|
Post by wblackspur on Dec 20, 2007 15:25:57 GMT -5
Sooo, ya wanna hunt evil types? Hunt Lucius. Basically spent two years playing the smiley suck-up and kissing every good butt presented just so I could survive long enouigh to finally tell all the goody -types to go jump in the abyss. Now don't git me wrong, it has not all been wine and roses, and plenty of folks have refused to party with Lucy or even talk to him, and I spent an awful lot of time all alone, nursing sour grapes and vowing vengence. Now mostly I hiss at people , or snarl and walk away with a swirl of my cape. That's kinda my job as an evil type, to creep people out. I guess what I am saying is, I spent an inordinate amount of time being a nice guy, helping those who needed it fer little or no gain at all, just so people would tolerate Lucius, and now the big payoff is comming in the form of a bone-arm which will paint a big target on my forhead. Truly, I am looking forward to being a nasy villain, hunted wherever I go, and If ya will not hunt Lucius just cuz he has a bonearm, then I will just hafta act more despicable until ya do, so there!!
|
|
|
Post by Grozer on Dec 20, 2007 15:40:47 GMT -5
Alright so I got alot more than I bargained for by opening this can....
Let me start by saying it is NOT my intention to have the opposition make things easy, I want the enemy to be think and plan. I want it to be difficult. I realize I created an evil PC and I knew exactly what I was getting myself into when I did.
Second, I am NOT out for evil to win. As a wise person reminded me, the premise of this game is that good will overcome and I do not expect Ranan will ever realize his goal of delivering Cormyr to Bane nor will he ever actually win. I guess I am a sick person since I like the drama of Ranan trying to gain an advantage against the forces of good.
I accept that I, along with other evil characters will be on the losing side almost every time; I knew when the Zhentarim marched then the Silent Dominion.... hell back when demons took over Redmist.... loooooonnnngggg time... in the end they would be beaten back. As it goes with each and every quest/plot, I just try to have fun and enjoy the ride.
I'll even accept Ranan being hunted, hated, despised, shunned etc. Most of you dont have a clue how many hours are spent talking to NPCs while being limited to Redmist. But I get why. Even now, the whole premise of losing his command and everything he has worked on for many months.... but it really is fine by me.
I guess in the end I want there to be some substantial RP behind these efforts, not simply falling back on "because he's evil."
That all said, lets keep a couple of things in mind, Cormyr has no jurisdiction inside Redmist. Therefore being captured, wrongfully jailed or hell... even 'tortured' inside of Redmist could be potentially a crime in Redmist, not in Cormyr. So writing to the courts in Suzail, is just what it is.. a complaint.
Isinhold is neutral ground, if you dont like seeing known evil PCs walk around casually dont go there or take it up with the the rulers of Isinhold. Most of the neutral/good types avoid Redmist like a plague so I know you are capable of staying away from Isinhold if you disagree with their politics.
My idealistic outcome of this thread was only to come to an understanding why the RP I am seeing appears to be inconsistent, not a discussion about all this other stuff.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Dec 20, 2007 15:41:02 GMT -5
Remember 2 real life days is over 2 months FRC time.
|
|
|
Post by Kolfrosta on Dec 20, 2007 16:06:20 GMT -5
Not at all! Ranan, Cleric of Bane, *should* be trying to not only gain an advantage over "good", but try to be delivering the realms over to Bane...and he has a start, that being Redmist...
When Redmist first fell, my character was pulled in quite a different direction than I ever imagined for her. She left the Purple Dragons, out of a sense of wanting to be where she could do the most good, and to protect what has become her new "home town". (She grew up near Suzail). Why? LOL...it's Ranan's fault, he was being successful, so like in a game of chess, the knight(Sharita) is moved to a defensive position over the King (Isinhold), to prevant Ranan (hopefully) from gaining all the lands Cormyr abandoned.
