|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Dec 22, 2007 17:43:54 GMT -5
1. How do you think Cormyr or any other nation becomes established if not by treason within the government or establishing a foreign power? Although actually what you are talking about is expansionism not establishment.
2. The original statement you made referenced treason and assisting treason which you said is "evil". Changing the statement to include all actions taken during the rebellion does not change the fact that treason is unlawful. What you are debating now is if rebellion is "evil".
I'm not going to step into that one any more than I'll get into is war good or are guns evil. That is to hot a topic even for me. ;D
I'm not sure what you are explaining here.
Reread what I wrote. I said it was a win for "evil". All I was saying with the OOC comment is that because of the "win" by "evil" the PLAYER Grozer has probably not had as much fun in FRC as he could have had.
I probably shouldn't have even brought it up.
Does this make the extreme actions "good" just because they are for the cause of "good"? Sometimes situations forces characters to choose between the lesser of two evils. This does not make the lesser evil a "good" action.
Actions effect alignment. If it was the other way around everyone would always do what their alignment dictated. Alignment is chosen when you make up the character based on what you think you want to be. Then you get in game and really react and make choices. Do people try to play their alignment? Some do and others make excuses. But that is really DnD's fault and another discussion for a totally different thread.
Don't read everything in response to your post as pertaining to you. Others have asked what can they do? They have stated they felt frustrated because "good" has to be "good".
There might would be more interactive friction (which would lead to more frustration because some people think there has to be a clear winner rather than just interaction) and role-playing but hopefully there would be less PvP. Or we have very different thoughts of what "good" is.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowCatJen on Dec 23, 2007 2:11:37 GMT -5
As I had tried to explain to several people in the past, the Western Reaches Accord was brought about due to the OOC circumstance of the rampant PvP that was happening.
It had nothing to do with "evil" winning. It had nothing to do with any favoritism toward evil (which is pretty much what some people are implying). It had mostly to do with the DMs losing control and not having fun because of the PvP situation. It also had to do with some players not being able to travel outside of the Redmist area without being immediately hunted.
Since players such as Grozer had their characters tossed into a situation by a DM and then that DM left the crew, it was up to the rest of us to patch things over the best we could. The Western Reaches Accord was the best we could come up with.
Had we turned those lands back over to the Crown or left the loophole of having them arrested due to their religion, then none of the "evil" PCs would have had a place to go to. They couldn't gather, they couldn't be safe, and ultimately they would stop having fun.
People seriously need to step back, stop making the automatic assumption that the evil PCs have favoritism on the server, and stop seeing FRC as a simple PnP game or "campaign" game. The multiplayer environment of a persistent world is a different game all together. You can't keep hammering the "it's not canon" rule to FRC or any server for that matter. You also can't keep placing your own nearly impossible standards to a community and expect them to meet it just because you don't like the way things are done.
FRC needs to be a constantly flowing and changing environment in order to compensate for the fact that you don't have just five consistent characters playing. You have twenty to thirty at any given time and it's never the same twenty to thirty every day. Different styles of play and different DMs to cater to those styles are also a factor that needs to be considered.
Again, the sourcebooks are a guideline. If the community needs to go off canon in order for things to be both fun and fair then that's what needs to happen. The server and the members of it's community need to be flexible, not rigid.
|
|
arcadiadragon
New Member
the world does not revolve around me, I revolve around the world
Posts: 47
|
Post by arcadiadragon on Dec 23, 2007 3:25:42 GMT -5
Favoritism is a ugly word...then again I don't think we are seeing favoritism like somebody getting a uber weapon or item because they are well liked or that they suck up like a Dyson vacuum cleaner..what we are seeing is basically a reward for consistent and flexible RP...which really makes a DM's life hell of a lot easier without fear of being censured by his/her crew-mates for being rewarding.
Why are we talking about evil being favored..I think it can boiled down to a conversation I had with two character/players one day lets call them Evil and Good
I.E. Good convo in tells
Me: heya Good..whats up...
Good: man life sucks...had a bad day of RP....barely got any xp for killing the avatar of bane....
Me: so you not happy bout winning
Good: well yeah I am happy but I wanted to get closer to level and the loot hall sucked.....you know how stingy DM Butterflies is....
Me: well DM Butterflies has stated in the past that its about RP not XP
Good: yeah yer right arc thanks fer listening..hey wanna come and tackle the Green Dragon in the woods...I am about due to hit that area again, you mentioned that you've never fought her..
Me: well -I- wouldn't mind seeing if Chrys would stand up to her but that would be OOC for chrys...perhaps if she ever attacks Isinhold again and gives Chrys a reason fer seeking her out
Good: oh....I see....well try to run into you later....
Now for the Evil
Evil: heya Arc long time no see....hope your day is going well
Me: you seem chipper....good day fer you?
Evil: heck yeah....DM Butterflies just ran me and a few others through one hell of a encounter....you won't guess who I was serving tonight...
Me:...er do I want to know..I mean is it cool for me to know I am curious but I know how you feel bout meta...
Evil: nah its done...
Me: so you won over the forces of good...
Evil: nope had my ass handed to me ...but how often can you say you actually served the avatar of a god...course I was being used buy it..but you know that I very rarely get any DM interaction...time zone issues and that my character is difficult to deal with
Me: so yer happy ye lost?....yer a weird one
Evil: well...it really helped my character out alot..you know that hes going to be less trusting from now even of "like" mined sorts...course...it means that he's going to be more alone now that usual...but..its what the RP dictates..sides I think we all had fun
Me: well thats good...as long as you had fun...you do know that I hope that you never win ;P
Evil: you're an ass...but at least you don't ignore me
Me: so...your in Redmist alot now..Chrys cant go there since the caravan incident whats it like
Evil: well Ranan/Grozer I think is getting alot of flak for getting out of that Caravan loss..but its actually nice to go three whole days on dislike from half the server yet not actually getting attacked by them because they're too nervous bout entering Redmist...miss Isinhold though...well have to go....cya
This is a lot of paraphrasing of course and its several people lumped as a whole....but one thing that I have noticed in playing is that it seems that (and I stress the words -seems-) that the people playing evil seem to be more flexible to what the DM's want whilst the goods seem to be wanting more.
