>_>

We could just stop quoting back and forth. I mean, in the end it does nothing and will probably just end in a thread lock because tensions will rise too high.

Let's stop for the sake of the thread and keeping things sane before they get out of control :>

_________________
Whomst've'll'd'mn't I play:
Salema Nefahri :: A penny for your thots
Zrae'a'stra'fryn :: That which nightmares are made of
Khasir :: From the East a storm is coming

This I don't really get, so I'm gonna request clarification - are you saying that all evil is compatible with Tarkuul? I mean, you just said that Tarkuul is no on "in your face" evil. Which /is/ a valid form of evil. It's also worth noting that stuff like evil druids also get the shaft here. Sure, you can further your RP with a settlement without actually being part of it or inside it at all (by working against them, scapegoating, manipulation, double-dealing) but there are a number of valid positions in which this would be impossible. Taken as written I strenuously disagree with the position.

That's why I would advocate more DM support for evil that doesn't funnel us all into Tarkuul. I've been there. I've seen its problems and while I won't go into details, I can sympathise a lot with the people who just aren't interested. But evil by its very nature is diverse, so that's why I support having more DM attention on this front. The DM responses are pleasing, really - I mean I asked for an evil settlement DM, but really a major, highly-inclusive plot will do the job for me.

However, just as a point of interest - I just now tried to divide major evil settlements in my head into three primary, as Lawful Evil (Tark), Neutral Evil (Nec'perya) and Chaotic Evil (Zanshibon/nebulous promises of DM plots made in this thread) - and I noticed that it doesn't really work, because LE Banites and Tarkuul are incompatible for other reasons - namely religious zeal vs erudite pragmatism. It's a great example of just how diverse and fractitious the evil alignment spectrum is. You simply don't have the problem with good-aligned groups to the same extent, even though there is certainly a lesser measure of diversity.

_________________
@Thanatopsis#6293

And I managed to sweep them off their feet in one, simple sentence. So there is no point in bringing them yet again.



I implied nothing of the sort. Re-read my comment if you have to, over and over again.







+ there is no possible way that what benefits "some floating island" which just happens to be an actual Netherese enclave probably benefits you as well? No, quite impossible.



wat

PS I love how you are skipping everything that directly points out at your fallacy. You did call Ron a dick in public, did you not? Even though he is an ex-DM and players one of the most influential characters on Amia?

_________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Login: Narkudauman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ╬ Join the Magisterium Mortis ╬

I'm saying that Tarkuul is accepting of and often benefitting to evil. There are other evil people, you can watch,listen, and learn. If you can't use it for your particular evil,in some way, shape or form, you're doing it wrong, or your evil is so MASSIVELY undercover that I'm not sure it's actually evil anymore.

_________________


Aly'dra Zau'ana: Priestessish Of Eilistraee
Danika Nefzen: Druid of the Earthmother
Delia Am'Anodel: Paladin of Torm

No, Tarkuul does not cater to every type of evil, and as Serbiris suggested, it is something that need some attention elsewhere besides the one settlement.

And guys, stop the back and forth attacks on each other.

In response to the complaints raised regarding the Banite situation and the suggestion that mistakes are simply being repeated. I would like to point out that the group has done very well in Ostland, and is making major inroads into being fully sanctioned by the tyrannical government there. The major limiting factor to the faction thus far that I've seen has simply been less than regular activity and less than well defined leadership within the group. If that were sorted I think you'd see a definite resurgence in the near future, and I'd personally be very open to helping out with plans and such in that direction.

Says who?

Tarkuul has been "plotting" for years, I personally never much cared for Tarkuul because while sure you can utilise it to help evil plans and all that its kind of like dealing with evil bureaucrats at times and honestly I kind of find it amusing that Tarkuul is now trying to sell itself as evil central. Especially when for years they often went on about how it was so very neutral and welcomed all who furthered the pursuit of knowledge.

Now everyone knew that was kind of BS anyway since its always been rather Neutral/Evil rather than straight Neutral, but really Tarkuul feels like it probably ICly should which is to say like a city full of undead and mages that basically have little to no worry about time or how long things take and really just care more about their studies than anything else.

