Shattered Kingdoms

I VERY MUCH second that.

[REDACTED] hell.

The problem is is that the Alignment system is without Good-Neutral-Evil, but the Pantheon seems split up that way, and nobody can wrap their heads around it.

The pantheon is delineated as such: Moral, Amoral, Immoral.

The alignements are set up as such: Selfless, Self-centered, Selfish

There is no writ-in-stone GOOD or EVIL. Every alignment is capable of the same amount of good or evil acts, it is instead based on their intention what alignment they fall under. If you are an upholder of the law you probably should be Principled or Aberrant. If you are in any possible [REDACTED] way not a "good guy", you should be Aberrant. End of story.

And this, I think, would fit into the described category of diabolic.

Most people have too much to do to care about what is happening in the world. If that is selfish then it is selfish to first take care of your family. There are many families who only exist day to day. There are individuals who exist day by day also. Those people are Neutral because they usually don't want to harm anyone but they will do what they need to exist.

The second group of people do exist and they are not psychoic. They are those that don't want anyone to get too much power. They believe that if any side aquires too much power it will hurt humanity more than help. Are they common, no. Are they psychotic, no. They just have a different philosophical view.

A psychotic philosophical view.

And an inherently flawed one.

Most people view their family as part of themselves. There is a distinct self-interest in preserving it, even if you discount the desires for relatives to look out for you and to perpetuate your line to the next generation. Only caring about the welfare of your family is undeniably still selfish. Am I looking down on that? No. Is that evil? No. But it also has nothing to do with being "neutral".

People who don't take a side, who don't want anyone to take control, who always want there to continue to be strife and struggle, that's almost the definition of anarchist. If you want to play such a person, you can pick that alignment.

I will accept the creation of the SK version of a "true neutral" if Monks are made into valid player-classes. Only a Zen Master can truly be detached from everything.

Boo-fucking-ya.

Zen is actually a pretty new theory, as far as philosophies go. People have been seeking to detach themselves from the mundane for much longer than Zen's been around.

I don't know where to begin. This topic is intresting and thoughtful. There's so many things I'd like to comment on.

For one thing it was grey leadership in the fledgling CoN called something else at the time, which helped allow my kyrchiran paladin which I had a blast playing. Gray leadership can bring conflict to the game which can be good taken in moderate quanities. When the follower of death lead Talsamar many wars and conflict between peacekeepers and hammer sprouted up.

Now, I could envision a gray combat oriented mercanary type high follower of Sargas. It would be the area that would define his morals then, until tyranny started to reign. Then there could be more war! A revolution. Greys aren't Miscreant power mongers, but products of their culture.

One might think that geography should dictate aura. Or at the very least dictate mores and laws the grey follows.

Xain, you should have seen the Favored grey merc of Yenko who led the Empire a couple of centuries ago.