Scrupulous helpfile wording change

ladyjennbo · **Posted:** Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:30 am

Muktar wrote:

There is never, ever, an ic reason for a lightie to hunt another lightie. EVER. Maelgrim hunted Reinald and Tari's RP is worse than love and I have RPed with her. You disagree with her she takes it as an insult on her honor and challenges you, if you don't respond to her ridiculous challenge she hunts you and tells you that by not responding you accepted the challenge. This kind of RP is exactly the same with the same reasons for what the Catholic Church did during the dark ages. It is completely and utterly wrong and evil.

This is incredibly wrong, in my opinion. I would hope that all of allikat's mudsexxing paladins were hunted and PKed repeatedly. And, again, I think your entire assumption that what the Catholic church did that was evil probably didn't seem evil to them. They were thinking "ZOMG CONVERT PEOPLE OR THEY DIE AND GO TO HELL! WE WILL DO ANYTHING TO STOP IT!" and not "LET'S COMMIT GENOCIDE WITH PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH US BECAUSE WE'RE DOUCHEBAGS" Of course, both instances were sadly the same result and we can safely see that on this side of history and call the Crusaders a bunch of horrible people. Ethics change from generation to generation and even from person to person. Some people think, based on their beliefs or whatever, that certain things (abortion, for instance) are evil and wrong, and others believe it's no big deal and completely acceptable. You don't get to dictate right and wrong for the entire MUD based on whatever you think ethics should be in real life or SK. The help files are there to guide us and the IMMs are there to beat us down if we step too far out of alignment.

Sargas · **Posted:** Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:33 am

ladyjennbo wrote:

This is incredibly wrong, in my opinion. I would hope that all of allikat's mudsexxing paladins were hunted and PKed repeatedly.

Wrong. You get someone to e-mail me so I can log on and handle it then and there. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote:

You don't get to dictate right and wrong for the entire MUD based on whatever you think ethics should be in real life or SK. The help files are there to guide us and the IMMs are there to beat us down if we step too far out of alignment.

This is the smartest thing you've ever posted. (I don't mean this as a diss, either -- it's actually correct. Bravo!)

Muktar · **Posted:** Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:42 am

You missed my point, D is the one that it should be rarely, if ever, that lighties kill lighties. There is 0 moral justification for what happened yesterday. So, you would be alright if I rolled a lightie and started to label everyone in the west that doesn't think that the western trio isn't corrupt as corrupt and I am doing the righteous cleansing of the gods, is okay rp? You also don't get to dictate via the game with your clique on what is and not acceptable as a lightie and then murder them claiming they are corrupted. Hell, Ardith even chided someone because they wanted to use their polemace and said that he will never group with someone that does and everyone was alright with that? Doesn't get much more OOC than that.

[facepalms Sargas]

Nightwing · **Posted:** Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:45 am

I don't think you can facepalm another person. I'm pretty sure that would be construed as a slap.

Sargas · **Posted:** Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:46 am

What'd the five fingers say to the face?

Sargas · **Posted:** Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:48 am

FinneyOwnzU wrote:

Let me clear up a few misconceptions. First, I agree with the change that Dulrik made. Good aligned characters should not be killing each other, except under the most extraordinary of circumstances. Second, good aligned characters should not be harboring, aiding, or abetting evil aligned characters, which, in my opinion, is just as worthy of a curse as good killing good.

The problem appears to be that the IMMs no longer enforce alignment roleplay, so players have taken it upon themselves to police violations. So when Mr. Hammer Crusader runs into a scenario where an elf or other good aligned character is harboring, aiding or abetting evil, he reduces himself to the same level of poor roleplay by killing another good aligned character in the process of destroying the evil he was hunting.

It is common sense that good should not kill good. It is also common sense that good should not be harboring, aiding or abetting evil either. However, if that happens, it is better to let the IMMs handle it than ruin your own roleplay and go against the tenets of your alignment by killing another good aligned character.