And I really don't care about "what I'm not seeing behind the scenes" because if its always just behind the scenes than it really doesn't matter since the actual evil is never actually visible. Its kind of like running a soup kitchen for a century so that you eventually be feeding all the poor and then poison them all so you can buy up all the property in the city that they live in for nothing. Sure it is evil... But you just spent a hundred years not acting evil at all. And that is what Tarkuul is to me a whole lot of not evil while they "plot" for maybe something that will eventually be evil.

P Three basically stated my point. I made the forewarning that I expected there to be IC reasoning for its existence (I don't see how it could be misconstrued that I said it was "idiocy" or whatever bs). I simply said that my opinion differs from whatever that reasoning might be. It could have a similar reason to why Thultantar turned to Shar, but there's still the issue of what it was presented as in the past(talking years ago, maybe ever pre-Amia/Bmia) versus what it suddenly has to deal with now. Tarkuul is made up of much more than just Netherese diaspora and sympathizers.

But this isn't a topic about Tarkuul, so that's probably enough about that.

As far as settlements go, I think it's a bit silly to label them "good" or "evil" or whatever. Settlements are, ideally, dynamic based upon the inhabitants and the leaders. Saying a place is definitely "evil" or "good" discourages PC's of a differing alignment from not only going there, but also attempting to interact meaningfully with it.

_________________

Been talking with some folks in PMs and we're pretty much in agreement that conflicts of differing ideologies are generally more varied, interesting and ultimately inclusive than conflicts strictly based on "good vs evil".

You do know who Ron is... right?

_________________
Khaldun Menetnashte Khalfani
Victor Wilkinson

^totally not a lie or anything.

I want to know who Ron is. Tell me tell me tell me. PM if you must!

Seriously though, he's a year or so before my time haha.

_________________
Whomst've'll'd'mn't I play:
Salema Nefahri :: A penny for your thots
Zrae'a'stra'fryn :: That which nightmares are made of
Khasir :: From the East a storm is coming

History repeats. Yet another thread that turns into pointless good vs. (impossible to play) evil haggle and "my dick's bigger than yours, yo!" arguments.

I see ... a lock with no key. On a chain. On this thread. Run, you fools, when still you have time!

By the way - I have a few evil characters and I never, ever had a problem. And some of them are mean motherfuckers with pretty open, mean ideas.

I repeat - not once I had a conflict with goodie players. And it is not because of my über charisma (maybe it is.)

_________________
Mercadier - *sleeps six feet under the warm sands of Khem*
Alex - Life is adventure or nothing!
Eddie - Sex, drugs and rock'n... more sex.
=========
Obsidian (inactive)

Your argument applies to individuals as much as settlements. But since we're labeling characters with alignments, why is it so much sillier to do the same thing to a settlement when your argument is identical? Well, maybe you would argue against the alignment system for PCs too, fair enough. But since it's there, I'll support it - settlements are led by individuals, and whether their control is absolute (by force of arms or force of personality for example Avadon, and Avadon, respectively) or a looser direction, their ideas are going to show in the movements and the zeitgeist of the settlement. Since the management of different cities tends to differ, it's not a simple matter of just finding the alignment of who is in charge and focusing on that - better to view the settlement as a whole and the places of individuals within it, and determine an alignment for the settlement based on that. Tarkuul is Lawful Evil-inclined because the movers, shakers and the people they appeal to tend to be Evil sorts, and they tend towards hierarchies and ordered movements rather than the reverse. Cordor is Neutral-ish because there is a good mix of Good and Evil trying to gain sway along with a lot of neutral, and a population which isn't terribly inclined on the alignment scale.

Zeitgeist is a great word so I might just say "I'm not labeling the cities with alignments, I'm labeling the zeitgeists".

_________________
@Thanatopsis#6293

If you ever have time to discuss this in game or by PM's, I would be thankful. I'm obviously not in charge of the faction anymore, nor do I wish to be (or have the time to be, for that matter), but it pertains directly to the ideology being discussed in this thread. As always thanks for the continued involvement and patience you've shown to a dwindling faction.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata

I found something new to post:

"Yes, Bioware didn't delete the Chaos/Law spectrum either, it's also a source of conflict."

