evil. (As a side note, I thought that flis always gave direction as to who/what to do/believe in/attack.) I can argue points that have nothing to do with PK'ing, the weakening of an entire alignment, the neutral impact of TFC economy, the defensive benefits/exp benefits of being neutral vs any other alignment. It's a fact that the good alignment has massively decreased in population after the introduction of neutrality, it's as stated several times before about the protection benefits of the alignment, neutrals have a faster rate of leveling, the economic pool has become much more stagnant since neutrality has come into existance (this point can also be argued against as the rate of gold as increase, as well as inflation, but I see that as well.) I can argue those points.

So I ask again after stating those points, why keep it?!

As a side note:
Pol, none of us are saying PK is the sole part of TFC, if you look at my post, they are involved in everything. If you've been around since 1x then you know I'm right. And yes, some players don't like that aspect of TFC, just like how some PK'ers don't care for lqs. It's fine. No one is saying, you can't RP, no one is saying you can't lq, or AMMQ, or run quests. No PK'er is trying to convince anyone of those things. And where did Solaron say that everyone should be aggressive, everyone should PK, he didn't! He of all people knows that you don't have to be aggressive to have fun. I had characters who were purely pacifists, and I've had some of my better times with them just chilling. Don't look at this Thread as an attack on pacifist players. It's a discussion on neutrality and our thoughts on it.

Also, for someone who has been around as long as you, then you above all other should know that the UA's were perfectly content where they were, that PK'ers can in fact RP, quest, and do everything else as someone who is pacifist can.

[Tynian]

2. On the other hand, removing Neutrality as an option may well alienate and drive away some percentage of an already low and declining player base.

I don't think this is a forgone conclusion. I think it boils down to what happens if it is "gotten rid of." That's why I'm attempting to clarify how we envision Good and Evil working (http://forums.finalchallenge.net/showthread.php?t=78).

[Pol]

Kat,

I'm not suggesting that those who PK don't also RP, do quests, etc. However, the justification of "this is a PK mud" in response to anything which offers a player some protection from PK certainly gives the impression of PK being the primary motivation of some.

Let me see if I can reiterate my point a bit more clearly...

1. PK is a part of the mud, but not the entirety nor even the majority. On this, I think we agree.
2. The arguments presented thus far against Neutrality are based on PKs. On this I also think we agree.
3. Neutrality offers a place for more passive followings/characters. This is the intended purpose Tyn had for Neutrality and I think with the exception of Mafia, this is true today. Neutrality is the preferred alignment for most of the characters playing today.
4. Therefore, Neutrality benefits the mud as a whole moreso than serves as a detraction.

The role of PK, alignments, balance of economy and power, etc. has often shifted on TFC. There was a time when Good ruled the mud, then Evil took over. We're now in the times when Neutral has the lion's share of power and conflict has reduced significantly.

The dynamics have changed, certainly, but all it will take is a new immortal to adopt a Blue or Red aura, and things will change again. Or for Tyn to implement code changes to make other options more attractive. Or for a major FLI to retire. Or...


Perhaps you should actually read the forums. I've stated my reasons at least 5 times. I will do so again:

BECAUSE IT GIVES ME AN ADVANTAGE. I would be dumb not to take it.

I actually do read the forums, but I wanted you to say it again so it's loud, clear and in the open. You chose this alignment so it would give your followers an advantage in PK.

I chose Neutral because I like Cordir and others of the Chosen and it lets me do the things I like to do - explore, random, stock the pit, help newbies, etc., not to mention I can freely associate with people I like regardless of their aura.

Perhaps that's the biggest reason to keep it - some (many?) people like it and adopt a truly Neutral stance in the way they play. It fits their characters, so it works. Addressing this from the perspective of *just* PK is far too narrow a focus.

Also of note - taking Neutrality away won't shift Neutral FLI's good or evil, I think. I suspect it would force some out of the game completely and many of their followers along with them.

I think this is *not* what TFC needs.

Cheers,

Pol O'Song.

[Schwartz]

I've been around a while, not as long as some of you, but I'm reminded of two distinct moments in this player's TFC history, relative to alignment anyway. Way back when I started playing back in the 2.x days, I struggled with having to be 'good' - this char certainly isn't evil, but good didn't seem to apply, either.

Fast foward to my return in April 03 and JEEZ look at all 9 alignments. Whoa.

As a mortal and an FLI, I was a big supporter of neutral - it fit my intent, especially given the "self-perceived" of our alignment system. We did not disrespect life, we did not conduct ourselves in an immoral manner, and we looked after ourselves first. We weren't adverse to helping others, but we were not required to, and it was really our Choice (pun intended).

We had no allies but picked up a couple enemies due to our choice in faith. This was expected (actually, truth be told, this was intentional - I deliberately wanted to mix things up a bit). Yes, to some extent we benefitted from neutrality (got some neat spells) but at the same time, had we been a blue Nashite following, the other blues would've found themselves in a real moral dilemna.

As now a member of the god+ crew, I'm in favor of the removal of neutral, for a couple reasons. As others have stated, neutral provides more benefits than one of the other choices (in terms of spells, etc). As such, it can be the most self-serving alignment, but it becomes an alignment of ambiguity - since there are no rules defining neutral, it is what you make it, and it has the potential to be more powerful than its red or blue counterparts. There really is no compelling reason to play one side or the other, so you get to hang out in the middle and get the best of all worlds.

Code changes could work to address this, for sure. Once we make the code changes, people get unhappy, because ultimately someone has to lose something. Suddenly Solaron decides neutral doesn't suit him anymore, and Tynian kindly offers him an alignment change as a result of the new code, and Solaron ends up not being neutral anymore anyway.

So, if the 'injustices' were fixed, I think we'd end up with a general alignment shift anyway, and all that coding will become largely irrelevant. Rather than go that route, why not just suspend neutral and use the coding time elsewhere?

[rubicant99]

Kinda reminds me of George Bush making the department of homeland security, kinda like re-arranging a deck of cards that is already in place. Pick a side girls you can't have it all. Neutrality is the road of cowards anyhow, kinda like "neutral nations" in WW2 think about it. In the end I guess some people like to get dirty and make commitments and some people just like to coast (majority). Its what seperates the men from solaron err boys. (my bad dood it happens instantly) All in all imagine a fight in the school yard, bully bad kid (me) vs good kid (grismal example), course theres plenty neuts all standing around or even cheering the fight, or even getting free hits. I guess I don't like the ideas behind neutrality, its sorta like accepting all the good stuff and making an excuse not to jump into the fire so to say. Its human nature, and its because most ppl are weak cowards by nature and in the end this seperates the hitlers and winston churchhills from whoever the hell led those neutral nations. Or if it makes better sense its what seperates The Vex and Maimers or the world from... Well.. from just being another neut hehe. I can handle with or without them. Whatever, leaves me someone to fill up the who list at least.

:eek:

Rubicant, Molo I am your father.

[Tynian]

I can argue points that have nothing to do with PK'ing, the weakening of an entire alignment, the neutral impact of TFC economy, the defensive benefits/exp benefits of being neutral vs any other alignment. It's a fact that the good alignment has massively decreased in population after the introduction of neutrality, it's as stated several times before about the protection benefits of the alignment, neutrals have a faster rate of leveling, the economic pool has become much more stagnant since neutrality has come into existance (this point can also be argued against as the rate of gold as increase, as well as inflation, but I see that as well.) I can argue those points.

Well, sure. There are 3 alignment choices instead of 2, and fewer followings now than in the past, so it's little surprise that there's less Good followings. Your economic pool argument strikes me the same way. If there's a direct, significant cause and effect relationship, please talk about it.

So, talk to me about Neutral's numerous benefits, please, so I know specifically what it is you're talking about.

Thanks.

[Nicademus]

Although I am not sure where the debt code is currently, it has always been my understanding that there is additional debt incurred for the pk of a neutral.

Also, as Warrics are probably one of the more powerful combonations in this mud (another topic for some other day), neutrality robs the evil/good cleric of dispel evil or good, a spell that does rift type damage. I can speak from experience, that with my mage (which has since been purged) that I did not join a following prior to neutrality simply because I did not want to give up the advantage of not having to deal with dispel good or evil. I guess the same argument could apply to shamans without an alignment. So by going neutral you can completely avoid this powerful spell.

The basic premise, as I understand it, is that neutrals get basically what goods get, without any restrictions moral or otherwise.

Maybe the answer is to make alignments more restrictive (as you suggested) while at the same time adding distinct benefits to being good or evil. (Paladins anyone!?!)

Nic

[Katrana]

If there's a direct, significant cause and effect relationship, please talk about it.


I could say the same thing about why keep it? Personally no one has given a direct significant cause and effect relationship as to why it should be kept either. No one has really given an indirect reason to it either. The only thing that's been said, is well it's there, and it makes people happy. At least those in the voting minority have tried to list out our reasons to get rid of it. Anything that anyone says anyway will be indirectly related to an alignment; the alignment is not a physical spell or anything of that sort. So of course all effects will be indirect. Sorry if I'm getting short, but if you want hard core proof, you'll never get it. It's not a bug with the code that can be proved out, it's not a crash that'll leave an error log. It's something intangible. So I might as well stop attempting to debate.

As for benefits, they've been listed, so I'd be repeating.

I believe everything I can say has been said, as I can't give you what you're asking for. Thanks for reading the thoughts I had to say! ::up:: Back to finding groovy things to post in the RoR thread.

[Tynian]

Katrana, I asked because you made reference to some things I did not remember seeing before, and I wanted additional insight on them. What I had hoped for was an honest, constructive response addressing points you said you could expand on but did not.

Well.... thanks anyway.

[Nicademus]

Well.... thanks anyway. I guess I'll have to do without the additional information I requested...


Sorry- I thought I responded.

[Maeron]

So, talk to me about Neutral's numerous benefits, please, so I know specifically what it is you're talking about.


As a cleric, I get protection good and Evil. My opponent cannot have protection neutral. I am able to wear both AG and AE items. I can decide to assist good against evil or evil against good at a whim without needing any sort of justification for why.

