AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

In my observations I've found that great many people consider the Underport IC to be perfectly fine for
their characters to visit, trade, pass through and so on. It is not considered a taboo and is more often
than not seen as a neutral trading center. On the other side, Tarkuul is avoided like the plague by
those same characters. Tarkuul has undead guards, we get it, but why are stationary, benign undead
guards considered more evil and more of a taboo than Illithids? It's just something that got my spider
senses tingling.

Bottom line I'm just wondering why is a place such as the Underport where:

1) man, women and kids are sold in a public square
2) a city ruled by probably the most wicked of all the creatures and cultures in existence
3) where the mindflayers are feeding on people's brains every single day (read: people die every day)
4) place where a stranger (read: non-mindflayer) has pretty much no rights

.. considered just fine for the purposes of traveling, getting together, putting up trade notices etc? Discuss.

Re: Point 3; people and orcs/goblinoids to be fair.

Probably because while Tarkuul is politically "neutral" (which is to say everybody "knows" that's bull and they're up to shady stuff) Underport is genuinely neutral in that they really do keep to themselves unless approached (neutral in a political sense, not morally/ethically). That and they're too damn nasty to even think of messing with. It's also easier to ignore creepy stuff if it's not doing anything (see: few people react to impaled corpse static objects or altars of skulls in various dungeons). Tarkuul however is quite active and visible which makes them more confrontational.

That said Good-aligned should avoid it and most Neutrals should be at least uncomfortable there. But Neutrals are also unsurprisingly more of a mixed bag. I'll leave it for DMs to decide if anyone needs shifts over it, but one can always report suspicious alignment behaviour to them if need be.

Point 3: I kind of imagine goblin and orc brain to taste like crap as opposed to elves and humans. Illithids
are elitists, consider themselves the most superior race that ever roamed the planes (not just the Prime).
So I'm not quite convinced they suckle on goblins and orc brains exclusively.

Tarkuul ain't neutral for a long time now, since we're in this war to our teeth. Shady stuff - sure.
Shady stuff nobody has ever seen or can prove. As opposed to that you have the Underport where
evil is a fact, not even hiding behind the good intentions (with or without quotations mark).

So you have the assumed and unseen shady stuff vs plain view it's-a-fact evil.

I mean IC I guess my character is kind of flattered, but I just want to check out how many people
actually gave the actions of their character a thought when it comes to the Underport and Tarkuul.
I agree with your last point with one small addition. Even evil people, even the most wicked and
chaotic of villains that roam Amia should be uncomfortable in the Underport.

I think it's popularity has more to do with the fact that, on Server A, it's really the only place that has A) a 25K shop, B) the most common important potions you need, and, C) Both those things easily accessible, in very close proximity, without any real running or transitioning.

If you're good, I really don't see how you can justify going there all the time, though.

Oh, and you can slot it as #1 on your wand, which you can't for Tarkuul (unless that's changed.) I think that's another reason people tend to visit it over Tarkuul.

You're partly right about Illithid diet - in Lords of Madness it explains that while illithids will eat the brains of low-sentient life (no mention of non-sentients), it's not nearly as tasty as higher sentients. Mind-broken slaves are blander, but adventurers are deeeelish because of their rich and experienced lives. However - we run into the "vampires in London?" problem; if every 2 weeks (or every week) every illithid (what's their population anyway?) killed one human, they would either cut so badly into their business the trade port wouldn't be able to run, or they'd be cutting swathes out of the local (or more distant) countryside - which would break their neutrality. Goblinoids are far easier to farm and capture without anyone batting an eye. Illithids might be elitist but they are inherently pragmatic, I think they can suffer through a sub-optimal diet for the sake of running their company well.

Quote:

Shady stuff nobody has ever seen or can prove

No there's plenty of shady stuff that enough people know about, and I daresay those temples sitting there are probably about as openly-evil as an open slave trade. On Amia there's no such thing as proof as we know it in real life - that is, CCTV, writing (vs forgery). Some of these are because of its medium, some because of its setting (since obviously CCTV didn't exist back there). The real currency of "proof" comes down to is who your friends are, and what they believe - it's a function of reputation, not evidence. Tarkuul has made plenty of enemies who are either vocal or have reached positions of power or are otherwise able to make an impression on other PCs. Further, "the bad guys with "obvious" good intentions" naturally strike many people as suspicious. I mean if I was a bad guy, I'd want people to think I was good too eh? So proof is much less of a factor. The unfortunate side-effect of actually having a reputation (unlike Underport) is that well it might be a pretty bad one.

Again, illithids might have the slave trade on their front lawn, but no one talks/cares about them because they don't do anything. They're not on the public mind and they're not recruiting, so while some folks are all "Don't get involved with Tarkuul" no one even bothers saying "Don't go to Underport either".

Completely agree with you, Dead.

Last edited by Pony on Mon, Sep 22 2014, 19:22 PM, edited 1 time in total.

The first thing that is important to keep in mind is that many players / characters will seek to make the biggest profit and care not to limit themselves unless they must. They want to maxamize to their convience and benefit. Unless there is an authoratative force that penalizes them, many will trade with who offers the most gold, trade in more places to broaden their market and make use of NPC merchants, route shortcuts and other mechanical benefits.

