Where and what is Neutrality?

If it's no bug or an idea, but it's still MUD-related, it goes here.

Moderator: Wizards

Message
Author
mazarmormuk
Veteran
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:47 pm

Where and what is Neutrality?

#1 Post by mazarmormuk » Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:27 pm

greetings,

Due to the note asrals vs. Zhakrin i decided to open this one, and would like
to discuss issues of neutrality.

As i lead the maybe biggest neutral group, i stumble over several problems
in playing a neutral character, and i would like to know if i am the only
one or in the only group where these things are considered as very difficult
to play.

First of all, without offense, i must say that imo there is nearly no neutral
character around. Most who define themselves as neutral or neutral group,
play the role of a goodie. If i would take the karma as a base, i strongly
guess that nearly no neutral char is having a neutral karma.
and why should they?
A neutral person surely got reasons to hunt and kill undeads, but no reason
to counter that action with killing a goodie/using a bone weapon/riding a
spider and then get punished by the code _and the persons of light,
losing a lot of possibilities.
mazars actions that way are pretty much ooc, to fix his karma and get his
miracles to work again, and not done or stated officially.
Some groups even define themselves as enutral and state the goal to
protect the centre of light..

Having my first question here, where does neutrality differ from a char of
light for you?

To just add my own answer, i see the difference in beeing far more moderate
concerning what is good and what is evil. That means for example for mazar,
that riding on a spider or wielding a bone weapon isnt evil at all, as it
doesnt hurt anyone and therefore is no evil action like thievery.
The code meanwhile doesnt agree with me. riding on a spider lets your
reputation in the underground and arborea drop to the bottom. having
a bone weapon in your inventory lets your karma drop to pitch-black.

There is one of my problems with beeing a neutral.
The mud offers a wide variety to all guilds to define themselves different
to other groups, and therefore define what is good and what is evil by yourself.
On the other hand, if you define your group different to good or evil,
a strict (karma-) system is placing a predefined judgement given from sathonys
and taniel over all actions, and needs to be either counterworked without real
ic reason or you accept the punsihment you gain from it.

As an example:
If warclerics went to war against crusaders, warclerics karma would turn pitch-black,
although crusaders break asrals codex by rule, and in no time the miracles
of warclerics would have lost all effect due to their bad karma.

further:
if a warcleric kills a (neutral!) gwenite he gets a message like "yeah! killem all!",
but after killing 3 or 5 of them your karma is out of order and your miracles
out of effect.

...but after killing a hundred lillithian (evil!) demons you karma and reputation
stays everywhere the same.

so my next question: is this only a warclerics problem or do other non-clerical
chars suffer notice that problem, too?

Is there a need or a will for a third, neutral base really differing
from light and darkness?

Should every neutral group find his position bwteen good and evil,
or should every group define its own good and its own evil?

maybe you have some suggestions, answers, positions that bring me further
here...

User avatar
Delia
Overlord
Posts: 2782
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:22 am
Location: Finland

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#2 Post by Delia » Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:35 pm

I think you address a very real issue here as code that monitors our character's actions is rather limited...or to be more exact, it cannot foresee all the RP born variations that might come to pass.

This said, I see my character, D, as a neutral one even if she collabrates with the light side. The prime reason being the continued existence civilization as our characters know it. There are quite many gray areas that need attention from time to time and very, very many disagreements...ok even if it has been some smooth sailing recently.

If you think of it all from a mortal view you can go all wrong even if it is ok or even more so RP-wise. But then again, should people go about pleasing the gods? Anyways, the main point is that if you ever seek to protect any city or whatnot...you almost automatically become a goodie unless you are a satho or a lilithian that is.

If you try to hack the system you become evil.
"To be is to do" - Sokrates
"To do is to be" - Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra

User avatar
Eluriel
Master
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#3 Post by Eluriel » Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:42 am

I like playing neutral characters. For me, my chars could go either way with regards to favoring the light or dark, depending upon the action. Sometimes my chars have a reason to try to look more "good" than their true intentions might be, largely because the part of the world they live in is ruled by the good side. But I don't necessarily have a problem dealing with evil characters, again, depending upon the person and their actions.