The back and forth personal stuff doesn't really help the topic or facilitate change guys. Keep to the topic points.

Good doesn't have such a burden in terms of resources or coins, because A. They have tons more people and B. Their bases aren't blown up that often at all, merely, expanded, to be even bigger and more imposing.

...whilst evil barley get's a tiny temple off of the ground before it's imploded. (With exception in places Goodly-hoard doesn't immediately smash, like the UD, or public-neutral Tarkuul)

I too find the situation of Banites hiding in caves to be lore-disturbing, and very out of game-world context. However it sounds like they're moving on into another city, so, cheers to that.

I've already said everything else I wanted to in mutiple-thousands-of-words in previous posts.

Above all keep it civil, this is a topic to discuss the problems at hand in hopes of finding some solutions to it. -and I'd hope it doesn't get side-tracked or locked because that doesn't help the situation of the server.

p.s. Paladins are overpowered and they just curbstomp melee-evil on a mechanical basis. *hides from Sune*

_________________
When good wins the day, and evil is destroyed, then the movie is over ...and you do something else.

Let's make it, not over.

no im saying, if you play open evil expect to get curved stomped, this isnt gifts for evil thread, you wont get anything free, and we will continue to bash the head in of "evil" players if they keep seeking a fight, its what happened in the past and it is what is going to happen in the future, why this this is, is pretty obvius.

Evil has been incompetent and never got a foothold, while good united every single time evil showed its face, as it should in good dominated lands, and amia is that.
You have a chance on b sure, but on A..ha..its ludacris to think you should get any foothold, the second your base is discovered the horde of good players and thier friends come and curve stomp you, and its perfectly fine, cause your on enemy territory.

Did you think before you posted, I didnt say one evil can exist on evil, I said be smart about it -if- you want to survive, brute evil will be meet with brute force, and guess what your outnumbered.

If you want to build brute force, do it in neutral lands like the frozen areas or tarkuul, there you can grow in strength and probably hide too if needed.

And above all else, dont come whining because your fancy new base got destroyed a stonethrow from kohlingen, cause that is just plain stupid, ofcause it will get destroyed.

_________________
-Ja'acira Arrows'R'Us
-Balorin Wolfhammer- A dwarf so old he remember when the Beer stein was invented
Saisha Jai'diem Knight of bahamut, and abit of a looker

Bumping this particular post up, because I think it went too unnoticed.

Such a shift would make Amia immensely more interesting, though this may be more suited for the identity thread. Of course, this couldn't happen overnight, but in the long run it'd make this place more exciting for everybody.

IT will be a load of bs before getting to that point where alot of people leave because they think its unfair evil just getting territory from dm's, thus it wont happen, not on amia island anyway, do it on b, its ripe for the taking, evil can do pretty much what they want there, but good deserves to control A, because tehy fought for it for so bloody long, beating down every single cult that rose.

Or are we just going to ignore all the rp done by all the good factions and thier allies for the sake of catering to evil players who wants stuff without actually putting in an effort

_________________
-Ja'acira Arrows'R'Us
-Balorin Wolfhammer- A dwarf so old he remember when the Beer stein was invented
Saisha Jai'diem Knight of bahamut, and abit of a looker

The point. It to discuss the issue and determine how the player base feels the setting should be. I'm not amused by your last two posts as they're not constructive and the one before this was outright gloating.

Just because your character isn't an evil alignment doesn't make you better than the players who do have evil characters. They put in effort as well and don't "deserve" amia A any less. This is not about winning, it's about having a sustainable environment and setting. You'd have no one to "curbstomp" if the evil players weren't here and I doubt you'd enjoy that any better.

my point was that the destruction of brutal evil was player produced every single time, which means they need to change thier style, i might have used bad words, for that I apoligize, but I honerstly think that evil is dying out because of thier own ineptetude, and I have played alot of evil chars in the past, and personally i found the evioment great for exploitation and development, I just enjoyed my good and neutral chars more at the time.

it is the reality of the situation that people will respond rather quickly and fast to any attempt at overt evil on amia, because amia has a feel that it is a very small place, if someone builds an temple in amia, it feels like its our neighbours, i think that is the main reason why it allways fails on amia island.