I have seen my fair share of characters trade with the undead merchants of the Abyss and Electric Castle that are bound to service to churches that would frown upon that quite a bit. Unless NPCs or PCs actually hold them accountable for that, it is likely it will continue. Same as some characters auctioning to characters that certainly is very questionable to get those extra 300k gold. The other aspect is that people want to rp, and often seek an excuse to interact with characters or in locations that is hard to justify. I'd love to take the opportunities to interact with Tarkuul more that Glim opened, but with Robert I simply can not without feeling like I am breaking character. But I understand why others might choose differently. In Underport is safer to cross those lines with, as it is not the focus of attention.

The second thing that ties into it is the stigmatization and accountability handed down from the people on their high horses that have the authority or resources to penalize. Before frequenting Tarkuul was penalized by certain factions, you had a similiar mentality with it than you pointed out certain characters have with Underport. The difference between Tarkuul and Underport currently is that one has a lot of events and player activity focused around it, the other does not. That means one is being watched and countered, and hence those that work with it obviously are scrutinized more dominately. Simple focus of attention. For instance, being branded by Kohlingen as a supect still carries a lot of weight, which may have a "negative impact" on your character you prefer to avoid.

DM events or player activity picks up in Underport or Zanshibon, you can be sure of it that it will very quickly be stigmatized just as Tarkuul is being, perhaps even more. Robert for instance was very outspoken of dealing with Underport, but as it is harder to interact with it and other events / locations dominate the ic with more activity, his attention is not focused on it.

It goes without saying, and while I would like to have some interaction with you as a player as well, we both know on our mains it is impossible, save for giving each other the evil eye or worse. And I do agree with every line you wrote. It also means that everything you wrote saddens me deeply as people care more for their character getting rich, than their character being that character they claim it to be. I personally did not visit Zanshibon with Lucius for almost 2 years now, just because of a one-time plot that was abandoned by Silent2001 a few days later. It does not make sense for my character to go there anymore, even though I can easily farm the Windreaper every 8 hours and increase my chances of epic loot. The problem here is that trading with certain NPC merchants is seen as OOC action. There are no consequences. You talk with Paush, an NPC Demon Prince of the 363th layer and buy a potion from him? Big deal. I say we should lead by example. Make those choices count.

Since Robert is one of the main goodies around, tell me, does he hold accountable for people who would openly trade with the Underport, or Zanshibon? And if so, does he hold them accountable in the same manner he would if they were dealing with Tarkuul?

What irks me the most is that "blind-eye" hypocrisy. One is refusing to have some RP with a certain faction, while he is busy getting 25k per item from a drow in the Underport, while he passes by a child being sold by a brain suckling monstrosity an Illithid is. Either go all the way and reflect your character's RP in his alignment. Say he is greedy, he does not care about children being sold as long as my character can get 25k and a good potion, or do not at all.

I just would like to say that these line...

Dead wrote:

You talk with Paush, an NPC Demon Prince of the 363th layer and buy a potion from him? Big deal. I say we should lead by example. Make those choices count.

Dead wrote:

What irks me the most is that "blind-eye" hypocrisy. One is refusing to have some RP with a certain faction, while he is busy getting 25k per item from a drow in the Underport, while he passes by a child being sold by a brain suckling monstrosity an Illithid is. Either go all the way and reflect your character's RP in his alignment. Say he is greedy, he does not care about children being sold as long as my character can get 25k and a good potion, or do not at all.

... are exactly my thoughts. When I play my goodie, he's basically not selling stuff at all and when he does, it's only in Kohlingen or to player characters. I hate to see paladins going on business trips to Abyss or Underport - makes no damn sense! And afaik, this was mentioned before, but the result was somehow -meh, neutral-

Is Underport evil? From my humble perspective damn right it's evil. Openly evil even - slavery is one of the most villanious acts there is, and they do not even hide it.

And by the way, nice attempt, Dead the Treehugger :mrgreen:

, but everyone knows that the best brainsucker there is... is...

He does. If he would find out that two kohlinger pallies are trading with an Ilithid of Underport and with a palemaster of Tarkuul respectivly, both will be graced by his scrutiny and discontent. One does not benefit from the inpropriety of his act being more prominent in regard to the political situation.

But ooc considerations and preferences do inform a small part of my character's personality. Given the conservative, unyielding and tenacious person that he is, his personality in part is ooc informed from my desire not to have those ic conflicts be a constant. He does not focus on such work, because of my wish not to have such roleplay dominate my time. I also do not want to constantly subject other players to conflict rp, because of my experiences with the EO. Robert rarely gets involved unless there is a need for him to do so, prefering others to handle it so he can focus on his primary duties. He does not tend to interrogate prisoners. He handles attonements only in cases he feels strongly about. I do not go out boss hunting too often, because I do not want to constantly great smite evil gits. I prefer that if combat does happen with them, it is more meaningful than a short temporary smack on the head near the Snowbeast because they had a pit fiend with them and decided to mouth off.

Small things like that, that I can justify with my character's personality.

Oh, and I suggest just handle it ic. Hold them accountable to the hypocrisy they are conducting, or exploit it as an evil git with blackmail! Dealing with merchants is not ooc. I think this subject is one of the best examples of something that roleplay is the best solution to.