You cannot dispel good or evil me while I am xping, tho that is a slight edge. It's somewhat difficult for a good who does not want to attack a pacifist neutral to put me on a stance. Will I be a threat to him or not? If he kills me, will it make him less of a good?

I'm not suggesting these things give anyone a disgusting advantage, but it certainly makes it convenient to be neutral.

I realize UA's get the same advantages, but without a following and FLI spell support.

[DarkClaw]

I feel that neutral should be removed. If not, have it put back so they can't attack unless they are justified. Or maybe limit the number of neutral followings. But i say boo to neutrals, they are just UA's with an ftell.


*blink* Aren't UA's goods, evils or neutrals WITHOUT ftell? If you are thinking about removing neutrality, why not go one step further and make UA's designate whether they are good or evil? That only seems fair. Otherwise it would just be the UA's taking the neutrals' place, in my opinion.

[Katrana]

As a cleric, I get protection good and Evil. My opponent cannot have protection neutral. I am able to wear both AG and AE items. I can decide to assist good against evil or evil against good at a whim without needing any sort of justification for why.

You cannot dispel good or evil me while I am xping, tho that is a slight edge. It's somewhat difficult for a good who does not want to attack a pacifist neutral to put me on a stance. Will I be a threat to him or not? If he kills me, will it make him less of a good?

I'm not suggesting these things give anyone a disgusting advantage, but it certainly makes it convenient to be neutral.

I realize UA's get the same advantages, but without a following and FLI spell support.


Thanks for doing what I guess I didn't do Maeron-snuggles. One additional thing, neutrals can group with whoever they want unless otherwise directed by their immortal. So goods, evils, etc. they can group with them for exp. Which as always leveling at higher levels is better in groups. But they're indirect effects. *shrug* ::huh::

*hugs* to the cuddly for explaining!

[DarkClaw]

Hmm, okay, now I feel stupid...not something new for me. Heh. I didn't realize there were three pages of posts on this particular topic (not being used to these forums yet) and posted according to the first page. So, just ignore me and I'll go about my merry way and stop posting. Sorry!

[kehrindrek]

first off i have to say that i haven't read everything prior to my post since i don't have the patience to focus for that long. that being said i do enjoy reading everyone's posts and i think people have some interesting ideas.

neutrality has a place in theory. in practice i look to topics mentioned on other threads such as player count/activity. i am of the mindset that fewer options in some areas will create greater strength and interest in others. for example we now have only one good following. i have percieved (and others can correct me if i am wrong) that i now see more guardians on at one time in general than i ever have in the past. with no other good following to play in fact guardians are the only goods i can see.

by the same token i offer the question should we have fewer fli's overall? if people log in and feel lonely with no other followers ever on one solution may be to have fewer followings. this seems particularly true when i consider the ratio of good to neutral followings available.

that is somewhat off-topic but leads into.. perhaps we should also have fewer alignments thereby forcing more people into the remaining now larger groups. of the three following alignments available it seems most reasonable to dispense with neutrality.

choice, variety and options are great but it seems that they should also be relative to the size of the player base. i advocate for fewer choices in only some areas in order to create larger player groups/followings. the removal of neutrality may or may not be the solution to this.

[Tay]

all ive seen in the last 10 posts or so is Pol trying to defend neutrals, Katrana sayins "who cares get rid of it"(not actual quote) and talking about neutral being bennifical, the only class it really benfits is clerics.i dont wanna go into debates, cuz this post was kinda pointless, it solved not a thing, i doubt Isolas intended it to turn out this way, neutrals do not have neumerous benefits.
why not give neutral clerics backstab, harm, dispel good and evil, then we'd have neumerous benefits. then i could see all this contraversey.if you remove Neutral i can see alot of ppl being pissed,if you leave it like it is, then they have no reason to be pissed.ya forcing ppl to do things is easier said than done.

[Solaron]

After talking with someone just a minute or two ago, I've decided to make one last attempt. I care about TFC and I want to see my son playing it in years to come. Maybe it'll happen... I'm convinced that if it is to work, we all need to put aside our differences and concentrate on the issue at hand.

First, I'm going to try and clear the air: Pol, your arguments do little for me. I can see your points as you attack the arguments we make. I can agree with you when you say that Neutrality is here until Good and Evil are made more appealing (which, coincidentally, there's a thread discussing). However, regardless of what engineering rules, programming rules or your personal rules of logic, you need to support your case. "It's here and that's the way it is" isn't good enough. Provided that Good and Evil are made appealing, what is the argument for keeping Neutrality? If I'm being an ignorant dolt, humor me and post anyway. Post constructive thoughts on your own side of the issue.

Now, on to Neutrality:

Benefits:
Direct benefits include:

Access to 'Protection Good/Protection Evil'.
There is no 'Protection Neutral'
There is no 'Dispel Neutral'
Ability to ally both Goods and Evils (safety)
Access to more enchants and equipment.
Increased debt for attacking Neutrals
Not having to get involved in the "Good vs Evil" conflict.

Indirect Benefits include:

Easier levelling since you can group with everyone.
Provides safe-haven for PKers looking for free-ride to 40+
A good way for Rangers with an "evil" mindset to avoid the penalties for going truly evil.
The opportunity to act like you are unaligned and yet still receive FLI support and eq.


My Response to Common Neutrality Arguments:

A:"It's what the majority of the players want."
R: Players always want the easy way out. Neutrality provides this in many ways. TFC isn't about the easy way out. If I'm incorrect, a god+ may inform me otherwise. The majority of players chose Good, Evil or stayed unaligned before Neutrality. They would do the same afterwards.

A: "You just care about PK, so you want Neutrals gone."
R: That's silly. Neutrals can be killed just as easily as other alignments. I'm not speaking purely of code here. There's something to be said for the emotional investment of being a Good and finally getting to kill the Evil you've been after or who has hounded you for months, or when you log on and see that the team made of all Goods just won the mud-wide quest vs the team of all Evils. If I cared about nothing but PK, I'd maintain the status quo. I've currently got one of the most, if not the most, active following currently on TFC and I'm able to take advantage of all that Neutrality offers me as an aggressive PK following... and yet I advocate its removal. This isn't about me or any "hidden agenda".

A: "You just want it removed and don't care who or what it effects. We have XXXX reasons."
R: That's fine. First off, enlighten me as to your reasons! Second: Why don't we all read Boromir's suggestion as to what Neutrality should consist of. I support that. Those few people who TRULY wanted to be Neutrals would be Neutral, with all of the limitations it offered. Cordir would stay Neutral, I am sure. Boromir, maybe. I doubt Isolas or myself would, and I'm sure future Immortals would shy away from it as well, which is how it should be. Neutrality, if it DOES exist, should be the minority, not the majority. By this, I mean real Neutrality. The kind of Neutrals who don't have allies, official or unofficial. The kind of Neutrals who don't get involved in the conflict between Good and Evil (or any conflicts, really). We don't have anyone who fits that bill, currently.


My Personal Stance:

Once again: I do not mean to say that I will not be happy until I see Neutrality removed. That is not the case. Neutrality in its current form, however, is overpowered, overutilized and underregulated. I feel it should, barring removal, be limited heavily (perhaps limit Neutrality to 1 FLI?), have restrictions, and offer a few nifty addons for those people who want nothing to do with the PK world. That's about as good of a compromise as I can suggest.

I welcome constructive input to this post, assuming it is thought-out and not "Haha, Solaron! Neutrals aren't overpowered. Give us every spell in the game and then we'll show you overpowered! LOL!" or something similar.

This needs to be a ==DISCUSSION==. Personal attacks need to stop. Attacking someone's stance once or twice, here and there? Sure, great. Accusing someone of hidden agendas or whatsit? Not the place for it.

I'll be the first to apologize to anyone I may have offended if I've made a comment on this thread that attacked you personally. I hope the rest of you follow suit.

[wish]

I have to say that I agree fully with Solaron on this topic, and I believe he has succinctly stated a strong rational for the problems with Neutrality as it is currently implemented.


Wish, Foul Sepiod of the Black Conclave

[Katrana]

[Imagine Sol's note quoted in the entirety right here. (I'm attempting to save people from scrolling!)]

Quoted for truth. He said what I wanted to in a much more elegant and constructive way.

[Pol]

After talking with someone just a minute or two ago, I've decided to make one last attempt. I care about TFC and I want to see my son playing it in years to come. Maybe it'll happen... I'm convinced that if it is to work, we all need to put aside our differences and concentrate on the issue at hand.

I couldn't agree more. Despite our differences, Sol, I think we both love TFC sincerely and want to see it thrive.




First, I'm going to try and clear the air: Pol, your arguments do little for me. I can see your points as you attack the arguments we make. I can agree with you when you say that Neutrality is here until Good and Evil are made more appealing (which, coincidentally, there's a thread discussing). However, regardless of what engineering rules, programming rules or your personal rules of logic, you need to support your case.

I believe I have, but I, too, will offer a summation so that things are clear:


Neutrality offers a place for characters who are neither Good nor Evil - given our dwindling player base, providing options to players to play different types of characters is beneficial to the game as a whole.
Neutrality, in RPG terms, is a force for balance, not non-involvement. This is a point that, after backreading, has been woefully misconstrued at times. Culturally speaking, Neutrality provides a way of keeping the mud from becoming too evil or too good.
Concerning the "burden of proof" - asserting that Neutrality is bad, then forcing proponents of Neutrality to prove it is not is reversing the burden of proof - a logical fallacy. One can't prove a negative.



"It's here and that's the way it is" isn't good enough. Provided that Good and Evil are made appealing, what is the argument for keeping Neutrality? If I'm being an ignorant dolt, humor me and post anyway. Post constructive thoughts on your own side of the issue.

Per my 3rd point above - the challenger to the Status Quo is burdened with providing the argument against. That's simply a precept of sound reasoning.




Now, on to Neutrality:

Benefits:
Direct benefits include:



I'll take each item, point for point here. My comments are in Green below...





