AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Last edited by serbiris on Wed, Sep 25 2013, 19:43 PM, edited 3 times in total.

I couldn't wait so I decided to make the topic. Continue discussions on Good vs Evil here. I've quoted a few of the bigger posts below, sorry if I got too lazy/missed a few. I'll say some of my important bits up here in the hopes that it doesn't get ignored.

There are a number of fundamental difficulties with playing Evil PCs, but I'd like to raise just one major point because it is comparatively easy to fix - DM support. I put together a list of most major settlements, noted their general alignment and which DM is currently overseeing them. The ones with asterisks are the ones which I believe have a lot of player activity, or at least had it in recent times. I left out Khem because I don't even know what's going on over there anymore (and I think Ancient Egypt in Forgotten Realms is the product of a bad drug trip, Ed Greenwood you bloody stoner).

- *Winya Ravana [Good] - Ego (I think)
- *Kohlingen [Good] - Rigela
- *Bendir Dale [Good] - Silky
- *Barak Runedar [Good] - Devilcat

- *Cordor [Neutral] - Kobra
- Wiltun [Neutral] - Nivo
- Endir's Point [Neutral] - No DM(?)
- *Caraigh [Neutral] - BoB, MsHeeler (mostly the former)
- Forstakkr [Neutral] - No DM (BECAUSE FORSTAKKR IS DUMB SHUT UP)

- *Tarkuul [Evil] - Glim (presently, since I thought he quit/is quitting?)
- Ostland [Evil] - Ego
- L'Obsul [Evil] - Maias (when he's around)
- *Nec'perya [Evil] - Dusty
- Underport [Evil] - No DM (used to be Glim but see above, have seen no notable Underport activity of late)
- Zanshibon [Evil] - No DM (Formerly Devilcat, but she dropped it along with the running plots because of how busy she is)

Look at the list and see how nearly each of the Good-aligned cities have a dedicated DM with few other commitments. In several cases as soon as a DM drops, it's handed over to another DM (Kohl had Tormak, then Gorgy, now Rige, Winya has had a few, Bendir had a few though they were without one for a while, Runedar had Silent and now Devilcat). The major neutral places are the same presently, with the odd case of Caraigh having two DMs handling different aspects. (Edit: It's also worth noting that the majority of the PC agenda in Cordor is good-aligned, with dissidents of Neutral/Evil alignments in the vast minority. But I don't really know how to fit agenda into my model)

Then look at the evil cities - with the exception of Nec'perya who enjoy Dusty's dedication, attention of the DM for each is split - Glim does dev work and is on his way out, Devilcat does Barak Runedar and the Aurilite AB, Maias isn't around much. Ego's attention is split with Winya and repeatedly getting horribly injured in real life. I've left out playerside commitments on the grounds that DMs shouldn't be judged for wanting to relax and play, given the amount of work involved in their positions. Two major settlements lack DM activity entirely and have for some time. This is the problem that I'd like to see fixed - Tarkuul did well having a dedicated DM in its heyday, and I think if a DM were focused on one of the other cities it will improve the server. You may argue that the reason a lot of these places don't have a dedicated DM is because they don't have a playerbase large enough to deserve the attention (and you'll see that all the cities with specific DMs have them because the settlement was active enough to demand the attention - Bendir Dale was noteworthy for this and it was fairly recent), but the reason for the lack of activity is primarily because there is no DM - put one in, and PCs will show up if only for the chance to grab DCs. It's more than that, of course - in Tarkuul we always had things to do even when the DM wasn't actively doing anything in particular. We could work on defences, manage personnel, plan operations that would improve our position. Zanshibon under Silent got a bit of activity when Paush had things he needed PCs to do. Underport in particular has a lot of potential, because it's open, mercantile and offers the opportunity of interacting with a highly intelligent, alien leadership, but no DM in all my time on Amia has ever taken an active role in having the city at large present such an opportunity.

Tarkuul and Nec'perya are great and all, but as Draco said it's not for everyone - Tarkuul's agenda inhibits a significant number of approaches to evil, and Nec'perya's IC situation is heavily-regulated and pretty much only for people who want to play drow. And yes I'm being a little selfish and less-than-impartial, seeing as if Tarkuul were again to become the Mecca of Evil PCs I wouldn't be able to get involved because of IC stuffs. Regardless, another settlement would give players a few more options.

So yes. I'm not asking for the DMs to kick the Good playerbase until Evil can match it (I can elaborate on how difficult this will be and why, but my post is hefty enough as it is - ask me if you really want to know my thoughts on the finer points of playing Evil vs playing Good). But what we really need is DMs whose primary focus is catering to us. This is not me saying "Work harder, you lazy bums" because believe me, I talk to enough of you to know just how hard it can be, you're all volunteers and you're all here to have fun, same as the rest of us. But I believe it would be better for the server if the next time a DM ends up being freed from taxing commitments or you get new blood, that they turn their attention to this matter. It won't pull Evil to the prominence that Good has on this server overnight or ever most likely, but it should hopefully reduce the discontent among evil-inclined players by giving us a bit more of a fair shake.

I wrote a lot so I'll just make another post with all the quotes in it.

I'll start here in lieu of punching Genar in the face for cluttering the topic.

Genar_Detkasa wrote:

Good vs Evil RP, hahahaha, well… I’m an evil player, that is, a player who plays evil PCs and have been for a few years now. I bet some of you have never met my PCs ingame, I bet you people don’t live in Australia either which is why I never rolled with the big name evils like the Banites and the Slavers because timezones suck hard. *beats the dead horse* But my bitching aside.

First thing is first, I totally agree with Glim. Good vs Evil RP is mainly a player responsibility. I think DMs have to play their part to nurture it, which by the way is what Dusty and Glim have been doing with the Underdark & Tarkuul respectively.

Dakotaen wrote:

Here I have to disagree, not with the hard work of course, but Kohlingen, or rather "good" in general is always steamrolling any and all attempts of "evil" to get a foothold on Amia. It's just not fun being evil on this server, unless you're the kind of sneaky evil who never really goes for any major plots or schemes. Sure, DM plots are different, but evil factions might as well not exist on Amia. Tarkuul has held out for a long, long time, but even they don't really feel like any sort of threat anymore. Underdark drow? Do those even exist still?

Being "good" on Amia is too easy unless a DM actively makes it hard for them in a plot, and that's a damn shame.

Yes, there’s evil factions. There’s Tarkuul and there’s the Underdark drow, we’re here. We’re totally here, come and hang out with us. We may not currently be in the puppy kicking and baby eating business to terrorise the good guys (at least... not publicly), but that’s because we have our own stuff to work out first. What sort of stuff? Bob’s post sums it up

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

Evil as a whole, I feel, needs to find a place and unify better. It's to fragmented and weak and that is why they will always be rolled over by Kohlingen. Consider this before you complain that the "allstars" are always the ones who win. They've been around longer because they've been doing it together for longer. Evil is always fighting itself, so on that. If the evil player base as a whole can do that I think it will only serve as a benefit to the server as a whole. But that's off topic.