Eluriel is a very individualistic character, so she sort of makes her own morality. My other char may be a bit more driven by religion, but still doesn't have a strict black and white/good and evil view of things. Obviously the code does see certain actions as "good" and certain actions as "evil". I haven't really had much problem whether my karma fluctuates or not, but I can see how, being a cleric, that can have a grave effect. I don't think it's a good idea that you have to "force" your karma in order to get your miracles to work. And it doesn't really make much sense to do good things one day and evil things another day just to get it to the right level.

Zehren
Overlord
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:50 am

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#4 Post by Zehren » Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:52 am

Gwennies are good, says so in helpfile :P
Drayn wrote:Zehren, the Karmassassin!

adanath
Champion
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:36 am
Location: Lynchburg, VA

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#5 Post by adanath » Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:23 am

There are a lot of things that do make good sense though I think.

Like Elvandar is a holy city, elves have tended to always be regarded as more "holy". Whereas their human friends to the south may not really care all that much that a Unicorn dies, or holy creatures, the same people may be very naturally against holy sentient beings dying. Whilst the elven people see it more thoroughly as in even more creations that are holy, the human people may just see holy creatures as creatures, and even only be forming a line at sentient beings.

I don't know how it is to maintain neutral karma, but it is one of those things the game can only do so well as it cannot fully evaluate motives. Right now though as far as I am aware most of the things to drop your karma seem to be "more evil" than the things are "good" that raise it. Although, It's like the thieves from a while back they used to steal and backstab all over the place making their karma dark black. Now we started hunting them, then they started killing undeads to try and neutralize their karma..*hiding* I suppose, but all in all in the end the character is evil, not good, the character has just manipulated events so their karma is "good".

User avatar
anglachel
Site Admin
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: somethere
Contact:

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#6 Post by anglachel » Wed Dec 26, 2012 12:17 pm

I think we should it not see are three level system more, May be more as a two part system:

first: good - neutral -evil
second: lawful - neutral - chaotic.

In this system only Zhakrin would be neutral-neutral, Asral would be neutral - chaotic (The end justifies the means).
Neutral does not mean 'political neutral'. Always stay aside and do nothing!
It more too to look be at bit more on the own advantage, then look for others.
If is good for me it is 'good', it is bad for me it is 'evil'. If it neither good or bad for me, but it is good for others it is ok, too.

I remember about a three part system, but i do not know how it work exact. Anyone know it?

Drayn
Hero
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#7 Post by Drayn » Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:30 pm

Actually I'd see Asral as Lawful Neutral. Follow those orders regardless of moral compunction. Go slaughter elves, because it'll be a glorious battle, go slaughter undeads....BECAUSE IT'LL BE A GLORIOUS BATTLE! They don't give a fig whether the people they're attacking are good or bad, just that the battle is a good one.

Neutrality is about not caring about the greater good or bad. If your battle happens to be against good or evil, that's largely coincidence, the motivation is battle. By saying "OK, I've killed 3 goblins, now to kill 3 good creatures" that's balance rather than neutrality and there are VAST realms of difference. Neutrality isn't necessarily balanced, it's just unmotivated to be on one side or the other.

User avatar
anglachel
Site Admin
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: somethere
Contact:

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#8 Post by anglachel » Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:00 pm

Lawful neutral would be possible for an Asral too,
Or we use a third axis: square, neutral, or funky.
Or we forget evil and good and speak from motivation and means.
The motivation is that what the player want to archive, the big goal.
The means are the ways he/she will use or nit use.

Nibble
Professional
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:18 pm

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#9 Post by Nibble » Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:42 pm

anglachel wrote: I remember about a three part system, but i do not know how it work exact. Anyone know it?
Sounds like AD&D to me.