I'm not one for PvP. I think the most I ever PvPed was during the time shortly after the fall of Redmist when we had the Battles of Isinhold. And we had lost. I kept Sharita out of game for as long as I could, which amounted to about three days. I just missed playing her. When we consider the criminal punishments....it is *HARD* to keep a character out of game. After the Annulus wrap up, I said I would keep her out of game for a week, the DM suggested she stay out for two days or so...(just the way things happened at the end of the quest). That was a *hard* two days.
The point of the above is, yes, while the bad guys are punished for what seems to be a ridiculously short time...it can feel really long not being able to play your favorite charcter. Even longer if no one visits you in jail.
As far as RP in Isinhold, I think I mentioned before, Sharita will happily encourage the baddies to the gate...especially those *known* to have caused trouble in the area, even if they have been jailed. Why? Well, they have caused trouble before, it is possible they may again, they represent a known threat, and thier deeds in the past have shown this to be true. Like Helgrin posted earlier about those old westerns...the sheriff telling the "outlaws" to move along....don't want any trouble here.
|
|
|
Post by EDM Neo on Dec 20, 2007 16:10:08 GMT -5
Remember 2 real life days is over 2 months FRC time. ...uh... I don't have much to add to the conversation yet... but isn't one real life day six ingame days? Or has this changed *drastically*?
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Dec 20, 2007 16:12:23 GMT -5
Remember 2 real life days is over 2 months FRC time. Is it? My understanding was that days were weeks, not months. I disagree with accelerated time but I suppose that's a different discussion. The main point I think people are trying to make is that there is no way to RP a victory for the good guys. The only time the bad guys lose is when the DMs make the bad guys lose, and it usually has very little to do with what the good guys are doing at all. The good guys can't kill the bad guys because killing the bad guys is both evil and illegal, and they can't do anything else to the bad guys because the RP repercussions are basically throw-away repercussions. Now I'm not advocating permadeath, but I'd be more inclined to say imprisonment, when it happens, should be for no less than a week (maybe even two weeks) and also include having the character's XP reduced to the minimum for their current level. That wouldn't permanently destroy the character, but it would carry a sting with it that would make getting caught much more undesirable and allow the other side to feel they've actually accomplished something. Now I'm only suggesting that as the result of legal actions, not all PvP or even all RP imprisonment. Meaning only if the character was found and arrested within the territory where they are a criminal. So if a character is in Redmist and does a crime, that would be on their heads, but if the character is kidnapped and taken to Redmist for torture (which seems to be VERY COMMON) then it would not carry the same repercussions. Although personally, I have no objection to the proposed rule of "no evil player characters." I prefer persistent NPC villains myself.
|
|
JCrux
Old School
Posts: 603
|
Post by JCrux on Dec 20, 2007 16:37:51 GMT -5
I'm in total agreement with this. I've had several conversations IC where good characters are at a loss as to what to do. Killing isn't permanent. Standing in Isinhold seems to give everyone immunity. And being in the criminal registry doesn't keep anyone from walking through Suzail. Wouldn't the city guards recognize them? Maybe its a lack of imagination on our part, but I know some good characters/players are frustrated with their options. I would love to hear some ideas as to what they can do besides waiting for opportunities to waylay a foe out in the wild. A few of you have mentioned confrontation dialog. Are there other ideas? PS I write this as one who's been around for one and a half years and my only PvP has been friendly sparring. Hmmm lets see here the problem is what? It isn't that "good" guys can't defend themselves. It isn't that "evil" guys are picking on them. Oh I see "evil" guys aren't under constant attack or punishment. How does this effect the "good" guy? Do you get hurt because he isn't arrested? Do the Redmist NPC guards arrest "good" PC's on entry? Does his having a "win" against an NPC hurt you? You get "wins" against NPC monsters all the time. Once again everything is us vs. them. If they aren't suffering we must be. If your success is measured by another players loss... I'll try to clarify what I'm getting at. First off, I'm not looking to constantly attack or punish "evil' characters. Most players of evil characters would not have fun with that and, as a player, I appreciate their role on the server. I want them to have fun as well. My issue is this: if I'm playing a "good" character, and I don't oppose an evil character that's within my power to oppose, am I still acting in a "good" fashion or am I more "neutral"? I think most players of good characters believe they have to oppose at least some of the evil characters they encounter. So, this raises the question, then, of how this conflict should be carried out. So maybe you're right that, in this way, But, I think the most fun can be had by all with epic struggles going back and worth, each side claiming great victories and suffering horrible defeats. And I'd love for this to be more meaningful than a bunch of PvP back and forth. Well, this is something I'll definitely have to ponder more. I think this a good, though difficult, topic and my hope is this discussion maintains/improves an RP environment that's fun for all players, good and evil characters.