Pretty much that. It’s only natural the good guys are always going to be the better bet. Evil by its nature is self-destructive; one of the biggest hurdles is getting evil people to work together and getting them focused to work for a common goal. The reason why the Cultists and Banites did so well was because they knew how to get their people focused. They had a mission, a goal.

I also think a few evil players (not all of course) have no patience which is part of the problem, that they are just doing their evil shtick for the thrill. In retrospect, part of why maybe the Banites and Cultists were successful was because they could offer this without much problem. I don’t fault you for being in it for the thrill since it feels good when you get away clean with dastardly deeds, but you have to be ready to work for it.
Especially if you want to kick established powers like Kohlingen in the teeth and get away with it.

So I think in order for evil to thrive, we players of evil need to take the initiative to establish our evil fanclubs and engage with the DMs so we can pursue our evil shenanigans. We also have to be realistic about what we’re doing, of course the good guys are going to stomp on us hard given the opportunity, so I think it is important to acknowledge the risks you are taking, and look for ways to minimise the risk of being rubbed out. I think evil has some catching up to do, true there was some legitimate issues why it has been set back in the past but it doesn't necessarily mean it should be handed to us on a silver platter. The Treaty of Light as it is didn't happen overnight. Faction building by itself is hard.
This topic also had some interesting things about establishing successful factions, give it a read.

Murkoph wrote:

Myself and a couple others recently returned to Amia after about a year and a half. Before that I only played for about three or four months. We came back, convinced three of our friends to sign up and together we'd create an evil cult and see if we could achieve power and riches with our wits alone, and try to do it without having to murder everyone. About a week after we made our own little evil adventuring party we saw the kohlingen crew on the march. I'm not big on PvP, but these guys were on the warpath. They knew everything, had their tactics and a plan all set out. I do not stand a chance against people like that. I pretty much went straight back to what I did the first time I signed up, which was to turn into a voyeur. Watching other people roleplaying. So close, but can't touch.

That actually sounds like an interesting story, evil cult and getting caught. But also saddening that you’re not into the evil anymore, I encourage you and your friends to try again. Try to identify what killed you and ways to work around it, if it’s a brigade of paladins shoving swords through you is the problem, then find ways to mitigate that threat like making friends whether with other PC groups or NPC settlements. ENDURE COMRADES!

But I'll again reiterate this point, Good vs Evil, I agree, is mainly a player responsibility. And I think DMs need to do their part to nurture it, which I feel they have been working at.

Oh, and naturally we should do this all in good grace and not take things personally when they don't go our way. I know it can be hard, shit happens but roll with the punches etc. Failure can make CHARACTER GROWTH!

Draco said a few things that caught my attention, and my post is partly in response to his particular grievances. I do hope to elaborate later on where I disagree with him (here's the cliffnotes: it's not so simple because Evil faces numerous problems that Good will never have, eg: problems of unity both in the setting and in player psychology, as well as other player psychology issues. But spoiler alert, Kohlingen has never been as vulnerable as it is now in all my time on Amia (past two years or so). Seriously. I'm just waiting for someone to capitalise on this before I get my ducks aligned to do it myself).

Ðraco wrote:

Like many of the other posts I have to say the major issue is the whole good vs evil conflict. Like many of you I agree that it is very one sided and is perhaps the main reason why I left the server, but I still want to see it change for the better. Unless your a Drow living underground you'll face opposition at every turn, people would then say "play smart evil" which is fun but, not all evil characters can be "smart evil" kind of the whole point of having different characters they can't all be the same. Coming from someone that plays only evil over the 2 and a half years I played here something should be done about that. There are so many "Good" cities, whether cities like Cordor are considered more Lawful Neutral doesn't matter, they're still good by being anti-evil (I know little of Cordor btw). What I'd like to see personally is a place invaded and downright taken over by a evil force, and not simply losing it after one month. Like say Wiltun attacked by a fleet of pirate mercenaries and throw in some amia made Demigod to counter act the ridiculous amount of power Kolhingen has when they come to liberate Wiltun. I would love to see something bad happen to a major city. I tried to destroy the Shrine as my way of setting things right but it didn't turn out as I hoped.

But anyways without evil what is the point of having good? When Good finds something to smite and think that evil may put up a fight they have no trouble in assaulting it with as many factions as they can muster. Evil does not have that luxury, those that exist don't often get along with each other so well. I remember when the Banites were around just being their charming selves, towards the end of the churches days the whole RP was based around rebuilding a church away from prying eyes. Like seriously? How bad is it when you have Banites hiding in caves huddled around an idol of Bane thinking back on the good old days. Evil should not be so afraid of the rest of the server, it should be the other way around at least from a RP perspective. I know you guys tend to let those conflicts play out ICly, but DMs should have to step in every-so-often and provide a handicap if needed to keep the balance. This server NEEDs conflict, and where is the conflict if evil is hiding from good? By trying to remain impartial you're appearing biased in my eyes.

Back when I played religiously I noticed most of the DMs played good PCs, or neutral but that doesn't matter because you hang with the "good" crowd. I remember a select few DMs that played primarily evil, unfortunately some had to leave and it saddened me to see them go. As DMs you guys don't just tell the story and review requests, you're the role models of this server. Everyone here looks up to you guys to set the example, in my humble opinion by only playing good aligned characters you're indirectly hurting the delicate balance between good and evil.

Adventure would of course be awesome too and would certainly grab players attention but again you'll run into the good vs evil problem. Unless this is yet another adventure that only the select few players/factions can attend.

This post is based off my experience on the server as a whole from the time I left, I do not know how much of if any of it has changed since I left.

Ðraco wrote:

Bobofblahblah wrote:

Yes plz. Moar plz. Like I said, evil needs to unify and realize they won't be able to outright curb stomp the guys who've established themselves for years over night. Even chaotic evil can plan.

That's kind of a problem, everyone keeps saying the same thing that evil needs to be smarter but then most evil players are restricted to a few roles. You think every evil character out there wants to just spy on good or just be smart about avoiding them? Do you have any idea just how boring that can get and discouraging that you'll NEVER have a chance against them. Evil and Good should be on equal fighting grounds. Yes it has been up to the players to keep the whole good vs evil thing in check, but as the years have gone on and evil is put on the back burner while good factions continue to grow in power. You have to come to the conclusion that this doesn't work. The only place where evil is safe from paladins is the underdark and you shouldn't have to play a drow to be evil, you're still technically hiding in a cave. Even Tarkuul isn't really that great a place for evil to congregate because of the Voice that see's all and knows all that happens in it's borders. With the exception of the waves of undead it's more like Lawful Neutral, break any law you get in trouble and possibly banned, point being there's no way to NOT get caught because let's face it, evil is always up to no good. Even a properly RPed drunken brawl could end with you banished.

On the PVP note for good, those of you that don't get classes that well Paladins are by far the most overpowered class in the game. Saves, High BAB, Spells, and lets not forget Smite Evil. Before you say it Blackguard doesn't hold a candle to a Paladin. If we're going to discuss good versus evil you should consider all the variables. A lot of people like to play strong builds first and RP second, nothing is stronger than a Paladin. If you make a Paladin you already have a faction of Paladins you can team up with, RP with. You make a Blackguard not only do you have a weaker character but you don't automatically have a group of like minded players to team up with and RP with, in fact you're like ever other evil character trying to hide in plain sight.