I think the reason people use it as often as they do is just convenience. My character was born a slave, so he wouldn't go there unless he absolutely had to, but slavery really isn't uncommon or 'always evil' in the FR setting. Even paladins could justify owning slaves if their deities/cultures allowed for it and they didn't treat the slaves poorly. That's the problem with trying to enforce objective and arbitrary morality at the same time.

Our 21st century attitudes might say that slavery is always evil, but when you're dealing with medieval-style fantasy lands, it depends a lot on the culture you're dealing with and the type of slavery you're talking about.

My character has gone to the Underport about four times total in the entire time I've played him. One of those times was while he was searching for a kidnapped person and the others were all to gather information(including the time he sat down for a drink with Wicket), so I wouldn't be affected at all if visiting the Underport was made an 'evil only' kind of thing... but..

If we're going to start nudging DMs about shifting peoples alignments for things they do semi-ooc for playing convenience, we should start nudging DMs about shifting alignments for 'hunting' too. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for a bunch of good characters to casually gather up to slaughter sentient creatures(especially when there are 'good' goblins and kobold PCs walking around) for the express and sole purpose of stealing their belongings for profit/for practice.

Krin wrote:

Even paladins could justify owning slaves...

I sure would love to hear that justification. Just for funsies.

Krin wrote:

It doesn't really make a lot of sense for a bunch of good characters to casually gather up to slaughter sentient creatures(especially when there are 'good' goblins and kobold PCs walking around) for the express and sole purpose of stealing their belongings for profit/for practice.

There is a difference between killing, for example, a kobold that's rushing against you with a dagger in hand (claw?) and killing a kobold that unarmed squals things like "Pwease, no kill!". Not to mention that goblins and kobolds with good alignment SHOULD be as rare as Robert's boss hunts :wink:

Very poor argument(s), Krin, no offense.

Oh, and slavery in FR settings is always considered evil. At least as far as I know - never heard of positive or goodly slavery / slavers.

Guardian, look up slavery in Mulhorandi culture.

Krin wrote:

If we're going to start nudging DMs about shifting peoples alignments for things they do semi-ooc for playing convenience, we should start nudging DMs about shifting alignments for 'hunting' too. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for a bunch of good characters to casually gather up to slaughter sentient creatures(especially when there are 'good' goblins and kobold PCs walking around) for the express and sole purpose of stealing their belongings for profit/for practice.

I have been keenly aware of this particular problem since I started playing here and while yeah, from a purely objective standpoint, adventuring purely consists of raiding creatures' own homes and often murdering them in cold blood maybe even a few feet from where they sleep, D&D itself is meant to provide reasons to justify PCs going on the offensive in the form of an overarching DM driven plot. Since for the most part players are left to their own unguided and unsupervised devices, a lot of that justification gets hand-waved or is entirely left up to the player to provide for themselves. I've seen people refuse to hunt outright and level by jobs instead, and I've seen good aligned characters say "Welp, I'm gonna go kill some orcs, brb." Sometimes a player goes out of their way to justify every fight they get into, and I can see a good character maintaining their alignment that way.

In Mathus' case it's a big reason why I wouldn't feel comfortable taking him to a Good alignment, even though anyone familiar with his candor and philosophy would probably wonder why he isn't. I've even lately described him as using the monk class's prerogative to use subdual damage instead of lethal in most relevant circumstances when hunting for a while now, but even that isn't enough. Amia is the land of moral ambiguity, where convenience, entertainment and pesos are the next best thing to that classic "4 players and a DM for 10 hours every Sunday" style of D&D. Not bad, just understandably going to produce a lot more neutral or evil than good.

CouncilofAutumn wrote:

Guardian, look up slavery in Mulhorandi culture.

I so expected a mention of Mulhorand. CoA, you dog! :mrgreen:

I still see it as slavery and I still see it as evil. The fact it's slightly more humane and slightly less difinite than "normal" slavery does not make it okay or goodly. It's still slavery, and slavery is evil by the very difinition.

Guardian wrote:

Krin wrote:

Even paladins could justify owning slaves...

I sure would love to hear that justification. Just for funsies.

What CouncilofAutumn said. In Mulhorandi culture, owning slaves can actually be a good and pious thing as far as their culture and deities are concerned. Mulhorandi culture isn't even the only one in FR that allows 'good' characters to own slaves. Being Lawful Good is as much about the 'Lawful' as it is the 'Good'. Law isn't always fluffy bunnies and rainbows. We tend to look at things through our 21st century sunglasses, but it doesn't really work when dealing with medieval-style settings.

Guardian wrote:

There is a difference between killing, for example, a kobold that's rushing against you with a dagger in hand (claw?) and killing a kobold that unarmed squals things like "Pwease, no kill!". Not to mention that goblins and kobolds with good alignment SHOULD be as rare as Robert's boss hunts :wink:

Very poor argument(s), Krin, no offense.

Oh, and slavery in FR settings is always considered evil. At least as far as I know - never heard of positive or goodly slavery / slavers.

There's also a pretty huge difference between defending yourself from a kobold that's rushing you with a dagger from the shadows and..literally going into that kobold's home on purpose, murdering it, and stealing its things so that you can sell them later..which is actually what happens 99% of the time.

Krin wrote:

Even paladins could justify owning slaves...

Okay, first of all, you said paladins. Paladins are way more than just lawful good. Just to get things straight.