|
|
|
Post by longearmage on Dec 20, 2007 16:46:10 GMT -5
Now I'm not advocating permadeath, but I'd be more inclined to say imprisonment, when it happens, should be for no less than a week (maybe even two weeks) and also include having the character's XP reduced to the minimum for their current level. That wouldn't permanently destroy the character, but it would carry a sting with it that would make getting caught much more undesirable and allow the other side to feel they've actually accomplished something. I know that on another server I played on, the admin were toying with the idea of skill/XP loss to serve as an addition to jail time. Conceivably, one would not be able to practice his/her skills at any time during their incarceration. The harsher the crime, the longer the confinement, the more XP reduced. This adds, as Munroe said, a sting, as well as an incentive to NOT break the law in towns. Just thought I'd help. We tried this on the same server with disastrous results. We ended up losing half the playerbase, because PC evil adds a wondrous dimension to a persistent world. We would lose a whole facet of Player Interaction if evil characters were banned. As I've said, these are my opinions/possible solutions. Hope they help.
|
|
|
Post by marklar on Dec 20, 2007 16:59:16 GMT -5
i don't have alot to add to this conversation there have been many things said that i don't like and many that i do...
i've played mainly as an evil PC in my three years in FRC and i loved it greatly, the constant struggle agianst the good guys, being hunted and hated... there was a point where it was just rediculous how much PvP was goin on... alot of metagaming on both sides but the DM team delt with all that and it's never been better to be evil as far as i'm concerned. the one biggest reasons i stopped being evil is because we started "winning"... there were so many evil PC's that PvP was almost as bad as when i was hunted everyday and evil was just becoming too powerful.
it's not like it easy being on the other side...my character knows alot of information, things that could screw over other players that i'm not on their side but i would never ever give that information out and i'm happy that people don't ask me for the most part and if they do well i avoid the answers like the plague... i think that my character has done more PvP to good players then evil since he's changed, just being evil is no excuse to kill or be killed unless the situation permits it... and when i was evil i thought of the "good guys" as evil... just depends how you look at it.
i'm not going to take any sides(or make any good points it seems lol), i think in order to have fun good needs evil and vise versa. i personally loved being on both sides. Ranan is one of my favorite characters. he always has a plan and that's the best thing about being on his team and i like it even more trying to figure out what that plan is. i miss RP'n with him
|
|
|
Post by dracoamazing on Dec 20, 2007 17:20:32 GMT -5
I can think of several ways that competing chars whether good vs evil or other opposed groups can "fight" that doesn't involve PvP, unfortunately many of them require a DM's participation to show the consequences of the actions.
An example of this would be if a group blockades the known hangout town of another opposed group - for evil chars they could RP killing all of the merchants that head to that town, for the good chars they could RP redirecting or buying all of the merchandise from the merchant caravans - this would result in the prices at the various merchants at the town rising significantly and some of the citizens of the town possibly leaving resulting in a run down town. The repercussion to the players using that town would be the higher prices and possibility of plague outbreaks / rodent infestation etc...
|
|
|
Post by Grozer on Dec 20, 2007 17:21:15 GMT -5
Now I'm not advocating permadeath, but I'd be more inclined to say imprisonment, when it happens, should be for no less than a week (maybe even two weeks) and also include having the character's XP reduced to the minimum for their current level. That wouldn't permanently destroy the character, but it would carry a sting with it that would make getting caught much more undesirable and allow the other side to feel they've actually accomplished something. I know that on another server I played on, the admin were toying with the idea of skill/XP loss to serve as an addition to jail time. Conceivably, one would not be able to practice his/her skills at any time during their incarceration. The harsher the crime, the longer the confinement, the more XP reduced. This adds, as Munroe said, a sting, as well as an incentive to NOT break the law in towns. Well I'm game for more severe punishment, but it should go both ways. If an evil characters entraps or 'takes out' another character that character should experience the same effects otherwise where the risk of losing in an attempt to go after a dangerous foe.
|
|
|
Post by brian333 on Dec 20, 2007 18:09:53 GMT -5
Grozer makes an excellent point, but why are the players of "good" characters so upset?
