Neutrality

[Alamar]

I brought it up awhile back, but I wanted to bring it up again. Neutrality as a place somewhere between good and evil is underrepresented in the game. Even a neutral person glows red or silver depending on which side of that line they fall. I think there should be a broad category of people who have no glow.

They are people whom the crusaders can say "you need to be better" but whom they don't have to say "I'm going to bash you now".

The degrees of good and evil are great, but there should also be a space for truly neutral characters to exist. I can think of several who strike me as being truly neutral characters: Olrane (and several non-denominational scouts), Stilgar (and the Shaolin), Trith (and the Asrals), and several others.

I may be overgeneralizing, but the world of ethics and morals in Geas tends to get divided up as being various degrees of one side or the other. What about a stronger show of true neutrality? Especially in guilds where neutrality is part of their code of ethics (particularly the shaolin)... not to mention the followers of Zhakrin (and one day clerics as well).

Anyway, still think that not everyone should glow one way or another. There should be a lot of "no-glows"

-Alamar

[vurdijak]

I agree with Alamar. For example, if a char can manage to get their rep. to
settle on neutral, then I think definitely there should not be any glow when checked. I like the system in that the current reputation is a continuous spectrum, but I think there needs to be some middle ground. Maybe from nice to nasty should even have no glow when checked.

Some players like to pick sides when they play muds, and other players like to enjoy the code and world without getting involved in frequent IC conflicts. I think the latter is virtually impossible and that this could be somewhat fixed by changing the rep. system to allow for neutrality.

[Abharsair]

For someone who is fanatically good it wouldn't matter if there flames or no flames. Or to quote someone famous "You're either with us, or against us". And from an IC point of view it doesn't make sense to allow a group of people to be fence-sitters either, especially if you can bully them into assisting you. Therefore if people want to be neutral they should avoid the company of fanatics and don't hang out with them. And if the fanatics keep pestering you, find someone who helps you, which of course endangers your "neutral" status, but it's your decision what is more important to you.

[Alamar]

I realize that neutrality is a political position, but in this mud it is also a moral and ethical position. If from nice to nasty did not glow then they would still be pestered by Crusaders, no doubt, but they would also be distinct from those who did glow red.

This will not prevent pvp or any other kind of conflict, but it will provide another way in which characters can participate in the moral world. If Crusaders attack someone with no glow they are violating neutrality (which is in their code of ethics) and characters must take steps to retaliate or change their glow to good.

Having no glows around neutral would add a new and interesting dynamic to the game. They would not necessarily be "fence-sitters" but they would also not be obligated to follow the actions of all who glow silver.

-Alamar

P.S. Alamar doesn't dream of becoming a neutral, he will be bright silver till Taniel claims his soul. Kaspars beware!

[kaspars]

Right now it sounds more like `I just want to play game, enjoy code and avoid all frustration coming together with fanatics`

It`s fine and there is nice workaround to solve this problem, without changing anything in code, from my point of view.
If person wants to be neutral, I doubt he will do anything, that makes his aura red -> no trouble with crusaders and their codex. He could get in trouble with sathos still, but po`s of satho chars try to keep their obsession with murdering innocents at some certain level, so they will leave neutral chars be (usually )

But if this moto changes to `I just want to play game, do all I want, enjoy code, avoid all consequences and frustration coming together with fanatics`, then I would like to ask what does mean neutrality here.

If person assists `fanatics` by aiding and healing them or informs about locations of other `fanatics` - yes, he avoids direct encounter, but is he still neutral?
If person is talking to `fanatics` and is discussing with them (codewise:system rep counter moves towards one of sides by that) - are they still neutral and where is the line when discussion about weather switches to discussion about gods and they stop beeing neutral?
If person starts to mess with `fanatics` items/artifacts/symbols - should they still consider him neutral?

All in all I agree with Abharsair completely.

Kaspars poKaspars

[vurdijak]

Good points poKaspars. I think neutrality IC could be defined by rep. or by who people associate with. I guess its up to each player to decide how much weight to give to the color of the aura.