Access to 'Protection Good/Protection Evil'.
No access to: Harm, Dispel Evil/Good, Cause Disease, Righteous Assault, Animate Dead, Vampiric Touch, Energy Drain...
There is no 'Protection Neutral'
There is no 'Dispel Neutral'
There is also no Protection UA or Dispel UA. Perhaps UA should be removed as well?
Ability to ally both Goods and Evils (safety)
Ability to ally both Goods and Evils (balance). Further, while in Passion, although a *very* Good following, we had good relations with Coven. We didn't group nor participate in attacks with each other, but we were definitely mutually non-agressive, socially friendly, and offered assistance when possible (Vex must have done dozens of CR's for me at various times). Safety is a function of the people involved and their relationships, not Alignment.
Access to more enchants and equipment.
This is a bold assertion as a whole. Enchants, maybe - simply because no enchant is AN. However, the same could be said of UA not to mention the best commonly available enchant scroll is, itself, AN. Additionally, the enchant is dependant on the alignment of the Mage doing it - there are more Neutral players, therfore more Neutral Mages, therfore, easier access to Neutral/UA only enchants. This isn't a function of the Alignment itself. Equipment, on the other hand, I disagree completely. Many AG items are also AN. Further, random items tend to allocate equally, it seems.
Increased debt for attacking Neutrals
I'm not 100% certain of this. Pacifists, yes, but Neutrals unto themselves? It makes no sense to me that attacking a Pacifist Evil incurs less debt than attacking a Sociopath Neutral. Perhaps someone can verify the debt rules for Neutrals?
Not having to get involved in the "Good vs Evil" conflict.
Non sequitor. Neutrality and non-involvement are not synonymous. As before, Neutrality as a force of Balance is entirely an option. Additionally, there have been Good and Evil following which did not involve themselves in the "Good vs Evil" conflict as a whole as well. Involvement, once again, is a function of the people involved and their relationships, not Alignment.

Indirect Benefits include:

Easier levelling since you can group with everyone.
So, a Magi can group with a Guardian? Or one of the Chosen with an Anathema? There are similar limitations on Neutral followings as their are on Good or Evil aligned followings. Again, non sequitor.
Provides safe-haven for PKers looking for free-ride to 40+
As does UA, or joining a large aggressive following with a glut of equipment available. This is an option some may choose, but not all and I would hazard a guess not even the majority. In a previous post, I requested you explicitly describe your motivation for going Neutral. It differed from mine categorically - for you, it was a game advantage. For me, it "fit" Pol's personality. We can't know the motivations of *every* player in the game, but you must at least acknowledge the possibility that while some may be motivated similar to yourself, others are motivated as I am.
A good way for Rangers with an "evil" mindset to avoid the penalties for going truly evil.
Can you provide an example of one outside your own following? I'm not so sure you could.
The opportunity to act like you are unaligned and yet still receive FLI support and eq.
Not so sure this really matters. One can "act" UA in a Good or Evil following. Hell, one can act "Good" in an Evil following (vis Silonch) or "Evil" in a Good following (vis Maimer). Further, how is acting UA any advantage at all?




Responses, again, below in Green...



My Response to Common Neutrality Arguments:

A:"It's what the majority of the players want."
R: Players always want the easy way out. Neutrality provides this in many ways. TFC isn't about the easy way out.

This presupposes that Neutrality actually *is* the easy way out, does it not? I'm not so sure that's actually the case. Further, if our goal here is to have TFC retain players and thrive, why would we want to snub the nose of the majority when the basic ideas of TFC being a truly "challenging" mud are not compromised?



If I'm incorrect, a god+ may inform me otherwise. The majority of players chose Good, Evil or stayed unaligned before Neutrality. They would do the same afterwards.

That's a sort of non-argument. Characters only had Good, Evil or UA to choose from, so of course they only chose one of those three options. Yes, they would do so again if that became the case, but it begs the question - would they chose the 4th option and not play at all and would the mud be better off for it?

Not to mention, back then things were easier for UA's. Players could have metal-wearing Mages, anyone could recite scrolls or use staves and wands, high-explosives were available from MC1, one size fits all detects, etc. The game is very different now.




A: "You just care about PK, so you want Neutrals gone."
R: That's silly. Neutrals can be killed just as easily as other alignments.

The killing statement.

Much of your arguments against Neutrality are predicated upon Neutrals having some sort of protection. Either they do, or they do not. It seems even you are not sure.


I'm not speaking purely of code here. There's something to be said for the emotional investment of being a Good and finally getting to kill the Evil you've been after or who has hounded you for months, or when you log on and see that the team made of all Goods just won the mud-wide quest vs the team of all Evils. If I cared about nothing but PK, I'd maintain the status quo. I've currently got one of the most, if not the most, active following currently on TFC and I'm able to take advantage of all that Neutrality offers me as an aggressive PK following... and yet I advocate its removal. This isn't about me or any "hidden agenda".

Granted, it's not about a hidden agenda. I believe you when you state that and retract any statements to the contrary. However, I do want to challenge your mindset a bit. These are the things *you* like. I'd never want to take those things away from you by advocating removal of PK or suggest we go MUSH or something.

By the same token, I'd not want to take away from other players the things *they* like either.



A: "You just want it removed and don't care who or what it effects. We have XXXX reasons."
R: That's fine. First off, enlighten me as to your reasons! Second: Why don't we all read Boromir's suggestion as to what Neutrality should consist of. I support that. Those few people who TRULY wanted to be Neutrals would be Neutral, with all of the limitations it offered. Cordir would stay Neutral, I am sure. Boromir, maybe. I doubt Isolas or myself would, and I'm sure future Immortals would shy away from it as well, which is how it should be. Neutrality, if it DOES exist, should be the minority, not the majority. By this, I mean real Neutrality. The kind of Neutrals who don't have allies, official or unofficial. The kind of Neutrals who don't get involved in the conflict between Good and Evil (or any conflicts, really). We don't have anyone who fits that bill, currently.

Again, I would challenge your view of Neutrality. Just as in the good ol' table-top AD&D world, Neutrality was never free from the fray or from making a stand about something. Ever been whacked by a Druid for invading the wrong forest?

Applying the political "Neutral" definition while using an ethical/moral definition for "Good" and "Evil" in the same conversation is erroneous.




My Personal Stance:

Once again: I do not mean to say that I will not be happy until I see Neutrality removed. That is not the case. Neutrality in its current form, however, is overpowered, overutilized and underregulated. I feel it should, barring removal, be limited heavily (perhaps limit Neutrality to 1 FLI?), have restrictions, and offer a few nifty addons for those people who want nothing to do with the PK world. That's about as good of a compromise as I can suggest.

I welcome constructive input to this post, assuming it is thought-out and not "Haha, Solaron! Neutrals aren't overpowered. Give us every spell in the game and then we'll show you overpowered! LOL!" or something similar.

This needs to be a ==DISCUSSION==. Personal attacks need to stop. Attacking someone's stance once or twice, here and there? Sure, great. Accusing someone of hidden agendas or whatsit? Not the place for it.

I'll be the first to apologize to anyone I may have offended if I've made a comment on this thread that attacked you personally. I hope the rest of you follow suit.

I also offer apologies for comments which may have offended. Sometimes I take the smart-ass personae a bit too far.

I could envision a potential compromise such as a "non-combatant" flag on a character. Once set, it cannot be unset ever. Such characters would receive less XP per kill, be restricted from casting spells (helpful or harmful) on "combatants", be unable to initiate attacks or be attacked themselves. Their corpses would be lootable by all, but they would never be threatened, nor be a threat themselves. These characters would be free to roam the world and engage in the other interesting things TFC has to offer without direct threat from other players.

Pol, for one, would probably never take advantage of something like this, but perhaps there are other players that would.

I guess that's what a couple of years of running my own game server has done to me - I think at the "meta-game" level. Personally, I'd not want to be an unaffected/untouchable character, and in fact would be just fine if Neutral were removed (I'd love for Fate to be a Blue following, myself, since Pol has been and always will be a Chaotic Good sort of guy and doggone it, I like my following a *lot*) but thinking at a more macro level, it occurs to me that the health of the mud is more important than my own particular biases or desires.

I can have fun with the way things are now, but I suspect there are many who would not were they changed. Is it worth decreasing or eliminating the enjoyment others have in the game just to receive a marginal increase in our own enjoyment?

I would say, no, it's not.

Pol O'Song.


ETA:fixed some bad quotes.

[Solaron]

I feel the need to clarify this:


The killing statement.

Much of your arguments against Neutrality are predicated upon Neutrals having some sort of protection. Either they do, or they do not. It seems even you are not sure.


First, the "seems even you are not sure." is argumentative. That's the stuff we're trying to avoid. Thanks.

Second: I don't care how many protections someone has. If they are mortal, they can be killed just as easily as someone else. The argument isn't that the protections make Neutrality invincible or unstoppable; it's that it makes them much, much more appealing to players. Players aren't choosing Neutrality because of their "Neutral" mindset, be it political or moral, but because it's what gets them the phattest lewtz or the fastest levels. If that doesn't apply to you, fine. It does to most people. Most old-timey Faters are not included in the statement. ;) If that's the way the game is to be played, great. Let's just drop the whole alignment thing and make it a game of Risk or Diplomacy where we just make alliances and go off of that... that's what we're heading towards so far.

I don't feel arguing this any further will make a bit of difference. Let's rest on our arguments and let Tynian decide as he wishes.

[Tynian]

Indeed, unless someone has something new to add, let's let the thread quiet down. At this point, everyone has their own POV, and it's unlikely someone's gong to change their mind.

I will post my thoughts and intentions soon. You will then have an opportunity to react to it.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to share their thoughts.

[pitt]

Just throwing in my opinion, I disagree with most of the points about the problems with neutrality.. except that one about pkers using the alignment as a free ride to level 40 or 50, when they could jump ship and join a pk following.

Okk's Life's Blood was one of my favourite TFC experiences, but we were a neutral nashite following and easily the best protected in the game at the time. Lots of people outside the following complained about people using the following for just that reason, and I agreed with them entirely. I think at the time there was some kind of pk restriction when you left neutral but I'd definitely be in favour of making it a much more serious penalty. I think it used to be something along the lines of a 300 hour game-time restriction, and I know a bunch of the people affected just logged in and went afk with a 5 minute 'hide' trigger to get by those hours, which really annoyed me.