|
|
|
Post by DM Hawk on Dec 23, 2007 10:07:07 GMT -5
As I had tried to explain to several people in the past, the Western Reaches Accord was brought about due to the OOC circumstance of the rampant PvP that was happening. It had nothing to do with "evil" winning. It had nothing to do with any favoritism toward evil (which is pretty much what some people are implying). It had mostly to do with the DMs losing control and not having fun because of the PvP situation. It also had to do with some players not being able to travel outside of the Redmist area without being immediately hunted. Since players such as Grozer had their characters tossed into a situation by a DM and then that DM left the crew, it was up to the rest of us to patch things over the best we could. The Western Reaches Accord was the best we could come up with. Had we turned those lands back over to the Crown or left the loophole of having them arrested due to their religion, then none of the "evil" PCs would have had a place to go to. They couldn't gather, they couldn't be safe, and ultimately they would stop having fun. People seriously need to step back, stop making the automatic assumption that the evil PCs have favoritism on the server, and stop seeing FRC as a simple PnP game or "campaign" game. The multiplayer environment of a persistent world is a different game all together. You can't keep hammering the "it's not canon" rule to FRC or any server for that matter. You also can't keep placing your own nearly impossible standards to a community and expect them to meet it just because you don't like the way things are done. FRC needs to be a constantly flowing and changing environment in order to compensate for the fact that you don't have just five consistent characters playing. You have twenty to thirty at any given time and it's never the same twenty to thirty every day. Different styles of play and different DMs to cater to those styles are also a factor that needs to be considered. Again, the sourcebooks are a guideline. If the community needs to go off canon in order for things to be both fun and fair then that's what needs to happen. The server and the members of it's community need to be flexible, not rigid. Thanks for the feedback SCJ. I agree with you that a DM needs to be flexible. But there is a difference between being flexible and doing something that's completely out of context for the campaign setting. The only issue I personally have with the WRA is the open religious protection provision extending into Cormyr. Neutral ground having a permissivness for all faiths...I can see that in rp context as Isinhold's choice to keep from being the target of one side or the other, given the dangerous situation the town found itself in. The WRA extending that right to the faiths mentioned into Cormyr itself does go over the top. It is a card the Steel Regent wouldn't play. As I said below it is in place in FRC and the player base has roleplayed it's existence (it has sparked a lot of RP). Characters of good alignment are presented with a moral issue when it comes to the WRA. While it is unfortunately lawful to permit a priest of Bane, Cyric, or Shar to walk around Cormyr openly, it is not good to do so. Especially when such characters have well established reputations (high priest, captain of the guard, abducter and torturer, etc). To refer to something I said earlier, such characters need to be smart and careful in the context of Cormyr, not blatant. A certain Banite lieutenant did it that way successfully for a long time, for example. If characters with well established reputations for being followers of dark faiths that have long opposed Cormyr and vice versa can openly walk about Cormyr under the WRA, please let there be no suggestion that good aligned characters are roleplaying poorly by violating the WRA. In some cases, I think it may actually be poor roleplay for them if they abide by the WRA. I personally don't think what I'm talking about is a 'nearly impossible standard'. Thanks again for the feedback. Hawk
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Dec 23, 2007 10:57:29 GMT -5
Thanks for the feedback SCJ. I agree with you that a DM needs to be flexible. But there is a difference between being flexible and doing something that's completely out of context for the campaign setting. The only issue I personally have with the WRA is the open religious protection provision extending into Cormyr. Neutral ground having a permissivness for all faiths...I can see that in rp context as Isinhold's choice to keep from being the target of one side or the other, given the dangerous situation the town found itself in. The WRA extending that right to the faiths mentioned into Cormyr itself does go over the top. It is a card the Steel Regent wouldn't play. You are right. Instead of making this mod in Cormyr we should have built half of the areas outside of Cormyr so that both alignments would have areas that were theirs to roam freely in. FRC 2 needs to wait until we have as many quests and lands for evil as it has for good. Why do you believe this? Just allowing them to walk about makes you evil if you allow it? Their very existence is now a sign that you are not good? I'll go a step further and have them walking about preaching their religion. Are you evil if you don't shut them up? If you follow them preaching your faith opposing their preaching with your own sermons are you not doing good? Must you prevent them from preaching to do good yourself? Look to what you can do to be good not what you have to keep them from doing. Good needs to be able to act good and evil needs to be able to act evil also. There is to much of an all or nothing thought process going on. I just don't believe that every priest of Bane, Cyric or Shar that you see (no matter what they are doing) has to be locked up or killed (those are the only ways to prevent someone from walking about) in order for you to be good. I believe good has more options than that.
|
|
|
Post by DM Hawk on Dec 23, 2007 11:26:27 GMT -5
In response to DM Richard You're right, it is expansionism of Thay not the establishment of a new state altogether. (at least one word in 'Free City State of Redmist' is window dressing ). Is rebellion evil? I think it depends on the context. If a group of demi-humans and sympathetic humans rebelled against Hillsfar's iron grip government and staged a successful coups that brought an end to the arena bloodsport it would be a good action. The action is good because of the reason why it is being done and intended outcome: End of tyrrany, end of murder of demi-humans, etc. What I'm debating is rebellion as we've experienced it in game on FRC. I could have been more clear. In the real world, things are much more complex. Luckily in the context of a PW gaming world it's a lot more simple. If a group stages a rebellion in a city belonging to a LG Kingdom, through deceit and abuse riles the commoners into a mob, opens slave trade, and establishes a powerbase to hatch plots to further weaken the LG Kingdom and claim her citizens, would the rebellion be merely unlawful? Or would it be evil as well? It was a rebellion for evil purposes with an evil outcome. Therefore good aligned characters would naturally be opposed and want to prevent this expansionism from continuing. I've posted additional thoughts on the WRA in response to SCJ above. About the Redmist Event and the WRA being two different things - what I was saying was that the establishment of the WRA was independent of the evil victory in Redmist. If the WRA never happened (or had been limited to establishing neutral ground), evil would still have the Redmist victory. I want to be clear - I'm not against evil having victories. Evil characters should have events just as good or neutral characters do. If the event doesn't mean the apocolypse, evil characters should have every bit as much chance of winning as good characters, based on their initiative and action, as should good characters. Evil characters should be able to have events against good npcs too, where good PCs aren't represented, just like the goodies do. Extreme actions and the good alignment... In the D&D context: Average Joe Good Guy hopes for the best, hopes to redeem evil (probably the greatest victory for the good alignment), practices mercy, defends others, heals, etc. This doens't mean that good is naive or can't be vigilent. Good also crusades and rights wrongs. While there are saintly good notions like pacifism, in the D&D context good opposes evil. Good alignment doens't mean being passive. They don't merely sit around towns with Colgate smiles waiting for evil to make the first move. Good can be vigilant too. Lathanderite clerics seek out and destroy undead, for example. Tormtar actively pursue action against Bane and Cyric. A good aligned ranger stalking a goblin hunting party may well strike them as they bed town for the day before they raid the village at nightfall. In the case of extreme actions, they can happen in the context of good. They are the last resort, warranted only under extreme circumstances. Such actions will take a toll on a good character and should leave a long lasting imprint on that character's roleplay. He or she might lose the Colgate smile. This concept does exist in the D&D universe. Think about the Celestial Paragon Raziel and the PRC Slayer of Domiel. How does one know if such an extreme action is still good? It depends on the context - what did the character know or believe? What was the character's motive (personal or selfless?)? Is the outcome for the greater good? These things are subjective. As was stated earlier - one who hunts monsters can become one himself/herself. This is the risk a good aligned character takes when extreme actions become an easy choice. Hawk