I personally prefer the evil from the shadows despite my argument, but you have to realize that it's not for everyone. Not everyone wants to play the "spy", whether you realize it or not by even "spying" on good factions by having a character infiltrate them you are still providing entertainment for them. The more active members there are in a faction the more appealing it is to others in the faction, whether they know you're evil or not. There are a lot more OOC feelings surrounding this issue than IC, ICly many evildoers will try to fight the good fight or just move back to the mainland where everything makes more sense for evil. But OOCly it is incredibly discouraging to just lose time and again and we end up losing evil players so they can play with the other good PCs. I couldn't tell you how many people I liked played evil for a while and eventually turned to good because it was just so much simpler and easier and far less discouraging.

This server would need some major earth shattering event to set things right again, some devastating natural or man made disaster to cripple the numerous good cities and villages on the server. Earthquake, Hurricane, Hordes of Demons, SOMETHING to reset what has gone wrong over the years of letting players keep evil in check.

Hudson said some words, go read them.

Hudson wrote:

I am not sure what the system is but Amia is a rp server and not a pvp server where constant open conflict is manditory.

I think there has been a lot of conflict lately on the server with the happenings in Cordor with a lot of potential for more conflict and from what I see heaps of player involvement on several sides. Some of it obvious and some of it not so obvious. There was a great chance for LE types to join the Cordor guard for one as far as I can see.
It should still be quite doable to use the focus on Cordor now to dig in. I have a hunch some people are actively doing that.

I still maintain that evil shouldnt wait for a DM handout to establish itsself. I also think there is more to conflict then the rather old good-evil.
Thats why I like Bane's dogma, he's evil, yes but he is also very lawfull. That gives a whole new dimension to his worship (anti chaos anyone?)

Cordor for one might be receptive to some non Kohlingen anti chaos right now.

Alkor has some interesting thoughts on the topic, but I'll just put down his last post because the other one was very big and getting down these last few makes for a monolithic enough quotes post as is. But I'll link it here: viewtopic.php?p=1208283#p1208283

Alkor wrote:

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

This discussion needs its own topic. There is a lot to be said about it and I think if we're going to do so properly we should so so there. The point has been made as its relevance to the topic dictates but it's clear the community has a lot to say on the subject, and I want to hear and converse on all of it. I have a couple of ideas on the topic I'd like to push as well, so I think I'll be making this thread personally.

It could be because it's -critical- to the server's identity, where we are now, and where a lot of us would like it to go.

Is it ACelesti-mia? Or Amia? Is it boring or interesting? Does it bore the audience? Or leave them hanging on to the edge of their seats?

Conflict is mandatory in all games, but when I say conflict, pvp is a small part of the greater whole. Even if you're sitting there rolling dice, you're doing so representing the conflict.

Evil on the server in the past has tried to establish itself, even though always in smaller numbers, and then they are smashed by the overwhelming goodly hoard and we return to stagnation and dwindling player counts.

The conflict in Cordor in my view, has brought this up recently, and I applaud it.

The question is, should the only conflict in existence, be that the DM's generate? Or should players have an environment where they can generate it themselves? If so, what server environment better facilitates that?

...Ostland isn't evil. Nor is Cordor 'Neutral'. And Winya is definitely not good.

Stop trying to shoehorn entire cities into small boxed labelled 'Alignments!'

Edit:
The single most interesting city on this server has been Cordor. This is because it keeps dangling between the alignment spectrum and very much resembles a true city state with all it's political intrigues swinging the city left and right, To capitalism and back to socialism and we need to give Yossarin, and a few other people, extreme credit for keeping the status on the city for such a long time.
So please. Do not try to put an etiquette on cordor, because it doesn't have one.

Last edited by serbiris on Wed, Sep 25 2013, 19:09 PM, edited 1 time in total.

They're "general" alignments, not absolutes. But I stand by my notations. Ostland has Banites and a corrupt regime fueled by the blood of innocents (literally) and built upon the backbone of an oppressed lower class. It's pretty evil.
Cordor is pretty Neutral unless you can prove otherwise, with both Good/Evil forces enforcing their own agenda over a decidedly unaligned populace.
Winya is definitely Good-aligned.

If you really have issues with my judgement, [citation needed]. Seriously. "Nope I disagree" gives me absolutely nothing to respond to and this thread is about to become cluttered enough as it is (or so I hope, because everyone could just ignore it and leave me hanging forever

)

To further elaborate, "Aligment" in these contexts means what the word means and not what D&D says it means - that is to say, the direction it points relative to anything else. Cities have alignments because they often do consist of large quantities of something which falls within the spectrum of D&D alignment, and they generally lean in a specific direction. Kohlingen is good-aligned not because I think everyone living there is Good or Neutral, but because their general aims coincide with the Good alignment spectrum.

serbiris wrote:

They're "general" alignments, not absolutes. But I stand by my notations. Ostland has Banites and a corrupt regime fueled by the blood of innocents and built upon the backbone of an oppressed lower class. It's pretty evil.
Cordor is pretty Neutral unless you can prove otherwise, with both Good/Evil forces enforcing their own agenda.
Winya is definitely Good-aligned.

If you really have issues with my judgement, [citation needed]. Seriously. "Nope I disagree" gives me absolutely nothing to respond to and this thread is about to become cluttered enough as it is (or so I hope, because everyone could just ignore it and leave me hanging forever

)

From a player with some insight in the conflict i can say that Ostland is a nation on the brink of desperation due to the threats of war, poverty, economical crisis etcetera, and the banites are there because of that desperation or maybe they are there to cause that desperation?

Edit - And naturally you have to defend yourself if you make a bold statement as the above.

All I'm going to say, it's not that Evil can be expected to match The Holy Treaty's power in a day, just most Evil factions get destroyed without a means to stop the attackers.

Here's how I see it:

There's such a lack of Evil that DMs make up NPC factions to attack the Good, now this is fine and all, but when did Evil players get Good NPC factions to kill recently?

Last edited by Alkor on Wed, Sep 25 2013, 19:23 PM, edited 1 time in total.

I also want to point out we shouldn't be discussing the in's and out's of why a particular IC city is evil or good or w/e because some of that information may not be available to the public IC, and shouldn't be 'revealed' on the public forums. If we're speaking of it in public, it should be of generally available (public) knowledge.

You forgot the Auril Church.

I also never dropped the zanshibon, but sadly postponed it.

Evil has been the minority since the fall of Wyrmhold.

Once has a power stepped up to match the forces of good and it was during the banite incursion of Guldorand. It did not last the month.

Nobody remembers Forrstakkr

I edited my post beyond what Svensk quoted but I'll concur with Alkor since a lot of what I know is probably better left to IC investigations. I stand by my judgement call, if nothing more than on the grounds that the Banites are there and could easily gather into another proper church, depending on how things went.