[Okk]

I protest the inference of my following being safe! My followers were continuously subjected to being rifted, teleported, sex-changed, haunted, ordained and other horrible fates at complete random. Those most beloved to me got the worst of it! Somehow that just seemed to be the custom in the following. :P

[pitt]

True that! I'm sure that it's still true that the single leading cause of pitt corpses lying around is a certain 'guardian' spirit ;)

But as much as other of Okk's followers complained about us being easy targets and unable to retaliate with Okk's complete ban on pking, evil nashites didn't attack us and we were on goood terms with most of the good followings at the time, and I felt that the way a number of other followers left, joined the conclave, and started pking cheapened the fantastic following that Okk created, so I'm definitely in favour of harsher penalties!

[Gregar]

As I read the posts, I began to lose hope for changing the opinions of those such as Solaron & Kat, especially in these last few. So my post here is hopefully to help sway the opinion of the one who does matter, and if I manage to sway others, I will be greatly pleased at the bonus points.

TFC is a PK mud, if I wasn't OK with that I would go somewhere else. I can remember a lot of changes to this mud since I started playing back in '96. I have been reluctant to accept most all of them but have adjusted to most. Neutrality is the one exeption to that rule, in that I liked t from the start it just suited me. I disagree with other's perception that in reality most people are good or evil. In truth, the vast majority of people in the world are neutral, perhaps this evidences quickly in TFC a well once neutrality was an option.

Whether you look at historical political or religious interpretations of neutrality it can be perceived in many ways, and such is the way of life. You can find neutrality in politics & religion both, Tibetan monks, Quakers, the Swedes, and even the US in it's isolationist policies before we joined WWII. Many were persecuted for it. During the revolutionary war, quakers were killed by American Puritans because they refused to fight and were considered enemies of the state (they also provided food & stuffs to both sides as long as it wasn't weapons) There are't many places where things are black and white, this includes our self perceived alignment.

For me, I always disliked people that abused neutrality such as what I saw in Okk's following, it disgusted me as a neutral because it cheapened what I believe in (and for Gregar, neutrality has always just fit, even in my time that I was with Tripper's tigers it wasn't right, neutrality just seemed more natural.) I encourage changes to the mud that prevent people from abusing neurality. I also feel that getting rid of the option of neutrality is a lot like tossing out the baby with the bath water.

I think everyone here can agree that what they want is for TFC to continue for many more years. TFC was created by Tynian through lots of work that frankly he didn't have to do, it's given so many hours of free entertainment it's frankly ridiculous (I paid for a copy of ZMud in '97 or so for $20, and donated when Primenet/Global Center booted them that's pretty much it). In the end, it wasn't him or any other programmer that made it what it is today. It was us players, and we have a lot of time & emotion vested in this. We all want TFC to continue, and I feel that removing neutrality would be detrimental to that end.

This to me becomes an equation of economics. Time is a resource, and a small amount of all of our time is devoted to entertainment, this is true of everyone. To keep TFC running people need to spend their entertainment time with us (all of us on the mud). To get them to spend their time you either need to find a niche, or try to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Experience with economics tells us that the larger your appeal the better your chances of success. To this end, my feeling is keep neutrality but fix the problems, that way we can keep an appeal to all PK'ers and neuters such as myself.

If neutrality went away, I would be extremely dissapointed. I don't know if I would quit TFC altogether, but I get the feeling the amount of time I would spend there would diminish. I hate to speculate on others and won't say how many would quit, but I will go on record saying there would be some fallout just who knows how big. I personally hope things work out well, I want everyone to keep havg fun here as I have on and off for a decade now.

[Cordir]

Seven years ago this month, I joyfully accepted the worship of the first member of Chosen of Fate (Nyx, Faileas Dhan, the Ebon Shadow). The following’s core concept/mission was threefold: create an environment that encouraged RP, hold a strong focus on newbie helping, and to be a group that would judge on the actions of the individual, and not the aura or following. (I hold newbie helping to be the most important of the three goals, and the majority of the Chosen have at least one ‘geasa’ that is directly focused on some means of helping those new to TFC.)

I didn’t pick Neutrality for any particular coded advantage – because I honestly don’t think there were too many, back at the beginning - but because I saw a lot of newbies being left stranded in the middle of the epic battle of Good versus Evil that dominated the mud when I, myself, was new. The focus of existing followings was the ‘war’ – not the people in the middle, trying to learn the game. Speaking very generally, people tended to focus on supporting their own following members, and ignored the confused newbies. So newbies would be pushed into joining one following or the other, followed by a lot of ‘We are going to kill you because you are in X following, even though you’re as aggressive as a baby bunny and have no idea how to play the game just yet.’

I didn’t want that for my following. I wanted to base our response to the world on the philosophy of personal responsibility – we would only hold those accountable who deliberately brought harm to our door. I strictly forbade attacks on anyone who had not initiated hostilities against us – and even then, I gave the aggressor ‘three strikes’ before I would permit the initiation of combat by anyone other than the person who had the attack justification.

When the concept of PK Model was introduced, the Chosen were initially Hearth – the most restrictive of all the PK Models. Then Hearth went away, and we became Sentry. Almost immediately, the hue and cry rose up that sentry ‘just wasn’t fair’ because the sub-twenty killers attacking small folks in the following could get squashed by a level 50 Fate. I did not have much sympathy for these sub-20 level-camping PKers, because it appeared to me that the difference in their playing skill level and those they were attacking was about as great as the level difference between a 45+ and them. In my view, it was just as fair for them to be as out-gunned as their intended victim. Attack justifications, however, always were a little weird for the Sentry PK model. There was ‘revolving’ justifications, which never made sense, and caused no small amount of problems. So life wasn’t entirely easy as pie under Sentry. {Entirely setting aside the deliberately foul behavior of some players, who KNEW that they could do and say anything they liked, but unless we had Following Justification, nothing could be done in response. If you don’t think there was a whole lot of ‘let’s poke the Fater who can’t do anything back..’ you’re sadly mistaken. It happened. Daily. It is why I shudder at the suggestion that Neutrals never be allowed to initiate an attack unless Justified. Sticks and stones may not break bones, but they can drive folks off the mud.]

After Torchbearer’s second run at Demi, as a “Good” aligned Sentry following, no further followings were allowed to select Sentry (whether the two are related, only Tynian can answer). Because of Fate’s longevity in the model, we would be allowed to stay, as, in Tynian’s words, we had done so ‘successfully.’ All other followings were required to be created under the Sword model. I had a number of conversations with Tynian about PK model, and during one of them, he expressed that he would like PK model to go away entirely. He made it known to me that there were code ideas that he could not pursue, so long as Fate was Sentry.

Selfishly, I wanted to keep Sentry. I felt it meshed very well with the stated and long held goals of the following. But it did bother me – because I knew Tynian had things he wanted to do. Unfortunately, I think Sentry and Neutrality eventually became enmeshed in people’s minds, because of our longevity. In holding onto Sentry for so long, I may have done the alignment a disservice. However, the two are not, and never have been, one and the same, code-wise. Philosophy-wise? Quite likely.

At one point, about halfway through the lifespan of the Chosen of Fate, after my many talks with Tynian, and after yet another instance of an aggressive evil PK’er being a cad simply for the fun of being a cad, I’d had enough. As well, it was during this time that conflict had grown between groups that I had earnestly hoped could be RP partners and close allies: myself and Katrana’s Wyld Hunt. Both off and on mud, I felt personally betrayed and was deeply upset, and wanted very badly to strike out at those who had caused this anguish. This certainly colored my decision, and I spoke to Khore about changing PK Models. There wasn’t any going back, unfortunately, though many times I have wished I could undo that decision. As Khore himself said, once a following takes up the sword, there is no putting it down. It irrevocably changes the tone and focus of a following, and not necessarily for the better. It creates the constant focus of ‘us versus them.’ For Fate, it became a distraction from our core missions: RP and Newbie helping. I’ve been working for a while now, on pulling that focus back where it belongs. It’s an uphill battle.

Over time, it became clear that some coded advantages existed for Neutrality. I have long held the (apparently mistaken) belief that debt for attacking a Sword Neutral was the same as attacking a Sword Evil or a Sword Good. I had thought that it was based on the individual rating of the character (pacifist, sociopath, etc).

If Neutrality does, at this point, hold coded advantages, then I strongly support leveling the playing field. Not surprisingly, my boiled down, simple answer to this debate is this: Leave the alignment, because it truly is the right choice for many players from both a RP and a personal philosophy standpoint, and strip away any possible unfair advantages.

I would, therefore, make the following suggestions:

- Create “Dispel Enemy” and “Protection vs Enemy”. Base these on the declared enemies of the following, as seen on FINFO. Toss out Dispel Evil, Dispel Good, Pro vs Evil, Pro vs Good. That takes care of the issue of no ‘Dispel Neutral’ or ‘Protection vs Neutral.’

- Remove any lingering differences on debt based on alignment. Focus it solely on the individual’s standing (pacifist – sociopath). (Though debt, itself, is a whole other topic.) That takes care of the issue of unequal debt based on alignment.

To address some of the non-coded, perceived ‘advantages’ of Neutrality, and other observations made:

* I disagree strongly that only Neutral followings create a ‘safe haven’ for people to ‘level up and leave.’ I believe that it depends on the perceive strength (and realistic threat of retaliation) of the following. People are certainly capable of keeping their nose to the grindstone, staying quietly unnoticed, and leveling up fast in any following, only to appear on the PK radar when they hit the level they wanted. I have seen experienced players reach level 40 in one single month of play, if not less, in aggressive followings and pacifist followings alike. It is largely dependant on individual skill levels and the hours one has the freedom to play.

* I do not believe that to be of Neutral Alignment, one must remain out of conflict. One of the phrases used on TFC is _“Self Perceived”_ Alignment. My personal definitions of Neutrality are what I have held my following to for seven years. Hold the individual responsible for their actions, and not judge them by their aura or their choice of following. Help newbies. Explore the RP aspect of the game whenever possible. Build relationships that span the diversity that is TFC. Welcome a diverse group of players (and characters) into Fate. That is _my_ Neutrality – walking a highwire balancing act between the conflicts, while focusing on those worthy of friendship.

