Geas

The first real answer, thank you Abha, I wanted to have something like that. True I sometimes tend to forget about Forostar has people apart from players, what is obviously a mistake. That would also mean they let Arborea gather less taxes.. as they collect it instead of them.

As I have stated having a background cleared could improve RP and helps us understand GEAS more.

Alamar wrote:
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.



-Alamar

Your definition of neutral is possibly a bit flawed. Neutral means that a character takes no stance or action against a person/group/organization OR has no opinion of things, and does not voice it. The people you named surely arent neutral, not at all. I have seen them steal, murder innocents, and many other things. I am curious as to how you can call this neutral. You can have a character go kill faeries all day, then go spend a few hours in eal deliah, would you call that neutral? No, you call that doing what you want to do. It sounds like what you are asking for, is a chance to completely ignore the world around, do what you wish, avoid all contact with people you dont want to see, and just suck up xp by killing and doing whatever you like. I dont see any other reason why you would ask for that huge a gap between glowing red and silver.

Your criticism of their characters has two points: 1 quite valid 1 not. The ooc criticism is quite accurate. Many players would use such a "no-glow" system to simply sit at the crossing and gab all day or use it to do as they want and then claim neutrality when it comes time to lay the cards down. I like the way that Blizt forces people to take a stand on issues (both IC and OOC).

The second point, however, that one can go and kill faeries and then go spend all day in Eal Deliah... well, yes, that's one way of expressing neutrality. The problem you have had with that is that people who go and kill faeries and then go to Eal Deliah all day will glow silver and it's much harder for the Crusaders to kill them (although they usually do anyway).

I completely reject the idea that neutrality is doing nothing. The definition is flawed. Let's take a few examples of ACTIONS that a neutral character could take in a game...

1. Mediating between sides in a dispute.
2. Ransoming lost/stolen weapons/armour after a fight.
3. Trading in any and all cities.
4. Gathering information and selling it to the highest bidder.
5. Becoming a mercenary and selling his sword-arm to the highest bidder. (We don't see too many PC mercs, might be fun).
6. Becoming a craftsman and staying out of wars (yes, some players might want to do this... although I must confess that I LOVE the combat system... as you yourself have said Blizt... it's roleplay, not hack and slash).
7. Stealing from those rich shopkeepers and giving money to poor Volog (yes it's usually an abuse of code used to avoid Crussies, but some thieves might actually have a Robin Hood side to them).
8. Waging war on anything and everything that their god tells them to (Asrals?)... good and bad alike. The Asrals are reforming somewhat from their old more psychopathic tendencies, but a god of war is a god of war... hard to be "good" in the traditional sense of the word. More like equal-opportunity death-dealers.

That strikes me as a pretty good-sized list. I completely agree with you, Blizt, that neutrality is usually abused by the PLAYERS in order to simply do as they want without fear of consequences, but neutrality is a viable stance to take from the characters' point of view, even if the Crusaders view neutrality as one step removed from evil. A "no-glow" system would allow some characters to act in the grey area, doing some good and some evil things without ending up being either "evil" or a "goody two-shoes".

Not that it matters because Abharsair has already said that it's a no-go. But I am stepping in on behalf of the neutrals who might not be as active on the forum as others. A stronger expression of neutrality will also help newbies to join the game without being forced to take sides early on in their career.

-Alamar

Personally I don't think neutrality is automatically the complete lack of either good or evil, especially since this couldn't be achieved in any case. To me neutrality also means the sum of both good and evil actions. That means stealing from elves and giving some of the money to a beggar could be considered neutral. Using the evil side against the good side and vice versa would be another example. Someone who is neutral could therefore do evil and good things at the same time, and in my opinion that could lead to some interesting roleplay and add to the atmosphere of the game.

