Guilds and Alignments

[Aerokii]

Since guilds have seen a recent resurgence in popularity, I figure'd I'd resurrect the old discussion regarding alignment, though now applied to something a little more current! What should a guild's alignment really mean? Should we allow it to dictate our actions, or rather, shall our actions dictate our guild's alignment? How should we determine and define each alignment?

On top of that, is the three-alignment system really sufficient? We have good, neutral, and evil- which seems to cover our ends, but what about the means and method? should we include lawful and chaotic in descriptions?

NOTE: this is not about any particular guild. DO NOT start a flame war. Any off topic posts will be requested for removal. Please, let's keep this civil.

 

[Dielan9999]

I don't think we need allignments or a pre-defined allignment system. I think instead we should have a personalized statement of intentions. So if you wanted to put "Lawful good" as your allignment becasue it describes your guild best so be it. If you leave it up to the guild to put something down, simply putting good, neutral, or evil alone will seem like a facade.

 

[Dazureus]

My own question would be this- what consequence does mandatory alignment labeling actually have? The Templars for, example, can call themselves Good all they want and do all the good things they can, but would anything be lost if the word was removed from the thread's title?

Now, if we are to have alignment labels, let us define the terms and use them properly. But I wonder if we should have them at all.

 

[Dielan9999]

Well consider this Daz, if we don't have a system, and they add a prefix to the Good part, and everyone else uses generic ones, it can be readily assumed they are really good, and every one else is shady, thus forcing the others to change or appear shady

 

[Aerokii]

Interesting posts so far. We've seen the labels that good, neutral, and evil have been given thus far from the guild pages, but how shall we define this within our own terms? Good, Neutral, and Evil- Good is more than just fighting evil, and evil is more than just... fighting everyone.

 

[Dazureus]

Well consider this Daz, if we don't have a system, and they add a prefix to the Good part, and everyone else uses generic ones, it can be readily assumed they are really good, and every one else is shady, thus forcing the others to change or appear shady

I wouldn't take it that way, at least. I'd rather read their post and find out what they're really about than choose depending on the thread's title.

 

[Danda]

As it stands the current Alignment system is pointless. Even Kain and Aph have said so in the past. No one ever sticks to their alignment for the most part.

 

[Dielan9999]

As it stands the current Alignment system is pointless. Even Kain and Aph have said so in the past. No one ever sticks to their alignment for the most part.

More reason for what I said to do

 

[Alator]

Alignments don't work unless you are forced to follow them (single player video game) or every one agrees to the rules (D&D night). Right now they only serve to display a guild supposed intentions, but not necessarily what the members will actually do.

This has been discussed to death, and I think we should just nix them entirely.

 

[Danda]

More reason for what I said to do

Hadn't refreshed the thread before I posted so I didn't see your post

 

[applelove]

The alignment thing has always been ineffective. Like Alator said, the members making the guild or town are what determines the actual alignment. My town was advertised as "Good" aligned, but if I hadn't kicked them, some members would have went about their own business and ruined the reputation.

A group may have a noble goal or mission statement, but in the end all the other groups still judge based on the actions of it's members. Alignments should be eliminated.
A mission statement is better, but again, what it really boils down to is how the group's players interact with others. The only way I can see this working is if all towns/guilds had a coded member system that added/removed points to the group for good/evil actions. (e,g. Killing someone who has no crime record/bounty/has been labeled evil by the system)

 

[agentjwall]

If the alignment system bothers you then don't pay attention to it. A points system would be cool but there are so many special circumstances that need to be factored into every action to consider whether it's justified or not (which varies from player to player too). Because of this it would by wildly inaccurate (and a b**** to program...)