In answer to one of your comments, I dont want myself or anyone else to just 'play the game, enjoy code, and avoid all frustration coming together with fanatics'.
I think most of us enjoy the interaction with other players and the sense of community is a big part of it also. Fanatics are especially included. The middle ground I am proposing is not a haven for those who want solitude. It is not a haven for those who cant or wont choose a side. It is not a place to sit on the sidelines to avoid PvP. As Alamar already stated, it is a dynamic that at least two of us feel could bring a lot to the game. Just some ideas. to clarify what I'm thinking here...

Maybe now or in the future, a merchant group that could trade freely in Arborea, Elvandar, and Asador. Maybe even trade with far distant lands.
The group could be some kind of primary or secondary guild and in my opinion would benefit greatly from being able to maintain a 'no glow' status.
The merchants of this group can go freely in and out of cities and not fear being mauled by the guards. Well at least in most cases...

A ship captain. He sails his vessel into the harbour. If its Asador harbour and his glow is silver, he gets shot at by crossbowmen with fire arrows. If its neutral he can dock the ship but not get off. If red, he can go enjoy all the luxury that city has to offer.

[Abharsair]

Without going to much into the technical detail, but if you type "stats" and it shows "people think that you are neutral" it doesn't mean that the counter which measures your reputation is exactly "0". You most likely do lean slightly to either good or evil. So there is already a certain leeway for being generally considered neutral by the system (not the Crusaders, though).

However, what you are asking for is to change the outlook of a whole guild of fanatically good warriors. You want them to acknowledge the "neutral" status of such a person and therefore force them to largely ignore those people, and I do not see any IC justification for that. What some consider neutral, others consider evil, and inaction in regards of protecting certain morals and values can be classified as evil by those who do protect them. Therefore I don't think we should blur the clear and distinct line between good and evil which the Crusaders have right now. You can however roleplay whatever you want, which means that if a Crusader claims you are evil, you can deny his claim and accuse him of harassing someone who has no bad reputation. Whether you can sway the public opinion (the opinion of the other players around you) in your favour or not depends on your rhetorical skills and your roleplay.

Anyway, as I have mentioned in another thread we have a pretty good idea for how we change reputation in the future once we have the time to tackle that project. Once we do that, many of your concerns will be resolved, but until then the current system is the best of the bad and quick to implement systems.

[Blizt]

You always have the option to avoid the fanatics completely, sit in the woods and talk about which blade of grass is taller, or which side of the fence is prettier as well. I dont see why a truely neutral character would want to enter an area full of mad, angry religious fanatics stomping around anyways.
Seems like they would want to avoid that area completely, to avoid any conflict with them. Since they are just big bullies anyways.

[vurdijak]

Thanks for the posted reply Abharsair. I either missed or forgot the thread about updating the system in the future.

[Abharsair]

Thanks for the posted reply Abharsair. I either missed or forgot the thread about updating the system in the future.

Well, technically I was wrong since it wasn't me who mentioned it, but the thread I am referring to is here.

[Alamar]

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks Abharsair, was just bringing up a point about neutrality.

I am curious why Kaspars and Blizt are so insulting to players who want to have a neutral stance. I assume that the comments were not meant that way, but it is hard to read sarcastic comments about "not wanting to have any IC consequences" and "counting blades of grass" without reading insults into it. Neutrality is a real option in most roleplaying systems (D&D for example) and the fact that it seems underrepresented is disconcerting to some.

Thank you for your responses Abharsair. I'm not complaining about the system, I'm just trying to make suggestions that might prove interesting and might allow for a greater character diversity.

-Alamar

[Abharsair]

"Neutrality" has a pretty bad reputation (no pun intended) among some players since it was an excuse for certain chars to sit around and chat amiably with whoever came around, be it good or evil. Additionally, their actions were limited to either just killing the same critters over and over again (e.g. cave moles and trolls), or watching Sathos and other evil "scum" kill city guards without interfering, or defending cuddly darkelves against the nasty good guys, who "aren't really good anyway, because they never stop to chat." Basically, they mixed up being friendly OOC with being good IC and went the way of the least resistence, which added as much flavour to the game as a piece of cardboard adds to a dish. Therefore some of the players who have to struggle with their chars because they decided to follow a clear and distinct path (good or evil) react a bit sensitively to those who just want to be left alone but don't want to suffer any penalties from that. Whether that applies to poBlizt and poKaspars I do not know and you'd have to ask them yourselves.

