|
Post by Church of Bane on Oct 28, 2020 19:12:52 GMT -5
The name of the thread we are commenting is 'Should FRC continue to allow evil player characters? '. Those who voted no do not feel that we should be allowed to play evil characters for whatever reason. I find that more than a little offensive to be honest. I can understand that maybe someone -else- doesn't have fun playing evil characters on FRC, but...because of that it should be something that is removed as an option? I don't buy it. It's passive aggressive 'if I can't do it no one should be able to'. From my experience as a player advocate, I'd say that some if not all the "no" votes are legitimate votes. Ill admit the possibility of votes being made to "troll the poll", but the sentiment is out there. As to why no one is "coming out" to say why they voted no, well, I think that people know their opinion is not looked upon favorably by the community, and they are potentially opening themselves up to ridicule. Who wants that? Also...Good did not win the Zorastryl Plot. Evil won. Marister is not the Lord of a Zorastryl Barony, Evil still haunts the Zorastryl Manor. It may be just that the Evil that won was not the evil your side was backing. That's my 2 cents from a player with a character that was involved from the beginning of the plot, who spent his personal treasure financing Marister, (and lost it all) and put his skin and reputation on the line. Seamus DOES NOT consider it a win. I'll be honest I got 0 value out of that plot, and felt like the after battle stuff was a waste of my time irl. ...but that's a conversation for another thread, and beating a dead horse (or near that) at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Oct 28, 2020 21:07:33 GMT -5
From my experience as a player advocate, I'd say that some if not all the "no" votes are legitimate votes. Ill admit the possibility of votes being made to "troll the poll", but the sentiment is out there. As to why no one is "coming out" to say why they voted no, well, I think that people know their opinion is not looked upon favorably by the community, and they are potentially opening themselves up to ridicule. Who wants that? Also...Good did not win the Zorastryl Plot. Evil won. Marister is not the Lord of a Zorastryl Barony, Evil still haunts the Zorastryl Manor. It may be just that the Evil that won was not the evil your side was backing. That's my 2 cents from a player with a character that was involved from the beginning of the plot, who spent his personal treasure financing Marister, (and lost it all) and put his skin and reputation on the line. Seamus DOES NOT consider it a win. I'll be honest I got 0 value out of that plot, and felt like the after battle stuff was a waste of my time irl. ...but that's a conversation for another thread, and beating a dead horse (or near that) at this point. I wasn't saying, I don't buy it, as in I do not believe they are legitimate votes. What I meant was that this is really just an attention seeking measure to try and spur along changes on the server, not to actually suggest that evil PCs should be disallowed. I think we all know that isn't going to happen. There have been lots of longstanding evil personas on the server that were satisfied enough that they played for many many years and attained infamy and appreciation by Team Evil, Team Good, and the DM Team. I can't imagine a server that never had Ranan Hallomein, Lord Phelzaron, Torian Burfoot, Hrothgar Redbeard, or some of the many others who had long and awesome careers. Looking forward and imagining that no one like that could ever come again just seems like a complete waste.
|
|
|
Post by Church of Bane on Oct 28, 2020 21:14:34 GMT -5
Sometimes asking for conversation on what people think is simply just that.
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz on Oct 28, 2020 21:36:50 GMT -5
I found this:
With each side danger abides, Reason wisely thy companions, Alliances are the fortune and folly of men.
It sort of implies not everything is what it is in this plot, I think?
|
|
|
Post by DM Grizwald on Oct 28, 2020 23:35:51 GMT -5
Yes. Here we are. One player who thinks that the server isn't equipped to play evil, so questions whether or not anyone should be able to do it at all, and another player who has managed to get along just fine in an entire world of both good and evil characters for many many years, and will for many more. I think if you want a real conversation about improving things for the brand of evil that you play, you should just have that and not frame it as 'should we even be allowed to do this because I don't really like it'. Thank you for your opinion, but I (nor anyone else) has to frame anything to fit your point of view. You have stated your points ad nauseum now. If you have anything new to share then fine. Otherwise let's not bicker about this anymore, shall we? I really don't think we need to gatekeep an open discussion like this. The beauty of opening up topics like this, again, is for those who wish a point be made to make it.
|
|
|
Post by Church of Bane on Oct 29, 2020 5:02:23 GMT -5
No gate keeping is being done. I’m open to having conversations, but when I see one person trying to get others to conform to their point of view because that person has not had the same experiences as others on team evil then I’m going to speak out against that.