Which is why i think b suits evil, better, its vast ..confusing...and very much open for building a base for eventual attacks on amia island if that is what they want.
especially now that the wk's where destroyed by a dm.

((edited))

_________________
-Ja'acira Arrows'R'Us
-Balorin Wolfhammer- A dwarf so old he remember when the Beer stein was invented
Saisha Jai'diem Knight of bahamut, and abit of a looker

I personally feel we shouldnt have a set story ending either way so I am no fan of the 'big overhaul' idea.

I think the good-evil argument doesnt take into account that a sizeble chunk of the playerbase isnt good or evil but just wants their settlement/base to be left in peace. You wont see Bendir's dale marching to war often, or the druids grove for that matter.

I rather like Glims post about Ideology conflicts which can arise between any alignment and seem far less predictable then good against evil.

_________________
Characters played:

Harold Kendry (Illusionist) -> see avatar
Elloanore (Travelling bard)

A certain character of a certain player made decisions that carried very severe consequences not only for themselves, but their whole faction. That is exactly what Amia needs: less stagnation and more dire consequences ― not only for the evil, but for good and neutral as well. I applaud the DM for what he did. Most wouldn't have the guts, due to the inevitable backlash-bitching that resulted, a portion of which you have displayed above.

The biggest problem I feel Amia's community has in general is the inability to place themselves in other people's shoes and holding unnecessary grudges. Subjective thinking will not bring this whole discussion very far. Even if player X plays evil while player Y plays good, they are not enemies out of character. Threads like this open doors to display some mutual respect between 'opposing sides' to lubricate future interactions happening in-character. Creating unnecessary animosity between people and groups here will only worsen things for everyone, guaranteed.

My best advise to all players of evil characters out there is to try and be as friendly and cordial as possible, out of character ― the same obviously applies for players of 'goodies', but even more so for 'baddies'. If someone breaks the rules, or is otherwise disrespectful, simply report it to a DM instead of bitching and cussing people out for it. You'd just be creating a person who did their damndest to avoid any and all interactions with you in the future. Take this from someone who's done this mistake more than once, and finds himself regretting it more often than he'd like.

I might post a more thorough response to the various IC suggestions and concerns addressed in this thread, when I find the energy to do so.

_________________
Sion of Nimlith
Shadow Disciple

I love you for so many things in here. Also, welcome to the club, we meet on Thursdays, guano has the membership cards, one will be mailed to you.

_________________


Aly'dra Zau'ana: Priestessish Of Eilistraee
Danika Nefzen: Druid of the Earthmother
Delia Am'Anodel: Paladin of Torm

I think we're getting to hung up on the ideas of the 'rules of evil'
Let's see. I think I play pretty successful evil characters overall.

One was just a monster, who was made aware that he was in fact a monster. When he tried to learn about society he got chased off with torches and pitchforks, but he became their idea because no one showed him how to not be anything else. "The only thing mankind remembers is its kings and its monsters." says the beast. "We will be there to eat your bones and swallow your sins when you are given back to the earth." The ideology behind this character was that he was sort of the figment of the gluttony of death. The unpaused taking of life that is of course, just a part of life, but in sheer mass, that occur through plague, massacres, warfare. The thing that is there to eat you when you're gone, who looms in waiting and stands behind you. And man does he hate humanity, trying very hard to kill that piece of him, being a shapeshifter. To turn and look in his face if it means death, is uncomfortable and a truth we as people do not want to cope with, people generally just avoid Laika, but the curious ones always do... they have their own problems.

