Hehehe

Iniar

Iniar (male Human).
He is 29 years old, having been born on the 16th of Mayan, 703 years after the fall of the Seleucarian Empire.
He is unranked in Achaea.
He is an extremely credible character.
He is not known for acts of infamy.
He is a Citizen in Cyrene.
He is considered to be approximately equal to your might.

I chuckle when I read the fourth line. Every time.

Klendathu

It used to matter, breaking RP used to result in your credibility being affected - lower credibility = less xp from kills, etc.

Melaina

One of the things I miss about MKO is that everyone started with average credibility. You could lose credibility through the same things as you can in Achaea - being OOC on public channels, etc. - but you could also gain credibility through earning esteem.

Each player could give esteem to another player 3 times per RL day, along with a reason why, e.g. Excellent reactive roleplay in a scene that was really challenging for your character. It was all anonymous, so you could give esteem to an enemy you had a good scene with if you wanted. If you gained enough esteem, your credibility would increase. There were rewards for having high credibility, like a small XP bonus and the ability to give out more esteem. Your credibility would slowly return to normal if you didn't keep earning esteem.

it meant that seeing someone who was "extremely credible" was a sign that they were an excellent role player, someone who would be great to interact with. The first time I hit extremely credible, I was so excited!

I don't think something like this would necessarily work in Achaea. MKO was a very different game with a much smaller population. RIP MKO.

Touman

Iniar said:

Iniar (male Human).
He is 29 years old, having been born on the 16th of Mayan, 703 years after the fall of the Seleucarian Empire.
He is unranked in Achaea.

When you will reincarnate to troll?

Krypton

Remember when honours showed you who were ISSUES-abusers?

She has filed issues against others 45 times, averaging 1 per Achaean year.

I miss that...

Tahquil

Would be cool if now it was "She has had X issues filed against her, averaging 1 per year."

Krypton

Iniar said:

I chuckle when I read the fourth line. Every time.

Some of the other possible lines are hilarious, too:

• He is barely an acceptable character.

• He is a shamefully weak character.

• He is an utter waste of time.

Liyane

One thing I've missed since returning is Alignment. I get that it made leveling a pain by limiting what zones you could go to but I feel it takes out a lot of the PvE Roleplay element

Sena

I feel the reverse, that the alignment system was a hindrance to the PvE roleplay element (that's also the reason it was removed, because its existence hurt/limited RP).

Nazihk

Alignment was a pain in the balls because it resulted in things like "I, who have no RP reason to slaughter an innocent village, have to go slaughter an innocent village right now because I don't want Shallam to be able to deliver me in FFAs."

Liyane

Sena said:

I feel the reverse, that the alignment system was a hindrance to the PvE roleplay element (that's also the reason it was removed, because its existence hurt/limited RP).

I'm curious how it limited RP? It makes sense that what denizens you kill should reflect your character's/organization's beliefs. I know this is retained in some way with banned lists but having a good/bad/neutral system I think makes it so even your choices when you're bashing alone fit in with who your character is.

Nazihk said:

Alignment was a pain in the balls because it resulted in things like "I, who have no RP reason to slaughter an innocent village, have to go slaughter an innocent village right now because I don't want Shallam to be able to deliver me in FFAs."

This seems more an issue with a combat mechanics than with the alignment system to me and makes it sound like combat was a reason an RP element was removed.

Antonius

Liyane said:

Sena said:

I feel the reverse, that the alignment system was a hindrance to the PvE roleplay element (that's also the reason it was removed, because its existence hurt/limited RP).

I'm curious how it limited RP? It makes sense that what denizens you kill should reflect your character's/organization's beliefs. I know this is retained in some way with banned lists but having a good/bad/neutral system I think makes it so even your choices when you're bashing alone fit in with who your character is.

You're absolutely right that what denizens you kill should reflect your character's/organisation's beliefs, but those beliefs shouldn't be informed by an arbitrary designation in the alignment system.

I don't hunt in Moghedu because I have a history with them, and fought in a war a few centuries ago on their side. I hunt most of Dun fortress, but leave the Baron alone because we have a personal history (he even has what is apparently a custom reaction to me). I won't go out of my way to hunt in New Thera, even though they're allied with Ashtan, because unlike Ashtan's citizens I feel like they're just simple people who accepted an offer of protection at a time when they really needed it.

Personally, those are all considerably more compelling than "I don't hunt these people because the alignment system says they're good."

Sena

Alignment was entirely arbitrary, it didn't reflect any actual aspect of RP or beliefs, it was mostly just a measure of "which has this person killed more of, denizens that have an arbitrary magical aura of "good" or denizens with an arbitrary magical aura of "evil"?".

There was no room for nuance, ambiguity, reasons/justification, or differing beliefs (in other words, no room for roleplay). An indiscriminate mass-murdering Mhaldorian who just coincidentally happened to end up killing a bunch of petty criminals would be considered angelic, and a Shallamese adventurer who kills said angelic murderer would become more evil for it. Conversely, someone with a very good RP reason to kill a group of denizens (who may very well have done or be in the process of doing bad/evil things) could be considered an abomination because those denizens were still marked as slightly above neutral alignment. And it was pretty much always arbitrarily applied, there usually wasn't any specific reason (at least not a visible one) for an individual denizen to be good or evil.

It's like alignment in Fable, where too many divorces turns you into a terrifying demon, and you can murder every villager you see but remain saintly and good by eating plenty of celery.

Liyane

I really do get both those arguments. I guess I'd prefer to see an improvement to the system rather than having it scraped altogether

Coamenel

My dear @Liyane

We have the Charter, you can literally kill everything and play your "circle of Life" card afterwards!

Liyane

Aye haha, that's what I feel is encourage with "no limit" farming.