Each of us have our own unique experiences to share, and when someone wants to try to invalidate that, or even gaslight someone, it makes for less open conversation. People have wondered why those who have voted No don’t speak out, one did, and you can see the result for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Oct 29, 2020 7:26:34 GMT -5
No gate keeping is being done. I’m open to having conversations, but when I see one person trying to get others to conform to their point of view because that person has not had the same experiences as others on team evil then I’m going to speak out against that. Each of us have our own unique experiences to share, and when someone wants to try to invalidate that, or even gaslight someone, it makes for less open conversation. People have wondered why those who have voted No don’t speak out, one did, and you can see the result for yourself. Yes, the result, one person who plays a good character primarily has stepped up and not even said they support my view, just that you shouldn't basically tell me to have a nice day because of it. I have not attacked anyone. I did say I find it somewhat offensive that because x person doesn't enjoy playing evil, that it doesn't mean it should not be an option for someone else. I am truly sorry that it hurts someones feelings that I do not wish to conform to their opinion of the state of evil play on the server. Gaslighting is what you are doing by saying I am trying to force someone to conform to my view ( I never did, my view is that we should be able to play evil characters, which we can and I believe should and will be allowed to continue doing). No one is forcing anyone to do anything, if you play an evil character that is your personal choice. I simply believe that we should continue to have that choice. I asked that some of the people who voted no, speak up. Someone besides you, did, and I completely disagree and within the bounds of this conversation I think I am allowed to disagree with their reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by Asgardian Grey Hawk on Oct 29, 2020 7:36:08 GMT -5
No gate keeping is being done. I’m open to having conversations, but when I see one person trying to get others to conform to their point of view because that person has not had the same experiences as others on team evil then I’m going to speak out against that. Each of us have our own unique experiences to share, and when someone wants to try to invalidate that, or even gaslight someone, it makes for less open conversation. People have wondered why those who have voted No don’t speak out, one did, and you can see the result for yourself. Yes, the result, one person who plays a good character primarily has stepped up and not even said they support my view, just that you shouldn't basically tell me to have a nice day because of it. I have not attacked anyone. I did say I find it somewhat offensive that because x person doesn't enjoy playing evil, that it doesn't mean it should not be an option for someone else. I am truly sorry that it hurts someones feelings that I do not wish to conform to their opinion of the state of evil play on the server. Gaslighting is what you are doing by saying I am trying to force someone to conform to my view ( I never did, my view is that we should be able to play evil characters, which we can and I believe should and will be allowed to continue doing). No one is forcing anyone to do anything, if you play an evil character that is your personal choice. I simply believe that we should continue to have that choice. I asked that some of the people who voted no, speak up. Someone besides you, did, and I completely disagree and within the bounds of this conversation I think I am allowed to disagree with their reasoning. I personally find this whole topic offensive and irrelevant. Who us anyone to say one person cannot play evil. In my opinion. Evil pcs are required on the server. Where would the Zorastyl plot be without Vindel. Where would the Tree in gg be without Shiv. Would the Triads even be a Guild without Aris and other Banites? Evil PC impact the server far more then players of good realize.
|
|
|
Post by Asgardian Grey Hawk on Oct 29, 2020 7:42:42 GMT -5
Let's take it a step back farther where would roar be Without the past of Redmist and Ranan. Or Phelzeron. There vvc are many more names to be listed. And EVERY evil PC drives plots that good pcs stand against. Not all Evil plots are so open as others. If you think there is no Evil going on in any current plots or mustering groups. Sadly you all are dead wrong people.
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Oct 29, 2020 9:53:35 GMT -5
I have no experience in playing true evil on FRC. But I have experience of it in the past. Note that Ariean is the character that I have played the longest (of any characters), and FRC is the server I stayed at for the longest. My two biggest and fondest memories of playing evil is a bard/blackguard of Loviatar, who hid her allegiance with that deity (I think she might have been a cleric as well, and pretended the cleric/blackguard spells were just "I'm a bard, remember?". I soloed with her in disguise, whipping monsters to death [Edit - the slow going death by whip was the feature, not a problem. The longer it took for the monster to die, the longer agony, the better offering] - otherwise the whip never came out). She did the duty of bringing pain, by messing with her boyfriend's head, (and other PCs). I reveled in people not realizing how messed up and malevolent she really was. My 2nd favorite was supposed to be rogue/assassin, but I quickly failed and got nowhere, due to her being too used to luxuries and too lazy to get her hands dirty >.>. And too low level to get anyone to make their hands dirty for her. I still carry that concept in my head, even though it was a terrible failed one - due to having written a good backstory for her.
OK, now to my other story of evil. My relationship with evil started as soon as I started to roleplay on NWN PWs. My first character was a good-aligned bard, but had a quick brush with evil. She joined an evil-aligned thieves-guild, by being promised she could play "Robin Hood". The guilds there were run by DMs - so the guild leader was an NPC. As you can imagine nothing there worked as planned. The roleplay I had in the midst between the struggle of good and evil was something I will always remember. Including the fact that the nature of the guilds, made it possible for them to infiltrate and destroy each other. My character ended up betraying that guild, and (without her involvement) Harpers brought it to its end.