However, as already discussed in this thread, some of the players used the freedom of being neutral solely because it was convenient for them and gave them the most advantages for the least disadvantages. Need a shining digging hoe? No problem, just kill the guy and hang around long enough at the crossing until the reputation was back to neutral. Or maybe spend some money at a beggar or two. And if a Crusader or Satho complains, point out that you're strictly neutral and they should bugger off. To me that's not neutral, to me that is powergaming.

Also, I don't think that being "neutral" is the way to go in order to avoid trouble. If you want to stay out of trouble you should simply avoid provocative actions. Don't steal, don't kill npcs which are important to some people, don't insult anyone, don't attack anyone who you shouldn't attack, and so on. Yes, you can do all of those things and stay technically neutral, but you still end up on someone's black list. Therefore having a "neutral" reputation isn't and shouldn't be in any way a protection against fanatics. Instead, your protection against fanatics is to not provoke them.

So yes, I wouldn't mind more "neutral" characters, but only if their goal is to enhance the atmosphere of the game, and not to ignore most of what's going on while having daily chat-fests on their little island which is called "the crossing".

I think that one of the problems with the discussion on neutrality is that being neutral can mean a number of different things, and no one is really defining how they mean the word.

For example, imagine an assassin's guild. Would they be neutral or not? The answer depends on the type of neutrality you are talking about. They would be politically neutral, because they would help either side without prejudice. However, they would not be morally neutral, because their main goal would be murder.

Blizt and the Crusaders are concerned with the moral axis. They don't care so much about what political parties a person is aligned with as they do about his actions. For Blizt and the Crusaders, the hypothetical Assassin's guild would NOT be neutral.

The same could be said of Thieves. Stealing is generally considered evil, but it would be quite easy - and useful, atmospherically - for the Thieves to be politically neutral. That wouldn't stop Crussies from bashing them, though, since the Crusaders have a different goal.

For the Crusaders to consider someone neutral, they would have to do basically nothing that would get them in trouble, and also nothing that would make them good. They could, I dunno, pick mushrooms or something. But they could be politically aligned with, say, Elvandar or Arborea, and the Crussies wouldn't care, even though they would not be politically neutral.

I think this question should not be recuced to good, neutral or evil. This will create a black-white sight of the world.
But what about the different shades of gray? And do not forget the colors
I know others system of good, neutral or evil. Some have a kind semi-evil and semi-good.
Or the famous lawfull, neutral, chaotic - evil, neutral, good System which has 9 categories.
'lawfull evil' for the assassin
'chaotic evil' for the mad murderer
'lawfull good' for the holy peacefull herbseacher
'chaotic good' for the harmless manic
and so on ..
In my oppion even this nine categories are too few for the whole spectrum that is possible.

I furthermore think that a neutral player should expect to be the most dangerous type to play. Players who achieve a neutral reputation by killing both good and evil should expect to be hated by both good and evil, not expect that no one can attack them because they are neutral.

In my opinion, the way to play a neutral player is to provide services that no one else can, meaning that you can build up an alliance of people who will protect you, or at least hold off from you. Trading favors would be one way of doing this: "I'll get back your Lance of Holy Smiting A Whole Lot for you if you promise to defend me one time when I ask it." Withholding services is another: "I wiill provide my potions to anyone, but if a guild attacks me without provocation, I will stop selling to that guild's members."

But "I'm neutral so you can't hurt me" is just silly, in my opinon.

The order are seemingly nothing more than a group of plain fanatics, who sometimes tolerate others for a shorter or longer perio of time. Not much pattern in their actions as good or evil is defined for themselves by their own standards. Same goes for the crusade, no real difference. They act the same way, only target different groups of people.

Neutrals and neutrality. If you ask me the only way to remain neutral in the above situation is possible in two ways: beeing able to defend yourself from them or avoiding interaction with both sides.

As currently there are no cities independent from the struggle between good and evil and no independent force is strong enough to stand up alone against the crusade or the order alone version number one is a dream. Version number two is impossible while they have access to everywhere. So we can speak about it, but we do it in vain.