L-G
N-G
C-G
L-N
N
C-N
L-E
N-E
C-E

LG is like a Paladin class where the opposite CE would be a Necromancer type. Monks for example were allowed to have any lawful combination - so they could also be lawful-evil.

User avatar
Allurana
Hero
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#10 Post by Allurana » Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:38 pm

I think the problem is having 7 very different minded gods all sharing the same single linear karma system.

What might be better, albeit more complex, would be having a karma set-up for individual gods, sort of like how favour works now. Evil for Taniel does not necessarily mean evil for Asral, and just because a Lilithian is wicked doesn't necessarily mean they're a shining example of Sathonite values.

User avatar
Eluriel
Master
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#11 Post by Eluriel » Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:05 pm

Allurana wrote:I think the problem is having 7 very different minded gods all sharing the same single linear karma system.

What might be better, albeit more complex, would be having a karma set-up for individual gods, sort of like how favour works now. Evil for Taniel does not necessarily mean evil for Asral, and just because a Lilithian is wicked doesn't necessarily mean they're a shining example of Sathonite values.
I agree with this. How might karma for godless people work though? I suppose it could just affect what the response is when you ask a priest of X god what your karma is. So actions would have to be defined as "good" or "evil" based upon the god. Would you need an actual karma system then, or could karma and favour be sort of merged?

adanath
Champion
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:36 am
Location: Lynchburg, VA

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#12 Post by adanath » Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:08 am

Allurana wrote:I think the problem is having 7 very different minded gods all sharing the same single linear karma system.

What might be better, albeit more complex, would be having a karma set-up for individual gods, sort of like how favour works now. Evil for Taniel does not necessarily mean evil for Asral, and just because a Lilithian is wicked doesn't necessarily mean they're a shining example of Sathonite values.
well already it is somewhat like that I believe isn't it? There are certain things that are more and less evil and more and less good. Perfect karma in Gwen's is different than Taniel and Evren's etc.

User avatar
Allurana
Hero
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#13 Post by Allurana » Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:08 am

Well, no, because the gods only look at your karma number, not how you went about getting said number. For instance, from a karma point of view, you lose just as much "Asral karma" as you do "Gwen karma" for killing a Gwen follower- even though Asral told you to go do just that. If he then punishes you for it afterwards, it makes even less sense.

The system works fine for the extreme-end gods (for the most part), but for the neutral ones, it doesn't work all that well. It doesn't make sense for Asral or Zhakrin to tell you to interact with good or evil in some way or another, and then later chastise you because your karma was altered for doing exactly what you were told to do.

User avatar
anglachel
Site Admin
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: somethere
Contact:

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#14 Post by anglachel » Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:17 am

In my oppion it makes no sense toidevide karma like faith. Karma says there you are on the evil-good axis and you cannot be good and evil and the same time. But i think we need 'neutral' tasks. Also things that reduce good karma and reduce evil karma. That always draw you in the neutral zone. So that the cleric does not have think: Oh, no i have already done my there good/evil deeds, i can to do an other one.

Now back to the theme. We should not think so much in the good/evil schema. Even if we use two axis it often does not fit.
May be we should try the motivation/means thing in this case:
What is the base motivation for an Arsral Clerics?
Suggestion: To archieve glory and fame.
What are the means for a Arsral Clerics?
Suggestion: To follow the codex of a warrior and the way of honour.

In my oppion such a definition fits more in this case.

User avatar
Allurana
Hero
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#15 Post by Allurana » Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:19 am

Well, I can agree that it'd be redundant to make karma like faith, and how karma is supposed to be a singular universal thing. But we seems to agree that there needs to be some neutral zone things to help with the issue of people falling to one extreme or the other too easily, at least.

