|
Post by malclave on Oct 31, 2020 8:57:04 GMT -5
Tangent... there are valid, non-Evil reasons for opposing the "peace". Centuries (millennia?) long grudges are hard to overcome, when it comes to elves and dwarves, especially when the racial pantheon have a history of war. If Urbuchek's orcs convert to Chauntea and Eldath, let's talk. My highest-level dwarf thinks the whole situation shows a shocking ignorance of history and math on behalf of the humans, which puts him at odds with more senior members of the clan, and is sure that the truce will not last. Besides, its given me plenty of opportunities to reference Kipling and speculate if Marshal (Wyvernspur) is hoping for the job of Chamberlain (Neville). /tangent
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz on Oct 31, 2020 8:59:01 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. Sure, but not all racial hatred is or has to be portrayed as loud and vocal. It can be subtle or quiet and only becomes evident at specific times.
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Oct 31, 2020 9:01:00 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.
Disliking orcs, while by our standards, sounds racial - in Dnd it's again, something that can be discussed. Orcs are evil, wanting to get rid of things evil is not considered evil per se. I mean, we've killed goblins, kobolds, and orcs, even bandit human NPC spawns without prejudice and with glee. How is that suddenly supposed to be different, now that they suddenly "claim" to want to have peace? And if that is evil, then there's no good aligned characters on the server. At least not the way everyone talks about their hunts.
Racial prejudice is part of gameplay. Humans supposedly don't hate anyone deeply, but other races do. Check out the racial traits of dwarves and gnomes - it's built into the game mechanics. How about the "favored enemy" of the ranger? Lorewide, orcs and elves hate each other with abundance - it's built into their religious and racial legends. Many elven settlements start their celebration of Shieldmeet (Corellon's peace) - by going out and hunting orcs. And after that they celebrate feast.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Oct 31, 2020 9:16:20 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.
Disliking orcs, while by our standards, sounds racial - in Dnd it's again, something that can be discussed. Orcs are evil, wanting to get rid of things evil is not considered evil per se. I mean, we've killed goblins, kobolds, and orcs, even bandit human NPC spawns without prejudice and with glee. How is that suddenly supposed to be different, now that they suddenly "claim" to want to have peace? And if that is evil, then there's no good aligned characters on the server. At least not the way everyone talks about their hunts.
Racial prejudice is part of gameplay. Humans supposedly don't hate anyone deeply, but other races do. Check out the racial traits of dwarves and gnomes - it's built into the game mechanics. How about the "favored enemy" of the ranger? Lorewide, orcs and elves hate each other with abundance - it's built into their religious and racial legends. Many elven settlements start their celebration of Shieldmeet (Corellon's peace) - by going out and hunting orcs. And after that they celebrate.
This is all true. However, hatred of orcs is predicated on their being evil and acting so. The elves and dwarves didn't take up this racial animosity for the sake of it. If this particular tribe of orcs decides to depart from that pattern, and the elves or dwarves continue to attack and destroy them anyways, then this isn't a neutral cultural practice, even in DND. It would be a blind-eyed slaughter of non-evil beings, and thus, evil. From what it looks like to me, this is part of the point of the plot, looking at things like this. The fact it's been tradition forever doesn't make it good. (It never does. As DND players who understand the difference between law and good, this is obvious.) The fact it was once good made it tradition. If the elves and/or dwarves were to continue past the point where the orcs turned (if they did), they would be an otherwise generally good race that hasn't noticed it's committing evil acts for the sake of history or tradition on this one point.