My 2nd brush with evil was on my 2nd character. I made that alt sometime before the thieves were brought down. That one was just a girl who was shipped off to her grandfather at the edge of wilderness to learn the trade of being a hunter. (I chose a local merchant NPC for her "grandfather"). To make a long story short, she was a sorcerer but didn't know about it. So I *ahem* played her training to be a ranger by double-wielding daggers and shooting with a crossbow. Not long after I started playing her, that I was approached by another player - one who played a low level evil character and wanted to establish themselves. He asked me if I was OK with his insane chaotic evil character getting hang up on my "local girl". I said yes, and we cooperated in a simple way. From now on that insane guy would end up showing up and intimidating my character that she would be his. He would be intimidating and threatening, but never really hurting her. Shortly after, I gained a group of low level "defenders" who would try to make sure my character was safe and would hunt for his. I would try to steer my adventuring party to where his character was, or steer his character in tells where we were going. He always managed to escape from the party before being killed, but always managed to fight for a while and trying to get away with my PC. Due to these, I ended up closely connected OOC with team evil, and helping out with some of their stories (of course they were left out to a minimum to avoid metagaming - but could go as far as a warning that something might happen and if it was OK), while working against them IC. Since then I've been a proponent of becoming OOC friends with your greatest IC enemies. If you work together, instead of always seeing the good vs evil as a competition or a zero-sum game, it's when things can become the best fun and a way of telling a story together.
Since then it often makes me sad when players of evil characters believe they need to powerlevel to be taken seriously. Aim to gain notoriety at your level to the PCs at your level. My story says it's doable, if you aim at the right public and group of PCs. And you can avoid being labeled a "griefer" with your CE character. My insane CE would be kidnapper, avoided that stamp and made it fun for everyone involved. I don't think any of the PCs got killed - we were all below level 10 when this was going on. (That character ended up as 2nd in command in the church of Cyric, by that time it's been established that my character's real father was the main priest of that church - now, that's a way to complicate good-evil relationships That also ended up with my most memorable IG wedding)
|
|
|
Post by uriziel on Oct 29, 2020 12:29:10 GMT -5
So, I ran a paladin like 7ish years ago now, Melchior. Tyrran, justice, yadda yadda. I don’t run him any more. The reason isn’t because evil characters exist, in fact some of my favorite things were trying to prove Trek was a murderer, poking at some brewing evil plots at the time, and yelling at earblins(a phrase I coined for the event, and I will murder everyone to prove it. ). I was actually getting closer to doing so, but I stopped. I stopped because I had to, as a paladin, deal with the nearly constant stream of NPC monsterlike characters who would come into town, say some blatantly evil stuff, stab a peasant, then run away using the caravan system cause lol, they could. And there was never any punishment for it. I’m not naming names, cause frankly they’re not around anymore and I try to not be a jerk. But when that wasn’t punished, it made me entirely give up hope in the idea that there would be any consequence for me actually thwarting an evil plot of any kind, because there was never any consequence for evil being stopped. That all being said, I never mind players being the villains. But the problem will always be in the lack of consequences for both sides, but also a lack of understanding of what those consequences should be. Pros and cons of good and evil are very different, as are the consequences. If we were playing Forgotten Realms, Zhentil Keep, running a paladin should end up with me being executed and my soul banished/destroyed. But we’re in Cormyr, where the nobility worship Tyr and the overall kingdom is Good aligned. The outlaw system is at least a step in the right direction, since the idea that an evil character burns down half of Greatgaunt, gets executed and raised immediately, and then is allowed back happily lets get this guy some pie, is just plain dumb as far as ideas go.
|
|
|
Post by Windhover on Oct 29, 2020 14:10:01 GMT -5
I feel as I should explain this now. When Norah is in full Cormyr LAW mode, It is not me, Windhover, aiming to ruin the fun of players currently playing evil characters, agitators, criminals or those disagreeing with the crown and the authorites for whatevers. Cpt. Marvel does what she does, because it is her sworn duty and the integrity of the setting needs to be preserved. It would be awful for Cormyr if one day, the RCMH just laughed at or ignored the problems of the adventurers in general. There are times when I, as player, rather not send someone to the Red Ravens or crash what is an otherwise fun, yet against the law RP. So I ask to please not call foul right away and instead of sending angry tells, keep calm and try to keep things in character or at least explain in out of character fashion, to me, why some things would not happen. On the contrary, if someone rage quits, logs off before facing consequences or complains about something every time when the situation looks unfavorable for them, then that someone will eventually find himself or herself ignored because nobody will want to interact with him or her again. Cheers!
Oh, and I voted yus!