And second, I do not understand why you all mention orcs and kobolds as victims of dastardly goodies. Both orcs and kobolds are associated with quests that clearly paints them as marauders and killers - and as far as I am aware, goodly characters are supposed to go out and neutralize such thread.

If you'd say, I don't know... killings of Brog fauna or something like that, I'd agree with you. But sorry - I see nothing wrong about people wiping a camp of maraudering goblins or kobolds or orcs or whatever.

Last edited by Dead on Mon, Sep 22 2014, 21:35 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Thay has Szass Tam sitting on top of their food chain, and they love him. So may I demand that you accept Lucius as the goodly king of Amia? Only because one culture does something, it does not make it right or good. Slaves are slaves whether they are in the Underport or in Kohlingen.

You have a quest for goblins and orcs. A kobold stole an amulet from a farmer. Wat do? Let us kill hundreds of sentient creatures to get it back. Let us burn their cavern to the ground, stomp on their eggs. Because that's what good folks do.

Later on we'll go to the illithids to sell what we have taken from the kobold's dead fingers. Even the amulet the farmer requested, because apparently he did not care about the amulet at all, he just wanted to see the kobolds dead. That's the way those quests work.

All right, so let's face it this way.

According to rules, kobolds are LE.
According to rules, orcs are CE.
According to rules, goblins are NE.

According to basic description, all "good" alignments are supposed to oppose evil. Really can't say it any more simple.

Guardian wrote:

CouncilofAutumn wrote:

Guardian, look up slavery in Mulhorandi culture.

I so expected a mention of Mulhorand. CoA, you dog! :mrgreen:

I still see it as slavery and I still see it as evil. The fact it's slightly more humane and slightly less difinite than "normal" slavery does not make it okay or goodly. It's still slavery, and slavery is evil by the very difinition.

I comple- are you spelling it difinition by choice or...? -

I completely agree that there should be an objective view of certain acts. Slavery, as in the ownership of a person and the loss of said person's freedoms for the benefit of the owner, may be lawful in some places but it certainly isn't good.

I think that in this case it's about the most lukewarm definition of slavery there is. In Mulhorandi culture a slave is afforded very real, very important rights, ones you might find very familiar. It's ingrained into the culture that these 'slaves' are almost divinely protected, even beloved as a caste for their importance and contribution.

I don't want to get too much into it, but the reason that this would be acceptable to a paladin is that A: obviously it meets the law of the civilization, but more importantly B: in terms of quality of life and moral goodness these people are treated far better than serfs would be in countries like Cormyr, where paladinism is like a plague upon the nobility (

). From our perspective - living in, say, America - we seem to enjoy a much more complete freedom, but this isn't just because our constitution affords it to us, it's because our technology provides us with the ability to easily travel, train to switch vocations and sometimes even do less work for the same pay, giving us whole swaths of leisure time.

The serfs and slaves of medieval culture were required for the running of countries - ideas like democracy were untenable because modern communication, travel, and education were not viable to implement on a wide scale. If a meal appears in front of an adventurer, you bet someone toiled 8+ hours in a field to get it there, but that serf was probably thrilled to provide it for lack of any better way to accommodate you and his family. Now magic could fill that gap, and provide a culture with the means to educate on a wide scale and raise the status quo, but somebody still has to make hamburgers & fries if that's what the culture wants.

Your goodie excuse for killing things could almost always come down to self defense, because every monster on Amia is basically programmed to attack you until it's dead.

"IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!"

Guardian wrote:

All right, so let's face it this way.

According to rules, kobolds are LE.
According to rules, orcs are CE.
According to rules, goblins are NE.

According to basic description, all "good" alignments are supposed to oppose evil. Really can't say it any more simple.

Oppose doesn't mean ethnic effing Cleansing. Oppose doesn't nescessarily mean Kill On Sight

Oppose means ensure that they do not cause harm to innocents or otherwise harm the world around them.

And yes, Mulhorandi Culture is the one place where I could see a Paladin having slaves, since their method of slavery is WAY different then the archtypical.

@CoA As far as I know Mummies are also playing a big part of the Mulhorandi culture. Yet nobody argues when they see a Palemaster coming along with a mummy. It's not debated whether that mummy is a part of his culture. It is seen as outright evil.

Again, if you go to a city which runs on slave trafficking and brain suckling, and you deal with them in order to achieve some higher goals or make a profit, you are directly making the rulers of that city more powerful (read Illithids). They're selling potions to make a profit, they're buying stuff at the rates of 25k to make a profit.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. But it would be nice if you respected your character's decisions to the very end. Fueling the Illithids' economy and later on refusing to deal with someone who you suspect may be involved in some mildly shady stuff.. it just does not sit well with me.

CouncilofAutumn wrote:

I comple- are you spelling it difinition by choice or...? -

Nah, not really. Happens to me when fingers are faster than brains (got ten typing fingers mad skillz, yo! With an occasional boo-typo).

I know what you are saying and I tend to agree with it. But then you have deities where slavery is an absolute no go - and what should our poor Joe the Paladin do if he somehow appear in Mulhorand.

But anyway, the topic is Underport. Underport, at least from my point of view, is filled with drows (evil), mind flayers (evil) and slaves (slavery = evil). So for my goodly guy the place is evil.