Don't get me wrong, though. One can play an interesting and convincing neutral character, but I don't think it works by just sitting around, doing nothing offensive, and complaining about either the good or the evil side. I would like to see more people who secretly plot and use both good and evil to their own purposes, but who aren't afraid if they are eventually busted and have to live with the consequences.

[kaspars]

Well, just to clarify things - there was no sarcasm or offence in my note, at least I didnt mean it that way.
All I want to say, is that I dont see any way for char to remain truely neutral in this game. One can`t be friend for all. Vurdijak suggested several options, but .. even they involve some reputation thing. ICly Kaspars would not allow such `neutral` merchants wander through Asador - what if they are Blizt`s spies? Does not matter what they claim.
Besides, I could state several situations where chars, who are supposed to stay out of any action (because they are supposed to be neutral), took some part in actions, that break their neutrality. I do not blame them - I really liked that and it is just normal(humanly) to unite against such cowards and evil doers like sathos are This all just shows how impossible is to stay in the middle, without leaning towards one side.

I would say - let`s just wait until our wizzies present new reputation system.

[Blizt]

I also see no way a character can remain truely neutral either.
Unless they do absolutely nothing. Anything you do in the world
has an influence on someone or something. You can't go kill goblins
then have a cup of tea with a Lilithian. You can't go do the Quests in Eal Deliah then go joke with Sathonites Undeads. All of these things that influence what others think about you. Just because you want to be neutral, doesnt mean other people will see you as neutral. In some Crusaders eyes, doing nothing at all and letting evil exist, is just as bad as being evil yourself. You can't expect to really run around the world, doing as you please with whomever, and staying "neutral" can you?

[Alamar]

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. I am of the opinion that there are some characters who can remain "neutral" through action rather than inaction, but I can see how changing the code might create a whole class of crossing junkies (I have seen that).

-Alamar

[stilgar]

Staying neutral? Its like discussing about why people don't fear death in GEAS... there is no permanent death, so why fear it? Plus, all the curches plus crusaders and the order were meant to be fanaticals, who does not care about death.

Plus, the reputation system, where you and others can check your current "feedback" makes this even more fun.

IMO current reputation system and the lack of politics makes it very hard to remain neutral. Ask me why? I doubt, really doubt people would fund crusaders at all.. and why? Do any of you ever knew anyone who liked bloodthisrty guys running around with big weapons and beating up/killing everyone whom they thought has a bad aura? I know GEAS isn't reality.. agreed, but its also illogical.. no one would fund an organisation like that
The funniest thing, if you ask me.. its all about code support. If a guild has a strong code-support it will have a bigger player base and probably will offer more fun, if it doesn't it won't Currently no one is able to match the crusaders in combat, so they rule all over Forostar I remember the same with Sathos, Taniels, some does that with the Shaolin.... its like that..
Of course, its a good question, what would happen if "neutrals" would rule.. probably a lot less RP as "average" offers less fun usually.

[Blizt]

Well, if you want to look at it logically, try this.
If you want to be neutral, avoid everyone who has any chance
of influencing you, or you influencing them. Stay away from popluated areas.
Do not kill goblins, trolls, highelves, orcs or anything else, because when you do, you just piss SOMEONE off. Every action you take has some sort of influence on someone or something around you. Become a rock, maybe that will help.
These topics lately seem like nothing more than to promote fence sitting, and then complaining about it, when you realize that staying neutral is more than just chatting with everyone you see, and getting skill improves.
Just because your char could be deaf, blind, mute and dumb, or even have the astonishing ability to completely ignore everything going on around him, while the world crumbles to pieces, dont expect other peoples chars to be able to ignore it, some peoples chars are forced to take action. Or maybe other people just realize how hard it would be to completely ignore all these situations that other chars seem to easily ignore. Unless you say nothing, and never go anywhere or do anything, you will never be able to remain neutral in other peoples eyes. Just because you see yourself one way, others may see you differant. Ignoring every situation that comes your way, doesnt make you neutral......it makes you lazy.

[jezz]

I doubt, really doubt people would fund crusaders at all.. and why?

Then maybe I'm mistaken, but in human history, often the most influencing and stronger organizations have been those that are ruled by fanatics like the Inquisition or the American country...

