Who

[Niano]

I propose the who good and who evil and who neutral commands be removed from the game. It irritates me that someone can just type who whatever and see your alignment, makes for bad rp. It should be left to roleplay to learn the alignment of someone. Open up new means for battles to occure, such as, say, two humans talking, agree to meet for possible ranking, come to find out one is knight and one is outcast knight, they suddenly in same room and BAM! All chaos breaks loose. I just think those commands really need to be taken away. Plus, totaly obliterates need for detect good and detect evil spells of clerics, makes them pointless. Make those spells useful again.

[Sirrion]

Agree. Same with who lawful and who chaotic...

[jemma]

Totally agree with removing it also.

Agree. Same with who lawful and who chaotic...

Didn't know you could do that though

[jAx]

I agree

[Antarex]

Really, In every RPG it should be removed, because its much better to ask every time about "path he or she follows" than simply type "who good(evil)" to bind PK aliases. Now it really helps in random-pk to have something like reason to kill, but is that we really need here? 

[Werewolf]

That is better about it? You shall add another standard non-roleplay question to the list of them.
Instead of "Hi! What is your rank and guild?" we will get "Hello! Which path do you follow?", as it was some time ago.

Imagine you asking all the people you meet around about their phylosophical beliefs before any other discussions. And the knowledge obtained from 'who good/evil' commands could be roleplayed as, for instance, rumors heard about the person. You do not get his/her role precisely from the rumors, but rather 'general overview', which is exactly his/her align and ethos.

[Niano]

I'd prefere being asked which path I follow, cause then I have the chance to not answer. But without it, anyone and everyone knows my alignment, ethos, race, can probably judge my class...its rediculous to know all that just by ooc info. Those who skills should all be ripped out. Who,who newbie, and who (clanname) shold be the only ones available.

[Hiddukel]

AGREE

[Niano]

Hiddukel or Chemosh? Any thoughts?

[master]

I agree too, but then imms should insist that descriptions contain alignment of person.
Btw even 'who' command alone is not roleplay, right?

[jemma]

You cannot tell alignment of a person from there description. Some are obvious of course, by the race.  RP is about conversation, getting to know that person by talking, asking. Not by .. who evil who good who neut.

If we look at someone .. can we tell what they are really like? Not always.

Actually, why not make it really interesting, and remove ...

****** the female elf. Our race

[jAx]

I agree too, but then imms should insist that descriptions contain alignment of person.
Btw even 'who' command alone is not roleplay, right?

We have no sight in this game so it is like the only way to notish if others are in the realms.  Also the who command is kinda like calling someone...you just know they are there and they don't want to answer when you send them something

[jemma]

who

 YoQuieroTacoGod
Lord Flirr
Niano
Invisible man

Keep who yes. But just remove race and alignments

[Niano]

I agree too, but then imms should insist that descriptions contain alignment of person.
Btw even 'who' command alone is not roleplay, right?

Thats rediculous. Can you look at a human and tell what his intentions are, what his beliefs are, simply by his outward appearence, excluding the sign given to clerics? Sometimes you can guess, by perhaps the robes they wear, or the armor they carry, or weapons they use, but you would say, oh, yes, blond hair, green eyes, oh, yep, hes a lawful good transmuter...just doesn't work like that.

[Nierth]

who

 YoQuieroTacoGod
Lord Flirr
Niano
Invisible man

Keep who yes. But just remove race and alignments

I hope you're kidding, yes?

[Niano]

No, there were some idiots on earlier with those names...sad really, people have to be that dumb. HUH FLIRR?...*growls menacingly* He's a bit under the influence, i apologize on his dumb stupid behalf.

[jemma]

No, there were some idiots on earlier with those names...sad really, people have to be that dumb. HUH FLIRR?...*growls menacingly* He's a bit under the influence, i apologize on his dumb stupid behalf.

Maybe the question was aimed more at my suggestion of removing race and alingments from the who

[Niano]

I think race would be good to remove as well, opens so much more for roleplay and many more possibilities. Perhaps let only newbies see race of other newbies. To keep it simple.

[jemma]

I agree too, but then imms should insist that descriptions contain alignment of person.
Btw even 'who' command alone is not roleplay, right?

Thats rediculous. Can you look at a human and tell what his intentions are, what his beliefs are, simply by his outward appearence, excluding the sign given to clerics? Sometimes you can guess, by perhaps the robes they wear, or the armor they carry, or weapons they use, but you would say, oh, yes, blond hair, green eyes, oh, yep, hes a lawful good transmuter...just doesn't work like that.

I see a well dressed man, wearing double breasted suit, light grey. His hair is combed back, smoothly, and it shines with cleanness. The smile on his face is enticing, sensual even, with an aluring look of lust. (obviously looking at you Niano   )

So, from that, what can you determine? He is a banker? A lover? Pimp? Policeman on his day off? A fireman? Man about to be married?

What you may not see is the pistol strapped beneath his jacket (his violin case was too bulky to carry up the street).

By looking, even doing who's who in the zoo should not tell you who they are, only names ... like, who is on board the ship.

I think race would be good to remove as well, opens so much more for roleplay and many more possibilities. Perhaps let only newbies see race of other newbies. To keep it simple.

Problem there is they would tell their high playing friends OOC etc etc

[jAx]

I wasn't on that sh*t Niano, what the f*ck you talking about, I may be under the influence but I wasn't on solace till you asked...dum dum