Grymia wrote:

Oppose doesn't mean ethnic effing Cleansing. Oppose doesn't nescessarily mean Kill On Sight

Oppose means ensure that they do not cause harm to innocents or otherwise harm the world around them.

Which is why creatures like Kurchin are not killed on sight.

Guys, common sense. Stop using ridiculous extremes.

Oh, and Kenneth got it right - if it's red, kill it. If it's green, eh... don't kill it just yet (stab it from behind like a pro). :mrgreen:

I'm enjoying this discourse and will reply in greater detail later, but in the meantime I will say that if you guys are seeing this sort of thing go on, take some screenshots and pass them on to DMs so they can figure out the context and what to do with it. More info is always better when you're making calls on alignments and whatnot.

Grymia wrote:

Oppose doesn't mean ethnic effing Cleansing. Oppose doesn't nescessarily mean Kill On Sight

Oppose means ensure that they do not cause harm to innocents or otherwise harm the world around them.

Guardian wrote:

Which is why creatures like Kurchin are not killed on sight.

Guys, common sense. Stop using ridiculous extremes.

Oh, and Kenneth got it right - if it's red, kill it. If it's green, eh... don't kill it just yet (stab it from behind like a pro). :mrgreen:

I don't think anyone is using extremes here. A paladin of Horus-Re could have slaves and still be LG. Slavery isn't an 'always evil' thing and the morality surrounding it in D&D is subjective. It really depends on the type of slavery and the culture involved.

I don't think it's fair to suggest that people who visit Underport on good characters because it's convenient should have their alignments looked at and messed with when it's common practice for good characters to gather up and slaughter sentient creatures in their own homes for profit.

A goodie character can't call it self defense when he/she invades the lairs of these creatures on purpose with full buffs, armor, and weaponry. If 'good' characters are only supposed to kill as a last resort or in self defense, 95% of the 'good' characters on Amia should be made Neutral or Evil for doing those things.

EDIT:

It's kind of like breaking into someone's house, killing them when they try to force you out, and then calling it self defense.

I'm just going to drop in and give a quick answer to the initial question. Underport is politically neutral. Morally and ethically, it is undoubtedly evil. It is a town run by mindflayers (one of the most vile and evil creatures in the FR setting) that actively promotes and endorses the trade of mind-wiped slaves. Non mindflayer creatures and individuals have essentially no rights in Underport, and are only tolerated due to the beneficial trade that they provide. Trading with and economically supporting Underport should be considered an act that is at the very least neutral, if not evil.

Last edited by Dead on Tue, Sep 23 2014, 0:27 AM, edited 2 times in total.

Quote:

Slavery isn't an 'always evil' thing and the morality surrounding it in D&D is subjective.

Neither is having the undead guards and using the skeletons to build a tower.

And yes, you are invading creature's home in order to slaughter the colony and take the treasure. But you can justify that by keeping their numbers in check. Not letting the evil creatures grow in number. They're not a danger if there's only 100-300 of them (average number in a dungeon I'd say), but if you'd let them grow to thousands, you'd have a far bigger problem. So you keep them in check (because you know they're evil), and taking their loot is so that the others of their kind will not claim those treasure back and use them against the innocent people.

But on this very particular case which is the Underport, I am failing to see any excuse to do business with the Illithids or from the Underport (or Zanshibon for that matter), while simultaneously avoiding and opposing Tarkuul. Either it's morally acceptable to do both, or not, at least from an ethical point of view.

Thank you Mana.

Guardian wrote:

Krin wrote:

Even paladins could justify owning slaves...

I sure would love to hear that justification. Just for funsies.

Welcome to Zakhara (and pretty much every other arabian culture in the realms), enjoy your slavery! Can't pay your debts? Kill a man in an unjustified manner? Congratulations on becoming property. There's nothing wrong with slavery to atone for crime in any manner different then /imprisonment/ other than in slavery, the offender actually makes restitution, I guess.

Regardless, this thread has little to do with slavery. Illithid "slaves" aren't slaves, they're livestock. Illithids need to eat sentient creatures to survive and the very notion this makes them evil is laughable really since it's their sole diet (D&D alignment system fail). The fact that those illithid don't enslave every non-illithid they meet goes a long way towards the "illithids are evil is nonsense" side of the argument. It's kind of like how we're all playing adventuring "heroes" when in reality almost every character should probably be evil aligned because almost every venture they undertake is a home invasion and genocide all in the name of getting shinier pants. Adventurers are monsters! (I once played an evil wizard who used to use this argument to mess with every paladin I met running through an orc cave murdering it's inhabitants. When they inevitably tried to turn it back on me, I'd just laugh and say "Oh, I'm a monster for sure, I just don't need to tell myself lies to make it ok. Now help me kill these green women and children in their home...")

Underport, so far as I have seen, is just a nice cavern that's convenient, shared by individuals who more or less are having yard sales. It's shared by many races, some not evil at all, and appears to have absolutely zero agenda or even government. No one rules it and coin spent there doesn't seem to funnel it's way into any evil organization's coffers to fund the next Weather Dominator for Destro. Buying a blade off a guy is evil because of his skin color? That's pretty laughable and a weak (non-)argument, esp since if a drow is stuck hocking junk somewhere other than a drow city (to surfacers, no less... ugh!), odds are he's an outcast who was tossed from drow society anyways.