|
|
|
Post by DM Hawk on Dec 23, 2007 11:36:14 GMT -5
Thanks for the feedback SCJ. I agree with you that a DM needs to be flexible. But there is a difference between being flexible and doing something that's completely out of context for the campaign setting. The only issue I personally have with the WRA is the open religious protection provision extending into Cormyr. Neutral ground having a permissivness for all faiths...I can see that in rp context as Isinhold's choice to keep from being the target of one side or the other, given the dangerous situation the town found itself in. The WRA extending that right to the faiths mentioned into Cormyr itself does go over the top. It is a card the Steel Regent wouldn't play. You are right. Instead of making this mod in Cormyr we should have built half of the areas outside of Cormyr so that both alignments would have areas that were theirs to roam freely in. FRC 2 needs to wait until we have as many quests and lands for evil as it has for good. Why do you believe this? Just allowing them to walk about makes you evil if you allow it? Their very existence is now a sign that you are not good? I'll go a step further and have them walking about preaching their religion. Are you evil if you don't shut them up? If you follow them preaching your faith opposing their preaching with your own sermons are you not doing good? Must you prevent them from preaching to do good yourself? Look to what you can do to be good not what you have to keep them from doing. Good needs to be able to act good and evil needs to be able to act evil also. There is to much of an all or nothing thought process going on. I just don't believe that every priest of Bane, Cyric or Shar that you see (no matter what they are doing) has to be locked up or killed (those are the only ways to prevent someone from walking about) in order for you to be good. I believe good has more options than that. I think we should keep in mind that these faiths are very extreme in themselves and are well known Faerun-wide for what they have done. They have also been well known enemies of Cormyr. A Banite, Cyricist, or Sharran would not be allowed to preach openly in Cormyr under the current leadership.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowCatJen on Dec 23, 2007 11:37:36 GMT -5
I agree with you that a DM needs to be flexible. But there is a difference between being flexible and doing something that's completely out of context for the campaign setting. Page 43 of the Forgotten Realms: Faiths and Pantheon source book: " MalarAlignment: Chaotic Evil" "Malar is a primordial, savage diety who revels in the hunt and the blood of the kill." "In civilized settings, the church of Malar is widely loathed, for it's members -- often evil lycanthropes -- are some of the most dangerous threats to the safety of the local populace." "Outsiders sometimes differentiate between 'Hunts,' as Malarite bands are known, that operate openly and those that stalk the night. Some realms, such as Cormyr, legally recognize the former as having dominion over hunting while considering the latter to be little more then dangerous predators to be driven off or slain." From pages 113 of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting source book under the city information for Suzail: "Tymora's is the most prominent temple, though shrines to Lliira, Oghma, Malar, Milil, Tempus, and Waukeen are also found here." If you want to talk context there are a half a dozen examples that can be pointed to in the sourcebooks. By your reasoning Cormyr should be kicking the Malarites out and declaring them evil as well. But due to political machinations by the nobles and the dead king himself, the Malarite temple and it's faith are allowed and tolerated. Maybe not liked, but tolerated. The exact same thing can be said for the Western Reaches Accord. It's a political machination that allows those of evil faiths to be able to wander Cormyrian lands. By that same vein, those of good faiths are allowed to enter the Western Reaches, they've always been allowed to enter, but this evens it across the board. Again, this allowance was made so that those of those evil faiths were not just stuck twiddling their thumbs in Redmist with nothing to do and no where to go. Being bored means not having fun. For many, being able to travel and explore or even just dungeon delve with the characters they want to play is fun. Having that cut away from them because of overriding and server shaking events isn't fair to them, especially when they never asked for such events. Arguing semantics of the situation solves nothing. Just turns things into a pissing contest. If anyone has a solution to the "problem" then, please, by all means, give it to the crew. I'm sure they'd like to hear it. But keep in mind it has to be a solution that allows things to be both fun and fair to all players of all alignments. It needs to not come at the expense at a handful of players or even a group of player's fun. It has to be something the members of the DM crew are able to run their quests in.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Dec 23, 2007 11:51:40 GMT -5
Thanks for the feedback SCJ. I agree with you that a DM needs to be flexible. But there is a difference between being flexible and doing something that's completely out of context for the campaign setting. The only issue I personally have with the WRA is the open religious protection provision extending into Cormyr. Neutral ground having a permissivness for all faiths...I can see that in rp context as Isinhold's choice to keep from being the target of one side or the other, given the dangerous situation the town found itself in. The WRA extending that right to the faiths mentioned into Cormyr itself does go over the top. It is a card the Steel Regent wouldn't play. You are right. Instead of making this mod in Cormyr we should have built half of the areas outside of Cormyr so that both alignments would have areas that were theirs to roam freely in. FRC 2 needs to wait until we have as many quests and lands for evil as it has for good. Why do you believe this? Just allowing them to walk about makes you evil if you allow it? Their very existence is now a sign that you are not good? I'll go a step further and have them walking about preaching their religion. Are you evil if you don't shut them up? If you follow them preaching your faith opposing their preaching with your own sermons are you not doing good? Must you prevent them from preaching to do good yourself? Look to what you can do to be good not what you have to keep them from doing. Good needs to be able to act good and evil needs to be able to act evil also. There is to much of an all or nothing thought process going on. I just don't believe that every priest of Bane, Cyric or Shar that you see (no matter what they are doing) has to be locked up or killed (those are the only ways to prevent someone from walking about) in order for you to be good. I believe good has more options than that. I think we should keep in mind that these faiths are very extreme in themselves and are well known Faerun-wide for what they have done. They have also been well known enemies of Cormyr. A Banite, Cyricist, or Sharran would not be allowed to preach openly in Cormyr under the current leadership. OK now we are back to the Steel Regent would not have allowed it. I hope I've given those reading this ideas and that they realize that good isn't pigeonholed into locking up evil or slaying it on sight or doing nothing. There are other options that can be fun to role-play. Happy Holidays all.