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Oct 29, 2020 14:40:50 GMT -5
I like the fact that when you play against an evil PC in a plot you know they’re not creating a plot that’s intended for you to win, so the danger of defeat is real, and nobody is overturning it with free raises if your character dies so you can continue on the predetermined track. The fact the danger is “real” means the victory and accomplishment are real, too, if you win. To me, conflict role play and battles against evil PC’s are the most fun moments I’ve ever had on this and other servers, even over DM plots (which I’ve also enjoyed a lot, please don’t misunderstand) because of the fact they’re actually trying to succeed, and nobody is calling it back if they do. That's not completely true.. when you play against an evil PC and you play on the side of the crown.. you know you will always win. The crown never loses no matter the amount evil PCS would put into an event. there hasn't even been temporary loses for the crown for ages. you know they will always come out on the safe end. Most of the DM plots recently has been start-middle event-end player driven Roll play hasn't been able to derail these events. no matter the effort. This is of course just my observations from the side that always loses and never gets a win. not even a part ''win'' which would be nice.. for evil chars the consequence of losing means you lose your char, so when you enter events and can't even get small wins that makes it fun for you. the over all picture of ''IF'' evil players should be allowed should more be a question about What do the evil PC's get out of enter Dm plots and events to flavor it up.. Again just my perspective as i have pretty much always been on the losing side.. and i can't really recall we ever got a single ''win'' and in a Win i don't mean we take over everything and rule with an iron fist.. never gonna happen so forget it. but small wins. *shrugs* And I properly shouldn't have written this. I thought about this a lot. It's in essence true, but it has nothing to do with any favoritism towards those who are Crown loyalists. As mentioned some of those evil characters are with the crown. It makes a tremendous amount of good sense as an evil player to cast your fortunes with the 1000 year Dynasty that has an enormous army and hardcore wizards. Maybe the crown wins because evil PCs don't have a way to compete on the same field as crown sponsored militant knights and wizards, not because of their alignment.The smart thing to do is side with the Crown.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Oct 29, 2020 14:52:45 GMT -5
I think there are a lot of things that could help role play between good and evil PC's, but I think one of them is simply space. Proportionally speaking, there is a lot of space on the server taken up by civilized areas totally dominated by law and at the very least supposed goodness, while according to the actual canon setting, something like 1% of the land area would be within the walls of a city or town. The rest is wilderness where evil can lurk. But when you're on the server, it's hard to even get off the road. Also, if you want to evade the law by leaving the country, you have something like 3 maps to play with. As the player of a character who isn't even wanted by the law, but just likes to wander around through different lands, you all but can't portray stepping outside the borders of Cormyr without keeping your character logged out, which isn't far off from retiring the character from the server.
Not only that, but if you have a home base for evil three maps away from a home base for law/good, then you're always going to have the two rather forcibly jammed into each other's faces, and neither side is going to be able to gain the slightest ground from the other. If we have more space between the two, just for numbers sake let's say 30 maps between both home bases, the PC's on one side or the other could take over a map or two and fight for more ground in the middle without running up against absolutely immovable forces. So I think some part of the answer to all this is giving both good and evil more room between each other, so there is actual contestable ground in between that PC's can fight over without challenging the absolute greatest powers in the land necessarily.
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on Oct 29, 2020 15:02:32 GMT -5
I voted yes. This is a pvp server. As long as things are kept within boundaries of the forum and pw rules it is fine.
No one likes their rp to be interrupted by another. Marister a few times has been a target for evil. Yea I got bit miffed as it screwed up rp I planned.
However other rp for Marister and others came from it.
I played on a server where evil was king and trying to be good or neutral difficult though not unachievable.
I also played on another server where my main was attacked and killed and one of the deaths lead to a forum server wide.
Remember it is a game. Before playing make sure you read the game rules. If you feel you are unjustly being targeted, there are avenues to go to.
Relax, it is just a game. If you keep that in mind things will be easier.
|
|
|
Post by magiuss on Oct 29, 2020 16:52:50 GMT -5
That's not completely true.. when you play against an evil PC and you play on the side of the crown.. you know you will always win. The crown never loses no matter the amount evil PCS would put into an event. there hasn't even been temporary loses for the crown for ages. you know they will always come out on the safe end. Most of the DM plots recently has been start-middle event-end player driven Roll play hasn't been able to derail these events. no matter the effort. This is of course just my observations from the side that always loses and never gets a win. not even a part ''win'' which would be nice.. for evil chars the consequence of losing means you lose your char, so when you enter events and can't even get small wins that makes it fun for you. the over all picture of ''IF'' evil players should be allowed should more be a question about What do the evil PC's get out of enter Dm plots and events to flavor it up.. Again just my perspective as i have pretty much always been on the losing side.. and i can't really recall we ever got a single ''win'' and in a Win i don't mean we take over everything and rule with an iron fist.. never gonna happen so forget it. but small wins. *shrugs* And I properly shouldn't have written this. I thought about this a lot. It's in essence true, but it has nothing to do with any favoritism towards those who are Crown loyalists. As mentioned some of those evil characters are with the crown. It makes a tremendous amount of good sense as an evil player to cast your fortunes with the 1000 year Dynasty that has an enormous army and hardcore wizards. Maybe the crown wins because evil PCs don't have a way to compete on the same field as crown sponsored militant knights and wizards, not because of their alignment.The smart thing to do is side with the Crown. But that is what I mean though Darkharp.. Any DM event.. if you wanna come out ahead. wait and see where the crown is standing.. and be behind that then all is good. kind of sad though.. as there will no longer be an element of surprise when its 1 side fighting against the crown. cause we all know who is going to win. I've certainly learned my lesson no matter how much I've been told that the losing side has a chance to come out ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Oct 29, 2020 17:44:04 GMT -5