It was suggested that a Neutral party cannot have allies – that to do so, is in and of itself, ‘picking sides’. Until recent retirements made it impossible, I was very careful and deliberate in my choice of allies: One Good ally for one Evil ally. This has been one of the greatest challenges to the following – being the Balance between the two. Our allies in Tigers and Coven constantly battled one another, with the battered body of a Chosen often in the middle. The same has happened recently, with Darkness and Magi. We have always stood by our alliances, even when it brought us enmity and harm. Sometimes we have paid for it, and that’s okay. That’s part of my definition of being Neutral.

* I do not believe that Neutrality has brought about the downfall of the mud. Neutrality was introduced once in 2x, but predominantly in 3x. At that same time, however, a huge number of other code changes were made to the way PK functioned. TFC is, as has been repeated ad nauseum, a mud with PK. Many of the changes made PK less attractive to those who held PK as their primary focus. I do not believe that it was Neutrality that drove them away; in fact, their own words on such public forums as the note board, idea board, and the public web-based Conclave message board indicate otherwise. They left because of changes to PK.

In summation, I believe that Neutrality has earned a place on TFC. Neutrals have never expected to be ‘exempt’ from the conflict that creates a rich environment of conflict and opportunity for heroism (or anti-heroism). I believe that removing Neutrality would be harmful to the game as a whole, by pushing away players that have a great deal to add.

Respectfully offered,

-Cordir, Lady of Fate

[Solaron]

- Create “Dispel Enemy” and “Protection vs Enemy”. Base these on the declared enemies of the following, as seen on FINFO. Toss out Dispel Evil, Dispel Good, Pro vs Evil, Pro vs Good. That takes care of the issue of no ‘Dispel Neutral’ or ‘Protection vs Neutral.’

I'm not a fan of this idea as its worded. It takes away the sense of alignment. We might as well just go to a clan/guild system if we start removing references to alignments like this. I would instead suggest that dispel evil AND dispel good can hit both his Neutrals. Not a massive change, mainly semantics.



- Remove any lingering differences on debt based on alignment. Focus it solely on the individual’s standing (pacifist – sociopath). (Though debt, itself, is a whole other topic.) That takes care of the issue of unequal debt based on alignment.

Sure, that sounds fine.

What are your thoughts on followings like my own? I don't feel that followings like the Mafia should be allowed to be Neutral, but because of the same 'self-perceived' alignment, I can justify it. In lieu of removing Neutral, I would advocate more oversight of the Neutral alignment as far as followings go: Limit the alignment to 1 or 2 followings at max. These followings must be pacifist (perhaps allow the FLI to view how many unjust attacks their followers have initiated) and failure to do so will result in warnings. Lack of results later would result in forced alignment change. Those who truly are 'Neutral' (not just for the ability to befriend good and evil and other direct/indirect benefits) would still go Neutral; people like Tranquility, Noctus, Boromir, Pol, etc. Those who don't (myself, most of Mafia, good chunk of Magi) would be forced to pick a side. This solves most of the dilemma.

Input?

Oh! And was I the aggressive evil PKer who made you switch?!

[Cordir]

I'm not a fan of this idea as its worded. It takes away the sense of alignment. We might as well just go to a clan/guild system if we start removing references to alignments like this. I would instead suggest that dispel evil AND dispel good can hit both his Neutrals. Not a massive change, mainly semantics.

It actually would SUPPORT the system of Allies and Enemies, and allows for a broader interpretation (yes, the dreaded 'Self Perceived' issue) of what it means to be Good and what it means to be Evil. Not all Good followings are Solanthas' WarDancers, or the Abrasives or the Court. There's a lot of room for interpretation, which is, I think, the core of this whole discussion. Dispel Enemy / Protection vs Enemy allows the FLI themselves to decide their focus.

Dispel Good and Dispel Evil affecting Neutrals is ... I'm sorry... but I believe that's just silly. I suppose, by your logic, it should also affect UAs? (No sarcasm intended, I'm just not able to follow your logic.)


What are your thoughts on followings like my own? I don't feel that followings like the Mafia should be allowed to be Neutral, but because of the same 'self-perceived' alignment, I can justify it.

I view it very similarly to the way I viewed Torchbearer's use of Sentry for his Dawnbringers.


In lieu of removing Neutral, I would advocate more oversight of the Neutral alignment as far as followings go: Limit the alignment to 1 or 2 followings at max. These followings must be pacifist (perhaps allow the FLI to view how many unjust attacks their followers have initiated) and failure to do so will result in warnings.

I disagree. You, yourself, were very vocal while in Fate as to just exactly how much enforced pacifism sucked. Your views seem to have changed...


Oh! And was I the aggressive evil PKer who made you switch?!

... No.

[Solaron]

It actually would SUPPORT the system of Allies and Enemies, and allows for a broader interpretation (yes, the dreaded 'Self Perceived' issue) of what it means to be Good and what it means to be Evil. Not all Good followings are Solanthas' WarDancers, or the Abrasives or the Court. There's a lot of room for interpretation, which is, I think, the core of this whole discussion. Dispel Enemy / Protection vs Enemy allows the FLI themselves to decide their focus.

What I'm saying then is this becomes more of a political game than a game of Good and Evil sides led by their Gods. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it's a move away from where we've always been. Instead of Gods, we might as well be Emperors or Presidents and run Nations instead of Followings, then. This may just be a case where I have a hard time seeing your side and you've a hard time seeing mine. :)



Dispel Good and Dispel Evil affecting Neutrals is ... I'm sorry... but I believe that's just silly. I suppose, by your logic, it should also affect UAs? (No sarcasm intended, I'm just not able to follow your logic.)

Well, unaligned's don't have the benefits of Neutrality, so no, by my logic it shouldn't. I'm not suggesting your idea means being able to flag UAs as enemies so that we can dispel them. Once again, we seem just to be missing eachother's points, I suppose.


I view it very similarly to the way I viewed Torchbearer's use of Sentry for his Dawnbringers.

So you think its a mockery of the purpose of the code? I'm not exactly sure of your view anymore, aside from your dislike of TB and the Dawnbringers. It's been a while! :)



I disagree. You, yourself, were very vocal while in Fate as to just exactly how much enforced pacifism sucked. Your views seem to have changed...

That's the point that's been stressed here, Cordir. Myself and others are part of a vocal 'minority' that look for ways to enhance, encourage and support PK. I don't have the mindset to be a Neutral the way they should be.... and back when I was in Fate, Neutrality wasn't as big of an issue. There was you and... that's about it. We still had powerful Goods and powerful Evils battling, with you caught in the middle. That's great. Now... we have 1 Good God who has no Evil enemies and yet 2 Neutral enemies, we have a couple of Evil followings with low activity and then BAM. Neutrality. My following is amazingly active, I've got tons of players on usually, and I'm as far from my idea of real Neutrality as possible. We've got Iso, whose following is growing. We've got you, an established Neutral powerhouse. We've got Boromir and the Nexus (who, along with you, I feel makes the best effort at being Neutral). It just doesn't make sense to me.

The point of this Neutrality discussion, as voiced by Pol and others, is that there are people with a mindset entirely separate to my own. Read Boromir's input on Neutrality, for example. These people wouldn't mind enforced non-aggression (except for using justs, etc). It wouldn't be a lot different than Sentry/Fjust except the level 50s wouldn't be able to fight the battles for the level 20s.




... No.

Good - I hadn't thought so, but you mentioned feeling betrayed and I was like 'Hmm...'. I had thought it was Mordypoo.

Hope that helps explain.

[Jashon]

[Imagine Sol's note quoted in the entirety right here. (I'm attempting to save people from scrolling!)]

Quoted for truth. He said what I wanted to in a much more elegant and constructive way.


You're supposed to say, "I said this word for word to him last night and he stole it from me!"


And I think good points were made. By Sol as well as Pol.

(BTW 1 benefit of being a neutral ranger instead of evil is not having all non-evil rangers have a just)

I am *very* philosophically opposed to the neutral alignment as it presently exists. (Boromir had to talk to me for almost two hours to convince me to join) *By the same token, I am very philosophically opposed or inclined to many things, some of which seem to be odd to many people, I know you all care ::whistle:: *

I love the good vs evil battle that long ago was one of the backbones-- guess that doesn't really make sense-- one of the vertebra in the backbone of TFC--especially the PK part.

But Neutrality is a great addition, but one that *is* being abused.

While in some odd sense of the word being aggro against everyone *is* neutral. But I do not believe that is what neutral means. I believe, as has been stated, that neutral does, in fact, infer pacifism. *Though we must admit that we are playing a PK game, hence I think that neutral should be allowed to participate in battles vs pcs--but at great expense if unjust*

[Gregar]

In response to Kat, remember that there are two sides to alignment. Attacking everybody indiscriminately -might make you neutral to law/chos, but is certainly evil. If you were to go by the D&D v3.5 rules for alignment it might be more likely to be chaotic evil. Remember, goods have morals that stay their hand from friends/goods, evil has no friends, just someone to be used to gain more power, then extrerminated when no longer needed, good or evil.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b

[Nicademus]

I think this thread has been beaten to death by both sides. There seems to be very little more to add regarding the viability of neutrality.

What I have taken away from all of this discussion, is that the majority of players like to be able to role play the way they want to role play and the immortals like to define the followings in the manner that they choose, without harsh restrictions. To that end, although I have been against it, I propose that we make a modified clan system.

Under a clan system, Cordir can call herself neutral and define it in ANY WAY she wants. Solaron can be neutral, evil, whatever, but he will not be bound by strict constraints of the system. With respect to spells and skills, there are not too many skills and spells that are tied to alignment. Personaly I have NO problem getting rid of protection good/evil or dispel good/evil. In fact I am very much in favor of getting rid of them I never understood why clerics got a rift like spell, since there should only be one class with a damage spell of that nature).