Yaster Galer wrote:

All I'm going to say, it's not that Evil can be expected to match The Holy Treaty's power in a day, just most Evil factions get destroyed without a means to stop the attackers.

Yes absolutely, no not entirely. Speaking from experience and long-term observation.

Yaster Galer wrote:

Here's how I see it:

There's such a lack of Evil that DMs make up NPC factions to attack the Good, now this is fine and all, but when did Evil players get Good NPC factions to kill recently?

This would be problematic because while in FR evil basically exists in a vacuum, it's incongruous for Good to do so with the exception of angelic crusades and maybe if you're lucky holy-man type crusades. And Good PCs are bound to get involved and steamroll opposition. And destroying Good is mainly a matter of course/necessity for Evil, their agendas are usually more selfish and personal. Good can survive on saving the world and stopping evil much more easily than the reverse.

Amarice-Elaraliel wrote:

You forgot the Auril Church.

I also never dropped the zanshibon, but sadly postponed it.

I didn't! But I didn't count them as a settlement. I did note the Aurilite AB in "stuff Devilcat does"

Re Zanshibon, has been postponed for a long long time for various reasons so it does seem to basically have no DM, IMO.

Aiseth wrote:

Nobody remembers Forrstakkr

... DAMN IT.

Hehe! There was a time when one of my PC's tried very hard to get a collection of Evil going. I had involved directly about 38 different players. Had collections of various factions, council leaderships, all kinds of wicked and great stuff!

But he was killed by evil folks!

Harhar! I'm not bitter, I just find it all amusing. Getting evil to group up and band together is much harder than it sounds, especially when you've got competing evils that use fatal tactics.

