Belsambar: re: Mordith: Neutral Align
Mon Jun 23 08:26:53 2003
Oh yes, the only reason followings are neutral is for protection...since we have much higher debt for pk's, no dispel, and perhaps me may acutally like to PLAY the game with a bit of RP as neutrality. Get a grip Mord, not everyone thinks about the game from the pk angle.
Marcalo: Re: Mordith Re: Belsambar
Mon Jun 23 08:46:24 2003
Maybe he is RP'ing?
Teluin: Re: Belsambar: re: Mordith: Neutral Align
Mon Jun 23 09:34:48 2003
As Mordith said, there are more benefits than penalties, dispel is almost never used in a pk when there's going to be a chase. He also mentioned the debt penalty etc., he's right though, can you honestly tell me Rose is Neutral when they so obviously love to pk? Or that Fate is Neutral when they so obviously love the side of evil? (yes there's alot more evil now but it wasn't always so, just their love for it). As for Tiax, I think he's playing the part well and not abusing Neutrality, and for Coleman we'll just have to see, but as for Mordith's idea, I completely agree, there shouldn't even be such an advantage that _could_ be abused, as it so obviously is. After a quick re-read, I also wanna add that yes everyone does think from the pk angle. Not always to pk, but for their protection at the least :P. So let's re-cap: Mordith's idea is good, but maybe just getting rid of Neutral like it was before would be better.
Boromir: reference Neutral Align
Mon Jun 23 17:13:28 2003
one item that no one has mentioned in all of this. Fate is neutral sentry not sword so pking is not an option for most people. as a matter of fact, a proving point is .. usually when people get confused .. they attack other members in their group when a member of fate gets confused - the code prevents the member of fate from attacking the other members of the group so ... you might want to identify whether you are talking about neutral sword or neutral sentry ... Neutral Sword can attack other players at will. Neutral Sentry can not attack others as they please
Mon Jun 23 17:41:41 2003
Gods are going neutral so they can ally the evils not not have their followers pk'd. The End. The real problem is the whole alliance system. There should be no alliances, every following for itself. This would allow people to rp actually alignments instead of playing everyoen current, 'don't pk me' alignment.
-Armalag Blackflame, The Rock, Free Agent Juggernaut
Mon Jun 23 20:03:30 2003
I really think that the problem here is the following spectrum has been shifted. We used to have lots of bloo's, and a few reds, but the reds were big...like the Tiger days when the Clave was huge...that made for good RP. Right now we've just got too many evil followings, which really just takes all use away from spells like dispel good and protection good. And another thing about Neutral. I'm not going to comment on whether I think Rose should be neutral, or good, or evil, or whatever. All I have to say is Neutral Neutral. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to pk to their little heart's content. As long as they play the neutral role and attack everyone equally, then they're just as neutral as anyone. We can't really judge whether they play the part well or not until we get some blue followings instated and align starts to mean something.
My two cents...Myre
Tue Jun 24 08:06:14 2003
just thought I'd throw in another (OOC) opinion :) I don't think neutral is the same thing as pacifist, and I don't think that neutrals should have to have the same number of attacks on goods and evils, or the same number of good and evil allies. As long as a neutral treats good and evil people that do the same thing in the same way, whether that is to ignore, attack, or aid them, they're neutral enough for me :)
Click here to return to timeline