The nature of alignments on Herocraft

[xpeterc1]

The red is evil
The green is good
and the dam white is neutral.

 

[weynard]

WOT approaching.

I'm very interested in discussing the good alignment with you actually. You present an interesting argument about "True Good", one that turns no one away, does not crusade against evil. I honestly like it since, for the most part, that's what I strive for as a Paladin- something I take very seriously.

However, I do think there are "non-inevitable" instances when a truly good person should fight. In defense of another, such as an ally or someone who can't defend themselves like a low-level or crafter. If they can diffuse situations like this without killing, even better- I've done so with Tigo and Pipicik in the past, but if there's no time for words, you just need to jump in and do what needs doing. Be the shield for those who have none.

Agreed. Not fighting until it is inevitable would mean exactly that.

I disagree with mostly everything, in my humble opinion.

I think you're confusing people's personalities with their habits. Also, It's hard to categorize someone (or a group of people), into one of those three categories. Good and Evil are on a continuum. There are shades of grey between them. That's what I was saying in my last sentence. Did you read it?

Let's start with Evil.

No. Wrong. You're generalizing. True.

I would consider myself on a part of the continuum tending towards Evil for the reasons I will later state, but in no way am I an egomaniac. I don't consider myself above anyone else, nor do I only care about myself and my own needs. I gladly help out my friends/town-members if they need assistance and I treat people fairly depending on how they act and treat others. Also, from what I've experienced from other "Evil" players, we're nearly all the same. You can't assume that all "Evil" people are egomaniacs. It's not correct. "Evil" people tend to stick together and help each other out, which disproves your statement that we "betray" people and aren't "honest".

And that doesn't mean you can't be evil. What I was trying to say is that those are features commonly found within evil players, not in all. Once again, I did NOT say that there were people that fit with the description and I DID say that you CANNOT fit people in such shallow definitions. It is actually the point of a discussion to have a result, and maybe this discussion will yield an effective way of categorizing towns and players?


That's just ridiculous. Everyone strives for perfection regardless of your orientation between Good/Evil.
I disagree. A truly good person should not have the need to exalt himself as helping others already satisfies him. He does not feel the desire to let everyone in the whole wide world know he's good, because either people know it anyway or he does not want others to feel guilty because someone else is a "better person" than they are.
And there are some people that do it to feel superior, but you can find them in all walks of life. Also, they can't "make everyone know" they're "perfect" because perfection is unobtainable.
I did NOT say that. You are making this up. I said "to make everyone know they are superior", and was of course referring to their self-perceived superiority.

Yes, when people of like-mind get together (again, regardless of Good/Evil orientation), they tend to have a common goal. Obviously. They have similar interests. And no, the greatness wouldn't be self-perceived. In my opinion, if someone accomplishes one of their goals, I myself think that's pretty great and congratulate them on the work they've done. Don't tell me you've never bragged about something?
Of course I did. I've been an evil player ever since this map started. Also, the sense of accomplishment is subjective (as in, relative). I don't see any logical flaws here, so I'm a little unsure why you included this part.

Again, you're generalizing a whole group of people into one set personality. See above. (You're not trying to target any set one, are you?) No, I am not, which some players seem not to understand. And also, I'd like to see your proof to back up all these claims. In no way have I seen anyone of "Evil" orientation try to outwit their so-called "victim". What would be the point in "hiding" your true intelligence?
Luring people out of their town by claiming they need help would be an example. That wouldn't be "hiding" your intelligence but displaying it openly to those who know what you are planning.

Hm, being focused isn't an "Evil" or negative trait, last time I checked. Neither is being strong-willed. And as for being cold? Everyone can be cold. Again, regardless of Good/Evil orientation.
Yes, these features are not necessarily negative traits, but they do come to mind when you think of an evil person, wouldn't you agree? And no, a good person cannot be cold. That is definitely a feature of neutral and evil personas. If you are cold, you are being distant, and that is nothing a truly good person would think of.
(Starting to feel like a broken record here...) So do I. This is nonetheless a useless and populistic addition.

Again. You're generalizing us all. Broken record. Everyone acts like this regardless of how they orientate themselves. No need to repeat myself here.

In my opinion, if you take out all your over-generalizing and your tendency to relate personalities that affect everyone to you're argument as to who is Evil (and, for that matter, those who are "Good" and "Neutral") you're argument is completely void at least in the Evil aspect.

My brief opinion on the aspects of Good/Neutral/Evil. (With personalities out of the picture, as it should be).

Evil:

• Enjoys PvP-ing. (Groups and Solo) Probably even search out an opponent (regardless if the opponent is armed).
• Enjoys raiding. (Groups and Solo) Stealing from towns/wilderness houses.
• Won't form alliances with other Townships.
• Treats everyone the same regardless of Level, Age, Newness to the server, etc. This is a feature of good players.

