In more depth:

In more depth::
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]

Posted by Proud Blade(VIP) on May 18, 2000 at 01:03:29:

In Reply to: Well I think you just proved his POINT. There is no STANDARD! posted by Old Fart on May 17, 2000 at 23:47:15:

1) Characters are much more than their alignment. Your role should define your alignment, not the other way around.

2) There are multiple acceptable ways to play each of the nine alignments. They will have some common themes, but can be quite different.

3) The Anathemas are still fine by me. Why? Because the Empire IMMs are well within their rights to expel altruistic elf-fetchers. They are making the characters in question Anathema. Note that the characters are still Lawful Evil after being booted. They're just not Citizens.

4) Alignment is coded because it is a useful guideline, and it helps the game do things that should reflect the morals of the character. Can they wield a holy sword? Would Wrath harm them, or are they pure of heart? Etc. Assuming the player chose the proper alignment for their role, this is fine.

> > If anyone can actually define "good" or "evil" completely, using only a few sentences which cover all situations, please contact me, and I will forward your name to some philosophy professors.
> >
> > > Taking from the AD&D Players Handbook:
> > >
> > > Evil is the antithesis of good and appears in many ways, some overt and others quite subtle. Only a few people of evil nature actively see to cause harm or destruction. Most simply do not recognize that what they do is destructive or disruptive. People and things that obstruct the evil characters's plans are mere hindrances that must be overcome. If someone is harmed in the process well, that's tood bad. Remember that evil, like good, is interpreted differently in different societies.
> > >
> > > If the evil character believed that he could gain the award by killing the NPC's involved he would. But if he felt that could not (and Carrion Fields allows for trial and error by repop...) he would go along with the quest to get the reward to make him more powerful. Of course if this interfers with immortals plans somehow then the imm has every right to kill a character. I do not see how getting the boots actually interfers with the imms or the Empires plans. I actually think that it shows that the Evil chracter will do anything (including helping a good NPC) to get a reward that is offered just to make himself more powerful whether it be jewels or boots. It shows he is hungry for power and that is what the Empire is about "Power" not evil acts or morals...

Follow Ups:

Generally I agree with you but please explain this to me? Nobody 04:28:05 5/18/2000 (6)
- My two cents. The Arcane(VIP) 04:57:35 5/18/2000 (5)
  - Worthy point ... I'll accept that... Except he wasn't in the Empire at the time ... I think it opens up a whold can of worms(n/t) Nobody 16:39:54 5/18/2000 (0)
  - Most Important point Beladorizid 08:07:24 5/18/2000 (3)
    - I think someone mentioned that YOU ARE told that there will be a reward if you succeed in your mission (I havent done the quest so dont hold me to it) Old Fart 09:38:13 5/18/2000 (2)
      - Not before you accept you don't Beladorizid 09:55:25 5/18/2000 (1)
        
        You also don't know the nature of the quest before you accept it. n/t Narev 10:54:46 5/18/2000 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> 1) Characters are much more than their alignment. Your role should define your alignment, not the other way around. > > 2) There are multiple acceptable ways to play each of the nine alignments. They will have some common themes, but can be quite different. > > 3) The Anathemas are still fine by me. Why? Because the Empire IMMs are well within their rights to expel altruistic elf-fetchers. They are making the characters in question Anathema. Note that the characters are still Lawful Evil after being booted. They're just not Citizens. > > 4) Alignment is coded because it is a useful guideline, and it helps the game do things that should reflect the morals of the character. Can they wield a holy sword? Would Wrath harm them, or are they pure of heart? Etc. Assuming the player chose the proper alignment for their role, this is fine. > > > > If anyone can actually define "good" or "evil" completely, using only a few sentences which cover all situations, please contact me, and I will forward your name to some philosophy professors. > > > > > > > Taking from the AD&D Players Handbook: > > > > > > > > Evil is the antithesis of good and appears in many ways, some overt and others quite subtle. Only a few people of evil nature actively see to cause harm or destruction. Most simply do not recognize that what they do is destructive or disruptive. People and things that obstruct the evil characters's plans are mere hindrances that must be overcome. If someone is harmed in the process well, that's tood bad. Remember that evil, like good, is interpreted differently in different societies. > > > > > > > > If the evil character believed that he could gain the award by killing the NPC's involved he would. But if he felt that could not (and Carrion Fields allows for trial and error by repop...) he would go along with the quest to get the reward to make him more powerful. Of course if this interfers with immortals plans somehow then the imm has every right to kill a character. I do not see how getting the boots actually interfers with the imms or the Empires plans. I actually think that it shows that the Evil chracter will do anything (including helping a good NPC) to get a reward that is offered just to make himself more powerful whether it be jewels or boots. It shows he is hungry for power and that is what the Empire is about "Power" not evil acts or morals...

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]