In order to facilitate the theme of a specific following, I suggest that certain spells/skills be grouped in packages. For example, an FLI may choose package A with spells that are more evil thematically or package B with spells that are more good thematically. Possibly the groupings are spells of a more aggressive nature and others that are more protective. The long and the short of it, is that people seem to like the variety of followings and the FLIs like to define things like they want to define them. In this manner, no one can claim that Iso, Cordor or Boromir are or are not neutral. They are what they are and their rules are their rules. If they want to call themselves neutral they may, if they want to call themselves communists they can go right ahead.

The major concern here, and one of the reasons people like just good and evil, is that it in theory could decrease conflict. However, with independent groupings, followings will be more able to ally or become enemies with other followings and not have such alliances dictated solely by code. Perhaps the code mandates that each following have at least one delcared enemy or something along those lines (actually it would provide room for creating a story line explaining the alliance or opposition). The fact is, just because we have only good or evil does not necessarily mean we will have more conflict. Make Cordir evil and she is not automatically going to start killing everyone. I think the assumed changes may be overblow. This system would allow everyone to do what they want and call themselves what they want.

The above is not fully developed, but I would be more than happy to add to it if people are receptive. If the idea sucks, then Im fine with that too.

-Nic

[Solaron]

In response to Kat, remember that there are two sides to alignment. Attacking everybody indiscriminately -might make you neutral to law/chos, but is certainly evil. If you were to go by the D&D v3.5 rules for alignment it might be more likely to be chaotic evil. Remember, goods have morals that stay their hand from friends/goods, evil has no friends, just someone to be used to gain more power, then extrerminated when no longer needed, good or evil.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b

While I agree with the input, Gregar, the alignments on TFC aren't moral-based. I believe in an earlier post, Tynian and Nicademus had a similar discussion. We can't view them as a purely moral or political entity; they are their own thing, unique to TFC. Therein lies the rub: how do we define something that has never before needed such strict definition.

Depending on how its justified, I've seen some pretty highly qualified DMs at Gencon allow chaotic neutrals to be fairly aggressive (nearly psychopathic), by the way. Doesn't have to be evil. And yay for DnD!

[Solaron]

I think this thread has been beaten to death by both sides. There seems to be very little more to add regarding the viability of neutrality.

What I have taken away from all of this discussion, is that the majority of players like to be able to role play the way they want to role play and the immortals like to define the followings in the manner that they choose, without harsh restrictions. To that end, although I have been against it, I propose that we make a modified clan system.

Under a clan system, Cordir can call herself neutral and define it in ANY WAY she wants. Solaron can be neutral, evil, whatever, but he will not be bound by strict constraints of the system. With respect to spells and skills, there are not too many skills and spells that are tied to alignment. Personaly I have NO problem getting rid of protection good/evil or dispel good/evil. In fact I am very much in favor of getting rid of them I never understood why clerics got a rift like spell, since there should only be one class with a damage spell of that nature).

In order to facilitate the theme of a specific following, I suggest that certain spells/skills be grouped in packages. For example, an FLI may choose package A with spells that are more evil thematically or package B with spells that are more good thematically. Possibly the groupings are spells of a more aggressive nature and others that are more protective. The long and the short of it, is that people seem to like the variety of followings and the FLIs like to define things like they want to define them. In this manner, no one can claim that Iso, Cordor or Boromir are or are not neutral. They are what they are and their rules are their rules. If they want to call themselves neutral they may, if they want to call themselves communists they can go right ahead.

The major concern here, and one of the reasons people like just good and evil, is that it in theory could decrease conflict. However, with independent groupings, followings will be more able to ally or become enemies with other followings and not have such alliances dictated solely by code. Perhaps the code mandates that each following have at least one delcared enemy or something along those lines (actually it would provide room for creating a story line explaining the alliance or opposition). The fact is, just because we have only good or evil does not necessarily mean we will have more conflict. Make Cordir evil and she is not automatically going to start killing everyone. I think the assumed changes may be overblow. This system would allow everyone to do what they want and call themselves what they want.

The above is not fully developed, but I would be more than happy to add to it if people are receptive. If the idea sucks, then Im fine with that too.

-Nic

This should probably become its own thread or move to the god/follower vs. clan system thread. We can get into it there! Woooo!

[Nicademus]

This should probably become its own thread or move to the god/follower vs. clan system thread. We can get into it there! Woooo!


1) That thread has died a slow death.

2) I think it is the answer for the "neutral issue." You said it in your earlier post, the problem is defining neutrality. Well, if FLIs are in a more clan based system, they can define their following however they want. People wont be able to complain about definitions, coding, etc.

-Nic

[Jashon]

no, lets keep saying the same things over and over. That way we can all make sure everyone really understands. And the more we say the same thing, the more likely everyone else is to agree!

[Tynian]

FYI, I have not forgotten that I owe you all some feedback on this thread. Unfortunately, I haven't had much free time the past few days.

Thanks to everyone that participated.

[Tynian]

Ha, I've been type type typing away, to explain what I've decided to do and why. The more I type, the more muddled things get.

That's usually a good sign that my thoughts aren't as clarified as they need to be.

I'll keep this short and simple. If you do respond, please do the same. Assuming that followings can be either Good or Evil (no neutral):


A following kills only PKers (regardless of alignment) -- they only attack non-pacifists/non-reprisalists. What alignment best suits this following? Why?
A following is dedicated to non-PK purposes. They will retrieve and return corpses to anyone, regardless of who they follow. What alignment are they? Why?
A following only defends itself. It does not unjustly attack. What alignment are they and why?
A member of a Good following helps a friend in an Evil following with spells, equipment, and other indirect PK help. What should happen? Why?
Several members of a Good following help friends in Evil followings or UA killers with spells, equipment, and ohter indirect PK help. What should happen? Why?


No, I'm not trying to irritate the crud out of anyone. If the questions bug ya, then skip 'em. It's okay. :) And no, we don't need to necessarily debate the answers. I'd just like to know how you'd answer them, if you so choose.

[Solaron]

I'll keep this short and simple. If you do respond, please do the same. Assuming that followings can be either Good or Evil (no neutral):

Sure thing. My foreword: These questions are the meat of the grey area in the "rules" (or lack thereof, currently). These same questions plague us in real life, although we don't kill people for it. An example is the ACLU. Good? Sure. But they've also defended some very evil causes. It's a tangled web.



A following kills only PKers (regardless of alignment) -- they only attack non-pacifists/non-reprisalists. What alignment best suits this following? Why?


If they attack Goods for any reason other than, well, NOT being good (see my later answers to Goods aiding Evils), then they are evil. As to my reasoning: We can't get too caught up in politics, morals or trying to justify every separate situation that may occur. If there is Good and Evil and you attack both, even if it's just the PKers of both, then you are Evil.



A following is dedicated to non-PK purposes. They will retrieve and return corpses to anyone, regardless of who they follow. What alignment are they? Why?

They should be a clan.... *cough* Seriously though: If properly played, fully pacifist and well-ruled by an Immortal, such a following would do well. I think of Rhina or Boromir. I can see this being 'Good' because of their end goal: saving people. I see it as more of a missionary experience to the evils; just because they may be sinners does not mean they are not able to be saved. Good works for me.



A following only defends itself. It does not unjustly attack. What alignment are they and why?

They could be Good or Evil, depending on aspects OTHER than PK. In this aspect, PK doesn't have an influence on their alignment. Roleplay and their following background do instead.



A member of a Good following helps a friend in an Evil following with spells, equipment, and other indirect PK help. What should happen? Why?


In my perfect world, the Blue community would find it unacceptable and the player would be talked to. He either leaves his following naked or he admits his error in judgement and moves onward. In the case of a following such as Rhina's, as I mentioned above... I wouldn't have a problem with it. if they extended the same to everyone. They would not have a vested interest in the battles (which many Neutrals do, before you say 'But that's the same as Neutrality!) and we would know well in advance their stance. The example, however, says it's for a friend. In that case, my first part of the answer holds true.

That said, I can be Good and Mystaya can be good (yes, just examples). Her version of "Good" is helping EVERYONE. MINE is annihilating evil. Will those two clash from time to time? Yes. Will she face repercussions from either side occasionally? Yep. It will happen.



Several members of a Good following help friends in Evil followings or UA killers with spells, equipment, and other indirect PK help. What should happen? Why?

If it becomes an issue such as other people notice, it should be brought to the attention of their FLI. Their FLI should reprimand them and ensure it doesn't happen again, knowing that forced alignment changes, while rare, can happen because of this. Perhaps the mana has his mana docked for it.

Once again, for the Rhina example, we would all KNOW her stance and know that her followers are not just aiding friends, they are aiding -everyone-. If Neutrality would be removed, there wouldn't be many followings like this to begin with. We could stand and nurture one or two.




No, I'm not trying to irritate the crud out of anyone. If the questions bug ya, then skip 'em. It's okay. :) And no, we don't need to necessarily debate the answers. I'd just like to know how you'd answer them, if you so choose.

Not irritating at all - great questions that really cut to the core of why Neutrality was created in the first place. I just think that the playerbase was large enough then to handle a third (mostly pacifist) alignment. Such is no longer the case.

[Tamar]

A following kills only PKers (regardless of alignment) -- they only attack non-pacifists/non-reprisalists. What alignment best suits this following? Why?
I'm going with good, but only because I can't find a compelling reason for this description to be evil.


A following is dedicated to non-PK purposes. They will retrieve and return corpses to anyone, regardless of who they follow. What alignment are they? Why?
Good, because they're dedicated to "helping" people.


A following only defends itself. It does not unjustly attack. What alignment are they and why?
Good, cause evil = PK. But really, it could be lawful evil just as easily.


A member of a Good following helps a friend in an Evil following with spells, equipment, and other indirect PK help. What should happen? Why?

Several members of a Good following help friends in Evil followings or UA killers with spells, equipment, and ohter indirect PK help. What should happen? Why?
I don't have a decent answer for these last two. What bothers me the most about them is not that it's a "good" helping an "evil", because I think maybe sometimes goods "should" help evils in an attempt to sway them to their cause. What bothers me is that it's a good helping a "friend", and presumably not roleplaying. Just, you know, helping their friend because they are their friend.