|
|
|
Post by DM Hawk on Dec 23, 2007 12:03:27 GMT -5
I agree with you that a DM needs to be flexible. But there is a difference between being flexible and doing something that's completely out of context for the campaign setting. Page 43 of the Forgotten Realms: Faiths and Pantheon source book: " MalarAlignment: Chaotic Evil" "Malar is a primordial, savage diety who revels in the hunt and the blood of the kill." "In civilized settings, the church of Malar is widely loathed, for it's members -- often evil lycanthropes -- are some of the most dangerous threats to the safety of the local populace." "Outsiders sometimes differentiate between 'Hunts,' as Malarite bands are known, that operate openly and those that stalk the night. Some realms, such as Cormyr, legally recognize the former as having dominion over hunting while considering the latter to be little more then dangerous predators to be driven off or slain." From pages 113 of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting source book under the city information for Suzail: "Tymora's is the most prominent temple, though shrines to Lliira, Oghma, Malar, Milil, Tempus, and Waukeen are also found here." If you want to talk context there are a half a dozen examples that can be pointed to in the sourcebooks. By your reasoning Cormyr should be kicking the Malarites out and declaring them evil as well. But due to political machinations by the nobles and the dead king himself, the Malarite temple and it's faith are allowed and tolerated. Maybe not liked, but tolerated. The exact same thing can be said for the Western Reaches Accord. It's a political machination that allows those of evil faiths to be able to wander Cormyrian lands. By that same vein, those of good faiths are allowed to enter the Western Reaches, they've always been allowed to enter, but this evens it across the board. Again, this allowance was made so that those of those evil faiths were not just stuck twiddling their thumbs in Redmist with nothing to do and no where to go. Being bored means not having fun. For many, being able to travel and explore or even just dungeon delve with the characters they want to play is fun. Having that cut away from them because of overriding and server shaking events isn't fair to them, especially when they never asked for such events. Arguing semantics of the situation solves nothing. Just turns things into a pissing contest. If anyone has a solution to the "problem" then, please, by all means, give it to the crew. I'm sure they'd like to hear it. But keep in mind it has to be a solution that allows things to be both fun and fair to all players of all alignments. It needs to not come at the expense at a handful of players or even a group of player's fun. It has to be something the members of the DM crew are able to run their quests in. That is a good point, SCJ. To answer a question with a question, why is the Malarite faith tolerated while other evil faiths aren't in the Cormyr context? Is it because the Malarite faith isn't as political as the others? Do they keep a lower profile? They are a much smaller faith. The faiths of Bane, Cyric, etc. weren't outlawed from the day Cormyr was formed, were they? (Some of them didn't exist 1200 years ago or so). Some time during the span of Cormyr's history, those faiths crossed a line that put them on the list. Bane and Cyric are both Greater Powers while Malar is a Lesser Power (I think). Malar's faith is smaller and less known, not having the reputation and as visible a history as the others. Folk at large perceive Bane and Cyric as a greater evil/threat by far and these faiths have crossed a line in Cormyr. The WRA may have been the best fit for FRC to meet the needs of the players in an OOC sense. My points have been that it wasn't a good roleplay fit in context of the campaign setting and that good aligned PC's shouldn't be viewed as rolepaying their alignment poorly by violating the WRA. Hawk PS - I know of good aligned characters that are intolerant of the faith of Malar in Cormyr.
|
|
arcadiadragon
New Member
the world does not revolve around me, I revolve around the world
Posts: 47
|
Post by arcadiadragon on Dec 23, 2007 13:42:03 GMT -5
I think the campaign setting or for that matter sticking solely to canon is a next to impossible goal for a server of this size and age it would be nice but i think that ship has long since sailed...it sailed the first time a player and a DM may have argued...the moment Two separate DMs ran quests with what they wanted to see happen in -this- version of the Cormyran situation that was not a "official" sourcebook or canon view in this world.
the most important thing to recall here is that we are people ...imperfect flawed and sometimes contrarian...and this applies for all..DM's, the server host, and the players..we are all not going to see Eye to eye on everything...what we have to remember is that this thread was started out of concern from a player seeing and worrying if a another player was having fun or being punished by "wanting" to play a alignment that would make it easier for him to -have fun- not have devolve into what we would like to see
for my two cents..I would like to see no pvp, no evil pc's allowed and a insta ban on any player that gives a DM lip
but..then again that would be neither fun or fair to the -people- that play this game..the DMs that try to the best of their ability to make it fun
one last thought if we were all perfect..we'd be boring
|
|
|
Post by ShadowCatJen on Dec 23, 2007 14:14:54 GMT -5
That is a good point, SCJ. To answer a question with a question, why is the Malarite faith tolerated while other evil faiths aren't in the Cormyr context? Is it because the Malarite faith isn't as political as the others? Do they keep a lower profile? They are a much smaller faith. The faiths of Bane, Cyric, etc. weren't outlawed from the day Cormyr was formed, were they? (Some of them didn't exist 1200 years ago or so). Some time during the span of Cormyr's history, those faiths crossed a line that put them on the list. Bane and Cyric are both Greater Powers while Malar is a Lesser Power (I think). Malar's faith is smaller and less known, not having the reputation and as visible a history as the others. Folk at large perceive Bane and Cyric as a greater evil/threat by far and these faiths have crossed a line in Cormyr. The WRA may have been the best fit for FRC to meet the needs of the players in an OOC sense. My points have been that it wasn't a good roleplay fit in context of the campaign setting and that good aligned PC's shouldn't be viewed as rolepaying their alignment poorly by violating the WRA. Hawk PS - I know of good aligned characters that are intolerant of the faith of Malar in Cormyr. No one has accused the good aligned for RPing their characters poorly for violating the Accord or even disagreeing ICly with the Accord. What they were being accused of is coming up with the very thin excuse of "he/she is evil so I have a right to kill him/her". The arguments you've brought up, again, are just semantics. You've brought up that in context the Steel Regent wouldn't put up with what's gone on. Well guess what? The crew had decided that she will put up with it. For the community as a whole this was the best path that could be chosen. This wasn't a fly by night decision. It wasn't something that was decided lightly, either. The crew talked for weeks on the best way to not only curtail the rampant PvP, but also the problem that those playing evil PCs were heavily constricted in what they could do. Was the sourcebook material taken into consideration? Yes. Please don't make like the crew is just tossing the book out. I don't know how many different ways I can say this, but the sourcebooks are a guideline. They are also written with the idea that it would be a tighter controlled PnP situation where you only have one DM and the minimal amount of players who pretty much get along. This is not the case for FRC or any other multiplayer environment like it. The flexibility I mentioned wasn't just pertaining to one DM, but the community as a whole. The mentality that we should run things here exactly like a Pen and Paper game is out of the question, it's just not possible. People need to get their heads out of the proverbial PnP box and think outside of it, otherwise you'll never enjoy the game. As it's been said many a times on these forums to people who keep beating a dead horse: If you don't like it, then find another place to play.
