Shattered Kingdoms

And while we're at it, let's just convert the game to a MUSH because of that one guy who made the "No RP in my PK groups" comment. :P

[/sarcasm]

Seriously, it's more than a little bit restrictive and heavy-handed
to make or keep something hard-coded
simply to compensate for individual players' perceived deficiencies in the RP department,
since that seems to be the argument here.

Let me add also that, from what I've experienced, a static alignment system seems just as problematic to me as the alternative. I've often heard the statement that many people want to play light-aura characters that are a lot more morally complex or ambiguous than "cookie-cutter good guys." Is it fair to say someone who's playing a fundamentally good, but deeply flawed character is automatically exhibiting bad RP if they eventually end up erring on the side of their vices? Or to make the opposite argument - is is fair to say a dark-aura character is automatically exhibiting bad RP if they blanch at someone ELSE's immorality, and stand against it?

Personally, I have found watching my character's attitude and ethics develop and change over the past 50-some years to be fascinating, and one of the most rewarding parts of sticking with her for such a long time. And while it's true that she's grown and changed a lot, those experiences haven't led to any conclusions that can't fall under the Aberrant umbrella -

But what if they had?
Should the concept one has of a character at the moment of creation be *required* to stay that static? Should it be a foregone conclusion that no-one can ever really be redeemed or corrupted outside of their original "nature?"

In my opinion, it should not. Voting for fluid alignment.

I'd also love to see the Deep Realms more fully developed, but sadly I have to agree w/Salak that we don't currently have a broad enough playerbase to make this feasible. :(

[edit : fixed an issue with my bbcode tags]

Someone should fix the poll option for "Chyz'mmm" to read "Ch'zzrym". :/

Unfortunately, fluid alignments in a MUD where RP is required, tactics and PK play a large part, and IMMs have more important things to do than field constant alignment change requests, are not an easily supportable change. Let me give you some insight:

INSIGHT: If you serve a god, your soul belongs to THEM. If you serve Alshain and suddenly decide you're evil, Alshain will probably make you ouchie. It's not at all a feasible idea in this case.

INSIGHT: We have classes that are restricted to certain alignments. No Paladins that don't uphold the law with every fiber of their being. No Hellions that don't hold honor closer to their hearts than anything else. No necromancers who aren't completely [REDACTED] insane.

INSIGHT: We have races that restricted towards certain auras. No neutral Elves, Delves, or Griffons.

INSIGHT: We have items that cannot be used by characters not of a certain aura. With fluid alignments, this no longer becomes an issue, because alignment can change. Keeping that unholy staff of doom from the hands of a priest of Dulrik doesn't work anymore. Also, keep in mind "request".

INSIGHT: How many dark-aura characters wouldn't love to be light-aura'd for a time, if only for the ease of levelling? Imagine a hellion getting XP bonuses in the Chancel or ToM? And if alignment changes by means of what you do battle with (a la default MERC code, I believe), then the problem exists doubly.

There are FAR too many mechanics issues to even ponder alignment shifts, never mind that I, personally, would rather see more new areas, GRPs, IMM-sponsored events, and faction oversight than would be allowed from the alignment shift requests from allikat alone.

Thanks, s.toast. These are all much more compelling arguments than "because Allikat sucks," especially when being read by someone who hasn't been playing SK for years and years.

Just FYI, "because allikat sucks" is a valid reason for anything.

While I understand not everyone wants to see alignment changes, let's not create difficulties where they don't exist. Keep in mind that even its advocates want it strictly limited. It's the combination of enforced alignment AND limited possbilities to change that would give SK another unique feature.



There's no reason an immortal should have to be bothered with this. If alignment changes happen ONLY when one is brought into a religion, it can be made part of a high priest's/high follower's investment command. I doubt the need to police investment would even change noticeably.



An excellent reason to make alignment change impossible once you've already been invested. I wouldn't want to see such a thing either. Yet this same argument argues that gods should be able to change the alignment of those they accept. Why not let this be done through the investment process?



Of course. They can either be excluded from the alignment change system altogether, or they can be limited to their race-appropriate auras. Likewise, paladins, hellions, and necromancers should obviously be stuck with their alignment.



This is only a problem of a change-as-you-will alignment system. Tying alignment change to investment would only let you change once. Nor is it clear we want full dark-to-light changes at all; perhaps aberrant to unprincipled would be the maximum change.

In short, I think we all agree that alignment becomes meaningless if it's changeable at will. But strictly limited alignment changes are a different matter. They'll provide options to boost roleplay, rather than destroy it.

Actually, this isn't my idea. Dulrik is putting everything I have listed here into the game eventually, he's said something about each point at different times I believe, if you want to include trade skills as part of a global economy. So it's not defeating the purpose of PE.

It just means that you might see more ships sailing around vast amount of ocean area, some carriges might move nobles about city areas, other things like that.

For what the opinion of a cowardly newb is worth, I voted trade skills - it would be easier to survive without a mercenary streak that way. It's hard to rationalize each character so that killing for gold is acceptable. (And yes, I'm weak - I do find ways to rationalize instead of going the noble way and seeking employment or panhandling, although I've considered it.)

For an 'other', I'd like to toss a vote in for some sort of personal property. My characters are all (well, ok, both) vagabonds with narcoleptic tendencies who doze alike in city street or open plains; they have no place to rest their heads. It would be nice to be able to construct at the least a hut out in the wilds; a place to stake out, to return home to from adventuring. Granted, it would serve no overly practical purpose, and in no way would I see it as a priority. Just a perk, and that's my 2 coppers.

Newbies are the life's blood of any mud. So your opinion does have worth to it, thanks for posting.

For the record, I am 1000% against alignment changing.

Other:Explain your idea. Sculptors, people to fix gemstone and obsidian etc.