I thought about this a lot. It's in essence true, but it has nothing to do with any favoritism towards those who are Crown loyalists. As mentioned some of those evil characters are with the crown. It makes a tremendous amount of good sense as an evil player to cast your fortunes with the 1000 year Dynasty that has an enormous army and hardcore wizards. Maybe the crown wins because evil PCs don't have a way to compete on the same field as crown sponsored militant knights and wizards, not because of their alignment.The smart thing to do is side with the Crown. But that is what I mean though Darkharp.. Any DM event.. if you wanna come out ahead. wait and see where the crown is standing.. and be behind that then all is good. kind of sad though.. as there will no longer be an element of surprise when its 1 side fighting against the crown. cause we all know who is going to win. I've certainly learned my lesson no matter how much I've been told that the losing side has a chance to come out ahead. That all depends on how big of a bite you are trying to take, you know? Trying to conquer a city? Probably going to have the crown come down hard on you, rightfully so..since they maintain a military to prevent these things. Trying to run an underground evil organization with modest goals? The War Wizards, to my knowledge, have never come down on hidden evil organizations personal strongholds. You can exist as an evil organization, many of them exist on FRC. I mean...what are the good guys getting that you aren't? They aren't taking over cities either, they are getting guildhalls, and maybe positions in noble houses, etc. None of us are ruling over any part of the kingdom, good guys or bad guys. We are all just existing. I think that the character that actually holds and governs the most territory on the server is evil.
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Oct 29, 2020 17:54:46 GMT -5
I personally find this whole topic offensive and irrelevant. Who us anyone to say one person cannot play evil. In my opinion. Evil pcs are required on the server. Where would the Zorastyl plot be without Vindel. Where would the Tree in gg be without Shiv. Would the Triads even be a Guild without Aris and other Banites? Evil PC impact the server far more then players of good realize. It should be noted that the Triad Guild would have been around even if there was a no evil character policy on the server. We didn't create the guild to be opposition to evil PCs. We formed the guild to get RP in the vein of being a part of a religious organization with a crusader wing. Making evils cry just happened to come with the territory.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Oct 29, 2020 18:22:09 GMT -5
Also, lets look at things through another lens, do we want the kind of evil that will transform Cormyr into something -far- different from source material? Divergance from source is fine, it makes it our own, but how far do we go? I understand wanting to dodge the spellplague and keep things moving as they are where it's still recognizable Cormyr. That divergence is the opposite of what we have done, so far it's been about keeping Cormyr, Cormyr.
Is FRC equipped for the types of transformational evil some of you want to play? No, it isn't. Allowing, for instance, the church of bane or cyric to gain such a foothold that they infiltrate the House Royal, or destroy it, really isn't in the best interests of the module, at least IMO. Allowing those elements to exist is fine, allowing them to prosper below the radar is also fine. Allowing them to destroy the Kingdom though? I am not sure that's fine. Maybe you are right in that FRC is not made to deal with very specific types of evil, such as in your face burning down cities and beheading your king, evils. It's perfectly made to serve as a module where other evil exists in the hands of PCs though. With that being said, we did have some really in your face evils totally do well in the module and maintain long and fruitful careers. Different time? Maybe. I maintain though that the player should decide what brand of evil they want to play.
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz on Oct 29, 2020 18:52:29 GMT -5
Also, lets look at things through another lens, do we want the kind of evil that will transform Cormyr into something -far- different from source material? Divergance from source is fine, it makes it our own, but how far do we go? I understand wanting to dodge the spellplague and keep things moving as they are where it's still recognizable Cormyr. That divergence is the opposite of what we have done, so far it's been about keeping Cormyr, Cormyr. Is FRC equipped for the types of transformational evil some of you want to play? No, it isn't. Allowing, for instance, the church of bane or cyric to gain such a foothold that they infiltrate the House Royal, or destroy it, really isn't in the best interests of the module, at least IMO. Allowing those elements to exist is fine, allowing them to prosper below the radar is also fine. Allowing them to destroy the Kingdom though? I am not sure that's fine. Maybe you are right in that FRC is not made to deal with very specific types of evil, such as in your face burning down cities and beheading your king, evils. It's perfectly made to serve as a module where other evil exists in the hands of PCs though. With that being said, we did have some really in your face evils totally do well in the module and maintain long and fruitful careers. Different time? Maybe. I maintain though that the player should decide what brand of evil they want to play. I see it as the core focus of the module is Cormyr, hence Forgotten Realms: Cormyr. It should remain Cormyr, but Cormyr is not the entire continent of Toril and the current situations and problems call for expanions beyond its borders.