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Oct 31, 2020 9:18:01 GMT -5
Tangent... there are valid, non-Evil reasons for opposing the "peace". Centuries (millennia?) long grudges are hard to overcome, when it comes to elves and dwarves, especially when the racial pantheon have a history of war. If Urbuchek's orcs convert to Chauntea and Eldath, let's talk. My highest-level dwarf thinks the whole situation shows a shocking ignorance of history and math on behalf of the humans, which puts him at odds with more senior members of the clan, and is sure that the truce will not last. Besides, its given me plenty of opportunities to reference Kipling and speculate if Marshal (Wyvernspur) is hoping for the job of Chamberlain (Neville). /tangent
The only reason elves and dwarves never had a real war, is because neither has what the other one would want to possess. Especially the lands they choose to settle on.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Oct 31, 2020 10:43:59 GMT -5
As a small point of source as applied to the Urbuchek plot, I just looked up the alignment of orcs in the 3.5e Monster Manual, and it's listed as "often chaotic evil," and not "always chaotic evil." If it simply said, "chaotic evil," I would suggest that would leave it up for debate as to whether source says there can be deviation or not from CE. Given the fact the authors included the word, "often," which differs from the word "always," which they could have put in its place if they felt it applied, or simply leave out, I'd suggest that shows deviation is possible. The entry did not specify whether alternative alignments include LE and NE only, or the possibility of non-evil alignments, but the MM at least does clearly show not all orcs are specifically CE, and shows a distinct lack of clarity on the possibility of non-evil. I would suggest that the non-specification as to whether non-evil alignments are possible or not leaves that question open to interpretation, and that the answer is properly in the hands of the DM's and their plots, not forum debate between players. (We are well within our rights to debate, but the answer is with the DM's and their plot.) I would also suggest that DM license to do what ever they darn well please with their own NPC's in a plot that could very well be all about the moral questions of how to treat individuals that either turn from the predominant evil of the rest of their group and/or never were evil to begin with as individuals, also suggests that Urbuchek and his followers very well may not be evil. None of this proves that Urbuchek and/or his followers are evil or not, but it does show the question to be open until settled in game.
|
|
|
Post by Church of Bane on Oct 31, 2020 13:24:06 GMT -5
Those on the side of team good will always feel their actions are justified, even when pointing out their actions are against alignment.
It has been that way, and always will be that way no matter what we do sadly.
Also this should probably be in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by Lokarn on Oct 31, 2020 13:59:47 GMT -5
All of the above is why my PCs will never say "Let's go do orcs." Or any other group of creatures. That makes it sound like they just want to go kill things for the sake of killing them and taking their stuff....
I rather suggest heading to areas to look for adventure, unless I'm on an Evil PC, then I say "Let's go kill all the intelligent beings in this location and take their belongings to enrich ourselves."
|
|
|
Post by lucid on Oct 31, 2020 14:01:50 GMT -5
Elves had real war before there were dwarves to have it with. They fought the Giants, the Snakes, and the Dragons, and when they ran out of opponents, they fought each other for five thousand years.
|
|
|
Post by DM Grizwald on Oct 31, 2020 20:07:01 GMT -5
All of the above is why my PCs will never say "Let's go do orcs." Or any other group of creatures. That makes it sound like they just want to go kill things for the sake of killing them and taking their stuff.... I rather suggest heading to areas to look for adventure, unless I'm on an Evil PC, then I say "Let's go kill all the intelligent beings in this location and take their belongings to enrich ourselves." The first statement drives me bonkers.
|
|
|
Post by Rane on Nov 15, 2020 10:46:15 GMT -5
As a side note. No, the Church of Bane account is not me. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Nov 15, 2020 11:24:34 GMT -5
As a side note. No, the Church of Bane account is not me. Carry on. Thanks for the clarification, Rane. There's no room for anonymity when playing amongst friends!
|
|
|
Post by magiuss on Nov 15, 2020 16:56:12 GMT -5
As a side note. No, the Church of Bane account is not me. Carry on. to clearify it ain't me either.. but as i've posted on this thread and let my mind known i hope there ain't no doubt on that
|
|
|
Post by Rane on Nov 15, 2020 21:23:50 GMT -5
I’ve changed a lot over the years and I do not find these threads constructive or helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Asgardian Grey Hawk on Nov 15, 2020 22:36:54 GMT -5
They are not. And side note church is me. Jk
|
|
|
Post by Rane on Nov 16, 2020 1:23:15 GMT -5
As a side note. No, the Church of Bane account is not me. Carry on. Thanks for the clarification, Rane. There's no room for anonymity when playing amongst friends! Side side note, i’ve tasted more than my fair share of good tears Lol but seriously and you can ask around. Aside from rp related posts, i’ve just been avoiding the forums. I just want to play the game and have fun. Evil, good, doesn’t matter. Sure i’m still doing things behind the scenes. But I don’t find arguments like these to be constructive. I prefer the in game approach to problem solving. I think people in every spectrum need to work on adapting to their mistakes, taking them for what they are, and trying new approaches. The dm team is not out to get anyone, the server is not stacked against evil or good. When we choose to take risks, we need to accept that we may suffer consequences. And sometimes those consequences are hard to recover from. Anywho, see you all in game.
