|
Post by magiuss on Oct 30, 2020 6:20:37 GMT -5
@mandane if you like Forgotten realms Novels.. I highly advise you to read Ed Greenwoods work on Elminster Elminster the making of a mage, and Elminster in Myth Drannor.. are some of my favorite books Myth Drannor elves and their whole scenario of not wanting other races into their City. they had good intentions but committed horrible acts to try and prevent the Mythal to be created. It gives a good picture of how ''beings'' doing wrong things for ''their'' right reasons isn't just black and white Saying something is purely good is just sounding wrong in my ears nothing is. But I do agree that Dnd was created with alignment with the intend you describe. but to each his/her own.
|
|
|
Post by Church of Bane on Oct 30, 2020 6:28:06 GMT -5
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.
Oh I know that Paladins have rules, but it sure as hell doesn't seem like it. Again your perspective is not everyone's.
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Oct 30, 2020 6:43:09 GMT -5
magiuss, I'm not really into them. I've only read two, and only because one spoke of Yuirwood half-elves and the other one about (I think Star) elves guarding against the Far Realm. I read both fairly recently and only because both of them added to me understanding Ariean's background better. Thanks for the idea, though. I might read them. I mean, if Ed wrote them, they should be interesting. And it would be one of the better things to fill out some of mu spare time during the pandemic. For Forgotten Realms we have the consideration of the (round) setting being shoehorned into the (square) DnD ruleset. Which farther complicates the ideas of morality and ethics in the setting.
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Oct 30, 2020 6:50:43 GMT -5
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]
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.
Oh I know that Paladins have rules, but it sure as hell doesn't seem like it. Again your perspective is not everyone's. Maybe so, but you do present yours as a truth. I hope you at least agree that FRC provides a background for different types of roleplay at different levels of wanting to bother with morality as a theme and philosophical discussion.
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Oct 30, 2020 7:09:59 GMT -5
magiuss. Playing teuly good alignment should be difficult. Probably as difficult as playing evil, or any other extreme. DnD points to humans being neutral in alignment (due to how we divide the he world in us and them; and that humans do good acts towards those closest to them, but can consider doing evil acts towards the "others"). Truly evil and truly good do exist IRL, but they are actually genetically deviant. They've actually found the equivalent of psychopath on the other behavioral extreme. Maybe it's far too difficult for us as a race to imagine really good and evil acts. Morality isn't in absolutes in our world, which ends up with discussions where DnD was trying to avoid them. And well, the server doesn't really provide good opportunities to do good acts, at least not according to the book that describes them. This is just my musing on the subject, so take it with the grain of salt
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz on Oct 30, 2020 7:31:21 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. And I share Stabbing's opinion here. Also, paladins do not follow the gods dogma first. That is what clerics, divine champions and the lay worshipers strive to do. The paladins follow first and foremost their paladin code, which is what makes them paladins to begin with, then their personal values (consience) and then the gods domga. Or that is how it should be for forgotten realms setting.
|
|
|
Post by Church of Bane on Oct 30, 2020 7:39:00 GMT -5
Oh I know that Paladins have rules, but it sure as hell doesn't seem like it. Again your perspective is not everyone's. Maybe so, but you do present yours as a truth. I hope you at least agree that FRC provides a background for different types of roleplay at different levels of wanting to bother with morality as a theme and philosophical discussion. I do not present mine as a truth, or a way that everyone should play. Don't put words in my mouth. I opened this for discussion for all of us. Not to gripe about my own individual experiences. I want this to be viewed on the macro level as that, in all honesty, is where change can truly be felt.
|
|
|
Post by magiuss on Oct 30, 2020 7:41:59 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. And I share Stabbing's opinion here. Also, paladins do not follow the gods dogma first. That is what clerics, divine champions and the lay worshipers strive to do. The paladins follow first and foremost their paladin code, which is what makes them paladins to begin with, then their personal values (consience) and then the gods domga. Or that is how it should be for forgotten realms setting.
The Paladin code for different Paladin orders funny enough ((without being 100% sure)) should be in corresponds with their Gods Dogma. So that's basically the same. Anyways I didn't wanna start a discussion about something else. this emanated from my point of view on Fanatical good people tend to do actions that in others eyes may be considered ''evil'' acts. many times. choosing the Lesser evil. I'm fine with people having different view on morality.