When good guys struggle, they tend to be less... brutal, if that makes sense. There definitely is Good vs Good conflict that can boil to violence (Look at Cordor), but Evil vs Evil conflict tends to result heavily and quickly in death! And its often hard to avoid the Evil vs Evil conflict when you're an aspiring Evil, trying to bring all the other evils together as well.
~~~

Don't get me wrong, I had an absolute blast with those devious plans. I regret nothing! I just giggle at the thought, is all!

Beat me to it while I was in class! Awesome stuff Serb, I'll have to take a better look at it when I get home. Goodyear has fasr internet, but I'm at a bus stop pretty far away.

Yours is a far superior post to anything I was going to write anyway. I'll have my full input in soon I think.

I also don't know where I stacked that old saying of mine, in the other Evil threads.

But as a grand summary-- As an Evil group or player, try very hard to build before you destroy. Build yourself up, your goals, your support, your castle-- all before you go about destroying. It'll help enrich conflict!

Or even better:

Have nothing! Sometimes the most dangerous people are those that have nothing at all to loose :twisted:

It works well for me.

I usually like having something, so that the Good guys can strike me back! In my experience, and again, this is my own opinion-- players can tend to get OOCly upset or annoyed when they are losing their somethings, and they can't strike back at the aggressor because he has exactly nothing to lose-- not even his life, as in a world of magic, death can be fleeting!

But I don't want to dive into -that- subject. I just wanted to give my thoughts on the matter of Somethings vs Nothings!

Hackums touched on the thing I wanted to say:

Evil will always feel outnumbered by good even when it’s not.

Collaboration, cooperation, and compromise are inherent in the nature of what is means to be good. Evil tends towards selfishness and rivalry.

Nobody’s stopping Tarkuul, Zanshibon, Ostland, and Nec’Perya from teaming up with each other and forming a Treaty of Darkness to stand up against the bullies in the Treaty of Light. They could do that tomorrow, if they wanted to, and that would be a pretty damned kickass powerhouse of a coalition, too. But they don’t do that, and it probably wouldn’t work even if they tried. Evil is too inherently fractious; each entity wants to do its own thing in its own way, and to hell with anyone who doesn’t like it. That’s what being evil *means*. If evil started making compromises and honoring its allies in order to get things done, it wouldn’t really be evil any more.

I always kind of roll my eyes whenever I see talk about how it’s so terrible that evil is always outnumbered. It’s inevitable that evil will be outnumbered. This is neither a good thing nor a bad thing; it’s just the way the world works. Railing against it is like complaining that the earth is going to circle the sun again next year.

(Incidental side note: this is why it’s so important, I feel, that “evil” should have a thriving RP hub. Evil will never naturally coalesce into a unified community on its own. It has to be artificially and externally forced into it.)

Oh I know, and there's a limit to the 'nothing'. After all, you can still have something while having nothing to loose.

PS - If I'm cryptic in regards to Being Evil (and I usually am in these threads), it's because I don't want to give away the secrets on how I'm operating >:3 No copycats here!

Liz wrote:

Nobody’s stopping Tarkuul, Zanshibon, Ostland, and Nec’Perya from teaming up with each other and forming a Treaty of Darkness to stand up against the bullies in the Treaty of Light. They could do that tomorrow, if they wanted to, and that would be a pretty damned kickass powerhouse of a coalition, too. But they don’t do that, and it probably wouldn’t work even if they tried.

That and we drow are too genocidal. I mean, why would we work with inferior races? /silliness

Last edited by Aiseth on Wed, Sep 25 2013, 20:26 PM, edited 1 time in total.

As a reformed evil character

I have half a mind to suggest we just let DMs handle evil alone. We can't for the life of us get our evil-vs-good wet dream working properly and usually it just boils down to rational and likable people versus other rational and likable people. Everyone gets super invested in word battles and dishing dirt and waiting for a moment to retaliate and show off their cool moves on your skull. But they don't really prove anything. Kohlingen ended up looking like a bunch of assholes for entering Cordor and dividing its subsections among themselves. And Cordor ended up looking like a bunch of assholes for orchestrating riots and fighting in the street.

Everyone is going to end up being an asshole unless we have some substance to fight against besides ourselves. Power, lies, and intrigue is the flavor of the server, and everyone has a spoon. There aren't really any universal villains anymore. No enemy. Just people with different perspectives (as well as the same perspectives) who won't cooperate or compromise. I would suggest we stop thinking of Evil Alignment as "EVIL" because that's generally just a mechanical matter that gets abused. It says, "You chose this alignment therefore you say it is alright for me to screw with you."

There are plenty of tabletop adventures I have played where good characters and evil characters just work together. They humor each other, but they're generally just trying to do the adventure. It makes for an interesting variation of personality, so that not to have one LG party who basically want to play Candyland, pick a color and move toward the cool sugar bitch in the castle. Lady Justicar Sugartits.

But I see that Good Alignment characters can't get their shit together now. They cannot. I have been through the whole evil character thing + alignment change to suit my survival, and no matter how useful one makes themselves, good and neutral characters are going to lean on that mechanical flaw: you're not like me, we can't get along.

I don't want to live in a world of assholes, it isn't fair for 'evil' people with good intentions, let the DMs handle evil. When I got my alignment changed, everyone put their foot in their mouth and went on being sad sacks of shit, drinking in taverns and feeling low. Don't pick on evil people because they're weaker than you are. You are not given that right by taking on a lawful or good character, you're not entitled to punishment, and every little twerp that goes on to use gossip lies and intrigue as their tools to be 'good' should probably be shifted by the DMs arbitrarily. I would call out for more fallen characters, more good people being held accountable for their 'good' qualities when they act out of line. Because evil characters are not allowed even a shuffle of their foot without a line of people explaining to themselves how terrible that person is.

Aiseth wrote:

You are not given that right by taking on a lawful or good character, you're not entitled to punishment, and every little twerp that goes on to use gossip lies and intrigue as their tools to be 'good' should probably be shifted by the DMs arbitrarily. I would call out for more fallen characters, more good people being held accountable for their 'good' qualities when they act out of line. Because evil characters are not allowed even a shuffle of their foot without a line of people explaining to themselves how terrible that person is.

+100

Liz wrote:

Nobody's stopping Tarkuul, Zanshibon, Ostland, and Nec’Perya from teaming up

People from at least two of those factions are working on something. No spoilers from me though.

Liz wrote:

Collaboration, cooperation, and compromise are inherent in the nature of what is means to be good. Evil tends towards selfishness and rivalry.

Nobody’s stopping Tarkuul, Zanshibon, Ostland, and Nec’Perya from teaming up with each other and forming a Treaty of Darkness to stand up against the bullies in the Treaty of Light. They could do that tomorrow, if they wanted to, and that would be a pretty damned kickass powerhouse of a coalition, too. . .

Tarkuul is neutral, cares only about knowledge. Zanshibon is in the abyss, doubt they could care less about a secluded island on the prime. I have no idea where Ostland is and Nec'Perya I'm guessing is a drow city, kind of the same answer as Zanshibon, they couldn't care less and banding together with surfacers could make them seem weak to rivaling houses? Evil does not work well together, each time I've seen evil factions gather they bicker, and bicker and it takes just one wrong word for the swords and spells to start flying.

I remember when I first played this server, I joined the Banites back when they had their fortress in Guldhorand roughly two weeks before it got blown up by 4 attacking factions. When I talked to them OOC a lot of them would always talk about how awesome it used to be. Guessing it was back when Wyrmhold was a thing. So I have to ask myself, what went wrong since then? What changed? Why is it so much harder to be evil on this server now? Or were they simply exaggerating on how great the good old days were? Basically I'm asking what was so awesome about those days and can we recreate it?

I just want to pop in here and say that guys-- You absolutely, positively, -can- go out and there make a huge evil presence. Even with player numbers as they are now.

It just takes a little bit of organizing. The Syndicate wasn't all that long ago, and other similar things have risen and fallen even in the meantime. Find others that are itching to play evil again-- and frankly... *Shrug* start talking about stuff OOCly. Don't dictate the direction you'll go with, but I enjoy brainstorming with fellow conflict folks.

Its almost impossible to start an Orcish horde entirely ICly, for example. Because players have to -make- an Orcish character to join it. You can't just recruit people from Tarkuul, or the UD. You can pick up steam, as more people see your horde and make characters. But it does help if you have a good group of players to start it off with, even if you talked about it initially OOCly.

This is perhaps slightly off topic by this stage of the thread, but I write it in response to Serbiris' original city/DM break down.

I think as a trend, we've all gotten far far too hung up on cities. I'll use Ostland as my example because that's where my own experience lies. The main point is that Ostland, is a place, a collection of buildings and a swamp. It has no alignment.