|
|
|
Post by iangallowglas on Nov 16, 2020 16:07:14 GMT -5
I am the Church of Bane! Fooled you all! Mwwhaha! Just Kidding
|
|
|
Post by Church of Bane on Nov 16, 2020 19:42:22 GMT -5
I believe there is enough conversation here that can be read, and learned from. I'm going to lock the poll.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Frost on Nov 16, 2020 20:51:36 GMT -5
The dm team is not out to get anyone, the server is not stacked against evil or good. I agree that the server isn't stacked against evil, but I also understand why someone might feel it is. The server greatly hinders change. If it happens it happens extremely slow. Nearly anyone who tries to exact change is met with brakes, DM's and players. Being successful at being evil generally revolves around some sort of change somewhere. Being successful at combating evil generally revolves around slowing them down or stopping them - something that generally happens very naturally here. It's easy to feel like good is winning. They aren't really winning though, it's just very hard for them to lose. Where everyone can see this evenly is where neutral tasks are tried or good is trying to be proactive with their own goals. Nearly any attempt to interact with the setting is extremely slow and tedious with the DM policy apparently being "DM interaction is reserved for good behavior" and not any sort of objective decision based on good RP or logical decision based on what the setting should respond to. So players and DMs who like the dynamic setting where it responds us keep ending up leaving while the stagnant DM administration remains. The inability to interact with the setting is what kills evil characters here.
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz on Nov 16, 2020 21:17:49 GMT -5
Wait. What?
"Good RP", meaning quality RP regardless of alignment, without "good player behavior" is at best dissapointing and frustrating and at worst destructive.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Frost on Nov 16, 2020 21:22:24 GMT -5
Wait. What? "Good RP", meaning quality RP regardless of alignment, without "good player behavior" is at best dissapointing and frustrating and at worst destructive. Yea? Define good player behavior. I can tell you the DM's definition, "obedient". It's why everyone around me complains to me and not to the DM's. The DM's ignore disobedient players. Instead, they have a group of players that resent them with no way to find recourse. They come to me and I bitch for them, which is why everything I try to do goes to the bottom of the list or is ignored. I'm disobedient and have 'bad behavior'.
|
|
|
Post by AnvilX on Nov 17, 2020 0:10:27 GMT -5
Wait. What? "Good RP", meaning quality RP regardless of alignment, without "good player behavior" is at best dissapointing and frustrating and at worst destructive. Yea? Define good player behavior. I can tell you the DM's definition, "obedient". It's why everyone around me complains to me and not to the DM's. The DM's ignore disobedient players. Instead, they have a group of players that resent them with no way to find recourse. They come to me and I bitch for them, which is why everything I try to do goes to the bottom of the list or is ignored. I'm disobedient and have 'bad behavior'. Umm…. Lady Frost, I have tried to stay out of this and keep my opinions to myself… as I wish some would do as well with this thread. I do not find it constructive and only seeking to harm and discourage players and the server. BUT that’s just my humble opinion. I would be more impressed with constructive recommendations for the server rather than trying to tear down all the hard work and hours that I have seen Players and DMs invest in FRC. FRC is not perfect, but the community tries to make it the best it can be and that will not continue with the effort to tear it apart. I will not listen to someone who wishes to put words in my mouth or any of the other DMs when they have NO idea of what we think or do. I cannot speak for the other DMs, but I can say I have never heard nor witnessed where they wish or Desire for players to be “Obedient”. Really Obedient?? I sure as hell don’t and I think your post and remarks are very condescending and as always a massive ego stroke not to mention cancerous to the server. I have not had the chance to read the entire thread, but I agree with some things I have read and totally disagree with others. FRC is set in Cormyr which is a good aligned country with massive resources to battle foes against the crown. This does not mean that “Evil” is not welcomed on the server, by every means it is…. But it also means because of the setting and the country resources it is not a cakewalk either. If the server was set in a different land with a different alignment… things could quite possibly be different… but they are not this is Cormyr. As a DM I applaud players who play “Smart Evil” not a … I am dressed in black and kill everyone or grandstand announcing their evil intentions for all to hear and see. The ones who play a “Smart Evil” very well…. all the other characters will not even know they were Evil or what they did. As a final note… as a DM we want all players to play who and what they want… we do not seek obedience. We only wish for those willing to help us all build a better “sandbox” and to have fun and tell a story with each other. -As always just my personal two-coppers
