Shattered Kingdoms

I'm perfectly fine with crusading characters who are bent on the destruction of evil. However, I think they should be of unprincipled alignment rather than scrupulous or principled. Sure, there were crusades, and lots of people were killed by others declaring their own morality, but who says that the crusaders were actually "good" people? Unless I'm mistaken, many of them were simply there for money. They didn't really care if they were doing the right thing or not, but rather were using the whole thing as a coverup to kill people and get paid to do it. In other words, they were selfish.

But why shouldn't selfish people be allowed to hate evil? If they're gray aura anyway, they're technically "better" than evil people, and can rightfully hate "evil" without being hypocrites themselves. Furthermore, I don't see light, gray, and dark as being three separate teams, but rather three separate mentalities. Seven, if you want to count each individual subdivision of good, selfish, and evil. Therefore, it's fine, even good roleplaying for members of each alignment to fight others of the same alignment, though moreso with evil characters than with good. As such, I think it makes as much--if anything, more--sense for a selfish person to fight another selfish or downright evil person who, in his or her quest for personal gratification, has stopped the person in question from achieiving his own selfish goals.

The way I see it, most people in real life would be classified as gray aura. When it comes down to it, most people are primarily concerned with themselves, even if they won't admit it. I think it's perfectly fine for a selfish-aligned person to act unselfishly at times--for instance, in defense of a person or object to which he has become attached--but in the end, the person is primarily looking out for himself. However, I also think that there are a fair amount of scrupulous, and perhaps also miscreant people in the world. Not nearly as many as would count as unprincipled or maybe anarchist, but still a fair amount. These (the scrupulous people, not miscreants) are the people who are genuinely as concerned for others as they are for themselves, but are often reckless and may appear selfish at times. I see principled and diabolic people as being an extreme rarity; principled characters should be a real blessing to have around, being perfectly willing to help anyone who hasn't wronged them in the past, regardless of aura; diabolic people should be the complete opposite. The way I see it, a real-life circle of friends would be likely to contain a number of unprincipled people, and perhaps a few scrupulous, anarchist, and miscreant people as well. The scrupulous people in the group would probably be more than happy to help the miscreant people, and they wouldn't be chided by their fellow "lighties" for doing so. Of course, real life is different, as there is no such thing as detect aura or know alignment, but the similarities remain: not everything is black and white, and most people are shades of gray. Personally, I'd be in favor of removing the spells detect aura and know alignment from the game, but I doubt that's going to happen.

That being said, however, I like the changes to the helpfiles.

Eradicating another good aligned character in the process of destroying evil is not behavior consistent with scrupulous or principled characters. Period. End of story. It does not hinder the Hammer's or any particular character's ability to roleplay as a bloodthirsty zealot bent on destroying evil. You can do that without murdering other good aligned characters.

If you can't accomplish that goal without murdering other good aligned characters, you really should choose the unprincipled alignment, which fits in perfectly with the type of vigilante, ends-justifying-the-means roleplay that is being discussed.

I have no problem with that. I never said I did. In fact, I like the way that there is enough leeway in the alignments to allow such behavior.

The reason why I mention that is that now, under the rules, there is no way for a lightie character to kill a lightie threat (i've had people stunned before who got back up and sent more guards in before the fight was over) to their ideals who refuses to change their stance or cooperate.


"Whole scale slaughter"? I don't remember ever seeing whole scale slaughter. I don't think I've ever seen, in game or a log, of a "whole scale slaughter" of lighties by lighties.

I've seen a lightie trib member die who ATTACKED another lightie who was attacking a darkie in his city. I've seen lightie groups wipe who were grouped with trib guard NPCs who auto defended darkies in the room when they were attacked. I've never seen a slaughter of lighties by lighties.


Callous? I don't consider my point of view callous. I was shooting to protect freedoms, not take them away. I was trying to leave certains actions open to lighties which have now been closed.

As for your wallet example, if you can convince me (or more technically, an immortal who was alerted to your action and is investigating you) that:

-you acted unselfishly (i.e. for a higher purpose, not yourself or even a friend)
-the act needed to be committed now and right now, for some "good" reason
-there was no other possible way of getting what you needed without resorting to such extremes

...than YES, I do think that you could get away with killing me for my wallet as a lightie. However, since I don't think you can come up with suitable excuses for all 3 of those, you're probably going to be acting out of alignment.


It doesn't matter if his decision is better or worse, it just matters if you get cursed or not. It's a carrot and stick way of enforcing alignment. If you get cursed for something, you probably won't do that again. As it stands now, I'm a little miffed that previous characters of mine (sorel, varin) would have gotten cursed had they ever needed to resort to such extremes (I don't remember ever needing to, but I would have if I had to).


I believe that every lightie has some dark, and that they would be lesser characters if they did not. Characters in SK are far more set into their alignment than people are in real life, but they are still not totally one-dimensional and I believe in a range of acceptable actions within an alignment.

Well, I remember that the Hammer did that once in Nerina, just to get to Acirin. There were a couple more times but they were when I was playing Caladian (I don't believe they were the Hammer so don't think they did on the other two occasions).

[edit] Also Adder, it is okay if a char has flaws. I agree, makes them more real, but to do it whenever they wish, though? That is taking it a little far. There is a char out there right now that breaks the spirit of their alignment almost every single day, when I played Acirin.

The Knights Templar would probably be a poor model for the Hammer.

But I will agree that it puts a certain strain on the Hammer of Light cabal, and not only that, the religion of Alshain.

The sad thing is that anybody can pick principled or scrupulous to annoy the [REDACTED] out of other similar aligned characters, or go and align themselves with opposite aura characters. All the while the only thing that other white auras can do is sit by impotently now.

It's the perfect model for a Catch-22 type situation. A lightie may go unpunished because they aren't even playing against their alignment in their pursuit of life, freedom and happiness, while at the same causing all sorts of trouble.

There simply is no benefit for playing a white aura character when those that can't be bothered or refuse to play such alignments wish to impose impossible standards upon their opposition.

I don't think the move to change the wording because a few people can't handle other people's roleplay was in order. Any allikat-esque character needs to get their face stomped in. This entire thread has resulted in the demeaning and vandalism of what "lightie" roleplay really is.

Here's an example of whole-sale slaughter. Three's character, the leader of Guardians and HF of Truth Al...damn, I forgot the name. Anyway, he would periodically raze Nerina, back when I had Syuveil.

Ariacron.

Of course the character is praised, somehow, despite his blatant cheating and breaking of alignment.

I think he's talking about Alphrenor. That was Jardeks character and leader of the Guardians. Three's character was leader of the peacekeepers.

Despite the fact that I dislike Jardek, I don't think there was an occasion where he went against his alignment with Alphrenor.

Of course, if Alphrenor knew what Destrivai knew, he'd have more reason to gank the people in Nerina.

Yeah, Alphrenor was fine. Harsh, and stern, but always a Lightie.

Anyone remembers that Calrion Templar? Merc I think, HF of Dawn, and he was neutral. I think he played the Crusader, successfully or not, I do not recall, but he was it.

"Here's an example of whole-sale slaughter. Three's character."

Yea, I was about to mention that centaur... I remember my Lightie trying to stop him from killing Lighties all the time. In the end, it went to madness that lasted for a looong time and still the King let him do as he pleased. In the end he had slaughtered many more Peacekeepers than MC+Adepts combined. That was a particular sad time for the MUD, IMNSHO, although some players and even a few IMMs supported the whole thing. Brrr.