Neutral:

• Just as it's titled.
• Neutral in politics. (Doesn't pick sides ; No alliances/enemies)
• Neutral in battle. (Never chooses a side)
• Opinions shouldn't generally be voiced. (Again, picking sides)

So, you agree with me on that one?

Good:

• Doesn't enjoy PvP (Senseless killing)
• Would never kill another unless aggravated down to the last straw (All other options had been exhausted)
• Doesn't raid or steal from others. ("Crusades" You might have misunderstood this. Crusades refer to raids mounted on those who are perceived evil, not on everyday aggression.)
• Always Polite/Respectful. (Chat AND Forums)

See neutral. You are merely repeating what I have said before.

I don't think there's a need for me to post anything else, unless any new material of worth should arise.

I also fail to see how (not)"Enjoying" something, especially killing, and engaging in diplomatics is not a matter of personality.
Now, who got his shit wrecked here? Maybe people should stop trolling and start making contributions to the topic.

Neutral towns aren't towns that just do nothing. They are opportunists who will side with who they please. At least that's how it should be!

Nope, your point is completely invalid. If you choose WHO TO SIDE WITH, you are forfeiting your neutrality.
Being neutral means to be extremely cautious not to tend to either side, which makes being a neutral town so much more difficult than most would like it to be, if not impossible.
Let me clarify that I am only talking about the absolute three here, not about what resides between them. I believe that before discussing specifics, you should first define some extremes that are hardly possible to reach in order to better define the rest.
If your townies raid someone, the town has to be considered evil until the culprits are either removed from the town or it is made perfectly clear that it won't happen again.

@Aerokii
I think using a system akin to the D&D system would be the a step to the right direction, but what would be "chaotic good", for example? And what about "neutral evil"?

I say, if you're intent on being perceived as one way or another, you should portray yourself (and/or your town) that way.

This. If your town is neutral and you get stolen from, raiding the thieves' town to shit immediately is not an option if you want to remain neutral. You'll have to discuss things first before you draw any consequences. Of course, neutral towns must be able to defend themselves and have the chance for payback, but they must always know when it is enough.

One thing I've noticed is that the "Good" people are perfectly content to kill anyone, for absolutely no reason at all. Infact, with the exception of the Tree Creepers, they probably jump people more than the "Evil" people do. If someone calls them out on it, they reference a list of "reasons we killed you" which boils down to "I don't know you, so you are fair game" Sounds pretty evil to me.

Agreed 100%.

Me, I'm Evil. That doesn't mean I wander around randoming people anytime I want, I'm actually a genuinely friendly guy. But I have absolutely no qualms about laying waste to anything around me when the mood strikes me, and the only thing that may deter me is that the target is stronger than me... for now. I may be more of chaotic neutral than anything, but my motives are gain for myself, so I dunno. The same goes for me, actually.

If we could skip the trolling in the future, that would be awesome. I'm not targetting the TC here, if you hadn't noticed.

 

[Aerokii]

One thing I've noticed is that the "Good" people are perfectly content to kill anyone, for absolutely no reason at all. Infact, with the exception of the Tree Creepers, they probably jump people more than the "Evil" people do. If someone calls them out on it, they reference a list of "reasons we killed you" which boils down to "I don't know you, so you are fair game" Sounds pretty evil to me.

Whoever is doing that and claiming to be "good" is a liar. Question them on how what they're doing is compatible with good alignment if you see it happen again. If not, I will myself.

@weynard
Hm, a better example I thought of would be if you found out places like airbus or one of the roads was being camped and you wanted to clear it up so people could pass... it's not really an evil or neutral sort of thing to do, it would be qualified as "Good" even though you're the one taking the action? I'm not sure where this and competing in PVP tournaments would fall, since I do dislike battling other people but enjoy testing my skills... I dunno.

As for the D&D alignment section, chaotic good might be... and I cannot think of a single example of a person on the server like this, for chaotic good, but perhaps they steal from the rich/"evil" and donate to the poor/hungry/newbies in a robin-hood-esque fashion. (Suddenly I am very hopeful a Chaotic Good Ranger will create a Merry Men guild). Neutral evil is tough too... it's tough to find that balance between chaotic and lawful at times, and all the examples I can think of end up being "Evil in name only". I'll continue to contemplate this one.

 

[weynard]

Helping people by embarking on a quest to kill others is highly questionable. Someone who'd fit the description of a truly good person should lead the victim of such camps to a shop whose owner makes similarly fair prices or try to talk the culprits out of it. Like I said, they do their best to avoid any violence.

 

[Aerokii]

Helping people by embarking on a quest to kill others is highly questionable. Someone who'd fit the description of a truly good person should lead the victim of such camps to a shop whose owner makes similarly fair prices or try to talk the culprits out of it. Like I said, they do their best to avoid any violence.