|
|
|
Post by DM Hawk on Nov 17, 2020 0:31:05 GMT -5
I haven't had time to read most of the ten pages of this thread. I intended to read it all after the last server update was completed but the update came with some small bugs and a nasty one that has consumed a lot of time and effort. I've seen a lot of opinions expressed, some I agree with and some I don't, but I respect the views and feelings folks have. They're relative and personal, and agree or disagree I try to give them consideration as time permits. Time, effort, and enthusiasm however are finite and have to be budgeted. In this thread and others, opinions are sometimes expressed as facts or facts are otherwise misrepresented. Ideally the record would be set straight. Perhaps there will be time to revisit once the bugs are resolved. The DM Team isn't perfect and we don't claim to be. However we often have a good perspective from the vantage point of being able to see the various sides of a conflict, including sitting in the hot seat while trying to oversee in character conflict and keep things fair. By fair, I mostly mean that the rules are being followed by all sides so that genuine in character effort and merit win the day. Keep in mind, conflict is competitive and performance matters. Performance includes the ability to navigate the setting. One can't genuinely open a community poll and lead an honest discussion from behind a generic forum account designed to be shared by a guild. So I think it's appropriate to disclose that Church of Bane was utilized by MTGPackFoils in this thread. Sorry MIP, you don't get to raise a poll and attempt to dictate a thread like this from a generic forum account. Should FRC continue to allow evil player characters? Yes, it should. Keep in mind that FRC is a roleplay server set in 3rd Edition Forgotten Realms Cormyr. Evil character roleplay needs to keep the setting in mind. Cormyr is one of the few proper kingdoms in the Forgotten Realms and has law and order, at least on the surface. Overt evil will face stronger opposition in a setting that has an orderly government that gives common people some rights. Some of our players have done a great job playing evil characters who thrive in the setting. Other players have struggled - and that's OK. Speaking personally, I've spent more hours than I can remember offering advice and guidance to players of evil characters over the years, including the OP of this thread. Some players think we're too hard on evil characters while others think we're too soft. The DM Team tries to be just right by maintaining the setting to provide consequences for criminal actions when caught, but also allowing second chances. Or thirds. It takes some effort to earn Outlaw Status. While Cormyr is generally an orderly and stable setting, especially on the surface, there are NPC's of every alignment sprinkled about the landscape. If players of chaotic characters find themselves stifled by agents of the state like purple dragons, war wizards, or local militia, they may find traction for their alignment with chaotic NPC's. We try to use NWN to simulate a table top environment to the extent we can on FRC. One difference between a NWN persistent world and a table top game is the number of players and the length of the campaign. In a table top game with a handful of players and a shorter real world life span than FRC's 16 years, players can make faster paced changes to the setting and the story is shared by fewer people so each player has a bigger piece of a made to order pie. On FRC the DM team maintains the setting for a larger population of players and views the campaign with a perspective that will go on long after a certain DM event or player character's interests have ended. We make changes to the setting judiciously and players have to share the campaign with more people than in a table top game. The FRC volunteer staff's time, effort, and enthusiasm are finite. Finite resources have to be budgeted and no one is entitled to these things. Some players who are given time and attention respond ungratefully, make demands, or exhibit bad attitudes to an extent that they become an unwise investment of limited resources. In these cases, FRC is better served by investing time and attention into other players. It's an ongoing challenge to spend time with everyone as we'd like to. More players are the opposite, making a positive and rewarding experience out of the time given for everyone involved. Some of these players have evil characters. From personal experience, I say it's a pleasure to be their DM and its fun when I see their characters thrive. FRC is a roleplay server, as we say regularly. However, that doesn't mean the staff are RP elitists or value RP elitists over other players. We want to share the fun of roleplay with all our players. All of us have to work together to contribute and maintain the atmosphere of the server. Those who are new to roleplay and want to try FRC out are as welcome to join the fun as a roleplay veteran.
|
|