Shattered Kingdoms

Yes, this is another version. I'd like to see what the playerbase thinks. My reasoning is not to annoy Dulrik or the immstaff, but to sway their opinions with sound reasoning. Also, it isn't like it's a lot of trouble to change the alignments back, compared to adding in a new feature. As such, I don't feel bad about making a big deal out of it.

Alright. As most people may know, the alignment choice for rogues to be principled or aberrant was recently removed. This forces light-aura'd rogues to principled, and dark-aura'd rogues to be either miscreant or diabolic. Considering that my first character was a principled rogue of Alshain which joined the highest order of knights at the time, was a peacekeeper for over 100 years, and also led the peacekeepers as both first and second-in-command for many of those years, I am using my own experience to argue against it.

These are the arguments against changing the alignments back.


This is my rebuttal. Skills do not dictate your characters RP, RP dictates how your character uses his/her skills. The actual -skills- of a rogue (lock picking, circle stabbing/hamstringing, backstabbing, scrolls, peek, and more) are extremely useful for both PK, RP, and PvE. However, how you use those skills will differ completely as you cross alignments from principled to scrupulous, or from aberrant to miscreant or diabolic. As a principled rogue, If I saw someone carrying coin around in their inventory, even if it was a dark-hearted person, I would advise them to put it away before even thinking about stealing it (Even in Teron).

Second argument:



My rebuttal:
Actually, you choose your alignment and class, THEN you start out as a novice without knowing how to do any skills at all save using a dagger in combat. Stealing, peeking, backstabbing, planting, even lock picking, are all unlearned, just like a barbarian starting out has no idea how to berserk. There's nothing keeping you from leaving steal, pick lock, and backstab at unlearned, although prime examples exist where stealing, picking locks, and backstabbing could be easily seen as aberrant or principled.

Third argument:
There's that nasty phrase "Behaving like a rogue" again. Let me please reiterate that is isn't someone's skillset that determine's someone's RP, it's their RP which determines how they use their skills. On TOP of that, "Principled characters try to avoid killing, but do not necessarily shy away from lethal force in the face of unrepentent evil." There's a difference between backstabbing someone who's sleeping in an inn, and backstabbing a necromancer as he attacks a city. Also, stealing wands of say, energy drain, or scrolls of FOD, from said necromancer as he runs through your city would be hardly considered dishonourable, even as a principled character. (Hint: No where in the principled helpfile does someone's personal honor come into question. As a true principled rogue, I'd be willing to catch flak for fighting "Dishonourably" against a necromancer, such as backstabbing him, if I knew it saved lives of innocent people in the end)

Another argument, this from Forsooth.

For one, rogues are not required to tolerate stealing at all. As Valtari, I never used steal unless I was messing around for fun with people I knew well, using it as an -alternative- to violence (For example, certain evil NPCs which held keys to certain places) or using it as a tactical maneuver against enemies, such as stealing friendly corpses from foes after a battle, or stealing heal/recall vials before a fight. That and a few deep-elves when I was learning the game, but hey, I was an elf and often attacked most deep-elves on sight.

Also, yes, a skillset is more than -just- a list of skills to train and choose from, but it is far from character defining. Nothing is keeping a principled rogue from leaving steal untrained, if they feel they can't keep their fingers to themselves.

About Forsooth's first sentence, I thought of a few good examples of principled/aberrant rogues.

Principled:
There are evil murderous freaks in the back row of combat formations that desire to murder babies and drink their blood. There are locked doors that both give shelter to said evil, and also keep innocent slaves locked in. For those doors which are locked, there are people who may hold these keys, and the only non-violent way (Besides charm or persuade) to rid them of said keys is to steal them. In fact, when it comes to obtaining keys for certain areas, rogues are -better- equipped than other principled characters for using violence as a last resort.
Principled people are indeed not slouches in the honor department, but without someone with the rogue's skillset, both defending a city against evil and taking the fight to enemy territory becomes much more harrowing. A principled person would value his reputation below the greater good, and use his skills as needed, even if he may look bad in the process. Someone's gotta do it, and a principled person would do it -right-.