|
|
|
Post by kasin on Dec 23, 2007 14:43:22 GMT -5
From a source perspective, doesn't the WRA actually bring things more in line with source material? From what I recall, pretty much everything west of the Stormhorns was never part of Cormyr proper.
I've always looked at Redmist from the same perspective as Tilverton. Tilverton, much to the dismay of the Dales council was claimed as a protecterate by the crown for the interest of Cormyr. It isn't much of a leap to see Isinhold, Redmist, and Skull Crag in the same light.
Considering the recent setbacks to the crown, it's also easy for me to see the regent falling back to the actual borders to consolidate what few resources she has. Personally I think what the team did with the WRA fits well into the scheme of things in this regard.
JMO.
|
|
|
Post by DM Hawk on Dec 23, 2007 16:43:22 GMT -5
That is a good point, SCJ. To answer a question with a question, why is the Malarite faith tolerated while other evil faiths aren't in the Cormyr context? Is it because the Malarite faith isn't as political as the others? Do they keep a lower profile? They are a much smaller faith. The faiths of Bane, Cyric, etc. weren't outlawed from the day Cormyr was formed, were they? (Some of them didn't exist 1200 years ago or so). Some time during the span of Cormyr's history, those faiths crossed a line that put them on the list. Bane and Cyric are both Greater Powers while Malar is a Lesser Power (I think). Malar's faith is smaller and less known, not having the reputation and as visible a history as the others. Folk at large perceive Bane and Cyric as a greater evil/threat by far and these faiths have crossed a line in Cormyr. The WRA may have been the best fit for FRC to meet the needs of the players in an OOC sense. My points have been that it wasn't a good roleplay fit in context of the campaign setting and that good aligned PC's shouldn't be viewed as rolepaying their alignment poorly by violating the WRA. Hawk PS - I know of good aligned characters that are intolerant of the faith of Malar in Cormyr. No one has accused the good aligned for RPing their characters poorly for violating the Accord or even disagreeing ICly with the Accord. What they were being accused of is coming up with the very thin excuse of "he/she is evil so I have a right to kill him/her". The arguments you've brought up, again, are just semantics. You've brought up that in context the Steel Regent wouldn't put up with what's gone on. Well guess what? The crew had decided that she will put up with it. For the community as a whole this was the best path that could be chosen. This wasn't a fly by night decision. It wasn't something that was decided lightly, either. The crew talked for weeks on the best way to not only curtail the rampant PvP, but also the problem that those playing evil PCs were heavily constricted in what they could do. Was the sourcebook material taken into consideration? Yes. Please don't make like the crew is just tossing the book out. I don't know how many different ways I can say this, but the sourcebooks are a guideline. They are also written with the idea that it would be a tighter controlled PnP situation where you only have one DM and the minimal amount of players who pretty much get along. This is not the case for FRC or any other multiplayer environment like it. The flexibility I mentioned wasn't just pertaining to one DM, but the community as a whole. The mentality that we should run things here exactly like a Pen and Paper game is out of the question, it's just not possible. People need to get their heads out of the proverbial PnP box and think outside of it, otherwise you'll never enjoy the game. As it's been said many a times on these forums to people who keep beating a dead horse: If you don't like it, then find another place to play. Thanks for the discussion, SCJ. We've both made our points. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Hawk
|
|
|
Post by Grozer on Dec 23, 2007 17:52:27 GMT -5
As I said below it is in place in FRC and the player base has roleplayed it's existence (it has sparked a lot of RP). Characters of good alignment are presented with a moral issue when it comes to the WRA. While it is unfortunately lawful to permit a priest of Bane, Cyric, or Shar to walk around Cormyr openly, it is not good to do so. Especially when such characters have well established reputations (high priest, captain of the guard, abducter and torturer, etc). Reputation or proof? For a moment if you accept Redmist as independent there is no law Ranan broke by becoming the Captain of the Guard. The Crown has no proof of abductions or torture except for one persons word against his own. While I realize this isnt modern day justice system I also dont see a LG ruler crushing someone based on someone's word. So in the end all you have is his faith and his reputation, the latter of which since I heard what people say about him is about 60% true. If thats the basis to hunt Ranan so be it, I'll say more on that in a moment. Redmist and the WRA is a plausible outcome, especially if you pay close attention to source material. That being said source gives us the setting, background, a base in which to start the world but it doesnt necessarily dictate where it goes in my opinion. We as players shape the world, just like we would in a DM'd PnP game. We START with source then the DMs use their own interpretation going forward, telling their stories and our play influences that. You yourself mention some of the of the nobles revolting. If you read the information as you enter Cormyr and source material there are hints about the current threats to the realm from its own people. If you wander around and speak to a few NPCs, one might discover there are commoners and others, concerned and disappointed with the regents treatment. Just because the Crown of Cormyr is lawful good doesnt mean they are taking care of their people and doing them ALL right... the seeds of dissent are out there if you look. More specifically how much do you really know what happened in Redmist to cause the revolt? You are assuming it was all caused by evil people, I wont reveal more information but lets just say some bad people provided the spark. The Crown itself let it become combustible. Additionally just because a ruler -appears- altruistic doesnt make a rebellion evil. To refer to something I said earlier, such characters need to be smart and careful in the context of Cormyr, not blatant. A certain Banite lieutenant did it that way successfully for a long time, for example. Since I have heard this a couple of times, let me ask an obvious question what do you do when the proverbial cat is out of the bag? I will use Ranan for example. Before you arrived at FRC he was completely unknown for his true intentions, in fact Manshin was his best friend... protected his life many times and didnt catch on. You know how people started to catch on... a paladin detected evil. No DM watching it just happened. Once Manshin started to get a clue (keep in mind he is a bit slow so it took some time) he confronted Ranan, everything done that was possible Ranan attempted. Hiding, concealing, disguise himself, even lying about his true faith to distract. The lieutenant you so clearly refer to, Veshal did the same, until it got out, then there is no point hiding it anymore. So I am not sure I understand your point.... we -did- do exactly what you suggest. So I am not sure if you are assuming we did neither or simply making some other point. Or maybe you are suggesting once we are figured out we should kill off the character and start over?
