Bounty system

Neutral can not kill for profit, yet all alignment can kill based on idealism. Next (N) Syndicate should say, I kill CharA for running his mouth to CharB. Idealism not profit.

As I am also suffering the thread bug, I can't see what anyone has said since my post...

But I thought I found a very good way to be appropriate with my neutral avian invoker Syndicate. She was an emissary of Lady Luck/Fate/Chance whatever you want to consider it. I had a program built into an alias that allowed me to flip a coin. One possible output was "Heads" and one was "Tails." It wasn't my job to convince anyone that it literally was a random coin flip, as it was just presented as an emote. I would stun bounty contracts and then flip a coin. If it landed heads, I would leave and they would have another chance at life. If it fell tails, Lady Luck would claim her prize. I also had many Immortal Interactions and suffered greatly at times due to my devotion to the coin flip. I think anything is possible with RP, but sometimes it can get lazy/stale.

2 hours ago, Fool_Hardy said:

I suppose the difference would be the glaring reality that a neutral ITEM does not join the Syndicate, but a neutral person might. You are comparing apples to oranges. We are discussing if a neutral hunting people is an evil act. Yet you keep bringing up items, as if the item itself runs around killing people. I still say it is not by itself an evil act to hunt characters for the purpose of serving the characters cabal. If your good character kills something in town my good tribunal will still hang you for it. It is the product of a players conception of their characters RP, and said RP can be rewarded or punished in our current system. Arguing that no neutral should be a syndicate because killing other Characters is Evil, is likely based in player frustrations, not in game facts.  And that is my point.

I believe this was directed at Pali, but I will answer as well considering I mentioned items.  There are two aspects of what the game considers evil.  There is a base state or attribute of 'evil' and the act of inflicting evil acts upon someone else.  The drow inherently are an 'evil' race defined by game parameters.  They are inherently barred from joining Knight because they have the attribute of 'evil'.  Now, a player can RP whatever way they like, for whatever reason they like, but the player's RP has to back up the coded attribute that they are evil or they will get outcasted and no longer be coded as evil.

Not only is evil an attribute, but it is also clearly defined in the game help files.  Therefore, evil 'In Game' is quantifiable in someone's RP:

Heedless of the well-being of others, evils selfishly and shamelessly

live to exploit others for their own advancement and power.  Some who

are truly wicked even venture forth to spread suffering unto others

for their own amusement, or in service to their merciless gods.  Evils

will lend aid to others only in proportion to what is received in

return, for the helping of others in growing stronger weakens oneself

in comparison.  No matter how much they attempt to manipulate or control

others, true evils strive to become powerful in their own right and shun

displaying or admitting weakness, for this only invites aggression from

their brethren.

As far as what I was speaking about, both aspects make up Evil in Aabahran.  One is the mechanics of the game and the other is a guideline for RP that follows along with the mechanics.  So, is killing Evil by FL definition?  Not always.  Is mass killing by FL definition Evil?  Not always either.  Is mass killing or killing for advancement and power considered evil?  Yes, it is.  Is personal profit an advancement of power or personal advancement?  Yes, it is.

Testing.

Trying to merge to fix issue.

1 hour ago, Fool_Hardy said:

Neutral can not kill for profit, yet all alignment can kill based on idealism. Next (N) Syndicate should say, I kill CharA for running his mouth to CharB. Idealism not profit.

If a character's RP was based around wanting to destroy all rudeness, I'd be fine with a neutral killing for such reasons - but considering that Syndicate bounties aren't given with any reason involved, you'd have to also have a reason why joining Syndicate helps you accomplish such and how you're identifying your targets correctly.

I've never said that a neutral can't possibly have an RP basis that will allow them to fit within Syndicate, but the problem with most of them is that they work on an individual level while cabal rules as coded need to be generalized.  Twin's example is a good one, as Chance is yet another metaphysical attribute (luck bonuses/penalties from eq/spells) and ideology/religion in FL's world - but to properly follow that RP he's actually got to, at least occasionally, fail in his cabal duties by intentionally letting a bounty go.  He is placing align and religion over cabal here, and that should have (and sounds like it did) backfired against his character in some ways during its life via a negative response from the Syndicate.  While this is fine for an individual character, no other cabal's general induction rules introduce this kind of conflict for its members: no Knight has to worry about Knight duties demanding that they act non-good, Watcher duties directly benefit Nature and Neutrality, and so on.  The closest is a good Tribunal being tasked to capture a wanted good, but the wanted's complicity (they committed a crime knowing the risks) and that executions are carried out by the legal system rather than the individual Tribunal keeps this from being an evil act - Syndicate bounties have neither justification for the target's death attached, nor is the killer at all removed from the act.