Nothing has really changed, frankly. If your character is principled or scrupulous, you can still wholesale murder evil and neutral. If a good aligned character "gets in the way", Dulrik has already defined your options: stun them. And as Dulrik stated, they should be attempting to stun you as well, so there is no tactical disadvantage.

Just to point this out, as this was one of the reasons I resurrected this thread.

In this case, Mr. Hammer Crusader is non-Hammer Maelgrim, who is ironically played by the same player that made this post, and a curse will be handed out for it.

Muktar · **Posted:** Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:51 am

Yeah, quite a punishment for a char the he said is now just an alt.

FinneyOwnzU · **Joined:** Wed Apr 24, 2002 11:51 am **Posts:** 1500

Sargas wrote:

FinneyOwnzU wrote:

Let me clear up a few misconceptions. First, I agree with the change that Dulrik made. Good aligned characters should not be killing each other, except under the most extraordinary of circumstances. Second, good aligned characters should not be harboring, aiding, or abetting evil aligned characters, which, in my opinion, is just as worthy of a curse as good killing good.

The problem appears to be that the IMMs no longer enforce alignment roleplay, so players have taken it upon themselves to police violations. So when Mr. Hammer Crusader runs into a scenario where an elf or other good aligned character is harboring, aiding or abetting evil, he reduces himself to the same level of poor roleplay by killing another good aligned character in the process of destroying the evil he was hunting.

It is common sense that good should not kill good. It is also common sense that good should not be harboring, aiding or abetting evil either. However, if that happens, it is better to let the IMMs handle it than ruin your own roleplay and go against the tenets of your alignment by killing another good aligned character.

Nothing has really changed, frankly. If your character is principled or scrupulous, you can still wholesale murder evil and neutral. If a good aligned character "gets in the way", Dulrik has already defined your options: stun them. And as Dulrik stated, they should be attempting to stun you as well, so there is no tactical disadvantage.

Just to point this out, as this was one of the reasons I resurrected this thread.

In this case, Mr. Hammer Crusader is non-Hammer Maelgrim, who is ironically played by the same player that made this post, and a curse will be handed out for it.

Too bad none of that applies for exactly the reason I stated in that post - the IMMs still don't monitor alignment roleplay. Reinald is a good-aligned character on his attributes and score only, not in actual gameplay. His nonsense had been ongoing for months and would still be going on now, but for my character.

Quite alright, though! You can all thank me later. A curse is worth it to get rid of him as leader.

Kin · **Joined:** Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:42 pm **Posts:** 944

Okay so hypothetical time.

Finney said this

" Second, good aligned characters should not be harboring, aiding, or abetting evil aligned characters, which, in my opinion, is just as worthy of a curse as good killing good."

So what exactly separates a lightie from a darkie? Aludrans aren't supposed to rez darkies ? Is that correct or not?

Okay, so what's to stop Lightie A, lets say they're a Keeper, aka Keeper from saying to Talon that "Hey, X attacked my comrade! You're harboring them!" Hammer then goes to exact vengeance on X and then Talon refuses to pardon Hammer because they struck first. X then gets paroled because he was defending himself.

Where does this draw the line? As it stands now, most of the justification from lightie ganks, especially on non combatant greybies and darkies are that "They're a spy, " or something along those lines. If lighties aren't supposed to aid and abet darkies, then why do we have cabal diplomacy at all? Why -can- Talons truce with say, the MC if they're always at war with the Keepers? What happens in those situations? Or what about Talons trucing with the Crucible? Or even Allying with them? Why are these options even available if they're not realistically possible? On top of that, how is a darkie supposed to try and work out some sort of truce with lighties? There are times where you get tired of beat down or get outnumbered or such. How are you supposed to work out those truces when people refuse to work with you?

Simply put, theres a lot of questions that don't really make sense. I mean, how do you justify situations like this? A Lightie talon leader is supposed to -always- pardon a hammerite and punish the darkie regardless of who attacked first? What's the point then of an aura if it's just a team flag?

Muktar · **Posted:** Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:01 pm

^what he said +1

Shattered Kingdoms

Scrupulous helpfile wording change

Who is online