|
|
|
Post by megascorpion on Dec 23, 2007 19:24:59 GMT -5
Uhm, on the topic of good accepting evil, and evil religions in cormyr. I was under the impression that even good people sacrificed/paid lip service to evil gods from time to time. Malar before a hunt(As I recall it's said in a good few places in source books as an example of Cormyrian nobles sacrificing to Malar before going hunting) Doesnt name them as good, but I don't see why they wouldnt. Umberlee so she won't sink their boat, Bane if they're scared to ward him off Unless of course the specific religion say otherwise, but as far as i know the only religions banning all others are Cyrics Bane's and Lolths, and last time I checked neither of them were good guys And paladin's who kill people simply for being evil, 'will' lose their paladinhood last time I checked. Now, that is on the topic of killing people simply for being evil, as I understand it the person being harrassed hasnt even been proved evil, merely associating with such. And on the topic of allowing Evil religions into cormyr, most evil religions were already legal to worship openly. Bane and Cyric on the other hand were banned, due to past deeds of their worshippers 'not' simply for being evil. I'd assume it has to do with the Zhentarim presance. And don't see why it would be out of character for the Cormyrian goverment to accept them back when there's such pressure on them to do so, with Thay and Redmist and the Zhentarim and Sembia issues and so on Heck even the harpers has made huge deals with Fzoul, chosen of Bane Even though Khelben is neutral Further, on the topic of Chaotic/lawful evil/good, treason would be chaotic, if one had previously followed and taken to heart the laws of cormyr(if you're a say, Zhentarim spy committing treason to cormyr and never been true to cormyr it would not be so) now the act in itself is not evil or good at all, the reason for the act whoever 'is' if say, a soldier committed treason killing an officer who ordered one to kill a bunch of children, that'd be a chaotic good action for example And on that note, from my point of view, most 'good' characters on FRC tend to forget that the same reasoning for killing/arresting evil, must work the other way around aswell. Read that somebody expected evil people to perma die a bit more, well geez, then you must be ready to perma die after walzing into Redmist? Or after having an evil person assassinate you? Even the lawful characters around seems to be of an 'he's evil, I have no idea who he is or what he's done but he's evil so I may now do whatever I want to him, let's torture ridicule and kill him' That, to me, would be a Chaotic evil way of thinking, even without the torture bit Chaotic goods might use torture as i recall by the way, so torture is not evil in itself either, neither is killing, very very very few actions are evil in themselves, the motives tend to be chaotic good or neither though. they can however often be chaotic or lawful in themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Grozer on Dec 23, 2007 19:44:21 GMT -5
And on that note, from my point of view, most 'good' characters on FRC tend to forget that the same reasoning for killing/arresting evil, must work the other way around aswell. Read that somebody expected evil people to perma die a bit more, well geez, then you must be ready to perma die after walzing into Redmist? Or after having an evil person assassinate you? Yeah I forgot raise that as well thanks for bringing it up. It was on my mind too... why does it seem, here in this thread and some comments I have heard in game tend to feel like its acceptable and even -expected- that an evil characters will perm or take permanent/long term punishment for being evil while those that strike or hunt them wont do the same? So where is the risk to a vigilante if he or she knows ooc they can hunt evil all the time but the most they suffer is respawn? Yet just because someone plays the bad guy, she will eventually be killed off? Put yourself in the other persons shoes before you suggest such things. It may be frustrating to 'fight evil' as it is for evil to back up all the trash talking they do when nothing sticks. p.s. Good to know you are still out there Mega, hope all is well. Hopefully one of these days Vesh might make a reappearance.
|
|
Myth
Old School
Retired FRC DM
The Myth
Posts: 686
|
Post by Myth on Dec 23, 2007 20:40:40 GMT -5
What I truly am getting as a point that can be made out of this thread is the following (and it might be a bit more relevant to the start of the topic)...
Whenever I feel my character has enough reasons to go out and engage in some direct confrontation (should it end up in pvp or not) what I try to think of mostly is the following (I must admit it took me some time to actually make myself think this way):
How can I make a nice player driven event out of it? How can I make all this an enjoyable experience for both me and the others that are involved?
This might require a lot of time, careful planning and in some cases even need of DM assistance might arise.
And I suppose that's what many tried to point out. A confrontation shouldn't really be a series of clicks (pvp) and stats effect. While the real outcome of it might be defined by such there should be a background (reasons for the confronation) and planning (what will happen even if you win) so that it's an RP experience for all parties involved.
I hope this makes sense, it's quite late here. Happy holidays everyone.
|
|
|
Post by EDM Neo on Dec 23, 2007 21:04:41 GMT -5
Chaotic goods might use torture as i recall by the way, so torture is not evil in itself either, neither is killing, very very very few actions are evil in themselves, the motives tend to be chaotic good or neither though. they can however often be chaotic or lawful in themselves. Just in regards to that... I think it's mentioned in either the book of exalted deeds or vile darkness, I'm not sure which, nor do I own either... but unless I'm very much mistaken, torture is -always- an evil act, regardless of circumstance. Killing, usually evil, and rarely the first choice, but often acceptable depending on the situation. And, still nothing much else to contribute.
|
|
|
Post by SlothfulCat on Dec 23, 2007 22:44:53 GMT -5
Now, am I disgruntled as a player? Yes. IC does my PC have a right to be disgruntled? yes. Do I understand totally why everything is the way it is? Yes. (I've DMed before, I know the considerations for PWs that need made).
