Nexus Clash

One of my transcend characters is in open conflict with several good and evil factions. His MO swings around a lot, but he tries to stay good/neutral.

I find it frustrating that Angels with Hand of Zealotry can attack him when he is Neutral without any fear of ruining their MO. But, when I attack them, it pushes me evil.

Suggestion: Attacking an Angel with Hand of Zealotry counts as an evil act if you are good or evil. But, if you are +20 to -20 MO, attacking a character with it is MO agnostic and doesn't impact your MO at all.

Having spent some time gently ruminating on this because typing on a phone is annoying I think I've crystalised my thought on what the problem feels like. I think the relevant issue for both fun and roleplaying purposes is the Unaligned effective morality cap in their strongholds which guarantees Zealots can kill them. Free will being victimised by angels should have two options for how to respond, the low road or the high road (RRF are definitely taking the low road).

You start with an unaligned faction that is a mixture of all moralities, maybe a little slanted to neutral. They are first raided by Zealots (potentially in response to the actions of their more evil members) and it feels more fun if there is a choice of responses.

The low road is to fight back and end up becoming increasingly evil as battles rage back and forth, proving the Zealots right as other angels join in.

The high road is to become good enough the Zealots can't kill you, maybe remove the few evil members whose actions prompted the war. Unfortunately SH morality mechanics say that isn't currently an option as they will remain killable by the Zealots even at 40MO in their SH. Currently you could have a perfectly valid RP unaligned faction where every member is in fact good who could be raided by Zealots and not even be able to engage in self defence in their own stronghold or bash down the raiding faction's ward to reclaim their flag without ruining their morality.

If we think that it is a positive thing that zealots can allways raid unaligned then the other potential solution is extend NC immunity to morality inertia to all members of unaligned factions so a defensive war with Zealots isn't an inescapable moral pit...

Sudden linked thought, a "Good" faction where every member is pledged to a DO and infusing to evil is not a valid target for zealot angels if enough of them manage to stay nominally good. Possibly HoZ should let you attack DO vassals without penalty.

The less fun option is a 40cp Myrm & Sorc skill:
Justifiable Self Defence
When at 0 MO or below you experience no morality loss when attacking a neutral character or angel with hand of zealotry who has killed a good or neutral character in the last 72 hours.

Whilst the skill is an intesting buff for balance NCs it definitely feels like the less flavourful option.

Guess I could also see a modification to HoZ so attacking someone who has it stops losing MO at 0 like good SH wards... Though that has the same faction war problem as currently.

This makes sense to me. Self-defence for neutrals v HoZ angels should be morality free.

Also this suggestion would pair well with the new upcoming (promoted suggestion) Advocate Skill Hand of Amnesty. https://www.nexusclash.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=7674

Kinda feel like if an unaligned class character wants to pay attention to morality code created by and for Angels, they oughta expect to take some lumps. I do not think Namm intends for his Morality system to shield transcendent factions from His justice at all. They picked their T2, let them stew! (This is true for the ones who join Good factions as well. They lose faction functions, sprite heals, blessings, etc and have little or no recourse in the current moral landscape.)

I do think it would be an interesting thought experiment to see what the situation would be like if Lightspeaker pet targeting rules applied to PvP attacks within the Stronghold.

By default, good aligned pets will only attack evil MO characters, or neutral if the master possess Hand of Zealotry, even if the stance would otherwise result in the pet attacking. This applies unless one of the following occurs:

The pets are retaliating against a direct attack on the pet or pet master. In this case, the pets will retaliate and start targeting the attacking character immediately
The character has attacked the pet master or any of their pets within the last 24 hours. This does not apply if the character made the original attack inside their own stronghold.
The character has killed an angel in the presence of the pet master or their pets in the last 24 hours. This does not apply if the character made the original attack inside their own stronghold.

So if an angel doesn't follow those rules for direct attacks, MO-loss would occur or something? There would be *more* of a 'high road' choice.

Let's add some data to this discussion!

Here's the average morality of nonidle members of all Unaligned factions that currently have double-digit faction levels:
RRF: -12
MFD: 12
Privateers: -3.7
Mages: 9.5
Freedom Array: 18.2
Secret Mission: 17.3
The Commission: 9
The Unaligned side as a whole, counting all factions and all feral Transcended: 3.1

The Unaligned side as a whole (all factions, all ferals) contains 25 Good characters, 20 Evil characters and 56 Neutral characters.

The average character contributing to the Unaligned side is of Neutral morality, and all large Unaligned factions (plus the side on the whole) have a membership whose average morality is Neutral.

RRFs average is probably this low due to the ongoing and dynamic regional conflict in New Thetis. I think it would be closer to MDFs usually

Thenixon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 7:41 pm Kinda feel like if an unaligned class character wants to pay attention to morality code created by and for Angels, they oughta expect to take some lumps. I do not think Namm intends for his Morality system to shield transcendent factions from His justice at all.

I think the question is: Does Namm consider self defense against an angel an evil act or not?

Grakmar wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2026 11:42 pm
I think the question is: Does Namm consider self defense against an angel an evil act or not?

Is "Resisting Arrest" a crime?

Thenixon wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2026 2:34 pm

Grakmar wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2026 11:42 pm
I think the question is: Does Namm consider self defense against an angel an evil act or not?

Is "Resisting Arrest" a crime?

"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - MLK

It may be a crime, but it is not Evil.

Still feels wrong that Zealot angels can clear an unaligned stronghold full of 100% good mortals and transcends with no moral consequence and those same transcends would drop to neutral for bashing the ward to reclaim their flag...