User avatar
arxthas
Hero
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#16 Post by arxthas » Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:34 am

I believe that today, almost everyone plays a neutral character and there are almost not a single goodie or evil. There is hardly any difference anymore between Crusaders or Sathos. There are of course some differences like Crusaders protect unicorns and Sathos like to eat humanoid meat, but those are no meaningful differences. They do not, in any way, affect how the game is played, for they are just dead attributes. Overall what we have today are two small extremes which stands for like 10% of the MUD population.. and then there is a huge gray mass in the middle that does not care about the tundra portal. Most people just want to play and enjoy their character without taking part in that. So the bottomline for most people is probably a bit like Eluriel's. So, Mazarmormuk, I think we are simply using different terminology. And like Archangel says, we should not discuss what words or classification scheme we are using to describe what people are, but we should discuss what should be the goals of the factions.

To speak of what goal neutrality has, you need to also speak of what good and evil is, and how they make up a meaningful whole together. The game needs a much clearer idea in that sense. In a nutshell, we have two sides now trying to open/close a portal and that is it. It does not even consider what part neutrals have to play in all of that. The asrals sometimes closes the insect portal, but nobody really cares. It is just a loose thread without any interaction connected to it.

You need to define the points of interaction between each of the factions. Something where each faction has a part to play, some sort of unique interest that only applies for them and nobody else. The action on one part needs to prompt or allow the action on another's. It can be the strive for some sort of asset, e.g. a physical one, like territory. Simplest is to set up some form of conflict, like the portal tower. But that only works so far, and the play it generates is sort of repetetive. I think most people got sort of tired of trying to close the damn thing. So territory conflict only goes so far.

The players are sort of assorted in different groups and in many regards they have no meaningful connection between them. Nothing that helps, forces or promotes optional interaction.

I suggest adding a Tsar of Forostar (king, caiser, emperor or whatever). The purpose is to first and foremost gather all players under the same roof. This way everyone will need to at least relate to the same thing. Sathos need to be less psychopatic to make sense. Crusaders need to obey someone. Not fully, but to some extent. It would be more obvious who is the winner. And the goal for the Asrals falls out naturally: they wish to appoint a Tsar from their own ranks. How would it work? I do not really know, to be honest. But it would be a new twist to the game. Perhaps the Tsar could appoint judges in each city Elvandar, Arborea. For Asador, Underground he would control the guards allowing people in or out. It would sort of require the demotion of a certain Queen. Why would all these cities agree to it? The answer is simple, they would'nt. The position would be held against their will, with force. The tsar would not become too powerful, because the three main factions would still remain, struggling to gain the control. Upset too many people, and the resistance would build strong enough to overthrow him/her. In Elvandar he would not control the city council, despite having a judge. In Arborea he would have more direct control, like erm, a king. So there would always be a political situation for those who are interested in that. Anyway, the point was to unite the players and put them in the same game. I think some of the more meaningless guilds like rangers and shaolin would automatically get a clearer role as well.

@PS: I also see the karma problem for neutrals, but I do not believe the solution is to introduce yet another classification system (better remove it). The discussion needs to be about the goals for the factions and why people would want to interact (kill/talk/cuddle) with another.
Last edited by arxthas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Delia
Overlord
Posts: 2782
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:22 am
Location: Finland

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#17 Post by Delia » Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:59 am

As for the tsar, have Vlad come and claim both his rightful throne and bride and deal everyone a boot to the head after convincing mages and/or druids to hide his soul along with some sunblock.
"To be is to do" - Sokrates
"To do is to be" - Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra

Zehren
Overlord
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:50 am

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#18 Post by Zehren » Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:27 am

Delia wrote:As for the tsar, have Vlad come and claim both his rightful throne and bride and deal everyone a boot to the head after convincing mages and/or druids to hide his soul along with some sunblock.
This.

Vlad is the single most awesome thing in Geas.
Drayn wrote:Zehren, the Karmassassin!

morgaine
Experienced
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:53 am

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#19 Post by morgaine » Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:12 am

Delia wrote:As for the tsar, have Vlad come and claim both his rightful throne and bride and deal everyone a boot to the head after convincing mages and/or druids to hide his soul along with some sunblock.
mhahawa, the return of vlad would stir the whole mud quite a bit.