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz on Oct 30, 2020 7:50:40 GMT -5
And I share Stabbing's opinion here. Also, paladins do not follow the gods dogma first. That is what clerics, divine champions and the lay worshipers strive to do. The paladins follow first and foremost their paladin code, which is what makes them paladins to begin with, then their personal values (consience) and then the gods domga. Or that is how it should be for forgotten realms setting.
The Paladin code for different Paladin orders funny enough ((without being 100% sure)) should be in corresponds with their Gods Dogma. So that's basically the same. Anyways I didn't wanna start a discussion about something else. this emanated from my point of view on Fanatical good people tend to do actions that in others eyes may be considered ''evil'' acts. many times. choosing the Lesser evil. I'm fine with people having different view on morality. It is just that the paladin code is considered and accepted universal, rather than god-sworn. This thread has a good discussion about it... frc.proboards.com/thread/26872/universal-paladinhood-god-swornSo a paladin of Tyr shares that code with a Paladin of Moradin or a Paladin of Yondalla. Sure, each of these paladins then promotes what their specific god favors, but all paladins share the same code. Think about it... If each paladin answered first to the dogma, then none would fall because they could justify their actions by the dogma alone. ok, enough about paladins haha
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Oct 30, 2020 8:08:04 GMT -5
And I share Stabbing's opinion here. Also, paladins do not follow the gods dogma first. That is what clerics, divine champions and the lay worshipers strive to do. The paladins follow first and foremost their paladin code, which is what makes them paladins to begin with, then their personal values (consience) and then the gods domga. Or that is how it should be for forgotten realms setting.
The Paladin code for different Paladin orders funny enough ((without being 100% sure)) should be in corresponds with their Gods Dogma. So that's basically the same. Anyways I didn't wanna start a discussion about something else. this emanated from my point of view on Fanatical good people tend to do actions that in others eyes may be considered ''evil'' acts. many times. choosing the Lesser evil. I'm fine with people having different view on morality.
There's Forgotten Realms 2E (and some 3e) sources on paladinhood that I now don't remember the name of, that contradicts a lot of DnD ideas on paladinhood order of importance. We've discussed that source in the past in some other paladin thread. And there's a ruling on how FRC provides a middle ground between FR paladin and DnD paladin (more towards the DnD paladin - with the paladinhood ethos being above the deity ethos). So to anyone that feels like looking it up - don't use these books as is - FRC ruling on the subject is of course the one that matters.
What I found amusing and super-interesting in that text was that the paladins of the different gods can, and often do, argue on what ideals are more important than others. I mean, even if all of them apply, there could be a difference in what is considered more important. I think the different paladin orders (even different orders that follow the same deity), point towards these orders providing guidance on what is important. I mean, even a paladin of Tyr can have a choice between deciding if law is more important (Knights of Holy Judgment), or good (Knights of the Merciful Sword). (Both orders are part of the good/evil extensions of play in 3e) I'm sure the arguments are just philosophical and never get to real blows *cough*. Things like that add to the depth of a paladin, while still just being shades of hell (or heaven in this case)?
This is real fun. And I couldn't resist addint my 2 cents (bad me). I agree though that we should leave the thread to Bane's goal with it. >.> So I'll shut up about paladins from now on....
Fannatical good. haha, great alignment name.
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Oct 30, 2020 8:28:40 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.
For some reason, I tend to forget this side of DnD alignment debacle. But, it honestly explains the fact that there's really no point to "good intentions" and "greater good" idealogy. A paladin that falls (i'm sorry for bringing up a paladin again), for "greater good", has not done any services for "good", (s)he only made the evil force win. In that view of good vs evil, that paladin didn't sacrifice himself/herself - they betrayed their side. The same goes for doing evil acts for greater good.
The same applies for the blackguard doing good acts for their personal benefit. If you do good and benevolent acts - you are tipping the world towards good.
Seeing good and evil as forces, is a good way of describing how the "simplification" can work and how these can be absolutes.
But then again, these have been created for players being on the "right side" of the alignment scales. So things become even more morally difficult when you want to play an evil character. (see the way I'm trying to save myself there?). But you still want to play with others - you can't constantly commit atrocities towards the ones you have the need to travel with.
And what most of us forget (and things that don't end up affecting our alignments on a server) is that neutral acts should also count towards loosing your alignment extremes - towards neutral, but not beyond. That's why playing evil and good should be far more difficult than it really is. But on the other hand, that would make the game too difficult and not fun. And everyone TN in alignment. LoL. Maybe I'm over-analysing this and it wasn't DnD's point at all. I believe their point was to make this simple, and the last part is complicating things. At least on a PW. So, grain of salt, again.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Frost on Oct 30, 2020 10:06:15 GMT -5
Plleeessaaaasseee don't turn this into a 'what's good and evil' thread too...