This is the crux of the issue. Traditionally, "good" guys let lawful authority handle vengeance. What do we do when the law appears impotent? Not only do the "good" guys feel they cannot dominate, there is absolutely nothing they can do to stop the "evil" guys from doing so.
I've been involved in PvP twice in Cormyr. Both times the evil guy was far above my characters' level. We seldom see level 3 "evil" guys committing heinous acts; such behavior awaits the very OOC aquisition of levels and epic guildmates. It is possible to play an "evil" character without arousing the ire of the "good" characters, or none of the "evil" types would make it past level 3, yet at some point it is the deeds of the "evil" character against other PCs and the apparent lack of concern from authorities that innitiates the cycle of retribution.
I'm not advocating punishing any character or player. What I am advocating is that convict characters be roleplayed as convicts. They should act as if the guards who once held them prisoner are always watching over their shoulder waiting for them to screw up. They should act like they are afraid of returning to jail. They should run and hide when a party of paladins comes along. Instead, two days after committing heinous acts which should have the countryside swarming with pitchfork-and-torch wielding peasantry hunting them down, we see them standing in Isinold smirking at their victims.
I strongly advocate a roleplay solution to this issue. Players can do so much to alleviate this tension without resorting to DM involvement. Players of "good" and "evil" characters should show respect for one another, and roleplay the consequences of their actions. If that means banning yourself from Isinhold, please recall that neither my dwarf nor my cleric can walk around Redmist because someone will PK them for no better reason than that they are known to be "good."
|
|
irene
Proven Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by irene on Dec 20, 2007 18:14:46 GMT -5
The main point I think people are trying to make is that there is no way to RP a victory for the good guys. The only time the bad guys lose is when the DMs make the bad guys lose, and it usually has very little to do with what the good guys are doing at all. The good guys can't kill the bad guys because killing the bad guys is both evil and illegal, and they can't do anything else to the bad guys because the RP repercussions are basically throw-away repercussions. Thankyou! That sums my feelings on the subject up nicely!
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Dec 20, 2007 18:35:10 GMT -5
I agree that good winning -is- so common that when evil gets a win, it seems like the sky is falling. I remember being a player of a lawful good character, thinking we had won when we defended the Redmist relief caravans, only to later learn we had been pawns in an elaborate plot to start a rebellion. It really felt like the fight had all been for nothing, but in the end...all it was, was one battle we lost. I also agree that this has gone way off topic, but at the same time...lots of peoples opinions have been heard. Just remember that the door swings both ways, victories for evil PCs also generate nothing but throw-away repurcussions for the good guys who lost against evil. At the end of the day, this is a game that can't be taken all that seriously. My posts on this topic are over with, and I hope alot of others will step back and let this one fizzle out, and maybe remember at least some of the things they read and consider them in the future.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Dec 20, 2007 18:35:36 GMT -5
My issue is this: if I'm playing a "good" character, and I don't oppose an evil character that's within my power to oppose, am I still acting in a "good" fashion or am I more "neutral"? I think most players of good characters believe they have to oppose at least some of the evil characters they encounter. So, this raises the question, then, of how this conflict should be carried out. How it is carried out determines if you are "good" or "neutral". Of course this all goes back to the DnD alignment system which I'll avoid in this topic. Why can't you measure your "goodness" in the losses of the NPC monsters and villains? There is much to think about here I agree. I know not everyone gets to see all of the PvP going on. Only the victim and maybe a DM or two sees when someone gets killed 3 times in a single night by different people. The victim may not have even done anything to 2 of the people but they are getting revenge for a friend. One act can result in countless PvP matches in return. Sometimes it can be the result of simply not letting someone bully you. Sometimes it is because you don't live life the way they want you to do.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Dec 20, 2007 18:43:51 GMT -5
Remember 2 real life days is over 2 months FRC time. ...uh... I don't have much to add to the conversation yet... but isn't one real life day six ingame days? Or has this changed *drastically*? I could easily have it wrong. I just did the math on if you get to rest every 40 minutes that a game day must have passed. Time is so weird in multi-player that it is a difficult topic.
