Friday, July 11, 2008

Proposal: Let’s spice things up a bit

s.k.
-Amnistar

Adminned at 11 Jul 2008 20:46:27 UTC

If the proposal “Its the Chaotic Neutral way” fails, this proposal does nothing.

Change the text of sub-rule “Possible Alignments” to read:

Each alignment has 2 components, a Organization Axis that may be Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic and a Moral Axis that may be Good, Neutral or Evil creating the following possible 9 alignments:

Lawful Good
Lawful Neutral
Lawful Evil
Neutral Good
Neutral Neutral (Or True Neutral)
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Good
Chaotic Neutral
Chaotic Evil

Create a sub-rule of the rule “Random Encounters” - “Encounter Alignment” with the text:

The alignment of the random encounter is determined by the poster at the time of the posting by including the first letter of one the Order Axis options and the first letter of one of the Moral Axis .  A proposal without an alignment in the title is considered to have an alignment of True Neutral.  For each Axis that an Adventurer shares with a failed proposal that Adventurer may increase their gold by 1. The author of the proposal may decrease by 1 the gold of each Adventurer for each Axis that an adventurer shares with a passed proposal.

 

Comments

Amnistar:

07-11-2008 02:48:50 UTC

For those wondering why the proposal is worded the way it is in regards to gold loss/gain, it is because we had a rule in the past that had proposals increase stats in the GDNT.  End result? Admins didn’t enact proposals.  By making the gold gain/loss option it lessens the potential work for enacting admins.

Bucky:

07-11-2008 03:23:55 UTC

against

I have some issues with the wording of that last sentence.  It seems to mean the following:
Say there are 3 Lawful Good Adventurers, a True Neutral adventurer and a Chaotic Evil adventurer. A LN proposal passes.  Nothing happens.  But next time a proposal of any alignment fails, that proposal can remove 2 gold from whoever they want.

Yoda:

07-11-2008 03:45:07 UTC

against This is way too confusing.

Darknight:

07-11-2008 07:34:41 UTC

against as yoda said.

Seeking:

07-11-2008 10:59:07 UTC

imperial

Clucky:

07-11-2008 11:57:08 UTC

against

If I wasn’t your rival I’d have voted for so you wouldn’t lose as munch money../

Amnistar:

07-11-2008 16:11:05 UTC

against S/K

I’ll re-propose with simplier explanation.