I don't really know why anybody would really care to go there as Cordor can buy things for 25k and most features in Uport are more easily accessed elsewhere with less effort unless maybe you were drow, honestly. Overall, Uport seems pretty benign imo. Sure, buying slaves to use as slaves from the illithid is evil, but /who does that?/

The Abyss Temple Shop and Gauntlet Shop are both poor examples of anything. Both are poor game design and brainfarts in that they are debatable issues at all. (Hint: endgame facilities should be usable by anyone, no problem.) There's no reason the Gauntlet should be stigmatized, it's just some random weirdo guy at the end of a long hallway selling things and if anything, buying things off the spirit in the Abyss Temple is a /good/ act. If you actually bother to read his conversation he tells you he sells things as penance for whatever punishment has left him in his sorry state. It's telling the demons don't want you to reach him afterall. (My issue with him is he shouldn't exist, as ethereal undead cannot exist in the Astral/outer planes - no connection to the ethereal plane.)

Tarkuul is Knowledge without Limits, the Underport is Trade without Limits. Both have their redeeming qualities, and both can deftly assume a more outwardly (And even inwardly) neutral demeanor, given that they conceal (Or convince themselves) evil actions underneath a desire to perfect, explore, or refine a certain 'art'. Pursuing knowledge or wealth are both admirable endeavors, but it is the means in which they do so that ends up pushing the settlements into evil.

Which is an important distinction. There are two kinds of evil:
1.) Evil by intent. 'Evil' is a very real and tangible energy and force within the Forgotten Realms. As often as I try to avoid this, because it is rather alien to what we experience IRL, it is indeed a means for evil to show itself.
2.) Evil through negligence. What I mean by negligence is that the person committing the evil is unaware or uncaring that their actions might be perceived as evil. This tends to be the classier evil, and it's what both Tarkuul and the Underport fit into, imo.

I only mention Tarkuul because I think it's a really great side-by-side example when thinking about the Underport.

MightNMagic wrote:

Underport, so far as I have seen, is just a nice cavern that's convenient, shared by individuals who more or less are having yard sales. It's shared by many races, some not evil at all, and appears to have absolutely zero agenda or even government. No one rules it and coin spent there doesn't seem to funnel it's way into any evil organization's coffers to fund the next Weather Dominator for Destro.

Missed Mana's post. Scroll up. Also, every organized illithid settlement is ruled by an Elder Brain. So in that sense illithids are extremely well organized. They are like a colony of evil squid-ants.

Aye, the Underport keeps some of its evil hidden only because it's better for business. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is kind of like Tarkuul adopting a more "Living Friendly" atmosphere. It's much easier to survive and thrive if you're not waving a banner of evil over yer head!

M'n'M if you want to know more about the Illithids, read the Lord of Madness. Mind that the info available there is not available IC. Everything that is available IC about the Illithids (without DM supervised RP of course) is viewtopic.php?f=111&t=75075

PS Abyss/Gauntlet can be seen as a temptation. A challenge for the good guys to overcome. Just like the good guys shun away from the awesome things they can get in Tarkuul's library, so they could shun from the awesome gear they could get from the undead shopkeepers.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that Underport is evil, but I don't think it's fair to penalize characters for going there to sell loot if you're not going to penalize the way that characters get loot in the first place. Both are semi-OOC and done for convenience...so...Go all the way or don't go at all.

Sometimes it's okay for things to be a little silly if it makes things easier on people.

There's no semi-OOC IC actions Krin. Not on this kind of a server. You do staff, they have IC consequences. You've been on Amia for 8 years. You know this dude.

I kind of wrote how can an invasion of an evil creature's lair be justified. Dunno if you've seen it.

There are plenty of semi-OOC actions in the server. IE, killing the same bosses over and over and over and over again. The argument that certain creatures are always evil is a hard one to make on Amia when there are 'good' monster PCs walking around. It doesn't work to say that you're slaughtering hundreds of sentient creatures to keep their numbers down because the act of slaughtering them, entire families of them, is in itself evil and only causes them to hate and want to kill adventurers because adventurers go in regularly and slaughter them in their homes.

I've heard the "but hunting is objectively evil" all the time and it is always painted as a case of paladins storming a "home" and putting every man, woman and child to the sword. But this isn't necessarily the case - lacking any interaction with monsters aside from use spells on them and hit them until they die, we kind of have to rely on our own roleplay and internal mythology to suss out what's going on here, unless there's a DM around. The case has been made of culling - or perhaps some sort of local raids which are hinted or mentioned to occur, to which a violent response to curtail the threat is reasonable. Or perhaps you come under lethal threat while exploring and have no choice but to defend yourself (only works if you're new to the area). Or maybe vengeance for said prior attacks. Or what's stopping you from saying that your party does subdual damage to every monster they meet? We can freely decide our PvP victories don't result in kills after all. Really there's nothing to say PCs are murdering defenceless innocents the way the scenario is often posed. It certainly can be, but there is a degree of mutability in the situation that allows the player in question to decide exactly what's going on.

Dead wrote:

But on this very particular case which is the Underport, I am failing to see any excuse to do business with the Illithids or from the Underport (or Zanshibon for that matter), while simultaneously avoiding and opposing Tarkuul. Either it's morally acceptable to do both, or not, at least from an ethical point of view.