|
|
|
Post by EDM Neo on Dec 20, 2007 18:53:38 GMT -5
I figured... if one real life day was more then a month... the older non-elven/dwarvern characters would be senior citizens or dying of old age.
*watches old lady Sharita and old man Ranan beat each other with walking sticks*
|
|
Manshin
Old School
FRC2 Build Team
Posts: 703
|
Post by Manshin on Dec 20, 2007 20:17:50 GMT -5
Whooooo... I still remember that big fight in Isinhold where Ranan, Zombie Manshin and Veshal stomped the goodies... sweeeet. hehe. That was one of the first major bad-guy wins I have seen, and must say, Kolfrosta was an angel about it. She even congradulated the baddies on their victory, because she recongnised the win and why it happened and didnt want to spoil our win by crying about "meta-game this, or no-fair that."
I think we can all take a good lesson from that. If your in PvP and you loose... take it in stride and dont spoil the other teams win unless there is a real issue... and even then... make sure you look into it a bit. No one likes to have their moment of glory stolen by complaints of foul play... we have to accept that sometimes we win and sometimes we loose.. but we always live to fight again.
As for never gaining a true victory, consider that the enemies you fight in dungeons just come back too... but PCs are way funner to fight then those.
|
|
|
Post by Teneas on Dec 21, 2007 8:38:36 GMT -5
*watches old lady Sharita and old man Ranan beat each other with walking sticks*[/quote]
LOL
|
|
|
Post by Grozer on Dec 21, 2007 8:55:29 GMT -5
The main point I think people are trying to make is that there is no way to RP a victory for the good guys. The only time the bad guys lose is when the DMs make the bad guys lose, and it usually has very little to do with what the good guys are doing at all. The good guys can't kill the bad guys because killing the bad guys is both evil and illegal, and they can't do anything else to the bad guys because the RP repercussions are basically throw-away repercussions. Well I respectfully disagree with you Munroe. I do believe every time evils are beaten back in a plot or quest, basically even when a DM is involved it is RP'd as a victory for good. You dont think the players involved on the side that won dont RP it as such? I also disagree with the statement that good guys have very little to do with it. Taking the SD plot by itself, based on what I knew IC, I know for a fact they had everything to do with it. In case you didnt know Ranan was out looking for pieces of the Annulus as well trying to stop them so we were in direct conflict.... and BY THEIR OWN ACTIONS they defeated SD. I dont see how that victory was anything more than their own actions. The issue here is, those victories dont seem to be enough. They wont be satisfied until they 'kill off' all evil. Anyway none of this matters to me anymore... Ranan is converting... he is becoming a Paladin of Sharess. That is said tongue in cheek and yes Munroe I am aware Sharess does not have Paladins.
|
|
|
Post by ancientempathy on Dec 21, 2007 11:18:47 GMT -5
He could become a paladin of Sune since she's the only CG exception!
|
|
|
Post by wynter on Dec 21, 2007 15:25:24 GMT -5
what? i thought Ranan was a cleric of sune seeing how pretty he thinks he is but seriously i am always confused about aliments but is not the role of like lawful good characters to "kill off" evil? just like its evils role to try and take advantage of the good characters and laws to suit their interests? i mean being evil is not all fun and games i cant count how many times parties wouldn't take me with them cause i am evil but yet i have never even been charged with a crime. this might be a little off topic but the punisher was on bravo last weekend what aliment would he be? he killed evil people with no care about the law but helped good people to without wanting a reward
|
|
|
Post by Aodhan the Unusual on Dec 21, 2007 17:40:06 GMT -5
The Punisher would be chaotic neutral with good tendencies I'm thinking. At best. But that's just my thought.
