[Shieba]

If we end up cutting Traits, I'm all for adding them to the passive list...but we would then have to up the max number of Traits allowed again to make people able to keep all Traits they had chosen before. Which would mean redoing the entire pen again. Ugh. I'm not happy about this, but yah...

As for alignments, I'd prefer a scale indicating only good/evil. Nothing of these personality-bound things. More like:
- Holy: Your pet is not tainted by evil at all. It is as pure as possible and will only serve the good cause.
- Saint: Your pet sometimes feels tempted by evil, but consequently pushes these things away from itself.
- Good at heart: Sometimes, your pet gets overtaken by anger or hate, but it mostly is a good creature who would not harm others or do something illegal.
- Nice: Someone others normally get along with well, your pet is normally kind.
- Neutral: Neither particulary nice nor grumpy, this pet reacts mostly depending on its mood and situation.
- Grumpy: A sometimes rather angry or not-really-nice fellow, others sometimes avoid your pet, for it's not the nicest pet to be around.
- Slightly evil: Your pet doesn't feel particulary bad if it sometimes hurts others with words or force, but it's also not a completely lost case.
- Evil: Your pet enjoys harming others or breaking laws.
- Rotten to the core: Your pet enjoys destruction, death and chaos. There is nothing good left in your pet.

[Shieba]

...Ugh, doublepost. Come to think of it, what I wrote was crap as well. It still defines personality too much. I just thought I had to add descriptions, which was the totally wrong thing to do. D8 Lemme try again.

Holy: Your pet is super-good.
Saint: Your pet is very good.
Good at heart: Your pet is good.
Nice: Your pet is rather good.
Neutral: Your pet is neither good nor evil and can go in both directions.
Grumpy: Your pet is sometimes not all that good.
Slightly evil: Your pet is slightly evil.
Evil: Your pet is evil.
Rotten to the core: Your pet is full of darkness.

There. Limits nothing at all and still describes how good or evil my pet is effectively on a nice scale.

[Kodai]

Okay, let's see... I still think that leaving out the law/chaos part isn't a good idea. For example, I have no idea where a pet that would be 'Lawful Neutral' or 'Chaotic Neutral' would fit on this scale. A pet that puts the law above all else might do terrible things in order to make sure that the rules remain unbroken, and a chaotic pet might not necessarily be evil.
I actually find your scale more restrictive, or perhaps the problem is that the descriptions are too general. Let's take my character, Kratzer. He's a half demon that has the task of making people give over their souls to demonic forces. However, he doesn't really care about this task and tries to live as he wants. He's blunt with his words and doesn't think twice about punching people in the face if he sees a good reason to, but he can also be thoughtful and will actually go out of his way to help out an innocent person. What sort of alignment would he be on your scale? I really wouldn't want to consider him 'Neutral', as that doesn't describe what he's really like. On the other scale, I think of him as 'Chaotic Good' – not following the rules set for him and helping others when he thinks its a good idea (trying to help everyone you meet is not necessarily a good thing, depending on who it is you're trying to help). I'm also curious as to where your Chaotic would fit here. I really don't think she's "evil". Only chaotic. She doesn't do what she does because these things will fulfill the goals she has. She just does things because she feels like it, and 'feeling like' doing something isn't good or evil in itself.

[Freezair]

Yeah, I definitely don't think I could work with just a plain, black-and-white, single-axis morality scale. Especially since it is kind of vague. Since characters with a lot of personality are often described as "three-dimensional..." How about a three-dimensional "graph," of sorts, for pet attributes? And rather than naming each individual alignment, how about there's some values of some kind that show where your pet falls on the graph?

The three dimensions I'm thinking would be:

Staid versus Flexible (or something like that): Less tolerant of differences and changes versus openminded and mutable

Selfish versus Altruistic: Pets who primarily stick out for themselves versus those who are more giving

Chaotic versus Orderly: Essentially the usual "Chaotic" versus "Lawful," with an additional aspect of Order thrown in.

And hey; maybe something else. We'll see.

As for removing Traits: Actually, that sounds pretty cool. Only instead of just cutting the weaker ones, make the heirarchy legitimate--make it so that the trait gets better with time/actions. That way, every pet has to start with the basic trait (even if it's a species one), but it can be improved. Condense all the similar traits to one "climbable" scale that gets better with... something. I think that'd fix a lot of things, actually...

[Kodai]

I think you're on to something there, Freezy. I think, perhaps, what we need to do (or what I need to do, at least) is forget about the old way of thinking and try approaching it from an angle like this. Don't think about making just a few basics; instead, think of common character types and see what sort of descriptions I could make for those.

Also, I do like that idea. Maybe they could improve with level, like the AP Traits do?

[Freezair]

Or something. I think that would make it much easier (and make some people feel better) to pick traits based on their abilities without having to get the short end of the stick.