Richard, you asked for a solution, I tossed one up months ago which I still think fits the bill for any PW.
Instead of creating situations where it is Player vs Player (evil pcs raiding the good PC's supply caravan to redmist), or situations that /force/ PCs to ally with enemies to turn back some cataclysmic event (Portal to the abyss come to take us all)... create situations on a smaller scale, for all four sides of the board, that do /not/ effect the other corners but allow each side to do what they need to do.
ex. LG, go turn back the new orc chieftain that has united the warlords in the king's forest.
ex.CG, go eliminate the rising leader of a crime-ring that the law cannot touch.
ex. LE, Bloodstil needs assasains and bully-boys to eliminate some competition in Redmist.
ex. CE, X lich needs the blood of a virgin priestess of Y faith to complete a ritual, go get it.
*shrugs*
That is, if we're just looking at it from a goodpc vs evilpc thing, most of the major things I've noticed sticking in player's craws stem from DM plots where PCs have been put on both sides of the board, then not offered a complete/fitting resolution.
Now, in the specific instance of how good PCs treat evil PCs... well no where under good does it say you must be nice. No one ever said that evil pcs should be mean either. IE: Look at Lucius.
As for Ranan etc, upper and lower levels... hostile toggling so on. I don' tknow what the deal there is. I've toggled people hostile and /attacked/ being outnumbered and outleveled knowingly. ((Then again you'll never tell me that a paladin will look passively at an Imp without smiting it)). I've also backed down knowing the cards were stacked in my favor.
As for blatancy... well, squeaky wheel gets the oil (or smiting). Dress up like Marylin Manson and sit in a church. Same concept. The instant-death sentence over someone looks, yes.. that is overboard. General taunting and dislike ((which the hostile toggle says dislike, not "i am going to kill you")) that is more acceptable I'd say... particularly since my own main PC is liable to latch into someone just over what they're wearing. In general, if you are doing something generally unacceptable or out of the norm, you'll get a reaction you wont like.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Dec 24, 2007 2:32:59 GMT -5
Richard, you asked for a solution, I tossed one up months ago which I still think fits the bill for any PW. Instead of creating situations where it is Player vs Player (evil pcs raiding the good PC's supply caravan to redmist), or situations that /force/ PCs to ally with enemies to turn back some cataclysmic event (Portal to the abyss come to take us all)... create situations on a smaller scale, for all four sides of the board, that do /not/ effect the other corners but allow each side to do what they need to do. ex. LG, go turn back the new orc chieftain that has united the warlords in the king's forest. ex.CG, go eliminate the rising leader of a crime-ring that the law cannot touch. ex. LE, Bloodstil needs assasains and bully-boys to eliminate some competition in Redmist. ex. CE, X lich needs the blood of a virgin priestess of Y faith to complete a ritual, go get it. *shrugs* Yes you did mention that and I think it is a great idea. I've passed it along as well. Unfortunately it doesn't stop people from creating their own frustrations. I've seen that but I've seen plenty of instances where it didn't involve a plot. Look back though this thread and while some DM events were mentioned other comments on frustration had nothing to do with DM events.
|
|
|
Post by brian333 on Dec 24, 2007 6:57:52 GMT -5
There are folks out there with particular issues, but overall I think the outcome for Redmist is an excellent solution. It does generate a problem for LG characters or those who are religiously opposed to Banites, etc.
All the low/mid-level dungeons are in the Redmist Areas.
I have a character that has been staying away from Redmist for RP reasons since he got to the level where those dungeons become accessible. Instead he's been forced to play around this by soloing areas far too tough for his level.
This could make a good recruiting tool for the Evil playerbase, but it sucks to have to tell party after party, "I can't go there." Say that too many times and they stop asking.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowCatJen on Dec 24, 2007 9:17:57 GMT -5
There are folks out there with particular issues, but overall I think the outcome for Redmist is an excellent solution. It does generate a problem for LG characters or those who are religiously opposed to Banites, etc. All the low/mid-level dungeons are in the Redmist Areas. I have a character that has been staying away from Redmist for RP reasons since he got to the level where those dungeons become accessible. Instead he's been forced to play around this by soloing areas far too tough for his level. This could make a good recruiting tool for the Evil playerbase, but it sucks to have to tell party after party, "I can't go there." Say that too many times and they stop asking. Then I'd ask why that character can't go there. If it's simply because the Banites are apparently in control there.... They've never stopped people from entering Redmist or it's surrounding areas. They also didn't arrest people on sight unless they committed some act that caused them to be arrested. I saw it happen time and time again, even the people that should have been sworn enemies to the Banites would come in through Redmist, the PC Redmist Guard would look at them warily, but if all they would do is exchange a few harsh words they were still allowed to go on their way. Now those were the good RPers of the good aligned. I've also seen PCs come in and just start casting spells. They'd do their PvP damage then sometimes get away scott free because none of the Redmist Guard or an available DM was around. My character has died a couple of times this way just cause she was working at the inn. I never raised a personal stink over it with the crew, but I have looked at those people in disappointment and even contempt for their acts (yes, both IC and OOC). If it's about being arrested for being a "goodie" you've nothing to worry about, especially now. Even those who are PCs in the PDK/Monster Hunters can come through without being acted on, again, as long as they keep the peace. Now if it's for some religious reason where your character's god doesn't allow him to go anywhere near where "Banites" apparently have control or some oath your character made about never stepping foot in Redmist, then that's really on yourself and your interpretation of your character. Which means you're just being consistent with your character and not making any OOC considerations. Nothing wrong with that, but that makes it not really the fault of the Redmist situation. Again, there is no reason why your character can't come through Redmist unless he/she has committed previous acts that would put them on the Redmist Wanted list. If he/she has committed previous acts then that's just a consequence of your own character's actions.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Dec 24, 2007 10:39:46 GMT -5
There are folks out there with particular issues, but overall I think the outcome for Redmist is an excellent solution. It does generate a problem for LG characters or those who are religiously opposed to Banites, etc. All the low/mid-level dungeons are in the Redmist Areas. I have a character that has been staying away from Redmist for RP reasons since he got to the level where those dungeons become accessible. Instead he's been forced to play around this by soloing areas far too tough for his level. This could make a good recruiting tool for the Evil playerbase, but it sucks to have to tell party after party, "I can't go there." Say that too many times and they stop asking. While this is getting off topic slightly. This is one of the reasons we put the Western Reaches Accord into place. We saw that without it this problem would exist since low level areas are in Isinhold and mid/low level areas are in Redmist and 97% of the mod is under Cormyr control. We didn't want a repeat of the issues that happened when the demons took over Redmist.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Dec 24, 2007 13:03:23 GMT -5
*sigh* I hate to chime back in when I said I wouldn't, but the feelings of 'I can't go to Redmist' are really just leftover hard feelings from the time in which there -was- a conflict between Cormyr/Isenhold/Redmist.