I think of myself as being in charge of the Ostland -Plot- not the place. The location is merely a backdrop, or rather it's supposed to be. The plot, the narrative, the story, that's what's important here. Each and every one of you gets to write a character into that story when and if you so choose to do so. Cordor for example has no unifying alignment theme itself in large part because as the starter city, everyone wanted a piece of that pie, good, evil, and everything in between.

Personally, I think it was a mistake to give PC's the amount of control they currently have over these vast city states, because it creates a disparity between the players that have armies more or less at their back constantly, and those that don't. It rips the backdrop off the wall and forces it square into the forefront. That particular aspect has created a lot of the polarization we now see, and it really shouldn't be there because cities are much more vast, uncaring, and chaotic than that. What we have now are cities that are player factions, and I don't think that's correct.

Dedicating your character's time to city building is fine and dandy in moderation, but I think because in the past that method has proven to get visible results, that much of the player base has started drifting too far in that direction, to the point even of ignoring the adventure, and dismissing the narrative.

In response to the claim that DM time makes or breaks a city, I'll say this. It is indeed possible to draw people to your area and stimulate RP as a DM, but it is -exhausting- You have to be doing it constantly, every day, and you have to poke, prod, and even force the plot situation on the PC's. At a certain point, you need long term investment on the part of the playerbase. If the PC's don't "bite" and invest, then the plot doesn't move forward. If the plot doesn't move forward, the area stagnates. It becomes a difficult cycle to break, but ultimately you need both the DM leadership -and- the players to commit to an area.

Told y'all - Ostland ain't evil! :mrgreen:

Fair point Ego, but I'll contest it - settlements are important. We need hubs in order to reliably facilitate roleplay. They serve as a great place of meeting, but it's more than that - it's how we touch base with the setting. Settlements give us something to get invested in, things to do - we can dick around, manage personnel, build shit up. Having one that caters to types of characters which aren't normally catered to, is preferrable.

I will agree that it's not necessarily a good thing that there can be such a disparity in PC power, but we can have what I'm suggesting without having more of that. Us lads in Tarkuul never got to command diddly squat, and enjoyed minimal support most of the time. We still kicked a whole mess of ass.

I wasn't saying DM attention would make or break a city but it would definitely help, that's my point. Tarkuul's a good example - it wouldn't have gotten anywhere without a great playerbase, but we were always most active with a DM around. That's true for just about anywhere on the server.

And I'll reiterate in my acknowledgement that DMing is hard work, but a lot of you guys are running cities anyway - I'm just saying if you can do it for Good PCs, a bit more for Evil would help manage the discontent in this area.

Ego680 wrote:

This is perhaps slightly off topic by this stage of the thread, but I write it in response to Serbiris' original city/DM break down.

I think as a trend, we've all gotten far far too hung up on cities. I'll use Ostland as my example because that's where my own experience lies. The main point is that Ostland, is a place, a collection of buildings and a swamp. It has no alignment.

I think of myself as being in charge of the Ostland -Plot- not the place. The location is merely a backdrop, or rather it's supposed to be. The plot, the narrative, the story, that's what's important here. Each and every one of you gets to write a character into that story when and if you so choose to do so. Cordor for example has no unifying alignment theme itself in large part because as the starter city, everyone wanted a piece of that pie, good, evil, and everything in between.

Personally, I think it was a mistake to give PC's the amount of control they currently have over these vast city states, because it creates a disparity between the players that have armies more or less at their back constantly, and those that don't. It rips the backdrop off the wall and forces it square into the forefront. That particular aspect has created a lot of the polarization we now see, and it really shouldn't be there because cities are much more vast, uncaring, and chaotic than that. What we have now are cities that are player factions, and I don't think that's correct.

Dedicating your character's time to city building is fine and dandy in moderation, but I think because in the past that method has proven to get visible results, that much of the player base has started drifting too far in that direction, to the point even of ignoring the adventure, and dismissing the narrative.

In response to the claim that DM time makes or breaks a city, I'll say this. It is indeed possible to draw people to your area and stimulate RP as a DM, but it is -exhausting- You have to be doing it constantly, every day, and you have to poke, prod, and even force the plot situation on the PC's. At a certain point, you need long term investment on the part of the playerbase. If the PC's don't "bite" and invest, then the plot doesn't move forward. If the plot doesn't move forward, the area stagnates. It becomes a difficult cycle to break, but ultimately you need both the DM leadership -and- the players to commit to an area.

---

I admit, there is some issue with the notion of PC guard forces in Cities, but at the same time they can be reasonable RP stimulants as long as they're properly managed.

Hell, playing Warrick I played a *@$% Clerk whom only helped take on bad guys from time to time because he had the background and training ((I'll add at this juncture there was more to him then simply being a Clerk, but still.)) ..

A part of the trick of being a PC tied to a city in service , you need to at times generate your own RP. Sure, being a Defender of the city's fine and all but that only works so far.

And to be fair at the same time Ego an approach that can help you handling the whole 'Army at their back' matter is a simple one (actually, there's two, I'll mention em' both):

- As a representative of the City, the character is expected to behave in a fashion befitting that city and it's decisions and laws. You are meant to represent that city appropriately and not draw undo trouble upon it , least you be penalized. Dependant on rank, while yes you may have some backup from the Guard, it will not make you immune to things such as disciplinary trouble and it will likely task you to the more difficult missions and similar being an adventurer.

- Approach 2: You are what some call 'Deniable Assets' , or alternatively individuals tied to a city in service but not formally acknowledged. You serve the City's interests as you are able with less stricture in the exact details, but do not get the backing of the City if you fark up unless you truly are onto something big or dire. Or if you do get the backing it isn't quite the same as in the first case.

--

In both cases, the limitation that makes this noteworthy is the influence of the City itself. If it does not have influence where the relevant trouble comes, then the individual is.. well to be right honest boned save for their own abilities.

Quick correction: I'm not in charge of Bendir Dale. I'm actually going to be helping Glim with Tarkuul, Kobra with Cordor, looking into Underport and... probably regret putting too much on my plate. :mrgreen:

That said, I'm all for giving the "bad guys" some time in the spotlight while I'm on.

Settlements are indeed important, and that's why they should serve as a back drop and not a faction. The situation now is out of balance for the simple reason that these cities were never intended to serve as faction bases, balance issues were never considered because it wasn't a factor.

As a result, we now have almost no independent player run factions left, because those don't come pre-equipped with a standing army and navy. A city should provide it's own environment and intrigue for the denizens to work on overcoming, -as adventurers-. We've stopped being adventurers and become politicians, relying on NPC armies.

I dislike this situation for the simple reason that none of our characters (possibly minus like one maybe two exceptions, that's it.) Should have any kind of government jobs. Timeline wise even the oldest of characters has only been around for five years, that's how long the population has known them, that's it. Meanwhile hundreds of people in these cities are holding down honest jobs and working their way up the ranks, or have known the noble making the appointment since childhood or whatever.

There's plenty of precedent for cities in FR sanctioning private adventuring guilds. The faction function the cities serve should have stayed limited to that, sanctioning faction X for their good works, or Faction Y for "taking care of the situation".

-Get a bunch more DM support for evil groups.
-Get evil NPCs to work with those groups.
-*Possibly make a DM NPC faction with a charismatic leader to help unite evil groups (if the players can't do it themselves)
-Found badass evil city (on the surface, not UD, just for clarification).
-Basically create the injustice league on amia.

This or a general approximation there of really need to happen in my opinion if you want to get some nice conflict back in the player base and have evil not keep getting trounced.

Aiseth wrote:

We can't for the life of us get our evil-vs-good wet dream working properly and usually it just boils down to rational and likable people versus other rational and likable people. Everyone gets super invested in word battles and dishing dirt and waiting for a moment to retaliate and show off their cool moves on your skull. But they don't really prove anything. Kohlingen ended up looking like a bunch of assholes for entering Cordor and dividing its subsections among themselves. And Cordor ended up looking like a bunch of assholes for orchestrating riots and fighting in the street.

I actually kind of liked this about Cordor. Lots of moral grey and such. Oh well.

Aiseth wrote:

There are plenty of tabletop adventures I have played where good characters and evil characters just work together. They humor each other, but they're generally just trying to do the adventure. It makes for an interesting variation of personality, so that not to have one LG party who basically want to play Candyland, pick a color and move toward the cool sugar bitch in the castle. Lady Justicar Sugartits.

I like this too! I felt that I was able to get it to work, though. Alignment is, in its own way, a skill that may be unique to a particular party member. An odd example; paraphrasing a lot, I got a bit of a chuckle out of this: "If we have to murder a baby, you gotta do it man - I'm not evil enough!" D&D unfortunately hobbles this by saying paladins can't hang out with anyone with X number of bad deeds on their permanent record.

City alignment is kind of a complex thing. The ones I named Neutral I did so because alignment is much less clear, or openly contested, or less important to the place in question. I don't think anyone will argue that Kohlingen isn't predominantly good-aligned on account of their heavy religious investment and that sort of thing, and Zanshibon is kind of evil on an elemental level. The point was more the sort of PCs that would be attracted to/comfortable in any given area.

Last edited by serbiris on Wed, Sep 25 2013, 21:36 PM, edited 1 time in total.

slkNihilus wrote:

Quick correction: I'm not in charge of Bendir Dale. I'm actually going to be helping Glim with Tarkuul, Kobra with Cordor, looking into Underport and... probably regret putting too much on my plate. :mrgreen:

That said, I'm all for giving the "bad guys" some time in the spotlight while I'm on.

SOMEONE SAID YOU WERE I DUNNO I WAS JUST GOING OFF THAT FORUM POST. See let me go find it and I'll get proof that I'm not crazy.

Edit: Okay maybe I'm just crazy or bad at finding things.

Ego680 wrote:

We've stopped being adventurers and become politicians, relying on NPC armies.

Politics *is* adventure, though. To say that PCs shouldn't be politicians kind of blithely dismisses a whole genre of RP that is valuable and enjoyable. Political intrigue is just incredibly fun, I think.

Also, precluding PCs from governmental leadership roles would by default force those roles into the hands of the DMs. If you don't prefer to be the "Ostland DM," would you really like it any better if you had no playerside help in bringing the Ostlander government to life? If every time any PC wanted to interact at all with the government, they had to PM you and set an appointment? A settlement run by PCs is a lot more responsive than one run by DMs alone. There's just a lot more of us than there are of you.

Delegating some of the world's civil authority to the PCs keeps the world alive, dynamic.

Incidental point on Aiseth's talk about dividing up Cordor:

Who here knows their World War II History and what the allies did that was comparably similar?

Dropping a nuclear bomb is not an act of good.

Liz wrote:

Ego680 wrote:

We've stopped being adventurers and become politicians, relying on NPC armies.

Politics *is* adventure, though. To say that PCs shouldn't be politicians kind of blithely dismisses a whole genre of RP that is valuable and enjoyable. Political intrigue is just incredibly fun, I think.

Also, precluding PCs from governmental leadership roles would by default force those roles into the hands of the DMs. If you don't prefer to be the "Ostland DM," would you really like it any better if you had no playerside help in bringing the Ostlander government to life? If every time any PC wanted to interact at all with the government, they had to PM you and set an appointment? A settlement run by PCs is a lot more responsive than one run by DMs alone. There's just a lot more of us than there are of you.

Delegating some of the world's civil authority to the PCs keeps the world alive, dynamic.

I enjoy political intrigue more than most people, but you don't have to be running the government to get that. Nor does that mean no PC involvement in government affairs. As for responsiveness, that's part of the problem, the PC's get to direct vast cities according to their own wishes. It makes the server and the setting smaller, because instead of the understanding that there's all these people needed to run a city, we have three or four PCs running a government.

The larger problem is that it actually stifles cultural development and city based RP, because now it's much harder to set a story in a city and have it be exclusive to that place, because our canvas is so diminished and we have less control over things. Instead we have to get "world ending" and involve the whole island, and throw cities at each other like what used to be done with small factions.

Ðraco wrote:

That's kind of a problem, everyone keeps saying the same thing that evil needs to be smarter but then most evil players are restricted to a few roles. You think every evil character out there wants to just spy on good or just be smart about avoiding them? Do you have any idea just how boring that can get and discouraging that you'll NEVER have a chance against them. Evil and Good should be on equal fighting grounds. Yes it has been up to the players to keep the whole good vs evil thing in check, but as the years have gone on and evil is put on the back burner while good factions continue to grow in power. You have to come to the conclusion that this doesn't work. The only place where evil is safe from paladins is the underdark and you shouldn't have to play a drow to be evil, you're still technically hiding in a cave. Even Tarkuul isn't really that great a place for evil to congregate because of the Voice that see's all and knows all that happens in it's borders. With the exception of the waves of undead it's more like Lawful Neutral, break any law you get in trouble and possibly banned, point being there's no way to NOT get caught because let's face it, evil is always up to no good. Even a properly RPed drunken brawl could end with you banished.

Playing as a PC who wasted hours staking out a certain shrine for a certain target to come out, yes. Yes I do know how goddamn boring it can get and I can sympathise on that point.

But I have to agree with Liz's assertion that; "Collaboration, cooperation, and compromise are inherent in the nature of what is means to be good. Evil tends towards selfishness and rivalry."

I mean, come on. I've been keeping an eye out for evil factions for awhile, I think the latest Banites even splintered into two groups? So its really no surprise that forces of light are strong as they are. In the long term, Good is more likely to endure and consolidate. Evil has more chances of splintering and turning against each other, I've seen it happen a few times as well. So in some ways, we kinda helped dig this grave ourselves.

Evil is at its most effective when its members have a common goal to work towards. And even then, there's some maintenance to be done to make sure everyone is on the right track and to put the infighting to a minimum. Running an evil faction isn't a walk in the park, and Hackums bought up some pretty good examples of the difficulties you can face. I linked this topic earlier because I found it useful, notably Yossarin's post in finding a "niche" a faction can fill. And in this case, a faction that does evil. Just ask yourself, what kind of evil do I want to inflict? What sort of faction do we need to achieve it?

But from what I can discern of your post, you seem to think we lack the sort of monolithic evil willing and able to lay the smackdown on the good guys. And well, we do lack that. And from what you can tell from my posts, is that I don't think PCs can really pull that off (no one man or lady just has the time for that). Perhaps we do need the DMs to introduce an evil force that can rally the bad guys, make deals with the various evil factions around the joint to get them involved but not make them slaves to the higher evil, but more rather a fast and loose relationship of "you scratch my back, I scratch yours." Handled well, I think that would be provide something very exciting to the server (and maybe as a good starting point to use Disco's PvP thing). It could provide opportunities for the evil groups to flex their muscle, provide opportunities for the good groups to champion their ideals and create enough chaos for the neutrals to profit in some way? (so what Great Equalizer said.)

I'll so dig that kind of evil stuff btw.

Ego680 wrote:

Settlements are indeed important, and that's why they should serve as a back drop and not a faction. The situation now is out of balance for the simple reason that these cities were never intended to serve as faction bases, balance issues were never considered because it wasn't a factor.

As a result, we now have almost no independent player run factions left, because those don't come pre-equipped with a standing army and navy. A city should provide it's own environment and intrigue for the denizens to work on overcoming, -as adventurers-. We've stopped being adventurers and become politicians, relying on NPC armies.

I dislike this situation for the simple reason that none of our characters (possibly minus like one maybe two exceptions, that's it.) Should have any kind of government jobs. Timeline wise even the oldest of characters has only been around for five years, that's how long the population has known them, that's it. Meanwhile hundreds of people in these cities are holding down honest jobs and working their way up the ranks, or have known the noble making the appointment since childhood or whatever.

There's plenty of precedent for cities in FR sanctioning private adventuring guilds. The faction function the cities serve should have stayed limited to that, sanctioning faction X for their good works, or Faction Y for "taking care of the situation".

I will agree we have stopped adventuring as much as we did in the olden days and more PCs have taken on the rolls as politicians ( I sort of did a bit becoming Thane of Caraigh) but also we stopped having adventures of venture on like when we had more active DMs...unless you mean going out and stabing monsters because I have the exp to be level 35 (that's with only getting 1 exp a kill) and I cant do jack with all the EXP because the level 30 cap...... and do you really want another person flooding the server in devalued gold or farming for epic loot on Boss-mia?
I cant say I have ever been one for "relying on NPC armies" but you guys wont let me become as strong as one myself :lol:

something about "balance"?