If the idea is that a neutral person can work for an organization that is itself evil, why shouldn't they be able to work for Nexus?  "A demon has my family under its control, and the only way I can please it and keep them alive is to serve the Nexus loyally" is perfectly neutral from a lore and RP perspective, and I wouldn't be against the odd neutral character being allowed to run with it and actually join Nexus - but just because this kind of RP is possible, should neutrals in general be allowed to join Nexus?

edit: @Erelei seems to be working now

I see it differently. People want to win. We can talk about profit all day long, but its all about "I got killed, wahhh!".

Plain and simple they want to win. @f0xx says if your going Gladiator, go neutral if you want to win, and many do because it improves their chance to win.

Now, if I were to play a Syndicate, and wanted to "help the good guys out, not just the evil people" I would go neutral so I could convince more goods to place bounties. 

The problem is not in the hunters, its in the way the bounties are placed. Focusing on the hunters castrates RP for a lot of players here.

Maybe you should have to post a note when placing a bounty,  add one more command to the bounty process. "bounty reason"

Then you open the door for the RP everyone complains they do not get from the hunters. 

But at the end of the day, people want the win, if they believe neutral will get that win over evil, I support their right to do it.

Sorry if I come across crass in this, but if all syndicates have to be evil, syndicate will only be hunting goods and neutrals most of the time. And that's a shame.

If being neutral is stronger than being evil or good, that is a balance issue that should be addressed.  I see it as distinct from the RP/lore issues that we've been discussing.

6 hours ago, Pali said:

I bring up items to show that good, neutral, and evil are not matters of opinion in FL - they are matters of metaphysics.  Re KRins: Very few FL items have any innate sentience, so that appeal doesn't apply here.

I can say in my entire experience, it has never been quantified as to why X sword shocks Y person beyond the hard coded mechanic.  I think you are dismissing an "appeal" that neatly explains things.   If Watchers can believe trees have feelings, why can't I believe swords have an opinion.  Nowhere in the term sentient does the object need to vividly explain things to you or serve you with divorce papers if it doesn't like you.  Having thought over everything I can recall from having played here, I never once have heard any IMM say that is outside of the realm of possibility.  You can't train a sea cucumber to tap dance, but they are still quite sentient.  There are very clearly MORE sentient objects, e.g items that respond to your voice, it seems to me your outright denial makes less sense than the existence of less obviously sentient objects in the world.  You are suggesting that we have plain, clearly non-sentient weapons... and weapons capable of deciphering speech... and nothing in between?  So we have rocks and humans but literally no other sentient creature on earth?  That is simply not a logical progression.

The point of my responses has been that if a single person can quickly, off the cuff, come up with perfectly viable RP to fit a scenario and said person isn't even that good at original RP then the sheer existence of better players means the avenue should be left open.  To do otherwise is to willful stifle a potential future which is just silly.

3 hours ago, KRins said:

I can say in my entire experience, it has never been quantified as to why X sword shocks Y person beyond the hard coded mechanic.

Drow cannot touch mithril (edit: silver's a better example, as mithril is antievil in general) because it burns them to touch it.  Evil beings cannot touch holy weapons because they burn them.  It's the same thing at play - an attribute of the item, either a physical or metaphysical one, burns certain beings, and these attributes can be detected via magic without any experimentation with the item.  This has been the consistent way that item shocking is handled throughout the game, as well as in similar fantasy worlds, and there is no further explanation required for it to make sense.

3 hours ago, KRins said:

If Watchers can believe trees have feelings, why can't I believe swords have an opinion.

Nothing is stopping a character from believing it, because nothing is stopping characters from having false beliefs - the world is round in reality, but there are the ignorant and the stupid who think it is flat despite that.  Characters having false beliefs is a good, interesting aspect to RP, but simply because a character believes something doesn't mean much regarding its truth.

3 hours ago, KRins said:

You can't train a sea cucumber to tap dance, but they are still quite sentient.

This strongly depends on how one is defining sentience.  Sea cucumbers do not have brains or any other form of central nervous system, they simply react to stimuli instinctively - they are active entities, but sentience as generally defined requires the ability to perceive, and perception as we understand it requires a CNS-equivalent.  Regardless, even if I grant that sea cucumbers are sentient (which even animal ethics organizations do not do), that doesn't mean a sword is simply because it interacts with certain things in certain ways: toss sodium into water and you will see burning, but that doesn't mean the sodium is sentient, it just means that is how this element interacts with this molecule.  When good and evil are metaphysical attributes of entities, they will interact the same way - a good thing touching an evil thing will cause burning because that is their nature when brought together.

3 hours ago, KRins said:

To do otherwise is to willful stifle a potential future which is just silly.

So open every cabal and race to all aligns and every class to every race, because I can come up with some way to justify almost anything.  Or, allow exceptional RP to break the mold on a case by case basis, while generally maintaining basic rules for the sake of game balance (and world-building).