And, I dunno; any other traits you can think of like that? XD

[Shieba]

Haha, that's cool, I can't work with your scales and you can't work with mine. That's okay, I'll just leave that aspect out of my pen then. And because you asked, Kodai, Chaotic is purely evil. It doesn't matter that her insanity makes her actions seem less evil from time to time, it's about the underlying goal of destruction she has.

Your Trait idea sounds kinda cool. I just hope we keep the Traits we scratch then, upgrade the number of maximum Traits again then and things. Just don't expect me to revamp my pen again. I'm sick of needing 100+ hours to make it up to date, just to have another new system come along then.

[Kodai]

Well, I was thinking something more along the lines of:
Rough Diamond – This creature acts like a bad boy/girl, but in the end, this creature's actually a good person.
This might seem more like it could belong in the Personality category, but I think there are some Traits in that category that could be put in an Alignment-based category (such as Pure Soul). Even though alignment and personality are connected, I think it would be better to keep them in separate categories so that we don't need to bump up the amount of Personality Traits people can take.

Okay so. This Trait-cutting thing... might be more of a hassle than I thought it would be. Here's everything I found that could potentially be tiered, based on main effect:
CRITICAL HITS
Arterial Strike - AP Restricted -  50% crit chance
Opportune Sneak Attack - AP Restricted - 25% crit chance
Tail Sweep - AP Restricted - 25% crit chance (long, strong tail and 1+ Size category than opponent)
Snatch - One-Hit Restricted - 25% crit chance
Staggering Strike - One-Hit Shrine - 50% crit chance and 25% opponent lost turn chance

DODGING
Avoidance - Automatic Restricted - 50% dodge chance for entire battle
Chameleon Skin - AP Restricted - 50% dodge chance (color-change skin)
Dodge - AP - 25% dodge chance
Elusive Foe - Automatic Shrine - 75% dodge chance for entire battle
Foxhole - Dependent Shrine - 85% dodge chance against attacks dealing ≤ 1/4 current Endurance (80 Speed)

ADDITIONAL DAMAGE
Crush - AP Shrine - additional damage depending on Size (65 Speed; Size L, G, H; +1 Size category than opponent)
Damaging Strike - AP Restricted - +5 additional damage (LV1)
Lunge - AP - +1 additional damage (LV1)
Powerful Strike - AP Restricted - +10 additional damage and +10% opponent lost turn chance
Puncture - AP - +2 additional damage (LV1; must have claws/blades)
Wing Buffet - AP - +3 additional damage (LV1; must have wings)

HEALING
Greater Healing Touch - AP Restricted - heal +4 Endurance (LV 1; must have Healing Touch)
Healer's Chant - AP - heal +2 Endurance (LV1)
Healer's Prayer - AP Restricted - heal +5 Endurance (LV1; must have Healer's Chant)
Healing Touch - AP - heal +3 Endurance (LV1)

AP DRAIN
Power Drain - AP Restricted - drain AP from opponent and regain half
Power Sap - AP - drain AP from opponent

HIT 'GO ETHEREAL'
Blindsense - Automatic - 50% to hit Go Ethereal
Spectral Strike - Dark Automatic - hit Go Ethereal

REDUCE DAMAGE
Carapace Shield - Automatic Restricted - -1 damage received (LV1)
Stone Blood -Automatic Restricted - -1 damage received (LV1)

INCREASE PRECISION
Deadly Precision - Automatic Restricted - +50% to hit for entire battle
Sharp Hearing - Automatic Restricted - +20% to hit for entire battle (cannot be Deaf)
Sharp Vision - Automatic - +10% to hit for entire battle (cannot be Blind)

MOVE FIRST
First Initiative - Automatic - moves first automatically
Guerrilla Fighter - Automatic - moves first automatically and +2 Defense (LV1)

OPPONENT HIT CHANCE
Horrific Moan - One-Use - 40% opponent chance to hit
Horrific Wail - One-Use Restricted - variable opponent chance to hit

ENDURANCE BONUS
Combat Endurance - Automatic - +4 Endurance (LV1)
Veteran Knowledge - Automatic - +5 Endurance (LV1)

OFFENSE BONUS
Extended Claws - Automatic - +3 Offense (LV1)
Hard Hooves - Automatic - +2 Offense (LV1)
Powerful Jaws - Automatic - +4 Offense (LV1)

(Speaking of Traits that grant stat bonuses, I noticed that the others don't all grant the same bonus, number-wise:
Efficient Commander - Automatic - +3 Endurance to ally (LV1)
Rousing Speech - Automatic  - +3 Offense to ally (LV1)
Team Defense - Automatic Restricted - +5 Defense to ally (LV1)

Swift Scout - Automatic - +4 Speed (LV1)
Tough Hide - Automatic - +5 Defense (LV1)
Veteran Mind - Automatic - +5 Precision (LV1)
I think perhaps this should be changed as well, so that they all have the same numbers.)
Thoughts on how things should be tiered? Some categories, such as the ones that only have two or three Traits, should be pretty easy to figure out, but others are going to be more difficult.