|
|
|
Post by Church of Bane on Oct 29, 2020 19:08:56 GMT -5
Also, lets look at things through another lens, do we want the kind of evil that will transform Cormyr into something -far- different from source material? Divergance from source is fine, it makes it our own, but how far do we go? I understand wanting to dodge the spellplague and keep things moving as they are where it's still recognizable Cormyr. That divergence is the opposite of what we have done, so far it's been about keeping Cormyr, Cormyr. Is FRC equipped for the types of transformational evil some of you want to play? No, it isn't. Allowing, for instance, the church of bane or cyric to gain such a foothold that they infiltrate the House Royal, or destroy it, really isn't in the best interests of the module, at least IMO. Allowing those elements to exist is fine, allowing them to prosper below the radar is also fine. Allowing them to destroy the Kingdom though? I am not sure that's fine. Maybe you are right in that FRC is not made to deal with very specific types of evil, such as in your face burning down cities and beheading your king, evils. It's perfectly made to serve as a module where other evil exists in the hands of PCs though. With that being said, we did have some really in your face evils totally do well in the module and maintain long and fruitful careers. Different time? Maybe. I maintain though that the player should decide what brand of evil they want to play. I see it as the core focus of the module is Cormyr, hence Forgotten Realms: Cormyr. It should remain Cormyr, but Cormyr is not the entire continent of Toril and the current situations and problems call for expanions beyond its borders. We don't even have ALL of Cormyr yet. It's more like Forgotten Realms: 1/3 or 1/4 Cormyr, but I digress. I know the whole country could not have been put up from day one, and hope that one day we do see a fully realized Cormyr. I also hope that we do utilize some story moments that have happened across Toril as we advance the calendar as they would add depth to the server. Obviously the Spellplague is right out, but I'm sure other things could be adopted.
|
|
|
Post by Asgardian Grey Hawk on Oct 29, 2020 19:13:40 GMT -5
I personally find this whole topic offensive and irrelevant. Who us anyone to say one person cannot play evil. In my opinion. Evil pcs are required on the server. Where would the Zorastyl plot be without Vindel. Where would the Tree in gg be without Shiv. Would the Triads even be a Guild without Aris and other Banites? Evil PC impact the server far more then players of good realize. It should be noted that the Triad Guild would have been around even if there was a no evil character policy on the server. We didn't create the guild to be opposition to evil PCs. We formed the guild to get RP in the vein of being a part of a religious organization with a crusader wing. Making evils cry just happened to come with the territory. sure made it seem like the banites put you in gear. Lol
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Oct 29, 2020 19:17:32 GMT -5
Also, lets look at things through another lens, do we want the kind of evil that will transform Cormyr into something -far- different from source material? The number one aspect of canon Forgotten Realms I like to see represented is the fact that a few dedicated individuals very well can make major changes in the world around themselves. In that aspect, I don't want to diverge from canon at all.
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Oct 29, 2020 19:43:07 GMT -5
sure made it seem like the banites put you in gear. Lol Eventually, the salty tears of evil had become a source of sustenance for us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2020 22:04:46 GMT -5
I have no idea what most of this thread is talking about, but I vote yes. Game would not be fun if everyone was a goody-two-shoe paladin.
|
|
|
Post by magiuss on Oct 30, 2020 2:27:24 GMT -5
I have no idea what most of this thread is talking about, but I vote yes. Game would not be fun if everyone was a goody-two-shoe paladin. Funny part about this quote is. Most Paladins in the pursuit of doing justice and order and good things, are so fanatic that they are on the verge of evil themselves. It's the same with elves. Since it was published, Elminster in Myth Drannor, by Ed Greenwood, im gonna take this as cannon knowledge. you really get a true insight in how elves in the pursuit of being a pure good race, makes unspeakable acts of evil against their own people. a few times in the book it is even mentioned that they use forbidden magic to get their will.
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Oct 30, 2020 3:10:38 GMT -5
Funny part about this quote is. Most Paladins in the pursuit of doing justice and order and good things, are so fanatic that they are on the verge of evil themselves. It's the same with elves. Since it was published, Elminster in Myth Drannor, by Ed Greenwood, im gonna take this as cannon knowledge. you really get a true insight in how elves in the pursuit of being a pure good race, makes unspeakable acts of evil against their own people. a few times in the book it is even mentioned that they use forbidden magic to get their will. That isn't exactly true and is highly debatable. In D&D the forces of good and evil are in an eternal struggle. They are very real forces. If you are of evil alignment, it is because you are engaging in evil behavior. It's because you lie, you cheat, you steal, you murder, you corrupt, etc etc. You are an immoral presence that pushes evil acts and promotes for further evil. You aren't evil if you're a tough guy brute or a wizard that's too cool for school. You're evil because you're furthering an evil agenda that spreads and cultivates a corruptive rot. The paladin's duty is to route that corruption through force as necessary. This isn't an evil act. This is a good act because being evil in alignment requires that you engage in the activities which create prosperity for evil in that eternal struggle mentioned earlier. If you're not engaging in those activities, then you're just evil on paper.