I do agree with you but only in cases where morals/ethics are used as a reason. Although it's worth noting that there's nothing stopping characters from being ignorant. I mean, no one should consider non-Mulhorandi slavery to be Good by any stretch, but overlooking Evil which doesn't pertain to you is a hallmark of neutrality (within reason). A neutral character doing business there may simply not consider that the money they spend will be collected in taxes and used to fund slavery (and even then, cases could still be made for neutral characters being unconcerned about this). Or they may not know illithids are evil (rare, but possible).
And certainly this applies to Tarkuul - one may not know that the churches there are evil or that necromancy is evil due to ignorance or whatever. I'm sure there are many characters ignorant to both. But Tarkuul's political activism makes it more likely that someone has educated them about Tarkuul, or perhaps for any myriad of reasons the character is only aware of the depths of one faction's evil. Who can say? There are a lot of characters around (but to reiterate, good guys shouldn't be going either place).

Political motivations are a different story altogether as I explained in my first posts. So there are plenty of cases to justify aforementioned business habits. Not everyone's, just those.

(note: Edits for clarity)

I think the answer about player convenience is a portion of it, Dead. I think another portion is that Tarkuul is full of active PCs in pretty much all levels of leadership. The same can't be said for Underport, which is an almost entirely NPC power; which means there's nothing to really interact with on a daily basis. There's no one to challenge, like there is with Tarkuul. Underport is almost more background noise, becoming something to interact with only rarely when plots or PC actions make an organization that comes to attention. Same goes for Zanshibon. I bet you if Zanshibon was as PC active as Tarkuul, PC attitudes toward it would be a lot less casual. But there's no one there to rail against, to threaten with righteous punishment, so in lieu of that... convenient store run junction.

Sam is a little scared of Underport, honestly.

Mindflayers are definitely evil, but mostly, they're just creepy as F*$#.

Honestly, Gerald is scared pissless of Underport because he's had actual business with them. They're "alignment wise" undoubtedly evil despite politics.

You make some very good points there Dead, believe it or not I have never had a character go to either Tarkuul or Underport (as of writing) because I have yet to make a character who I feel would be OK going to ether place.

Yet I find it interesting that many characters may shun Tarkuul because of its undead this or that and yet at the same time hardly bat an eye lid when they are out hunting and a party member summons an undead to help in the hunt.

I recently had this demonstrated ICly whilst out hunting the she'kat spiders one of the group summoned a shade (an actual undead shade not a shadowdancer or spirit guide version) I was on my Kelemvorite char at the time and of course that character is not going to let that pass without comment. The resultant RP was interesting in that every member of the group was instantly either completely apathetic about the situation and just wanted to get on with the hunt (with party subtext about wanting to just keep on grinding exp) or were actually antagonistic to my character for holding up the hunt and for being so "fanatical" despite the fact that everyone ICly knew she was a Kelemvorite.

Later that same RL day I was on Abbey working at the field hospital and one of these party members apparently saw a well known character from West Cordor going to Tarkuul and wasted no time in coming to tell tales to Abbey (who is known to know this West Cordor character) I don't know if they realised it was the same player behind the Kele char but I just found it amusing at first then sad how some players will make OOC allowance for undead in order to speed the "grind" but once the immediate need for exp is over for the time being re-tune themselves back to "undead bad mkay" mode.

I guess its like some people have said, that some are happy to ICly allow something for OOC reasons when its disposable and not likely to ICly have any consequence for them in order for a little convenience but later on when people are watching they are the good little conformist lol

Just my 50p worth

As Mana said, Underport is evil and not the best of places to go for any do-gooder. It's also full of icky tentacle beasties and any paladin who walks past the slave auction without as much as twitching would certainly not please his deity.

As for hunting. Invading a lair full with evil creatures is fine for anyone of any alignment. These creatures don't just sit there knitting around the fire waiting for adventurers to show, they go out and raid and make nuisances of themselves and make travel and trade dangerous.

The road between Cordor North and Bendir has burning carts on them for a reason. The beastmen have attacked Kohlingen atleast once and no doubt ambush merchants and travellers on Tristans path. The frost and fire giants and Brog orcs loot whatever they can and so on.
Killing them is justified for good aligned people and some counter looting and pillaging is always fine for the less morally inclined characters.

As for your post VT; vehemently objecting to the Shade is the thing a kelemvorite would/ should do. Hunting with an undead as Kelemvorite priest is fall material.

Measuring with dual standards depending on your current activety (eg hunt/ rp) is not a good idea.

The problem is, Hudson, and I have witnessed it personally many times, when you catch someone who is supposed to be goodly with not so goodly companion (like a combination of necromancer and a paladin raiding party), those people tend to ignore RP - even happened that they OOCly told me to piss of from their hunting grounds, evoking the rule about "first come first serve" (We were grinding here first, so either join us or out you go).

One of the main reasons I have stopped playing my goody guy is that he's literally helpless in these situations. You cannot force anyone to RP, you cannot force anyone to PvP - so if such situation happens, and a goody guy stops an obvious bad guy with rotting zombie as a follower (just an example, don't kill me dead, Dead), the bad guy can just flip goody guy off, refusing both RP and PvP. Game over.

Of course it is possible to call for DM or screenshot this and send it to the team, but many - including me - will not do it. I'd much rather see something like "If you ignore a RP situation, or worse, respond with OOC comments, the other side is free to spank your naughty ass" as a little add-on to the existing rules.