Another was something of a Frankenstein monster, a crafted girl, no mother or father, no womb, no air. I played off her weaknesses as weaknesses, and her sort of 'eternal' nature, having so many living resources to continue her sentient living. The golem often times would harvest the living only when she had to, to replace say, a kidney or a finger or thumb, here and there. A patchwork devil or angel, obsessed with the notion of entropy. That place where only she would stand at its singularity when all life fades, all grass withers and bricks crumple, the slowness of her had much to do with the message of Time, I think. Time just tumbling forward beyond everything it cares for not; you and your world. It all feeds entropy. But even in this humanity possessed her with interest I think, she was very envious of all life, for its rainbow of feelings she did not understand. Needless to say the only way she could express feeling is by swinging an axe. The envy of really a tool to the hand of its master, the darkness of not-having. Envy.

And then there is Aiseth who I think has been dynamic in her escape from something along these other lines, vanity was sort of her forte, using magic just to show she can do it better than you, something of a perfectionist, and having started a very mischievous and powerful brat. This is probably been my best character so far, I personally think for her dynamism. She made a change she didn't have to in herself, and she's found some peace with herself for it. You can say she's more or less more responsible and is deep on the hero's journey.


My point: Do you notice a pattern? I don't have any arc that subscribes to 'this church will do this' or, 'this is how evil will organize'...no. I think that is a tacky and round-about way of crafting a character. Organized crime doesn't succeed because we wanted to try 'organized crime'. Characters have transparent conflicts, internal ones, serious ones, and even though the formula I use is sort of cliche... I will pick a problem in the world, and base the genetic and material makeup of someone to manifest that single idea. A sin, for example. (In which these things possess half-truths no matter what) and I make room for three very important things in each of my characters:

1) weakness- So important. No one is a mechanical bad-ass who simply wants to hurt. They have reasons. How do you internalize these reasons? What's your kink? Is there a reason you do what you do? Do you even understand it? Do you over-compensate for something that happened to you once? I hate characters who just 'are living examples of their god's dogma, that's not interesting. I had an Aurilite once and when someone asked why he was an Aurilite he says: "Because who else cares for the living in the white north? Who else buried my wife?" Is that character going to stay with Auril forever? Probably not... but you see, your character should only know what you know about the world. Assume ignorance.

2) conflict- We need to stop assuming the idea of EVIL. Think of it this way when you start making your character: Is my character going to start their journey satisfied or unsatisfied? Generally characters start with no satisfaction, or are forlorn, lost, hungry, ambitious, whatever baby. Keep in mind that they have a capital urge to get that satisfaction in some way, they should generally have means to accomplish this for themselves, plans. Everyone has plans. Maybe they just have a loathsome lack of understanding of say, Kossuthians. They will go out of their way to kill fire-starters. Your character just hates warmth. Heat and warmth reminds them of every time they were let down by everyone they ever loved. A bit dramatic, but get these things figured out ahead of time. GET YOUR BACK STORIES IN CHECK YO.

3) dynamism- It's okay to change. It's okay for Paladins to fall and for tyrants to get depressed and become hermits. You need to let shit happen to you and don't give up when 'your plans have been ruined'. That's just a cheesy way of saying to me: I don't like dealing with these sort of issues and I just want to be appreciated. It's one of those basic things: be yourself, your total self. That is to say we have many selves in one lifetime, we die many of deaths, our ego dies, our love dies, our hope dies. Deal with it. Stick by your character all the way, this is your dollhouse, you get to make their bed they sleep in. If you want your character to be forgiven, then they will be forgiven. If you're a masochist or sadist, you'll probably destroy your character to great temperatures. But let stuff happen to your character, if someone tries to help them, have them take a risk. Maybe they aren't risk takers, then you're just in a rut.

Just my advice, my template that works for me when I think about what kind of character I want.

_________________

MuseReader: Aiseth Nosdivan- Master Enchantress

Triple hurrah for high stakes - high consequences.

_________________
Aernoud Van Brabant: Heir of the House. Proprietor of the Beer Wagon.
"Go to the Mayfields, have a pint, and wait for this to blow over."
Aurelius: Sunmaster of Amaunator. Contemplative. Aspirant to Transcendance.
"Sol Invictus"

Reply to Kraniumbrud,

When you say 'brutal evil' has to -change it's style- you're referring to forcing people to covert-hidden-evil-rp, and starving out anyone who isn't hidden. That slays an entire dynamic, you might as well say the church of Bane can never exist. That's not your call. -and no one said changes would be sudden, of course they take time and IC direction.