[Katerina]

Assuming that followings can be either Good or Evil (no neutral):
I propose that, at least for the time being, we shift the language away from "good" and "evil". Best to define the structures and systems and then label them, rather than to try to start with these two labels that have such variable interpretations.

A following kills only PKers (regardless of alignment) -- they only attack non-pacifists/non-reprisalists. What alignment best suits this following? Why?
Alignment choices that come to mind: PK, Aggro, Miscreant, Missionary, Doctrinists. Color 'em red if you want.


A following is dedicated to non-PK purposes. They will retrieve and return corpses to anyone, regardless of who they follow. What alignment are they? Why?

"Non-pk", non-aggro, defenders/agents of the realm, heroes


A following only defends itself. It does not unjustly attack. What alignment are they and why?

Reprisalists, defensive, introverts, I dunno - creative juices not flowing with this one


A member of a Good following helps a friend in an Evil following with spells, equipment, and other indirect PK help. What should happen? Why?

On one level, there should be societal repurcussions: FLI or OM are aware of the member's actions and the member is punished for acting against the following's defined code of behavior.

There might also be a list posted of pcs who have a record of helping non-members in aggressive action.

On another level, it would be nice to have coded restrictions (e.g. can't cast spells on an enemy following's member). But, we all know that such things, while likely onerous to create, will be gotten around. It's human nature to find and exploit such restrictions. So, I wouldn't suggest undo emphasis on coding at this point.


Several members of a Good following help friends in Evil followings or UA killers with spells, equipment, and ohter indirect PK help. What should happen? Why?

Again, the only answer I can see at this point is societal pressure/punishment. While it is not foolproof to rely on such pressure to keep people in line, it may be helpful to remember that with simpler, stricter definitions of behavior, it will be easier to identify behavior that goes against the grain.

Public floggings used to work in the old days...

Don't like my labels? No sweat. My true point is the first: Define the system/structure/codes of behavior, THEN slap labels on them. Have we agreed on these codes and systems? If so, I missed it. If not, start there.

[boromir]

A following kills only PKers (regardless of alignment) -- they only attack non-pacifists/non-reprisalists. What alignment best suits this following? Why?
A following is dedicated to non-PK purposes. They will retrieve and return corpses to anyone, regardless of who they follow. What alignment are they? Why?
A following only defends itself. It does not unjustly attack. What alignment are they and why?
A member of a Good following helps a friend in an Evil following with spells, equipment, and other indirect PK help. What should happen? Why?
Several members of a Good following help friends in Evil followings or UA killers with spells, equipment, and other indirect PK help. What should happen? Why?

(using current alignment descriptor)

1). Good / Chaotic - by attemptig to remove those who would disrupt life in the realm without regards to alignment of perps

2). Good / Neutral - helping all who need it regardless of alignment

3). Evil or Good / Neutral - a following that only defends can be either alignment. No where is it stated that an Evil following needs to be aggressive in so far as attacking other players since there are other ways and means of being evil.

4) Course of Action: the FLI of that following needs to make sure that all members of that following understand and follow the 'alignment' Good should not be helping Evil. As for that specific following, the folower should be punished in a method determined to be appropriate by the FLI.

5) Course of Action: the FLI of that following needs to make sure that all members of that following understand and follow the 'alignment' Good should not be helping Evil. As for those specific followers, the followers should be punished in a method determined to be appropriate by the FLI

If nbr 4 and nbr 5 seem to always be coming from the same following, the FLI needs to re-consider those people as followers since they have a problem with following the alignment. If the FLI is incapable, not willing or indirectly condoning these actions by not taking any action, then the MLI's (Management Level Immortal's) need to speak to the FLI and remind them that either the FLI takes action or they will. The potential courses of action to be taken could be anything from punishinig the followers in question as well as the FLI as well as other actions up to and including changing the alignment to Evil. If the FLI objects to that course of action, the answer would be
' Based upon the actions of your followers and your inaction towards those followers specifically, you have been moved to an alignment that fits your followings style and method of play'.

Your considered thoughts and opinions!::up::

[Tynian]

I propose that, at least for the time being, we shift the language away from "good" and "evil". Best to define the structures and systems and then label them, rather than to try to start with these two labels that have such variable interpretations.

An interesting point, but rather outside of the scope of what I'm fishing for. What I am looking at is what, if anything, should be done with the Neutral alignment -- a relatively small undertaking. Discussing whether we want a whole different classification system, working out what that would look like, and implementing it is a gigantic undertaking. ::pleased::

While I don't mind entertaining a broader discussion (if one wants to start a new thread), I need to look at a narrower scope now, or I won't get anything done.

Thanks for jumping into the fray!

[Corri]

Having had neutral as an integral part of the world for so long - I don't think we can go back now. Too many people have found their fun in the niche of neutrality, and it would take a lot away for them. Those on the other side of the fence, where neutrality took something away, have already either left or come to terms with it. Having read through the posts, here would be my suggestion:

I would leave the god system in place, not replace it with a clan system.

I would not remove the ability of neutral to pk or be pked.

For aura, the key seems to be not how the god defines its following, but how others define it.

I would consider having each god define evil/neut/good for each other following...so a follower of the guardians might see a magite as evil, but a follower of Fate might see the magite as neutral. (As would a magite themself). Perhaps the mafia would view everyone as neutral. (unaligned would see.... what the god views themself as, I suppose).

Granted cleric spells would still be based on self-perceived alignments. I would make minor modifications to the granted spells so that neutral is at a disadvantage. Perhaps remove all spells relating to good/evil from their reportoire, since they would not consider themselves directly involved in the war? No bless, prot good/evil, righteous assault...

[boromir]

Greetings:

With regards to the direct question of actually removing neutrality, perhaps this might work:

1) no more neutral followings can be created

2) Allow neutral FLI's a choice of accepting a 1 shot 'no charge to them' alignment change to an alignment of their choice. Included in this would be a matchin eq change to remove all 'Neutral' only eq flags and replace those with the alignment(if needed) i.e. something that is AEAG and the FLI is going to 'Good' will only need the removal of the AG flag. If the FLI is going evil , then the AE gets removed etc. This would apply to both the FLI and that FLI's followers so the following is not at a loss for eq after the change.

3) Remove neutral specific spells, specific eq and benefits from the game.

At some point, the neutral followings will be converted by choice of the FLI or fall by the wayside as the FLI retires. For an FLI who does rnot change or retire, you will then have a comparatively speaking .. a neutral following.

[Nicademus]

Greetings:

With regards to the direct question of actually removing neutrality, perhaps this might work:

1) no more neutral followings can be created

2) Allow neutral FLI's a choice of accepting a 1 shot 'no charge to them' alignment change to an alignment of their choice. Included in this would be a matchin eq change to remove all 'Neutral' only eq flags and replace those with the alignment(if needed) i.e. something that is AEAG and the FLI is going to 'Good' will only need the removal of the AG flag. If the FLI is going evil , then the AE gets removed etc. This would apply to both the FLI and that FLI's followers so the following is not at a loss for eq after the change.

3) Remove neutral specific spells, specific eq and benefits from the game.

At some point, the neutral followings will be converted by choice of the FLI or fall by the wayside as the FLI retires. For an FLI who does rnot change or retire, you will then have a comparatively speaking .. a neutral following.

This seems to be the most painless way of doing this. I actually like the idea. Remove some of the benefits (ie protection good/evil, debt, etc) and let neutrality fade away and allow imms to make a transition if they so choose.

[Solaron]

This seems to be the most painless way of doing this. I actually like the idea. Remove some of the benefits (ie protection good/evil, debt, etc) and let neutrality fade away and allow imms to make a transition if they so choose.

Agreed.

[Dauthi]

Before the silence blows away.....

I would just like to thank Tynian for spending so much time on this conversation/debate/whatever the hell it turned into.

I Like Boromirs idea.
Can we expand on that? Atleast get more thoughts?

[Tynian]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts.

Neutral will stay. I will instead push it a little closer to its pacifist roots.

Here's what I'm thinking. [LIKELY] items are those that I am ready to do unless someone has a compelling reason that convinces me otherwise. The others are things I may or may not do.


Change the 'bless' spell to good only. [LIKELY]
Remove permanent Evil ranger just for Neutral. [LIKELY]
Protection Good/Evil only castable by Neutral pacifists/reprisalists. [LIKELY]
Allow current Neutral Immortals to change to Good or Evil. [LIKELY]
Set a minimum of 2 Good and 2 Evil followings for new followings. [LIKELY]
Neutral will be unable to wear AE or AG gear. [LIKELY]
Change heal so that it only works for Neutral pacifists/reprisalists.
Change 'cure disease' to Good-only.
Provide combat bonuses vs. Neutral and Evil miscreants and sociopaths -- bigger bonuses vs Neutral and vs sociopaths, so Neutral sociopaths are the most disadvantaged.

[Gregar]

Change the 'bless' spell to good only. [LIKELY]

not sure about this one, bless while useful sems fairly innocous, perhaps do something similar to the prot evil/good spells where it's only useable by pacifists/reprisalists (why wouldn't a god bestow his blessings on his follower?)



Remove permanent Evil ranger just for Neutral. [LIKELY]

like it, from an RP standpoint no reason neutral rangers should care



Protection Good/Evil only castable by Neutral pacifists/reprisalists.

Seems like a good idea removes the usefulness as a PK tool but leaves it as an option for those who truly want to remain neutral. I like it



[LIKELY]
Allow current Neutral Immortals to change to Good or Evil. [LIKELY]
Set a minimum of 2 Good and 2 Evil followings for new followings. [LIKELY]

No Opinion on the above 2



Neutral will be unable to wear AE or AG gear. [LIKELY]

seems wierd unless you're also talking about removing the AN flag, there's a lot of items that are one or the other either way it would deprive neutrals of a -lot- of eq opportunities



Change heal so that it only works for Neutral pacifists/reprisalists.

I like it again fits with the idea of neutrality



Change 'cure disease' to Good-only.