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

Honestly, Gerald is scared pissless of Underport because he's had actual business with them. They're "alignment wise" undoubtedly evil despite politics.

Hehe... hehehe... hehehehehe....

Underport was the highlight of my DM stint.

Guardian wrote:

........the bad guy can just flip goody guy off, refusing both RP and PvP. Game over.

Of course it is possible to call for DM or screenshot this and send it to the team, but many - including me - will not do it. I'd much rather see something like "If you ignore a RP situation, or worse, respond with OOC comments, the other side is free to spank your naughty ass" as a little add-on to the existing rules.

If you're not willing to inform us of people ignoring the rules/breaking RP, we can't enforce it. Also, you can't just ignore RP or PvP. You are free to not engage in the actual PvP, but you can't escape the consequences of your actions and refuse on OOC grounds. The way of 'avoiding' it is by taking what out the opposing side grants you.

Last edited by VitalTouch on Tue, Sep 23 2014, 10:37 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Hudson wrote:

As for your post VT; vehemently objecting to the Shade is the thing a kelemvorite would/ should do. Hunting with an undead as Kelemvorite priest is fall material.

Measuring with dual standards depending on your current activety (eg hunt/ rp) is not a good idea.

I was just illustrating the point that there are apparently some players who will tolerate evil/undead one moment and then condemn someone entering Tarkuul due to its undead connotations the next, its sometimes hard to believe its all "In character" double standards.
In my experience its quiet often more about OOC considerations of faster exp grinding whilst ignoring the inconvenience of sticking to a character persona which in any other circumstance would oppose the evil doer or undead as to do so would slow the "exp grind", and where the player/s only get back into character when there are others watching who would hold him/her to account or when it otherwise doesn't impede the exp flow.

I think this is a shame that some players allow themselves to be flexible in this manner as to when they remain IC and in effect metagame themselves (sort of like ignoring settlement guards but instead of NPC guards its OOC considerations overruling the characters own IC for a mechanical advantage in order to gain EXP faster) Not just in PVE but just in how they generally exist and live in the fantasy real world. I think they are missing out on a lot of fun RP having got into a bad habit of OOC convenience at the expense of suspension of belief for themselves and others.

I believe this is also relevant to why some players will go to Underport and/or Tarkuul, OOC, convenience whilst completely ignoring the IC goings on in such places that happen all the time (ie Flayers eating brains and slaves being auctioned/whipped etc).

P.S. its not everyone's cup of tea but I often end up in some kind of confrontational RP just because I want my characters to stick to their IC guns when their values or principles are challenged, I do not seek these situations out but I am more than happy to help generate exciting and tense RP in order to have my characters stick up for themselves.

P.P.S. if I get into a situation for example with my Kele and someone with an undead, if I can resolve it entirely IC I will tend to leave it at that and if a later suspicion of double standard occurs I will assume its IC unless there is a compelling reason not to. However sometimes the matter becomes one of OOC hostility and melodrama in which case of course I hit that print screen like there is no tomorrow and bring the matter to the DMs although of course I do try to keep it IC at first sometimes the other party does not. I fully subscribe to the concept that by not bringing it to the attention of the DMs then I am actively making the situation worst.

**update spelking and gramah and also added a P.P.S.**

Alignment of a zombie is a screwup. A mindless thing cannot understand the difference between good and evil and therefore it cannot be either good or evil. But since zombies are evil, and creating them is an act of evil, your goodie can go about it with the "lose that zombie or else" attitude. Of course, according to the rules, you cannot put a stop to someone's hunting session if that person does not want you to, but you can still bash his head in, and leave him left for dead. So there is an IC consequence. He'll either have to wait for someone to raise him, or respawn and lose at least 1 run worth of xp.

Bottom line, doing this with your goodie is not risk free either. Back in his leveling days, Lucius was intercepted by various people trying to put a stop to his undead summons. They got their ass handed to them, so it can be a fun opportunity for both sides.

If you see people being alright with undead OOC just because of grinding..

..take screenies. DM and other players need to know about such people. As of late, whenever I'm seeing a suspicious undead related situation I'm capping a screenshot, just in case. Your inaction is action. It does not necessarily mean that you're a tattle-tail, or that the said individual will get in trouble. They may not know how things work around here, and may be unaware of the lore. I'm certain a DM will handle it in an appropriate manner.

I know VT, it wasn't a dig at you but meant as a general reminder.

Guardian, what Dead and Rigs said.

Dead has the right of it when he states that you cannot take over their hunting ground but you can certainly smite them or be smitten in the attempt within the pvp rules.
You only have to give an out and 'Lose the undead or else.. ' is an acceptable out. If they refuse to or ignore you (do give them time to react, not give your ultimatum and charge five seconds later when the other is typing a response and please take screenies if they make a fuss after) you're free to engage in pvp.

However, you are not allowed to continue in your dungeon run if the other party was there first. The same goes if you are doing a dungeon and a necromancer comes upon you from behind, you initiate pvp over the summons and subsequently lose - he cannot run past you then without breaking the rules.

Wow. It seems I have completely missed the point of PvP rules, then.

The clarification is appreciated. Makes much more sense this way!

Is Underport evil?

Who is online