However if one of your -many- goodly-bastions frequently has a player population of near 0, cause they're bored of it and therefore entertaining themselves elsewhere, or have simply logged out from the boredom. I'd put it on the destruction/controlled by evil toon's chopping-block.

If we put time and effort into areas or plans, and you're not doing anything with these areas anyway. Seems like fair game to me. (yes, that definitely includes the main island)

So say you rise up the goodly-hoard, gather the various (op)paladins, all to take out evil and defend an area you didn't use before, and aren't likely to use after.....-no, I don't think you should win that confrontation. Evil toons were making use of that area in your absence, and if you show up with a goodly hoard to do some damage and force pvp, expect that bastion to get blown up in the process of that altercation.

-1 goodly-bastion of power.

..rebuilding it? With what people? ..they died in the battle or scattered to the winds. Not likely to return until you've paid for and repaired -everything-, and spent -at least- as much time and effort as we did in corrupting it.

We of course, after gaining control of it, would prefer that you didn't blow it up with mass pvp, but the goodly-hoard usually swings their sword instead of speaking politics, sadly.




To the General Smevil-folks,

I think the time of defensive evil should come toward an end, and evil just simply goes on the offensive. We have no real bases on the mainland, nothing more for them to blow up, so we can just guerilla-style, hit all their un-used bases at once. Win-win. ..now they'd have something to do. ..and we're making progress destroying their bastions of power. We don't face the goodly-hoard, except when they show up to a previous bastion of theirs, and then we just make sure it's completely demolished during the fight before going to corrupt something else. (and while they have 40+ people defending -one- area....we might be blowing up something -elsewhere.)

Call up the explosives experts, city demolishers, and invasion teams. They wana barge in swinging swords? , they might get a bang. Enjoy the rebuilding process. IC actions, IC consequences.

"..and all the lost innocent lives that could have been saved by talking instead of swinging your sword."

Covert evil can corrupt and plan ahead for the horde to come, while overt evil counter attacks from behind, elsewhere, away from the goodly-hoard. When team-goodly-hoard stops to realize their actions have consequences, then they might come to the political bargaining table and recognize evil as more than just a minor pest to squash with brute force.

_________________
When good wins the day, and evil is destroyed, then the movie is over ...and you do something else.

Let's make it, not over.

even if you wherer right about what happened...how doesgiving it for mininum efforts to another group constitute "dire cosequences". ...oh and giving it before the "decision" you claim there was..was made

and dont confuse a statement with bitching, dont put words in my mouth, treat me with some respect.

to give yourself your own advice
My best advise to you is to try and be as friendly and cordial as possible, out of character.


'

_________________
-Ja'acira Arrows'R'Us
-Balorin Wolfhammer- A dwarf so old he remember when the Beer stein was invented
Saisha Jai'diem Knight of bahamut, and abit of a looker

Yeah, I think this whole "eternal war" thing is exactly why most Good characters don't even bother to give an inch. Why bother when the "evil side" (whatever that is) is ultimately just going to try and eff you up one way or another every chance it gets - and before you turn it around, yes, it's a chicken/egg thing. If this is the way you want to run evil, then the whole Good Blob that steamrolls around makes perfect sense. Why should you let "that kind of evil" grow into anything more than the mentioned pest? It might be little more than a game of whack-a-mole, but why should you treat people whose morality is generally based on "kill/enslave the weak" any different?

I hate the whole Good-Evil alignment thing. It works in a straight-up, traditional hack-and-slash campaign. But not in any setting with more depth than a twelve year old's power trip.

_________________
Aernoud Van Brabant: Heir of the House. Proprietor of the Beer Wagon.
"Go to the Mayfields, have a pint, and wait for this to blow over."
Aurelius: Sunmaster of Amaunator. Contemplative. Aspirant to Transcendance.
"Sol Invictus"

I find that insulting, really? 'minimum effort'?? ...you sir have not been heavily involved in any evil faction if you think it's minimum effort. Hells no, it's very often -harder- than being a goodly-toon. Goodly-toons can just show up to the hoard-event to demolish what we just spent months building. ...all you did is log in and participate in the carnage. Overtly, we can barley walk down a street un-harassed, where you do it all day long without even considering it. Covertly we fear being discovered and have to constantly cover our tracks.