|
|
|
Post by magiuss on Oct 30, 2020 4:11:42 GMT -5
Funny part about this quote is. Most Paladins in the pursuit of doing justice and order and good things, are so fanatic that they are on the verge of evil themselves. It's the same with elves. Since it was published, Elminster in Myth Drannor, by Ed Greenwood, im gonna take this as cannon knowledge. you really get a true insight in how elves in the pursuit of being a pure good race, makes unspeakable acts of evil against their own people. a few times in the book it is even mentioned that they use forbidden magic to get their will. That isn't exactly true and is highly debatable. In D&D the forces of good and evil are in an eternal struggle. They are very real forces. If you are of evil alignment, it is because you are engaging in evil behavior. It's because you lie, you cheat, you steal, you murder, you corrupt, etc etc. You are an immoral presence that pushes evil acts and promotes for further evil. You aren't evil if you're a tough guy brute or a wizard that's too cool for school. You're evil because you're furthering an evil agenda that spreads and cultivates a corruptive rot. The paladin's duty is to route that corruption through force as necessary. This isn't an evil act. This is a good act because being evil in alignment requires that you engage in the activities which create prosperity for evil in that eternal struggle mentioned earlier. If you're not engaging in those activities, then you're just evil on paper. AS you said, its highly debatable and I do not agree with those points. the act in it self can be evil even if you do it for a good reason. you are choosing the ''lesser'' evil does not make it a good action. one of my favorite conversations in Neverwinter nights is actually the first expansion, where a paladin has been given the task by the dwarf Duncan to ''kill'' a goblin child. now is the act evil ? I would say so.. its a child and there is no 100% surety that the goblin child will grow up and be evil. but on the other hand goblins has a high percentage chance to become evil and almost all are. And Fanatic paladins are on the ''verge'' of evil I didn't say they 100% were.. Also as I stated Elminster in Myth Drannor, the elves murder each other they Steal from each other they plot and plan to overthrow each other. but in your logic.. as long as they do it without an evil intent they are not doing anything wrong or evil.. I don't really buy that argument. A Paladins duty is to follow the Dogma of their gods.. this is also an old discussion. what do the paladin's follow first.. ((god dogma, countries law, or their own conscience)) i'n my book it has always been God's Dogma first.. which means they in some cases can break the laws of any country.. as long as they uphold the Dogma. My entire point was that I don't believe you can call paladins goodie two-shoes... as it is much more grey zoned then that. Paladins are not the ever light fruit of good and glory. That is just my opinions though. If you want another example from the real world.. world war II, the Germans thought their cause was just and with a good intent of pureeing the world from any but their precious pure race. from their perspective they were doing a good thing.. from ours they were monsters. reason I bring this up.. is Paladins are ''in a way'' the same.. they are so blind that their own cause is the JUST one.. that they don't see anything else. and hence.. they ''can be'' on the verge of what many others would perceive as evil acts
|
|
|
Post by Church of Bane on Oct 30, 2020 5:40:12 GMT -5
Team Good flat our murdering to get their way, as opposed to finding non-violent resolutions to issues (or subduing their foes) looks like vigilante justice to me. That's not "being a good guy", and should have consequences. Murdering fellow Cormyrian citizens should have an impact, but it doesn't.
Also Team Evil does not, and I repeat, does not have to engage Team Good in PVP. Just because they don't doesn't mean they are playing wrong. We're not here to be dancing monkeys for you.
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Oct 30, 2020 5:59:28 GMT -5
That isn't exactly true and is highly debatable. In D&D the forces of good and evil are in an eternal struggle. They are very real forces. If you are of evil alignment, it is because you are engaging in evil behavior. It's because you lie, you cheat, you steal, you murder, you corrupt, etc etc. You are an immoral presence that pushes evil acts and promotes for further evil. You aren't evil if you're a tough guy brute or a wizard that's too cool for school. You're evil because you're furthering an evil agenda that spreads and cultivates a corruptive rot. The paladin's duty is to route that corruption through force as necessary. This isn't an evil act. This is a good act because being evil in alignment requires that you engage in the activities which create prosperity for evil in that eternal struggle mentioned earlier. If you're not engaging in those activities, then you're just evil on paper. AS you said, its highly debatable and I do not agree with those points. the act in it self can be evil even if you do it for a good reason. you are choosing the ''lesser'' evil does not make it a good action. one of my favorite conversations in Neverwinter nights is actually the first expansion, where a paladin has been given the task by the dwarf Duncan to ''kill'' a goblin child. now is the act evil ? I would say so.. its a child and there is no 100% surety that the goblin child will grow up and be evil. but on the other hand goblins has a high percentage chance to become evil and almost all are. And Fanatic paladins are on the ''verge'' of evil I didn't say they 100% were.. Also as I stated Elminster in Myth Drannor, the elves murder each other they Steal from each other they plot and plan to overthrow each other. but in your logic.. as long as they do it without an evil intent they are not doing anything wrong or evil.. I don't really buy that argument. A Paladins duty is to follow the Dogma of their gods.. this is also an old discussion. what do the paladin's follow first.. ((god dogma, countries law, or their own conscience)) i'n my book it has always been God's Dogma first.. which means they in some cases can break the laws of any country.. as long as they uphold the Dogma. My entire point was that I don't believe you can call paladins goodie two-shoes... as it is much more grey zoned then that. Paladins are not the ever light fruit of good and glory. That is just my opinions though. If you want another example from the real world.. world war II, the Germans thought their cause was just and with a good intent of pureeing the world from any but their precious pure race. from their perspective they were doing a good thing.. from ours they were monsters. reason I bring this up.. is Paladins are ''in a way'' the same.. they are so blind that their own cause is the JUST one.. that they don't see anything else. and hence.. they ''can be'' on the verge of what many others would perceive as evil acts
Honestly, this is an apples and oranges discussion.