I'll concede your point on taking them to a different shop- but the road issue's a little trickier, since it's one situation where you could again exhaust all other options and be forced to fight it out if talking doesn't work. Going out with intent to kill would not be "Truly Good", no, but it should fall somewhere in the spectrum since you'd be putting your life at risk for others with no real reward (none guaranteed, that is.)

 

[weynard]

Agreed

 

[Zihara]

@weynard

That's what I was saying in my last sentence. Did you read it?

Yes, I read your last sentence, and it had nothing to do with that

"That's just ridiculous. Everyone strives for perfection regardless of your orientation between Good/Evil."
I disagree. A truly good person should not have the need to exalt himself as helping others already satisfies him. He does not feel the desire to let everyone in the whole wide world know he's good, because either people know it anyway or he does not want others to feel guilty because someone else is a "better person" than they are.

I never said anything of that sort. You're just re-hashing your argument in an attempt to sound like you have new ideas. I never said that they want to let the world know he's good, nor did I say that they feel the need to exalt themselves. Striving for perfection has nothing to do with any of these points (You obviously didn't understand my post). Someone could strive for perfection yet not brag about it or feel the need to let the world know they consider themselves above others. One example of "striving for perfection" could be that player who just really wants to be level 50. And how is that Evil? It's not. But that's counted as someone striving for perfection. Also, striving for perfection has NOTHING to do with making someone feel guilty. Find another argument.

Hm, being focused isn't an "Evil" or negative trait, last time I checked. Neither is being strong-willed. And as for being cold? Everyone can be cold. Again, regardless of Good/Evil orientation.
Yes, these features are not necessarily negative traits, but they do come to mind when you think of an evil person, wouldn't you agree? And no, a good person cannot be cold. That is definitely a feature of neutral and evil personas. If you are cold, you are being distant, and that is nothing a truly good person would think of.

Yeah, no. I don't agree. When I think of someone who is strong-willed. I think of someone who strives to meet their goals and stick with what they believe in. Which doesn't sound like someone who's Evil. They could believe in helping out others. Evil? Nope. Someone can also be cold but still have a Good orientation. They keep their distance, don't form deep relationships. Yet this doesn't men that they would be Evil if they showed none of the points on being "Evil".

(Starting to feel like a broken record here...) So do I. This is nonetheless a useless and populistic addition.

Lawl! Was there a need for this comment? No. It's a useless and populistic addition to the post. =)

Treats everyone the same regardless of Level, Age, Newness to the server, etc. This is a feature of good players.

Then let me rephrase. They would treat everyone the same. As in they wouldn't mind killing that Newbie on the road or that Lv 50 running away in the Wilderness.

@xpeterc1

Seems like everyone's showing off their mad Paint skills

 

[GraRona]

Dayum.You two are going hardcore on the arguments. Calm it up. @Zihara @weynard

 

[weynard]

Yes, I read your last sentence, and it had nothing to do with that
Of course it does. You are saying I'm trying to push all of you into one corner or the other while I stated in my very first post that I KNOW that that would be impossible. I think you are misunderstanding my post on purpose here.

I never said anything of that sort.I never said that they want to let the world know he's good, nor did I say that they feel the need to exalt themselves. Striving for perfection has nothing to do with any of these points. Someone could strive for perfection yet not brag about it or feel the need to let the world know they consider themselves above others. One example of "striving for perfection" could be that player who just really wants to be level 50. And how is that Evil? It's not. But that's counted as someone striving for perfection. Also, striving for perfection has NOTHING to do with making someone feel guilty.

Let me explain what I was thinking of:
I was talking about players openly showing their need to exalt themselves from everyone else WITH THE INTENT of having everyone else think they were superior. A good person wouldn't do that, regardless of what his feelings are, for the reasons I stated. That is clearly a feature of evil people and not bragging about it is still related to striving for perfection in that good people do not talk about it. Also, striving for perfection means that you know there is a status quo plus that is deemed better than your status quo, and that you want to achieve it. You aren't saying the public image of a status quo plus is redundant when someone decides to achieve it, aren't you? That would be truly ridiculous. How does it not play a role in, say, application processes or when concerning reputation whether one is lv50 or not?


Yeah, no. I don't agree. When I think of someone who is strong-willed. I think of someone who strives to meet their goals and stick with what they believe in. Which doesn't sound like someone who's Evil. They could believe in helping out others. Evil? Nope. Someone can also be cold but still have a Good orientation. They keep their distance, don't form deep relationships. Yet this doesn't men that they would be Evil if they showed none of the points on being "Evil".
Yet again (and for the last time now), I was pointing out the features that appear on the outside of people of one or other alignment, not which they have. If you thought I believed those traits had a bad connotation, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Lawl! Was there a need for this comment? No. It's a useless and populistic addition to the post. =)
Do we need to go into this any further?