[Shieba]

This is beyond ridiculous. Just how many battle Traits are we supposed to lose? If this really bothers so many people, just give everything the same value, but cut nothing. Then people can pick one depending on pet's personality.

[Kodai]

So it was pointed out to me that having variety is a good thing to have, especially in the sense of defining character. The example is a student fighter and its teacher. Naturally the student wouldn't be as skilled as its teacher, and so would need a Trait with a smaller number to reflect this. As the system stands currently, the teacher can automatically start with a better Trait and the student could gain it whenever it reached that point in RPs. If a tier-system is put on such Traits, however, both the student and the teacher would need to start out at the same level. This might be okay for the student, but it would take a good deal of RPing to bring the teacher to where it should be (this was compared to needing to madly level-grind just to get Righteousness/Darkness to their proper amounts for pets). On the other hand, if these Traits were consolidated into having a single Trait with a single number, both the student and teacher would be at the same skill level. Some Traits manage to improve with time anyway, in a sense, thanks to damage increases due to increased Offense (Arterial Strike and the other crit Traits, for example).
Again, I do like the idea of tiers (just look at the AP Traits!), but it looks like this idea can't be reconciled with character development, either.

I did change a few things, however.

[Freezair]

I'm still prepping my big response to all of this, but I don't think it's necessarily irreconcilible. If the traits were, say, stat-based instead of level-based, a pet with a higher starting stat in general could still get the higher version of the trait.

Besides, it's been established before with Traits that pets can regularly do things in flat RPs that their traits do not say, and that Traits do not influence RP abilities. It's only for pure battles that traits truly matter in terms of abilities, especially since traits are otherwise totally optional.

[Shieba]

Freezy, is it so hard to understand that some people do care? That some people don't see Traits as battle-only, that they want to match their Traits to the abilities of their pets? People do that. Just because you don't, please don't assume others are the same. The only point where I don't match my Traits exactly to my pet's abilities is "Human speech", since almost all my characters do that and I don't have the slot to spare.

[Freezair]

I understand that this is important to you, but do recall: Traits are optional. As such, the only time they have any true influence on your pet, for the purposes of the site, is in battle. While it is nice to link traits to abilities, it is not necessary. And since the only true purpose they serve, in terms of site rules, is during battle, I think it best for them to be optimized to fit that purpose. You also shouldn't assume that Traits are of equal importance to others, as well, or that others demand exact lineup. That was why I agreed with, and elaborated on, the idea of tiering traits. So that people can have traits that fit their pet's abilities while still having ones that are useful in battle. Even in the given teacher example, if the teacher pet has one trait in a specific trait "line," the teacher pet still has the Trait. They just can't use it to its fullest potential in official site battles. Unless you are in such a battle, everything else is irrelevant. If you agree with the fact that a pet that hasn't been RPed much is going to have lower stats regardless of their character (such as them being a powerful warrior or magician,) than it is not a great leap to say that they would also have less powerful versions of certain stats in official battles.

[Shieba]

I don't assume that Traits are as important to others as they are to me, but because of the recent discussion, I checked pens out and a LOT of pets have Traits that are not the best in their line (for example Dodge). As such, the reason you fear - people going for the strongest Traits instead of personality - is, in my eyes, not proven. Far from it.

And I think we stand at completely different points here. Yes, Traits are optional, but their main point is describing the pet. If that wouldn't be the case, we wouldn't have passive Traits at all! True, you might say that battle Traits are the only Traits that actually "do" something, but, from my understanding, this "doing" is just an added extra on top of their actual purpose - describing. As such, I don't value that extra nearly as highly as I value the true purpose of the Traits and think they should rather offer the option of describing the true skill a pet has in an ability than making it stuck with a weaker one, which would lead to grinding. Which sucks. Grinding is not the purpose of this site - it's real RPing, not hastily scribbling five sentences for 20 posts so you can get those level ups. It's already sad enough that this is needed for the tournaments, we shouldn't encourage it even more by bringing back the crappy old system we had for Righteousness and Darkness. People complained a lot about that and that didn't even do anything. If battle Traits are so important as you say, people will complain even more this time. Not good.

[Freezair]

Then would you also agree that we should allow people to assign their pet's stats as they see fit? Because it obviously doesn't make sense if a character who's supposed to be, say, a trained soldier only has 10 Offense. It should be more like 80, right? That describes them better, don't you think? Even if they've never been RPed, should they have that advantage right out the start because it describes them better? Sure, it doesn't matter for RPing, but for those things which it DOES matter, shouldn't there be that ludicrous advantage?