Make a new thread or go find one of the 10 previous ones.
I beg you.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Oct 30, 2020 10:35:47 GMT -5
I shy away from getting too caught up in the “shades of grey” thing about good and evil, or making things too complex about it. I honestly don’t mean to make any implications about present company, but there are people in the world who will purposefully confuse, cloud, complicate and confute the matter in order to cover for and justify their own clearly evil actions and stop others from standing up to it, so they can keep doing it and get away with it. That’s one of the reasons I like to gravitate towards chaotic good characters. “Blah blah blah, lawfully manipulating the technicalities and playing the system with the word games ... hey wait a minute ... what’s that CG ranger doing with that sword ...”
|
|
|
Post by lucid on Oct 30, 2020 14:51:00 GMT -5
Evil characters are fine.
We should no longer allow Lawful characters.
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Oct 30, 2020 15:13:08 GMT -5
Evil characters are fine. We should no longer allow Lawful characters. Do you REALLY want to see what a bunch of Chaotic dwarves would be like after a few kegs?
|
|
|
Post by ShadowCatJen on Oct 30, 2020 16:33:38 GMT -5
Evil characters are fine. We should no longer allow Lawful characters. Do you REALLY want to see what a bunch of Chaotic dwarves would be like after a few kegs? Yes.
|
|
Andros
Old School
I only know that I know nothing
Posts: 437
|
Post by Andros on Oct 30, 2020 17:07:43 GMT -5
I don't see why evil characters should be banned.
Ironically the latest orc-peace event that has been going on for 2 years now, is almost tailor made for evil characters to win since them winning (i.e. the peace failing and orc going back to hostility with cormyr) means a return to the status quo of the server. Yet I've not seen or heard of any evil characters trying to sabotage the peace or any such thing.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Frost on Oct 30, 2020 19:28:20 GMT -5
Yet I've not seen or heard of any evil characters trying to sabotage the peace or any such thing. If you were seeing and hearing what we do, we wouldn't be doing it very well. 🖤
|
|
|
Post by ShadowCatJen on Oct 30, 2020 19:58:09 GMT -5
Yet I've not seen or heard of any evil characters trying to sabotage the peace or any such thing. If you were seeing and hearing what we do, we wouldn't be doing it very well. 🖤 And I repeat. Half of evil wining is not getting caught.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Oct 30, 2020 21:27:52 GMT -5
I don't see why evil characters should be banned. Ironically the latest orc-peace event that has been going on for 2 years now, is almost tailor made for evil characters to win since them winning (i.e. the peace failing and orc going back to hostility with cormyr) means a return to the status quo of the server. Yet I've not seen or heard of any evil characters trying to sabotage the peace or any such thing. Why would evil characters necessarilywish for an end to the peace with the orcs? They are primarily an evil race attempting to build settlements in Cormyr. People complaining about having nowhere to go as evil characters, why would they sabotage that?
|
|
|
Post by Church of Bane on Oct 31, 2020 7:31:10 GMT -5
I don't see why evil characters should be banned. Ironically the latest orc-peace event that has been going on for 2 years now, is almost tailor made for evil characters to win since them winning (i.e. the peace failing and orc going back to hostility with cormyr) means a return to the status quo of the server. Yet I've not seen or heard of any evil characters trying to sabotage the peace or any such thing. Why would evil characters necessarilywish for an end to the peace with the orcs? They are primarily an evil race attempting to build settlements in Cormyr. People complaining about having nowhere to go as evil characters, why would they sabotage that? Well perhaps that's something you will have to find out when logged into the game.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Oct 31, 2020 7:39:50 GMT -5
Why would evil characters necessarilywish for an end to the peace with the orcs? They are primarily an evil race attempting to build settlements in Cormyr. People complaining about having nowhere to go as evil characters, why would they sabotage that? Well perhaps that's something you will have to find out when logged into the game. I said necessarily. Implying that some might but not all. I am well aware that I can find things out in game, thanks. I was giving another perspective on evil relating to the Orc plot since the person I responded to seemed to just have one. There are many ways to play evil and only some of them cause you to lose.
