Valour's Most Wanted

[Burzuk]

Killing evils to "negate the suspiscion" (sic) from killing goods doesn't make one neutral -- it makes one evil, i.e. murdering others to attempt to draw attention away from one's own (alleged) wrongdoings. Being neutral doesn't mean you that kill both sides, but being evil does.

Helpfiles are more detailed and accurate, but my personal rules of thumb for the alignment "stereotypes" for PKing are:

Goods: "Live and let live, as much as possible."
Main PK reason: Protecting the weak.

Neutrals: "Don't mess with me -- an eye for an eye."
Main PK reason: Vengeance.

Evils: "Ph33r m3, 373 pwn j00."
Main PK reason: Anything.

Obviously some goods are more willing to forgive and forget (hence the room for interpretation on the "let live" part), while other goods see a peaceful coexistence with evils and/or those who harm their brethren as being fundamentally impossible (difference interpretations of the "as much as possible" part). A truly good-aligned person, however, kills for society's sake, not his personal vendettas. Some will argue that in a world where "precrime" (a la Minority Report) is as loud and clear as a red aura from a detect evil spell does obligate any good person to take immediate action against the offender, to protect the victims before the wrongdoer has a chance to act (or, more likely, to act again). Other good-aligns may believe in giving evil ones time and space enough to let them damn themselves through their own actions (i.e. let them hang by their own noose). Either way, placing one's personal motivations above doing what is temperate and right for all is the main pitfall for good-aligns.

As for neutrals, though they may kill out of necessity (or perceived justice/vengeance), they still harbor a fundamental respect for life and do not take it lightly, especially by attacking and killing unprovoked. Neutrals who instigate conflict or extend it unnecessarily (for example, by carrying on with with senseless killings long after they've "gotten even" with their opponent) are viewed with deep suspicions. However, harmless conflicts for personal amusement -- tricksters, pranksters, telling scalacious rumors and the like -- do not endanger one's neutrality, as long as no life is endangered. Likewise, there is a difference between violence -- such as in sport for Warlords, or as an occupational hazard for thieves -- and senseless murder. That said, neutrals who attempt to cause as much death as they can try to get away with are definitely outcast material, including by using PKs as their sole response to any perceived slight. Think about being asked to take the stand in court to testify about what offense against your character that he's seeking to correct through PKing and why your character felt that alternative methods were insufficient, since that's more or less what will happen to neutrals who get too trigger-happy with PKs.

Other than those above, almost all other reasons for PKing are intrinsically evil. Exceptions are very rare, and almost exclusively apply to things like cabal duty and so forth. Chances are very good that if you have to ask about your PKing rationale, it'd almost certainly be considered evil. This means that playing an evil character gives you by far the most PK latitude, but the tradeoff is that there are many specific gameplay effects that target evils. Hence, breaching alignment with PKing (specifically with regards to acting too evil) is not only an RP breach, but is also viewed as an attempt to circumvent the fundamental alignment checks in our PK system -- and will therefore be treated accordingly.