But more back on the topic, I do believe that this whole 'neutrality' criticsm is rather taken from the wrong angle.

Of course, there's a lot of a gray mass out there right now, but why are they there? Certainly not only because people want to 'enjoy their characters', though I believe it's part of it.

From what I've noticed, certain groups in this game have not exactly made it easy to relate to them. I've had two or three such incidents myself and I can only say that a char who is treated in such a way surely has no interested in helping one of those groups unless it really affects him if not treated with a certain amount of respect.

You simply can not expect people to go after a remote goal that does not even effect them in any way. The tower of pain affects clerics and crusaders and therefore those creatures care for it. (I intentionally ignore the insect portal as that one IS being cared of, or was for at least in the past).

So, if you wish to change that situation around, what would need to change? My opinion:

- Make the tower of pain affect the whole overall area, not just the tundra. People don't
give much about the tundra, at least not your common day person does. The 'fanatics' do care, they have reason to. So maybe a sickness could spread through elvandars npcs slowly if the tower of pain is open too long and people get ill and every so often an npc turns into a ghoul ? A bit like what happened to Arborea.
- In the same turn, if the tower of pain has been closed for too long, make something similiar happen to Asador (maybe random undead crumbling, people randomly going in sane ? not sure right now how to implement a good way for Asador to care).
- If implementing the above, make sure the tower of pain has a good cooldown applied to it (much like suggested in other threads ), and also add a check that makes sure there are enough people around to tackle the tower.
- The geas 'neutral' faction has then the chance of actually decide which side they care for, maybe there should be some sort of reward for being involved in the tower of pain closing/opening as well.

- Now for other things. If you want the good / evil theme to spread deeper into characters, then there needs to be a wider variety of interaction. If, for example, the crusaders turn down everybody who does good but has not their blazing standards, well people will stop caring or feel offended and 'work around' the crusaders.
- Actually acknowledge that neither good nor evil is an absolute flag, but rather a gray scale. What you perceive as gray mass might turn out to be more polarized then you think. Not every good or evil is visible, some is hidden and some is just more egoistic then it should be. But that's only my 2cc on that.
- Offer people ways to actually get immersed into the ongoing conflict. If that is wanted, then one side being totally overpowered is not going to help (NOT overpowered because of the code mind you, but rather overpowered because the lack of powerful chars on the other side). People need to feel there's a need and an actual gain of taking sides. Currently, taking the only gain from taking the side of good is getting your ass kicked by the sathos, currently the only goal of taking side with evil directly is getting yourself banned from important places (craftsman guilds, etc ).

I can sadly not offer a solution for everything, but I tried to line out where I see the problems with the good/evil thing.

For those who thought this was too long, the short version: For people to take up shades of good/evil, there needs to be open arms and actual sense in doing so.

Just my 2cc
You say in Common: We're not all savage beasts, you know.
You smirk.

adanath
Champion
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:36 am
Location: Lynchburg, VA

Re: Where and what is Neutrality?

#20 Post by adanath » Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:44 pm

While I agree with the majority, I do think the view on the tower and insects is problematic. In truth, if anyone existed in a world where a portal to hell opens and insects stream out (from Sathonys), and on the other side another portal and undeads stream out (from Sathonys), there is no gray area there. Sure there might be other places, but to act like it is a gray area is a huge stretch to me. there is no way this could be reconciled with any philosophy besides one ok with the destruction of all living things, by the most evil beings imaginable. That is one black and white aspect of the game to me (Not just with adan, but all chars), because it is simply pretty cut and dried;;Evil ****UNDEADS!!!!!!**** from hell trying to destroy all of Forostar is black..evil insects from ***HELL*** trying to destroy all of Forostar is black.

Post Reply