tynian posted the following two emails about alignment and pk models to the tfc mailing list
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:01:52 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [tfc] Alignments as a role-playing aid
I would like to disassociate the concept of alignment from the
PK models. Currently, we have two PK models. The first, used currently
by the Good and Evil alignments, allows unjustified attacks. The second,
used currently by the Neutral alignment, allows only following-justified
Instead, I would like to seperate the PK model from the alignment system.
This means that a following-level Immortal would not only choose what
alignment s/he wants the following to have, s/he would choose a PK model
for their following.
As a role-playing aid, alignment would have less influence on actual game
play. While there will still be alignment-specific spells (and skills, if
they make sense), interactions between followings will depend more on how
they feel about that following, rather than simply the alignment of the
This means, for instance, that one following that professes to be
"Good" could go after another "Good" following without any special
penalties involved, based on philosophical differences. Also, alliances
could be formed based on philosophical similarities.
This would also allow for more alignment choices. I propose the following
2. Chaotic Neutral
3. Lawful Neutral
5. Chaotic Good
6. Lawful Good
8. Chaotic Evil
9. Lawful Evil
Although skills/spells would be influenced by the following's alignment,
it is mostly a way to describe what a given faith is trying to achieve.
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:32:50 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [tfc] PK models
As described in a previous e-mail, we currently have 2 PK models. The
first allows unjustified attacks. The second does not allow unjustified
attacks, but unjustified attacks/kills give the following a 'following
justification'. I would like to add two PK models to this list. This is
just an overview of my plans, not the specifics on how every situation
This is a list of proposed and current PK models, from most aggressive
(from the following's standpoint) to the least aggressive.
1. Unjustified attacks allowed. This is just what the name suggests.
You can attack whomever you want, within the defined PK ranges. Pretty
much free to attack anyone, otherwise. Attacks against the following
provides no special protection, other than individual justification if
2. 'Retribution justify' (NEW). Restricted. No unjustified attacks.
Attacks against the following provides no special protection, other than
individual justification if attacked unjustly. Justified to attack the
deadliest following, as determined by adjusted kills. May also receive
'following' justification from 'passive' followings.
3. 'Following justify'. Restricted. No unjustified attacks. Attacks
against the following provides 'following' justification, allowing anyone
in the following to retaliate for a set period of time.
4. 'Passive'(NEW). Restricted. No unjustified attacks. Attacks against
the following provides no special justification for the following itself,
other than individual justification if attacked unjustly. The FLI can,
however, specify a 'retribution justified' following to avenge deaths,
effectively transferring a 'following justification' to them. The
duration if the justification would be half of the time allowed normally
for a 'following justification'.
A FLI would be able to change the PK model they are under, but at a
cost. First, Any following justifications would be lost. Second,
followers would be eligible for a free reform within one week of when the
FLI changed the PK model.
I know I left some stuff out, but I tried to hit the high points.