|
|
Syrus
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by Syrus on Dec 21, 2007 18:52:35 GMT -5
Hmm...I was thinking the Punisher would be more along the lines of Lawful Neutral with evil tendencies. Being lawful doesn't necessarily obligate one to obey and/or uphold the laws of a society. Moreso it implies that one lives by a personal/moral code or discipline. I've seen LN defined (partially) as ~ "having a strong ethical code, but it is primarily guided by their system of belief, not by a commitment to Good or Evil" Even though he often does 'good' things, he's driven by vengence (an evil motivator), and isn't concerned about good and evil so much as delivering punishment to those he deems to be guilty. I imagine him to have a sense of honor, and a willingness to keep his word when he gives it...both lawful traits. Just my two cents on it though, and goes to show how perceived alignment can often be in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
Manshin
Old School
FRC2 Build Team
Posts: 703
|
Post by Manshin on Dec 21, 2007 20:44:04 GMT -5
The punisher does what he believes needs to be done to punish the guilty. I say that makes him Choatic Good. He'll do things that force him to sacrifice his own morality to protect the good people and punish the bad people. The true differance between CG and LG is the question: Do the ends justify the means?
A LG character likley wont lower himself to an evil pesons level, even if he knows its for the greater good... a CG person will, even if he hates what he has to do.... vigilanti alighnment.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Dec 21, 2007 21:48:21 GMT -5
Let's keep it on topic. If you want to discuss alignments start a new thread cause it can get messy figuring out where someone fits.
|
|
irene
Proven Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by irene on Dec 22, 2007 9:40:56 GMT -5
It seems to me we are discussing two different things here.
One being the grand battle between "good" and "evil" with Sharita and Ranan facing each-other. And certainly there are victories for "good" most of the time, as in the SD event. However, that is just a small part of the picture.
For a great many players the whole SD event never happened. Meaning that they were not involved, took no part and had no influence, either because they would not, or because they could not.
The other thing is the "small" every day happenings. The "good" side is not a united front, standing shoulder by shoulder, facing evil. It consists of many small groups, with a neutral or good outlook on the world. Some of these groups are not even fond of each other. E.g. many humans do not like what they perceive as the "arrogant Hullack-elves".
What makes them different from the evil side is they are less inclined to resolve to murder or torture or other socially unacceptable behavior. What I believe Munroe is pointing at, and I certainly am, is the disability for these people to somehow at least attempt to get back at those "evil" people who has no such restrictions on their behavior, without forming vigilante bands, hunting "evil" people all over the place, creating more PvP, which I am not to fond off.
If the "evil" side has a free hand at employing their methods toward anyone, who does not happen to be strong enough to strike back, or whom are law-obedient, and therefore feel it is bad form to resolve to vigilante tactics, their victims will become frustrated and annoyed, because they are utterly helpless.
If you run around Redmist and publicly declares Ranan is a good for nothing coward, who deserves to be fed to the crows, then you deserve whatever happens to you. If you get assaulted because you express dislike against someone within Isinhold or Cormyr, there should be some other way to attempt restoring the balance besides PvP.
|
|
|
Post by DM Hawk on Dec 22, 2007 12:28:13 GMT -5
I've been absent for a whole day. D'oh! Shotgun approach.
As far as good and evil victories in DM plots go -
The SD Plot wasn't so much a struggle between good and evil as it was against survival and annihilation. Good and evil allied in several cases to bring an end to the SD. While some evil characters sided with the SD, others didn't. The ending of that plot was really a victory for just about everyone, wasn't it? This really isn't a good example to use in the arguement b/c if the SD had won FRC as we know it would be over.
Who really wanted that? I don't think this one counts on the good vs evil scoreboard.
Redmist, for example, was an evil victory with consequences that were significant, but not apocalyptic.