|
|
Andros
Old School
I only know that I know nothing
Posts: 437
|
Post by Andros on Oct 31, 2020 7:48:30 GMT -5
I don't see why evil characters should be banned. Ironically the latest orc-peace event that has been going on for 2 years now, is almost tailor made for evil characters to win since them winning (i.e. the peace failing and orc going back to hostility with cormyr) means a return to the status quo of the server. Yet I've not seen or heard of any evil characters trying to sabotage the peace or any such thing. Why would evil characters necessarilywish for an end to the peace with the orcs? They are primarily an evil race attempting to build settlements in Cormyr. People complaining about having nowhere to go as evil characters, why would they sabotage that? I can think plenty of reasons, Banites for once should be alarmed at the large influx of cormyr-allied orcs coming into their "turf" (assuming the banite fortress factors into their roleplay). Cyricists might be interested in maintining cormyrean weakness by ensuring the orcs keep draining cormyrean resources instead of adding to them. One less enemy for cormyr to be distracted over is bad news for all evil factions that hope to gain any traction in cormyr. Even evil elves that hate orcs might want to ensure orc tribes are not given room to grow. And that's just for foreign evil characters, lawful evil cormyrean characters...oof so many reasons for them to want to sabotage the peace. Just to name one of them: Orcs being consolidated into a single tribe that is settled on a wasteland with the only viable fertile expansion lands being cormyrean. Urbucheck might be willing to make his people suffer hardship for peace but there is no guarantee his successor will be anything like him. This whole plot is driven by the king being a naive 14 year old and that leaves a lot of room for lawful evil characters to turn against the crown for the good of the kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Oct 31, 2020 7:55:45 GMT -5
Why would evil characters necessarilywish for an end to the peace with the orcs? They are primarily an evil race attempting to build settlements in Cormyr. People complaining about having nowhere to go as evil characters, why would they sabotage that? I can think plenty of reasons, Banites for once should be alarmed at the large influx of cormyr-allied orcs coming into their "turf" (assuming the banite fortress factors into their roleplay). Cyricists might be interested in maintining cormyrean weakness by ensuring the orcs keep draining cormyrean resources instead of adding to them. One less enemy for cormyr to be distracted over is bad news for all evil factions that hope to gain any traction in cormyr. Even evil elves that hate orcs might want to ensure orc tribes are not given room to grow. And that's just for foreign evil characters, lawful evil cormyrean characters...oof so many reasons for them to want to sabotage the peace. Just to name one of them: Orcs being consolidated into a single tribe that is settled on a wasteland with the only viable fertile expansion lands being cormyrean. Urbucheck might be willing to make his people suffer hardship for peace but there is no guarantee his successor will be anything like him. This whole plot is driven by the king being a naive 14 year old and that leaves a lot of room for lawful evil characters to turn against the crown for the good of the kingdom. Again I said necessarily. I am aware of those things you mentioned, and without knowing any of the PCs involved I am 100% sure that most of the Banites and some other Lawful Evils on FRC have attitudes that fall into the realm you mention here. Also, as others have said, if you noticed it happening they aren't doing very well at moving their pieces subtly on the board. Lots of things are happening in the Orc plot, even without Hawk running weekly events relating to it, PCs are still angling.
|
|
Andros
Old School
I only know that I know nothing
Posts: 437
|
Post by Andros on Oct 31, 2020 8:06:34 GMT -5
I can think plenty of reasons, Banites for once should be alarmed at the large influx of cormyr-allied orcs coming into their "turf" (assuming the banite fortress factors into their roleplay). Cyricists might be interested in maintining cormyrean weakness by ensuring the orcs keep draining cormyrean resources instead of adding to them. One less enemy for cormyr to be distracted over is bad news for all evil factions that hope to gain any traction in cormyr. Even evil elves that hate orcs might want to ensure orc tribes are not given room to grow. And that's just for foreign evil characters, lawful evil cormyrean characters...oof so many reasons for them to want to sabotage the peace. Just to name one of them: Orcs being consolidated into a single tribe that is settled on a wasteland with the only viable fertile expansion lands being cormyrean. Urbucheck might be willing to make his people suffer hardship for peace but there is no guarantee his successor will be anything like him. This whole plot is driven by the king being a naive 14 year old and that leaves a lot of room for lawful evil characters to turn against the crown for the good of the kingdom. Again I said necessarily. I am aware of those things you mentioned, and without knowing any of the PCs involved I am 100% sure that most of the Banites and some other Lawful Evils on FRC have attitudes that fall into the realm you mention here. Also, as others have said, if you noticed it happening they aren't doing very well at moving their pieces subtly on the board. Lots of things are happening in the Orc plot, even without Hawk running weekly events relating to it, PCs are still angling. Well the plot has been running for 2 years and the peace has suffered no setbacks whatsoever, so if you know of any evil plots that are hacthing please tell them to speed it up so my good characters can start doing my favorite dungeons again.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Oct 31, 2020 8:12:18 GMT -5
Again I said necessarily. I am aware of those things you mentioned, and without knowing any of the PCs involved I am 100% sure that most of the Banites and some other Lawful Evils on FRC have attitudes that fall into the realm you mention here. Also, as others have said, if you noticed it happening they aren't doing very well at moving their pieces subtly on the board. Lots of things are happening in the Orc plot, even without Hawk running weekly events relating to it, PCs are still angling. Well the plot has been running for 2 years and the peace has suffered no setbacks whatsoever, so if you know of any evil plots that are hacthing please tell them to speed it up so my good characters can start doing my favorite dungeons again. Sure, I'll put in a good word for you bro.
