Posted by shokai on November 27, 2000 at 03:38:22:
In Reply to: I partially disagree posted by Feirshay on November 26, 2000 at 21:37:58:
> I really don't understand the necessity of forcing The basic reason for shamans being good and evil only is because shamans are the zealots of a religion, and while it's possible to be a balanced zealot, in the realm of Thera, if you want to be a balanced zealot...become a pissed off druid. It's partially a balancing factor, but the other reason is...well (disclaimer...I can conceive of it, but also see more reasons why the concept wouldn't work) battling like a madman for neutrality is a somewhat flawed premise. A truely balanced character would strive for harmony in all ways...becoming a zealotous lunatic for this breaks the balance that is being attempted. It's just not zen. > I got off lighter than I should have? Having no That's not entirely fair...Fiershay wasn't trashed, you just went through a rough spot. To some degree we have to enforce a sort of 'acceptable morale boundries' on goods...otherwise we end up with a lot of neutrals with red and gold flashlights. I try to give leeway to people who are doing what they do within the boundries, or even if they step into a slightly grey area...and it's supported by thier role, and circumstance. There was one Entropy elf that used to kill Knights to 'redistrubute' equipment...and I'll admit I wanted to change him to neutral...but he was true to form, and anyone who held onto equipment for too long he'd kill and redistrubute (good, neutral or evil)....of course hypocritically he held on to his own gear for quite some time. (in retrospect perhaps I should've nailed him...ah well). Hope this helps clear up a little more about CG's. "I like pop
> shamans to be evil or good aligned. With my role, it
> was much more plausible to play the angry shaman that
> killed anything in the way.
I thought you did a pretty good job with Fiershay, as far as a follower of Uller was concerned...however, I didn't see you as a good follower of Uller (and by good I mean lightwalker)...hence the reason I stepped in. The curse of being a lightwalker is having a morale code...granted CG's have a slightly looser standard to play with, but there are some things that are just hard to justify within the boundries.
> communes for two weeks and eating deaths from pissed
> off players isn't enough? The last thing CF needs is
> tougher penalties for attempting a new character idea
> that ignores the standard. Yeah, let's just trash
> characters that don't follow the imms' ideals.
My point is that wether LG, NG, CG you're playing by a semi-pre-defined moral code. We try to be lenient with allowing roles that test grey areas, and roles that are unique....but within reason. This goes for goods, neutrals, and evils....it's just a little easier to spot when a good steps way way way out of bounds.
I like soul
I like rock
but I never liked disco"
- Everclear