"Good" and "Evil" should both have a fair shot of winning the competition in non-linear plots of a smaller scale where the consequences are there but don't mean the 'end of the world.' By fair I mean the outcome should be based mostly on what the player characters do to achieve victory in the context of the plot, without bias from on high.
Good and evil should be able to compete fairly against one another and in DM plots, so long as the outcome is something the server can live with. To me, this means players have the responsiblity to keep things within the context of RP, not metagaming, adhering to FRC's rules, and the spirit of having fun. To me this also means the DMs should be unbiased towards good or evil or individual PCs.
Does the evil camp have a disadvantage in terms of being outnumbered by good PCs? Yes, they do, and it should be expected. Cormyr is a good aligned kingdom. Evil player characters need to be smart and careful. Players of evil characters should know they're signing up for a challenge because of the context of the campaing setting.
Is there evil in Cormyr? Yes. Many of the noble houses harbor evil. Then there are the Fire Knives, the Zhentarim, etc...but they work from the shadows hatching plots, not often out in the open. What happens when evil/teason against the Crown is exposed? Ask the Bleths and the Cormaerils. They were banished and some were executed. In the context of Cormyr, evil is subtle, plotting, and usually careful when it acts. There are consequences for getting caught.
It is out of character for blatent evil to not be challenged in Cormyr. What is blatant evil in Cormyr? Treason against the Crown (this would include assisting the rebellion of a Cormyrian city), the use of undead is blatant evil (sorry necros it is not something tolerated in the context of Cormyr), the faiths of Bane, Cyric, Shar, etc. It is out of character (and silly) for a known priest of any of these faiths to be allowed to walk freely in Suzail or at large in Cormyr. The reverse should be true in Redmist, even if there are flower gardens planted on the surface.
The Western Reach Accord was a concession and in a sense an evil victory. If you weigh the gains and losses incurred by good and evil, evil came out ahead. In the context of the campaign setting, I think the establishment of the WRA is out of character for the Steel Regent and Cormyr and not the best RP. It is in place however and it is the law on FRC, so lawful characters should be pressed to abide. Violating it is a chaotic, but not necessarily an evil, act.
A good point was raised - a good aligned character who does nothing in the presence of a well known evil character/threat is behaving more in a neutral fashion, and thus not roleplaying his or her character's alignment. Some roleplay should happen based on the friction. It may or may not be a confrontation. The confrontation may or may not lead to PVP.
When PVP gets out of control it cheapens the roleplay.
Opposing factions do not automatically have license to kill on sight or instant pvp, but it may occasionally occur in the right roleplay circumstance. Hopefully any roleplay presented in a pvp confrontation is not just "You are evil. Die!" Think about how lame it would sound if a priest of Cyric attacked a paladin and said, "You are good. Die!" Evils out there -- thank you for not doing that!
Instead of making 'good' or 'evil' the reason for confrontation, think about specific reasons why a particular character is 'good' or 'evil' (i.e. opposed) to yours. Use these reasons in the roleplay of a confrontation. If you can leave out the words 'good' or 'evil' the roleplay is much more realisitc.
It is not necessarily 'evil' for good to take the initiative and strike first. It has to be considered in the context of what the characters know, believe, and their motivation.
I hope the above helps to keep the pendulum of the issues closer to the middle.
I think the best recipe is to have fun, try to be true/consistent with your character, and try play him or her accordingly in the roleplay context of the campaign.
Try not to grief another player and if you feel that you have been the target of grief please speak up. If the other party won't listen, the issue needs to be brought discretely to a DM.
Thanks for reading and happy gaming everyone.