Of course a little theoretical discuss can allways be fruitful. Yet.. as I see there is no intention to encourage neutrality in GEAS, indeed as I see the intention is that everyone should take part in the struggle.

To chara: I doubt there would be any place on Forostar where either the Order or the Crusade could not break in. So they don't need anyone.

stilgar wrote:The order are seemingly nothing more than a group of plain fanatics, who sometimes tolerate others for a shorter or longer perio of time. Not much pattern in their actions as good or evil is defined for themselves by their own standards. Same goes for the crusade, no real difference. They act the same way, only target different groups of people.

I think both sides target whoever give them a reason to target them. Just because someones reputation is good, does not mean that the character is "good". The Crusaders target anyone who THEY think is Evil, not just whom the general playerbase think is evil. I am curious if you can give an example of this, because it sounds like you are saying both sides just randomly attack whomever they want without reason.

The order (and the Sathos?):
They still did not raze Elvandar, although they had the capability, as they could raze the Legion. They did not assist the thieves, nor abused the possibility fo weaken the Crusade or Taniels. Not a single invasion on the Crusader fort. Sometimes tey let, sometimes they don't let "goodies" pass unharmed around themselves.

Crusade (and the Taniels?) They did raid Asador a lot of times, viped out thieves from Elvandar, then never raid Arborea to force the government to get rid of Darkelves, instead they just took the soft answer of "they are outlaws", some other time they seem quite inpatient with people around them. It's also hard to belive the Crusa tolerates the bugbear and goblin camp in their mouth or Eal-Deliah a bit further.

That is what I call "without an obvious pattern". Yes, I can give a very good explanation if I consider its a MUD and it has to offer fun for everyone, BUT that has a little to do with IC facts. So from an IC point of view, both sides are just "lack obvious patterns" of good and evil both in their judgements and actions.

And yes.. for outsiders it can seem random.

But, you are free to give an explanation to this

Just curious - in order to keep pattern, should Kaspars start to crucify every single player char he meets in his way? Or placing full set of undeads at the crossroads? Sathonys would be pleased .. would you or some newbie?

It's also hard to belive the Crusa tolerates the bugbear and goblin camp in their mouth or Eal-Deliah a bit further.

In order to keep pattern we will end without any camps near, with all of them deep in the mountains or swamps and heavily guarded to prevent crusaders wiping them out.
There is a lot of OOC reasons and IC ways to justify different actions to keep the game playable for all.

But all in all, I feel that right now we are moving away from the original topic.

stilgar wrote:The order (and the Sathos?):
They still did not raze Elvandar, although they had the capability, as they could raze the Legion. They did not assist the thieves, nor abused the possibility fo weaken the Crusade or Taniels. Not a single invasion on the Crusader fort. Sometimes tey let, sometimes they don't let "goodies" pass unharmed around themselves.

Crusade (and the Taniels?) They did raid Asador a lot of times, viped out thieves from Elvandar, then never raid Arborea to force the government to get rid of Darkelves, instead they just took the soft answer of "they are outlaws", some other time they seem quite inpatient with people around them. It's also hard to belive the Crusa tolerates the bugbear and goblin camp in their mouth or Eal-Deliah a bit further.

That is what I call "without an obvious pattern". Yes, I can give a very good explanation if I consider its a MUD and it has to offer fun for everyone, BUT that has a little to do with IC facts. So from an IC point of view, both sides are just "lack obvious patterns" of good and evil both in their judgements and actions.

And yes.. for outsiders it can seem random.

But, you are free to give an explanation to this

Well, first of all, some of the examples you gave, such as the destruction of Legion and Thieves, the guilds responsible had some "help" in permanently destroying them, which they wouldn't get in a "normal" raid.

Not to mention, Legion and Thieves were removed because of code reasons, and instead of just poofing them away and pretending they never existed, wizards gave an IC reason and event to lead up to the destruction of said guilds. Otherwise, Crusaders/Taniels and Order/Sathos would have never gotten to permanently destroy anything.