I'm not against items having a degree of sentience, and it is arguable that certain items do (hence me saying "very few" rather than "no" items in FL have sentience) - but sentient items in D&D-style worlds like FL tend to be exceptionally rare and exceptionally powerful, with a history that involves a non-sentient item being magically imbued with sentience by a being of power at some point.  It not only makes sense thematically, it helps keep such items notable and desirable.

I am going to remove myself from the conversation.  I feel like I cannot make any statements without feeling that I cannot personally speak and be heard.  Since I don't want to get nasty, I will move on.

Suffice to say, I strongly disagree with everything you just said and do not find "nope, my interpretation is right because it is mine" or reshaping my statements to hyperbolic, illogical extremes like open all cabals to all aligns compelling.

My apologies if you felt I was being disrespectful - I truly was not trying to be.  A reductio ad absurdum is a pretty common form of argument, and my use of one was not intended to be insulting.

edit: That being said, you didn't hold back from using similar exaggeration: "You are suggesting that we have plain, clearly non-sentient weapons... and weapons capable of deciphering speech... and nothing in between?  So we have rocks and humans but literally no other sentient creature on earth?  That is simply not a logical progression."  If you can't take it, don't dish it. ;)

Ignore, double-post.

This probably isn't going to be a very popular post - but hey ho.

Having read through this thread I've come across lots of well articulated, well thought out excuses for why people want to have a neutral Syndicate.  @Fool_Hardy has the truth of it.  People want to win, people want their character to be as mechanically strong as possible.  Don't hate the player, hate the game right?

Neutral Syndicate's breach help neutral.  They get a pass on behaviour that would get a a Non-Syndicate neutral Outcasted.  The Staff allow this because to do otherwise means a full redesign of Syndicate - which it doesn't feel like there is a really an appetite for atm.

You can come up with 'RP' reasons why.  You can use tenuous links to morality in real life etc.  But i'd prefer people just be honest.  Put it this way - you can have a Neutral Syndicate just fine - as long as you get outcasted when you kill a character that you didn't have a reason to kill other than the fact they had a bounty.  This is the reality of Neutral PK.  It is supposed to be the reality of Neutral PK and the 3 aligns are balanced around it.

1 hour ago, English lad said:

This probably isn't going to be a very popular post - but hey ho.

Having read through this thread I've come across lots of well articulated, well thought out excuses for why people want to have a neutral Syndicate.  @Fool_Hardy has the truth of it.  People want to win, people want their character to be as mechanically strong as possible.  Don't hate the player, hate the game right?

Neutral Syndicate's breach help neutral.  They get a pass on behaviour that would get a a Non-Syndicate neutral Outcasted.  The Staff allow this because to do otherwise means a full redesign of Syndicate - which it doesn't feel like there is a really an appetite for atm.

You can come up with 'RP' reasons why.  You can use tenuous links to morality in real life etc.  But i'd prefer people just be honest.  Put it this way - you can have a Neutral Syndicate just fine - as long as you get outcasted when you kill a character that you didn't have a reason to kill other than the fact they had a bounty.  This is the reality of Neutral PK.  It is supposed to be the reality of Neutral PK and the 3 aligns are balanced around it.

This right here is what I have witnessed as the truth.  Considering that Syndicate has had the trend of being alligned with Nexus and you can pretty much guarantee that every Knight can and will remain bountied as long as there is a present Nexus.  One of the largest reasons I see for why people would want a neutral Syndicate is that neutral bypasses a lot of the Knight abilities as well as the normal protections.

3 minutes ago, English lad said:

The Staff allow this because to do otherwise means a full redesign of Syndicate - which it doesn't feel like there is a really an appetite for atm.

This I agree is likely true, but that's often the case when we're spit-balling ideas. :)

Uh oh, now page 4 isn't showing.

Ignore this post. I just want to read page 4

3 hours ago, English lad said:

Neutral Syndicate's breach help neutral.  They get a pass on behaviour that would get a a Non-Syndicate neutral Outcasted.

You can say the same about any good Tribunal. 

About any Watcher.

I personally DESPISE playing avatars due to Watcher.

I can not understand how people complain about Syndicates but not about Watchers. As an Avatar you are not even allowed to kill them, and you get a hard-coded punishment for doing so. And they are aggressively hunting you. What RP justifies being punished for killing someone who is trying to kill you?

Same goes about goodies being hunted by good Tribunals. "They get a pass on behaviour that would get a a Non-Tribunal *good *Outcasted." Right?

There are some grey areas in FL. Those grey areas are there for people to use their imagination on. 

And in the end, if neutrals get banned from syndicate, what would actually change?

The character that's killing you will now be Evil and not Neutral.

¯_(ツ)_/¯

.