Hawk
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Dec 22, 2007 14:47:32 GMT -5
I don't mean to be a pain about this and pardon me for using you as an example but this is what Grozer is talking about. Two completely different value systems for the exact same action. Why is it "evil" to break the laws of one land and not "evil" to break the laws of another land? Both are chaotic acts which have nothing to do with being good or evil. The only difference between the two statements is which side the writer is on. Personally I would have said the action was chaotic. Lots of people seem to have a problem separating "evil" acts from "unlawful" acts. Sometimes an act fits both categories but at other times they only fit in one or the other. Sounds to me like those that fought on the SD side did want that. While it wasn't a victory for some "evil" it was a victory for others. It was a definite victory for all "good" though. Yes Redmist was a victory for "evil". And Hawkrune isn't the first or only person to express feelings that "I think the establishment of the WRA is out of character for the Steel Regent and Cormyr and not the best RP." While I agree this MAY be true, the sheer amount of time I hear it makes me wonder how anyone expects "evil" to get any victories. OOC I think it has been more of a loss for Grozer than a victory for Ranan but I could be wrong. I agree. Sometimes I think people assume there is a bias because they didn't get the answer they wanted or because they only want to look at half of the picture. Not only does the context of the campaign put restrictions on them but our server rules do also. What chance does evil have to remove a good guy? None. If you were playing DnD in the forgotten realms setting in Cormyr and you were evil you would be able to remove your obstacles. there would be risk but if you succeeded you would see the results. The character you got eliminated would be gone. This is a persistent word NWN module. One built for people to have fun. The rules are different here. Once again the ACTION the player takes determines if he or she is acting neutral or good or evil. No action or PvP aren't the only answers. Killing a person for insulting you doesn't make you more of a good player. If someone is stealing from another and you kill him does that make you more of a good character and less of a neutral character? Or if you are good would it be better to aid the person that was robbed? The catching the criminal and turning him over to the guards or ignoring it would be a lawful / chaotic issue. Agreed wholeheartedly! There is no reason to PvP just because your character doesn't like another one. You can even be in each others face yelling and walk away without PvP. I think more "good" characters are really neutral characters that think highly of themselves. Wise words there Hawk. Thank you. Once again pardon me for using your post to show where people fall into the trap even though they mean well and want what is right. I don't think anyone here wants to make life miserable for other people. I just think they don't realize what they are asking for.
|
|
|
Post by DM Hawk on Dec 22, 2007 16:00:59 GMT -5
Hi DM Richard, I don't think the two examples you're referecing are the same. The rebellion of Redmist (and previously Arabel) was not just a matter of being lawful vs chaotic. It included treason, manipulation, deceit, murder, alliance with evil powers firmly opposed to the good sovereignty of Cormyr.. Treason is bigger than breaking a law. The WRA is a new law that goes against the Cormyrian mindset, the historic spirit of Cormyr, and the precedents set by the Obarskyr rule. Most Cormyrians would be unsettled by that law and question where the kingdom was headed. I don't think treason/establishing an evil foreign power on Cormyr's doorstep and violating the WRA are comparable. The SD quest shouldn't count as a victory for good and a loss for evil. I'm pretty sure those who fought on the SD side were coerced to do so in character / or were deceived. The SD quest wasn't about good vs. evil. It was about the survival of everyone. No one was safe in the end, not even the ones fighting alongside the SD. The Redmist plot and the WRA are two separate events, though they happened in short order. One established an evil powerbase independent of Cormyr rule. The other established a neutral territory and allowed freedom from religious persecution in Cormyr and Redmist. The problem detail that tips the scales on the WRA is the freedom from religious persecution. For certain faiths in Cormyr that is out of character. On the OOC point if a loss for one evil character occurs that still doesn't make it a victory for 'good' does it? Redmist is still an independent city in the hands of evil powers. I'm not challenging what Redmist has become or saying that should change, I'm saying it shouldn't be considered a 'win' for 'good' if player characters lose influence there. Is it the chicken or the egg? Does the alignment cause the actions or do the actions cause the alignment? I think the answer is both. Neutral is indifferent to good and evil and will protect their own interests. Good and evil are opposed and their alignments will dictate actions that cause friction. Can they go too far and suffer alignment shift? Yes. Are some extreme actions justified for the cause of good? Yes. Should they have a solid roleplay basis when/if they happen? Yes. Yes, there are a lot more choices than 'do nothing' or 'pvp' and I don't think I implied otherwise. It's probably true that there are good characters that RP in a neutral fashion. If they RP'd their good side more, I think we'd see more friction.
|
|