Shattered Kingdoms

See, I would see that as a legitimate source of IC roleplay potential. I think it is and has been interesting to see how people react to lighties who are more... "ruthless" when it comes to the pursuit of justice. I also do not think that such lighties are acting outside their alignment and should be punished (though, seeing as how I've played one, I'm biased).


There's always tomorrow. It's the principle of neverending vigilance and action that counts. In SK "vanquishing" evil doesn't keep them down for long.


It's crazy, but lighties are not monolithic in their opinions.


Ideally, of course not, but it's pretty hard to hit mode stun that fast.

So Adder, how is a lightie that is more "ruthless" as you so diplomatically put it, any different from a grey aura?

See, if the level of RP was higher on this mud, I would agree that diversity is a good thing. If everyone had a base respect for alignment, and recognised that alignment cannot be ignored just because it is inconvenient, I would be much more inclined to applaud controversial characters in the name of diversity.

Thing is, that is just not even remotely close to the reality of SK. The reality is that far most lighties kill lightie NPCs without blinking, if they can get away with it. They kill people for phat lewt, without blinking, if they can get away with it. They kill before talk, and they are just as pathetic with their excuses as greys and darkies are.

A controversial or excessively sinful lightie stops being interesting, or good for the mud, when they become the majority of lightie types played. Controversial and border character are only interesting and only a good idea if there is a solid base of lighties that actually *act* as lighties.

We don't have that. Instead, we have a teeny tiny minority of lighties who put their alignment before their personal advantage.

With every grey Ive played Ive ended up in the tragic situation where Ive had to admit that if I played my characters based solely on how people responded, by *far* most lighties would be considered darkies, and ironically way too many of the darkies would be considered grey. There is something way wrong with that picture.

Why even bother with alignment if people don't give a crap about it anyhow? If it doesnt *matter* what alignment you are, if your actions and responses arent colored by your character's inherent understanding of right and wrong, what exactly is *left* in the alignment term that is worth the screen space it takes up?

This is way too much conversation for a far too open and shut case.

The help file is fine. It gives characters the freedom to act within the alignment as they see it.

If people will not and cannot carry personal restraint or carry through the RP required, that is their problem, and ruthless or not IMMs have the capacity to punish this roleplay. The verbage of the help file will not stop people or encourage them, nor will it change the enforceability of good or bad roleplay.

The problem with this whole situation lies between the computer chair and the keyboard, not some helpfile.

I'm pro a change. I think it would be refreshing to stop seeing scrupulous people commit acts of murder and hate in the name of "oh, but Im flawed and, like, ruthless and stuff".

Characters can be careless, yet just because they have the freedom to be careless doesn't mean their carelessness comes without consequences, either self-imposed or imposed from on high. Ruthless is a strong word, but leave careless, and leave the opening that ruthless was intended to give.

It would be a move worthy of 1984 to remove some freedoms like this because people aren't responsible enough to handle them.

If they can't handle the freedom, then they probably won't be able to handle the consequence too. All people need to see are consequences for their actions. Sure, you go ahead and be careless, you're capable of it. But your country will deport you, your religion will excommunicate you, and you will probably feel a guilt that will make you want to kill yourself if you do something too careless.

What is so bad about this?

On a slightly separate talking, as a Jack Bauer connoisseur, I will break him down.


Jack Bauer is acting selflessly to protect a country. It is not a matter of personal honor that he does something, it is a matter of doing what it takes to protect the lives of millions of people.

Jack Bauer will do whatever it takes to protect those people. Yet, as proof of his conscience, after a season of complete and utter annihalation and destruction, and probably his most "questionable" act yet of ripping someone's head actually OFF, he breaks down, weeps, and cries in his jeep after everything is done. He sobs himself into a child-like whimpering lull until he is called back into action, wherein he stops crying, gets out of the car, and gets back to business.

He lost his job at least 3 times doing what he has done, broken down twice, was legally dead once, lost his wife, estranged his daughter and friends, and in the end had to go into hiding, was forced to be homeless, legally non-existant except to 3 people for what he had done.

The difference between Jack Bauer and our scrupulous is not his intent nor his conscience, but that he faces the consequences of everything he does for the greater good, feels the grief, and continues to do it.

We have principled. We also have scrupulous. Pick one, go with it, but don't meld them together because some people can't handle playing scrupulous, please.

Lighties fight for a cause (which is not themselves). Grays fight for themselves.

Will is the sux, however he is completely correct on this issue.

I've played scrup in the past both ways, and at least one my characters I ended up suiciding and deleting simply because while all of the [REDACTED] I had done was for the greater good it also undeniably [REDACTED] me.

Not everything is forgiven, not everything can be taken back with a few words. I'd even go further and say the problem with scrup currently isn't the help file, but those who give the scrups too much leeway on both sides.

I keep making this reference about Jack Bauer all the time, but he is rather clearly within the fit of the "current" scrupulous (read: Arsilan). He does what he does -- step over a few to save thousands, or even millions. He works, technically, for the 'greater good'. If you think this Aberrant behavior, then theoretically, all the alignments should be "aura-less" and the Hammer needs to start accepting way more people than it already does. Hell, there were a lot of people who commited torture in the inquisition, and that's kind of what the Hammer does when it comes to darkies, and lighties aren't supposed to do it anyways, right?

Do you want to make it so that 'alignment' is no longer such a decisive factor to everything? Do you want the Hammer or any other light / dark character to base their work on actions instead of detect aura prejudice? Get rid of auras, keep alignment.

I hope that no one actually believes that the inquistion was a good thing. That was purely an evil act by evil people.

[edit] I also hope that no one believes that the Hammer should be run like the Inquisition.

Obviously, but the Hammer does somewhat run like the Inquisition, bar the torture (but they're fairly okay with the killing).