DnD and its alignments were created for simple fun, not really for moral discussion. And by simple fun I mean you should be able to play the tabletop with your 12yo kids. The simplicity of the morals is that taking someone's life is not an evil act. It's how you take that life that makes it an evil act. So, killing an evil orc is not an evil act - it's at its worst a neutral one. And if you do it to protect something it might even be a good one. Assassinating someone for political advantage is an evil act. Assassinating evil people is also an evil act. There's gray areas though in between. But for the sake of the game, most consider killing an evil orc in their sleep not as a murder. The simple DnD alignment considerations are that it's not why you do it, it's what you do and how you do it. It's the acts you commit that define your alignment. But the act of killing as I said, is not an evil act - otherwise it would be impossible to play good aligned adventurers. It's as simple as that.
Note that your moral dilemma of killing children doesn't usually exist. No camps we attack have children in them, and the "women" that are there are always combatants - so that you don't have to bother with the dilemma of consideration if you're the one in the wrong (being the monster that attacks a "peaceful" settlement and killing everyone in it).
If you want to go into deeper and philosophical territory of alignment - these are considered mature content. Both the book of good and evil are - it's because most people when playing DnD don't really want to bother with it. DnD morality and ethics (morality is considered the good/evil scale and ethics the lawful/chaotic scale) are therefore, to remain for simple fun, not an object for discussion, but are considered absolutes.
Then there's the novels. While what happens in them storywise is often considered as cannon, most people who play the games don't read them. They are more on the fantasy-side and the authors have no need or reason to follow the mechanics of the game - and they don't. Not even for the alignments. While I haven't read the books you are speaking of - extreme lawfulness is on the fanatical side. Paladins follow and extinguish evil with prejudice - that's their goals. In the "simple alignment", they are warriors dedicated to fighting evil - it's their job to kill it. While the more mature content that provides more ideas for social roleplay with the NPCs speaks of trying to convert the evil and that it's a far more good act than just killing it, the simple alignment for "just adventuring" pretty much disallows paladins to even talk to those that are evil aligned - it can make the paladin fall. So in the base of simple alignment, yet again, it's paladin's job to kill evil. It's the way they kill evil that counts towards them not ending up evil, or chaotic.
The elves you are mentioning aren't good-aligned. While elves are as standard CG, they can be evil. Elves can be surprisingly and disturbingly evil - the Crown Wars are good examples of that. So are Eldreth Veluuthra (who are known to be evil aligned). So basically, they are not an example of possible evil - they are evil. If they commit atrocious acts, that's their alignment.
This is a server that cates to a lot of play styles. So I'm fairly sure there's enough players here who want to play the "simple alignment" without needing for philosophical debates on morality and ethics. There's though, I'm sure, that have more fun with the more mature content of alignments. I know I do. One of my old characters (that I had a lot of trouble leveling up) was actually morally against invading the homes of monsters She believed that adventurers were the ones in the wrong. Only defending against attackers was the right thing to do. But hey, majority of us just want to whack the monsters without too much thought - that's why DnD didn't make it to be an evil act (and the builders don't add women and children in the spawns).
Finally, I'm fairly sure that the triad has been created to accommodate for both types of alignment play. But at its basic, they need to, and probably do accommodate for, the simpler alignment description, where paladin is there to fight against evil. And only complicate things for those that really really want to complicate them.
[Edit]
Team Good flat our murdering to get their way, as opposed to finding non-violent resolutions to issues (or subduing their foes) looks like vigilante justice to me. That's not "being a good guy", and should have consequences. Murdering fellow Cormyrian citizens should have an impact, but it doesn't. Also Team Evil does not, and I repeat, does not have to engage Team Good in PVP. Just because they don't doesn't mean they are playing wrong. We're not here to be dancing monkeys for you.
I guess the above text is for you too - basically, to make DnD fun, straight forward killing something in a battle is not an evil act. Murder and assassination is evil, taking a life isn't. That's why paladins have strict rules on how they have to go about killing.
|
|