(That being said there are some goodly toons that do put in a lot of effort indeed)

However, it is much easier to make a good-aligned toon on Amia, than an evil-aligned one. -and that's unfortunate imo.

_________________
When good wins the day, and evil is destroyed, then the movie is over ...and you do something else.

Let's make it, not over.

The end goal is to create consequences for the goodly-hoard, so they stop just showing up to curb-stomp evil, but instead talk and interact via politics. Eventually, when good is weakened in terms of NPC's especially, evil perhaps can establish itself more-so, with favor of said NPC's backing it. (and hopefully more people playing evil toons as they see some progress) -and then hopefully, being able to create a bastion they can hold onto, and defensively win against said goodly-hoard.

_________________
When good wins the day, and evil is destroyed, then the movie is over ...and you do something else.

Let's make it, not over.

Well, Kranium, your initial statements throughout this thread have been laced with disrespect toward fellow players and DM's alike. Some much more obvious than others. And it was indeed the very same backlash talk that most DM's would have been afraid to incur by giving severe consequences to plots.

We've been over the example of the WK's numerous times in private. I suggest we move on.

And I also think we shouldn't have taken the bait. Let's not break down into vast generalizations, guys.

It really breakes down to this.

I think some of us feel that we are bound by faerun lore to never compromise with our dogmas, as atleast us paladins are actually surposed to be living embodiments of those dogmas.
Kohlingen cant allow evil to get a foothold on amia island because of this very reason., they would all fall, you dont compromise with evil ever.

Faerun has bound the server really.

_________________
-Ja'acira Arrows'R'Us
-Balorin Wolfhammer- A dwarf so old he remember when the Beer stein was invented
Saisha Jai'diem Knight of bahamut, and abit of a looker

Im sorry for that, but I honerstly think both sides are getting favoritism and thus it cannot be used as an arguement.

_________________
-Ja'acira Arrows'R'Us
-Balorin Wolfhammer- A dwarf so old he remember when the Beer stein was invented
Saisha Jai'diem Knight of bahamut, and abit of a looker

Rha's al Ghul: "Over the ages our weapons have grown more sophisticated. With Gotham we tried a new one: economics."

I'll just leave that up for thought.

----
That said, the pointless futility of this thread makes me want to quit.

Even a twelve-year old will tell you that Good-Evil in D&D is a retarded system and an insult to all spirituality and morality. Why both sides are even whining about this stuff is beyond me.

Here's a thought: everyone plays Neutral. No Good or Evil. Only LN, TN and CN. Good and Evil characters by rebuild request only. And you better damn well earn it.

But who am I kidding, right?

_________________
Aernoud Van Brabant: Heir of the House. Proprietor of the Beer Wagon.
"Go to the Mayfields, have a pint, and wait for this to blow over."
Aurelius: Sunmaster of Amaunator. Contemplative. Aspirant to Transcendance.
"Sol Invictus"

Perhaps you should ask yourself why every epic adventure book/movie/play/game/script has the element of evil, before you opt for everyone to be the Neutral alignment. We'd end up sitting around, logging from boredom.

_________________
When good wins the day, and evil is destroyed, then the movie is over ...and you do something else.

Let's make it, not over.

Hrm. Alright, what I think I'd like to do, is give this thread a brief recess. A lot's been talked about. I'm gonna close it for just a day, so tensions cool down some. Then re-open it tomorrow so you guys can take everything that's been said into account, and come up with some thoughtful responses.

I think there's been a lot of talk on problems and difficulties that people run into when playing evil. So now let's try to direct the discussion tomorrow onto a few key points, regarding moving forward and fixing some things.

Look at how to make conflict fun for everyone involved, how to persevere through setbacks, what Evil's purpose is on Amia and how to make it a fun adventure. How to really be a successful Amian evil.

Edit: I think if I don't lock it and give everyone some more time to think, we're just gonna keep moving in circles until we collide and people get hurt. So this is more preventative than punitive.