Second of all, I don't think the Crusaders tolerate ED or goblin camps, since I've seen them killing things there on multiple occasions.

Lastly, as for the Arborea bit, darkelves are outlaws, and they're free to be hunted and killed to anyone's leisure. The reason Arborea hasn't been raided, is probably due to the fact that no one can permanently remove the darkelves without changing code, and that's an OOC problem, not an IC one. And I think many people find it a bit unfair to punish people or groups because of OOC limitations that they have no choice over, even if they wanted one.

Yes, these are OOC excuses, but you can't expect logical explanations in everything that happens in a game, especially one that is limited by code. I think everyone can pretty much agree we'd rather have this "inconsistency" than having guilds, areas, and cities permanently destroyed by raids, or introducing permadeath because resurrection can be contradicting in some scenarios, just to have a perfectly logical and consistent world.

---

To get back on the topic of neutrality though:

I think Alamar and Anglachel brought up D&D's alignment system. But I think many people confuse neutrality with things such as "chaotic good".

A chaotic good character would be someone who supports good over evil, but cares little of laws (such as not being able to kill the guy who just stole your new ash spear), or being pushed around (such as crusaders telling you stop doing this or that or they'll stab you). They're the types to do what they believe is morally good, such as helping people in need, even if it's not what society as a whole considers "good" (such as helping out a friend with a bad rep if he's really in a jam).

IMO, most people who claim to be "neutral" fall under this category, such as the Rangers. Thus, it would make sense why they'd have faint silver flames (silver flames = good reputation, and a person who helps other would be considered a nice guy, right?). They're nice people, just not saints. These would also be the "Robin Hoods" who take from greedy nobles and give it to poor beggars.

Lawful neutral people would be who I consider the majority of NPCs. These would be the law-abiding citizens or craftsmen (I heard them mentioned earlier) who really don't care what goes on in religion or all the way out in some other city, as long as their life isn't changed (such as being sacrificed because satho rules the place now). They generally mind their own business, and don't get involved in anything that doesn't involve them (such as religious/guild wars). Lawful neutral people are considered "slightly good" because of the fact that, even though they don't care much about good versus evil, they don't cause trouble and actually contribute to society.

I don't think many characters would be lawful neutral, besides newbies or people who just do crafts. Anyone in a occupational guild shouldn't have an easy time trying to be lawful neutral in my opinion.

True neutral people are the ones who work to maintain balance between good and evil. Their word can be trusted, but they can betray people on whim if balance deems it so. These would be the type of people to purge the population of goblinoids down, but then defend the goblinoids when they reach near-extinction.

The only characters I know of, who could fit in this category of neutral, would have to be Zhakrinites or Shaolin (though I've only heard bark and never seen bite from either of these groups).

Chaotic neutral people are the types who do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want (not to mix up with chaotic evil, as chaotic neutral people could help or assist good people in need if they decide it's what they want to do). They don't care about good and evil, and generally do whatever they think is beneficial to themselves, or whatever seems fun at the moment. This alignment is generally reserved for madmen or mercs that will work for anyone without any more reason than coin. Chaotic neutral people are considered "slightly evil", because while they don't support good or evil, they're generally causing trouble or disturbances for someone.

I know some people on GEAS who really do fit in this category, though not too many people, and most of them are the "outcasts" of society. These would be the kinds of people who would go kill faeries and then decide undeads are the new flavor of the moment. Or work for a Taniel cleric to kill a Satho cleric, and then work for the same Satho cleric to kill the same Taniel cleric.

Lawful evil people are people who are out for themselves, and don't care who suffers as long as they benefit. These are the types of people who use laws to their own benefit to let them get away with their actions. They may or may not be associated with other "evil" people. Lawful evil people can include greedy merchants, or tax-happy barons and lords that only care about their own wealth.