Dislike it, no reason neutrals shouldn't be allowed to cure themselves/others they are after all, there to help all



Provide combat bonuses vs. Neutral and Evil miscreants and sociopaths -- bigger bonuses vs Neutral and vs sociopaths, so Neutral sociopaths are the most disadvantaged.

love it, prevents abuse of neutral for ppl that want it for PK advantages




Overall I think there's lots of good stuff in here, as stated above I do disagree with a few of the items but so far this has been the best idea to resolve the neutrality issues to date. Tynian, a big round of applause goes to you for all the time and thought you put into this for all of us!

[Hiro]

<snipped>
Neutral will be unable to wear AE or AG gear. [LIKELY]
<snipped>

How will this work exactly for those of us neutrals with with existing equipment, as well as relics that give AGAE enchants?

As for the rest of the changes they work for me.

Hiro

[Tynian]

Neutral will be unable to wear AE or AG gear. [LIKELY]


Hmmm. Scratch this one. I don't know what I was thinking.

Replace it with enchant being AN when cast by a non-Neutral caster, so it's more like Good and Evil.

[Avarice]

All of these changes are basically perfect...no more cheater pk'ers using neutrality as a blatant advantage. Level the playing field and let skill be the deciding factor, not inherent capabilities of the align. I think most of the ppl vehemently arguing for neutrality are more in love with the perks than they are with the RP of neutrality or any such nonsense, none of them are even rp'ers from what I've seen.

2 things I've noticed with the proposed changes that might be a concern.

1. By restricting much of the bonuses neutrals have now for being neutral (prot align, heal on others etc etc) I think we'll end up having people manage their debt accordingly so that they aren't made into a useless char. So rather than using their power pk'er cleric thats a socio they'll just let it sit on the shelf until its debt is down far enough to use prot align. Considering how many chars most pk'ers already have this isn't hard to do and ultimately leads to no change for the pk'er as long as they manage their debt.
I think we can solve this easily by making any neutral who's debt exceeds paci/reprisalist status NEVER become paci/reprisalist again. The true pacifist types out there have nothing to fear since they will pretty much never make unjustified attacks, and the Pk'ers can't abuse the debt system to ensure they keep their neutral perks.

2. 5hit 4dmg enchant scroll is Anti Neutral. Its only 1 hit difference but it does affect things slightly since its such a commonly used item. Can we just make that scroll not be AN so neutrals have access to the standard enchant? Or perhaps make a new scroll for neutrals just so everyone has access to the same stuff.

Beyond that most of these changes are a great way to deal with the current rash of Neutral chars. Now what are we going to do for bloos???

[Hiro]

I think most of the ppl vehemently arguing for neutrality are more in love with the perks than they are with the RP of neutrality or any such nonsense, none of them are even rp'ers from what I've seen.

None? I may want to argue that point.



1. By restricting much of the bonuses neutrals have now for being neutral (prot align, heal on others etc etc) I think we'll end up having people manage their debt accordingly so that they aren't made into a useless char. So rather than using their power pk'er cleric thats a socio they'll just let it sit on the shelf until its debt is down far enough to use prot align. Considering how many chars most pk'ers already have this isn't hard to do and ultimately leads to no change for the pk'er as long as they manage their debt. I think we can solve this easily by making any neutral who's debt exceeds paci/reprisalist status NEVER become paci/reprisalist again. The true pacifist types out there have nothing to fear since they will pretty much never make unjustified attacks, and the Pk'ers can't abuse the debt system to ensure they keep their neutral perks.


The only issue I can think of with this is attacks caused by confusion casting ghosts (say THAT five times fast) putting someone over the edge. And as Avarice just pointed out to me, reaffix when fighting mage mobs can be a problem as well.

And as for shelving a character until the debt comes down doesnt that take close to forever? Frankly I dont know enough about how debt works to speak intelligently about it.

Hiro
Procurator of the Nashite Magi

[Quinn]

I think neutral alignment is a wonderful thing to have on one condition.
TFC has code to expand of lawful and chaotic followins that has never been touched at all.
Only one true neutral followings ever made any sense at all and that was a nature following. Don't harm the bunnies but killing anything else is ok, kind of philosophy.
Otherwise neutrallity is an expansion of Ultrachaotic to Ultralawful.
There is no 'protection from chaos' or 'hinderence of law' spell and why not.

One last gripe comming from a predominantly UA guy. How come UA spell casters get evil and UA spells but Neutral characters get good and neutral only spells. The only difference is the fact that neutrals have a purpose, balance, chaos, or lawfulness and UA doesn't. There is only one play distinction and thats that UA characters 'tend to have evil spells' and nuetral characters are 'sometimes nice guys'.

No play distinction = removal.
Why is it there if nothing is being done to it.

[Rhina]

While I dearly wanted to weigh in during the early portion of this debate, I stayed out of it out of respect for those who are much more active players than I. However, I am so glad Tynian has decided to keep neutrality, and I am grateful to those who acknowledged the work of my followers during the early days of the alignment. Neutrality as I envisioned it is very difficult, and they did a wonderful job at sticking to it (a few errr, blips, notwithstanding.)

I'll now stick my nose in. I think the proposed coded modifications to the alignment are, for the most part, fantastic, especially those giving disadvantages to neutral pkers (without prohibiting it entirely). I think bless should be Good only, certainly, but I wonder on what basis heal and especially cure disease would be taken away. I don't see those two as inherently Good skills, but rather tools which may be used indiscriminately without implying value judgment. Perhaps tying the use of these two spells to the pk status of the user might serve your purposes just as well.

I also wonder (and as you all know, I don't know from code, so this may not be possible) whether some of these spells might also be tied to the pk status of the recipient. I suppose this would depend on what the goal of the modifications may be; Tynian stated that he wished to get back to the pacifist roots of the alignment. The major complaint I heard during my years as a pacifist Neutral deity was that my followers were helping others pk through the use of heal and other spells--removing (or modifying) this ability might go a long away to give the new Neutral credibility.

[Nicademus]

While I dearly wanted to weigh in during the early portion of this debate, I stayed out of it out of respect for those who are much more active players than I. However, I am so glad Tynian has decided to keep neutrality, and I am grateful to those who acknowledged the work of my followers during the early days of the alignment. Neutrality as I envisioned it is very difficult, and they did a wonderful job at sticking to it (a few errr, blips, notwithstanding.)

If only all of the neutral followings could be like Nature then we wouldnt have the problems and complaints we have now...

[Tynian]

I also wonder (and as you all know, I don't know from code, so this may not be possible) whether some of these spells might also be tied to the pk status of the recipient. [...] The major complaint I heard during my years as a pacifist Neutral deity was that my followers were helping others pk through the use of heal and other spells--removing (or modifying) this ability might go a long away to give the new Neutral credibility.

Prevent Neutral from casting on miscreants or sociopaths? Any particular spells you have in mind? All of them?

[Tynian]

In response to some of the comments:


not sure about this one, bless while useful sems fairly innocous, perhaps do something similar to the prot evil/good spells where it's only useable by pacifists/reprisalists (why wouldn't a god bestow his blessings on his follower?)

Which is a more powerful blessing: "Go forward in virtue and righteousness" or "May you avoid choosing a side and play both sides against the middle" ...? Sorry, a little tongue-in-cheek. My point is two-fold. First, I don't think bless really fits Neutral, and second, we need more Good-only spells. Bless seems like a good candidate.

Cure disease: I saw this as a chance for Good to be good. It provides a great counter balance to the Evil 'cause disease'. And it's another front that Good and Evil can combat that isn't directly combat-related.


By restricting much of the bonuses neutrals have now for being neutral (prot align, heal on others etc etc) I think we'll end up having people manage their debt accordingly so that they aren't made into a useless char. So rather than using their power pk'er cleric thats a socio they'll just let it sit on the shelf until its debt is down far enough to use prot align. Considering how many chars most pk'ers already have this isn't hard to do and ultimately leads to no change for the pk'er as long as they manage their debt.

This is a possible concern, I agree. I'd be inclined to go forward as planned, and just keep an eye on it. The sociopath rating really has nothing to do with debt, and it lasts a while. I think it's more likely that people will just cope, rather than not play the character for a while, but I could be wrong about that.


but I wonder on what basis heal and especially cure disease would be taken away.

I was proposing that heal be tied to the caster's PK rating.

[Tay]

Quote:
but I wonder on what basis heal and especially cure disease would be taken away.


I was proposing that heal be tied to the caster's PK rating.



why not make it more the mana for an individual spell the higher your classification is, ie heal sanct absorb cloak shield....protection spells :)
why should you have it easy if ur just out to kill everyone all the time
let the pacifist ones have the benfits

[Furnock]

I am 100% for the wholesale restructuring of alignments.
If this post belongs somewhere else, please send it there or show me how.

Alignments need to be moved away from the philisophical debate area and become tied to the core of the game. No more "I see Neutral or Good or Evil as such n such and that's the way I want to play it."
The game needs to define this clearly. Not necessarily by code but by core game environment. World, Imps, Imms, Players, NPCs

What is the point to the game? Is it the struggle of good vs. evil? Is it the struggle of neutrality to find it's niche within opposing forces? Is it the Star Belly Sneeches against those who have no stars? Did The Lich just purchase a belly star machine or a belly star eliminator? Butter Side Up vs. Butter Side down. Picard vs. Kirk. Lorax vs. Oncelers. Good Honest people vs Second coming of the Spice Girls? Gods something!

Look at other successful games out there. Even in a game like Fable where your actions do reflect your alignment, good and evil/right and wrong are defined elements in the game. None of the "I stole but I stole bread to feed my family so I should get one Heaven point instead of 2 Hell points" (I think I actually used that line on Keller once)

In recent times, this has been very very muddy on TFC. A lot of vying for personal/pet causes got in the way of keeping the environment fresh and alive. A lot of running people off happened too but that's for another area.
While I'm not an active player, I still lurk and keep an eye on how things are going. The game lacks direction. At the very top, the vision should be laid out. That vision should then be carried out down the chain.

To those of you that put a lot of time and work in to this game, please do not look at this as an insult or a finger pointing. I owe a big thank you for the opportunity to enjoy this game to all of you.
A lot of hard work has gone in to cleaning up a lot of little things. I just think the bigger picture was forgotten.