Okay, I'm going to tentatively open this back up again. Try to keep it productive, realize that not everyone is going to agree with you, no matter how logical you believe you are. And let the discussion continue in a civil manner!

Let me just express my deepest respect towards Sphinx's post. With attitude and approach towards the game such as his applied on everyone we could breath and enjoy the game much easier.

_________________
Daegan Van'Straaten - Duty to Helm is above all!

I pose a simple question to my fellow evil-doers:

Is our main gripe the lack of Good vs Evil or simply the lack of Evil RP in general? If Good was theoretically out of the question, would Evil RP suffer it's current state or would it be approved? I know Tarkuul is the most active Evil hub and, while it's very covert with its evil (meaning you have to actually actively RP there to find out info and not meta it), is the one thing we're missing an Overt hub that can hold its own?

_________________

Elaborate? :O

_________________
Amia Minecraft Server Ip: vps1602.directvps.nl
NWN Damage Calculator: http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/dnd/
NWN Build Calculator: http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Other.Detail&id=856

Most of the comments here have revolved around mainly that there's a lack of 'balanced' Good vs Evil and that Evil RP has little to no support. I'm curious as to if these go hand in hand, as Evil factions die a hell of a lot faster than Good factions, is this what puts off any support on them?

DM-wise, why can't Evil factions 1-up Good ones for once without them activating the "My city is unkillable" card and destroying all of the buildings that, in terms of actually requesting them, take a lot longer than already developed Good factions.

Why is Cordor's serious business only aimed at their enemies? Why can't Cordorian citizens be perma'd as well? The unkillable aura Cordor and Kohlingen have demotivates anyone who wishes to do any Evil RP in these areas, whether it's leading a full-frontal assault or even a petty crime.

_________________

It's not.

_________________
I play:

Yeah. Both good and evil PC's die all the time in Cordor.

That was an oversight on my part in the writing of the post. A core of players were hiding behind certain OOC rules that I chose to mitigate. The post does specifically call out enemies of the state, but only because they were the most likely candidates at the time. Even certain players who were citizens knew from interacting with me that they faced the same consequences. In my mind, it was intended to apply to anyone who engaged in my DMing. But in reading it, I can see how it reads one-sided. That was never really the intent, though, for what it counts.

Totally misunderstood Yoss' wording, ignore that comment

_________________

This is something I think is the major thing we're missing. Sorry, but Tarkuul isn't for everyone (and lets not discuss why not, it's already been done).

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata

I had a sweet post typed up but then my internet died for two days.

I'll just say that of course Tarkuul isn't going to be for every evil, just like a Banite stronghold or a drow city isn't going to be for every evil.

Speaking broadly of the vast spectrum of evils we have, I'll say that evil cooperates best when they agree on a "mutual interest." It doesn't mean they have to get cuddly together in the same city or smelly hideout, it means that maybe just for the short-term or long-term thing they have a common goal and maybe common means to achieving that goal.

I don't think there is going to be really a monolithic evil force that'll rally all evil under its banner, because there's so many types of evil with different goals and ways of carrying out those goals. The closest I've seen was Caraigh, the common goal of kicking the good guys out and an easy common means to get behind! From my limited time there, there was quite a variety of evil folks when it was going down.

Tarkuul may not be an overt evil player, but it still could potentially be a resource if you play your cards right.

_________________

Kohlingen isn't "for everyone" either. Kind of the opposite, actually; it seems like there's as many races banned as races welcome. Yet it still rocks the house as the major "good hub" of the server. Being "for everyone" is not a thing that exists, anywhere, for anyone, of any alignment. And not being "for everyone" doesn't disqualify a place as being of major political and social importance (q.v. again, Kohlingen).

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

I can agree on that point, my drow occasionally rocks around Tarkuul despite having very different motivations & goals from the Tarkuulians.

Though to clarify what I meant by that Tarkuul not being for every evil, is that not every evil will be able to immerse themselves into the Tarkuulian faction much like how Kohlingen isn't a faction for every good guy to get immersed in.

_________________