Shattered Kingdoms

No, charge and horsemanship have alwasy gone hand in hand. Cleave however is built to be bad-ass by it's self. Cleave + horsmanship would mean more raw dmg and higher chances of critical cleaves.

Er, how?

I've always been of the opinion that SK players should have no have fixed alignments or auras at all: a character's goodness/badness should be as inscrutable as it is IRL. We judge others based on their actions and we make decisions that satisfy our own moral compass--a decision and process far to complex to be shaded into a light-grey-dark spectrum.

But that's a tangent. If we ARE going to have alignments, I agree that they have to be fixed. This is the role you chose to play. This is the character you have: play a new one if you wish to rp a different alignment.

I can see the appeal of being able to change class or race (permanently) or alignment according to rp, but there is a reason they aren't allowed. I don't think allowing switched alignments is a good idea based on three reasons:


a) Too abuse-able or nonsensical to be allowed by simple game mechanics. Let's say, for example, you could kill X number of light-aura NPCs and be "evil," or X number of evil-aura NPCs to be "good." This is repugnant to me, IC-wise. Evil/good is a decision and habits made in everyday life, not in killing a certain number of NPCs. While this may make sense to manifest itself in certain kinds of player-character rps, it wouldn't do for everyone.

Or let's say there'd be a scripted NPC somewhere that would take your alignment up/down a notch by performing some kind of quest. Player A says, "I'd like to use that nifty l33t scripted sword, but it is evil only, so I'll get myself evil for a few days." Then he wants to enter a grey-aura only area, so he changes over....etc etc. In other words, for many players it wouldn't be about IC motivations but about advantages over the game's mechanics.


b) Too much of a crutch. This idea is akin to the "let's play the one evil griffon in the world" or "I'll be the one GOOD deep-elf!" It SEEMS really original and bright. But it has been attempted by countless players. It is generic "uniqueness."

The redemption/corruption arc seems really original or exciting, but believe me, if it were available you'd see scads of people doing it.

My point is: it seems appealing mostly because it isn't allowed. If it were allowed, it'd be as cliched as the current rps of blemished paladins.

When certain overly-used story arcs are not allowed, players are forced to find new ones, more clever ones, less obvious ones.


c) Too complex and headache-inducing to be an exception-based policy by imms (in other words, to allow for the possibility at all). Ah yes, one might say, but what about that stellar rper who would make a good show of it? That rper who wouldn't make it corny, wouldn't make it insipid, but would make it truly remarkable? Why not make an exception for those kinds of cases, as imms see fit?

Let me be blunt: because it is easier to say no to everyone than yes to one and no to 99. If you open yourself to the "maybe" possibility, you as an imm find yourself deluged with requests from players who know THEY're right for the decision and will be angry if they were turned down: it's simply too much of a hassle. And it isn't a necessity for good rp, it is a player's whim. Thus, the "no exceptions" rule simply helps make the immstaff's duties a bit easier.




I realize that locked alignments do prevent those dramatic story arcs of corruption or redemption that so many of humanity's great stories follow. However, I think we can do fine without them.

Until that day when we can get rid of alignments all together.

Aye! I pray for that day.

Me too, but there are more immediate RP concerns to be changed before that. If alignments go away, the MUD would take on a MUCH more realistic hew. Entire classes would be gone, gods would be re-made from near scratch, there would finally be need for the players to find deeper RP concepts for themselves and so on, and so on.

I just wanted to point out that we have allowed and do allow "redemption" or "corruption" RP based on the following two conditions:

1. Must find an immortal willing to sponsor the RP
2. The final "redemption" or "corruption" of the character results in them no longer being a player-controlled character. If your sponsor thinks it is appropriate you might be installed as an NPC, but no guarantees.

If you are REALLY interested in the pure-RP of the experience, this option might still interest you. If you are only interested in being the "only" good Hellion or some-such, I'm sure it won't (as intended).

We can come up with a system to avoid this, if we want to. It's just a question of whether we really want to. Personally, I think it's desirable. Without alignment change, you're limited to two possiblities:
1) Playing a character whose ethical views never change, regardless of circumstance, desire, or divine act.
2) Breaking alignment.

Neither of these is particularly good roleplay. Getting rid of alignment isn't the answer either. As is, players have to commit their characters to some reasonably detailed ethical view. That's all to the good, and we already have enough doubtful cases without encouraging more.

So what kind of system could we use? Well, if mortals can't change their alignment, perhaps the gods can. Naturally, they do this through their mortal represenatives, the high priests/followers. This requires not only the mortal's consent, but significant work over time.

A few rules are all that's needed to make the system work:
1) Racial and class limitations to alignment apply. No evil griffons or anarchist hellions.
2) No single change of more than 1 level. (Example: principled to scrupulous.) For this purpose, aberrant is raised to unprincipled rather than anarchist, and anarchist falls to miscreant. No shifts from principled to diabolic, or vice-versa.
3) No more than two alignment changes during the character's lifetime. These are not makeovers, but major events in a character's life.
4) One must spend 1 train to have one's alignment changed. Time spent acquiring new habits is time not spent in the sparring yard.

Sure, this is limiting, but it's a reasonable balance between having no change and having a free-for-all. One could certainly tune it, but see how well it satisifies the original complaints:

a) Too abusable? It's in the hands of characters deemed responsible enough to lead a religion. Even if they falter, the rules limit the potential abuse.

b) Too trite? I don't think so. Alignment change made Star Wars III a lot more interesting, IMO. Nor are we going to have good deep-elves running about.

c) Too much work for the imms? The only thing they have to do is consider complaints against their favored followers. That's a burden they're already stuck with; this shouldn't be a significant increase.

I love you.

In such a realm:

Some priesty spells would probably change:
Detect Aura/Know Alignment - useless.
Bolt of Glory - still usable against undead, but otherwise small damage.
Spear of Faith - not useful?

Anti-aura eq would go away.

Paladin and Hellion classes would be combined/renamed to a templar of faith of some sort (and spells would probably vary per faith.)

I'm not sure why gods themselves would have to change. The concepts still hold.

I don't think the change is necessarily good nor bad. I'd be curious how people's RP changes when removed from the rules of alignment. (Along the lines of how people's interactions change when removed from the rule of law, like in Teron.)

I really like Foorsoth's idea for rules of changing alignment in the interim until alignment could be eliminated altogether. Without giving out IC info there is a gray closer to lightie. Realizes that he has done many bad things. I have an extremely long quest idea for him to come to the Light. I also like the idea of using trains and HF's must approve of the change. Obviously, race/class restrictions should still apply.