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Oct 31, 2020 8:21:20 GMT -5
Again I said necessarily. I am aware of those things you mentioned, and without knowing any of the PCs involved I am 100% sure that most of the Banites and some other Lawful Evils on FRC have attitudes that fall into the realm you mention here. Also, as others have said, if you noticed it happening they aren't doing very well at moving their pieces subtly on the board. Lots of things are happening in the Orc plot, even without Hawk running weekly events relating to it, PCs are still angling. Well the plot has been running for 2 years and the peace has suffered no setbacks whatsoever, so if you know of any evil plots that are hacthing please tell them to speed it up so my good characters can start doing my favorite dungeons again. I'm sorry @ladyfrost, I habe to make alignment comments here. Orcs are evil. So even with tbe treaty your actions will not be evil. Breakimg a law (or a treaty) is a chaotic act. Attacking the orc caves would then be Chaotic Neutral. So unless your characters are lawful, you should be OK. Just don't get caught.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Oct 31, 2020 8:23:36 GMT -5
The thing I find a little odd so far with the orc plot is that sheer racial hatred is an evil motivation, but the most racial hatred I’ve been seeing in game is from presumably good aligned characters, both PC and NPC, most of all paladins, as a generality. Nobody has any obligation to make their personal character the one who shows that racial hatred out of their evil nature, instead of doing something else out of pragmatism. But when the plot started, I honestly expected to see more resistance to the peace from characters who either can’t let go of a grudge out of pure cruelty or can’t let go of their social position of having every legal right to abuse others for the sake of it because of the superiority it gives, and less from characters who have the at will ability to look at an orcish commoner and tell whether they’re sincere in wanting to turn from evil or not as a signature class feature. The way I’ve seen it played so far, according to the generalities, you’d think holding on to racial hatred were a virtue to be aspired to, upheld by the good gods of righteousness. By no means do I think anyone is trying to make things look that way, but when I look at the numbers of which characters act which way, the numbers look that way. Again, nobody has a personal obligation to play their character differently, I just expected some sign that it’s the evil folks who most hold on to excuses for racial hatred. If preserving the legal right to slaughter intelligent beings by the hundred and take their things at will whether they’re evil or not isn’t a self-serving evil motivation to a *character* in the game, then I don’t know what is.
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Oct 31, 2020 8:48:01 GMT -5
Orcs aren't just a race in DnD. They are the quintessential monster that the common populace faces. At least in this version of DnD. They are inherently evil. In FR, their god and creator is evil. Their culture is evil. Their civilization is evil. They bleed and sweat evil. If we were playing a later edition it could be argued that orcs are just some misunderstood pignosed human.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Oct 31, 2020 8:54:49 GMT -5
Orcs aren't just a race in DnD. They are the quintessential monster that the common populace faces. At least in this version of DnD. They are inherently evil. In FR, their god and creator is evil. Their culture is evil. Their civilization is evil. They bleed and sweat evil. If we were playing a later edition it could be argued that orcs are just some misunderstood pignosed human. The question in play is the inherency of their evil. But even that aside, I do stand by what I said about every evil PC in the game about to lose the legal right to slaughter them by the hundreds and take their things. If that's not motivation for an evil character to disrupt the peace process, I don't know what is. They're about to have a significant portion of their gold (and ooc'ly, xp) shut off. If you think there are players who are annoyed and ready to leave the server over that, where are the evil PC's at.
|
|