Then let me rephrase. They would treat everyone the same. As in they wouldn't mind killing that Newbie on the road or that Lv 50 running away in the Wilderness.

 

[c12095]

Weynard, go ahead and rename the Evil section to Tree Creeper, we realize this is because your old thread got shut down. Yet you continue to get shut up by Zihara, just stop while your behind lol.

 

[weynard]

Weynard, go ahead and rename the Evil section to Tree Creeper, we realize this is because your old thread got shut down. Yet you continue to get shut up by Zihara, just stop while your behind lol.

I don't know what to say to you. I have more than once explained that I am not talking about your group of retards here. If i was, things would be a lot more tense. I have also asked you guys to stop trolling, sadly you didn*t oblige.
Can you not understand that there are people on the world that can keep one emotional topic from another? It doesn't seem like you belong to that group of people.
If you want to, please go on and troll as much as you want, I'll be ingoring you now. Maybe though you are mature enough to realise the world doesn't revolve around you and start making constructive replies.

And with that, I'm of to a family event. Curious to see how things develop while Im gone, see y'all later.

 

[Dielan9999]

@weynard

So does that make ShinKyoto a neutral town because we are allied with both Spire(evil) and Ironpass(good)?

If calling it neutral bothers you so much, call it "opportunist".

 

[Iarbobray]

I'd like to think on herocraft people don't follow the basic "Good, Nuetral, Evil" alignments but rather like;

"Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil"

 

[weynard]

@weynard

So does that make ShinKyoto a neutral town because we are allied with both Spire(evil) and Ironpass(good)?

If calling it neutral bothers you so much, call it "opportunist".

Yes, I would most definitely not call it neutral. Neutral towns do not form alliances since that compromises their impartiality (especially from the POV of a non-involved town).
Opportunist is a good suggestion.

 

[Dazureus]

(Now here's something funny, searching "neutral definition" makes Google cough up an error. DUN DUN DUUUN!)

I think there's a discrepancy between your ideas of neutral. Weynard's is most compatible with a political game, but Dielan's is most suitable for a good/neutral/evil alignment system. What weynard seems to be getting after is a stoic, Switzerland sort of neutral, whereas Dielan is suggesting (as he said) opportunism, being all over the map as it suits you rather than outright good or evil.

 

[Dielan9999]

(Now here's something funny, searching "neutral definition" makes Google cough up an error. DUN DUN DUUUN!)

I think there's a discrepancy between your ideas of neutral. Weynard's is most compatible with a political game, but Dielan's is most suitable for a good/neutral/evil alignment system. What weynard seems to be getting after is a stoic, Switzerland sort of neutral, whereas Dielan is suggesting (as he said) opportunism, being all over the map as it suits you rather than outright good or evil.

THIS^^ Exactly this.

So the question is @weynard , Which definition of Neutral best suits Herocraft? Both theoretically and in practice?

 

[weynard]

THIS^^ Exactly this.

So the question is @weynard , Which definition of Neutral best suits Herocraft? Both theoretically and in practice?

I do think that neutral towns shouldn't be able to form alliances- it kinda refutes the point of being impartial. We established above that an alignment is a continuum and that we're having at least three of those, so your idea of neutrality would definitely not be "true neutral" but "opportunist".
However, I also think that opportunist behaviour is closer to evil than to good since allying with evil "among others" is not something good towns would do- if you only formed alliances with good towns on the other hand, you'd be a neutral town tending towards good.
To answer your question, I think both definitions of neutral fit Herocraft as long as one is not meant to replace the other (meaning opportunist and true neutral can exist in the same continuum and still not be the same).

 

[Dielan9999]

I do think that neutral towns shouldn't be able to form alliances- it kinda refutes the point of being impartial. We established above that an alignment is a continuum and that we're having at least three of those, so your idea of neutrality would definitely not be "true neutral" but "opportunist".
However, I also think that opportunist behaviour is closer to evil than to good since allying with evil "among others" is not something good towns would do- if you only formed alliances with good towns on the other hand, you'd be a neutral town tending towards good.
To answer your question, I think both definitions of neutral fit Herocraft as long as one is not meant to replace the other (meaning opportunist and true neutral can exist in the same continuum and still not be the same).

I have to agree

 

[Danda]

to be honest instead of trying to categorize this into 3 sub sections Good, Evil and Neutral you could start to add in things like Chaotic Neutral/ Lawful good etc.
Where something like Lawful Evil could exist and would be someone that would never break any rules but would still utilize them for their own personal benefit as much as possible.

 

[Zihara]

@Danda did you read any of this? Those are great ideas, but a little late in the coming. They already beat you to it.