Again, I know some people on GEAS who fit in this category, but not a whole lot.

---

Anyway, these descriptions aren't necessarily 100% accurate, since the 9-alignment system is very popular and everyone has their own versions, but it should be close enough for people to see where they stand.

I'd also like to make sure people don't confuse flames/reputation with alignment. You can have silver flames the size of a tshahark, it doesn't mean you're a good aligned character, it just means you're someone who people speak highly of and know for many good deeds (a manipulator could have evil intentions, but everyone could mistake him for being a nice guy). The opposite for red flames. If you want to be neutral in the situation that you don't want people to speak well or poorly of you, then it will be hard, because once you become pretty well known, everyone's going to have something to gossip about you (may it be good or bad).

Of course, as it's been said a few times, this reputation system isn't the best, but it's due to change sometime, so I think the best situation would be to try to make sense out of how it is now.

stilgar wrote:The order are seemingly nothing more than a group of plain fanatics, who sometimes tolerate others for a shorter or longer perio of time. Not much pattern in their actions as good or evil is defined for themselves by their own standards. Same goes for the crusade, no real difference. They act the same way, only target different groups of people.

You repeatedly make the mistake of equating OOC friendliness with being IC good, and that is simply not true. Yes, maybe the Crusaders act as aggressively as the Order, but their goal and methods are very different. And saying that a fanatically good warrior group can't act as aggressively in pursuing their goals as its evil counterpart is both stereotypical and one-sided. Afer all, it's intentional that they aren't called "Paladins". Anyway, while the aggressiveness and decisiveness might be nearly identical, there are also plenty of differences: Crusaders don't torture just for fun (they do it to extract information or to punish someone), they don't steal, they don't kidnap in order to extract money, they don't steal horses and sell them back to their owners (or eat them if they don't pay), they don't purposely betray anyone, they don't purposely lie, they don't bribe, they don't kill indifferently for their own personal gain, and many more despicable crimes they don't commit. All of those things, however, are done by the members of the Order, who don't even blink while doing it.

Or to use an example: If you would sit at the crossing in the company of a couple Crusaders who you don't know and who you didn't provoke, and then you announce that you carry around 1,000 gold coins, I bet no one would even touch you. Do the same in Asador and with members of the Order around, and you'll get the hell beaten out of you right before you lose all your money. Therefore I think there are plenty of differences between the two of them, and equating them is just short-sighted and mixing up OOC with IC.

To Abha:

I think I did not mistaken anything. What we saw is a partially IC partially OOC theoretical explanation to show differences of the otherwise identical behaviour.
I can accept it, and please trust me I can very well distinguish OOCly the different background motives of the two groups.
If you read my note carefully, I did express they define good and evil for themselves, so I would not even try to do anything like that. Nor ICly or OOCly. Also if you ask a guy who was tortured, if he cares about the guys tortured him did it for fun or for something they define "good" I doubt he'd care
All people would see: two cruel groups shouting different things and declaring to follow different ideals, while killing and torture people around them the same way


To Tessa:

Exactly, that is why I tried to make up a thread to make common background explanations to events like that, so they could be a consistent part of GEAS's history. I stopped it becouse of it went to flaming. And yes, I think we overtalked it, case closed from my part.

I think that real world experience counterdicts your assertion that people would only see two equally cruel groups. Usually, your side is justified, while the other side is evil. Look at the situation in the Middle East. Is kidnapping innocent journalists and beheading them ok? Most would say no, but a large group of people say it's for the greater good. Same with torturing prisoners in Abu Gharib. Everyone can agree that torture is bad, but maybe if it saves innocent lives, it's acceptable. I don't agree, but there are certainly a lot of people who do.

From an OOC perspective, both groups maybe equally cruel, but from an IC perspective, the Crussies are the ones that you can count on to rid the area of evil - then the common Joe farmer might not care that much about how pleasant his tactics are.