Shattered Kingdoms

What makes an Aura in SK? Is it the actions that we take, or the cause we take up in those actions?

I opted for the 'Actions' defining the aura for my character, even though I think my character's actions are altogether rather antithetical to my (Hopefully) religion in SK. I'm going to avoid posting my character's plans and motivations, as I believe that's best left up to RP. However, I wouldn't mind contacting an Admin/Immortal about such. Would the best approach in such cases be to IM here, e-mail from the wizlist, or pray ingame?

In the larger scope, though, what do you all think? Is a Paladin who judges too quickly and smites in what he believes is right still good? Can you be rather pacifist as evil, if you've evil reasons for doing so? For that matter, can you request as an evil priest?

Your alignment is the driving factor behind everything your character does. Whether it's thoughts or acting on those thoughts, the direction they flow in must be consistent with the beliefs stated in your alignment helpfile.

A paladin is not prevented from swift judgement by their alignment, and they have the tools available to them (detect aura, know alignment) to make those snap judgements accurately. They are also not prevented by the principled alignment from smiting evil. In fact, they're called upon to do so in one way or another. So yes. They are good.

Pacifism as an evil character must fit within the alignment restrictions in order to be valid. Not all the evil alignments value killing, but none of them are shy about doing it. It's just the reasons they do the killing that drive them to it.

Aura and alignment are not derivative states in SK; they are causal states. That's why it's the first thing you select in char gen. Everything about your character is determined by the choice of alignment, from the core out.

See the help roleplay file.

This is one dead, dead horse to beat. Lurk around a bit and check out some of the classier arguments about alignment and moral development and storytelling.




I'm pretty sure the first choice we make in chargen is gender, unless that's changed recently.

Let me rephrase, then:

"That's why it's the first choice you make that has any impact whatsoever on your place and role in the game world during char gen."

I suppose everyone has things they like to ignore. I guess it's easier to get away with doing that to some parts of roleplay than others.

Okay, and again, I went with the aura that best aligned with the actions I see this proposed character making. That seems to be the implied metric in the helpfile.

Alright, a more established hypothetical that does not involve my character.

What if a person wanted to do what was best for his people. Someone who considers themself a good person. But after dealing with far too much beuracracy, and seeing it as a poison to the nation. Say this warrior tracked down and killed the politicians of the kingdom, one by one. Seeing their actions as unjust, calling a challenge on all leaders of a tribunal. Seeking to strike fear in their hearts, and claiming vengeance as a right to his own. Those who oppose him are cut low, even if they are members of his kingdom. Other 'good people'.

Are these the actions of a good person? Or is the tyranny, fear, and vengeance he claims the act of a darker aura, that simply is misguided to his beliefs?

What you're describing is Scrupulous. It's the good alignment that eschews red tape. That character would still be subject to punishments up to and including deletion for killing light-aura NPCs and PCs. They would not, however, be justified (alignment-wise) in calling it vengeance. A more proper justification would be justice. Vengeance is an ideal reserved for dark or dark-leaning-grey alignments.

The thing with the setup now is this:

You define your characters ethos upon creation.
> And therefore character actions should be defined by this choice.

I've seen systems where auras sway based on actions, but those systems are easily gameable. If you want to change ethos, you find the opposite alignment and kill them.

I prefer a system that is based on more static ethos, but within which (perhaps) with very good roleplaying character evolution could be allowed. That type of transition would take time, and a dialogue with the imms.

Either way Auras aren't based on action or belief, they're based on character decision at creation.

Actions and beliefs are then defined by the aura you've chosen for your character.

In other words, in SK's current environment you've got it backwards. Make the choice, then let your actions and beliefs derive from that choice.

Clearly this turned into a gripe about the static nature of SK's alignment system. No, SK doesn't "have it backwards." SK has it's particular kind of morality system, which is different than others, and provides hard cut offs for particular kinds of actions. I.E., light aura players cannot kill light aura NPCs and PCs.

PC alignments don't get changed by the staff. If you violate your alignment in order to effect a "transition" you'll be punished for alignment violation, since that is against the rules. It's not "backwards," it's static. Your character's morality is in-born. It's not something you can change or hide or act against.

Auras are just a physical manifestation of the ethos of your character, and alignment provides a specific guideline for what is and is not acceptable behavior to a character with that ethos. Therefore, the morality determines beliefs and actions, much as it is in real life. It's not a senseless choice at character creation that predestines the character; it's a meaningful choice at character creation about the core ethics of the character which colors and guides all decisions down the line.

Anyways, I'm done with the discussion. I've said it countless times before, there are games with fluid alignment systems and those with static alignment systems. Both have their specific realm of enjoyment and I can appreciate the game with either. If you can't handle or enjoy a static alignment system, SK is not the game for you.

Clearly I didn't express myself well, or you misunderstood. I'm talking about the OP's subject being backwards: They said more or less: What makes an aura in SK, is it the actions we take or the causes we take up in those actions.

And as I said, it's the other way around. The aura/ethos/alignment (whatever you call it) is the decision, and the actions/choices/causes derive from that.

I'm hoping my post wasn't -that- unclear but maybe it was.

You know what. I reread my comment and it's really not a case where not even the least bit.

Yes, it expresses familiarty of other systems (and criticisms of them). Yes it expresses a preferencial style of system.

But no where is there any advocacy of change, no where is their complaint about the current system or any uncertainty about how it works. Just for the record.