Aberrant:
Two choices right off the bat.
A) You're a contract killer, you go wherever you want, whenever you want, and when the time is right to fulfill your contract, you strike with deadly force, and never fail to bring back a corpse, even if it means your death multiple times. In time, your reputation will precede you, and those who have fallen under your contracted list live in terror of your presence.

B) You're a servant of Algorab, who brings forth the Lord of Fear's wrath to all who deserve it. Once someone has incurred your wrath, you let them know, via an ominous tell, or a note planted on their person. Someone who has incurred your wrath will be hunted endlessly until they beg for forgiveness. Until then, they live in fear, because they know you could be lurking around every corner.

To end, this is another one of D's reasons.


Although I agree with the thought that certain restrictions are necessary, this is very far from necessary and only hampers RP. The end.

I apologize for my long-winded post, but this is not something I am taking lightly, considering how easily it is to revert and how wrong it seems. If you disagree with me, then please state your reasoning so I can know. I'd like to convince as many people as possible of my standing here.

Rogues in SK are fighters who tend to use indirect and dastardly combat tactics.

A person who lurks in the shadows and stab you in the back cannot be lawful good due to alignment conflict nor subject to the "honor" restrictions the Aberrant alignment dictates.

I clicked give them both back.

I would take aberrant over principled though if I could only have one.

There is barely any OOC/Tactical benefit to being principled/aberrant, except if you are principled you get slightly more xp per kill.

Any change that gives players more roleplay options that doesn't affect game balance is a good change.

I guess that explains why elven paladins with max charisma level like crazy.

The key phrase in your first sentence is "tend to." Rogues don't -have- to be principled or aberrant. The other alignment choices are free to choose.

Also, rogues do not have to lurk in the shadows to backstab. You can run into a room with a necromancer, sorceror, or hellion and backstab them. Surprise attack? Maybe. Unfair? Maybe that too. But using the advantage of surprise isn't dishonourable, and someone who has innocent people to protect doesn't -want- to give their enemies more advantages in combat. Also, aberrant people don't typically care what other people think, as long as they follow their own honor code. An aberrant rogue serving Algorab that strikes his enemies when they are least vulnerable, instilling fear into them, is a prime example.

Similarly, same logic - a person should be able to make a barbarian in the Fist, but they don't have the discipline. Barbarians train wild fighting and they train honing their physical (and not mental) focus, going as far away from discipline as to break into a rage. These are not the skills of a monk.

Both arguments can likely proliferate infinately. The exception to both of these should be about as common as a drizzit, in this world.

What is the point anyway of playing a rogue without the 'rogue skill set?' vs playing a mercenary, who could play a principled alignment? It would be a more fitting match. Similarly, you can play characters with 'barbaric tendancies/personality' who is working to discipline himself from his initial upbringing, and choose any other goodly aligned class and make a run toward the monestary.

I'm sure any decent RPer could come up with valid reasons to allow just about any race-class combination or knight-religion combination, or class-organization combination. Surely we have more productive things to be doing.

You have a strange way of arguing points. I already addressed what Dulrik said. Also, this is not about barbarians in the Fist (which makes perfect sense, unless said barbarian never used the berserk skill again), it's about principled/aberrant rogues.



Also, I only backstabbed people who were my sworn enemies, such as necromancers with undead (especially deep-elves, as I was an elf), people attacking or who often attacked Exile, and the like. Again, principled characters do not have to -allow- evil the chance to win a fight. People constantly called me nothing more than a common thief as Valtari, yet I knew that I was much more than that, and was willing to be seen by some as dishonourable if my actions kept people safe.

Please, if you wish to argue against one of my points, then point out -my- flaws. Don't quote someone else who agrees with you that I've already addressed.

EDIT: Also, Amadeo, what happened to your earlier sentiments? You agreed with Cannibal that aberrant rogues are fine.


What do you really think, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

"Backstab" and "Honor" don't like each other.

The reason as to 'why' a rogue backstabbed someone makes no difference.

Okay. The Principled alignment mentions NOTHING about honor.

And if Rogues can't be aberrant because of "honor" then uh, hellions need to lose the hide and sneak skills, and the invis spell.