Many characters seem to be holding a grudge so to speak, instead of abiding by the treaty that is in place to protect everyone from being unjustly targetted. If your character holds a grudge that serious..well thats on you. As it happens, alot of characters don't..apparently the Redmist crowd is included in that group, since they routinely show up in non-Redmist territory (usually accompanied by harassment from an individual or group).
|
|
|
Post by cloakedandhooded on Dec 24, 2007 13:30:47 GMT -5
Is Redmist still checking everyone's faces when they enter town?
|
|
|
Post by SlothfulCat on Dec 24, 2007 13:53:33 GMT -5
*sigh* I hate to chime back in when I said I wouldn't, but the feelings of 'I can't go to Redmist' are really just leftover hard feelings from the time in which there -was- a conflict between Cormyr/Isenhold/Redmist. Many characters seem to be holding a grudge so to speak, instead of abiding by the treaty that is in place to protect everyone from being unjustly targetted. If your character holds a grudge that serious..well thats on you. As it happens, alot of characters don't..apparently the Redmist crowd is included in that group, since they routinely show up in non-Redmist territory (usually accompanied by harassment from an individual or group). For me its 90% not having a desire to randomly end up in a dungeon watching torture RP for two or three days.... Particularly as Aria not being a War Wizard doesn't have that loyalty conflict between giving Thay her business and time instead of Cormyr anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Grozer on Dec 24, 2007 15:18:10 GMT -5
Is Redmist still checking everyone's faces when they enter town? In times of crisis they have yes, but its not done randomly or on a regular basis. How easily that spreads around, does Ranan get credit for actually chewing out the Zhentarim Captain when he beheaded an elf in the middle of town? Nope... nobody talks about that instead things get bent and distorted and players think he is randomly torturing and jailing visitors which keeps them away. Bottom line if you are avoiding Redmist based on what you hear... you might have heard wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowCatJen on Dec 24, 2007 18:39:16 GMT -5
Is Redmist still checking everyone's faces when they enter town? In times of crisis they have yes, but its not done randomly or on a regular basis. How easily that spreads around, does Ranan get credit for actually chewing out the Zhentarim Captain when he beheaded an elf in the middle of town? Nope... nobody talks about that instead things get bent and distorted and players think he is randomly torturing and jailing visitors which keeps them away. Bottom line if you are avoiding Redmist based on what you hear... you might have heard wrong. Now, if people are hearing the rumor ICly about torture and such, well that's passable as that's why they're called rumors. It's a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts. It's part of the RP that sometimes happens. However, if people are spreading an OOC rumor that, "Yes, indeed, this torture is happening all the time to any elf coming into Redmist" then there is a problem. What's worse is if this OOC information is mixed with the IC information and is made part of the RP in the situation. The OOC feelings on it get tossed in with the IC sentiments and that makes for ill will between players when no wrong was initially done. What's becoming a little apparent is that folks are making tons of assumptions about a lot of things here. Unfortunately, in order to avoid any metagaming issues you can't just flat out ask about all the information about certain situations. So again, it ends up the OOC rumor mill does the worst damage it can do, by people making assumptions and passing on those assumptions to others. Eventually down the line assumption becomes fact. I said it before and I'll say it again: STOP WITH THE OOC RUMORS! ... ahem.... and a Merry Christmas
|
|
|
Post by brian333 on Dec 24, 2007 19:58:36 GMT -5
One of my characters is a PDK who has been specifically ordered to stay away from Redmist to prevent his being the cause of trouble in the Western Reaches and the other is an evangelical Lathanderite.
Either of these characters would be a target for any Redmist-faction PC, (or NPC,) and I would consider it poor RP if they weren't at least challenged. (One player did an excellent job of following my dwarf around on the one occasion he did enter Redmist, loudly proclaiming he was 'protecting the people of Redmist from the evil Purple Dragon.')
Just as much as I consider it poor RP on the part of Redmist Faction to allow a Dawnbringer to freely proselytize in the streets, I'd consider it poor RP on my part to blatantly ignore the threat that such activities should call unwanted attention to my character. It's not the fault of the players of evil characters that I've chosen to play extremely good ones, it's my responsibility to respect their RP and play accordingly even if none of the characters that can smite mine are around to carry out the threat.
And that's all I'm asking for from the evil PC's. Roleplay the consequences of your actions and choices of how your character is portrayed. Some characters gain infamy, and such characters should feel, (and RP,) that the whole world is out to get them.
This does not imply any justification for 'good' characters to kill off or otherwise attack/harass any 'evil' characters. My thesis here is simply that as a player, your choices have consequences. You should take it upon yourself to roleplay the consequences of those choices, regardless of faction or alignment.
For example: assume I create a mass-murderer character who preys upon NPC's. The first time I see one of the NPC's I've killed standing around perfectly okay, I have to make two assumptions: my crime was noticed, (obvious since the dead guy was somehow raised,) and my crime is now known to the authorities. (In a realm of magic I often wonder why psychic detectives aren't featured more often, as any idiot with a crystal ball and a dead body could surely scry upon the events that lead to the corpse.)
Given this example, my roleplay would have to take into account this information. Perhaps I'm a well-connected mob-member who can flaunt his immunity from prosecution, (angering those who see such behavior in the process, and generating motives for opposing PC's to do something about me.) or more likely I'm a nobody who now has to find alternate routes to the shopping places to avoid the guards who would undoubtedly have my picture on a wanted poster. Either way is an RP choice I make, and either way I am prepared to pay the consequences, both of my own Roleplay and of the acts of other players.
This can and should be done by the players, without being forced to do so by a DM possessing an NPC. If your character is wanted, don't openly go around the places you're wanted. If you get outed by another PC while disguised in such a place, do like all good crooks do when they get caught: run!
Since when do feudal-era criminals rely upon the Law to protect them from the persecution of the masses? Yet to a large degree this is the current situation. Is it too much to ask our villains act like villains?
|
|