Settlements don't drop off the map all the time like player factions, and given a lot of its player base has massive cases of ADHD and makes 7 alts, player factions work even less because if the event is so large it draws in other towns/citys they have to pick one of the 7 chars to take part leaving 1+ factions down a person.... making said faction look weaker, or useless in the eyes of the city who might sanction it.

Honestly, until the whole "throwing bodies at the wall of evil" problem gets addressed, owning any quantity of land that's not protected by some godlike creature is just lining yourself up for future disappointment.

This problem won't really change until the server mentality changes with it.

I'll have disagree on that point, I think it is possible for evil to hold ground if they strategise enough. Choosing the right ground, enlisting the right NPC allies (not godlike ones that is) and maybe developing "understandings" with other evil factions. I'm not saying its easy since building a faction, especially from scratch, is never easy; but its possible.

To Ego on Politics, yes that's totally true in my case. My PCs have mostly been interested in advancing the interests of their respective cities. But well, a good deal of that has been done because they have been concerned about their "homes" being overwhelmed which ties into what Needled has said about evil holding ground. (oh sure my PCs have other motivations, but security from the good guys has always been a big thing for them.)

More of an anecdote, but the servers I enjoyed most had the balance of power shifted the other way. Typically Evil was Top Dog. Nearly every city had corruption in the government, the evil churches had grand temples and bastions of darkness. DMs had various evil Big Bads with PC Lieutenants (Or Dragons, for you Tropers) that were rewarded with gear, money, and techniques for their successful evil missions, or horrible punishments for failure (Obviously, the flavor and severity of the rewards and punishments varied with the type of evil you were dealing with.) The heroes were usually seiged on every front, but damn, their heroics were freaking spectacular. With so many incentives for evil, the heroes that stuck to the path of righteousness really earned a reputation for being badasses. It tended to be closer to a storybook, with a few die-hard Citadels of Light standing against a dark world. It was very rewarding for the heroes and villains alike, with the confrontations containing real emotion and real rivalries between these heroes and baddies that have been working against each other for a very long time in very personal matters. To me, Amia feels like the story has already reached the "Happily ever after" stage and the heroes have gotten bored, fat and lazy and only put in enough effort to keep the evil down when it gets its shit together every few months.

The ironic bit is that back then, I led a faction of goodie Templar. I usually play for the underdogs. I don't see Amia ever being so drastic, but I don't remember any Forgotten Realms novel that played out like how Amia functions. The story seems broken and upside down. I don't know how to fix it personally from the player's chair, but it's something to think about.

Also, another relevant anecdote: When I first came to the server, it was about the time when the vampire Mortenguard (SP?) was starting to do his thang. I had a little level 20 necromancer around that time, and thought that all servers worked like the ones I described in my previous post. My little group was trying to take over Guldorand and this vampire just came in and demolished the place. All right, that sucks, but maybe we can throw our lot in with this DM badass. No such luck. The DM wouldn't even acknowledge us, and the NPC acted as though we were completely invisible. It just completely baffled me that this baddie wouldn't make use of free henchmen. So we ended up basically sitting around with our thumbs in our butts until the Amian All-Stars Team roflmaoed into the place and drove off the vampire. Was a pretty bummer way to be welcomed into the fold. Granted, Amia hasn't been nearly that bad lately, but I think the team needs to make a conscious effort not to repeat mistakes like that.

NinjaClarinet wrote:

More of an anecdote, but the servers I enjoyed most had the balance of power shifted the other way. Typically Evil was Top Dog. Nearly every city had corruption in the government, the evil churches had grand temples and bastions of darkness. DMs had various evil Big Bads with PC Lieutenants (Or Dragons, for you Tropers) that were rewarded with gear, money, and techniques for their successful evil missions, or horrible punishments for failure (Obviously, the flavor and severity of the rewards and punishments varied with the type of evil you were dealing with.) The heroes were usually seiged on every front, but damn, their heroics were freaking spectacular. With so many incentives for evil, the heroes that stuck to the path of righteousness really earned a reputation for being badasses. It tended to be closer to a storybook, with a few die-hard Citadels of Light standing against a dark world. It was very rewarding for the heroes and villains alike, with the confrontations containing real emotion and real rivalries between these heroes and baddies that have been working against each other for a very long time in very personal matters.

That sounds awesome.

NinjaClarinet wrote:

To me, Amia feels like the story has already reached the "Happily ever after" stage and the heroes have gotten bored, fat and lazy and only put in enough effort to keep the evil down when it gets its shit together every few months. . .
. . . The story seems broken and upside down. I don't know how to fix it personally from the player's chair, but it's something to think about.

I have to agree, I don't really get it. I don't understand the appeal to playing a good character when you have no conflict. It's just idle banter most of the time. There's is nowhere near enough confrontation, and when it does show up there's little question of who the victor will be. Evil is just severely out numbered and out gunned and the usual response of being "smart" about it just isn't enough for many evil players.

Pretty sure it's because the majority of people want the bonuses that they perceive come with facing down DM evils, rather than other-PC evils. The big plots get you DCs and notoriety whereas the little day to day interactions only get you character development.

P Three wrote:

Pretty sure it's because the majority of people want the bonuses that they perceive come with facing down DM evils, rather than other-PC evils. The big plots get you DCs and notoriety whereas the little day to day interactions only get you character development.

Which is sad. 90% of my DCs came from DMs randomly popping into RP and whapping us all over the head with the DC stick than from chasing DCs in DM plots.

I play an evil fey on the server. She's not evil in a violent way. Far from that she actually hates violence. She is sneaky, she hides behind her looks. Its slow moving but she plots and plans with other evils. She encourages bad behavior in a less violent way. She even enjoys putting the goods against the goods. its small steps towards evil kingdom. Its do able but you just have to not be willing to pvp all the time and keep a low profile until you work up to having the resources you need to make a big impact. And i dont just mean gold, as resources, or weapons. I mean connections. Connections and making friends is a big part in it. You put the right kind of people together and give them someone they can follow into battle as well as someone who can keep hot heads calm.

BTW...

Endir's Point belongs to Frozenfar so I DM it.

Also Forrstakkr is DMed by Rigela.

Ego680 wrote:

I enjoy political intrigue more than most people, but you don't have to be running the government to get that. Nor does that mean no PC involvement in government affairs. As for responsiveness, that's part of the problem, the PC's get to direct vast cities according to their own wishes. It makes the server and the setting smaller, because instead of the understanding that there's all these people needed to run a city, we have three or four PCs running a government.

The larger problem is that it actually stifles cultural development and city based RP, because now it's much harder to set a story in a city and have it be exclusive to that place, because our canvas is so diminished and we have less control over things. Instead we have to get "world ending" and involve the whole island, and throw cities at each other like what used to be done with small factions.

Hm. From where I sit I don't find anything stifling about being in a PC-run city, mainly because from a OOC point of view those PCs don't have the knowledge to really deal with things on a detailed level. This is probably a passably good reflection of IC realities, though - the people at the top of the pile really don't have a good understanding of what's happening down on the street (although we have even less, since we don't even get to read budget reports and such). And what happens on the street goes on anyway, regardless of what the people at the top are doing. All we can really do is wave vaguely at a problem and say 'Um, can we send some Law Knights over there?' or 'Do we have money to do that?' We can try to steer the city's policy in some particular direction, but it would be very easy to make the whole thing reverse direction or implode. And it's not like we can go down the hall and toss a fireball into the offices of the city clerks. I don't know what it looks like from outside, but there's plenty of room for DMs to add random stuff into the mix, and I'm almost chewing my fingernails over several characters who are doing very good jobs of stirring things up on their own.

Last edited by Halecta on Fri, Sep 27 2013, 22:09 PM, edited 1 time in total.

The best type of evil are the ones who dont go out and advertise "i am evil"

When a evil PC goes the "Chaotic Stupid" alignment path, they get the good guys riled up against them, which is thinking the only thing a bad guy can do is PvP, when you go around attacking and killing people, that is a quick path to your defeat.

Prominent evil characters generally dont get to power by sheer force, they get there from manipulation and deception, the best kind of evil is the type where no one knows you are a bad guy until it is to late.

Being Evil on Amia

Who is online