Why would someone fund Crusaders? Easy, because one day a crazy warrior found that a god was talking to him and granting him power for what he was doing, so he talked with another warrior friend and both started to follow the god's missions... You can imagine the rest. If we talk about how Crusaders mantain their castle and such, we enter in the strict reality and it has been discussed before.

The funniest thing, if you ask me.. its all about code support. If a guild has a strong code-support it will have a bigger player base and probably will offer more fun, if it doesn't it won't Currently no one is able to match the crusaders in combat, so they rule all over Forostar

I don't think the fact that crusties have an active wizard has anything to do with their growing in numbers. I'd say it's thanks to some crusaders who kept playing a risky RP, they did it well and attracted more people... and of course, as it has been discussed before, the evils in GEAS so far have been always fewer. Still, I have to meet a crusader who can stand a 1vs1 fight against Nadie or Cemoch for more than 3 assaults.

[stilgar]

I doubt, really doubt people would fund crusaders at all.. and why?

Then maybe I'm mistaken, but in human history, often the most influencing and stronger organizations have been those that are ruled by fanatics like the Inquisition or the American country...

Obviously wrong example, those fanatics earned a LOT of money for those were funding them In our history, funding fanatics (crusaders, terrorism etc.), or beeing cruel has almost allways had its quite well worked out financial background, bring another example please and please.. I know GEAS isn't reality and it has its inner logic, BUT its quite hard to expect each other to act a certain way if happenings organisations in GEAS lack any kind of logical base Which I do not think they lack, we mainly just did not work them out. That is why I started another thread. I'd be glad if we all would make some effort to work them out

I don't think the fact that crusties have an active wizard has anything to do with their growing in numbers. I'd say it's thanks to some crusaders who kept playing a risky RP, they did it well and attracted more people... and of course, as it has been discussed before, the evils in GEAS so far have been always fewer. Still, I have to meet a crusader who can stand a 1vs1 fight against Nadie or Cemoch for more than 3 assaults.

I bet Nadie or Cemoch has skills over 100, if not then it should be code support Am I mistaken?

[Abharsair]

I doubt, really doubt people would fund crusaders at all.. and why?

Then maybe I'm mistaken, but in human history, often the most influencing and stronger organizations have been those that are ruled by fanatics like the Inquisition or the American country...

Obviously wrong example, those fanatics earned a LOT of money for those were funding them In our history, funding fanatics (crusaders, terrorism etc.), or beeing cruel has almost allways had its quite well worked out financial background, bring another example please and please.. I know GEAS isn't reality and it has its inner logic, BUT its quite hard to expect each other to act a certain way if happenings organisations in GEAS lack any kind of logical base Which I do not think they lack, we mainly just did not work them out. That is why I started another thread. I'd be glad if we all would make some effort to work them out

As a matter of fact, the Crusaders do have plenty of funding. One, as the most dominant power right now (as you yourself admitted they are) they control plenty of areas where they can collect funding. Secondly, again you mistake being OOC nice with being IC good. Just because the fence-sitters don't like the Crusaders doesn't mean the common peasant who has no interest in socializing with darkelves and other criminals doesn't like them either. Frankly, a farmer who is interested in growing his crops and who prays that he never has to see a goblin has probably more sympathies for a Crusader than an apathetic Shaolin.

I don't think the fact that crusties have an active wizard has anything to do with their growing in numbers. I'd say it's thanks to some crusaders who kept playing a risky RP, they did it well and attracted more people... and of course, as it has been discussed before, the evils in GEAS so far have been always fewer. Still, I have to meet a crusader who can stand a 1vs1 fight against Nadie or Cemoch for more than 3 assaults.

I bet Nadie or Cemoch has skills over 100, if not then it should be code support Am I mistaken?

I wish people would actually get their facts straight before using examples. But since you are using Nadie as one, let's get the truth out:

Nadie was so far killed 6 times by other players, while she herself killed 11 player characters. In 10 out of the 11 times she had more experience than the victim. 5 out of the 6 times in which she was killed, she had less experience than the killer. So if you want to use another bad example, I can bring up the statistics of Yegerfin and conclude based on him that the Shaolin are vastly overpowered.